REAL Women of Canada is an NGO in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.
In this capacity, we have attended approximately 35 UN Meetings held around the world since 1994.
We have been deeply concerned that nothing appears to be changing with regard to the Canadian position at the UN since the Conservative government assumed power in January 2006.
It is significant that one of our colleagues approached the Canadian delegation after the Conservatives were first elected to power, and asked whether the new government would require a change in the way Canada negotiates at the UN. Members of the Canadian delegation responded by saying that nothing would change and they would not be receiving instructions from Ottawa, but would deliver instructions to Ottawa. From REAL Women’s observation at the UN, this appears to be the case, especially in regard to so-called “women’s” issues that are continuously injected into UN documents by Canada – always supporting the left-wing, feminist position.
For example, at a meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), immediately following the Conservative party’s election in 2006, when a call was made for gender quotas for electoral candidates, the Canadian delegation was quick to voice its support. At this year’s meeting of the CSW (March 2-13, 2009), the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, the Hon. Helena Geurgis, presented a general statement highlighting “universal childcare”, as well as enforced gender quotas by the government of Quebec.
The Canadian delegation at the CSW meetings works exclusively with ”like-minded countries,” that is, leftist governments. Further, the Canadian delegation does not appear to take a position on an issue without first hearing from the liberal EU delegation. In essence, Canada appears to be working to impress the feminists at the UN by supporting their issues, and by lobbying other nations to follow left-wing feminist policies.
An example of such advocacy recently occurred at the forty-second session of the Commission on Population and Development, held March 30 – April 3, 2009. Although Canada proposed some positive amendments to the document, it also proposed that “sexual and reproductive health”, which are UN code words for abortion, be included. Not even the EU would be this daring! The inclusion of these code words would remove the taboo on the word “abortion” in all future UN negotiations and then the term would tacitly be interpreted into all treaties and conventions. The UN would then be well on its way to making abortion a human right.
The fact that “sexual reproductive health” means abortion rights was confirmed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, when she testified before the US House Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 2009.
New UN Women’s Entity
Canada is a strong supporter of the proposed new woman’s composite entity now being promoted at the UN, which, by the way, is also being advocated strongly by Stephen Lewis. In fact, Canada is referred to as one of its strongest supporters. Those in support of this campaign are the same individuals and NGOs who have lobbied hard for the decriminalization of prostitution, gender quotas, universal child care, and the elevation of abortion rights and sexual rights to the status of human rights. (See Reality, November/December, 2008, “The Gear Up Campaign — The UN’s Radical New Entity For Women Only,” page 3.)
When REAL Women raised concerns about the new women’s entity at the UN, we were given the simplistic explanation that it will only serve to “unify” the several women’s agencies at the UN. This is far from the reality of the situation. The new entity would be both normative and operational, giving it power to create policy and control its implementation at the grassroots level, with national compliance.
The purpose of this new entity is to circumvent the impasse faced by feminist NGOs and bureaucrats at the UN by those member states that refuse to accept the feminist agenda because much of feminist ideology is in direct conflict with the religious and cultural rights of sovereign nations, and their existing national laws.
The proposed composite entity will report to the General Assembly, but it will only be accountable to its own Under Secretary General. Women’s rights experts would be assigned to each UN country team (UNCT) and create a global presence in 150 countries. The entity would have an independent budget and the authority to direct the other team members with regard to “gender” issues and hold UN agencies and member status accountable to implement them. The power of this feminist entity would flow, unbroken, from policy makers at the top, right down to policy implementers at the grassroots level. Given the history of feminists at the UN, this means a clearer path to the adoption of their ideals, bypassing the difficult negotiation process of the General Assembly (GA) or the commissions. This composite feminist agency, as thus proposed, will be stronger and more autonomous than any other UN body.
In short, this feminist entity would be in a position to create policy, by contributing to the development of international customary law, which would undermine the sovereignty rights of nations, as the latter would be subject to international customary law established by this new UN women’s entity.
It should be remembered that the feminist bureaucrats and NGOs at the UN represent a special interest group, not “civil society” as they claim. Should they succeed, the vast majority of individuals, who are not feminist supporters, will be unrepresented or at the very least misrepresented at the UN.
While it is good and necessary that reform take place at the UN, this should not occur without serious consideration. There is, however, now a sense of urgency and a great deal of pressure to rush member states into an agreement with the women’s entity campaign before too many questions can be asked. Canada should insist that all reforms of the UN be implemented via due process: and this is not happening.
REAL Women, therefore, is deeply concerned about the Canadian delegation at the UN – particularly as it relates to the issue of equality of women and the women’s entity campaign. It is a truism to state that all women support equality – but there are different ways of approaching equality. It would appear that the Canadian delegation is unwavering in its support of the special interest feminist approach to issues, while ignoring the views of the majority of Canadians, especially women.
This raises the question of just who is responsible for determining the policies of the Canadian delegation at the UN? Is it the Conservative government or the Status of Women agency? It is our observation that the government has had little, if any, input in the development of Canada’s position at the UN.
Please write to the following requesting that the Canadian delegation represent the Canadian taxpayers, Not the Status of Women.
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street(
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900
The Honourable Lawrence Cannon
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
125 Sussex Drive(
Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0G2
Fax: 613-992-6802
Your MP
House of Commons
K1A 0A6 |
