The Human Rights Council approved a procedural but
nevertheless ground breaking resolution on the protection of the family, at the
Palais des Nations in Geneva, on Thursday June 26th.
The resolution instructs the Human Rights Council to convene
a panel discussion, during its September session, on the status of
the family and calls on the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a
report on the proceedings of the panel.
The resolution reaffirms article 16.3 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights which states that ‘the family is the natural and
fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and
the State’ and it also recognizes that the family has the primary
responsibility for the nurturing and protection of children and that children,
for the full and harmonious development of their personality, should grow up in
a family environment and in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.
The resolution also says that the family, as the fundamental
group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of
all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary
protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities
within the community,
A number of western nations, mostly EU countries and the US,
first attempted to broaden the scope of the resolution to include controversial
‘diversity’ language that has been interpreted as giving approval to so called
same sex marriage.
When the strategy to include the controversial language in
the text failed, during the negotiations, Chile, Uruguay, Ireland and France
tabled an amendment to the resolution, which included the phrase;
[…] bearing in mind that, in different cultural, political
and social systems, various forms of the family exist;
A counter
amendment was proposed by Pakistan, to the effect that marriage is a union
between a man and a woman, to balance the text in the event that the diversity
language was approved.
The Russian Federation, much to the annoyance of the anti
family cohort, proposed a no action motion on the amendment relating to various
forms of the family. The Russian motion was approved by 22 votes to16 and the
second amendment proposed by Pakistan was therefore withdrawn.
The main resolution was then approved by 26 votes to 14 with 7
abstentions.
Following the vote the UK delegate was scathing about those
who voted against the diversity language claiming that the final wording excludes
various groupings
along with those headed by same-sex couples.
The hostility towards this resolution signifies an attempt
by western nations to sideline the family friendly article in the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' (UDHR), that
affirms the role of family in society and the duty of States to protect it. It
is crucial to preserve the universality of Human Rights by rejecting attempts
to ignore hard law agreements such as the UDHR and the Covenents that form the bill of rights, or to overrule them by citation of soft law
conference documents.
The vote also reflects widespread opposition to efforts by
the US, the EU and other member states to promote so called Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Transgender ‘rights’ in diplomatic agreements, which many
countries view as being pushed on them contrary to their values and their
culture.
Surprisingly, some Member States such as Ireland voted
against the resolution despite the fact that its Constitution contains an
article recognizing the importance of the family and the necessity to offer it
support and protection. Article 41.1 and 41.2 read as follows.
ARTICLE 41.1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
The Irish delegate in an explanation of vote ignored the
powerful statement in the Irish Constitution that the family is ‘a moral
institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and
superior to all positive law’, and lamely told the Council that Ireland would
vote against the resolution because they claimed it did not recognize so called
‘diversity’.
A family is a living, dynamic entity, and can take many forms. We believe that we must all recognise this diversity, and indeed we have done consistently over many years in many UN resolutions which recognise that in different cultural, political and social systems, various forms of the family exist. We regret that the resolution before us today fails to take account of the various forms of families, which are a vital part of all of our societies.
Sadly ideology and political correctness seems to overrule
everything.
