“Lioness at the Gate”

Rachel Allison

As major conferences are held at the United Nations, men and women from all over the world come to New York City to support a particular cause or share their grievances with those who will listen.  Many plan what are called “side events” and these side events are calendared and publicized with the hopes that conference participants will attend.

In 2007 I was attending The Conference, Commission on the Status of Women, and I attended one such side event that was taking place.

Five beautiful women, all from Sweden, had traveled to New York City to ask that their roles as “mother” and their desire to be a “stay-at-home mother” be acknowledged as a meaningful, respectable and even crucial role in society.

Their grievance was that unless Swedish women are working outside the home they are looked down upon as non-contributors of society…even parasites of those willing to work for the betterment of Sweden and its economy.

One woman shared with us the statistics of Sweden’s growth and envied economy.  But she said that the statistics that are not so commonly shared are the statistics of child suicide and the rampant depression in the women who are told that they can and should “do it all.”  …Be a contributing member of society and a woman who can keep a household and family running in organized and top order.   She said that government call centers have been provided for children who are home and feeling depressed.  But these call centers are not statistically diminishing the suicide rate.

As these five young women spoke out about their frustrations and their desire to be considered contributing members of society as they stay home to care for their children, my heart ached for them and the children of such a culture.

In more recent years I spoke with a Swedish woman who did not have the same impression of her country.  She felt that her government did encourage women to stay at home at least during the first years of their children’s lives.  She was an older woman, more a grandmother’s age.  And I wondered where the truth actually lies.

I recently read an article by Julie B. Beck where she referred to a mother’s role as being compared with a “Lioness at the gate of the home….she guards that gate, and things matter to that family if they matter to her.”  I have thought about that analogy numberless times, and as I have reflected upon the years when my five active children were in the home, I can see that her comparison is extremely insightful.  My thoughts have turned to the numerous times with each of my children when if I had not been available or vigilant or willing to “snarl and claw” my children could have been “carried away” by the influences that exist to destroy their productive lives.  Anyone having had teenage children will know exactly what I’m talking about…. teenagers living in our society need I lioness standing guard, not a pussy cat, or worse yet a distracted pussy cat.

Those who attended the UN side event were as frustrated with the situation as the five women living it in their home country. The debate and conversation was spirited and supportive of their plight.

At one point I spoke saying, “We can have it all…and we can do it all.  After all, we are women.  However, there is a time and a season to all things.  There is a season for us to get our education and develop talents and skills.  And there is a season to have children and love and support and teach and guide them until they can travel through life on their own.  And there is a time and season for a career and self-indulgence.  But these seasons of our lives do not run concurrently.  Most of the time they come in consequential order and spacing.  That is the only way we can have it all and take care of that which is most important for the season of our lives we are in.  It’s when we try to do things out of season that our efforts are frustrated and we experience failure.”  Neither my thoughts nor words were  original. I do not take credit for them.   They are found in Ecclesiastes Chapter 3.  And the entire room erupted in applause and a standing ovation.  The truth rings true to those that “hear.”

 

 

Whether we like it or not, the UN Matters

Editor’s note:  Another in a series of articles describing the various “parallel events” at the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) 2013.

Katie Donnelly

The United Nations complex isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. The walls are stained with water damage, the rooms are plain and uninspiring, and the diplomats who hurry through the halls could be any person you bump into at the Starbucks down the road. Similarly, the United Nations as an institution is not all the world hails it to be. It is often impeded by politics, crippled by ambiguous language, and dominated by a worldview out-of-sync with reality. As a college student from a conservative background, I know the right likes to dismiss the relevancy of the United Nations. However, truth be told, what happens at the United Nations has profound impacts on the world, and Christians and conservatives alike should be especially interested in the consequences of UN policy.

Here are some facts about the UN that should scare the living daylights out of you.

1.  The UN and many of the N0n Governmental Organizations  (NGOs) who flock there are steeped in a radical leftist ideology.

Across the road from the UN headquarters is a shrine of sorts to the United Nations. Etched in the wall above the stairway to 43^rd Street is a verse from the prophet Isaiah: “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.” The beginning of this verse (Is.2:4), which says “He (the God of Jacob) will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples” is a phrase conveniently left out. This epitomizes UN ideology: the belief that absolute peace and the end of suffering are achievable on earth, with or without divine assistance.

2.  Developing countries often base their laws off UN agreements.

 I recall from last year’s UN Conference on the Status of Women that a representative from an African nation was thrilled that the “right to abortion” was included in her nation’s constitution. She noted that British and American law along with UN policies all protected this right and, thus, reproductive services (i.e. access to abortion) should be provided in her home country. All of the other arguments surrounding abortion – the moral, medical, or factual reasons why access to abortion might not be best for a woman or a nation – were cast aside in favor of international precedent. This happens more often than we know, and we should be seriously disturbed that younger countries look to the UN for black-and-white answers to questions that require sober and deep consideration.

3.  NGOs  in many countries go to UN conferences for ideas and assistance in solving social, economic, and development issues back home.

 If you are disturbed by some of the documents that emerge from the UN, whether it is CEDAW or the CRC, you would be stunned by the things said by the NGO’s at UN conferences. This year my team of students from Patrick Henry College sat in on a variety of meetings at the UN Conference on the Status of Women. We heard the United Methodist Church call for the criminalization of war. We heard representatives from the YWCA state that Jerusalem is “under Israeli occupation,” and nations should invest more money in controlling climate change and protecting women’s reproductive health than they invest in their national defense. We sat in on a Girl Scout’s meeting about how 7-10 year old girls need to be educated on dating violence and how Disney teaches girls horrible falsehoods like how “a girl needs to change in order to be loved by a man.” Now, imagine how these sorts of ideas are being absorbed by women around the world who come to the UN CSW looking for guidance on how to improve the lives of their girls back home. We should be concerned.

In short, conservatives need to wake up and smell the coffee. The United Nations may seem innocuous with its seemingly naive aspirations for world peace and civilizational harmony, but what it actually accomplishes is much more harmful than we suspect. Let’s stop twiddling our thumbs while destructive ideologies spread their roots across the globe and let’s start getting involved in an institution that intimately affects us, whether we like it or not.

Katie Donnelly is a senior International Politics and Policy major at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, VA. She is interested in international development, international relations, and any policies affecting the family and religious freedom.

Countries Manipulated by the Media

Carol Soelberg

Late on Friday, the UN negotiating room erupted in cheers as anti-family activists welcomed the adoption of the “Agreed Conclusions” for the Commission on Status of Women (CSW) 57th session.  Two weeks of intense negotiations had produced a document that was less than favorable to the cause of family and of life.  United Families representatives, along with other members of the pro-family/pro-life coalition, had gone late into the night monitoring negotiations, providing options for language, and working to shore up the family-friendly delegations.  In the end, however, it became clear that one of our biggest opponents had been the media.

Before CSW even began, media was circulating the meme that the delegations of Russia, Iran, the Holy See, Pakistan, were going to work to stymie negotiations.  The articles (examples here and here) implied that nations that are conservative in worldview and adhere to religion and traditional cultural values were complicit in promoting violence against women.  (Eliminating Violence against Women and Girls” was the theme of the two-week gathering.)  The news articles made it clear that if the outcome document failed (as it did last year) that it would be the fault of these nations and their delegations.

At about 5:30 pm on the final day, the negotiation’s facilitator announced that a “Chairman’s text” was now going to be used as the final version.  There was no word as to who had actually been involved in compiling the text. It was a stunning turn of events because the Chairman’s text retained much of the language that pro-family countries had opposed for weeks and yet the compilers of the text had simply dropped many of the pro-life/pro-family phrases and paragraphs.  In the end, few delegations spoke out against the Chairman’s text or registered reservations and it was adopted.

The anti-family contingents at CSW were not going to let this document fail and it appeared that the media campaign against the pro-family position had done its job.  The voices of our usually out-spoken and assertive pro-family delegations had been tempered.  Long-time UN watchers observed that if the text had gone to an actual counted vote, pro-family delegations did not have sufficient enough numbers to defeat the Chairman’s text so why should they risk the wrath of the media and the liberal delegations, when opposing the draft in the final moments would not have affected the outcome anyway.  “It was a done deal from the beginning,” one observer noted.

Specific Outcomes of CSW 57 “Agreed Conclusions”

Some of the troubling language:

• Multiple references to “sexual and reproductive” health care/services/rights (used to promote abortion).

•   “gender-related crimes” in the context of the International Criminal Court; “gender-based violence” causing “…psychological harm or suffering…”  (“Gender” is often used in the context of acknowledging and promoting homosexual behaviors.)

• Deletion of the paragraph supporting a nation’s sovereign rights, “…with full respect for the various religious and ethical values and cultural backgrounds of its people, and conformity with universally recognized international human rights.”

Some successes:

• Gone from text are references to “sexual or gender orientation” or “gender-identity”  (The opposition was saddened by its loss, noting that it referred to “women who love other women”.)  References to “intimate partner” “intimate relationships” were also removed.  (This is language intended to normalize out-of-wedlock sexual relations.)

