I'd actually like to see more of a citation. The trail starts here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Watch_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fami

I'd actually like to see more of a citation. The trail starts here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Watch_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Watch_International Which references: https://politicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/Colonizing-African-Values.pdf https://politicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/Co... This claims an antagonistic relationship with the UN. I don't see the UN doing anything wrong on a quick skim, but rather this describes FWI abusing their relationship with the UN. There is also the (much more vague and less specific): https://politicalresearch.org/sharon-slater-going-global-with-a-pro-family-antigay-agenda https://politicalresearch.org/sharon-slater-going-global-wit... Wikipedia makes bold statements from very tentative language. Clicking through references here turns up documents like: https://familywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/05/Resource_Guide_2013.pdf https://familywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/05/R... Which is a FWI guide to the UN, but can't be confused for a UN document. Through the game of telephone, this somehow became referenced as if it were in publications attacking FWI. At least on 5-10 minutes of clicking, I can't find any specific, primary reference to the UN doing anything wrong. Last time I testified at a major public hearing, the person before me ranted and raved about brains and electromagnetism from household electronics. Were they crazy? Batshit crazy. Did everyone dismiss them? Yes. Did they have a right to do that? Absolutely. As a footnote, unfairly cutting crazy people out of conversations has two problems: 1) You can't talk to them and convince them otherwise. Conversations are two-way streets. 2) It gives them a huge soapbox. If a person ranting about EM waves impacting brains was shut out of public comments and unfairly oppressed by [corporations / government / etc.], if anything, that oppression would support their argument.