If pedophiles ruled the world

With the sobering and inspiring film Sound of Freedom hitting theatres this week, we are faced with the reality that there is a huge appetite for child sex throughout the world. While Operation Underground Railroad is fighting the child sex movement, there is an international effort pushing it forward in the name of “children’s rights”.

Here is a crucial piece of background. In 1983, two members of the Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a pro-pedophile group, were interviewed for Newsnight. In the interview (watch it here), pedophile Steven Adrian said:

  • “Our political objectives include developing a society where children are given a much higher status than today, where they’re recognised as individuals in their own right and this includes recognising their right to certain sexual freedoms.”
  • “It’s an obligation on society to see that children are given a far more comprehensive sexual education from a far earlier age.
  • “Pedophiles develop a mutual sexuality with the child. It’s an entirely reciprocal relationship… A child is able to recognise a pleasurable experience. He’s able to recognise a pleasing emotional experience. He’s able to express consent and to recognise that this is something he wishes to continue. And the responsible, caring pedophile always refers to the wishes of the child.”

When PIE disbanded after popular outrage, Adrian declared that “the ideas behind it will continue to survive.” Was he right? Through my work at the United Nations over the past decade, I’ve seen that the fulfilment of these three pedophile objectives on the global level is unmistakable. 

1. An International Children’s Rights Movement

Throughout the 1980s, PIE rallied pedophile groups worldwide to advance the pedophile cause by initiating a global “children’s liberation” movement and establishing “a common philosophical platform” for children’s rights. Interestingly, in 1989 a new document called the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was unveiled at the United Nations. The CRC is “an international legal framework” intended to elevate children’s rights, just as Adrian proposed.

The CRC contains positive elements — such as condemning the sale and trafficking of children — but it could put children at grave risk. For instance, Article 13 says children must have the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.”

The CRC also grants children “freedom of association,” “peaceable assembly,” “privacy,” and access to “information and material from a diversity of national and international sources.” Some groups claim the CRC guarantees children the “right to confidential medical counselling and advice without parental consent… irrespective of age,” especially regarding “reproductive health education or services.”

These purported rights erode parents’ ability to protect their children and pave the way for nefarious adults to gain access to children.







Join Mercator today for free and get our latest news and analysis

Buck internet censorship and get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox. It's free and your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell your personal data.

Perhaps we can’t know for certain whether or to what extent pedophiles contributed to drafting the CRC. However, we know for certain that pedophiles promote it. Peter Newell is the principal author of the UN’s Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which instructs policymakers on how to implement the CRC worldwide. In 2018, Newell was convicted of indecent assault and sodomy against a minor and sentenced to over six years in jail. Newell reportedly raped a boy over the course of three years, starting when the boy was 13.

Adrian lamented the fact that people like Newell “whose only ‘crime’ is that they love children can expect to have the book thrown at them and endure years of attacks in squalid prisons from real criminals.” In his view — and a growing worldview — people who have sex with children are not “real criminals,” and children must be freed from the sexual shackles society places upon them so that pedophiles can have sex with them without legal repercussions.

2. Comprehensive Sexual Education

Adrian said children should get a “far more comprehensive sexual education from a far earlier age.” In lockstep with this pedophile ideal, establishing “comprehensive sexuality education” (CSE) as a human right for all children has become one of the fiercest movements at the United Nations.

At a recent UN education summit, presenters called for “universal implementation of CSE” starting at age two. CSE programs (see here, if you dare) do exactly what pedophiles say they should do: present sex to children as their “right” and teach children how to “consent” to sex. The pedophiles of the world must be throwing confetti.

International Planned Parenthood Federation is the leading provider of CSE in the world. Their 2011 sexual rights declaration for youth says:  

  • “Young people are sexual beings. They have sexual needs… It is important for all young people around the world to be able to explore, experience and express their sexualities in healthy, positive, pleasurable and safe ways. This can only happen when young people’s sexual rights are guaranteed.”
  • “Sexuality and sexual pleasure are important parts of being human for everyone — no matter what age.”
  • “Governments and leaders have a duty to respect, protect and fulfil all sexual rights for everyone.”

3. The Age of Sexual Consent

A major obstacle in “liberating” children is the legal age of consent. PIE advocated for “the abolition of all age of consent laws” around the world, and when France moved to lower the age of consent from 18 to 15, Adrian said “an electric urgency” surged through the pedophile movement.

