BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

HOMOSEXUAL AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN AT GENEVA COMMISSION

Last April, Brazil introduced a resolution co-sponsored by Canada before the 53-member Commission on Human Rights in Geneva proposing to amend the UN Declaration of Human Rights to include protection on the grounds of sexual orientation. Because of strong opposition to this resolution, mainly from the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Vatican, the Commission postponed the vote until this year's meeting of the Commission. (See Reality, Sept./Oct. 2003, "Homosexuals Use the UN to Push their Agenda", p.20.)

During the past year, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), which described this resolution as an "historic opportunity to advance lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues into human rights law", worked feverishly to gain support for it. Delegates to the Commission received many communications in support of the proposal, but few opposing it. Also, the President of the Council of Europe, Peter Schieder, issued an open letter on its website calling for all European countries to back the homosexual activists' resolution. The European nations were quick to respond, especially Germany's Foreign Affairs Minister, Joschka Fischer. But to no avail. The opposition to the resolution remained resolute. At this April meeting of the Commission, Brazil backed out of the contentious resolution, citing a lack of consensus. Attempts were made by Canada and the European Union to encourage other countries to present the resolution, but these attempts also ended in failure. Brazil has warned, however, that it intends to present the resolution to the Commission again next year at the 2005 session.

Predictably, the homosexual lobby was incensed over this outcome, condemning the Muslim countries and the Catholic Church for their "nasty dogmas", describing them as an "unholy axis".

Canada was, of course, in complete support of the resolution. Canadian delegate, John von Kaufmann, wore a lapel sticker with the phrase "GLBT rights are human rights". (GLBT stands for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered.)

Abortion and Sexual Rights at Geneva Commission Hearing

No sooner had the resolution on sexual orientation died on the agenda at the Commission hearing, when another danger arose as a result of an attempt to insert reproductive and sexual rights (i.e. abortion) as a human right into the agenda. This unexpected inclusion of abortion sent the pro-family nations and NGOs (non-government organizations) scrambling to head off disaster.

The Paul Hunt Report

The main reason why abortion suddenly became an issue at the Commission was due to a report by an international legal scholar, Paul Hunt, who serves as the Commission's "Special Rapporteur" on physical and mental health. He is supposed to be an expert selected by the Commission to provide legal recommendations on the subject. Mr. Hunt stated in his report that sexual and reproductive health was an integral element of mental and physical health, and, therefore, nations had an obligation to provide abortion. He bluntly stated, "Women with unwanted pregnancies should be offered reliable information and compassionate counselling, including information on where and when a pregnancy may be terminated legally". Mr. Hunt also stated, "As has been noted, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is impermissible under international human rights law".

This latter statement annoyed the delegates because it was a deliberate misstatement. The Pakistani delegate demanded that Mr. Hunt cite one specific international human rights law that discussed sexual orientation. Mr. Hunt could not do so, since none exists. Representatives from the U.S., Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, were furious with Mr. Hunt and with Canada, Australia and the European Union, who were backing this report.

Fortunately, because of the diligent work of the pro-family NGOs and delegations, some of the more harmful statements in Mr. Hunt's report were watered down.

A draft resolution, however, was proposed by Brazil to "welcome" the Hunt's Report. After extensive lobbying, this was downgraded to state that Mr. Hunt's report "would be taken note of" which was a considerable improvement.

Even this was not acceptable to the US, however, which publicly withdrew support from the Hunt Report, and from the appointment of the special rapporteur altogether.

Resolution to Protect the Christian Faith

The good news at this conference Is that the delegation from the Holy See (The Vatican) was able to have added "Christianaphobia" to the resolution stating the growing concern for religious intolerance in regard to anti-semitism and Islamaphobia. A reference to Christianaphobia was also included in the resolution on the incompatibility of democracy and racism. This is the first time in UN history that a UN document specifically includes protection for the Christian faith (protection against Christianaphobia).

Bribery

Anyone who has any respect for the UN, however, would be disillusioned by the fact that at this meeting, two resolutions on human rights violations -- one in regard to China and the other in regard to Cuba, which resolutions highlighted religious oppression, were influenced by the "educational and humanitarian" funding given to other voting members of the Commission by Cuba and China. As the votes were called, one country after another spoke up for China and Cuba, describing them as benevolent and charitable, and moving steadily onward and upward in the realm of human rights protection. Nearly every country that spoke also personally thanked China and/or Cuba for their generous "educational funding" or "humanitarian aid."

The final decision on the resolution on China was to take "no action," but the resolution on Cuba was passed by one vote. The Cuban delegation was incensed.

Anti-Americanism

The hardest thing to accept was the Chinese and Cuban delegates' comments (on every single resolution presented) which were direct and undisguised attacks on the U.S. They called Americans liars and oppressors. They attacked President Bush personally. And while they spoke, there were calls of approval and agreement coming from all sides of the room.

Assault

In the hallway immediately after the vote on Cuba, an angry Cuban delegate bumped into an American NGO whom he called a terrorist. The NGO was the executive director of the Washington Centre for a Free Cuba. This Cuban-born American had spent sixteen years in a Cuban prison - nine of them in a sealed cell without clothes. An argument erupted, which ended with the Cuban delegate assaulting the American NGO and being arrested by security, an incident that made international news.

So, with hatred, intolerance, bribery, and assault, another session of the UN Commission on Human Rights Commission drew to a close.

Conclusion

We must be ever on our guard at the Geneva Human Rights Commission meetings. The situation there will not be helped by the appointment of former Supreme Court of Canada judge and ardent feminist, Louise Arbour, as head of the Commission. She is determined and willful. We must continue to keep the work of the Commission, as well as our own Canadian delegation, under careful scrutiny.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS