"United Nations House

in Belize [1]

International Courts Mock Sovereignty

How Human "Rights" Crush Individual Freedom  


 by Berit Kjos, April, 2000


"...a country does not have the right to place conditions on the terms of its acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction." Organization of American States. [2]

"...we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace." The Earth Charter. [3] Genesis 1:24

"I applaud the Organization's achievements under his [Secretary-General Gaviria] stewardship in strengthening the inter-American human rights system, monitoring elections, consolidating democracy, combating illegal drugs, and promoting sustainable development."  Victor Marrero, U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States, 1998.

Consider this scenario: A boy lives with his divorced mother and stepfather. Rude to his mother and jealous of new baby, he apparently threatens his little sibling with a knife. The stepfather spanks the boy. Angry, the boy tells his biological father, then sues the stepfather in a British court. The case is dismissed. The boy, with his father’s help, appeals to the European Court of Human Rights. He argues that "Britain had failed to protect his right to freedom from degrading punishment" – and wins.

This actually happened.[4] British law, with its emphasis on individual rights and freedom, is drowning in a flood of international treaties aimed at reinterpreting “human rights,” enforcing UN ideology, and replacing national sovereignty with regional governance. 

Could it happen in the USA, the land of the free? Yes, it could. Some of the human rights treaties already ratified by Congress can be interpreted in ways that will threaten the freedom of all who oppose the new ideology. And it surely will happen if our U.S. Senate ratifies the American Convention on Human Rights, which we signed in 1977

The USA is a member of the Organization of American States (OAS) but has not officially yielded its legal rights to this inter-American regional government answerable to the United Nations.  Since few are aware of this danger, a covert attempt to pursue ratification might face little resistance. According to the Congressional record, only five senators attended the ratification of the The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [5] late in the evening of April 3, 1992.  As Dr. James Hirsen explains in The Coming Collision, this virtually private meeting chaired by Jay Rockefeller [6] turned a a subversive treaty into a U.S. law that requires child registration "immediately after birth" and sets open-ended limits on religious freedom and "peaceful assembly."

While nations to our South cheer the growing power of the OAS, the US media is strangely silent about this rising giant of the Western hemisphere.  Children don't learn about this regional government in their schools. Few adults understand the power of its Human Rights Court, which is casting a dark shadow over individual rights and sovereignty in South and Central America. Consider a recent case reported in the last OAS newsletter of 1999:

“The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in decisions on two pending cases involving the Peruvian government, has ruled that Peru’s announced withdrawal from the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction is ‘inadmissible.’  The Court said a country does not have the right to place conditions on the terms of its acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. The only way for a state to withdraw from its obligations would be to formally denounce the American Convention on Human Rights, according to the Court.”[7] (Emphasis added)

When the Court ruled in May, 1999, that four convicted terrorists from Chile be retried, Peru refused to accept its compulsory jurisdiction. President Alberto Fujimori argued that Peru had the sovereign right to fight terrorism.  He explained that the Court’s ruling would open the door to new trials for thousands of prisoners, thus threaten national security.

In today's political climate, such national concerns draw little sympathy from regional leaders. Many know well that national insecurity will strengthen support for international controls. The Inter-American Court, based in San Jose, Costa Rica, is currently made up of judges from Chile, Brazil, Ecuador, Barbados, Venezuela, Mexico and Colombia. Some of these nations have done little to stem their own government corruption and terrorist forces.

The details of the above case -- as reported by the OAS or as argued by the Peruvian leader -- is not the issue here. The main concern is the fact that a regional, international Court has been granted jurisdiction over national courts in sovereign nations. If we ratify this treaty, it will override the U.S. Supreme Court. While the history of the Inter-American Court shows a far more conservative record than the European Court for Human Rights, that could change with the next selection of judges. 

Human Rights legislation has become a political smokescreen for enforcing a global ethic around the world. [8] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) -- the basis for the American Convention on Human Rights -- touts the hollow promises of the rising global reign. Therefore it sounds good, as do all the intrusive UN human rights treaties. Article 18 of the UDHR upholds "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion..." Article 19 affirms "the right to freedom of opinion and expression... and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

But Article 29 states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, these "rights" or "freedoms" don't apply to conservatives who refuse to conform to UN policies. The UN, with its regional hierarchies, has shown zero tolerance for  those who oppose its goals. Even so, President Clinton, with a stroke of a pen, made Executive Order 13107 (The Implementation of Human Rights Treaties) the law of the land. Based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it gives the Federal Government authority to establish a massive management system that would implement all human rights treaties whether ratified or not.  (See Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules )

Look again at the "human  rights" agenda of the European Council. With the technology to manipulate minds and monitor every family -- and with the European Court to prosecute non-compliance -- genuine freedom is far more endangered than the spotted owl. "Towards a Child-Friendly Society," the theme of the 1999 Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Family Affairs, may sound good to Europe's diverse citizens. But its final report offers a preview of the worldwide shift from individual rights to collective responsibilities -- ordained, monitored, and enforced by the state -- for every family. It would...  

"local and national knowledge and information centers which could be linked together in a Europe-wide network;

"community networks covering the fields of social welfare, child day care, education and health for young children;" [See The UN Plan for Your Mental Health]

"preventive policies for action against social exclusion …."

While "the Americas" trail behind the EU in implementing this revolutionary social agenda, its regional legal system, like that of Europe, is almost in place. Like the EU, the OAS has based its human rights agenda on UN treaties. The net has been cast. The uninformed masses will surely be caught in this web -- a tangled network of globalist managers that would regulate child-raising and squeeze family values into the new mold. 

Biblical Christianity won't fit. A visit to the United Nations House in Belize (formerly British Honduras) shows the UN influence over this little country south of Mexico. Its United Nations Development Programme works with  the OAS, and its UNICEF office provides the latest information and propaganda on children rights. Schoolchildren, who are taught a politically expedient version of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, are trained to share and discuss their "rights" and feelings with others. Ignorant of the agenda behind their promised rights, they become eager accomplices of globalist change agents determined to train children in the new ideology . 

"I think my country should build more youth enhancement centres," said 12-year-old Errol, whose statement was quoted in a UNICEF book called Caribbean Children's Opinions Concerning Their Rights. [11]

"I think there needs to be a youth U.N. with two children from each country, a boy and a girl, who will discuss the problems of their countries and seek for solutions... and bring these solutions into reality," added 13-year-old Ferranto.

Belize held its First Children's Election in 1998. Students across the country voted on issues, not politicians. But their voice -- reflecting the views of their teachers -- was heard and heeded by their politicians. The children had their way, or so it seemed. They had become useful puppets in the hands of their facilitators. Trained to tear down the old ways and to build the new world order, the children had become partners in the cultural demolition of Biblical faith and family life.

This process is changing children around the world. God's age-old warning fits us well: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6)  Our rights and freedoms -- two precious gifts from the God who blessed our nation -- will fade unless His people wake up, see what is happening, warn others, and pray for guidance to the only One who can save us. 

"If My people who are called by My name 

will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, 

and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, 

and will forgive their sin and heal their land."

2 Chronicles 7:14

[1] The "United Nations House" in Belize works with the regional government of the OAS and the national government to coordinate the implementation of various facets of the fast-growing global management system. We gathered much of our information for this article in the UNICEF and UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) offices.

[2] OAS News, November-December 1999.

[3] The Earth Charter outlines the goals of the global management system being implemented in the name of peace, unity and sustainable development. It shows the new global absolutes that would replace Biblical absolutes. Everyone must learn -- and live with -- three basic beliefs: evolution (everything is constantly evolving and changing), pantheism (everything is sacred or joined to a universal spirit), and monism (all is one). However, the wording of this last draft is more ambiguous than earlier drafts. These three beliefs provide a useful justification for the planned totalitarian controls behind this system of world socialism. The regional governments such as the OAS and the EU are part of this vision.   "Human rights" legislation will be a major strategy for changing the way people think, believe, a live together. (See The UN Plan for Your Mental Health


[4] See Europe Turns Against Smacking. Some of the details are provided in The Coming Collision by James L. Hirsen, PhD. (Lafayette, Lousiana: Huntington House, 1999), page 156. Since the EU doesn't offer access to decisions of its Court, we cannot supply a link to the court's decision. But its statutes and conventions state the laws concerning family life and "social cohesion." For example, in 1990, the Council of Europe, declared that “under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe ...  bearing in mind the proceedings of the Council of Europe's 4th Criminological Colloquy..." and "considering the need for a change in the consciousness of the whole of society, whereby everyone would recognize the unacceptability of the phenomenon of violence both in the family and in society as a whole..." it "recommends that governments of member States... encourage... 

[5] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which implements specific elements of the Earth Charter, includes: 

Article 20:“Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination… shall be prohibited by law.”

Article 21: “The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed… other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessaryin the interest of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Article 24: “Every child shall be registered immediately after birth….”

[6] Hirsen, page 25-26.  

[7] OAS News, November-December 1999.

[8] See Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules 

[9] Corinne McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson, Spiritual Politics (New York: Ballantine Books, 1994),147.

[10] http://www.coe.fr/cm/files/1990/90r2.html

[11] During his White House Conference on Hate Crimes (November 10, 1997), President Clinton said, "There would almost have to be some sort of club or organization at the school -- because if you think about it, your parents are still pretty well separated... Most neighborhoods are still fairly segregated. Most houses of worship are still fairly segregated. ...We have to find a disciplined, organized way out of this so that we reach every child in an affirmative way before something bad happens...." Clinton's War on Hate Bans Christian Values

Home | Articles | Quotes and Excerpts | Persecution | Symbols | Books