Feminist Fists Flying at the UN

When pro-family NGOs were so successful at the UN Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for Beijing +5 in New York last spring, the feminist NGOs were grievously offended. As is their practice, whenever they experience resistance to their ideology, they plot and scheme to retaliate, not merely by destroying their opposition (they would prefer to decapitate enemies it if could be arranged), but also to demonize and discredit them so that their presence is completely and permanently eliminated from the public debate.

Accordingly, the UN feminist NGOs came out with fists flying to commence their attack on the pro-family NGOs at the UN.

Their first step was to identify the various pro-family groups at the UN to obtain an understanding as to who they are (their history and connections), as well as to determine their strategies.

This analysis was carried out simultaneously, but separately, by an American feminist group in June, and by Canadian feminists at the University of Quebec in Montreal in May. The manner in which these feminist groups went about their separate research is revealing. It tells us a great deal about the differences between US and Canadian feminists. (Both papers took aim at REAL Women, attention that was flattering indeed, as it shows that they regard us as dangerous. Therefore, we must be effective. We thank them for the compliment.)

In both papers, alarm was expressed about the fact that Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Baptists, Mormons, Muslims and Jews had formed a formidable coalition to oppose them at the UN.

As stated in the paper by American feminist, Jennifer Butler at page 3:

… while just a few conservative organizations participated in the PrepCom, many of these organizations represent a powerful, well-organized constituency case. Each has access to vast financial resources and demonstrates a growing interest in influencing the United Nations. The issues that concern them have managed to galvanize them despite their religious differences.

… This interfaith coalition among religious conservatives might suggest that religious conservatives increasingly find more in common with religious conservatives of other faiths than they do with non-conservatives in their own faith traditions. The pro-family coalition trains and exhorts its members to overcome 'bigotry and prejudice' to work together on a common cause. This represents a radical realignment of religious and political interests.

Ms. Butler prepared her analysis on behalf of the UN NGO Ecumenical Women 2000 Plus, which describes itself as a feminist progressive religious NGO whose purpose at the UN is to prevent "right-wing groups from holding a monopoly on religious interpretation."

Ms. Butler stated that because of her organization:

The Religious Right cannot bill the global women's movement as 'ungodly' and anti-religious when a significant number of religious organizations and individuals are a part of the movement.

Ms. Butler also noted in her paper that conservatives have, for many years, criticized UN policies from the outside, but that pro-family NGOs' new strategy of influencing the UN from within by obtaining accreditation and lobbying governments, demonstrates a dramatic shift.

In her paper, Ms. Butler was obviously not pleased that pro-family groups used "prayer warfare" targeted at specific caucuses, used cell phones to rally troops to take over meetings, and distributed leaflets and a "well-financed" newsletter.

Canadian Feminist Analysis

The Canadian analysis was prepared by Anick Druelle from the University of Quebec in Montreal under the supervision of Marie-Andrée Roy, Denise Couture and Anita Caron. It forms part of a larger research project to analyze governments and groups "that claim religion as their authority when they address the rights of women at the United Nations."

The National Post in an editorial dated June 10, 2000, described this report as:

… a blacklist, laden with innuendo, intolerance and factual errors, a tacit confession of intellectual bankruptcy.

Because this was a Canadian research paper, it was carried out the Canadian way - by obtaining a government grant! The National Research Council of Canada, Women and Change, Social Sciences Division, gave these intrepid feminist researchers $98,000 to carry out their research on pro-family groups at the UN. Their "research," however, consisted mainly of looking at websites and public documents filed at the UN, as well as reviewing material prepared by sister feminists.

They should have let us know they were conducting their "research" on REAL Women as we would have happily supplied them with the required information on our organization, free of charge, to at least somewhat lessen the financial burden on the Canadian taxpayer!

By the way, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, in July, also gave a $50,000 grant to a University of BC professor to fund a three-year project to study erotic dancers in Vancouver, the purpose of which is to interview erotic dancers to get a better understanding of what is "a little understood, much maligned business." Mr. Garth Williams, a National Research Council spokesman, is reported in the National Post (June 12, 2000) as stating, presumably with a straight face, that: "only the best projects are funded."

In her paper, Ms. Druelle relates at p. 10 how pro-family groups at the UN PrepCom on Beijing +5 operated last March: [They]

… targeted the work of particular caucuses, intimidated selected delegates, spread false information in their information leaflets, lobbied national governments (about a dozen countries have been specifically targeted, with the objective of seeing their governments adopt anti-feminist discourse).

These allegations are a grave misrepresentation of what actually occurred. Pro-family NGOs worked within the UN system. We raised questions at the caucus meetings, (which, incidentally, were supposedly open to everyone), we debated at these meetings and voted fairly. Our leaflets accurately analyzed the significance of specific paragraphs in the document. We discreetly discussed the issues with the pro-family delegations. They were categorically not "targeted" by us but were infinitely grateful for our assistance.

The difficulty is that anyone objecting to the radical feminist agenda at the UN is regarded by them as causing a disturbance and "abusing" the system. This is both unfair and unreasonable. This is especially so when the feminist NGOs themselves have become specialists at underhanded behaviour at the UN. They shout down opponents, relocate and re-schedule meetings and resist every attempt for the pro-life/family NGOs to be heard there.

It is hypocrisy, therefore, for Ms. Druelle to state at p. 11 in her report that the presence of pro-family NGOs "prevented constructive discussion from taking place."

Ms. Druelle then suggests in her paper at p. 17, 18 and 19 the ways and means of "Responding to Right-wing Anti-feminist Groups at the UN." Her recommendations include encouraging feminist NGOs to:

… develop a better knowledge of the right-wing anti-feminist groups in order to demystify them and to be able to lodge specific complaints when acts of intimidation or violence are committed. A better understanding of the workings of these groups can counteract the fear they sometimes engender and encourage individuals who are being harassed to lodge a complaint with the relevant authority.

… It is important to inform the Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations and the UN Committee in charge of accreditation of the abuses perpetrated by particular groups. These bodies may then consider punishing the offending groups or even removing the right to participate in UN meetings from groups that do not respect democratic practice.

… Clarifying the rules of procedure for the caucuses and for NGO participation at the United Nations can only help to increase transparency and the experience of democracy on the international scene.

Again, the only "abuses" that allegedly occurred were in the feminist NGO's minds, rather than, in fact. The feminists apply only one standard to everything - that is, do as they say. In their actions, the pro-family organizations carefully followed the UN rules, and with the assistance of the pro-family delegations, won the day. That was our major "abuse" of the system to which the feminists are raising objections.

Unfortunately we are well aware that the "clarification" process referred to in Ms. Druelle's paper has already occurred at the UN when pro-family groups encountered serious road blocks to obtaining entry, in June, into the General Assembly of Beijing +5 (See "Pro-family Success at UN", page 5).

These two feminist papers indicate that the pro-family NGOs will be facing more and more obstacles at the UN. Feminists are totalitarians. Democracy is not their way.

Please write the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada objecting to their grant for such an absurd, discriminatory and worthless project.

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
P.O. Box 1610, Station B
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6G4

Tel: (613) 992-0691
Fax: (613) 992-1787

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS