Ban in Vogue
Posted on | May 17, 2012 by Wendy Wright
Ban Ki-Moon made the cover of a fashion magazine. In an issue dedicated to “Rebranding Africa,” the Italian edition of Vogue magazine profiles the UN Secretary General in an interview conducted by the editor that could be mistaken for a high-school journalism paper.
Pundits speculate that Vogue focused on Africa in a scramble to quell criticism from a previous editorial that some considered racist. Haute Mess portrayed garishly adorned white women in fashions associated with black women.
It’s a mystery why Vogue did not interview an African. Ban Ki-Moon is South Korean. Instead, it implies that Africans should look to the UN for “rebranding.”
In any case, the article avoids fashion and earnestly tries to be serious by giving softball questions for the Secretary General.
As the editor gushed, “I’ve been waiting for this meeting for quite some time, and I’ve prepared myself as if it were an exam. I’ve read everything possible and I also got some information from the Internet and books.”
Ban Ki-Moon says his top priority is sustainable development. The upcoming Rio+20 Summit is the opportunity to “provide humanity with solutions for the people and the planet.”
Well, that covers everything and everyone.
What are the solutions to the world’s problems? Ban explains, “We must accelerate progress on the Millennium Development Goals, ensure energy access for all, provide food and nutrition security, reverse climate change, advance women’s empowerment.”
This hits all the right hot button issues. Unlike previous UN summits that focus on one particular issue, Rio+20 aspires to cover all.
Vogue didn’t ask the important question: How can the UN or Rio+20 provide solutions?
Special interest agencies and groups know how this works. They will be at Rio+20 in force. This one-stop-shop summit is a grand opportunity to get whatever they offer, their service or product, listed as a “solution” to a world problem – and to secure funding entitlements from governments.
UNFPA and Planned Parenthood are pressing delegates hard to make population control and family planning an integral part of Rio+20. Planned Parenthood argues that “fulfilling the unmet need” for their services and products will empower women, enhance human rights, increase food security and substantially slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. Their solution – unsurprisingly – covers most of Rio+20’s goals.
It won’t cost much, they say. Just $3.4 billion a year.
That’s quite a windfall. UNFPA’s budget is $292 million for 2012-2013. International Planned Parenthood Federation’s budget in 2011 was $124 million.
Ban Ki-Moon is promoting Rio+20 to bolster the UN’s image as the source of solutions for the world’s problems. Others see the summit as a grab bag of “rights” and entitlements.
It will take more than the investigative skills of a fashion magazine to explain the results.
European Court of Human Rights: a significant victory for the freedom of the Church
Posted on | May 17, 2012 by Grégor Puppinck, Ph.D
Strasbourg, 15 May 2012 – Yesterday, the European Court of Human Rights published a judgment in the important case of Fernandez-Martínez c. Espagne (application no 56030/07), in which it concluded by six votes to one that “the choice of the bishop not to renew the contract of a teacher who is a married priest and activist of the Pro-Optional Celibacy Movement comes under the principle of religious freedom, as protected by the Convention.”
The ECLJ intervened in this case as an intervening party (amicus curiae) and served as the legal representative of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference, which also intervened in the case. Grégor Puppinck, Director of the ECLJ, applauds this significant victory for the freedom of the Church. He rejoices that the Court strongly and clearly stated the principle of the freedom and autonomy of the Church. This judgment reflects the arguments the ECLJ made in its written observations of 20 October 2011.
The case concerned the refusal to renew the contract of a Catholic religion and morals teacher, who was a “married priest” and father of five children, after a published article made exposed his involvement in the “Pro-Optional Celibacy Movement.” InSpain, religion teachers in State schools are contractual employees of the State, but only after appointment and approval of the local Bishop. The Bishop may withdraw or refuse to renew the appointment or approval, which in turn binds the employer-State school.
This case questioned the freedom of the Church to withdraw its agreement from a Catholic religion teacher for religious reasons, while the material causes of the withdrawal (marriage and positions taken in the press) enjoy human rights protection, especially the right to respect for private and family life and the right to freedom of expression. As the Court says, the main question raised by this case was to “know whether the State was bound by its positive obligations under Article 8 to give priority to the applicant’s right to respect for private life upon the right of the Catholic Church to refuse to renew his contract” (§ 79).
This question is of crucial importance becauseit concerns a conflictof values between Catholicism and part of contemporary Western culture, as well as the organisation of relations between two societies, Church and State. Basically, the applicant wanted theEuropean Courtand “human rights” to arbitrate this conflict. With prudence and self-restraint, the Court recognised the incompetence of human rights to rule on the cogency of a strictly religious decision.
For the first time, following the reasoning of the ECLJ, the Court set the rule that “the requirements of the principles of religious freedom and neutrality prevent it from going further in the assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the decision not to renew” the contract because the circumstances that motivated this refusal to renew were of “a strictly religious nature.” The role of the Court must then “be limited to verifying that the fundamental principles of the domestic legal order or the dignity of the applicant have not been infringed” (§ 84).
Thus once it is established that the applicant did have access to a domestic court, the role of theEuropean Courtmust be limited to verifying:
- that the fundamental principles of the domestic legal order or the dignity of the applicant have not been infringed, and
- that the disputed decision has a strictly religious nature.
If these two conditions are met, then the Court is incompetent to rule on the necessity and the proportionality of the decision of the Church. The European Court’s practice of self-restraint should also apply to domestic courts because it stems directly from Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention (freedoms of religion and association). Thus, it results from this judgment that national judges cannot rule on such a decision of the Church without violating the principles of religious freedom and neutrality. Conversely, if the domestic courts conclude that “motives other than those of a strictly religious nature intervened in the decision” or if this decision questions the fundamental principles of the legal order or the dignity of the applicant, then they are competent to judge the disputed decision.
In the present case, the Court considered that the decision was of a strictly religious nature, although the applicant was employed by the State.
Moreover, the Court also underlined the “special confidence link” (§ 85) which must unite a Catholic religion teacher with the Catholic Church and judged that “the applicant was submitted to an increased obligation of loyalty” because of the special nature of his position and his personal situation (§§ 85 and 86). The Court concluded that, considering the breach of the applicant’s duty of loyalty, the religious authorities, in refusing to renew the agreement, “simply fulfilled their obligations in accordance with the principle of religious autonomy” (§ 85 in fine), because “when the confidence link is broken, as is the case here, the bishop must refrain to propose the applicant for the position in accordance with the code of canon law” (§ 85). Without judging the content of the Bishop’s decision, the Court observed that it resulted from the internal law of the Church. Thus, the duty of loyalty justifies the Bishop’s decision and is a second motive leading to a conclusion of non-violation of the applicant’s rights.
This very clear judgment synthesises and clarifies the recent case-law of the Court in this area.[1] It contradicts the contested judgement in the recent case of Sindicatul Pastorul cel bun v. Roumanie[2] in which the third Section recognised the right of priests to create unions against the will – and law – of their Church. It can be supposed and hoped for the coherence of the Court’s case-law, that it will be referred to the Grand Chamber, as requested by the Romanian Government.
Beyond the case itself, the Fernandez-Martinez judgment also questions the conformity with the Convention of several recent judgments of Spanish courts in favour of religion teachers whose way of life does not concur with the religion they teach and should testify through their lives.
More generally, and as a conclusion, one may rejoice that the Court clearly recognised its incompetence to rule on the cogency of a religious decision and chose instead to protect the freedom of the Church and fundamental rights. Human rights are more and more presented as arbiters in the conflicts between religion and culture. Many expect human rights to condemn the position ofChristianChurcheson issues such as respect for life and family, respect for conscience and moral law, marriage of priests, homosexuality, abortion, divorce etc.
This arbitration capacity is in fact very limited because human rights constitute a system of values that tends to identify and evolve with the dominant contemporary culture, so it seems imaginary and impossible for human rights to remain outside conflicts between culture and religion. This questions the capacity of human rights to exercise an arbitrary function beyond the cases where invariable and uncontested rights regarding the protection of life, dignity, and integrity of the person are at issue. One must therefore rejoice that the human rights system finds its own voluntary restraint in itself, in the respect for religious freedom, when confronted with the system of values of the Catholic religion.
This judgment constitutes an important step for the recognition of and respect for the freedom of the Church inEurope, within and facing the civil society. The ECLJ is happy to have contributed to this step, along with the Spanish Bishops’ Conference.
Related Documents
- ECHR, judgment Fernandez-Martínez v. Spain (Application no 56030/07), 15 May 2012.
- Written observations of the ECLJ submitted in Octobre 2011 for the hearing.
- Written observations of the ECLJ submitted in January 2010, Spanish translation
- Sintesis de las observaciones del ECLJ, 2012.
* * *
[1] Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no 39128/05, 20 October 2009; Obst v. Germany, no 425/03, 23 September 2010; Schüth v. Germany, no 1620/03, 23 September 2010; Siebenhaar v. Germany, no 18136/02, 3 February 2011. Pour la jurisprudence antérieure, voir en particulier Hassan and Chaouch v. Bulgaria [GC], no 30985/96, and the Commission decision of 6 September 1989, Rommelfanger v. Germany, no 12242/86.
Tags: religious freedom
House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing Reveals More Chinese Human Rights Abuses
Posted on | May 16, 2012 by Annalee Seath, J.D.
The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, led by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), conducted a hearing yesterday to discuss Chinese human rights abuses brought into the international spotlight by activist Chen Guangcheng. Committee members and testifying activists spoke with Chen for the second time in recent weeks via telephone through translator and friend, Pastor Bob Fu.
This time, Chen expressed fear for the safety of his extended family. Chen reported that on the night of April 26, unidentified government officials broke into and raided his family’s house, beating his brother and nephew in retaliation for Chen’s escape from house arrest.
“My elder brother was taken away by these thugs without any reasoning, and then they came back and started beating up my nephew…[T]hey used stakes and violently beat him up,” Chen explained from his hospital room in Beijing.
Chen’s nephew, Chen Kegui, was arrested after the raid and accused of intent to murder after using a kitchen knife against his attackers, charges the Chen calls “trumped up.”
“For three hours, the bleeding on his head and face did not stop. It was so violent he had to defend himself.”
Pastor Fu, founder and president of ChinaAid Association, testified that Chinese authorities have threatened to revoke law licenses and kidnap lawyers attempting to represent Mr. Kegui, making it extremely difficult for him to secure legal representation.
After enduring 18 months of house arrest, Chen, who is blind, escaped to the U.S. Embassy seeking sanctuary. He remained at the Embassy for six days before being admitted to the hospital. The family is currently waiting for Chinese officials to issue them passports so they can travel to the U.S. where Chen will study at New York University.
Chen Guangcheng has long served as a vocal dissident against the tactics of China’s Family Planning Commission, protesting widespread forced sterilizations and abortions used to enforce its notorious One Child Policy. However, some testifying activists believe that the U.S. finds Chen’s situation more of an economic inconvenience that a human rights crisis.
Ms. Chai Ling, former Tiananmen Square organizer and founder of All Girls Allowed, testified to the Foreign Affairs Committee, criticizing U.S. hesitance to take a strong stance against China for fear of trade repercussions.
“Seeking genuine protections for Chen and his family should hardly have ‘blown up the relationship.’ But more to the point, it grieves me to hear Chen dismissively referred to as ‘a single guy,’” referring to a New York Times article explaining the tepid U.S. response to Chen’s plight.
“He is one man; it is true,” Ms. Ling explained, “But he is a symbol—a hero—in the eyes of women, children, and the poor in China.
One such woman is Ms. Mei Shunping. Testifying through a translator to the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Shunping told her heart-wrenching story as a worker at a state-owned textile factory and as a victim of China’s Family Planning Commission.
“My factory’s Family Planning Commission used three levels of control: at the factory level, in the factory clinic and on the factory floor. If one worker violated the rules, all would be punished. Workers monitored each other.”
Because of kidney disease, Chinese officials initially allowed Ms. Shunping to forego the standard IUD procedure after the birth of her first child. Instead, she became “the prime target for surveillance” by Family Planning Commission.
From 1983 to 1990, Ms. Shunping endured five forced abortions.
“We had no dignity as potential child-bearers. By order of the factory’s Family Planning Commission, every month during their menstrual period, women had to undress in front of the birth planning doctor for examination.
“If anyone skipped the examination, she would be forced to take a pregnancy test at the hospital. We were allowed to collect a salary only after it was confirmed that we were not pregnant.”
After her fifth forced abortion, Chinese officials implanted an IUD without Ms. Shunping’s consent, causing complications because of her kidney disease. They then imprisoned her husband for 15 days and fined her six-months’ wages for violating the One Child Policy.
Ms. Shunping escaped with her family to the U.S. in 1999 where she and her husband converted to Christianity, but she emphasized that she is “only one” of the “many women whose lives were destroyed by the policy.”
Chen Guangcheng intends to do something about these many women. He stressed that the Family Planning Commission’s actions violate China’s own laws and that they need to be held accountable for their human rights abuses.
“I’m not a hero. I just do what my conscience asks me to do. I cannot stay silent when facing this evil against women and children.”
New Zealand introduces an intrusive birth control plan for women receiving welfare payments
Posted on | May 16, 2012 by Lucia Muchova
The New Zealand government is planning to offer free long-term contraception such as implants and IUDs to women who receive welfare payments and their daughters, the BBC reported last week.
The plans have aroused opposition from those who consider this to be an intrusive step into private family life; and some have accused the government of population control. Indeed, the message sent seems to be the government does not want women on benefits to have children.
The government argues back that the country’s teenage birth rates are among the highest in the developed world (about 30 births per 1,000 women). Yet they are not higher than those in Britain or the US, the BBC reports.
Certainly, reduction of teenage pregnancies is a worthy goal. Young mothers are more likely to find themselves in tough economic circumstances and the school drop out for them is high. But is free provision of contraception to 16 year olds really the best option?
Studies into the relationship between contraception and unwanted pregnancies (for example this study into contraception use in Spain) show that mass provision of contraception is associated with increased number of unwanted pregnancies: quite the opposite of the desired goal. Flooding the market with free contraceptives is tantamount to putting a seal of approval on a carefree approach to sex.
A policy that aims to reduce the amount of welfare benefits by reducing the number of beneficiaries is short-sighted. Free contraception is not a solution to poverty. It fails to address deeper social issues that perpetuate inequality. It sends a harmful message that irresponsible sexual behavior is acceptable. It also allows the State to adopt a wrongful ethical position that supposedly justifies its interference with the private life of a family.
Read more here.
UN’s “Earth Summit” setting itself up for Failure
Posted on | May 16, 2012 by Timothy Herrmann
The UN announced last month that at least 130 Heads of State, Vice Presidents, Heads of Government, and deputy Prime Ministers would be attending its upcoming conference on sustainable development, a misleading claim that no one has been able to verify, not even the UN itself.
The only verifiable truth behind their claim is that 130 countries have signed up for speaking slots at the conference. Even so, this does not mean that those speaking hail from an important position within their government. Instead, they will probably be career diplomats sent by their capitals to warm conference seats and to provide their governments with post-conference alibi in case it should ever become important to prove they at least had someone in attendance.
In fact, all evidence points in the opposite direction. More than likely, the conference will be poorly attended by country presidents, prime ministers and head diplomats and will lack the political support necessary to give the conference any credibility. Try as the UN might, the final outcome of the conference is shaping up to look a lot like the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, a total failure.
The Rio +20 conference, also known as the Earth Summit, is being hailed as one of the largest UN conferences to date, but with only 6 weeks remaining before the conference begins, only 31 heads of state have actually confirmed their attendance according to Earth Summit Watch, an NGO that has been following the process very closely.
To date, Germany’s Angela Merkel and the UK’s David Cameron have announced that they will not attend the conference and the EU delegation that initially planned on attending recently rescinded their confirmation. The United States has yet to respond to the open invitation and will most likely determine whether or not to send President Barack Obama to the conference when they are convinced that it is worth attending at all. For now, it is clear that few countries consider the conference important enough to confirm their attendance in advance.
If you are interested in seeing whether or not your country will be attending, you can take a look at the Earth Summit Watch website and read through the ‘Country Profiles” section here.
For more information about conference attendance see the following articles:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jake-schmidt/the-world-is-watching-wil_b_1504642.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/united-nations-rio20_n_1509908.html
Scandal and the human rights system
Posted on | May 14, 2012 by Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
Julian Ku over at Opinio Juris posted today on the intertwined relationship between UN human rights bodies and activist US law professors. He picks up on Walter Olson’s piece in the Daily Caller. The cases focus on the abuse of monitoring bodies and special rapporteur positions to promote special rights in the case of indigenous peoples. This is the same relationship Doug Sylva and I investigated in Rights by Stealth. Ku’s comments bear repeating:
I think Olson is on to something here. First, he is undoubtedly right that various UN human rights bodies have become a court of last resort for advocates who have failed in domestic U.S. proceedings. (See, e.g., the NAACP’s failed effort to block voter ID laws). Second, he is also right that U.S. law professors, and indeed other law professors, often have a deeply intertwined relationship with UN Bodies, like the UN Human Rights Commission, that appoint them to various positions. I’m not sure there is anything nefarious about this, but I think he is right that the standards for recognizing particular legal claims are different, and much more generous, in an international forum than in a domestic one. And that the aura of international objectivity that some might accord to a UN probe is largely undeserved.
In other words (and as I have argued elsewhere) the UN is the place activists go when they can’t pass their agenda in domestic venues. Hence, the stealth. But the question Ku raises of whether there is anything “nefarious” may be beside the point. Even if the means are well-intentioned, the result is to undermine the very system of rights these professors purport to promote.
The stealth approach undermines the democratic process, advantages some groups over others that might be just as deserving but are weaker and therefore in need of protection, and, as in the case of abortion, promotes harmful social practices.
That is not to say that much good cannot come from the UN human rights system. At its best it can indeed promote redress and sometimes remedy for wrongs done the weak and disadvantaged which governments would not otherwise accord. But at its worst, the effect of the intertwined relationship which surreptitiously advantages some (and by definition disadvantages others) is what used to be called scandal, that is, something that destroys faith. This because it can erode trust in institutions, in the people behind the institutions, and most importantly in the inherent goodness that conveys human rights in the first place. One can at least be grateful for whatever good continues to emerge from such a system left unreformed. Yet, this gratitude is all the more reason to seek reform.
Catholic Bishops Question Girl Scouts Programs
Posted on | May 11, 2012 by Wendy Wright
The Girl Scouts have been criticized for years for its leadership pulling the wholesome organization into the trendy world of sexual and gender activism.
The piecemeal flare-ups accumulated until, in 2010, revelation of one incident at the UN (in this Friday Fax, and this one) exposed the whole stinking mess.
Now the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is inquiring into what exactly is being promoted in Girl Scouts programs. This may determine if troops can continue meeting in Catholic churches.
Apologists for the Girl Scouts are re-hashing arguments to move along, there’s nothing to see here. Austin Ruse’s response in the first-go-round suffices.
The firestorm began when Sharon Slater of Family Watch International came upon a particularly shocking Planned Parenthood brochure at a Girl Scout workshop held at the UN. The Friday Fax reported on it.
It likely would have ended there if the Girl Scouts were as clean as their image. But their duplicity is catching up with them.
One of their alibis is particularly perplexing. The Girl Scouts deny any partnership with Planned Parenthood. Yet in a 2004 nationally televised interview on the Today Show, Girl Scouts CEO Kathy Cloninger said, “we partner with many organizations. We have relationships with our church communities, with YWCAs, and with Planned Parenthood organizations around the country, to bring information-based sex education programs to girls.”
Churches and YWCAs provide meeting places. Presumably, troops are not regularly meeting in Planned Parenthoods. So the Girls Scouts’ partnership with Planned Parenthood must be sharing information and co-sponsoring events.
Like Nobody’s Fool. This is what triggered the Today Show interview. A Girl Scout Council in Waco, Texas, co-sponsored Planned Parenthood’s summer sex ed program that promoted abortion, homosexuality and other objectionable acts. This Girl Scout Council also honored the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood of Central Texas as a “Woman of Distinction.”
Here’s a helpful timeline of Girl Scouts dubious associations starting in 1967.
Younger Women Rejecting Abortion Advocacy: NARAL Leader to Step Down
Posted on | May 11, 2012 by Lisa Correnti
NARAL president Nancy Keenan has announced that she will be stepping down at the end of the year to allow the oldest pro-abortion rights group the ability to bring in younger leadership. Keenan mistakenly believes this is the answer to recruit and engage a younger membership that places a priority on abortion rights as a voting issue.
A 2010 poll conducted by NARAL confirmed the growing concern among ageing abortion rights feminists like Keenan that younger women dismiss abortion rights as a primary issue. The poll showed that while 51% of pro-life women under 30 considered abortion the single most important voting issue only 25% of pro-choice women thought it equally as important.
During Keenan’s tenure as president the country has been trending more pro-life. In 2011 states passed 92 restrictions on abortion and the 2010 midterm election saw a landslide of pro-life candidates elected at both the state and federal level.
The pro-life movement is young, growing and motivated. Hundreds of thousands of young people come to Washington, DC every year for the March for Life in solidarity. They recognize abortion is morally wrong and they reject it as a “choice.”
Keenan is right, it’s time the “post-menopausal” militia move on.
UK Government Funds Forced Sterilizations in India
Posted on | May 11, 2012 by Wendy Wright
The British government gave $268 million to the government of India for a program that forcibly sterilizes poor women and men, according to the Guardian newspaper. This news comes as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation prepares to co-host a family planning summit with the British government in London this July.
Melinda Gates recently dismissed the link between contraception programs and population control in a speech launching her new initiative. Titled “No Controversy,” her campaign intends to “change the global conversation around family planning” by discounting its association with abortion, coercion and immorality, and focusing on universal access.
Opinion: Sexual Left Gains, Developing Countries Lose at UN Population Meeting
Posted on | May 11, 2012 by Wendy Wright
Our colleague Piero Tozzi writes in this week’s Friday Fax on a recent contentious meeting at the UN:
My colleagues at the Friday Fax reported last week that the “Latex Left” lost at the just ended UN Commission on the Population and Development, that they came away “empty handed.” With respect, I disagree with this assessment.
International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and its allies scored a victory. What they got was a (non-binding) declaration setting funding priorities that calls for “comprehensive” sexual education for youth and adolescents, marginalized parental involvement, and increased funding for “reproductive health-care services, commodities and supplies.”
The latter is a global industry projected to top $17 billion by 2015. Funding from the UN and donor nations translates to money not going to meet more pressing needs of the developing world, such as malaria elimination, infrastructure development and access to clean water – all concerns acknowledged in passing at CPD, while disproportionately focusing on sexual themes favored by the developed world.
The religious shall inherit… the white house?
Posted on | May 9, 2012 by Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
Eric Kauffmann thinks the religious and the conservative will inherit the earth–eventually–due to their higher fertility. In this essay at The American he says they may well win the election this Novemember, too.
The GOP has a lead over the Democrats among white women and among younger women at all levels of income and education. If the childbearing gap among women aged 20-40 continues to widen, this will certainly benefit the GOP. But even if Republican women enjoyed a 30 percent fertility advantage for a century, this would only halve the gains accruing to the Democrats from immigration. Were immigration to be cut in half, however, the GOP would quickly begin to close in on the Democrats beyond 2040….
Many of us believe the ethos of society in a century will more closely resemble the ideas of Christopher Hitchens than those of Jerry Falwell. Yet we forget that most people get their religion the old-fashioned way: through birth. Demography is not destiny, but it is the most predictable of the social sciences. As the population of the world peaks and begins to decline later in this century, the strongly religious will stand against the tide. In so doing, they will remake societies and wash away many of our certainties about secularization, Enlightenment, and the End of History.
U.S. House Foreign Ops Bill Would Reinstate Mexico City Policy and Defund UNFPA
Posted on | May 8, 2012 by Lisa Correnti
The House Appropriations State and Foreign Operations subcommittee released its FY 2013 appropriations bill making serious cuts to international organizations that perform or promote abortion. President Obama rescinded the Mexico City policy shortly after taking office which allowed funds allocated for reproductive health to flow to groups like International Planned Parenthood and others. The Obama administration reinstated funding to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), also controversial due to its complicity in China’s one-child policy.
If passed the 2013 Foreign Ops bill would make considerable pro-life strides however given the current make-up of the Senate this does not seem likely.
Consider the following pro-life developments from the House version that cuts approximately $2 billion from the State department, USAID and other foreign operations. From the Hill:
Reinstates Mexico City Policy, a policy prohibiting U.S. assistance to foreign nongovernmental organizations that promote or perform abortions.
Prohibits funding for the UN Population Fund, and caps family planning and reproductive health programs at no more than the fiscal year 2008 level.
Maintains long-standing pro-life riders, including the “Tiahrt Amendment,” which ensures family planning programs are voluntary; the “Helms Amendment,” which bans foreign aid from being spent on abortions; and the “Kemp-Kasten Amendment,” which prohibits funds to organizations the President determines to support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
The House bill also attempts to reform the UN by withholding funding from the UN Human Rights Council unless the “Secretary of State certifies that it is in the national interest, and unless the Council stops its anti-Israel agenda.” The House draft withholds funding from UN organizations “headed by terrorist countries” and only partially funds other UN agencies until greater transparency of appropriated funding occurs.
A recent audit of UN agencies conducted at the request of the Norway government revealed UN agencies failure to disclose how millions of dollars were spent. The report showed UNFPA would not account for $200 million a year allocated to governments and non-governmental groups. It also showed that UNICEF’s accounting methods made “it difficult to track use of funds from headquarters down to the ultimate beneficiaries on the ground.”
G77 Pushes back at Rio +20: Negotiations Extended
Posted on | May 7, 2012 by Timothy Herrmann
Straight from the UN News Service last Friday, May 5th:
Representatives from governments negotiating the outcome document for the United Nations Sustainable Development Conference (Rio+20) today agreed to add five more days of deliberations to bridge differences that have kept them from making further progress in negotiations.
The extended negotiations will begin the 29th of May and last for five days, ending June the 2nd. Formal negotiations will pick up again in Rio on the 13th of June.
The document is now over 100 pages long and is “is a far cry from the ‘focused political document’ called for by the General Assembly,” according to Rio+20 Secretary-General Sha Zukang.
Controversy surrounds the current text and is getting in the way of producing a streamlined text that all countries will be able to agree upon at the final conference in Rio to be held in June. According to UN news:
Countries have voiced concern over accountability and implementation of the commitments made, as well as over the theme of the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty, with some developing countries asserting that a green economy approach should not lead to green protectionism or limit growth and poverty eradication.
During negotiations C-FAM has observed that the G77 group is the main force behind the push-back mentioned above. Many within the group are concerned that the “green economy” is merely a ploy by northern countries to jump start their own troubled economies through technology and service transfers that the south would require in order to participate in the “green economy”.
By forcing developing countries to sign on to the Rio +20 document and the green economy, many developing countries believe that they are signing up to spend money on technologies and reforms they can’t afford and that would serve to increase jobs in the north while ignoring the problem of poverty and job growth in their own countries.
For the G77 poverty eradication has proven more important than the green economy and they have fought consistently for language emphasizing poverty eradication in conjunction with sustainable development throughout negotiations. Implicit within the G77′s arguments during negotiations is their belief that job growth and development, which are essential for poverty eradication, are more important than the environmental polices that the UN is championing and that would place sustainable development as tantamount to economic growth.
The investment required for developing countries to make their economic development policies more “green” while still creating the growth they need to bring their countries out of poverty is impossible without northern investment. During negotiations, however, northern countries within the EU as well as countries like the US and Canada have been unwilling to make any commitments to such investments. This has led to the G77 refusing to commit to the green economy and chastising the north for trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Even though more than 120 Heads of State have registered to attend Rio+20 along with another 50,000 atendees according to some estimates, it is unlikely that fan fare alone will be enough to produce a document with enough political will for any serious implementation. The North-South divide over the proper course for development simply remains to wide.
Tags: development > G77 > Green Economy > Rio +20 > Sustainable Development
Non-Aligned Movement Meeting in Egpyt this Week to discuss UN Reform
Posted on | May 7, 2012 by Timothy Herrmann
The Ministerial Coordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is meeting in the Red Sea resort city of Sharm-el-Sheik, Egypt this week in preparation for the 16th annual NAM Summit Conference to be held in Tehran in November later this year.
The coordinating bureau has announced that it will discuss the following:
A review international law; promotion and preservation of multilateralism; follow-up to the Millennium Declaration and the outcomes of major United Nations (UN) summits and conferences; the reform of the UN; disarmament; as well as international security, will also top the agenda.
The Department of International Relations and Cooperation also released an official statement saying that the meeting in Egypt seeks to “revitalize and strengthen the NAM and to reinforce the position of the movement on priority issues of concern to developing countries”.
While NA
M began largely as a political organization during the 1960′s in response to Cold War tensions, it has since become more and more concerned with the economic progress and cooperation of its members which are made up largely of developing countries. The association currently maintains a membership of 120 members and has 17 observer states.
It seems very likely that the UN reforms that will be discussed concern the Treaty Body Reform process currently under way at the UN. In 2009 the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights initiated the reform process but it wasn’t until this year that state parties began to take a more dominant role. Many countries worry that the purpose of the OHCHR led reform is to further erode the sovereignty of states by strengthening the mandate of treaty bodies to go beyond the scope of their mandate in the way they interpret treaties. Currently, treaty bodies are only allowed to make recommendations on the way states comply with treaties, but their recommendations are not binding in any way. If treaty bodies are instead allowed to interpret treaties as they wish and see themselves as the final arbiters in the way states comply with treaties, the original meaning of a treaties may begin to change and might force states to comply with interpretations that they do not necessarily agree with.
Sources:
http://allafrica.com/stories/201205070272.html
http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2012/05/04/nation/officials-to-attend-nams-egypt-meet/234505.html
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/photo/2012-05/07/c_131573399_2.htm
Tags: G77 > NAM > Treaty Body Reform
The Human Rights Approach to Rio +20
Posted on | May 4, 2012 by Timothy Herrmann
Here is a link to a letter signed by UN special rapporteurs about the need for Rio to follow a rights based approach and include “strong accountability mechanisms”. The document is worrying for a two main reasons:
1. Special Rapporteurs should not be expressing their opinions on processes that fall outside of their competences. Not one of their mandates has anything to do with Rio.
2. They seem to see themselves as the backbone of “accountability” at the UN, and they are nothing of the sort. They are merely human rights observers, that submit reports concerning their observations.
The letter is part of a larger initiative headed by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights to encourage states to:
“to work to advance a human rights-based approach to the green economy, based on the principles of participation, accountability, non-discrimination, empowerment and the rule of law in green economy efforts, and to pursue a model of economic growth that is socially and environmentally sustainable, just and equitable, and respectful of all human rights”
UNFPA pushes for Population Control at Rio +20 Conference
Posted on | May 4, 2012 by Timothy Herrmann
Michael Herrmann, Economics Adviser with UNFPA
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is taking advantage of the upcoming Rio+20 conference in June to re-brand population control and market it as the backbone of sustainable development, particularly in the developing world.
In a recent interview with IPS titled “The Road to Rio Goes Through Cairo”, Michael Herrmann, an Economics Adviser to the UNFPA and their spokesman for the Rio +20 negotiations, stated, “for sustainable development, it quite simply matters how many people we are, where we live, how we live and what we want from life.”
Concerned about the strain the world’s growing population is putting on the environment and its natural resources, the UNFPA has started marketing its population control policies under new rhetoric, which includes the catch phrase “demography is not destiny”. This phrase established itself firmly in the UNFPA lexicon earlier this year when the UN agency convened a group of academics and international organizations to “explore the links between population and water, energy and food security” at the World Economic Forum (WEF).
Their conclusion?
Future demographic trends are not destiny. Whether the world population is more likely to grow to 11 billion or to 9 billion by mid-century depends on today’s policies: Investment in human capital, access to reproductive health and education will contribute to the empowerment of young women and will allow them to make informed choices about their families and future, and they will reduce fertility and population growth.
But the focus for the UNFPA is not on investment in human capital. Instead, its main focus is the latter part of the paragraph highlighted in bold which, according to Herrmann’s interview, includes “rights based policies which address population dynamics” and “requires universal access to sexual and reproductive health”.
In UN speak this means that the more regions like sub-Saharan Africa (with characteristically low levels of contraception use) grow in population size, the more it is important that access to contraception and reproductive health services, which often include abortion, are available to help to curb population growth.
The insertion of “population dynamics” into their new rhetoric is also disconcerting. In biology, it describes “the ways in which population densities fluctuate—increasing, decreasing, or both over time“. The problem is when the term is associated directly with reproductive health rights and services, then it becomes neo-Malthusian.
That’s because where the terms are placed together only one conclusion can be drawn: contraception, sterilization, and abortion are a country’s most effective tools in combating population growth, the root cause of poverty and the main obstacle to sustainable development.
During negotiations, the UNFPA has consistently lobbied during negotations for the outcome document to include both terms together. The first countries to put it in draft on behalf of the UNFPA were the United States along with Switzerland, New Zealand, and Norway, and there it remains.
Here is an example, taken straight from the draft yesterday afternoon:
We reaffirm our commitment to gender equality and the right of women, men and adolescents to decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexual and reproductive health including affordable, acceptable and accessible family planning methods. We agree to promote health systems that provide safe, effective and affordable modern methods of family planning, which are essential for women’s health and for advancing gender equality, and will also influence population dynamics, contributing to poverty eradication and sustainable development.
The UNFPA has chosen a rights based approach to population control because it cannot implement its ideology by force. It has already been down that path, most notoriously through its funding of a forced sterilization under the Dictatorship of Alberto Fujimori in Peru in the 1990′s, and its reputation still suffers because of it.
The first Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, finalized in 1992, does not include a single mention of the word “population” because of the negative association that the word has with development. Developing countries know that when the word population is used in relation to development it usually means population control, or at the very least calls for developing countries to reduce their populations in order to achieve development.
