International Social Service: the hard move from feminism to (child) human rights
Needless to explain a hundred years ago migration, communication and families were a totally different reality in the western world. Especially from a feminist standpoint.
You can find a good writeup of the International Social Service (ISS) history on the ISS USA web site.
You can find the relevant ISS rules documents in the previous post The International Social Service {UPDATED}
Until this day, testament to its feminist roots, the ISS finds that children belong to their mothers, and that women are the exclusive humans of capacity to care for children. The ISS is active to this end, regardless of it being in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) article 2.
ISS international instruments influence
The ISS claims to have had a tremendous influence on the drafting of various International Instruments over the last century.
The United Nations Digital Library references the ISS in 21 documents. They are:
- Quadrennial reports of the ISS to the UN (see note in previous post)
- Proposals for changes to international instruments by the ISS. They are all in the spirit of the superior right of mothers/women on or to children, and getting excess money from fathers.
- Statements to the UN by the ISS. They all relate to women's/mother's rights, and their claims of rights on or through children.
Even migrant rights, and drugs, are written about by ISS from a women's superior rights perspective.
One lonely exception to feminist/women's/mother's rights activism, in 2014 is discussed further down.
the ISS versus International Child Abduction: Feminism on top.
The groundwork for International Child Kidnapping (particularly by women/mothers) to become a money making business was laid out and worked on by the ISS throughout its history.
Its power and network allowed for the ISS to write recommendations to the “Informal NGO Ad Hoc Group on the Drafting of the Convention of the Rights of the Child”{1} (INGO-AHG) in its early beginnings. Such as for example aberrant (father) alienating proposals on 26 January 1984. The ISS even allowed themselves in 1985 to use their status sending to the UN a proposal to change the CRC on behalf of the INGO-AHG to have a parent whose child has been kidnapped to another country (in more then 75% of cases a father) pay for the maintenance of the kidnapped child.
This feminist activity can be understood in the context of 1924, is hard to fathom in the context past 1968, even harder in the eighties when these actions by the ISS were performed. Today, they are totally misplaced violations of (child) human rights in the “western world”.
shy evolution attempt towards human rights respecting ISS?
The ISS has never left its feminist and women's rights leadership, as indicated in many documents, such as its current official UN profile which states:
Gender Issues and Advancement of Women: – Advocacy and outreach – Trafficking in women and girls
So when the ISS puts itself forward as an authority in matters pertaining to the CRC, they do so in the knowledge they promote not children's rights in their own right, but women's/mother's rights, if need be to the detriment of children's, father's, extended family and other rights holders.
In today's “western world” its feminist achievements and the continued efforts by the ISS are a problem in light of the article 2 of the UDHR. The ISS has grown aware of that.
The ISS co-submitted in 2014 to the UN Human Rights Council a joint written statement on the Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, in which they affirmed things like:
- Reaffirm that all children ... remain rights-holders ...
- Explicitly recall States’ legal obligation to protect and respect the human rights of all individuals in families ...
- Explicitly acknowledge the existence of all forms of families ... in compliance with the CRC, in particular with children’s right to non-discrimination and identity rights.
- Reaffirm that the “protection of the family” means supporting and strengthening families to ensure the fulfilment of the rights of all their members ...
relevance of the feminist ISS in today's World
Today the ISS still has relevance in many developing countries where women's rights are not well catered for. They recognise it themselves in their legal basis:
Thus the ISS international network acts as an essential partner for the authorities and other bodies or persons involved (lawyers, doctors, psychologists, mediators, etc) when the country is not a member of the relevant Convention.
Their political power and historical network can be an asset for positive advancement in less women's rights privileged countries. But these assets can also be used as a weapon to achieve the ISS's historical agenda, particularly in the western countries: Children belong to women, and men are at best accessories who need to be made to pay beyond their abilities.
As difficult as it is in their feminist context, a decade later the ISS seems slowly progressing towards implementing their 2014 joint statement. Trying hard to leave their century long “mothers above all” behind in favour of “children above all” and “all family members equal”. Kids and family are a hard one to swallow for feminists.
The ISS know they have been superseded in the western world by other organisations and International Instruments who do not (should not) discriminate. Such as Missing Children Europe or the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
highlights from the ISS conduct rules documents: good marketing on false grounds
The activities of ISS are legitimated by a range of important international legal instruments.
To justify their imposturing authority towards any (including western) country authorities, the ISS liberally, out of self-interest wrongly, quotes to country authorities they:
would have recourse to bodies of such uncontested competence as that of International Social Service
The ISS uses it to pressure country authorities, such as but not limited to Central Authorities, social services, child protection services, judges, politicians, ... into making arbitrary decisions in cases, because the SSI says so.
Fact checked reality: in the context of the Hague Convention on Parental Responsibility and Protection of Children, a one off comment in the convention's 1996 explanatory report about the convention's article 31, which speaks about facilitating communication, mediation, localisation and protection of children{2}, is as follows:
Of course, rejection of this proposal (proposal by the ISS) does not exclude the possibility that the Central Authority would have recourse to bodies of such uncontested competence as that of International Social Service.
The ISS wanted its sticky feminist fingers in the “authority” soup, was rejected, and through a singular by ISS wrongly quoted sentence drowned in a one-off report of 73 pages it now imposes on country authorities that what the ISS says is unquestionable and law.
Willing suspension of disbelief by authorities confronted with the imposturing ISS, and not doing their due diligence of fact checking if the ISS is really a body they have recourse to.
Quod non. One does not ask the opinion of a feminist lobbying organisation in matters of children's rights.
A reminder to the ISS and authorities:
States have not chosen to voluntarily submit to the “ISS feminist policing or arbitration.” Stop violating child and human rights.
Next we'll talk about the ISS-S, followed by the story, and finish with how mediation is abused as a weapon by the ISS-S and the Swiss judicial system.
{1}: After the CRC was finalised, the “Informal NGO Ad Hoc Group on the Drafting of the CRC” evolved into the “NGO Group for the CRC”, which evolved in 2013 to become the NGO Childs Rights Connect, whose history can be found here.
{2}: article 31: The Central Authority of a Contracting State, either directly or through public authorities or other bodies, shall take all appropriate steps to: a) facilitate the communications and offer the assistance provided for in Articles 8 and 9 and in this Chapter; b) facilitate, by mediation, conciliation or similar means, agreed solutions for the protection of the person or property of the child in situations to which the Convention applies; c) provide, on the request of a competent authority of another Contracting State, assistance in discovering the whereabouts of a child where it appears that the child may be present and in need of protection within the territory of the requested State.
Tags: #Rights #Kidnapping
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. This blog gets the proverbial pants on!
information provided as is, without prejudice, without any prejudicial recognition, and with reservation of all rights, expressly without recognition of any Swiss competence which remains contested
for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, all information on this blog, such as but not limited to documents and/or audio recordings and/or video recordings and/or pictures mentioned, have been made and/or collected, and published, in the interest of justice and the public at large
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to everything on this blog
the Universal Right to Truth principle applies to everything on this blog