“Help my family and I leave safely.”
Posted on | May 2, 2012 by Wendy Wright
Question:
If Chen is out of Clinton’s sight, will he be out of mind?
Did Obama throw Chen Guangcheng under the bus?
The blind attorney who exposed China’s brutal forced abortion program left the U.S. embassy for a hospital to treat an injury incurred during his escape from house imprisonment. Left alone by State Department officials, he now fears for his family’s lives, saying, “I think we’d like to rest in a place outside of China.”
He asked a reporter to get a message to human rights hero Rep. Chris Smith: “Help my family and I leave safely.”
Chen and his supporters say he was pressured to leave the embassy with threats that, if he didn’t, Chinese officials would beat his wife to death. The State Department disputes that they relayed those threats.
“The embassy told me that they would have someone accompany me the whole time,” he told the AP. “But today when I got to the ward, I found that there was not a single embassy official here, and so I was very unsatisfied. I felt they did not tell me the truth on this issue.”
Chen’s escape into US protection just days before high-level meetings put the Obama administration and Chinese officials in crisis mode. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who initially abandoned human rights in discussions with China but more recently has mentioned it in speeches, stated the deal reached for Chen to leave the embassy, “reflected his choices and our values.”
The website Foreign Policy reports:
In the end, the deal they negotiated seemed to offer Chen promises, but no real guarantees. As outlined by the Americans, it included the following: a promise not only to reunite Chen with his wife and two children but also that he “will be treated humanely,” that U.S officials would have access to him in the hospital; that he would ultimately be “relocated to a safe environment,” and would have the opportunity to attend a university to continue his self-guided studies in law. There was no word on the other human rights activists who have apparently been rounded up in recent days after helping Chen’s escape; only the American officials urging the authorities “to take no retribution” against them.
Foreign Policy noted “the agreement appears to contain few hard assurances that China will keep its end of the bargain.”
Chen’s departure from the U.S. embassy took place a day before high-level meetings between Secretary Clinton and Chinese officials on trade and other issues. Clinton has been criticized for abandoning human rights and ignoring China’s abuse of women with its one-child policy.
The U.S. and China had predicted that Chen’s case would not overshadow the meeting.
UK Aid Pays for Forced Sterilizations in India
Posted on | May 2, 2012 by Wendy Wright
Young women carried out after sterilization
Indian mass sterilization camp
Great Britain gave 166 million pounds ($268 million) to a government program in India that forcibly sterilizes poor women and men. The UK’s aid agency cited a need to address climate change by reducing population as a key reason to fund India’s abusive program, reports The Guardian.
Botched operations caused agony, bleeding, and deaths. In one region targeted by the UK government, a 35-year old wife of a poor laborer, pregnant with twins, bled to death.
Some women sterilized while pregnant suffered miscarriages. Some were bribed with less than $8 and a sari, others threatened with losing their ration cards. Some were told the operations were for general healthcare, and did not discover the true purpose until too late.
Clinics received bonuses for doing more than 30 operations a day. Non-governmental workers were paid for each person they convinced to be operated on. One surgeon working in a school building committed 53 operations in 2 hours with unqualified staff, no running water or means to clean the equipment.
Reports in 2006 and 2009 by the Indian government warned of problems with the program. Yet a 2010 report by the UK’s Department for International Development recommended continued support of the program, arguing that reducing the number of human beings would cut greenhouse gases, acknowledging there are “complex human rights and ethical issues” involved in forced population control.
Sterilization is the most common method of family planning used by India’s Reproductive and Child Health Programme Phase II, begun in 2005 with UK funding. Despite the revelations within the first year, the UK has placed no conditions on its funding.
While condemning forced sterilization, the UK development agency said, “Giving women access to family planning, no matter where they live or how poor they are, is a fundamental tenet” of the government’s international development policy.”
In July, the UK will host a family planning summit in London along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The “event will aim to generate unprecedented political commitment and resources from developing countries, donors, the private sector, civil society and other partners to meet the family planning needs of women in the world’s poorest countries by 2020,” stated the UK’s Department for International Development.
Melinda Gates recently gave a speech claiming that contraception aid has nothing to do with population control or forced sterilization programs.
The Guardian’s article is based on court documents filed recently in India, reports around the country and UK’s aid agency.
The Problem with Climate Scientists, Politicans and Car Salesmen…
Posted on | May 1, 2012 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
… Is that none of them know what they are talking about most of the time, and when they do, they are usually lying. It’s a well documented fact. Politicians are among the least trusted professionals (if we can call them that) together with lobbyists and car sales people, according to the most recent Gallup Poll. Politicans are considered so untrustworthy that even lawyers fare much better than them in the public mind. Climate Scientists, well, there weren’t enough of them to make the poll, but everyone remembers Climate-gate.
I will not vouch for lobbyists, given that I am trying to be one myself, or climate scientists, because it would probably take me thirty years just to begin to understand them, and by that time the planet may have already disappeared. But I can tell you for a fact that politicians and car salesmen are a pretty desperate bunch.
“The UN Conference on Sustainable Development, to be held in Brazil this summer, is poised to become the most significant UN Conference ever!” That’s what we’ve been hearing from the Secretary General and his UN political sales fleet made up of high and low ranking UN staff and delegations. Perhaps he is just another car salesmen, but perhaps he is telling the truth. You see, that’s the problem with politicians. Politicians have a power. While a car salesman can only sell you a car, a politician can sell you the future of a nation, and in the case of UN politics, the future of the world. Now, that is daunting.
Negotiations are currently underway on the outcome document of the Rio + 20 conference. For the past two years there have been calls for an “ambitious outcome document”, one that will chart the course of the world towards a greener happier sustainable future. If the organizers are successful, the policy outcome of the conference is likely to reshape the way we think of every sector of the global economy, as well as the relations between developed and developing nations.
The success of the conference all depends on UN member states, and what they hope to get out of it. The outcome document will not have a legally binding effect, but it will outline the general policy direction of our political elites. While the Conference is supposed to address sustainable development, which in turn should include social and economic development as well as respect for the environment, the green agenda of the developed world is dominating. The diplomatic corps of the developing world are simply outgunned in negotiations. Delegations have exhibited the same type of marketing skills that you would normally see at a car dealership. Most of the sales pitches are over “green” items. Many of the proposals assume that all developing nations already have viable political systems, able to meet out effective fiscal and environmental regulation. Sadly, that is not the case. Proposals also include funding for green economy, green job creation, cap and trade. Does all this sound familiar?
What defies comprehension in all this is the lack of agreement even among developing nations, of what constitutes the “green economy”, “climate change”, “green jobs”. The delegates from the United States, the European union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, who are all fully committed to the green agenda barely have a grip on the science themselves. It is obvious, despite what may get reported in the nytimes that the absence of scientific consensus has politicians wondering what they themselves should be addressing. Even the prophet of climate doom James Lovelock has gone back on his words, and recognizes that the apocalypse is not around the corner. If scientists can’t agree, how could politicians?
Which leaves us wondering what kind of document is going to come out of the Rio Conference, and whether all this emphasis on the green economy is plain reckless politicking. Developing countries will certainly have to continue to play catch-up to the west if a green agenda is adopted. Despite their best efforts to control the Rio process, they are being worn down by negotiations and will probably be buying the green agenda package in exchange for minor concessions in the outcome document.
I only recently bought a used car, and the car salesperson lied through his teeth at least twice while trying to convince me that the car was a great deal. In the end, what can I say… I fell for it. I bought the car, which was not a great deal, but the average deal you can expect from a used car salesmen, you know: old tires, no mats, old brake pads and disks etc… But at least I have the power-train warranty.
Unfortunately, the UN Conference on Sustainable Development does not come with a power-train warranty. Whatever course is charted will be irreparable. If the Conference is successful in forming a new “green” course for the global community, there will be no going back to the car dealer. It could turn out to be a complete economic failure, as have green initiatives in California. Except this time it will be on a global scale, and in countries that cannot afford it.
Aiming at China, Blind Lawyer Forces U.S. to Deal with Forced Abortions
Posted on | April 30, 2012 by Wendy Wright
One man is forcing Hillary Clinton to pay attention to abuses against women.
The woman who famously said in Beijing in 1995 “women’s rights are human rights” has been excruciatingly silent since she’s come into power about one of the worst abuses against women. Mrs. Clinton’s first trip to China as U.S. Secretary of State in 2009 was marked by her deliberate decision not to address human rights. Chief among the abuses is forced abortions of women who want their child.
“Chinese delighted after Hillary Clinton avoids human rights criticism,” blared the London Telegraph summarizing Hillary’s visit. As she said before her trip, “Our pressing on those issues can’t interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.”
Now, blind attorney Chen Guangcheng has thrown the issue right in her lap. Days before Hillary and U.S. Secretary of Treasury Tim Geitner will be in China for high-level finance meetings, Chen escaped house arrest. He is reportedly in U.S. protection in Beijing.
A self-taught lawyer, Chen became internationally famous for exposing forced abortions and sterilizations of rural Chinese women. Family planning officials brutally beat him, jailed him for four years, then imprisoned him in his home without charges.
Chen’s daring night escape couldn’t come at a more opportune time. The Obama administration and Chinese government are now in crisis mode to deal with the situation prior to this week’s meetings.
Chen is not seeking asylum. He would like stay in China as a free man and to guarantee the safety of his wife and two children. This weekend a video appeared on YouTube of Chen calling on China’s premier Wen Jiabao to address abuses committed by local officials. Are the local officials acting on Party orders, he asks, or on their own? Either way, China’s premier must end it.
The Chinese officials’ mistreatment of Chen grabs most of the attention. But this international crisis finds its roots in China’s brutal one-child policy. Abuses by local officials were first against women and their families who wanted a child, then against him for exposing the gruesome deeds.
The population policies that local officials were enforcing came from above. However, an honest look at who is responsible will be very uncomfortable for Hillary and President Obama.
Investigations of population control policies that lead to forced abortions and sterilizations reveal the heavy hand of Western internationalists. Groups like UNFPA coordinate, justify and fund the people who commit wide-spread abuses.
One of Obama’s first acts as president was renewing funding for UNFPA. The UN population agency had been cut off from federal funding by the Bush administration because UNFPA is involved in China’s brutal one-child policy, even commending it as a “model” for other countries.
Both the U.S. and China claim Chen’s case will not overshadow the official meeting this week. Yet some observers believe this may be the most significant challenge to US-China relations since China’s crackdown on student protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
Challenging the Chinese government over human rights abuses, Chen’s brave actions have put the Obama administration in the hot seat. UNFPA and other population advocates should also feel the heat.
The Children of Men–Japanese Style
Posted on | April 29, 2012 by Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
I was edified to see the NY Times making the same point I have been emphasizing in my book talks: declinists have been saying for decades that America’s fiscal woes would finally topple its international primacy, and for decades, the declinists have got it wrong. The NYT OpEd notes that 20 years ago pessimists feared Japan would overtake the United States (in the 70s it was the USSR, today it is China).
Japan’s plummeting fertility is causing bizarre social consequences, some right out of P.D.James’ 1992 thriller about the last child born on earth, The Children of Men. Along with Japan’s economic woes, demographic decline is contributing to Japan’s suicide rate, which is second only to Russia’s (the next oldest nation on earth after Japan). The OpEd picks up on Nick Eberstadt’s essay in the Spring volume of the Wilson Quarterly, which I will blog on later.
One troubling aspect in this piece, which I found in another recent NYT OpEd, is the assertion that out of wedlock births are a positive factor in American demographic exceptionalism. As I emphasize in the book, the jury is out on that. There is evidence showing the fact could actually squander the demographic advantage. The erosion of working values (correlated to intact families and extended families) could eventually erode worker productivity even if the workforce expands.
Bombay High Court: lift the 2-child rule
Posted on | April 26, 2012 by Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
Delegates at the UN witnessing the push to put population control in the Rio+20 document could take a warning coming from India, the nation who has implemented it zeaolously for decades.
The Bombay High Court who told the goverment they should lift the 2-child rule did so because the rule is stifling population growth and costing the government plenty in bonuses to try to incentivize couples to have more children.
“Having a third child is a disqualification for many things, including a government job or standing for elections,” said Justice Majmudar, adding, “But this may be needed to arrest the decline in the Parsi population. The legislature could consider granting the community an exemption from the two- child norm.”
Despite harsh penalties for having a third child, Parsi couples who have a second and third child get generous stipends:
“For a second child, a couple is paid Rs 3,000 per month and for having a third child, the family is offered Rs 5,000 per month. This maintenance amount is paid till the child turns 18,” [Bombay Parsi Punchayat chairman Dinshaw] Mehta said. “Other benefits for education expenses are also provided,” he added.
Such are the bizarre measures nations resort to in the wake of population control.
Sexual Rights, Overpopulation, and what they have to do with Youth
Posted on | April 25, 2012 by Timothy Herrmann
Yesterday marked day two of a week long conference on “Adolescents and Youth” held by the UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD). While the conference is supposed to address a wide range of topics related to population, development and youth, it has focused almost exclusively on promoting the sexual and reproductive rights of youth, comprehensive sexual education, and provoking fear among countries about the burgeoning youth population in underdeveloped regions like sub-Saharan Africa.
Frankly, even though the theme of the conference is “Adolescents and Youth”, anyone listening to country statements or reviewing the outcome document currently being negotiated would never know it. A more accurate theme for the conference would read, “The Sexual Rights of Youth and Overpopulation.”
Besides the fact that the promotion of sexual and reproductive rights often includes abortion or that the promotion of comprehensive sexual education is controversial because of its disturbing curriculum, the real problem is that the UN’s obsession with sex and sexualizing youth means that important development issues for youth like education, unemployment and health care have been ignored.
In an important UN document on the “right to development” it states:
States should undertake, at the national level, all necessary measures for the realization of the right to development and shall ensure, inter alia, equality of opportunity for all in their access to basic resources, education, health services, food, housing, employment and the fair distribution of income.
And yet, such language is almost entirely absent in the draft document being discussed at the conference. Instead, the document currently contains over 83 different references to Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights as well 27 references to abortion, far outweighing any references to the real development concerns of youth previously mentioned. Most of these references have been proposed and supported by countries like the U.S. and Norway along with other “like minded countries” generally coming from Europe but not excluding countries like Uruguay and Argentina.
Not all of the ideas being promoted at the conference are bad, however. Some of them are extremely good. Delegations from the Holy See, Swaziland, Egypt and Iran for example, have expressed their concern about the absurd obsession with the “sexual rights of youth” at the conference and the way in which it is detracting attention from the real issues at hand. They have also proposed language that for example,
“affirms that investment in youth development and education is crucial for sustainable social and economic development”
and that recognizes
“that the majority of the world’s youth live in developing countries and that development constraints pose additional challenges to youth owing to their limited access to resources, education and training, health care, employment and broader socio-economic development opportunities”
Unfortunately, addressing these concerns in a real way within the document seems to be falling on deaf ears thanks to the louder voices and consensus being built by other more influential states.