It is the terms negative connotation and its association with the UNFPA’s history of population control, that is really behind their new “rights based” approach to sustainable development. In their minds, if access to reproductive services is a right, it magically becomes something positive and can be used, without anyone crying foul, to encourage individuals freely choose to regulate their own fertility. It’s all in the marketing.
However, it is not so much the emphasis on rights alone that completes their strategy. Another key component is the use of scare tactics that emphasize the impending disaster of a population explosion and the shaming the developing world where population growth is the most exponential into the self-regulation of their own population.
What’s worse, as Mr. Herrmann points out in his article, they claim that such an approach to sustainable development is “human centered”.
The phrase human centered is key in Rio negotiations and refers to Principle 1 of the 1992 Rio Declaration:
Principle 1:
Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development
This was made the first principle of the declaration precisely because the developing world understood the human person as the protagonist and main beneficiary of development, not the environment. The UNFPA has taken the term and perverted it to its own ends, placing the human at the center of sustainable development not as a beneficiary but as the main obstacle in its achievement.
For the UNFPA, when it comes to the goals of Rio +20, the human person is not a resource but a problem, and population control is the solution.
That is why Herrmann, in his interview states that “improving the well-being of a large and growing population, while promoting the sustainable use of essential natural resources, calls for a two-pronged approach” countries need to shift towards sustainable production and consumption they must implement the “appropriate policies to address demographic changes”.
Those “demographic changes”, if the UNFPA has its way during negotiations, will not mean an investment in infrastructure, health, employment and education, it will mean investment in population control under the guise of “rights” and the freedom to choose to eradicate the poor in order to eradicate poverty.
In the words of Herrmann himself “Demography is not destiny. The difference between these two population projections of the United Nations is half a child per woman, on average. Individual choices and opportunities culminate in population dynamics, and population dynamics can be addressed by enlarging, not restricting, individual choices and opportunities.”
Tags: Michael Herrmann > Population Control > Rio +20 > UNFPA
Congressional Hearing Reveals State Dept. Failure to Protect Chen and his Family
Posted on | May 4, 2012 by Lisa Correnti
Yesterday the Congressional Executive Commission on China (CECC) met to “address ongoing developments in the Chen Guangcheng case and reported prospects for himself, his family and his supporters.” Chairman Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) presided over the hearing in which six witnesses reported on details surrounding the two year detention of Chen and his family, his escape on April 22 to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, and a so-called agreement negotiated between the U.S. Embassy and the Chinese government which led to Chen leaving the embassy on his on volition.
In Congressman Smith’s opening statement he reviewed the some six years of abuse suffered by blind human rights activist Chen Guangcheng for exposing China’s brutal enforcement of its one-child policy.
“It was with great relief that I — and millions around the world — learned of his escape and his reaching safety at the American Embassy in Beijing on Friday morning. Yet it is with equally great concern that I convene this hearing. Having been handed over to Chinese officials by American diplomats yesterday, Chen, his wife Yuan and the rest of his family and friends appear to be in significant danger. The eyes of the world are watching to see that his wishes are honored by the Chinese government.”
Co-chairman Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) called for more information regarding the terms of the agreement between the State Dept and the Chinese government and referred to the handling by the Obama administration as “naïve.”
While details are still emerging, it appears that the most generous read of the administration’s handling of this case is that it was naïve in accepting assurances from a government that has a well-known and documented history of brutally repressing its own people under this government.
Wolf said he intends to review all cables and communications. He said the Obama administration has a high moral obligation to protect Chen and his family and anything less would be scandalous. Wolf said the Administration must be bold and if if Chen desires to leave and come to the U.S. then he must be granted asylum.
Witness Reggie Littlejohn, President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers testified that Chen was punished for reporting on the human rights violations by population control enforcement officials in Linyi County of the Shanghai Province where 130,000 illegal abortions where performed in one year.
Witness Pastor Bob Fu, Founder and President of China Aid gave his own account of Chen’s departure from the U.S. Embassy after speaking with him. Chen told Fu that a message was relayed to him from a U.S. state official while in the embassy that the Chinese government wanted Chen to know he would never see his family again if he did not leave the Embassy. Chen said it was with a “heavy heart” that he decided to leave. Upon reuniting with his wife Chen told Fu he had learned his wife was taken to a criminal interrogation center and tied up and beaten. Chen’s wife was told if her husband did not walk out of the U.S. embassy they would kill her.
During yesterdays hearing Fu was once again able to reach Chen who while at the Embassy in Beijing asked State Dept. officials if he could speak to Congressman Smith. Pastor Fu translated:
I would like to make a request to have my freedom of travel guaranteed, Chen said. I want to come to the U.S. for a period of rest which I have not had in the past ten years. I would like to meet with Secretary Clinton and hope to receive more help from her and I would like to thank her. I fear for my families lives. There have been seven security cameras installed in my house. My greatest concern is for the safety of my family including my mother and brothers.
Chen also said that when it was discovered he had left his home his child was not permitted to go to school. Chen ended the call with “I want to thank all of you for your care and for your love.”
Congreeman Smith told Chen that he was deeply concerned for him, his family and for He Peirong, who assisted him in his escape and was taken into custody. A tweet from He yesterday said she was safely home however no one has been able to confirm this.
Smith told Chen that his case is “the test, the test on whether human rights really matter to the United States” and he called on Hillary Clinton to meet with Chen. Currently no state officials have been allowed to meet with Chen while in the hospital. Smith told Chen we were praying for him and that we would be unceasing in our efforts to secure his freedom.
After the call Rep. Smith called on President Obama to engage in the issue as the leader of the free world. Obama previously responded “no comment” when asked about Chen. Smith reminded him that during the horrible times of Apartheid, presidents weighed in to defend dissident political activists.
Secretary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner are in Beijing meeting with Chinese officials on economic issues.