• Retention of ICPD language in reference to abortion.

• An inclusion of the troubling language of “comprehensive sexuality education” but qualified with this important phrase: “…with the appropriate direction and guidance from parents and legal guardians…”

• Inclusions of need to eliminate “prenatal sex selection,” “forced hysterectomy,” forced sterilization,” forced use of contraceptives”

A Bad Document, but a Great Education!  

United Families International conducted a parallel event called:  “Eliminating Violence against Women and Girls: What does the research say?”  To a packed room, we presented a wealth of evidence that the safest place for women and children is in a stabled, married, heterosexual household.   Included in the event was a short presentation on the horrific practice of sex-selective abortion (the systematic termination of unborn females).   At the completion of the presentation, a young Hungarian woman approached one of the college students who was part of the UFI team and mentioned that prior to our presentation she “had never before considered how women, and human beings in general, have rights before they are born.”

The UFI team was pleased to recognize once again that the real win is in the heart and mind of each individual.   We came away with a long list of individuals from around the world who requested a copy of the power point so they could share the research with others.  Every individual who becomes convinced of the necessity of the family in providing a safe place for women, adds one more powerful voice in defense of the family.

The UFI team, which consisted of six college students, their two professors, and UFI’s other volunteers, were able to visit twelve UN Missions.  They delivered UFI’s Negotiating Guide and the book on the importance of Family Capital in meeting the Millennium Development Goals.  Mission visits are a wonderful way to become acquainted with the delegates, offer support and encouragement for their difficult task of standing firm against the huge wall of opposition, and to spread a pro-family/pro-life message.

Lastly, we were also supported by a group of dedicated students from Patrick Henry College.  We thank them for their work.  Please take a minute to check out some of their blog posts (below).  You’ll gain some interesting insights into the Commission on the Status of Women.

It does not surprise us that the UN commissions become increasingly resistant to family-friendly documents.  But we will not give up!  We will continue to work with the International pro-family coalition to discover ways to protect the family and stop the progress of the opposition.  We learned this time the power the media can play in the UN and we will be prepared to fight that battle in the future.  We know that those of our team who experienced the UN for the first time have seen another side of the opposition and they left more empowered to defend the family on all levels.

We wish you could all have that experience and hope that our report lights a fire in your hearts to continue the critical work of protecting and strengthening the family.

Carol Soelberg
President, United Families International

 

The Best and the Worst of Feminism: A comparison of UN Events

Editor’s note:  Another in a series of articles describing the various “parallel events” at the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) 2013.

Ethan Foster

Friends of the UN believe international government is too good to be true and desire the most effective institutions. Opponents fear the UN is too true to be good and hope for an ineffective global power structure. However, both groups should consider the effect that feminism has on the UN, where numerous viewpoints are exchanged by nearly two-hundred nations. Currently, feminism is a philosophy for the empowerment of women and the absolute, leveling equality of political standing, gender roles, and societal function. If one attends different Side-Events at the Commission on the Status of Women, one realizes the advantages and disadvantages of the feminist voice.

Feminism at its Best: an Ineffective Servant

A Side-Event devoted to the “Safety of Women Journalists” reveals the feminist perspective at its best. The opening remarks from Austrian minister Martin Sajdik introduced the subject of violence against journalists as especially pertinent to women. The attending minister from Costa- Rica concurred, adding that the past year marked a 33% increase in journalist killings, reaching a historical all-time high. Recorded violence against women was especially prevalent, and the report highlighted increased instances of intimidation, threats, detainment, torture, rape, and killing.

The subject of women became a hangnail in a larger discussion about violence against journalists. The first panel speaker, Lauren Wolfe, stressed that this is not a women’s issue but a journalists’ issue. Men and women are targeted and attacked in different ways. Females are frequently raped in mobs, but males are often detained by authorities and imprisoned in foreign countries. Another journalist claimed that violence against women is not significantly worse, but different. Of the four panelists, one of the journalists insisted that women were especially under siege, while the other three identified a larger problem and exhorted governments to rescue journalists from a growing international danger.

Violence against journalists is a growing threat, but the tools of feminism are too narrow and specific to assist in a legitimate international problem. When a good question demands a feminist answer, the result is unhelpful because feminism provides an incomplete cross-section of society, packaged with a distorted philosophy. At its best, the feminist solutions for empowerment and equality prove ineffective in the face of important global concerns.

Opponents of the United Nations should recognize that feminism provides a skewed worldview for addressing questions far outside its reach. It paralyzes legitimate discussion on important issues by seeking to fulfill a specialized agenda. Lovers of the United Nations should recognize that feminism is not a holistic philosophy, but an incomplete methodology. If anything, feminism should restrain itself to the questions it is designed to answer.

 Feminism at its Worst: a Terrible Master

When the feminist agenda leads discussions at the United Nations, it becomes worse than unhelpful. The movement defines all inequality as “Violence against Women.”  Anything short of equality is violent. Thus, contemporary feminists focus on social development, re-engineering, and re-education. For example, Norway hosted a Side Event titled, “Gender-Based Violence Prevention as a Human Right and a Legally Binding State Obligation.”

The minister from Norway opened with an exhortation for leveling gender roles and power imbalances between the sexes. Norway had already achieved policies that encouraged men to become “caregivers,” thereby making them more empathetic, docile, and nonviolent. The minister also promoted new scientific developments such as “electronic tagging,” setting apart violent male threats from the rest of society.

In addition, Norway boasts feminist- operated rehabilitation clinics for aggressive men. The “state” has taken the feminine gender and the role of the nanny. Inequality is violence against women, which in turn is violence against children, and violence against children is violence against society and the future. Therefore, it is in the best interest of society for the state to provide caregivers for children who experience violence in the home, whether physical or psychological. To do so, however, the state must first deconstruct existing power structures, namely, the traditional family.

The minister from South Africa added that one out of every three women is raped in her lifetime. She argued that the state must develop methods of intervention, protection, empowerment, and prosecution. Society must intervene by redefining masculinity, protecting victims, and empowering women. In addition, South Africa is testing new court-systems that are exclusively devoted to sexual crimes, based on the idea that men cannot be trusted alone with the court system.

Jody Williams, a Nobel Prize winner and activist since Vietnam, argued that the patriarchal system is inherently evil. She advocated a dismantling effort at the grassroots level. Gary Barker, another panelist, countered that men have deep-seated empathy and nonviolence that needs reawakening. Governments must pass laws promoting equality, but campaigns should cater to men in nuanced media approaches that offer positive messages on the proper treatment of women while promoting empathy and the virtues of caregiving. Men need to participate in this process.

When the floor opened for questions, a woman stood and introduced herself as Thomas. She declared that feminists should give up on men and focus entirely on controlling the education of the young. Thomas voiced the disgust of the female audience and panelists. For them it seemed obvious that men were to blame for societal ills, and they were the heroes who would liberate society from itself.

With the entire feminist agenda in view, it’s devastating implications are clear. Equality means the dismantling of the family, the leveling of the military, and the destruction of any institution with gender-specific roles. The state becomes the coercive equalizer by redefining gender roles and engineering a new concept of masculinity. Men and children must be controlled by the state; only such a society could satisfy the insatiable libertine desires of the feminist agenda.

 Final Thoughts

 Evidently, the feminist perspective is most useful when it is limited to a supportive role and unique perspective in a larger analysis. It exacerbates problems when it maintains a radical agenda and narrow worldview. It is inimical to stable governing bodies because it swears allegiance to social-leveling politics by promising a common purpose and injecting viral ideologies into the bloodstream of slow-moving politics.

Ethan Foster is a student of Political Theory at Patrick Henry College. His interests include reading, writing, debating, playing the piano, and beekeeping. Ethan plans on going to law school and hopes to become a political activist on behalf of family values.

 

The Face Behind the Story

Editor’s note:  Another in a series of articles describing the various “parallel events” at the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) 2013.

by Callan Goodwin

A few weeks ago I was sitting around a table discussing the ethics of abortion with 20 conservative, politically-aware college students. Their arguments against abortion were based on the philosophy of what life is, or theoretical second hand experiences. During the discussion I had a sense of unease with how the discussion was being approached. Everything being said was statistics and personal opinion; there was a lack of humanity in the discussion. Because abortion kills a human before it is even born those who are left alive don’t think to put faces to the lost babies. Abortion becomes less of a human problem and more about how it affects public policy. This approach was what caused my unease in ethics class. On Monday evening I attended a parallel event put on by Real Women of Canada and Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. That evening I put faces on two survivors of abortion, a raped mother and a child conceived by rape.

Liz Carl was drugged and raped while still in high school, a few weeks later she tested positive for pregnancy. She was frightened, confused, and ashamed. Her friends encouraged her to get an abortion. The night before her appointment a friend looked her in the eye and said, “You know that it is a baby.” Miraculously Liz didn’t wake up in time for her morning appointment. That evening she finally told her mother the whole story and began to receive support and therapy she needed. In the next nine months Liz picked a family to adopt her son so she could stay in contact with her. Today Liz is part of her son’s life and is attending college. According to her, abortion supporter’s arguments are nullified because of her story. She said, “I have never looked and seen my rapist in my son, I have only seen joy.” Liz believes abortion would have been her worst decision because she has found healing from the rape in spending time with her son.