In 2015, the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) said human rights standards “require states to guarantee adolescents’ rights… by providing sexual and reproductive health services without parental consent.” In 2016, UNICEF (the UN agency tasked with protecting children worldwide) published Legal Minimum Ages and the Realization of Adolescents’ Rights which says states should allow “children to consent to certain medical treatments and interventions without the permission of a parent.”

Further, this spring, an organization called ICJ launched a document at an event sponsored by UN agencies, including the WHO, that says,

“Sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law.”

In addition to eroding age of consent laws, the WHO is working to decriminalise “sex work” (i.e., prostitution). The WHO’s name and logo appear at decriminalizesex.work under “Organizations that Support the Decriminalization of Prostitution.”

The outcomes of these intersecting campaigns could be extremely troubling: If the push to lower the age of consent and the effort to legalise “sex work” are both successful, could this lead to the legalised prostitution of children in the name of children’s “sexual rights”? If this occurs, there may be very few children left for Tim Ballard and his teammates to save because engaging children in sex work would be legal — as long as the child consents. And the “responsible, caring” pedophiles and traffickers of the world would be happy to help them consent.

Liberated from What?

We are facing an international movement insisting that children must be “liberated.” But we must ask, liberated from what? The answer: from parents, laws, and social norms that restrict sexual activity for children. And who benefits from the sexual freedom of children? People who want to have sex with children and people who want to earn money off people having sex with children. In other words, traffickers and pedophiles.

To counteract this global pedophilic onslaught, we must oust sexual rights organisations from our schools, maintain age of consent laws, fiercely enforce child pornography laws, apprehend and convict child traffickers, and defend parental rights like fire-breathing dragons on steroids. But above all, we must return to a common consensus that children are innocent, that their innocence is worth protecting.

For children, hearing the Sound of Freedom does not mean being freed from their parents or from laws that protect them. Hearing the Sound of Freedom means living free from the grasp of eager pedophiles.

* * * * *

Kimberly Ells is the author of, The Invincible Family: Why the Global Campaign to Crush Motherhood and Fatherhood Can't Win. Follow her at  Invincible Family Substack.

Image Credit: Pexels

Showing 7 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Michael Cook
    followed this page 2024-04-03 21:32:29 +1100
  • Greg Baker
    commented 2023-07-14 01:07:50 +1000
    Most people don’t want to force sex on someone or traffick others regardless of the ages of the people involved though. The kinds of people you mention are ones who have antisocial traits like sociopathy, etc. which are very few.

    The main goal of the movement is not for it to be easier for older people to have sex with teens; ease of access is not the purpose. The problem is way too many older people and young teens desire relationships with each other to just waste money penalizing all of them. The fact that a few antisocial people exist(probably less than 1% of people) is not a justification for restricting this freedom and liberty.

    Well over half of the world is romantically attracted teens(I’m being very conservative with the numbers here as nearly everyone could be) from 10 to 18 and a big chunk of it are teens who want to date adults. The reason you don’t hear many young teens expressing interest in adults today is because they fear backlash as there is a lot of a negative stigma towards it. It wouldn’t be right to punish tens of millions of adults and young teens who are genuinely and madly love especially if they really click with each other on a deep level. Also, relationships between two people are complex, sex is an important component, and restricting it can overcomplicate things.
  • Maryse Usher
    followed this page 2023-07-12 10:08:25 +1000
  • Grace Hume
    followed this page 2023-07-12 07:34:06 +1000
  • Anthony Harman
    followed this page 2023-07-12 01:05:38 +1000
  • mrscracker
    I think this is a little more complicated when we’re speaking of adolescent minors vs young children. The population of people primarily attracted to small children is quite small compared to adults who are simply sexual opportunists or predators preying on vulnerable teens. One population suffers a serious psychological disorder, the other a moral failing.

    The UN seems more concerned about attacking traditional marriage than protecting young people from sexual exploitation. On one hand their agencies appear to promote adolescents’ consent to sexual activity, feticide, & genital mutilation, but on the other hand older teens are denied the right to wed, even with parental permission. The BBC had an article recently about the harm that sort of legislation has done to families in India where young women who married at 17 fear their husband’s or parents’ arrest. One wife in that situation committed suicide rather than have her parents face legal repercussions.
  • Kimberly Ells
    published this page in The Latest 2023-07-11 18:15:00 +1000