The Abusers Behind the Idea That Children Have a ‘Gender Identity’ -Satan Runs the U.N.

Isn’t it obvious that the “Gender Identity” discussion was brought about by the Enemy of Our souls?

If you don’t believe that, please read the article from below:


The idea that children have an innate “gender identity” that may differ from their sex has been promoted globally by influential child abusers who worked with children. In this article Carys Moseley traces the influence of Peter Newell, the prominent British children’s rights campaigner jailed last month for raping a boy. Newell introduced the idea that children’s “gender identity” should be protected in law in the UNICEF Implementation Handbook for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a document closely linked to the Yogyakarta Principles drawn up by LGBT activists to spread LGBT privileges worldwide.

Last month Peter Newell, the most prominent campaigner in the UK for a ban on parental smacking, was jailed for six years for historic rape of a 13-year old boy. Newell was a major  international ‘children’s rights campaigner’ with one goal – to make smacking illegal worldwide, and thus to create a situation where parents could be criminalised and even in the last resort lose custody of their children. This turns out to be highly relevant to the normalisation of transgender identity in children.

UNICEF children’s rights handbook includes ‘gender identity’

Peter Newell wrote all three editions of the UNICEF Implementation Handbook for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The UNCRC is a UN treaty published in 1989 and mentions a child’s sex as a basic characteristic that needs to be respected. However the third edition of the Handbook published in 2007 barely refers to a child’s sex. Instead it reinterprets Article 8 of the UNCRC to say that gender identity is a part of a child’s identity like national or ethnic identity, that needs to be preserved as a matter of human rights. This is a way of saying that children are born transgendered, something that has no objective evidence behind it and which most members of the public do not believe.

The list of reviewers of the drafts of the Handbook shows that one of them was Vitit Muntarbhorn, who was appointed in November 2016 to be the the first UN czar on LGBT rights. Muntarbhorn is the only reviewer listed who has a professional interest in LGBT issues. Vitit Muntarbhorn was Co-Chairperson of the meeting of international human rights experts (lawyers and academics who are LGBT activists) who drafted and signed the Yogyakarta Principles on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in November 2006.

The Yogyakarta Principles pushed the ‘gender identity’ of children

The purpose of the Yogyakarta Principles is to spread LGBT privileges worldwide by working through the United Nations human rights treaty bodies and other international organisations. The signatories demand that member states pass laws and policies enshrining sexual orientation and gender identity as immutable characteristics of people’s identity, and thus worthy of protection. As the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child deals with the UNCRC it was inevitable that signatories would ask it to use the concept of ‘gender identity’. However as the Yogyakarta Principles are merely a set of ideas propounded by activists, they have no legal standing and as such could have been rejected by the Committee as well as by Peter Newell in his capacity as author of the Handbook.

The Yogyakarta Principles define ‘gender identity’ as follows:

‘Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.’

No lower age limit is given for people choosing to identify as members of the opposite gender.

‘Gender identity’ undermines ratification of the UN Children’s Rights Convention

All this matters because the UK is a signatory of the UNCRC as it is a UN treaty. Although not legally binding, the Handbook was written to influence how states interpret and implement the UNCRC. However the claim that ‘gender identity’ is an inherent characteristic of children undermines the plain meaning of the Convention in two ways.

First a child deemed to have a ‘gender identity’ different than that of his or her sex will not be treated in a law as a member of his or her sex, because ‘gender identity’ contradicts sex. Second, the Handbook pretends that ‘gender identity’ is like those aspects of identity listed in Article 8 of the Convention such as national identity and ethnic identity. The real purpose of this is obvious – to claim that gender identity is like ethnicity or race, and therefore that to oppose non-discrimination on grounds of gender identity is as bad as racism.

How the UN pushed for transgender identity in UK schools

On 20 October 2008 (CRC/C/GBR/CO/4) the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child welcomed the UK’s Equality Bill as legislation protecting children from LGBT discrimination. It is not an accident that one of the Committe members was Nevena Vuckovic-Sahovic, also another signatory of the Yogyakarta Principles.

The timing of this declaration is crucial. Back in July 2008 the UK government had responded to the public responses to its own consultation on the Equality Bill (which later became the Equality Act 2010) saying that it would not bring in legislation against discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment in schools. Yet by the time the first draft of the Bill was tabled in Parliament in 2009, this matter was included (Section 284). The only possible reason is that the government had decided to comply with the UN Committee’s demands for protection of ‘transgender children’.

Transgender rights activists always wanted ‘gender identity’ for children

Another prominent signatory of the Yogyakarta Principles was Stephen Whittle, a female-to-male transgender who is Professor of Equalities Law at Manchester Metropolitan University. Whittle is the brains behind transsexual rights legislation in the UK, having previously founded numerous transgender rights groups between the 1970s and 1990s including Press For Change, the Gender Trust and FTM Network.

Whittle has ceaselessly pushed for UK law to introduce ‘gender identity’ as a category for non-discrimination, and asked for a different term to ‘gender reassignment’ to cover under-18s when speaking to the Equality Bill Committee in Parliament in 2009. Also transgender campaign group GIRES (which was formed by ten activists from Press For Change) asked for ‘gender variance’ to replace ‘gender reassignment’ for children and schools. This is virtually the same as calling for ‘gender identity’ and is similarly predicated on the assumption that people are ‘born that way’.

So it was subsequently that the Explanatory Notes to the Equality Act 2010 made it clear that the Act prohibits discrimination (but not harassment) on grounds of gender reassignment in schools in the UK. The problem here is evident. Section 1(1) the Gender Recognition Act 2004 stipulates that people have to be aged 18 or over to receive gender recognition, which in turn requires serious intention to undergo gender reassignment.

The concept of ‘gender identity’ is rooted in child sexual abuse

The ‘success’ of a paedophile such as Peter Newell in inserting ‘gender identity’ into children’s rights discourse at the level of the UN should not be surprising. This is because the term ‘gender identity’ along with ‘gender role’ was coined in the 1950s by John Money, an American paediatrician who used it to justify gender reassignment for children and who conducted sexual experiments on children. The most infamous of these was to persuade the parents of David Reimer, a baby boy whos circumcision had gone wrong, to bring him up as a girl instead. Money insisted that this early switch would mean that the child would develop a ‘female’ gender identity, and that ‘gender identity’ was wholly the result of socialisation.

However John Money was also a sexual libertarian who hated the traditional Christian sexual morality under which he grew up. For example he forced David and his brother to play sex games together as children. American journalist John Colapinto has documentedhow Money told Time magazine in April 1980 how ‘a childhood sexual experience such as being the partner of a relative or of an older person, need not necessarily affect the child adversely’.

Like others in the world of transsexualism Money was well-connected with male academics who advocated paedophilia and who had their own journals to make this respectable, and willingly wrote a foreword to a book in 1987 by Dutch paedophile advocate Theo Sandford entitled ‘Boys and Their Contacts with Men’.

The sad thing is that transgender rights activists, who promote themselves as experts on gender dysphoria, are absolutely convinced that they are doing the right thing for children by trying to make ‘gender identity’ a category in law that covers children. In so doing they unwittingly play along with such wickedness.

The effect of ‘gender identity’ of children on government policy

The Scottish Government refers in its consultation on reviewing the Gender Recognition Act to the fact that the Handbook reinterprets Article 8 of the UNCRC to include ‘gender identity’, using this to justify calling for gender recognition for under-16s in Scotland. (See the Partial Child Rights and Wellbeing Assessment in Annex M.) In our response to the consultation we strongly object to this, calling on the Scottish Government to disregard the Handbook as it undermines the plain wording of the Convention itself.

The question now is whether the UK government intends to use the Handbook to the same ends aross the rest of the UK. Last November it postponed its consultation on reviewing the Gender Recognition Act because of protests from civil society organisations like ourselves.

Time to get rid of ‘gender identity’ of children from law and public policy

That the two men behind the concept of ‘gender identity’ of children and of this as an inherent aspect of a child’s identity that should be protected as a matter of human rights were child abusers should be sufficient grounds for concern. This concept of ‘gender identity’ is fundamentally corrupt at its very root and utterly irredeemable. It is time to get rid of it from all public policy making and all ‘soft law’ in the United Kingdom and worldwide. The UK government could make a good start on this by scrapping any plans it could possibly harbour to lower the age of gender recognition below 18 and to fix the age of gender reassignment at 18.- source


Intense Debate, Close Voting as Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, Digital-age Privacy Take Centre Stage in Third Committee

Delegates Approve 12 Draft Resolutions for Action by General Assembly

Sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as issues of privacy in the digital age, were the subjects of close votes and contentious debate today in the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) as it sent 12 draft resolutions to the General Assembly.

Among the texts most debated was a draft taking note of the Human Rights Council report and recommendations, approved as amended by a recorded vote of 94 in favour, to 3 against (Belarus, Israel, Mauritius), with 80 abstentions.  Its approval came after the narrow passage — by 84 recorded votes in favour, to 77 against, with 17 abstentions — of an amendment deleting the original text’s operative paragraph 2.

At issue was the Human Rights Council’s decision 32/2, taken in June, to appoint an Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Botswana’s representative, on behalf of the African Group, had submitted the original draft proposing to defer consideration of and action on that decision to the General Assembly’s seventy-second session to allow for more time for consultations.  Noting that the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” were not enshrined in international law, he said the independent expert mandate lacked the required specificity to be carried out fairly.

Countries mainly from Latin America and Western States opposed that deferral in an amendment deleting the draft’s call for it.  Discussion of the amendment opened a debate on the protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as on the potential procedural consequences of reopening a Human Rights Council decision.

Slovakia’s representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union, warned that opening a decision of the Human Rights Council would undermine its functioning.  Liechtenstein’s representative, speaking on behalf of several other countries, supported the mandate of the Independent Expert, as it reflected a commitment to the prevention of violence.  Singapore’s representative, meanwhile, said the issue hinged on whether the General Assembly could pronounce on the work of the Council, a subsidiary body.  He opposed the amendment, as it was important to reaffirm the Assembly’s legitimacy to do so, explaining that his position was not a statement about the substance of the mandate.  Singapore respected all persons, regardless of gender identity.

In the afternoon, the Committee took action on 10 draft resolutions, putting to a recorded vote one on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, which passed by 170 votes in favour to 7 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and the United States), with 5 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Honduras, Tonga and Vanuatu).

A draft resolution on “Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order” was approved by a recorded 123 votes in favour to 53 against, with 6 abstentions (Armenia, Chile, Costa Rica, Greece, Mexico and Peru), while a draft on the right to development was approved by a vote of 138 in favour, to 3 against (Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 39 abstentions. source

Read rest of article here

An article which I posted over a years ago:

“Transgenderism” A Mental Disorder Says A Top Psychiatrist From Johns Hopkins”  <click here to read article

When I was a young girl, my parents could always find me outside playing football with the boys. I loved all kinds of sports – it didn’t matter to me that I was the only girl playing them.  If I had grown up today, I might have been flagged as a “confused child” who truly should have been a boy.  To me this is ludicrous.

As I got older, I enjoyed so much being a girly-girl.  I was born a girl, but just happened to be really terrific at sports! God made no mistake when He made me a girl!

Brethren, the devil has his minions out in full force.  He knows how short his time is  on this earth. The pervasive Evil on the earth is now so thick, it is truly hard for us to fathom – especially those who belong to the Lord Jesus Christ. We need only to read God’s prophetic word to see that these time must come before the end.

How despicable that the enemy has targeted children, who really have no say in their public classrooms.  They are fed lies by the Leftist demon possessed teachers, and if the children are not hearing the Word of God in their homes – they are spiritually defenseless.

We are at a time in Biblical history when prayer is truly our greatest and most powerful weapon against the forces of evil.  Prayer truly has always been of utmost importance to the child of God, but those who are Watchmen in these days, know this more than ever before. The Word of God is equally important.

We MUST dress for battle:

 “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might.  Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.  For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.  Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.”

“Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness,  and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;  above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one.  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;  praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints”  (Ephesians 6:10-18).

Shalom b’Yeshua



Trump is Petitioned for White Farmers From South Africa to Come to U.S. As Refugees

For the last couple of years, I have written on the slaughter of white South African farmers.  A reader of my articles from S. Africa has kept me apprised of the situation there.

Here are a couple of my articles:

White Genocide in South Africa: A Plea for American Christians to Pray

Bury Them Alive is the Cry From South Africa’s Government

Now President Trump is being petitioned to allow white S. African farmers to be allowed to emigrate to America after their government has ordered them to be forcibly removed from their farms.

In the past years, scores of white farmers and their families have been brutally murdered while law enforcement and the government look the other way.



More than 10,500 people have signed a petition asking President Donald Trump to let white people in South Africa emigrate to the U.S. amid a vote by the country’s parliament in favour of land expropriation, which would strip white farmers of land without compensation.

The petition calls on the U.S. leader to “take the steps necessary to initiate an emergency immigration plan allowing white Boers to come to the United States.” Boer is the term used to describe South Africans of Dutch, German or Huguenot descent, who are also commonly referred to as Afrikaners.

The petition suggests that Trump should stop admitting refugees from Somalia and the Middle East, claiming they “cannot be properly vetted,” and allow white South Africans into the country instead. They “can be easily vetted and also possess skills that make them compatible with our culture and civilization,” the petition says.

