THE HOLY SEE WILL RESPOND TO THE CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS OF THE U.N. COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: ARCHBISHOP TOMASI

Vatican Information Services VIS reported Feb 6^th on the initial response by The Papal Nuncio to the UN in Geneva Archbishop Tomasi  to the outrageous report of the Committee on the Rights of the Child.

In his statement Archbishop Tomasi emphasized that the Holy See will respond in more detail but will do so based on the text of the Convention not the ideologies that underlie much of content of the committee’s concluding observations and he reminded them that the Convention in its preamble actually calls for protection of unborn life .

“the Holy See will respond, because it is a member, a State that is part of the Convention: it has ratified it and intends to observe it in the spirit and letter of this Convention, without added ideologies or impositions that lie outside of the Convention itself. For instance: in its Preamble, the Convention on the Protection of Children talks about the defence of life and the protection of children before and after birth; whereas the recommendation made to the Holy See is that of changing its position on the question of abortion! Of course, when a child is killed it no longer has rights! Hence this seems to me to be a real contradiction of the fundamental objective of the Convention, which is the protection of children.

The full text of the VIS press release  containing Archbishop Tomasi’s statement is set out below

Yesterday afternoon Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, permanent observer for the Holy See at the United Nations in Geneva commented on the concluding observations of the United Nations Committee for the Rights of the Child, which were very critical regarding the issue of the abuse of minors by members of the clergy and the actions taken by the Vatican and the Holy See on the matter, and urges revision of the Church's teaching on certain themes such as contraception and abortion.

“My first impression: we need to wait, read attentively and analyse in detail what the members of this Commission have written”, commented the nuncio. “But my first reaction is of surprise, because of the negative aspects of the document they have produced and that it looks almost as if it were already prepared before the meeting of the Committee with the delegation of the Holy See, which had given in detail precise responses on various points, which have not been reported in this conclusive document or at least have not seemed to be taken into serious consideration. In fact, the document does not seem to be updated, taking into account what, over the last few years, has been done by the Holy See, with the measures taken directly from the authority of Vatican City State and then in various countries by the individual Episcopal Conferences. It therefore lacks a correct and updated perspective, which in reality has seen a series of changes for the protection of children that, it seems to me, are difficult to find, at the same level of commitment, in other institutions or even in other States. This is simply a question of facts, of evidence, which cannot be distorted!”.

With regard to the Holy See's reaction to the document, the archbishop affirmed that “the Holy See will respond, because it is a member, a State that is part of the Convention: it has ratified it and intends to observe it in the spirit and letter of this Convention, without added ideologies or impositions that lie outside of the Convention itself. For instance: in its Preamble, the Convention on the Protection of Children talks about the defence of life and the protection of children before and after birth; whereas the recommendation made to the Holy See is that of changing its position on the question of abortion! Of course, when a child is killed it no longer has rights! Hence this seems to me to be a real contradiction of the fundamental objective of the Convention, which is the protection of children. This Committee has not done a good service to the United Nations, seeking to introduce and request the Holy See to change its non-negotiable teaching! So, it is somewhat sad to see that the Committee has not grasped in depth the nature and functions of the Holy See that, however, has expressed clearly to the Committee its decision to carry forward the Convention's requests on the rights of the child, but defining precisely and protecting first of all those fundamental values that give real and effective protection to the child”.

The observer for the Holy See also commented on the fact that the United Nations had said at one time that the Vatican had responded better than other countries to the protection of minors, and with regard to the change of opinion expressed in the document published yesterday, he said, “the introduction to the final report recognised the clarity of the answers that were given; there was no attempt to avoid any request made by the Committee, on the basis of the evidence available, and where there was no immediate information, we had promised to provide it in the future, according to the directives of the Holy See, as all countries do. So it seemed to be a constructive dialogue and I think it should remain as such. Therefore, given the impression received through direct dialogue by the delegation of the Holy See with the Committee and the text of the conclusions and recommendations, it is tempting to say that probably that text had already been written, and does not reflect the input and clarity, other than by some hasty addition, to that which had already been offered. So we must, with serenity and on the basis of the evidence - because we have nothing to hide! - bring forth the explanation of the position of the Holy See, respond to the questions that remain, so that the fundamental objective that is to be pursued - the protection of children - can be achieved. We are talking about 40 million cases of child abuse in the world: unfortunately some of these cases - even though in small proportions in comparison to all those that are happening in the world - affect people in the Church. And the Church has responded and reacted and continues to do so! We must insist on this policy of transparency, of no tolerance of abuse, because even one single case of child abuse is one case too many!”

UN Committee exceeds mandate in making recommendations to Russian Federation

The Russian Federation appeared before the Committee on the Rights of the Child on January 23^rd and 24^th for their combined 4^th and 5^th review of their level of compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

The Russian delegation in presenting their 5-year review to the Committee on the Rights of the Child referred to the current demographic deficit in Russia, which has resulted in a fall in population of around 700,000 people

According to the report the total fertility rate sank as low 1.3 children per woman but with Government assistance has now climbed back to 1.7, which is still below the 2.1 replacement level. According to the report 1.4 million children were born in 2006 and this increased to 1.9 million in 2012.

A number of reports were submitted to the Committee by NGO’S complaining about the Russian laws protecting children from anti family propaganda.

One such report with the title Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Problem of Children from Vulnerable Groups compiled as a result of collaborative efforts of three Russian organizations: Anti-discrimination Centre Memorial, regional St. Petersburg organization 'Coming Out' and Russian LGBT Network.

EFFECTS OF RUSSIAN ANTI-GAY LAWS ON LGBT CHILDREN AND CHILDREN OF LGBT FAMILIES

As was partially noted in reports on rights of children with respect to sexual orientation and gender identity, submitted to the Committee in 2013 by the Coming Out LGBT organization (hereinafter “Coming Out Report”) and Russian LGBT Network, a range of laws were adopted within the last two years in Russia which restrict the rights of LGBT people, LGBT families and LGBT rights advocates. These laws are as follows:

· Law prohibiting “propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexualism, transgenderism among the underage” adopted in St.-Petersburg;

· Federal law prohibiting “propaganda of unconventional sexual relationship”30

· Law prohibiting adoption of Russian children by same sex couples from other countries;

There is no reference to any of these issues in the CRC nevertheless this committee once again exceeded its mandate by making recommendations that have no relevance to the Convention.

The Committee’s concluding observations were published on Feb 5^th and contain the following recommendations at paragraphs 24, 25 and 55 and 56 c. 

24. The Committee is also concerned at the recent developments in the legislation of the State party prohibiting “propaganda of unconventional sexual relationship”, generally with the intent of protecting children, which however encourages stigmatization of and discrimination against LGBTI persons, including children, and children of LGBTI families. The Committee is particularly concerned that vague definitions of propaganda leads to the targeting and ongoing persecution of the country’s LGBTI community, including abuse and violence, in particular against underage LGBTI rights activists.

25. The Committee recommends that the State party repeal its laws prohibiting propaganda of homosexuality and ensure that children who belong to LGBTI groups or children of LGBTI families are not subjected to any forms of discrimination by raising the awareness of the public on equality and non-discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Adolescent health

55. The Committee is concerned at the high incidence of suicides and large numbers of drug and alcohol addiction among adolescents in the State party. The Committee is also concerned about the reports of coercive treatment of transsexual and homosexual persons, in particular children, and attempt to diagnose transsexuality as psychiatric disease as well as the lack of sexual health information for LGBTI children.

56 (c) Put an end to the coercive treatment of transsexual and homosexual persons, in particular children, and to attempts to diagnose transsexuality as psychiatric disease as well as provide LGBTI children with easy access to necessary sexual health information.

Ideologically driven Committee on the Rights of the Child oversteps mandate

-->

The United Nations (UN) Committee on the Rights of the Child significantly overstepped its mandate in presenting its non-binding concluding remarks and recommendations in respect of its recent consideration of the Holy See report.

This was particularly evident in its recommendations.

The Committee for example attacked the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion, contraception and homosexuality, under the guise of a critique of the Church's handling of child sex abuse cases. The report, among similar things, recommends that the Catholic Church: identifies 

• "circumstances under which access to abortion services can be permitted" (section 55)

• "overcome[s] all the barriers and taboos surrounding adolescent sexuality that hinder their access to sexual and reproductive information, including on family planning and contraceptives" (section 57a)

• "ensure[s] that sexual and reproductive health education and prevention of HIV/AIDS is part of the mandatory curriculum of Catholic schools" (section 57c) 

This Committee has once again overstepped its mandate by making demands well beyond the scope of the actual wording of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. There is nothing in the Convention, which requires the Catholic Church or any other body to facilitate abortion, contraception or homosexuality.

The Committee also failed to recognise the significant progress achieved by the Holy See in the area of the protection of children or to take cognizance of the actual submissions made by the Holy See both in writing and during its January appearance before the Committee

The Holy See Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva Archbishop Tomasi responding to questions in respect of the Committee conclusions said:

‘I would say that there is a difficultly apparent in understanding the position of the Holy See that cannot certainly give up certain teachings that are part of their deep convictions and also an expression of freedom of religion and these are the values that in the tradition of the Catholic Church sustain the common good of society and therefore cannot be renounced, for example the committee asked for acceptance of abortion and this is a contradiction with the principle of life that the convention itself should support recommending that children be protected before and after birth.

If a child is eliminated or killed we can no longer talk about rights for this person, so there is a need to calmly and in detail analyzing the recommendations proposed by the committee and provide an accurate response to the committee itself, so that there will be no misunderstanding on where we stand and the reason why we take certain positions and I would add that the practical remedies for preventing cases of abuse of children in forms of laws or decisions of Episcopal Conferences of directives for the formation of seminarians constitute a package of measures that is very difficult, I think, to find other institutions or even other states that have done so much specifically for the protection of children. So, my sense is that we have to continue to refine, to enact provisions that protect children in all their necessities so that they may grow and become productive adults in society and their dignity be constantly respected.

And at the same time we have to keep in mind that even though there are so many millions, forty million cases of abuse a year regarding children and unfortunately some cases affect also Church personnel. We have to keep in mind that, we have to continue to combat this tragedy knowing that even a case of abuse of a child is a case too much.’

John Smeaton executive director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children SPUC commenting on the report  said;

'There is a great deal of hypocrisy in the committee's report. Under the cover of seeking to protect children against sexual abuse, the report promotes damage to children - the destruction of unborn children through abortion and the destruction of born children's innocence through the promotion of contraception and homosexuality.

The Holy See's representatives made clear to the committee last month, Catholic leaders are facing up to the shocking child abuse scandals within the Church. Pro-life and pro-family groups throughout the world must  - like SPUC - come to the UN to help the Holy See in its vital work of protecting, unborn children and the marriage-based family. This work is under constant attack by the Catholic Church's enemies, as manifested in the committee's report today.

Any pro-life/pro-family groups interested in lobbying at the UN are invited to contact me for help and advice regarding accreditation and related issues'

Human Rights Council attempt to include radical anti life documents in resolution on children under 5 years of age

The Human Rights Council during its recent 24th session sank to a new low in attempting to use a resolution on children under 5 years of age, as a vehicle to further their attack on human life and the family, by the inclusion of a pro-abortion and pro- sexual orientation agenda in the resolution.

The resolution which was tabled by Ireland along with Botswana, Austria, Mongolia and Uruguay, included references in the early drafts of the text to recently published, highly controversial documents, issued by the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), known as ‘General Comments 14' and 15' in which the Committee attempt to expand the scope of the actual Convention on the Rights of the Child by the inclusion of issues such as, safe abortion, sexual orientation and gender identity, sexuality education and confidential counseling and advice for children without  parental knowledge or consent.

One might ask, as the Holy See negotiator Rubén Navarro did during the negotiations, 'what relevance do have these issues have to under 5 child mortality'?

General Comment 15, whilst it includes a very short section on children under 5, asserts that the UN CRC grants children the right to:

• “confidential counseling and advice without parental or legal guardian consent”

• “sexual and reproductive freedom”

• “safe abortion”

• sexual education, reproductive health services and medical treatment “without the permission of a parent, caregiver or guardian”

• rights related to “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”

General Comment 14 also states that a child has a right to preserve their identity and that this identity can include their sexual orientation.

This deliberate misrepresentation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the accompanying attempt to get UN Member States to unwittingly advance sexual rights for the youngest of children should not only be opposed, but these comments should also be roundly condemned and denounced by all responsible countries in the world.

Many of the delegates had no idea that General Comments 14 and 15 contained such harmful provisions for children and their families, and were very appreciative when the harmful agenda was drawn to their attention.

Ultimately the references to General Comments 14 and 15 were deleted from the resolution when they were strongly resisted by delegates from many Member States, however one has to remain vigilant in the lead up to the upcoming International negotiations for the post 2015 period and the proposed sustainable development goals (SBG's) which will replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDG's) 

Our Colleagues in Family Watch International have published an analysis, of the methods used by those who wish to advance their so called 'sexual rights' agenda, which is reprinted below

The 12-Step UN Program to Advance Sexual Rights.

While UN Committee “Comments” like Comments 14 and 15 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child are not legally binding, the strategy used by “progressive” developed countries to give fictitious sexual rights legal weight is brilliant and usually very consistent.  Here is what they usually do and what they tried to do with the recent resolution in Geneva.

Step 1. Collaborate with a UN committee, agency or expert to produce a document, resolution, report, or comment purporting to solve a serious world problem.

Step 2. Give the document a nice-sounding name so that other nations will look bad if they oppose it.  (In this case the document was called “General comment No. 15 (2013) on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health (art. 24)” issued by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.)

Step 3. Make sure the document has multiple pages so that most busy diplomats, especially those from developing countries who don’t have multiple colleagues to share their workload, will likely not have time to read the whole thing.

Step. 4. Fill it with good provisions that most nations agree and sprinkle it with controversial “sexual rights” couched in the most deceptive/euphemistic language possible.

Step 5. Make sure the fictitious sexual rights are positioned as essential elements to a “rights-based approach” to solving the serious world problem.  Position everything in your sexual agenda as a “human right.”

Step 6. Make up your own data and facts and repeat them over and over again until people believe them (i.e., 8.5 million women have complications due to “illegal” abortion every year, therefore we have to legalize abortion as human right.  This figure was given at the side event at this session of the Human Rights Council at an event pushing for the decriminalization of abortion).

Step 7. To make your cause popular, organize a side event at the UN promoting the “rights-based approach” to solving the world problem you are addressing while downplaying or concealing the controversial sexual “rights” you plan to propose as the solution.

Step 8. Introduce an important-sounding resolution to solve the world problem to be negotiated by Member States, co-sponsored by one or two like-minded countries who are in on the plan.  (In this case the resolution was entitled, “Preventable mortality and morbidity of children under five as a human rights concern.”

Step 9. Recruit a strategic, unsuspecting developing country or two to co-sponsor your resolution (with the hidden sexual rights) to show cross-regional support for it. Make these developing countries out to be heroes for taking on this serious world problem.

Step 10. Insert a reference in the draft resolution to be negotiated endorsing the nice-sounding document created as per above (in this instance Comments 14 and 15 from the CRC Committee). If nations catch on to your plan and realize the controversial elements in the document you are  trying to get them to endorse, convince them to focus on all the positive elements in it that will be lost if it is not endorsed.  Make them feel responsible for the world problem not being solved if they do not go along with your plan.  (In this case make it appear they do not support preventing the death of children under 5.)

Step 11. If all else fails bribe or blackmail developing countries with threats to pull financial aid if they do not go along with the plan.

Step 12. Once your document establishing controversial sexual rights as legitimate rights essential to solving a world problem has been endorsed by UN Member States, take this to the national level.  Go into developing countries and convince their courts that all nations are under obligation to change their law to advance the specified sexual rights because they were endorsed in a UN resolution or document.  During UN country review processes (Universal Periodic Reviews) call these countries to account if they do not change their laws to advance these sexual rights.

And this is how it is done.