Homosexual activists have failed in an effort to impose acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle on the world.
The United Nations General Assembly voted to delete language from a proposed resolution that claimed that two new anti-discrimination categories exist: sexual orientation and gender identity.
"What this body is trying to do is to elevate the homosexual agenda to a global right that governments are treaty-bound to accept," explains Austin Ruse, head of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM). "There was an attempt to have this reinterpretation officially accepted by the General Assembly, and it was defeated."
One News Now does not provide details regarding the resolution but another right-wing publication, Lifesite News, does:
The deleted reference was to General Comment 20 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The ICESCR was adopted by the UN on December 16, 1966, and declares that states that are part of the agreement will "undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, color, sex, language, religion ... or other status."
General Comment 20 states that the phrase "other status" includes "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." This means, according to the Comment, that members of the ICESCR "must ... adopt measures, which should include legislation, to ensure that individuals and entities in the private sphere do not discriminate on prohibited grounds."
This state of affair accentuates the problem for lgbts worldwide.
Even in the midst of all of this madness in Uganda, the raping of lesbians in South Africa as a "corrective measure," the recent arrest of a Malawi gay couple for getting married, and a host of other facts regarding the mistreatment of lgbts in other countries, there are some people still clinging to the notion that lgbts are trying to "indoctrinate people."
That by merely wanting to conduct our lives in peace, we are trying to "force acceptance,"
And that somehow we aren't deserving of basic human dignity.
Austin Ruse, the man cited in the article further said:
"Most countries have a very traditional view of human sexuality, of marriage, [and] of the family, so when these ideas percolate through from radicals in the United States and the European Union, and they eventually get to the General Assembly where a lot of traditional people are represented, they get defeated," Ruse notes.
Someone should ask Ruse just what is his view of "traditional human sexuality and people."
Does it involve hanging children like they did to those two innocent boys in Iran?
Or how about butchering innocent activists like what was done in Jamaica?
Or what about the laws in 30 Islamic countries that make homosexuality a criminal offense. In most cases punishment range from floggings to life imprisonment. In Mauritania, Bangladesh, Yemen, parts of Nigeria and Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, convicted homosexuals can also be sentenced to death.
Ruse and those who stand with him not only have a warped sense of tradition but also of right and wrong.
And it leads me again to say while I love and fear God, I have a serious concern about those who claim to represent Him.
35 comments:
A year ago the Holy See and the Bush administration tried to get the General Assembly to endorse a statement condemning precisely the kind of violence against homosexuals that you cite. The effort was quashed by France and her allies in Europe? Why? Because these efforts are not really about stopping violence. They are about forcing a broad range of homosexual "rights" on traditional peoples using the least democratic venues possible.
Austin Ruse
President
C-FAM
Your statement is a wonderment. Just how do you "force" homosexual rights on "traditional peoples?"
Austin, please get rid of the phraseology because you aren't speaking to the choir here. Why don't you be specific in your objections.
It is fairly detailed, but what happens is that UN human rights monitoring bodies re-write langauge from established human rights treaties. These human rights treaties were negotiated by sovereign states and ratified, largely, by democratically elected Parliaments. This new langauge is decided by individuals whose names no one knows without looking and voila there is a new human rights category that nobody knows about and nobody has agreed to. This new language is then adjudicated in national courts where they often find ideological friends This is profoundly anti-democratic and indeed is a kind of coercion.
The language that was rejected by the GA was precisely as I describe. Last summer the human rights committee reinterpreted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to include "gender identity and sexual orientation." Quick, name even one member of that committee! This new language was then placed in a UN GA resolution for the purposes of further banging the drum for a new "treaty norm." This effort this time was defeated. Even so, we expect to see court cases being heard on the committee's orginal reinterpretation.
But Austin, you didn't answer my question. You went through a lot of legalese and "harum," "harum," but did not defend your original point. How does one force "homosexual rights" on "traditional peoples?"
You seem to be talking about the process here. But when you originally quoted, you were talking about the fact that the process had to do with gays and lesbians?
Is it the process that you disagree with or the fact that through the process, folks are seeking to protect lgbts.
And if the latter is the case, you really need to defend defining "traditional peoples" as countries who would persecute and imprison lgbts.
When non-democratic bodies like unknown UN commmittees and courts make decisions like this and then impose them on the people, that is force. Should have made that clearer.Thought i did.
But you didn't make it clear. But in the One News Now article, you were all "how dare they try to elevate the homosexual agenda to a global right."
Don't you think you aren't being honest?
Well, no. Because that is what they are trying to do. They are trying to bootstrap homosexual langauge out of a UNcommittee to a new global norm. Look up the Yogykarta Principles. It's all in there.
Now you are dodging by saying that I should read some third party document. And you still aren't clear. It is the process that you disagree with or the fact as you so put it that they are pushing protection for sexual orientation and gender identity?
You have hit on it. There are two questions. First, there is the question of how human rights law is made. We hold that backdooring it through unknown UN committees is wrong and anti-democratic.Second, is the thing itself. We object to there being special rights for "sexual orientation and gender identity" not the least of which that these are undefined terms that can be spun anyway courts want to. According to some, there are more than 20 gender identities. We believe this is crazy. So, yes, two questions. We oppose both.
There are not 20 gender identities. That doesn't even make sense. You are using propaganda created by groups such as the Traditional Values Coalition. What you are inferring to are paraphilias, not sexual orientations or gender identities.
On that point, you are operating from ignorance. Secondly the ability to live your life without fear of persecution is not a special right and should never be viewed as such.
Well then, how many are there. Name them.
No you don't my friend. You made the charge about the 20 different gender identities. YOU name them.
What you were implying about is here is - http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/disorders/Paraphilias.html
and they have nothing to do with gender identities -
I stand corrected. Now name the genders.
You keep talking about gender? Don't you mean sexual orientations? In that regard, you are still relying on inaccurate data.
When you said "20 genders," I think you were referring to an inaccurate claim that there are 20 sexual orientations. You see some religious conservative organizations thought up that nonsense by linking paraphalias to sexual orientations and claiming that they are one and the same, which they aren't.
So basically it comes down to the fact that you were trying to refer to a religious right talking point and got it mixed up rather badly.
"Traditional peoples"?
Like the Native Americans with their two-spirit traditions?
Like the Samoans and their Fafafine transgender tradition?
The Tongans? Where a Fakaleiti (their respected transgender TRADITION) was considered acceptable enough to organise the wedding of the KINGS Daughter!
The Tiwi Islanders? They also have similar TRADITIONS with the Yimpininni.
The Native Australians? Their ancient gender-diverse TRADITIONS are recorded in paintings on cliffs and caves thousands of years old.
The Traditional customs of Hawaii? Again sexuality and gender diversity traditions.
India even? Their GODS changed sex, crossdressed and had same sex relationships and even marriages!
And thats the tip of the iceberg.
Umm... but Austin, the TRADITIONAL peoples are often the ones with TRADITIONS of acceptance of sexuality and gender diversity!
The Non-Traditional peoples, the ones who recently have converted to the non-traditional-for-most-of-the-globe Abrahamic faiths (and only some of those at that) that are most oppossed to these things are they not?
Isn't using the term 'traditional' to refer to Abrahamic Religious views only recently adopted in much of the world and in contrast to the documented sexuality and gender diverse traditions of the cultures of the world inaccurate at best?
Batty -- You know those aren't the "traditional peoples" Ruse wasn't referring to. He's definitely clueless in that area!
Indeed Marlene. Thats why I thought I'd help him out before he embarassed himself too much.
So Austin, as there are Cultural Gay and Transgender Traditions dating back thousands of years as well as ancient Religious Gay and Transgender Traditions around the world does this not make Gay and Transgender TRADITIONAL?
And does that not mean that Cultural and Religious Rights apply to them?
Glad you came back to me.
How many genders. Name them. Back to that question you refuse to answer.
While you are at it...name all the sexual orientations...how many of those? You are asking that these categories become categories of protected human rights. We need to know exactly waht we are talking about.
Austin, since YOU made the statement about the 20 genders, shouldn't YOU be the one to name them?
Austin, sexual orientation is generally divided into three categories - homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual. I am unaware of any other orientation, but if there is, I doubt the number is even close to 20.
The real question here is why are you focused on this minor issue and evading the fact that lgbts are being persecuted in other countries.
I'm hip to the fact that your entire line of questioning is a silly dodge masking the fact that you refuse to address why you stand with countries persecuting lgbts and then refer to these countries as "traditional people?"
Can we please not be so ignorant folks?
We don't need to list every single religion to have protection for religion now do we!
Human/civil rights are hardly that complex.
They are based on simple notions, the total ownership of the self, which creates the need to have informed consent when interacting with others, the responsibility to respect the rights of others, the social contract.
ALL possible imaginable sexualities involving solely people capable of giving informed consent who have given uncoerced informed consent and who may at any time withdraw that consent are therefore Right and within their Human Rights.
Anything else is clearly a human rights abuse as its going against the persons right to control and ownership of their own self.
Think about it carefully and you'll see, children and animals cannot give fully informed and uncoerced consent about sex, neither can the comatose, the drugged, the drunk even.
See it doesn't matter how one divies up the catagories. All thats needed is the reason why something is either within ones rights or an abuse of them. And that naturally must be consistent and cogent and not arbitrary or religiously or culturally or traditionally defined but merely within ones rights or not.
Have i explained that plainly enough?
Now where's the recognition of gay and transgender traditions that are thousands of years old Austin?
You and other radicals propose that gender identity and sexual orientation should be new categories of nondiscrimination in human rights law yet you are unwilling, likely unable, to define what they are. That is the problem with these terms. They are elastic and can be defined almost any which way. This is why they cannot be allowed and will continue to be stopped.
Mr. Ruse, I would answer your question but I prefer that two things be my answer:
1. Our entire exchange where you couldn't justify or explain standing in the corner of countries who persecute lgbts.
2. And the fact that you have now stooped to name-calling. Me a radical? How hilarious.
Anyone who suggests that dangerous terms like sexual orientation and gender identity should be new categories of nondiscrimination are in fact radical. I note that you cannot define the terms. I didn't think you could. That is the problem and why the terms will never stand up to a democratic vote in the General Assembly, that is, if my colleagues and i have anything to say about it. I also suggest that you toughen up a bit. You cry when someone calls you a name. You are living up to at least one stereotype.
Austin... you need definitions?
Sure I'll give you some right now.
‘sexual orientation’ refers to each person’s capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender or the same gender or more than one gender;
‘gender identity’ refers to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms;
There we go Austin. So ready to support this then?
Oh but do you actually know anything about human rights?
You mentioned the Yogyakarta Principles Austin.. but did you READ them? didn't you notice they are only the 60 year old Universal Human Rights being applied equally and without bias to GLBT people?
Austin, in 2006 it was some of the worlds top human rights lawyers and judges and other experts gathered to discuss this subject and determine what CURRENT human rights laws applied to Sexuality and Gender who wrote that document. They UNANIMOUSLY agreed on this. That's the Yogyakarta Principles! http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/ Which includes a big ol' list of what Current human rights treaties oblige member states to do regarding this.
http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/principles_en.htm There's the Human Rights Law Austin. It's what each of the 60 year old Universal Human Rights Laws mean when applied to GLBT. It's right there Austin.
Look it has the definitions you claim don't exist and that you need RIGHT IN THE PREAMBLE!
So Austin, there are definitions written by Human Rights Experts. Solid and clear. Not 'judicial activism' but simply what the current human rights laws MEAN.
That in fact these are the ONLY logical and consistant conclusions of those established 60 year old principles!
Do you then concede that point?
Do you then concede that according to the legal advice contained in this document written by qualified legal experts you have been to this point incorrectly informed and mistakenly been advocating the refusal of ordinary plain equal already-existing human rights to GLBT people in clear contradiction with the principles of International Human Rights?
Austin,
you are being deceptively distracting. Batty answered your question quite adequately but let's not forget that the initial problem was the fact that you seem to be defending countries which persecute lgbts.
It's a point which you continue to evade. So I guess my advice to you is stop being such a hypocrite. Someone who leads a human rights organization shouldn't cling to technicalities.
Austin, we have cultures that have accepted homosexuality and transgender for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
Do you accept that fact? It can be checked if you like.
Polynesia, Australiasia, The Americas, India even parts of Europe and the Middle East..
Some only recently began discrimination, some have had the chain of Transgender TRADITION continuing unbroken right to the present day.
Do you accept that fact?
How then can it be considered radical?
The Member States of the UN, and not just the ones who criminally prosecute homosexual behavior, do not recognize the Yogyakarta Principles, nor the legal "expertise" of the advocates who drafted them. For more on the YP:
http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.439/pub_detail.asp
You have given is someone's technical definition of sexual orientation and gender identity but you have not told us how many sexual orientations or gender identities there are. Moreover, the definitions you give show a central fallacy and that is that gender is elastic and can be changed. While some UN agencies hold this definition, the UN General Assembly does not. The UN definition of gender: "Men and women in the context of society."
I am dodging? I have answered every question you have put up. On the last question. I do not support the death penalty or torture or any other such thing for homosexuality. I do believe governments may regulate and even punish, with limits, homosexual behavior. Homosexual behavior is harmful to those who practice it and to society at large.
You finally answer the question. You are for countries who persecute lgbts.
For the record, Austin, your accusations regarding "homosexual behavior" are inaccurate and the result of either junk science (by the discredited Paul Cameron) or legitimate science taken out of context.
Maybe you are also attributing sexual behavior to lgbts while ignoring the heterosexuals who engage in the same behavior.
Whatever the case may be, it's sad that someone who leads a supposed human rights group is so clueless about human rights period.
Wow So we need a total list of all religions before we can protect the Right to Religious Belief and Practice?
No, we don't, because Huamn Rights don't need exhaustive lists just simple principles. So there could be an INFINITE number of religions, of sexualities, of gender identities while still not harming the rights of others and therefore in and of themselves Right.
I asked you REPEATEDLY to acknowledge the TRADITIONAL views of Sexuality and Gender of many Indiginous Peoples, Cultures and Religions.
Now i ask you AGAIN that you acknowledge this FACT.
Also how does the Right to freedom of expression not cover gender expression for example?
I'll examine your 6 arguments against the Yogyakarta Principles shortly...
hmm Alleged Problem with Principle 1 is NOT a problem. Child are taken away from or protected from Abusive parents every day. The Rights of the Child are paramount.
Violence is violence, a parent beating a child for being transgender is beating the child. This is not the first time that freedom from violence has been considered a childs right!
Educational directives amongst human rights documents are also not new. Antidiscrimination for employment again is not new. And your reviewer can't even comprehend the clear meaning of principle 3 about marriage and parenthood (it means if your having your sex changed legally the fact you had a kid or are married shouldn't prevent you from being legally recognised as having it changed, not that they'd disavow being a parent!).
All these objections in the first 'problem' are in effect objections to existing human rights!
Problem 2, oh my the covenant on civil and political rights IIRC covers things like villification already so again this objection is an objection to existing human rights! The limits of free speech by slander, libel and villification ar already well documented by generations of human rights law and treaties.
Problem 3, wow allowing the criminalisation of homosexuality in fact directly contravenes the freedom of religion! Cause some faiths have for centuries allowed it. You have it backwards!
Problem 4, as the Yogyakarta Principles merely fulfil the natural conclusions of applying the basic 60 year old Universal Rights to Gay and Transgender and Intersex people too as the rights were and are suppossed to be then these are in fact democratic. If you didn't want rights for EVERYONE then 60 years ago they shouldn't have said EVERYONE now should they?
Problem 5, the data on sex reassignment surgey is faulty. Check the suicide rate of those who seek but do not get the procedure. The transsexuals with the longest lifespans are the ones who get the surgery.
As for adoption the research free from biases shows that children do comparatively well with gay parents as with straight ones. You need to check the quality of theresearch you cite.
Problem 6. The Ethical basis of Human Rights built upon personal liberty bound by responsibility to respect the liberty of others and bound by informed consent in interactions with others is THE highest most consistent set of objective standards of human behaviour free of religious or cultural bias and therfore able to be applied objectively regardless of faith or culture.
The language and notions objected to exist in other human rights teaties and documents. The rights of the child, covenant on civil and political life, rights of women, rights of Indiginous Peoples and the basic Universal Human Rights upon the latter the Yogyakarta Principles are built. And thus if they are problems then you have problems with ALL human Rights documents, even the ones ensuring the right to belief anf excercise of religion.
The complaint that NARTH wasn't involved in the Yogyakarta panels may have something to do with them being thoroughly discredited amongst any scientific circle of integrity for their non-scientific methodolgy.
The Common Good argument assumes that there must be harm in these principles. News to Tonga and Samoa i'm sure seeing as their societies survived with transgender an accepted part of the culture! The Indiginous peoples with these TRADITIONS surviving for THOUSANDS of years actively PROVES the common good of the Yogyakarta Principles and makes the opposition of them neccessarrily AGAINST the common good!
Sorry but these criticisms are amatuer nonsense. Illogical, grounded in myth and lies not science and medicine.
Would you like me to go into further detail? Cause i can if you need me to.
Austin Ruse was recently at a conference of far right fundamentalists with political aspirations in Vienna, he enjoys commenting on blogs. His kind need to be resisted and exposed for the Christotaliban that they are. http://peoplekorps.blogspot.com/2010/05/christo-taliban-conference-in-vienna.html
Post a Comment