U.N. "Declaration" pushes to legalize all sex between adults and kids. Seriously!

The United Nations is utterly, hopelessly corrupt, and has been for decades.  But unless you monitor the unbelievably ghastly decrees and declarations issued by its myriad agencies, you don't believe that.  You think it's hyperbole.

And I can't blame you:  After all, the U.N. was founded on wonderfully noble, lofty principles, right?  The U.S. State Department was a major player.  How could something supposedly founded on wonderful principles have gone so bad so fast?  

We'll leave that for another post.  What I want to show you now is the latest "Declaration" from one U.N. agency, issued just seven weeks ago.  You never heard about it--because the Lying Mainstream Media didn't wanna tell you.  You might wonder why.  Here's the title:

The title is deliberately misleading:  For young Americans, "proscribing" means banning something, or making it illegal.  So on reading the title, the average reader thinks the U.N. wants to outlaw human sex trafficking, or the use of illegal drugs.  Yay!  But...no.  In 32 pages of gobble-speak, the overpaid, coddled mukamuks at the U.N. explain that they want to legalize all sexual activity and use of illegal drugs, without exception.

In the intro they explain:

Composed of 60 eminent judges and lawyers from all regions of the world, the International Commission of Jurists promotes and protects human rights through the Rule of Law, by using its unique legal expertise to develop and strengthen national and international justice systems.

[A]ctive on five continents, the ICJ aims to ensure the progressive development and effective implementation of international human rights and international humanitarian law; secure the realization of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights; safeguard the separation of powers; and guarantee the independence of the judiciary and legal profession.

Wow, sounds really lofty, right?

Except it's all utter horseshit.  First clue: "composed of 60 eminent judges and lawyers from all regions of the world."  That's called "argument to authority," and when people use that, the obvious purpose is to get you support their points, "because they're experts."  That's supposed to impress you.  And sure enough, many stupid people buy whatever the so-called "experts" are pushing, for exactly that reason.

Sorry, I'm not impressed a bit.  If you have good ideas, let's hear 'em.  Until then you can shove your "expertise" up your ass.

Second clue:  When they write "...aims to ensure the progressive development..."  That's code for Leftist. Tells you that what they're pushing will be good for them and the rest of the pervert class, but not for normal people.

Third clue: "...effective implementation of international human rights."  Hey, who could possibly be against "human rights," eh?   That's a "flag word," used to get you to agree with whatever they're pushing.  And that turns out to be: legalizing all drug use; legalizing all sex between adults and kids; making it legal for a person with HIV to have sex without telling the partner about he or she is infected.  And lots more.

So below is the "Foreward" to the Declaration, written by a homosexual "judge" from South Africa.  The U.N.'s decision to let this person write the preamble that sets the tone for what follows tells you everything you need to know:

Let's try to unpack this horseshit:

From long years in the law, and as a proudly gay man, I know profoundly how
criminal law signals which groups are deemed worthy of protection – and which of
condemnation and ostracism.  In this way, the criminal law performs an expressive
function – and it has dramatic consequences on people’s lives.  It sometimes entails
a harshly discriminatory impact on groups identified with the disapproved or
stigmatised conduct.

Translation: "It's just AWFUL that some mean people have passed laws making something I wanna do illegal!  Like all laws, breaking those has a "harshly discriminatory impact" on people who break them. And being an "eminent jurist" I don't think that's FAIR.  So I demand that you repeal any laws I and my friends don't like.  See?".

To add to this, criminal proscriptions may reinforce structural inequalities; they may
codify discrimination...and may foster stigma. All this may wreak terrible harm.

Translation: "Laws 'reinforce structural inequalities.'  This is gobble-speak, bureau-babble, and is a cunningly disguised way of saing 'people who break laws are sometimes punished.'  Why that's just AWFUL!  It's UNFAIR!  So we "judicial experts" at the U.N. will fix that, by decreeing that nations can't have such laws--as we'll set forth below."

Criminal law may thus impel hostility, exclusion, inequality, discrimination and
marginalization of individuals and groups, sometimes to the point of violence. As a
result, human rights, democratic values and social inclusiveness all suffer.

This is priceless: "Your icky laws foster exclusion, and inequality!  It's not fair that people who break laws I don't like suffer any consequences!  We demand 'inclusiveness.'  That means you can't punish people for breaking laws we don't like.  Unfortunately for "human rights," in many countries we don't yet have enough power to get those laws repealed, so we'll use the power of the U.N. to give our allies cover to FORCE nations to repeal all laws my friends and I don't like.  It's quite simple, really." 

For a number of years now, the UN Secretary-General, the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights, global and regional human rights mechanisms,
bodies and experts, national courts, legislatures and domestic human rights
institutions, as well as civil society have grappled with the problem of the harmful
human rights impact of criminal laws that proscribe conduct associated with sex,
reproduction, HIV, drug use, homelessness and poverty.

Love the long list of faaabulous, powerful, supposedly lofty bodies that have "grappled with the problem" of laws criminalizing "conduct associated with sex...HIV, drug use."  And note the last two topics: homelessness and poverty.  Cuz that shows we're NOT trying to repeal laws that protect societies.  Heaven forbid!  Instead we're really swell humanitarians trying to end homelessness and poverty."  Except that's a con, designed to make you think that's their goal.  It's not, as you'll see.

[We eminent] jurists have elaborated a set of principles that can constructively address these harms.  The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV,
Homelessness and Poverty are a timely intervention addressing the detrimental human rights impact of criminal laws targeting vulnerable groups.

Starting to see the pattern yet?  Sure.  Even though this gay "jurist" cloaks his words in gobble-speak, the message is clear.  But it gets even more clear when you read the principles.  After the Foreward we read the introduction.  It's even more specific:

[I]n recent years there has been a backlash against human rights, especially against sexual and reproductive health and rights and the human rights of women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, non-binary, gender diverse and intersex persons, as well as against sex workers, people who use drugs and people experiencing homelessness and/or living in poverty. 

A "backlash against human right," y'say?  Because I think most of the fields you claimed as examples are false.  I haven't seen a single example of a "backlash" against homosexuals or lesbians. They've won every court case in the U.S. and U.K. (the two major battlegrounds for the destroyers).  There's certainly been some pushback against the biden regime forcing schools to allow males claiming to be female to use girls' facilities and to compete in girls' sports. but as far as I can see the U.N. is shoving all those non-tranny groups in with the trannies, despite no evidence of actual "backlash."

It's as if the U.N. wants to harness the screaming, inchoate anger of the trannies as a weapon to get what it really wants.