The article is interesting as example whereby the desired conclusion — the state apparatus has a largely unlimited right to interfere in families and the upbringing of children, nay the state is the primary parent of the child — is embedded in the vocabulary and idioms used to describe the laws imposed by the various governmental apparatuses around the world. Ideas such as “international law” and “rights” and “rights of the parent cannot trump” are used to obfuscate, sugar-coat and legitimise the forceful imposition on families of the indoctrination chosen by those who control the local state apparatus. In the end, when you have such an intolerable imposition without recourse to a democratic solution, it comes down to who has the biggest firepower and this is usually the state apparatus. Let us not kid ourselves that it was ever otherwise.

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.