The United Nations manipulated the definition of "child" on purpose! So child protection laws could be extended to adolescent youth without need to be voted again. Human-Stupidity.com found the smoking gun. Proof is on the United Nations web site.
The United Nations, for statistical purposes, defines ‘youth’, as those persons between the ages of 15 and 24 years,[…] By that definition, therefore, children are those persons under the age of 14.
It is, however, worth noting that Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines ‘children’ as persons up to the age of 18. This was intentional, as it was hoped that the Convention would provide protection and rights to as large an age-group as possible and because there was no similar United Nations Convention on the Rights of Youth. (www.UN.org)
The United Nations web site confesses, expressis verbis, that the language confusion was created so that childhood laws could be transferred to adolescents, without undergoing scrutiny and without needing to be voted for. The United Nations, on their own website, admit that this age definition was made for manipulative purposes, and in contradiction of their own age definitions elsewhere.
"Seduction of an adolescent" or "unlawful sex with a 17-year-old" does not sound dramatic enough. It is easier to get harsh laws against "child rapists". Equally, it is easier to convict for "child pornography" then for possession of tasteful "nude photos of a 17 year old". Just manipulate the language to manipulate the masses! And government, press, judges, jury.
For the past 2000 years, before feminists took over the United Nations,
- a child was a person under 12 or 14 years of age
- pornography was depiction explicit sexual activity
- rape was violent forceful sexual penetration against a resisting victim
- consent was, well, consent. Saying yes. Independent of age.
Is it not strange that all these terms were diluted to create confusion?
We will focus on how the United Nations manipulated the definition of "Child" in order to force the world to ratify child protection laws for adolescent youths.
"If you look under 35 years of age, show ID to buy alcohol"
"If you look under 35 years of age, show ID to buy alcohol" read the sign at the supermarket checkout. For the supermarket cashier, it is "Better be safe then sorry."
Nobody goes to jail for 15 years for selling alcohol to someone slightly underage. So to be safe,
"If S/he looks under 35 years of age, don’t propose sex, nor kissing, nor possess nude photos of her/him
Most people are unaware: Age of consent laws and "child" porn laws don’t just scare people away from "underage" persons.
To be on the safe side, one should not possess porn with anyone that looks under 25 or 30, and not try to get involved romantically with anyone that looks under 30.
"Eschew obfuscation" (avoid being unclear)!
Legal argument and laws about "child pornography" and "child abuse" severely violate this basic rule from from college writing classes English 101. Science and law also try to get clear and concise definitions.
To foster the political goal of curbing adolescent sexuality and erotic depictions, the United Nations leads the world into obfuscation.
Due to United Nations influence,
our language lost the capacity to differentiate between totally different situations
,,,people assume that a person labeled with possession of CP [child p ornography] automatically is looking at pictures of 4 yr olds having sex with adults etc…when the law actually is worded to where you could have a clothed picture of a 16yr old female and have it be considered CP… prisontalk.com
The following are all the same now.
2 year olds, 7 year olds, 11 year old children
|15 y or 17 year old adolescent youth.
All above are "Children"
As a result of United Nations language manipulation, the following are the same:
Indecently fondling a 17 year old
fully dressed long term girlfriend, with her consent
||forceful non-consenting violent injury causing rape of a kidnapped 4 year old
Both above are "child rape". "Non-consensual" sex.
And the depictions of both are the same. Child Pornography.
We think this is demagogic. unscientific. Purposeful misleading. Disgusting.
You did not understand that this is the same? click on "more" below and we will show you why, step by step
Furthermore we will also use medical science and developmental psychology to scientifically define "child" and the phases of childhood. In a subsequent post, later, we will critique the Copine and Sap scales for failing to differentiate between infants and adolescents, between consent and non-consent.
Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “17 year old "children"? United Nations confesses political manipulation of "child" definition” »
17 year old "children"? United Nations confesses politic…
» continues here »