World Families At Risk

The anti-family and radical feminist forces at the UN have been frequently stymied in promoting their objectives of abortion and legal recognition of same-sex relationships, because of the presence of pro-life, pro-family non-government organizations (NGOs), such as REAL Women, at UN conferences. REAL Women has attended most of the UN conferences since the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development. In total, we have been a presence at 5 large international UN conferences, as well as at countless preparatory meetings in New York.

Pro-family NGOs have not, of course, been completely successful in staving off the anti-family forces, but we have, at least, been able to modify language in UN treaties to place road blocks in the way of those promoting controversial policies.

The powerful anti-family agents at the UN have been further blocked in achieving their objectives by the fact that the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is now accepted world-wide as the international standard for human rights, did not include reproductive rights (abortion) or homosexual rights. On the other hand, it did, however, include an endorsement of the traditional family, in Article 16, which states as follows:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Meeting in Glen Cove, NY, December 1996

Frustrated anti-family officials within the UN realized that they would have to devise a new process to do an end-run around the wall of resistance to their policies. Consequently, a secret and private meeting was held in Glen Cove, NY, in December 1996 by UN officials and feminist strategists. Present at this meeting were members of the six UN agencies dealing with Human Rights treaties, representatives from several other UN bodies and agencies, plus eight carefully selected feminist activists. Included in this latter category was Rhonda Copelon, professor of law, City University, New York, who masterminded the feminist women's caucus activities at the International Criminal Court proceedings in Rome last summer, and Rebecca Cook, professor of law, University of Toronto, who has been instrumental in promoting abortion and "gender" rights in both Canada and at the UN.

At this meeting, a blueprint was set out which would result in the reinterpretation of fundamental human rights to include provisions for abortion and homosexual rights. These latter rights, of course, were never written in or intended by the signatory state parties when they ratified these documents. Very importantly, it is the intention of these UN officials and strategists that these new, implied rights for abortion and homosexual rights should override universally accepted fundamental rights, such as religious rights. Thus, even if a country's religion -- Muslim or Catholic -- prohibits abortion and homosexual rights, these countries would, nonetheless, be required, under UN treaties, to implement these policies. To do otherwise would be considered tantamount to denying its people so-called "human rights."

The process by which these radical UN leaders hope to achieve their goal is to find "implied" rights in UN documents by way of "treaty monitoring bodies." The treaty monitoring bodies will consider the gender dimensions of human rights by identifying provisions in the treaties which may be extended to "be more reflective of the interests of women." For example, the Treaty Monitoring Committee could interpret the right to life (Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) or the right to health care (International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights) or the right to non-discrimination on the basis of gender (Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women) to include a right to abortion.

It is planned that UN agencies will contribute to the work of these treaty bodies by providing relevant data in order to ascertain compliance with or violation of these implied rights.

This data would then be released when countries put in their required reports to the UN monitoring committee. The failure or success to comply with these new implied rights and standards will be included when official treaty reports are submitted to the UN for review. These reports will be based on skewed feminist guidelines and standards using these new-found rights. The data and UN official report will then be channelled to the media who will note the success or failure of a particular country in complying with these so-called new human rights standards. This data will also be used as the basis for initiating complaints and for implementing remedies, as well as for amending laws and practices in individual countries.

An example of the success of this tactic occurred when Canada submitted its official report in 1996 relating to Canada's compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although this convention contained absolutely no provision relating to the spanking of children, the UN Monitoring Committee reprimanded Canada for its failure to remove S.43 of the Criminal Code, which permits the spanking of children under reasonable circumstances. Australia also received a similar reprimand from the UN for the same reason. Spanking of children, therefore, has become a UN offence, although no UN treaty specifically prohibits it.

We should expect that many more such tactics will be applied against nations resisting UN official goals. Immediate action had to be taken to fight this new tactic by the UN. Fortunately, a pro-family counter-move has already been formulated. It is being referred to as a Call to the Families of the World (see story on p.5).

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS