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.

Large group of Ambassadors walk out of UN meeting in Geneva

The Human Rights Council (HRC) in its ongoing attempt to expand universally accepted human rights norms, to include sexual orientation and gender identity, arranged a Panel discussion at the Palais des Nations in Geneva on Wednesday March 7^th.

The panel discussion under the heading “Ending Violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and Gender Identity” resulted from a resolution introduced by South Africa, last June, which called for the preparation of a report on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and the holding of a panel discussion.  During the June negotiations some countries wanted to set out their complete agenda however they were advised that to make progress they would need to be patient and to limit the resolution to the issue of discrimination in order to get it approved.  All attempts at balance in the preparation of the report, which issued in December were ignored. There were also attempts to ensure that the panel would be balanced however the panel selected was one sided.

  

The Ambassadors from both the OIC and the Arab Group sent a powerful message to the panel by staging a walkout once the session began leaving only those delegates who were chosen to deliver their group statements, and they too left once their strongly expressed statements had been delivered.

Given that there is no excuse for violence against any person or group for any reason whatsoever and that this is stated in the International Bill of Rights consisting of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenants enacted there under, there is no need for any additional legislation in respect of any group. 

Additionally there is no agreement on the meaning of the terms sexual orientation and gender identity and a clear divide was evident during the discussion, Western nations such as the US and EU together with Canada Australia and a variety of South American countries favour the expansion of rights while The Organization of Islamic States (OIC) and the Arab group of states together with the vast majority of African States, The Russian Federation and the Holy See reject the concept of establishing new so called rights.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon via a video link told the meeting that lives are at stake that there is a duty to protect rights everywhere.  There is he said, widespread violence against this community and that they are imprisoned and tortured. Addressing them directly he said, “LBGT people you not alone this is a shared struggle” and he then called on everyone to stand with him. Mr. Ban spoke of the need to educate the public to bring about change and that he counts on the Human Rights Council to make it happen

The High Commissioner for Human Rights Ms Navi Pillay told the meeting that the important issue in this case were Principles of universality and non discrimination and that the study had shown three main difficulties, first the enactment of discriminatory laws, second the criminalization of sex between consenting adults leading in some countries to imprisonment and thirdly a pattern of violence is evident against homosexuals, lesbians and transsexuals in all regions which in some cases is, accompanied by high levels of brutality

The session was addressed by members of the panel before it was thrown open for general debate, Irina Karla Bacci (Brazil): Vice-President, National Council for LGBT Persons, Brazil, Laurence Helfer (USA): Co-Director, Center for International and Comparative Law, Duke University, USA, Hina Jilani (Pakistan): chair, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan; former Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, Hans Ytterberg (Sweden): Chairperson of the Council of Europe Expert Committee on Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.

During the debate, which ensued the Pakistani delegate Saeed Sarwar on behalf of the OIC Group told the meeting

"The OIC Member States would like to record their consistent and firm opposition to the subject under discussion in the work of the Human Rights Council. Our opposition stems from the fact that controversial notions such as “sexual orientation” are vague and misleading and have no agreed definition and no legal foundation in international law. The international community only recognizes those rights that are enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which were codified in subsequent international human rights instruments.

Thus, we strongly condemn systematic attempts by a Group of States to introduce the notion of “sexual orientation” in the United Nations system in general and in the universally agreed human rights framework in particular. These attempts not only distort the intent of the drafters and signatories to these human rights instruments, but also seriously jeopardize the internationally agreed human rights framework."

 Mr Sarwar also told the meeting that 

"The OIC Member States consider that all people are entitled to the enjoyment of human rights and that sexual orientation does not confer special status in this respect. Our opposition to the notion of sexual orientation also stems from the fact that it may encompass the social normalization, and possibly the legitimization, of many deplorable acts, including pedophilia and incest." 

The Holy See attempted to make a statement but they were placed so far down the list of speakers that the meeting was over before their turn came. In addition a group of Pro-Family, Pro-life NGO’s, which included the society for the protection of unborn children (SPUC), sought to make a statement but once again only NGO’s who are pro the gay agenda were called. Ambassador Dupuy Laserre however advised that all statements would be included on the HRC extranet