by Dan Fournier, Dan Fournier’s Inconvenient Truths:
As reported by the U.K.’s Daily Mail, fury ensued in the aftermath of a March 8, 2023 publication of a document by a United Nations body, UNAIDS, which seeks to clandestinely decriminalise sex with minors, coupled with guidance to schools about ‘sexuality education’ for young children by the World Health Organization (WHO).
“Children under four should ‘ask questions about sexuality’ and ‘explore gender identities,’ according to a detailed WHO report aimed at policy makers across Europe.”
In addition, the guidance supports educating children four and under about “enjoyment and pleasure” during “early childhood masturbation.” These points are further elaborated on below in this article.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The document at the center of the controversy is cloaked 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 that was recently published by a Geneva-based NGO called International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) which is Composed of 60 “eminent” judges and lawyers from all regions of the world.
It is also worthwhile to note that the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) was founded in 1952, previously called the ‘American Fund for Free Jurists’, and was initially funded by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Cover image for the 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. Source: International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) based in Geneva, Switzerland.
PRINCIPLE 16 is perhaps the most contentious of their ‘Basic Principles of Criminal Law’ exhibited hereunder [with emphasis added in red underlining]
“Enforcement [of criminal law] may not be linked to age of consent,” states the principle adding that “sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed age of consent to sex may be [considered] consensual in fact, regardless of law.”
That means that sex with those under the legal (as per the domestic law in the respective jurisdiction) age of consent is not to be considered be unlawful, but merely a “fact,” or happening.
In addition, PRINCIPLE 14 – SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND RIGHTS states that criminal law “may not in any way impair the right to gender-affirming care/therapy.”
This means that medical doctors and healthcare practitioners who perform hormone therapy, assign puberty-blockers, or perform irreversible gender-reassignment surgery – sometimes, depending on the jurisdiction, on ‘mature minors’ without the consent of parents – cannot be criminally prosecuted.
Legislation in Canada already exists which appears to criminalise any form of “conversion therapy”, including for gender dysphoria – a term that describes a sense of unease that a person may have because of a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity.
Quebec lawyer David Freiheit, analysed the details of the legal verbiage and contents of the bill in question, Bill C-4 and contends that under its current form, it would essentially criminalise a health care practitioner such as a psychologist or psychiatrist for employing treatments related to gender dysphoria.
Under this law, “you cannot talk someone out of gender dysphoria, you can only confirm it,” comments Freiheit when interpreting at how the law is written.
He is also critical of how the text of the law is deceptive in its terminology, particularly to how it employs the word or label cisgender.