Rebecca Kiessling also gave her story. She was adopted by a loving family and when she was 18 she began to search for her real family. The records of her biological mother’s name were confidential but she was able to obtain information such as health records and a physical description of her mother. But only her father’s height, build and eye color, a description straight from a police log. Eventually Rebecca was able to find her mother, and when they met for the first time her mom told her about the brutal rape she endured and why her mother had decided against aborting Rebecca. When the assault had been committed abortion was still illegal. This saved Rebecca’s life and led to her mother’s healing. According to Rebecca’s mother she, “forgot the rape because she saw her beautiful child.” This mother also found joy in her child, just like Liz.

Rebecca’s story is one of a close call because Roe vs. Wade was past just three months after her birth. If it had been past just a few months earlier Rebecca would have become a statistic that people now use to discuss abortion. Rebecca points out that her mother didn’t choose to save her “the law did.” These women are the human faces to an issue that even conservatives disagree on, is rape a condition to allow abortion. When you look at their faces my qualms were answered.

Callan Goodwin is a senior Government Major at Patrick Henry College in Northern Virginia. One of her interests is international affairs and its impacts on American government policy and society.

“We Believe What We Wish to Believe” Analysis of the Session “In Our Right Minds”

Editor’s note:  Another in a series of articles describing the various “parallel events” at the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) 2013.

By Joshua Schow

“A woman uses her intelligence to find reasons to support her intuition” – G.K. Chesterton

From the back of a captive crowd, former actress and current feminist activist Dale Allen reverently approaches the front of the room garbed in a black robe while she clutches a large book. As she solemnly steps through the aisle, she loudly recites quotations from works such as the Hammurabi Code, Aristotelian treatises, Jewish Prayers, Koran passages, Biblical passages, and Fredric Nietzsche’s writings. The theme is clear: men have subjugated women in the most viciously misogynistic ways.

But women need not succumb to this oppression, Allen jubilantly proclaims. With a grand gesture and a dramatic flourish, she closes her prop book while calling upon her sisters to close the book on masculine domination and usher in a New Age of Femininity. Not another word is spoken of these quotations as she folds a black hood over her head, raises her arms in the shape of a crucifix and exuberantly chants “Our Mother who art with us / Each breath brings us to you. / Thy wisdom come, / Thy will be done / as we honor your presence within us.”

The theatrics hardly ceased there, but brevity compels me to forego dramatic description. Allen’s thesis is formulated on the premise of right/left brain thinking. The right brain is the creative, feminine element of the psyche and the left-brain is associated with the logical, masculine elements of thinking. (Note first that most cognitive psychologists reject this dichotomization as simplistic and overly-generalized.) She argued that society has been largely dominated by the left-brain thinking for the better part of the centuries. This left-brain dominance, she suggests is the primary reason for masculine patriarchy.

Her exploration of her thesis covered religious thought and mythology, anthropology, and epistemology indirectly. Regarding religion, she argued that originally humans conceptualized god as a female. Early religions, she claimed championed the cycle of birth, compassion, and nurturing values. It was not until the past 2,500 years that humans moved from matriarchal religions to patriarchal religions. (This theory, while popular among second-wave feminists, has largely been dismissed in the scholarly community.) She argues that text-based religions are characteristically masculine because they rely on left-brain hierarchical thinking.

Her understanding of Christianity is particularly troublesome. First, she suggested that scholars have determined that the original “Trinity” was actual the Holy Father, the Holy Mother, and the Holy Child. Only more recent religious teachings redacted the Creation myth to suggest only masculine identity. Additionally, her historical claims that Constantine’s canonization of the Bible discredited the Gnostic right-brain thinking and led to the left-brain dominance of Christianity is entirely false. First, Constantine did not canonize scripture. Rather it was a much more organic process. Second, canonization had nothing to do with the repudiation of Gnosticism. It was rejected because it was a heresy. Third, Christians had long since based their religious teaching on textual material, whether an informal canon or a reliance on Rabbinic texts. Thus, Christianity must have already been left-brain dominant before the Gnostics even existed. Finally, this entirely ignores the symbolic significance of many of the religious ceremonies in Christianity (i.e. the sacraments). Feminist theorists have targeted biblical scholarship for some time now. However, their arguments have all failed to match the historical and literary robustness of more traditional theories.

Perhaps it is unhelpful to document the scholastic errors here. Unfortunately, the theories of cultural feminism have been pervasive even in the early 1960s with the advent of second-wave feminism. These ideas have gained some popularity among modern feminists. Such thinking is embraced at the Commission on the Status of Women. There is much to be said about engaging the cultural feminist in an academic context. However, it is better to engage them on a deeper, existential level that will speak to their souls. The cultural feminists are not seeking the inner goddess because they have a sound theory to support their search. Instead they are rationalizing their deep spiritual needs by pursuing empty ideology that cannot withstand scrutiny.

 

Joshua Schow is currently a student at Patrick Henry College studying Government. His research interests include international relations, social politics, and sociology.

Why then, UN?

Brian Scarnnecchia

This year’s Conference on the Status of Women (CSW) is directed to the elimination of all forms of violence against women and girls. A New York Times article (March 12, 2013) entitled “Unholy Alliance” claims that Russia, Iran and the Vatican are in league to use “custom, tradition and religion” to “control women” and provide cover for rogue governments to duck their obligation to eliminate all forms of violence against women.

However, the statement of Archbishop Paglia, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, to the delegates gathered at the UN for the 57th CSW lent little support to this allegation. In fact, he said the opposite:

“Many women and girls, from the moment of conception until natural death, face an array of immoral and dehumanizing acts of violence. In addition, degrading practices, such as female genital mutilation, child marriage, forced sterilization and forced abortions, characterize this continuum and constitute heinous forms of oppression trampling upon the dignity of women and girls. This reality demands that Governments as well as all societal institution undertake concerted and comprehensive efforts to address this grave problem.”

So, why the negative New York Times’ spin directed against the Holy See? Last year the 56th CSW failed to produce an outcome document because of the push-back from UN delegates of the developing world to the radical positions that were advanced by the Obama administration, the EU and their allied pro-abortion non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Basically, last year’s CSW was a big waste of time and money. This year the developed nations, including the Obama administration, are pulling all stops and are intent on forcing poor countries into accepting an out-come document that enshrines abortion as a fundamental right and that classifies restrictions on homosexual sex as “crimes against humanity” to be prosecuted by International Criminal Court.

Many delegates from the developing world are complaining that the CSW has lost its direction and is simply focused on forcing abortion and unrestricted homosexual sodomy on the third world. The real issues plaguing women in the developing world such as potable water, sanitation, and basic health care such as antibiotics and blood banks are being given little attention, they say. Earlier in the negotiation process the Holy See sought to insert language into the proposed out-come document grounding the rights of women and girls in the foundational documents of the United Nations. All reference to those documents, the UN Charter (1945) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) which guarantees the right to life to all persons, was struck from the latest draft of the out-come document.

There was dead silence in the room when law professor, Helen Alvere, read the Holy See statement that tagged abortion as an inherent form of violence against women:

“Hence, as many women who have undergone this experience know, abortion, in all its forms, can never be considered as a right solution to any of the plagues that target women; rather, compounding the violence with violence increases social trauma and cannot but contribute to aggravating the spread and the pain of violence in our societies… encouraging her to perpetuate the cycle of violence.”[1] She warned the delegates, in the words of Pope John Paul II, that they must not foster a “war of the powerful against the weak.”[2]

It remains to be seen if the rich nations and their media pundits will succeed in twisting the arms of the UN delegates from the developing world and force them to sign a post-modern ideologically driven outcome document. If this occurs, it will signal that the rich nations have tightened their grip over the least developed nations and that the founding Charter of the UN has been ignored. Why then, UN?

–Brian Scarnnecchia J.D.

Human Life Studies and Legal Studies Professor, Franciscan University of Steubenville

Reporting from the floor of the UN[1] Citing Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in veriate, #15.
[2] Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, #12.

 

Remembering CSW

Rachel Allison

This week is the final week of the “Commission on the Status of Women,” a conference being held at the United Nations in New York City.  United Families International has several volunteers at the UN working to influence pro-life and pro-family language into the outcome documents that will soon become International Law.

As important as this lobbying is, those in our delegation also have opportunity to support women who have come from all over the world to speak to UN delegations concerning their difficult situations at home. Until we hear their stories many of us cannot fathom the situations these good women are experiencing.  In past years I have heard women speak about human slave and sex trafficking.  Their laws and police force do not protect them or their children from such atrocities.   I have heard women talk about watching other women stoned to death without trial or jury.  I have heard women talk about laws that do not protect their 10, 11, and 12 year-old daughters from being bought and subjected to marriage and pregnancy…pregnancy that often causes the unborn baby to die within the womb of the child bride because her body is not mature enough to give birth.

I’m not at CSW (Commission on the Status of Women) this year, but I am trying to read as much as I can about what is happening as they try to direct this year’s focus on eliminating violence against women. I just read an article by someone who is at the conference.  His words brought back vivid memories of needs and concerns that are too often sidelined.

“During the waning days of the conference’s first week and well into this most recent weekend,  I watched and listened as African women discussed and debated the all-important Outcome Document amongst themselves.  Luckily for me, English is their common language and as I sat beside them in the Business Center of our clean but quite modest hotel late into the night on Saturday AND Sunday, I heard their concerns.”

“They are worried about their daughter’s AND son’s education; they want access to potable water in the more remote regions of their respective countries; more doctors, and in keeping with          this year’s conference theme, they want real life-and-death protection for their daughters.”

As I read his article, I was taken back to the years when I attended CSW, and my heart went out to these women who are desperate for help.  I have personally seen women who have to walk miles for potable water.  I have seen the small dark tents where 15+ children huddle to be taught reading and simple arithmetic. I have seen villages whose only “doctor” is a witch doctor who uses the same needle on his patients until it is too dull to be used again.  I have seen mother’s grieve over the loss of a child to dehydration, snakebite, and disease when there was no medicine or help to save.

We who can’t imagine raising a family in such living conditions should count our blessings, and determine that we will give selflessly to strengthen our families, and then support causes that can lift and help the struggling.

Because I have seen what I have seen, and experienced what I have experienced, I cannot, without guilt, spend time on the trivial.  I’m grateful for that guilt.  There are causes too vital not to get involved.  I try to examine my priorities every day. And then I pray like the dickens that my efforts will make a difference.

Government Knows Best?

Amanda Mitchell

I am trying to get the word out about the CRPD and its long-term consequences. I believe this issue will be important to you. I believe the consequences for ratifying the CRPD are more grave than realized and urgent action needs to be taken. I hope that you will listen to my point of view and, I thank you in advance for your time.

The CRPD stands for The Convention of Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is a United Nation’s treaty that may soon be going to a ratification vote by the U.S. Senate. I have done my own research and am horrified that we would even consider this. This treaty has many of the same problems as The Convention on the Rights of a Child which, rightly, has never been ratified by the U.S. – in spite of the fact it has been around since 1989.

Similar to The Convention on the Rights of the Child, the CRPD gives the UN and government agencies control over what is in the “best interests” of our children, this time specifically our disabled children. It also claims the right to make decisions for disabled adults – all in the name of protecting them. It supersedes many of our own fundamental rights like the right to self-govern, our laws and our Constitution. And instead of “We the People” it gives further control over to government to do what “it” thinks is best.

It scares me, because Hitler didn’t just come to power overnight and then start committing atrocities. People really believed in change and the “best for the Motherland”. It wasn’t about killing people, but about success, improvement and a better way of life for the people of Germany. If the people of the country were looking at long term consequences of their ideology, how many do you think would have stopped it before it got out of hand?

Some Examples

What is defined as best by government is not always what is best for individuals.Euthanasia is a good example. Belgium is one of the countries that have adopted these UN treaties. If a doctor believes the child under the age of one will suffer in life because of a disability, the government has given power to doctors to decide whether or not to end that child’s life. Parents can protest, but the doctor decides. This is not unlike what Hitler did. At first the disabled were taken care of and put in homes, and then they were given “merciful deaths.”

In Sweden, it is a “child’s right” to childcare outside the family home. The government provides maternity leave until the child reaches about 16 months of age and then expects that families place their children in childcare After all, the government knows the “best interests” of your child. If you home school in Sweden, you can look forward to being hunted down and your children taken. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I cannot think of a time in history where once government gained a foothold – often using the term “human rights” – that it ever let go of its prey. Human rights were defined no longer by individuals, but by the few on top who rule.

And is it really “human rights” at the end of the day or a way to sugarcoat another person’s beliefs that you will be forced to live by? Before we know it, we will have lost all that we have, by trying to do good, and only a few will have gained in the end. These treaties do sound good; they deceive many people and many nations.

I believe in families, kids, parents and individuals. It really saddens me to see our freedoms and way of life slip away. More and more governmental control only leads to oppression and suppression, even if it was started with good intentions.

What’s in The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Article 7 of the CRPD states:

1. STATES PARTIES shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children.

2. In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

3. STATES PARTIES shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.

There is no consideration in this article for parental rights and it states that “in ALL actions…the best interests of the child shall be the PRIMARY consideration.” And who is going to be considering what is in the best interest of my child? The government or “STATES PARTIES”. My child shall also “… be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.” That means government shall undermine and take over the parents’ role to “provide” the “assistance to realize that “right.” However, I still believe it is a fundamental right and responsibility of a parent to decide what is in the best interest of a child and to GUIDE their child. What is a parent without this right?

No one knows a child like a parent. A parent sees the small things that add up to big things in a child’s life. We make it our priority. Each child is different and every family is different. I know that we have to take unique things into consideration with each child in our family when deciding what is needed for our child’s success and happiness. There will never be a one size fits all.

How can a government begin to monitor and “ensure” the “enjoyment” of those with disabilities to be equal to others without establishing precedence for it? Firm standards would need to be established requiring defined rights, best interests and happiness of those with disabilities and those without. Thus, our freedom and liberty will be diminished in light of a government-controlled and pre-determined definition of “rights” and “happiness” and “best interests”; a one-size-fits-all cliché. Worse yet, the treaty gives power to an unelected group of international bureaucrats to dictate to countries what is required of each country to meet their obligations under this treaty.

Conclusion

A government does not consider differences in each child, individual or family and no one will do as much for our kids as we, the parents, will. No bureaucrat or politician’s beliefs should take precedence over a parent when it comes to a child. Please do not give anyone the right to overstep this boundary. It is not what is going to help our children, families or individual freedom. In addition, the CRPD is supposed to help secure the “fundamental freedoms” of those with disabilities, yet the UN doesn’t have the ability or power to protect even the most basic “fundamental freedoms” of people around the world.

I believe this issue touches every life regardless of our beliefs or circumstances. Opening the door for the government to decide what is needed to “protect us”, leaves unchecked power that can rob us of our liberty. The government taking control of our “best interests” will render us powerless and it will supersede our right to individual freedom, religious freedom, freedom of speech and the right to self-govern.

Please help spread the word and help stop this treaty. In so doing, you are considering the future of our children and our nation. Contact your Senators, tell them to vote “no” on the CRPD.

Editor’s Note:  We would like to introduce you to Amanda. It is so refreshing to meet people who, on their own, research the threats that exist and then do something with what they know! Amanda is a citizen and a concerned parent who keeps her eyes and ears open. When she learned of CRPD, she sat down and wrote of her passion for preserving our right to make decisions for and to protect our families – particularly those with disabilities – and then contacted UFI to see if we would help her alert other people.  We hope you enjoy reading her perspective on this treaty.

Another UN Treaty that Needs to Go Away

Another UN treaty that would put the U.S. in the cross-hairs of unelected international bureaucrats was passed out of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week.  Supporters of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) hope that the Senate vote to ratify this treaty will take place by the end of this coming week (by August 3).

As with virtually all UN treaties that emanate from the Economic and Social Division of the United Nations system, a country gives up a lot and gets nothing in return. Although the name of this treaty would make you believe it is worthy of U.S. ratification, the devil is in the details.

United Families International was at the UN in New York during final negotiations of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (December 2006) and we can testify that this treaty has all the problems and ideological baggage of the numerous other treaties that have been created by the UN and then never ratified by the U.S.

Here’s a brief list of the reasons why the United States should not ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:

• The U.S. does not need to compromise their sovereignty to supposedly stand in solidarity with other nations on the issue of fair treatment for persons with disabilities.
• The U.S. has already enacted some of the strongest disability legislation in the world.
• The U.S. doesn’t need to sign onto this treat in order to provide leadership on this issue.
• This treaty compromises parents’ right to direct the education of their disabled children.  The language of “best interests of the child” is the language of those who would like to wrest control from parents.  Does the parent or the government know what is best for a child?  This document puts the power in the hands of government.
• This document contains language that can be easily misconstrued and misinterpreted to support reproductive health rights (code words for abortion).  As was mentioned earlier, UFI was there advocating for the family during the final negotiations of this convention and the reproductive language was highly controversial and hotly contested.
• A UN compliance committee (unelected international bureaucrats) is given the authority to monitor and issue edicts as to whether or not a signatory country is complying with the mandates of this convention.  Sovereignty would be compromised.

The U.S. is already a leader in its treatment and policies related to people with disabilities.  The ratification of this treaty does nothing to further the interests of the good people who struggle with disabilities.  Senators James Inhofe and Jim DeMint explain it best:

The globalist ideologues behind these treaties are either ignorant of or hostile to the universal human experience that problems are best solved by the people and institutions closest to them. So assured are these masters of their mandate to direct the lives and wealth of other people that they see their routine failures to do so efficiently at the local, state and national level merely as reason to ascend to new heights of international command and control.

Contact your senators today and let them know that you don’t support another meaningless UN treaty.  Tell the UN bureaucrats “NO.”