The 60th session of the UN Commission on the
Status of Women took place at UN headquarters in New York from March 14th to March 24th
finishing around 11.00PM on Holy Thursday. There has always been bias against
pro-life and pro-family NGO’s at the UN however this year’s session contained a
new and pernicious level of bias, not previously experienced by pro-life and
pro-family NGO’s.
This new level of bias first showed it ugly head in the
preparations for the session when the pro-life and family NGO’s applied for
parallel events and were told that only one event would be allowed per
organization and then were either refused outright or given slots on the most
unsuitable dates and times. Contrast that with the slots, times, dates and
numbers of events given to pro-abortion organizations many of which were given
multiple slots for their parallel events, together with more appropriate dates
and times. Radical Feminist organizations such as the Asian-Pacific resource
and Research Centre for Women (ARROW) for example were given approval for
three events - March 15, 2:30 pm, March 21, 10:30 am, March
21 4:30 pm, while the Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID) were
given 6 events – March 16 8:30 am, March
16 12:30 pm, March 17 6:15 pm, March 21 10:30 am, March 21 4:30 pm, March 24
2:30 pm.
Second the CSW approved
NGO committee issued a publication for NGO’s condemning what they describe
as negativity and yes, you have guessed it, negativity consists of the pro-life
and family agenda. The following is and extract from the publication, 'NGOs and Women’s Human Rights Activists at the UN and CSW', which on page 23 sets
out some of the so called negative trends that in the view of the committee
have impeded their progress:
• Narrowing the concept of gender to only refer to women and
men
• Dissent between pro-life and pro-choice groups
• Opposition to Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights,
in particular sexual rights
• Opposition to “sexual orientation and gender identity” or
(SOGI)
• Opposition to “diverse forms of families”
• Opposition to Comprehensive Sexuality Education.
Thirdly and perhaps more serious than the other problems was
that a new level of inflexibility entered into the inter governmental
negotiations and despite strong representations from many pro-life NGO’s the
CSW outcome document, Women’s Empowerment and the Link to Sustainable
Development, (Draft) Agreed Conclusions, contains language aimed at increasing access
to contraception and abortion and teaching children inappropriate so called
comprehensive sexuality education. The health paragraph also includes a
reference to controversial sexual rights.