In 2009 when Secretary Clinton visited Bejing reports indicated that human rights activists were prevented from leaving their homes. Zeng Jinyan, the wife of an imprisoned AIDS activist Hu Jia, was told not to leave her home as were other dissidents.
CECC witness Dr. Sophie Richardson, China Director at Human Rights Watch opened her testimony by saying if the Chinese government were serious about human rights and the rule of law we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Richardson cautioned that we must monitor what happens to other activists who may suffer in the future due to this case. She said it would be a “tremendous tragedy if the heightened awareness shifts when Secretary Clinton leaves town.”
Also testifying was Michael Horowitz from the Hudson Institute. Horowitz spoke of the incompetence of the State dept. during the negotiating process. He spoke of the blackout on the internet in China upon Chen’s escape with all reference to Chen or “blind lawyer” being blocked. Horowitz reported that unused funds sit that have been appropriated for the purpose of tearing down their internet firewall. Horowitz advocated for an environment that allows news to reach Chinese citizens ….like when Chens wife was beaten. He said we have it within our means to broadcast within 10 minutes any torture or abuse. Horowitz concluded that firewall circumvention must be a priority so “Chens suffering has not been done in vain.”
Reports today are that Chen and his family have received an invitation from an American University. Chinese spokesman, Liu Weimin, said Chen “can apply through normal channels to the relevant departments in accordance with the law, just like any other Chinese citizen.” Whether Chen’s application would be approved is unknown.
Pro-Abortion and Pro-Homosexual Youth Lobby Sent Home Empty-Handed from UN
Posted on | May 3, 2012 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
By Timothy Herrmann
NEW YORK, May 4 (C-FAM) Youth activists arrived at the UN in droves last week in an attempt to hijack the 45th session of the Commission on Population and Development (CPD) by promoting homosexual rights and abortion. However, countries rejected their demands and produced a fairly balanced outcome document that focuses on more pressing youth concerns like education, employment, health and development.
Sponsored by organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the Youth Coalition, and the International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC), youth activists flooded the conference floor and were strategically placed on country delegations with the hope of shifting the conference’s focus to sexual and reproductive health of youth and adolescents. Read More
Family Breakdown at the Heart of Global Aging Crisis
Posted on | May 3, 2012 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
NEW YORK, May 4 (C-FAM) Is family breakdown the cause or the cure for the global crisis of population decline? Two new articles in top foreign policy journals raise the question.
“As the flight from marriage and the normalization of divorce has recast living arrangements in Japan, the cohort of married fertile adults has plummeted in size,” Nicholas Eberstadt says. “And marriage is the only real path to parenthood. Unwed motherhood remains, so to speak, inconceivable because of the en…
EU Commissioner Reding: “we only finance the gay lobby, but we have no influence on its activities”
Posted on | May 3, 2012 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
Even in times of crisis, EU taxpayers go on financing the homosexualist lobby and their propaganda events.
As readers of this blog recall, it has emerged that the European Commission finances nearly 70% of the pressure group’s budget: the group would simply not exist if EU taxpayers were not paying its offices, its telephone bills and the salaries of its 12 full-time staff. In actual fact, ILGA is not a non-governnmental organization, nor has it anything to do with “civil society”, but it is a Potemkin village to hide the EU executive’s own activities.
The main purpose is to mislead the public and to create the false appearance that there is support in civil society for the re-definition of “marriage” and “family” to include sodomists.
But the EU has no competence to legislate, or to promote any particular political agenda, regarding these issues.
This is why Konrad Szymanski, Member of the European Parliament, has addressed a written question to the Commission, asking whether the Commission is aware that it splurges money from the EU budget into issues that are clearly outside the EU’s competence.
The reply given by Commissioner Reding, who as Justice Commissioner is responsible for the issue within the Commission, reveals an incredible carelessness and lack of responsibility:
The Commission recalls that the principles of equality and non-discrimination are core EU values and are guaranteed by Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 19 of the TFEU.
The Commission is committed to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation to the extent of the powers conferred on the EU by the Treaties. In this regard, the Commission recognises and fully respects the competences of the Member States concerning the family law including the right to marry and found a family.
Moreover, the Financial Regulation (Article108 (1) b) provides that the European Commission may award grants which cover the general operating costs of non-profit organisations pursuing an objective of European interest and not specific individual projects or campaigns. ILGA Europe’s goals are in line with the principles enshrined in Article 19 of TFEU. Like other networks active in the area of fight against discrimination, ILGA Europe received such an operating grant according to the rules and procedures of the PROGRESS programme, including comitology procedure. Any other organisation complying with these rules may also apply under the relevant call for proposal.
The role of the Commission consists of providing such a financial contribution towards the functioning of the beneficiary organisation, improving the organisational capacity and reinforcing the advocacy skills to voice the concerns and expectations of people exposed to discrimination. The implementation of these activities and the ownership of their results remain with the beneficiary.
It is of course very good that the EU is committed to fight discrimination. But ILGA-Europes campaign for sodomist “marriages” is not a fight against discrimination. It is in actual fact a quest for legal and fiscal privileges for people with a particularly decadent lifestyle, at the expense of the rest of society. This is certainly not within “the powers conferred on the EU by the Treaties”.
Also, it is patently absurd that “ILGA Europe’s goals are in line with the principles enshrined in Article 19 of TFEU”, given that this provision lends no support at all to sodomist “marriages” or “families”.
But the culmination of absurdity is reached when Commissioner Reding asserts that the Commission’s role consists in providing the money, but that it has no responsibility for any of the organization’s activities.
Is anyone seriously expected to believe that the Commission has no responsibility for the activities of an organization to whose budget it contributes 70%???
The Commission, while funding ILGA-Europe at a level that is highly unusual for a “non-governmental organization”, deliberately turns a blind eye on the fact that that organization’s activities are outside the EU’s competence. This is a serious case of maladministration.