(Idiotic Halloween Belief #2 is in the post immediately below this one. Both #1 and #2 are sticky and will remain at the top of this blog until November 1)
Every year around Halloween I get a little bit concerned, a little big angry, and a little bit frightened. It turns out that there are bigger concerns on this globe than vampires, or Dracula, or ghosts and goblins. Under our very noses, Halloween has been used and usurped as a tool to propogandize and implement a highly suspicious and dangerous social engineering agenda.
I'm talking, of course, about UNICEF boxes. Those stupid little orange boxes that started being handed out in elementary schools in the late 80s so that kids could walk around and collect money for the United Nations Children's Fund (what kind of psychotic acronym is that, anyways? and yes I know the answer)
Who could possibly be against this? Who could ever be against raising money to support such a needy cause? Who is that hard-assed and cold-hearted on Halloween? Er...I am. (And its an unpopular position too, if you believe liberal blogger Babbler)
Anyways, the secret to the opinion (which Babbler clearly cares little about) is to not just look at what UNICEF's public face is all about, but dig a little deeper.
Funding sterilizations and abortions: Over the past several years, UNICEF has been a strong supporter of legislation mostly in third world countries (but sometimes even in places like New Zealand that provide assurances that young children can receive abortions without parental consent. (from http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=25717:
Let me give you some specifics, starting with abortion. UNICEF denies promoting abortion, but it has endorsed, and even helped to draft, documents that call for the legalization of abortion. The organization also approves of the distribution of abortion-causing "emergency contraception" to refugee women.On the bright side, in 2007 President Bush's nominee for the head of UNICEF, Ann Veneman, takes over and plans to bring UNICEF's mission back towards, you know, helping poor kids in Africa or some such thing. The Harvard Sentinel has a rundown.
UNICEF also helps to fund organizations that promote abortions. One such organization is the Population Council, the group which holds the US patent for the "abortion pill" RU-486. Another is a South African group called LoveLife, which actively encourages teenage girls to have abortions.
UNICEF has twice been involved in vaccination programs that have been laced with sterilizing chemicals: a polio vaccine in Uganda and Nigeria in 2004, and anti-tetanus shots in the Phillippines in 1995 (covered in, as one might expect, Western [Alberta] Report To paraphrase my own quote from yesterday, "that's too many coincidences to be a coincidence"
Promoting the U.N. Rights of the Child: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is one of the most dangerous and depraved treaties ever brought about. If left unchecked it will do more harm than the Hitler-Stalin Pact or Chamberlain's "peace in our time" ever could muster. And it came about with the full promotion and endorsement of UNICEF (though its too much to ask that it might ever go against its parent company).
The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights—civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. In 1989, world leaders decided that children needed a special convention just for them because people under 18 years old often need special care and protection that adults do not. The leaders also wanted to make sure that the world recognized that children have human rights too.So that's the preamble. But what are these 54 articles? They were omnious enough that while President Clinton signed the Convention in 1995, the American Senate balked and refused to endorse it.
The Convention sets out these rights in 54 articles and two Optional Protocols. It spells out the basic human rights that children everywhere have: the right to survival; to develop to the fullest; to protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; and to participate fully in family, cultural and social life. The four core principles of the Convention are non-discrimination; devotion to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of the child. Every right spelled out in the Convention is inherent to the human dignity and harmonious development of every child. The Convention protects children's rights by setting standards in health care; education; and legal, civil and social services.
They include Article 13.1: The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice. Well what if you're a parent who doesn't like the idea of your child watching violent movies, or reading porno mags, or works promoting the violation of your parental authority? The preamble states Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community and you'd better hope that some judge finds it more compelling than the specific demands of Article 13! Article 13.2: The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. And how about this "freedom of expression" to make unkind statements to Grandma, or inappropriate comments on the subway? You certainly don't have the legal power to stop them! Maybe you can turn to Article 14.2: States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child. Again, it doesn't seem to carry a lot of legal weight.
How about Article 15.1: 1. States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly. Your child is now free to hang around with goth kids, smokers, troublemakers, and the likes. What can you as a parent do? You can plead "Article 14!" and hope that somebody will listen to you. Remember that by signing this treaty, Canada and other nations have already enshrined it into law.
Article 19.1: States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child. So much for spanking Junior when he does wrong. Hell, can you even call a time-out or send him to his room? Unlikely: Article 37.b: States Parties shall ensure that: No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. ... The second part of Article 37.b talks about arrests, but Article 37 as a whole makes no special exemption for parents -- who seem to be forgotten in this entire piece of legislation!
If he is in his room, don't you think about checking it! Article 16.1: No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation. Even school lockers are off-limits in a strict reading of this law (and you know which way Trudeau's Supreme Court justices would rule).
Article 40.3: States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law, and, in particular: (a) The establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal lawSo all the talk about bringing about changed to the Young Offenders Act to make it possible to charge children under 12 involved in serious crimes is going to face yet another hurdle. That sounds wonderful!
And all the while, you've been funding this with those little orange boxes. For shame! If a kid with a UNICEF pamphlet comes to your door this year, tell him/her to visit Third Edge of the Sword!
For additional resources:
- Home School Legal Defense Association's take
- Phyllis Schlafly's take
- Ted Byfield's take
- Patriot Voices' take
- Rightgrrl's take