Frustrated by this lack of support and total disregard for the real issues facing youth, one delegation from the Americas spoke up during negotiations and stated what many countries were thinking but were not willing to say themselves “These are not sexual and reproductive rights! They are sexual and reproductive wrongs!”
Why all the promotion of sexual rights for youth? Well, with the world’s population of youth now exceeding 1.8 billion, and with most of the growth occurring in lesser developed regions like sub-Saharan Africa where access to education and employment is limited, it is assumed that providing youth with access to sexual services like contraception and abortion will decrease population growth and allow countries to make better use of their available resources. That’s right, for the UN and organizations like the UNFPA the best way to address unemployment, increase access to education, and encourage sustainable development is to encourage the sexual activity of youth while making sure they don’t have children. The less people, the more resources to go around according to their logic, something known as the “demographic dividend“. It seems that the countries supporting this kind of language feel that the promotion of economic growth or finding ways to increase and invest things like education, better health care, and infrastructure would take too much first world funding and support.
This is why the UNFPA teams up with organizations like IPPF who are doing their best to ensure that language in the outcome document will promote youth as independent actors and undermine the rights of parents to educate their children about things like sexuality. These organizations fear that if parents get involved in the lives of their children, they might maintain values inconsistent with the UN consensus and decide not to refrain from sex or, if they do have sex and become pregnant or even get married, take their children to term. As a result, the IPPF is labeling parents as “obstacles” and is working with countries to include language that marginalizes their role the in the development of their own children at the conference. The end game, no matter how you look at it, is to eradicate the poor and to keep their populations down through increasing youth access to reproductive health services.
Interestingly, this is also why many countries promoting sexual and reproductive rights for youth are also supportive of defining youth as independent actors, separate from their parents. If youth can act on their own and also have inalienable “sexual rights” these countries believe they will choose to have sex and to do so without having children. More importantly, they will not need the help of their parents or their “culture” in determining what is good for their health or their lives. Sadly enough, this has created an environment at the UN where there is no agreed upon definition of what defines youth or adolescents because the assumption is that they are already “adult” enough to make decisions on their own, however unreasonable that really is in practice.
Given just how contentious negotiations have been, it is unlikely that consensus will be reached by the deadline on Thursday evening. Some countries have already expressed concern that this means the chairman of the negotiations, a Swiss delegate, will take it upon himself to finalize the text and submit it to the commission on his own, something known as a “chairman’s text”. Obviously, the worry is that the final text submitted would still contain controversial language and not reflect the serious concerns of countries that would rather have a document free of the “sexual and reproductive rights” agenda and focusing on development.
Stay tuned.
UN Conference Focus on Comprehensive Sex-Ed and Reproductive Rights for Youth Extreme
Posted on | April 25, 2012 by Lisa Correnti
The U.N. Commission on Population and Development opened Monday for a week-long session in New York. This 45th session is dedicated to “Adolescents and Youth” to confront the challenges and opportunities of the 1.8 billion youth throughout the world – 90% in developing countries. State reports reviewing the outlook in their own countries seem to focus on three integral tasks for youth to transition successfully to adulthood; education, health and employment. While these are fundamental for youth to lead productive and meaningful lives the emphasis on sexual and reproductive health including comprehensive sex education for adolescents and youth permeates throughout this conference.
Alarming is the number of states calling on youth to have full autonomy in regards to the decisions they make for their own lives. Absent is the recognition of parents as the primary educators of their children, but for a few lone countries and the Holy See.
In opening remarks U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stressed the need to provide reproductive health care for adolescents and youth. A new report by the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) included calls for urgent action to “protect young people’s right to sexual and reproductive health.” The report “highlights the need to give millions of girls access to reproductive health services to avoid unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortions and sexually transmitted infections.”
Calls from countries for removal of all so-called barriers (parental notification laws for minors) to obtain sexual and reproductive rights services are being made including access to contraception, emergency contraception and legal abortion.
Given that over 67 million children do not have access to primary education and that high unemployment rates are causing youth to migrate, state delegates should reexamine the CPD draft document which currently dedicates 57% to addressing sexual and reproductive rights for adolescents (10-14) and youth (15-24) and direct it to these pressing areas of concern.
Globally the health concerns of adolescents must continue to be addressed but it is to the detriment of our youth to let this be guided by reproductive rights groups who have one agenda in mind – access to adolescents without interference from parents or legal barriers to provide comprehensive sex education and access to sexual and reproductive services.
China’s demographic challenge
Posted on | April 25, 2012 by Lucia Muchova
Two editors of The Economist have recently discussed the implications of China’s demographic challenges of low fertility and shrinking workforce. This fascinating conversation is available here.
Animated population pyramid for China available here.
Is Population Really What Holds Nigeria Back?
Posted on | April 24, 2012 by Lucia Muchova
The recent NY Times article about Nigeria’s population growth leaves the reader with a sense of urgency to reduce the number of Nigerian births as quickly as possible. It gives the impression that Nigeria does not stand a chance to develop into a prosperous nation unless it drastically reduces fertility rate which is currently about 5.5 births per woman. But is population really the biggest hindrance to the country’s development?
Nigeria’s GDP grows at about 7% a year, placing the country among the top 30 world economies in terms of economic growth. As contrasted with the developed world that saw their income and per capita income growth rate plummet in 2009, Nigeria’s per capita income has continued to grow.
Nigeria is the largest producer of oil in sub-Saharan Africa, 10th largest in the world and fourth largest importer of oil to the United States.
So what is the problem?
Nigeria’s income might be fast growing but 68% of the population still live below $1.25 a day.
It might be oil-rich, but its people have hardly reaped any benefits from it: manufacturing and agriculture have shrunk as a result of failing diversification and are only slowly picking up; unemployment is high and the oil industry is unlikely to change that.
Nigeria ranks 156th in the Human Development Index combining per capita income with indicators of health and education. Only 61% of the adult population is literate, school enrollment is below the average rate in countries with a similar income level, and the country ranks 117th in health expenditure as a percentage of GDP.
The country suffers from corruption, bad governance and lack of transparency whereby elites in power periodically redistribute the revenues amongst themselves and their patronage networks. It ranks 143rd in the Corruption Perceptions Index calculated by Transparency International.
With floods of articles about the Malthusian gloom of a growing population, it is worth remembering that economic prosperity is not driven by population size but, rather, by how a country invests in developing good, transparent institutions, promotes growth of human capital and capabilities of its people.
‘Chariots of Fire’ Makes a Come-Back – On Stage and In Real Life
Posted on | April 24, 2012 by Wendy Wright
The glorious story of Eric Liddell will soon grace a London stage just as issues of conscience make headlines with Christians defending religious freedom from coercion.
Chariots of Fire, the Oscar-winning film of Olympic runner Eric Liddell’s refusal to race on the Sabbath, is being adapted into a play to usher in the 2010 Olympics this summer in London.
It’s a marvelous opportunity to revive a beloved British story of an Olympian’s faithfulness. Hugh Hudson, director of Chariots of Fire and who came up with the idea of a stage adaptation, gave a deeper reason for the timing in addition to London hosting the Olympics.
“Issues of faith, of refusal to compromise, standing up for one’s beliefs, achieving something for the sake of it, with passion, and not just for fame or financial gain, are even more vital today,” Hudson told the London Evening Standard.
Chariots of Fire was the brainchild of producer David Puttnam who was looking for a story about someone who follows their conscience along the lines of A Man for All Seasons about Sir Thomas More.
Liddell’s and More’s unflinching obedience to God inspires Christians and non-Christians alike. Yet, like so often in history, their lessons are lost on today’s villains who consider conscience and faith trivial obstacles for Christians to easily set aside to assist others’ demands for abortion and acceptance of homosexuality.
Both men’s courage illustrates why the framers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognized, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”
Yet this is not a settled issue for governments and activists who insist on “reproductive and sexual rights.” For them, license to engage in any sexual conduct and the right to force others to accommodate illicit activity takes precedence over the freedom of conscience.
Hopefully, Chariots of Fire will spark discussions over courage and faithfulness to follow God despite the cost. It’s a timely reminder that humble obedience to faith carries its own rewards.
Whither America’s Demographic Exceptionalism?
Posted on | April 24, 2012 by Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
America’s demographic exceptionalism comes both from it’s relatively high fertility rate and its ability to attract and integrate immigrants. At our book panel at the Hudson Institute last week, Phil Longman provoked lively debate when he wondered aloud whether the next generation of Americans would be dumbfounded that their parents ever built a fence to keep immigrants out. From the attention the media is giving a new report, it looks like he may have been vindicated sooner than expected. The report asserts that immigration from Mexico, long the source of both cheap labor and political fracas, has vanished.
One of the reasons is that fertility rates have plummeted in Mexico, as they have all over the developing world. Indeed, birth rates among Mexican Americans have dropped more than among any other ethnic group in the US since the beginning of the recession in 2008.
Tom Mahnken further wondered at the panel as to why the U.S. makes it easy for unskilled labor to immigrate but hard for skilled workers. If this is true, the U.S. is part of a growing competition among developed nations for “brain gain.” Two stories this week covered a competition in Japan, Korea, and Singapore–aging quickly and with few prospects of raising fertility to boost productivity–to draw young talent to Asia. Germany and other European nations have been famously in this battle for years with mixed success.
The United States (along with a few other English-speaking nations) has been the envy of aging economies due to its exceptional ability to draw people from all over the world. The new report signals an opportunity for policy makers to ponder seriously (above the din) what are the underlying reasons for America’s demographic exceptionalism–and to seize upon them.
Abortion and Contraception More Important Than Maternal Health?
