I got this news from my French ally. The UN Human Rights Council finally passed a resolution protecting the family against the encroachment of surrogacy, sperm banking, same-sex parenting, child trafficking, adoption abuses, and countless other problems arising from the West’s voracious selfishness and disregard for children’s rights. The margin was rather healthy, with 26 nations for, 14 against, and 6 abstentions.
Then this whining critique ran, apparently in the Daily Beast:
Put into practice, this would mean that countries could deny a woman or gay person’s individual rights (to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for example) in the name of the “traditional values” rights of others. Thus, those in power can imprison gays, prevent women from voting, and similar “traditional” things, all under the cover of international law. Where today international human rights norms are used to hold countries accountable for such acts, tomorrow’s would permit—indeed, favor—them. Second, the way this vote panned out is particularly horrifying. As the “Protection of the Family” resolution was being developed, it became clear to more liberal nations that it was going to pass. Even the United States was loathe to vote against a resolution “protecting the family”—who doesn’t want to protect families? So, an amendment was proposed—formally put forward by Uruguay—that would acknowledge that “various forms of the family exist.” This amendment would cover not just same-sex couples, of course, but families where grandparents raise the kids, or single-parent families—anything other than the assumed norm of the “traditional” family. And it would make clear that subsequent UN action could not be used as a club against families diverging from that norm. But as soon as Uruguay proposed the amendment, Russia pulled a little-used administrative trick—a “no-action” motion—to prevent it from even being discussed. That motion passed 22-20, with 4 abstentions. The United States voted against. In other words, the Human Rights Council decided not to even talk about the diversity of families. Talk about don’t ask, don’t tell.
Let’s deal with the two bold sections of ridiculousness, piece by piece.
Put into practice, this would mean that countries could deny a woman or gay person’s individual rights (to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for example) in the name of the “traditional values” rights of others.
No, no, wrong, you lying weaselly shill for the Gay Lobby. The resolution will protect mothers from having to sell their babies or seeing their kids taken away from them; it will protect children from being bought and removed from their roots; it will eventually help to ensure that sperm banks and surrogacy brokers and child traffickers do not guarantee wealthy people’s non-existent “rights to children” over the children’s right to their own ancestors. And by the way, screw you.
So, an amendment was proposed—formally put forward by Uruguay—that would acknowledge that “various forms of the family exist.” This amendment would cover not just same-sex couples, of course, but families where grandparents raise the kids, or single-parent families—anything other than the assumed norm of the “traditional” family.
GIVE ME A BREAK. Not the old “same-sex parenting is just like grandparents raising orphans” routine. Dude, let’s get this clear in your muddled uninformed mind: Nobody in the world has any objections to grandparents raising their own orphaned grandchildren. People have serious, well-founded objections to gay Westerners who go about buying other people’s children and excluding the children from the opposite-sex parent who gave them life.
Stop trying to use single moms, grandparents raising orphans, and widows as human shields. Gay parenting has NOTHING to do with those honorable acts. Gay parenting is a Western big money scheme that combines the rapacious greed of Big Adoption with the rapacious greed of Big Gay. And guess what? The world has caught on. They know you are coming for their kids, and they’re just saying no!
They’re here, they know you’re here, get used to it. They don’t like you. And neither do I.
Anyway, below is the text of the actual resolution. We’re not looking at some horrible call for atrocities here. It’s pretty elementary and commonsensical:
Human Rights Council
Agenda item 3
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights,
including the right to development
Angola,* Bahrain,* Bangladesh,* Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina,* Botswana, Burkina Faso, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt,* El Salvador,* Ethiopia (on behalf of the Group of African States), Indonesia, Jordan,* Lebanon,* Mauritania,* Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria,* Philippines, Qatar,* Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka,* Sudan,* Tunisia,* Uganda,* Zimbabwe:* draft resolution
26/… Protection of the family
The Human Rights Council,
Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, and recalling the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and other relevant human rights instruments,
Recalling General Assembly resolutions 44/82 of 8 December 1989, 47/237 of 20 September 1993, 50/142 of 21 December 1995, 52/81 of 12 December 1997, 54/124 of 17 December 1999, 56/113 of 19 December 2001, 57/164 of 18 December 2002, 58/15 of 3 December 2003, 59/111 of 6 December 2004, 59/147 of 20 December 2004, 60/133 of 16 December 2005, 62/129 of 18 December 2007, 64/133 of 18 December 2009, 66/126 of 19 December 2011, 67/142 of 20 December 2012 and 68/136 of 18 December 2013, concerning the proclamation of, preparations for and observance of the International Year of the Family and its tenth and twentieth anniversaries,
Recognizing that the preparations for and observance of the twentieth anniversary of the International Year of the Family provide a useful opportunity to draw further attention to the objectives of the International Year for increasing cooperation at all levels on family issues and for undertaking concerted actions to strengthen family-centred policies and programmes as part of an integrated comprehensive approach to human rights and development,
Reaffirming that States have the primary responsibility to promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all human beings, including women, children and older persons,
Recognizing that the family has the primary responsibility for the nurturing and protection of children and that children, for the full and harmonious development of their personality, should grow up in a family environment and in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,
Convinced 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,
Reaffirming that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State,
- Decides to convene, at its twenty-seventh session, a panel discussion on the protection of the family and its members to address the implementation of States’ obligations under relevant provisions of international human rights law and to discuss challenges and best practices in this regard;
- Requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to liaise with States and all stakeholders, including the relevant United Nations bodies, agencies, and programmes, the treaty bodies, the special procedures of the Human Rights Council, national human rights institutions and civil society, with a view to ensuring their participation in the panel discussion;
- Also requests the High Commissioner to prepare a report on the panel discussion in the form of a summary, and to submit it to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-eighth session;
- Decides to remain seized of the matter.
* Non-member State of the Human Rights Council.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.