If big tech continues censoring conservatives, that means our days on these platforms may be numbered. Please take a minute to sign up to our mailing list so we can stay in touch with you, our community. Subscribe Now!
Human Rights Watch issued a submission to the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, Prof. Joseph Cannataci, that states their concern with "the privacy rights of children and issues relating to their independence and autonomy."
The submission "focuses on the importance of privacy for children with respect to their sexual and reproductive health and rights, physical and emotional well-being in school, safety in the online space, and the protection of their information online."
Human Rights Watch calls for children to have "access to confidential adolescent-responsive and non-discriminatory reproductive and sexual health information and services, available both on and off-line, including... safe abortion services." It also recommends that governments ensure that "children have access to confidential medical counsel and assistance without parental consent, including for reproductive health services," as well as "specifically calling for confidential access for adolescent girls to legal abortions."
If implemented, this submission by Human Rights Watch would allow for children to have legal rights to bypass parental consent to access with absolute privacy: abortions, hormone injections for the purpose of gender transition and/or puberty blockers, complete privacy rights in accessing online and offline information on any subject and to any materials (this means inside their classrooms, schools, at doctors offices, extra curricular activities, etc), access to explicit information contained within Comprehensive Sexuality Education, male children using female bathrooms and change rooms, as well as medical provisions tailored for full access to minors with zero parent assistance or knowledge. It also classifies, amongst other issues, abortion, as a child's "right."
This submission, if accepted, would assist children in completely bypassing parents which is a dangerous situation for any child to be in. Abortions, puberty blockers, the removal of parental guidance, and comprehensive sexuality education all have side effects. But the chief concern is that this calls for institutions to help children bypass their parents towards the legal implementation of children's self-determinative rights, without guardian or parental oversight.
In place of parents or guardians having a say over the well-being of their children, this measure would encourage children to beleive that the state is the final arbiter of their best interests. It creates a schism between parents and children.
Institutions promoting, and advocating for, such ideals not only want to teach children that parents do not have their best interest at heart but that the state is the ultimate authority and not those providing and caring for them within their own homes.
But why push for children's autonomy under the guise of self-determinative rights? Firstly, this would be a major money maker for those providing such "services" such as abortion, plastic surgery, and hormone treatments. Secondly, this would open the door for the discussion, and then installation, of absolute children's self-determinative rights such as voting rights, consensual sex for minors and therefore the further mental, physical, and emotional exploitation of children globally.
When the State calls for lowering of the voting age along with institutions pushing such materials as Comprehensive Sexuality Education, they are more capable of furthering their own agendas. Children are easily indoctrinated, and while Human Rights Watch honestly believes that children have the mental capability to determine their wants for majorly invasive, life-altering surgery, they do not. Childrens' brains are not fully developed, the differentiation between minors and adults is not arbitrary.
UN Special Rapporteur's are supposed to be independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a country's situation or a specific human rights theme. These positions are honorary and the experts are not United Nations staff nor paid for their work.
One of the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy is the following: To identify possible obstacles to the promotion and protection of the right to privacy, to identify, exchange and promote principles and best practices at the national, regional and international levels, and to submit proposals and recommendations to the Human Rights Council in that regard, including with a view to particular challenges arising in the digital age.
Sharon Slater is the President of Family Watch International and has Consultative Status at the UN. She stated, "This submission of Human Rights Watch to the UN expert on the 'right to privacy' was predictable. It promotes the legalization of abortion, autonomous sexual rights for children beginning at age 10, harmful comprehensive sexuality education, and, under the guise of protecting privacy, it promotes the violation of private spaces for females, such as bathrooms and showers, by members of the opposite sex."
Slater continued, "It was also predictable that to construe these harmful things and others as 'rights,' their submission cites to non-binding, ultra vires UN treaty body pronouncements that have no legal weight. The report's claims therefore should be laughable, but unfortunately they are not. Because the UN 'expert' who will consider them as part of the parade of UN human rights experts who are abusing their mandates to advance harmful sexual agendas that have no basis in international human rights law.
"For example, you have the UN expert charged with promoting religious freedom rights who instead is promoting abortion, CSE, religious discrimination, and more in his most recent report, and then the recently appointed UN expert on health is openly advocating for the legalization of prostitution, among other things. You can't even make this stuff up."
"Sexual Rights" is the Trojan horse of the movement to sexualize society and it's no longer solely about "liberating" women from the patriarchy's grasp or "freeing" men from the constraints of their masculinity. Instead, it is being repurposed to extend the very same rights adults possess to our children, most often through their classrooms.
Thankfully, any time liberal countries propose "sexual rights" during UN negotiations they are flat out rejected regardless of how leftists disguise them (the most common terminology used is "sexual and reproductive health and rights"). It is important to note that there has never been an international consensus on the definition of "sexual rights" and whenever a definition is called for by a Member State during UN negotiations, the only response that is given is that there isn't a definition.
A common leftist tactic—"if you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it"—is regularly employed at the UN, both in negotiations and in UN body publications. But those of us at the UN who know better also understand that when radical individuals and organizations fail in implementing one of their tactics they always try to find another way of slipping it through the door. When leftist UN Member States fail to implement their agendas in UN documents, their allies in civil society gladly step in to apply pressure. That is why this submission by Human Rights Watch is so predictable.
Although UN Member States have never come to a consensus on the definition of "sexual rights," various UN agencies, including the WHO, UNFPA, UNICEF and ECOSOC accredited NGOs have adopted, and push for, their own definition of "sexual rights." Such definitions are dangerous as they would have disastrous, real world ramifications if permitted in any UN documents as these additions would then be adopted by many governments world wide.
Human Rights Watch is doing what the UN, and many other organizations present at the UN do: In order to further their agenda and bypass UN procedure, they repeat a half truth until the populous adopts it as the truth and then advocates for it as their truth. By basing their submission off of non-binding, ultra vires UN treaty body pronouncements that possess zero legal weight, Human Rights Watch is scraping the bottom of the barrel to advance their sexualizing agenda of our children.