Why Helen Clarke will be fancying a future UN post
A snippet - ( To read the whole article go here)
Whilst reading the article you might care to contrast it’s message with Julie’s report that nz male victims of sexual abuse are having difficulties getting government funding to get treatment for recovery from their trauma.
At the same time, U.N. feminists are pressing hard for the creation of a single women’s agency at the United Nations, which would be funded separately from the general contributions that member nations provide to the United Nations. Early this year feminists tried and failed to talk Congress into providing direct entitlements to feminists NGO’s at the United Nations. They have most certainly not given up. Once a free-wheeling radical feminist enterprise is established operating under the guise of the “United Nations”, they will be back demanding off-budget permanent entitlements from Congress.
Posts RSS 2.0
Ahh yes Stephen,
The UN, the bastion of Wimmins Rights.
It has a huge contingent of wimmin-based policies and groups.
Namely Gun Control and Men’s Violence Groups, there are bound to be more, that is just two off of the top of my head.
Why is it that there is no Mens Council on the UN?
Would that be too much to ask?.
However the policies of the Wimmins Groups directly impact on the development of our younger men, why are we not allowed to have a voice there?
This is surely discrimination.
The UN should be renamed Fem-UN or even FUN.
Not FUN if you are 50% of the worlds population that is excluded by these bolshy policy-makers.
Comment by Mike — Fri 29th June 2007 @ 6:58 pm
Helen Clark will certainly be a favorite for this wimmins agency as it tries to distance itself from the tasks that it was purposely designed to do.
The feminazis must stopped at all cost.
The world cannot continue to decline and
sink into the abyss.
Comment by Harry Stanton — Fri 29th June 2007 @ 9:50 pm
I am aware Aunty Helen was offered a position in the UN and I am aware she will receive her wages when she steps down. But I wonder if she will actually take the post at the UN?
The article you gave Stephen is a very good one. This is how they think they will keep their control for hundreds of years to come. They have already made laws and policies in NZ that cannot be changed easily so it makes sense they are doing the same on a global scale.
What angers me the most is that they have backed the elite, world bank and corporations right up to a one world government power to get what they wanted. Would the elite have received complete control of the world without the feminists? Hmm, interesting thought.
You need to read Revelation 18 and see the prediction of their destruction. From the time i could see the bigger picture I knew she (feminism) is Babylon the great.
Comment by julie — Sat 30th June 2007 @ 10:04 am
Why would she not take the post?
It is the next step for her to take towards completing her intent of creating a global Marxist State.
Even though history has proven time and time and time again that communism (even the Fascist versions like she practises) don’t survive.
Comment by Ethos — Mon 2nd July 2007 @ 8:53 am
While in Auckland I went to the office of Chris Carter in Waitakere and challenged Chris through an employee (Sam) at his office on the present practice in this country of modifying our obligation under Article 9 of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child. The article entitles “EVERY” child to an association with both parents. The conditions crafted into the Care of Children Act that entitle a woman to use donated sperm wiping the donor out of the child’s life until they become an adult does not comply with the article or its demand of removal from any such form of discrimination. I called it abuse. Sam disagreed and said it wasn’t abuse. I said we are obliged to comply with the UNCROC because we ratified it to this country. Sam disagreed saying that we were improving the UNCROC. So when HC advances into the realm of international law uniting nations (if she does) into sets and principles guiding codes to practice in humanity, which other restrictions against abusing or neglecting a child to accomodate whatever her agenda may or may not be would she disassemble as her perogative? That a child doesn’t need any contact with their parent at all and all children should become ward of the state? Or what about this “warrior gene” we were looking at down here a while ago? Would she want to chip it out? Or do they want to chemically extract it from every child before birth, just in case the child might challenge their right to their masculinity?
I wonder?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 2nd July 2007 @ 1:49 pm