Posted on | April 23, 2012 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
Last Friday UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, gave a talk at an event organized by the Women’s International Forum titled: “Women’s Rights are Human Rights: The Work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights”.
During the talk, Ms. Pillay, spoke of the creation of her office in 1993 as primarily a tool to help make human rights “actionable”, and of the growth of her office into the strategic center for the promotion of human rights within the UN system. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) with over 1000 employees, and an over $400M annual budget, is the logistical center of all UN human rights mechanisms. The substantive positions of the OHCHR influence UN treaty bodies, special procedure, and agencies and programs.
It is unfortunate that the OHCHR has chosen to focus its attention on contraception and abortion, instead of women’s health. This is what Ms. Pillay had to say with regards to “maternal health” on Friday:
[U]nderstanding maternal mortality as a human rights issue shines light on issues of discrimination against women and denial of their reproductive and sexual health rights. While interventions focused on the health aspects of maternal mortality may concentrate on the quality of care for pregnant women, a human rights analysis requires us to examine whether women have a choice in deciding to become pregnant in the first place, or the choice to seek the care that they require without having to obtain permission from male relatives.
Ms. Pillay is currently working on a policy guideline for governments on a “rights based approach” to maternal mortality and morbidity. If it is anything like the 2011 report prepared with the support of the OHCHR by the special rapporteur on the right to health, Anand Grover last fall, it will call for countries to abolish any and all restrictions on abortion.
New Pew Poll: Obama has lost the Catholic Vote
Posted on | April 23, 2012 by Timothy Herrmann
Here is an interesting take from Joseph Bottum with “The Catholic Vote” on a new Pew poll that shows Obama having lost a significant percentage of the Catholic vote “post” HHS Mandate debacle:
This, I believe, is what the HHS mandate was actually about: an entirely political decision to force Republicans to denounce birth control and then to mock them as all “weird.”
Even among Catholics, bans on birth control don’t poll well. For that matter, the handful of Catholics who would fit the White House’s caricature of weirdos weren’t ever going to vote Obama—which means that Pew’s claimed 14-point swing against Obama among Catholics can’t be coming from them. It has to be coming instead from the Catholics whose votes are, more usually, lost in the two-pole choice of a national presidential election.
For the full article click here.
For the Pew poll click here.
Tags: abortion > Catholic Vote > Contraception > Elections > HHS Mandate > Obama
IMF: Population Aging Calls for Ambitious Reforms
Posted on | April 19, 2012 by Lucia Muchova
The most recent issue of the IMF’s World Economic Outlook reports that despite some positive outcomes of fiscal consolidation, long term prospects for many industrialized countries remain worrisome. Unless countries put in place consolidation measures for long term stability, their public finances may be put under substantial stress.
Why do countries face this fiscal unease?
Among other important factors such as the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis and declining economic growth, aging population plays a crucial role.
Higher life expectancy is certainly reflective of positive developments in healthcare, technology and increased quality of life. At the same time, however, rapid population ageing we are witnessing in economic giants such as Japan, South Korea, China, Germany and Britain brings with it many social, economic and security challenges.
The Telegraph reports that until recently nearly every pensioner was supported by 4 people of working age. Given the below-replacement fertility rate in many countries, Europe is getting closer to the Chinese 4-2-1 paradigm where one child supports 2 parents and 4 grandparents.
The pressure on government to use deficit financing grows along with the increasing portion of the budget allocated to pensions and health care. The IMF estimates that people worldwide are living 3 years longer than expected on average. Without reforms, advanced economies would have to put in 50% of their 2010 GDP to cover the shortfall in pension savings for those extra 3 years if they were to cover the shortfall now. And these figures do not even cover expenditures on health care.
To be fair, countries are already putting in place fiscal rules to address the demographic challenges of aging population and reform their entitlement programs (e.g. Germany). Russia and Hungary have already embarked on a reform path to encourage fertility growth. Some European countries, such as France and Sweden, have adopted some family friendly policies, increased tax breaks and government bonuses for children. However, more needs to be done to restore a sustainable demographic profile.
This is not to say that falling birthrates are to be blamed on the government but at least the government should make sure that its policies do not actively discourage marriage and family.
UN Population Fund Insistent on Reproductive Rights at Rio
Posted on | April 19, 2012 by Timothy Herrmann
Today at a UNFPA briefing on the Rio +20 negations entitled: “The Road to Rio goes through Cairo” the agency expressed serious concern about the lack of emphasis in the outcome document on the link between population growth and sustainable development. They were also adamant in their encouragement of states fighting to include reproductive rights in the document and to emphasize the link between access to reproductive rights and health and what they termed “population dynamics”.
According to the UNFPA, sustainable development is not achievable unless population growth is addressed directly. They mentioned that sustainable development is not only a matter of changing consumption patterns but also of fertility regulation which, for the UNFPA, cannot be achieved without making sure that reproductive rights are emphasized in the final outcome document.
In the mind of the UNFPA, guaranteeing reproductive rights and access to reproductive rights services, like contraception, sterilization, and even abortion means guaranteeing that poor populations will be more likely to limit the number of children they have and thus limit the strain that their populations are putting on the environment. The UNFPA labels this kind of logic “population dynamics”. Throughout the briefing the UNFPA representative explained that any increase in population means an increase in economic production and any increase in economic production will mean an increase in resource consumption and environmental degradation. However, he conveniently failed to mention that real economic growth and poverty alleviation is impossible without positive population growth. He also ignored the very real consequences of the demographic winter now faced by countries with declining populations.
The UNFPA briefing is being held at a time when the draft document is already far along in the negotiations process and will be difficult to change. For this reason the UNFPA called states together today to regroup, go back to the drawing board, and come back to negotiations next week with a renewed emphasis on the need to include “population control” on the agenda.
Ireland’s Abortion Bill Defeated
Posted on | April 19, 2012 by Annalee Seath, J.D.
The Irish Parliament rejected a bill by a 109-20 vote that was aimed at making abortion more widely available to its citizens. While the measure purports to only legalize abortion “for termination of pregnancy where a real and substantial risk to the life of the pregnant woman exists,” the bill’s sponsor, Clare Daly, of the opposition Socialist Party made it clear that the real goal is promoting easily accessible, legal abortion regardless of the circumstances.
“We believe that it is only a first step for abortion to be legalized in Ireland in all circumstances. We have waited long enough,” Ms. Daly said. “Over 100,000 Irish abortions have taken place in Britain for many different reasons, none of them easy, all of them valid. The hypocrisy, injustice and expense of having to travel to England for terminations, away from family and friends, is a disgrace.”
Abortion was officially legalized in Ireland in 1992 by the Courts but is limited to a few limited circumstances. Later governments have avoided passing legislation to carry out the order in the overwhelmingly Catholic country.
In December 2010, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Ireland’s failure to implement the existing constitutional “right” to abortion was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR has commissioned an expert report on how to respond to the failure to legislate.
Meanwhile, newly-elected Deputy Michelle Mulherin aptly points to extra-marital sex as the cause of many unwanted Irish pregnancies.
“Abortion is murder, therefore sin, which is the religious argument, is no more sinful, from a scriptural point of view, than all other sins we don’t legislate against, like greed, hate and fornication,” Ms. Mulherin said. “The latter, being fornication, I would say, is probably the single most likely cause of unwanted pregnancies in this country.”
Ms. Mulherin noted that even in difficult cases, choosing life is possible and bears witness to the grace of God.
“I’m against abortion in any form. The grace of God is so liberating and provides so many options to get the best out of life.”
Expert: Stop population decline!…get rid of marriage and family?
Posted on | April 19, 2012 by Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
An OpEd in yesterday’s New York Times says that in order to reverse Europe’s population implosion policy makers must first reject objections by advocates of traditional marriage and the family. After all, the reasoning goes, nations with the highest fertility, Sweden and France, have the highest out of wedlock births.
But this doesn’t jibe with what we know about long term national economic and strategic competitiveness. It would have us throw out marriage–and institution that has undergirded society for thousands of years–with no evidence that it would help the nation in the long term. It ignores what we know about where higher fertility comes from (in many places the pockets of society that are most religious and traditional). And it takes no account of the mounting data that traditional marriage and family is good for children, tomorrow’s workforce.
The bottom line is that marriage and family breakdown actually threaten to squander the demographic advantage.
Indeed, the OpEd contradicts a recent article in the NYT lamenting the fact that the U.S. has more than 40% out of wedlock births, and that this in turn raises the risk to children of increased poverty, poor health, and lower education. In other words, even though the U.S. workforce is expected to increase 16 % by 2050–a highly coveted advantage indeed considering that the UK will only expand by 5% and France’s workforce will decline by 2% in the same timeframe–U.S. productivity could decrease anyway.
Research from the Cato Institute shows why national productivity improves when workers are raised in the traditional family, and especially the extended family. These workers are less likely to be unemployed and have less time between employment.
The “quantity” over “quality” argument is the opposite extreme from the old adage supporters of China’s brutally enforced one child per family policy. Neither rings true.
Poll: Human Rights Laws a License for Criminals
Posted on | April 17, 2012 by Wendy Wright
The Daily Mail reports on a new poll finding an astonishing 72% of Britons agree with the statement “human rights have become a charter for criminals and the undeserving.”
It takes a heap of bad publicity to get this kind of strong public rejection. In this case, it is well-deserved.
Britons have seen their country become a haven for alleged terrorists who fight extradition by appealing to the European Court of Human Rights.
In addition to siding with terrorists over innocents, the European Court of Human Rights has trivialized its mission by seriously entertaining a lawsuit by an irate passenger over a bus seat that did not fully recline. (I wrote on this in The Trivialization of Human Rights.)
But this widespread public reaction signifies an understanding that goes beyond a few cases or one court. It shows that elitists who have taken over the human rights regime – from Amnesty International to international bureaucrats – have overplayed their hand.
Originally a noble cause, human rights is too often used now as a cloak to challenge norms, undercut the rule of law and impose the opinions of self-styled superiors upon the less entitled.
Abortion advocates claim the deadly deed of killing an unborn baby is a human right. UNFPA asserts that family planning is a human right. Provocateurs argue that children and people infected with AIDS have a right to sex without limitations.
True human rights, however, respects the dignity of all. Exercising a valid human right will not deprive others of their rights.
But those who besmirch the cause of human rights focus on the selfish demands of those demanding their contrived rights while ignoring the innocents who are harmed.
In the old days, this respect for human dignity was called morality. Or the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
For elitists, human rights is a substitute for morality, an obscene word in their view. And like most cheap knock-offs, it’s falling apart at the seams.
The Hungarian new family law: a legitimate answer to contemporary crisis
Posted on | April 17, 2012 by Grégor Puppinck, Ph.D
The Venice Commission is currently reviewing the Hungarian cardinal law on the Protection of Families. This law has been strongly criticised, especially for defining family as “based on the marriage of a man and a woman,” and for protecting human life since conception. The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) submits today a Memorandum[1] to the Venice Commission demonstrating that this law respects the letter and the spirit of international treaties on family and follows the legitimate aim to set foundations for the recovery of the country through the protection of life and family.
On 23rd December 2011, the Hungarian Parliament adopted Act CCXI of 2011 on the Protection of Families. It pursues the objectives to protect the children and families and to remedy the present demographic crisis. The law expresses that “the family is an autonomous community established in human history before the emergence of law and the State, which rests on moral grounds.” The law also recognises family as “the most important national resource of Hungary. As the basic unit of society the family is the guarantee for the nation’s survival and the natural environment of the development of human personality, which must be respected by the State”. This law takes concrete measures to ensure an effective protection of families, providing for a sort of family mainstreaming, in particular in the fields of employment and State support.
This law has been strongly criticised, especially for defining family as “based on the marriage of a man and a woman,” and for protecting human life since conception. Pursuant to those critics, the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) requested the European Commission for Democracy through Law (known as the Venice Commission) to give an opinion on this law. This opinion is under preparation and will be adopted and published during its next plenary session, in June 1012, along with four other opinions. Today, in anticipation to this Opinion, the ECLJ submits a Memorandum assessing this law with regard to the international commitments of Hungary to the Venice Commission.
The ECLJ Memorandum observes that the Hungarian cardinal law on the protection of families, both in its philosophical basis and concrete measures, is in accordance with international and European law, in particular with the European Social Charter[2] and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child which states, inter alia, that “the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community”.
Concerning the issues of abortion and homosexuality, the Venice Commission already acknowledged, in its 2011 opinion on the new Constitution of Hungary[3], that Hungary respects European and international law while defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and protecting of human life since conception[4].
This law has been adopted in the context of both a demographic and economical crisis. The economic and financial situation in Hungary is highly problematic. At 1.33 children per woman, Hungary has the third lowest fertility rate across the OECD. The demographic issue is now a matter of survival for the country. Establishing the necessary conditions for child-bearing and child-rearing is the responsibility of the State, and that is the aim of the law at issue.
This law corresponds to present concerns such as the link between stable families and demography and the role of the family during a crisis. State support for families, reconciliation between work and family and promotion of parenting are increasingly recognised as necessary to ensure adequate conditions for child-bearing and child-rearing. In the past months the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted several resolutions emphasising the importance of stable families in time of crisis and taking “the view that demographic changes, low birth rates, population ageing and women’s increasing participation in the workforce are some of the factors which are driving societies to invest in human capital by adopting dynamic family policies.” [5]
Finally, it clearly appears that the criticisms regarding this law are unjustified and only based on ideological prejudice regarding abortion and homosexuality. In fact, this law, while fully respecting the letter and the spirit of international treaties provisions on family, tries to set the foundations for the demographic and economic recovery of the country, which requires the protection of life and family.
[1] Available on the ECLJ website at this address: http://eclj.org/PDF/eclj-memorandum-hungarian-law-on-the-protection-of-families.pdf
[2] The Social Charter express, both in the 1961 text and in the 1996 revised version: “With a view to ensuring the necessary conditions for the full development of the family, which is a[2] fundamental unit of society, the Parties undertake to promote the economic, legal and social protection of family life by such means as social and family benefits, fiscal arrangements, provision of family housing, benefits for the newly married and other appropriate means (Art. 16)”. According to Article 33-1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, “The family shall enjoy legal, economic and social protection”.
[3] Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 87th Plenary Session (Venice, 17-18 June 2011)
[4] In May 2011, the ECLJ has also published a Memorandum on the Hungarian new constitution of 25 April 2011. A copy is available on the ECLJ website. http://eclj.org/pdf/ECLJ_Memorendum-Hungarian-Constitution_20110519.pdf
[5] Resolution 1720 (2010) of 19 January 2010 on “Investing in family cohesion as a development factor in times of crisis”. See also Resolution 1864-2012 of January 27, 2012.