Can you imagine a contract that:
-two parties enter into that is used to justify barring a third person (party) from knowing anything about their history, ethnicity or genealogy without that third party's consent or foreknowledge, though, in fact, legally it does not?
-This contract is signed by the first two parties without the consent of the third party - the actual person losing access to their own personal, most basic information.
-The third party, the one resulting in being barred, is unaware of said contract, or its signing at the time of its execution.
-The contract is interpreted as barring them, the third party from their own personal information for life, although this is not actually what's in the contract.
-The third person (party) has committed no crimes. And that same third person is not allowed to even view the specific contract that they are being bound by for life.
When the third party questions the validity of the contract they are bound by, but never agreed to, they are sometimes shunned and humiliated by those close to them, misinformed strangers, and also by privileged persons in positions of power. The barred individual's motives are questioned. They are told to be grateful that the contract exists.
The terms of the contract, as mistakenly interpreted by others, extend until death.
*often one or both of the two signing parties do not fully understand the scope, full intent, or implications of the contract at the time of its signing. The third party, when later notified of the existing signed contract and its implied and actual terms, is keenly aware of all its implications through lifelong exposure to discrimination and all that that experience includes.
You can't make this stuff up.
#ThisIsUs #adopteevoices #HumanRightsViolations