In October last year, thousands of predominantly white protesters took to the streets throughout South Africa to protest a string of deadly attacks in rural areas of the country


A similar petition, calling on European Union President Jean-Claude Juncker, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Theresa May to allow white South Africans into EU countries, has gained nearly 17,000 signatures.

South Africa’s parliament voted to remove white South African farmers from their land without paying them compensation in a landmark vote on Tuesday, reported.

The motion was supported, but amended by the ruling African National Congress (ANC), with the party promising reforms that will address racial disparities in land ownership.

Lawmakers voted overwhelmingly in favor of the move, with the motion passing 241-83.

It was a key part of recently elected President Cyril Ramaphosa’s platform. Ramaphosa, who has long supported Nelson Mandela’s vision for South Africa, took office last month, replacing former President Jacob Zuma.

More than two decades after white-minority rule came to an end in South Africa, most of the country’s profitable farming land is owned by white residents. A recent land audit conducted by Agri SA, a South African agricultural industry association, found that white farmers still control 73 percent of the country’s profitable farming land.

Agri SA expressed concerns over the parliament vote, saying that while it “fully understands the need for land reform and the frustration with the apparent slow process and is committed to orderly and sustainable land reform…politics and emotion dominated the debate.”

Dan Kriek, Agri SA’s president, warned that the rights of all property owners in South Africa were at stake. He said that amending the country’s constitution property clause would be a step backward into a past where the protection of property rights was not applied across the board.

Ramaphosa urged people in South Africa not to panic over the results of the vote.

South Africa’s Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Department echoed that sentiment in a series of tweets. “This is a serious matter. It’ll be handled through dialogue and in a stable manner. No need for beating war drums and creating unnecessary panic! South Africa belongs to all who live in it!” the CGTA wrote.

“As we address the land issue, we’ll ensure that equitable land is distributed to our poor people in a way that will ensure continued stability,” the CGTA added.

Earlier, the department had tweeted, “Land is our heritage, our identity and essentially our dignity. We owe it to our children to dispel the myth that Africans are not interested in commercial farming.”

“We’ll continue to help improve the lives of South Africans through making tough decisions. This is a moment where we all need to rise and tackle this issue and emerge victorious,” the CGTA added, including the hashtag “#LandExpropriation.”

Julius Malema, the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters opposition party, which introduced the motion told parliament, told lawmakers “we must stop being cowards. We must stop working around the white minorities who are governed by the fear of the unknown when it comes to the question of land expropriation without compensation.”

He said land expropriation would end disparity caused by “criminals who stole our land.”

Malema also said “the time for reconciliation in South Africa “is over,” reported. “Now is the time for justice,” he said, adding, “We must sensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land.”

Malema has been a strong supporter of confiscating land from white farmers, saying in 2016 he was “not calling for the slaughter of white people–at least for now.”

The creators of the petition demanding that Trump admit white South Africans into the U.S. as refugees claim that the “increasing murder rate, along with the campaign to dispossess whites of their history, culture, farms, property and jobs, will inevitably lead to a complete genocide of South Africa’s white population” if the U.S. does not “intercede.”

Related: Zuma’s reign in South Africa is over—but what’s next for the country?

In October last year, thousands of predominantly white protesters took to the streets throughout South Africa to protest a string of deadly attacks in rural areas of the country. Protesters claimed that farmers were more likely to be murdered than the average South African, with some claiming that the attacks were racially motivated.

An investigation by the BBC last November determined that the claim that farmers are more likely to be murdered than the average South African “is not supported by reliable data.”

The BBC found that farm murders in South Africa are at their highest level since 2010-11. The country’s police service says 74 people were murdered on farms between April 2016 and March 2017, compared with 58 in the previous year. Those numbers, however, reflect the number of murdered farmers, farmworkers and visitors to farms regardless of race, the BBC notes.

It is unclear where people who are signing the petitions on are based. Signatories cite fears of a “white genocide” as their reason for signing, while others appeared to express sentiments aligned with white supremacy.

A spokesperson for told Newsweek it would look into whether the petitions violate any company policies and whether the website plans to take any action. – source 

Brethren, please pray for these farmers and for the Christians in South Africa.  This is an atrocity happening to these farmers and their families,  while the world looks away.

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION!   Lets make this go viral and get over 10,000 signatures!!

Immigration Priority to South African Farmers Facing Systematic Land Confiscations and Murder    <<Click here to sign petition