|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Moulding Of Values At Un Conferences
The UN AIDS Conference held in New York at the end
of June was well covered in the media worldwide. However, one shocking
development at this conference was not given any publicity at all
- perhaps deliberately so - in order to protect its viability for
future use.
What Happened at the AIDS Conference
On the last day of the UN Special Session on HIV/AIDS,
a Declaration on HIV/AIDS included so-called "International
Guidelines" on AIDS, drafted by the controversial Geneva-based
UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Mary Robinson (formerly President
of Ireland), and UN AIDS. The European Union (EU) and Canada ruthlessly
tried to impose these guidelines on the conference.
The guidelines were, to say the least, controversial,
in that they included provisions that would normalize homosexuality,
mandate same-sex marriages, require explicit sexual training of
children, which would exclude the application of pornography
laws in regard to children's sex education material, remove the
age of consent for sexual activity and impose penalties on anyone
(including religious leaders) who "vilify" homosexuality.
All of this was promoted in the name of human rights and with the
full support of the Canadian delegation and the EU.
Fortunately, the 60-nation bloc, which made up
the Organization of Islamic Conference, prevented these disturbing
guidelines from being included in the Declaration. The Muslim nations
described the guidelines as "offensive to religious and cultural
sensitivities." Consequently, despite alarming pressure from
the Canadian delegation, the guidelines were removed from the Declaration.
However, even without the consent of the UN General
Assembly, these guidelines may still be implemented and the world
committed to a startlingly new set of moral values, due to both
the deviousness of the drafters and the able assistance of the UN
bureaucracy.
These guidelines incredibly claim that the provisions
are a "recognized aspect of international human rights law"
and are "consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms."
The guidelines further claim that they are consistent with "traditional
and customary laws." This claim is false. Some of the specific
provisions of the guidelines:
Paragraph 28 (a)
Public health legislation should provide sexual
and health services for men and women, including reproductive health
services (the UN code words for abortion and condoms) ? the latter
specifically be made available, free, at the workplace ? drug treatment
services and clean injection needles. The guidelines assert that
the distribution of free condoms and free needles for drug users
are now issues beyond social debate and that all nations must proceed
with adapting their laws in this regard. [The drafters of the guidelines
have obviously chosen to ignore the UN Anti-drug Treaties and Declarations
which reject both the use and encouragement of the use of illicit
drugs.]
Paragraph 29(b)
States should reform criminal laws prohibiting
sexual acts including adultery, sodomy, fornication and commercial
sexual encounters [prostitution] between consenting adults.
Paragraph 30(h)
Anti-discrimination laws should be enacted to reduce
violations against men having sex with men.
This should include penalties for vilification
of people who engaged in same-sex relationships and legal recognition
of same-sex marriage.
Accordingly, it is not enough to simply normalize
- in one fell swoop - all forms of homosexual behaviour, but to
penalize anyone (including religious leaders) who have the temerity
to object. This is a clear assault on religious freedom.
Paragraphs 95 and 116
Paragraph 95 provides that children have the right
and freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of
all kinds, relating especially to HIV/AIDS.
Paragraph 116 provides that "educational"
material will necessarily involve detailed information about HIV,
injecting drug use and sexual activity, including that between same
sex partners, which should not be subject to censorship or obscenity
laws. Fears that such material might be harmful to children are
simply dismissed in paragraph 114, where it is blithely asserted
that "the provision of education and information to children
should not be considered as promoting early sexual experimentation."
Paragraph 101 and 102:
All anti-sodomy laws that prohibit same-sex relationships
violate international human rights norms.
Guidelines May be Implemented
The above guidelines are totally extreme and, of
course, unacceptable to the majority of delegates at the UN AIDS
Conference. Any reasonable person, therefore, would assume that
these guidelines would remain on the shelf gathering dust. Not so.
The framers and promoters have ensured a long life
for the guidelines by including in them self-enforcing provisions,
such as:
- At paragraph 21 (d), the guidelines emphasize
the need for "sensitization of the judicial branch of the government."
To be certain that the judges and other government branches do
their duty, the guidelines propose, at paragraph 30 (a), that
litigants bring cases anonymously and be provided with free legal
assistance through 'legal aid systems specializing in HIV/AIDS
cases' (Guideline 22, paragraph 33), to ensure the guidelines
are enforced domestically.
- The guidelines emphasize that they represent
"international human rights norms" which must be integrated into
all the policies of UN agencies, including the World Health Organization
(WHO), the United Nations International Children's Fund (UNICEF),
the United Nations Family Planning Agency (UNFPA), the UN Development
and Planning Agency (UNDP), the UN Economic and Social Development
Council (UNESCO) and the World Bank. Guideline 30 (paragraph 46
(c))
That is, should nations be bold enough to turn a
blind eye to these guidelines (for which there has never been any
consent) these nations may subsequently find their funding and services
from UN agencies and the World Bank coming to a halt and only restored
if these so-called "fundamental human rights" are implemented
in their countries.
Guidelines Are a Warning
These guidelines serve as an urgent warning that
nations such as Canada, and those in the European Union, insist
on a wholesale fundamental change to the world's sexual mores. What
is at stake here is the moral, sexual and religious rights of the
entire world. These are high stakes indeed. No one can ever
claim that the UN does not affect them personally, or their country.
Indeed, the UN does and will affect them in a fundamental way.
Canadian Governments Endorsement of Guidelines
It is very difficult to control one's anger at
the arrogance of the Canadian delegation (mostly consisting of Canadian
AIDS activists and bureaucrats endorsing these guidelines) along
with the European Union who tried to ram the guidelines down the
throats of objecting nations.
One does not have to be cynical to speculate that
the government is pushing these policies at the UN hoping they will
be accepted. If so, then Canada will ratify the document and once
ratified, the government can claim that it is required to implement
them "in accordance with our international obligations."
Few of the provisions in these guidelines, however,
currently reflect Canadian law. For example, it is curious that
the provision in the guidelines mandating same sex marriage is the
very issue that the Attorney General of Canada is arguing against
in the provincial courts of BC, Ontario and Quebec. Clearly, there
is a discrepancy between the federal government's policies and those
policies presented on behalf of Canada at the UN Conference.
Who do the Canadian delegates think they represent,
other than themselves? In fact, the Canadian delegations over the
years that REAL Women has been attending UN Conferences have prided
themselves on taking the leading role in proposing unacceptable
(to most Canadians), extreme, anti-family policies. Definitely,
our delegates do not represent the majority of decent, hard-working,
tax-paying Canadians. The Canadian delegations MUST
be made accountable for their actions, not just at the UN AIDS Conference,
but at all other UN Conferences as well.
Our foreign affairs policies are never brought
before the House of Commons for debate, but are simply formulated
by delegates consisting of bureaucrats from the Departments of Justice
and Foreign Affairs, as well as representatives of special interest
groups. This must STOP!
Please write to the following DEMANDING that Canadian
policies at the UN reflect the Canadian public and Canadian laws,
not the personal views of activists and the bureaucrats in the Departments
of Justice and Foreign Affairs. Also, please refer to the highly
objectionable guidelines which Canada endorsed and tried to force
on other nations at the UN AIDS Conference.
Please write to:
The Hon. John Manley
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Lester B. Pearson Bldg., Tower A
10th Floor, 125 Sussex Drive
Ottawa ON K1A 0G2
Tel. (613) 995-1851
Fax: (613) 996-3443
Your MP
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
