BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

This year at the annual UN Commission on the Status of Women, it was decided by country representatives that Financing for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women should be the theme of their discussions. At the best of times it is difficult to negotiate social issues with nearly 200 vastly different countries. But when the allocation of resources, particularly government resources, comes under scrutiny, countries are very cautious about to what they might be committing themselves.

The idea was to use the two weeks allotted to the commission, to draft a set of 'agreed conclusions' or paragraphs that would specify ways in which governments and civil society ought to finance the empowerment of women. The final set of 'agreed conclusions' grew to a lengthy 62 paragraphs, each one meticulously negotiated by the delegates.

As pro-life/pro-family lobbyists, we were concerned that this document would be used to promote the increasingly popular idea that there are new human rights to be accepted and enforced; the right to abortion and the right to sex. As anticipated, a reference to 'sexual and reproductive health services and rights' was proposed by Norway early in the negotiations. While this language may not sound particularly harmful, it invites the UN to determine, on behalf of the world, what these 'rights' encompass and to then apply pressure on all nations to conform.

The idea of creating a 'right' to abortion is most ardently supported by the European Union (EU), New Zealand, and Canada. These delegations are also determined to promote the idea of sex as a human right, which would be an assault on all legal and cultural barriers to legalized prostitution, gay marriage and adoption, pornography, lower ages of consent, graphic sexuality education, etc. Of course, most members of the United Nations are opposed to these new 'rights', but they are up against a formidable alliance, and are often intimidated, bribed, or lulled into silence.

One of the tasks of REAL Women's six representatives at this UN meeting was to give morally conservative nations the ammunition they need to fight against this anti-woman agenda. Our team of volunteers representing REAL Women at this meeting set to work providing the delegates with flyers that proved the harmful effects of abortion on women, and highlighted the growing problems of sex selective abortion and the legal sexual exploitation of women. In fact, we were so successful in getting our information into the hands of delegates we were confronted by UN security who demanded we cease distributing our papers. We requested to be shown any paragraph in the UN rule book that gave security the right to censor our flyers. Security then sheepishly allowed us to continue with our work. 

Our position was welcomed by many delegations, some of whom were courageous enough to object openly to the proposed new 'rights' in the negotiations. The EU was effectively crippled in the debate as Ireland, Poland and Malta broke away from the union, unable to agree with their pro-abortion colleagues, and opposed the insertion of language that promotes abortion and sexual rights. With the EU members unable to agree amongst themselves, pro-life countries were able to take advantage of this moment of weakness and strike the dangerous wording from the document. The US also delivered a statement, on the record, that it was their understanding that no new human rights had been created. Nations were, as we had hoped, wary of demanding government funds in support of ideas they might otherwise have overlooked, had money not been involved.

Although we were victorious in holding back the anti-life agenda, it is interesting to review the final 'agreed conclusions' and study what does remain.  For a document that is meant to empower women, there is very little substance. For example, among the 62 paragraphs, education is mentioned only once. There was very little said about primary health care, and no reference at all to infrastructure, agriculture, job training, clean water, or any of the many other issues that affect a woman's ability to succeed (or survive).

The bulk of the document contains repeated demands for increased women's participation in decision making at all levels, from government to the marketplace. As important as that may be to some, it does not help women living under oppressive governments, women that are sick or illiterate, women living in impoverished nations where there are no social services, or women who rely on their husbands for support. This was merely a UN sponsored reaffirmation of the rights that women of the wealthy, western world already enjoy and does little to benefit anyone else.

For decades, the UN has been driven by nations who have found women's rights a convenient and effective vehicle for pushing a radical, leftist, population control agenda. Even the most benevolent countries are guilty of sacrificing the poor and oppressed for an abstract political idea; distracting them with grand words and phrases while sneaking abortion and sexual rights through the back door.

Canada’s UN Track Record

To illustrate the point, let's take a look at Canada's recent track record. As far as I have seen, Canada is the only conservative led country that works exclusively with leftist/socialist nations. The Canadian delegation has not supported ANY language to combat the sexual exploitation of women through pornography or trafficking. They talk more about sex education than primary education and are always opposed to the insertion of 'basic' or 'primary health care', preferring to focus on 'reproductive health care services', including abortion. They have supported undemocratic ideas such as enforcing gender quotas for candidates in a free election. And this has ALL continued under the 'direction' of the conservative government.

I challenged foreign affairs over their support of anti-democratic ideas and programs and was told by Peter MacKay, Minister of Foreign Affairs, that he does not believe that all of the language supported or proposed by the Canadian delegation necessarily affects Canada, but is meant to benefit others. Unfortunately, he did not explain why the government would support social policy internationally that they claim to oppose at home, or how abortion, prostitution, gender quotas or homosexual rights will benefit poor, uneducated women throughout the world. I think it is becoming quite obvious that the UN is not concerned with empowering poor and uneducated women at all, but only with preventing more of them from being born. It is not obvious however, why Canada still insists on playing along, especially under a supposedly conservative government.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS