Comments on: Why Helen Clarke will be fancying a future UN post

By: Benjamin Easton

Benjamin Easton — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 01:49:40 +0000

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?

By: Ethos

Ethos — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:53:59 +0000

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.

By: julie

julie — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:04:08 +0000

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.

By: Harry Stanton

Harry Stanton — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:50:20 +0000

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.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 06:58:57 +0000

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.