U.N. Convention On The Rights Of The Child - Translation and Commentary - Part 2

Key document craftily worded by control freaks to break up the family. 

If you missed part 1, I invite you to take a look.

https://steemit.com/freedom/@steeminganarchy/u-n-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child-translation-and-commentary-part-1 

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was signed in 1989 and "put into force" in 1990. 

Before delving into specific points, it should be noted that:

1.  Rights are naturally inherent and cannot be made or changed.

2.  The U.N., like all other "government" institutions, is funded by extortion, so it is illegitimate. 

3.  Individuals that work for or with the U.N. have been repeatedly caught committing sex and human trafficking crimes, some of which have involved children.

4.  Nowhere does the document mention Natural Rights or Natural Law.

With that in mind, let's dig into specific areas of the so-called "Convention on the Rights of the Child"

My additions are in bold and italics.

From

https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx 

Article 10

1. In accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences for the applicants and for the members of their family.

My comments:  This implies that members of a family must seek the permission to associate with one another from a 3rd party.  This is an example of a master-slave relationship.  Why? Because if 2 people can’t voluntarily associate on their own accord, by their own free will, then they are, in practice, slaves to those who give or deny the permission to exercise free will.    

2. A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents. Towards that end and in accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, States Parties shall respect the right of the child and his or her parents to leave any country, including their own, and to enter their own country. The right to leave any country shall be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary to protect the national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Convention.

My comments:  Specifically regarding the second half of paragraph 2.  First, let’s give some clarity to the actual meaning of some of the terms they use.    

Country – A geographic area with borders not based on private property and that are violently enforced, thus making the borders illegitimate.  The people of the area are ruled over by a tiny minority with implicit and explicit violence and coercion.    

Law – They are referring to man’s law.  This is based in moral relativism, which makes it wrong and illegitimate.    

National Security – Maintenance of social control by the ruling minority.

Public Order – Socially Engineered Society

It should also be noted that the “morals”, “rights”, and “freedoms” they mention are not the true ones, based in nature and inherent in creation.  They’re referring to opinions.  They think that rights can be granted or taken away by humans, which is a lie.    

With that said, the vague language they use opens the door to all sorts of legalistic interpretations that are used to create a vast multitude of excuses to separate families.    

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.

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.

Translation:  The child shall have freedom of expression.  However, this is subject to certain violently imposed restrictions, under circumstances such as:

If someone doesn’t like what the child expresses, especially someone that works in the government cult, or for a giant corporation, or if an A.I. algorithm doesn’t approve.

Additional comments:  In typical forked-tongue fashion of a sly lawyer control freak, the first paragraph gives a bunch of flowery, feel-good rhetoric about all of the bountiful rights enjoyed by children.  And then, in the second paragraph, they slam the hammer down and give themselves a huge range of excuses to obstruct rights.  Basically, again, it’s people attempting to grant or take away rights, which is contrary to Natural Law and creates the condition of slavery.   

End Part 2

Part 3 coming soon!

Thanks for your time and attention!

Just say "NO" to slavery!

Top image is form wikimedia commons