This dreaded convention is the next big thing in the realm of global governance, being used to replace the biological parents with the state as the primary caretaker of children. Here I will highlight certain articles in this convention that are of particular concern.
“Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.”
And why should the child be registered with the state? The wording assumes a child that is not registered with the state is being deprived of rights, as if parents that refuse to register their child are violating this person’s rights. What it really means is making sure the child gets to enjoy the governance of the state, that the child is born into a certain state’s custody.
“Article 11
1. States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad.
2. To this end, States Parties shall promote the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral agreements or accession to existing agreements.”
“the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad?” Who gave the UN the right to consider the decision of the parents to move their child “illicit?” When looking at the way the Swedish state has seized children of families attempting to leave the country, for example in the Domenic Johansson case, one gets a glimpse of a future in which the UN has made it impossible to leave one’s country of residence without permission. If a family escapes their country, they will be sent back in accordance with paragraph 2 above.
Some other articles of note is 12, which is quite radical in that it gives the child a say against his or her parents in custody issues, something that can be provided by a representative of the government. I suppose “the best interests of the child” is newspeak for “the best interests of the state.”
Article 13 constrains the right of a parent to protect his or her child from undesired exposure to information that can be harmful in the opinion of the parent, though article 17 instead enables the government to do the same thing.
Article 20, paragraph 3, lists institution placement as a possible replacement for one’s biological family, which should be considered unacceptable. Do we need more orphanages like in Romania and Sweden?
Article 29 dictates the values the child should be reared with. 29b states that children shall be raised with the principles in the UN charter. This convention is apparently not only about protecting children, but also about replacing parents as the ones responsible for endowing the child with a value system.
Though my country of Sweden has taken a leading role in promoting the global enactment of this convention, its own fulfillment of the articles leaves a lot to be desired. These are the articles that Sweden in my opinion is in violation of:
Article 2.2 “…ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents”
Though mass media won’t cover it, it’s well-known that Sweden specifically targets religious families for foster care placements, and many Muslim families today see their children taken by the state, with the government officials citing an unspecified “risk to the health or development” of the child if he or she remains with the parents. Certain non-violent political activism on the part of teenagers also tends to have them punished through being deprived of liberty, under §3 of the dreaded LVU law.
Article 19 – Sweden fails in living up to the article’s goal of protecting the child from violence and exploitation, when children are being put into orphanages solely for profit. These institutions receive about 4’000 crowns per child and day, about $600, and letting this financial incentive influence whether a child is taken into custody is a clear case of exploitation. Furthermore, the neglect in these institutions is horrendous, and more peaceful children often find themselves placed with juvenile delinquents, being severely beaten on an almost daily basis.
Article 23:
“1. States Parties recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child’s active participation in the community.”
Sweden routinely places children with fictitious mental disabilities into special education, which ruins their options of ever becoming self-reliant or to become a part of the community. Who wants a friend that’s in special ed?
Article 29:
“1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:
(a) The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;”
For ideological reasons, Sweden doesn’t offer bright pupils any gifted education, hence these children won’t be able to reach their full potential. One could have understanding for financial reasons being the limiting factor, but ideological reasons are a direct violation of this article.
Article 37:
“(b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;”
Sweden locks up children in orphanages year in and year out, in clear violation of this article. The legal obstacles to the government placing a child in an institution setting are non-existent, and often a mere diagnostic label such as ADHD or “autism spectrum disorder” is enough to have the deprivation of their liberty approved of in an administrative court.
For a more thorough understanding of Swedish society, see my book “The Madhouse” up at Amazon, or read the limited preview on Google Books – search for Daniel Hammarberg. If the afore-mentioned Domenic case is of concern, see the Friends of Domenic Johansson blog.
