Respect for customs and traditions »« Rights for rights defenders

The hostile amendments

Sure enough. “Life News” reports defeat for “abortion activists” in the debate over the Resolution on Protecting Women Human Rights Defenders.

Under the inspired leadership of the Holy See’s Nuncio, Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, the culture of death took a significant stumble at the Third Committee of the UN in New York last week.

There are around forty resolutions crafted by this UN committee in October and November each year. The worst resolution this year was on “Protecting Women Human Rights Defenders (WHRD)” . Now to the uninitiated this resolution sounds like a fine thing. However it is just a smoke screen used by those promoting both a right to abortion and the radical homosexual agenda.

No, actually, to people who don’t want to be ruled by stunted, repressive, backward-looking ideas about the world, protecting women human rights defenders is unmistakably a good thing.

To see what the opposition said about this resolution please see a quote from the “The international Coalition of Women Human Rights Defenders” own website  :

“Also contentious were important references in the initial draft acknowledging the risks faced by those working on issues of sexual and reproductive health, reproductive rights and matters related to sexuality*. [Such words are always used as a euphemism for abortion and birth control.] These references were excluded in later drafts of the resolution as a result of the opposition voiced by a number of States from Africa, Asia and the Holy See. It is regrettable and disappointing that the main sponsors and others were not able to secure specific language related to women human rights defenders working on these critical issues in the final text of the resolution.”

So there are [at least some of] the hostile amendments – tyrannical efforts to prevent women from making their own decisions about whether or not to be pregnant, and block efforts to protect people who work to defend women’s right to do that.

The African group stood very strongly together , and  introduced L-docs , which are amendments that are tabled just before the resolution is accepted. These were then accepted by the sponsor Norway as they did not want a vote , but a resolution accepted by consensus. This unusual step was taken because Norway and the EU  were not willing to accept changes of any significance during the long and protracted negotiations. So the resolution was accepted but all the bad anti-life / anti-family wording was removed.

God damn these people. It’s not “anti-family.” It’s not anti-X to want to prevent people from being forced to have X whether they want it or not and whether they want the particular version of X forced on them or not. Family is fine, but people should be able to form the family they want to form, not the one they’re forced into by unwanted pregnancies.

This very good result, was obtained for many reasons. Myself and my colleague Patrick Buckley, were there at the negotiations helping out as we usually do. Sharon Slater ( Family Watch International ) and Marie Smith ( Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues ) both did a fine job even though not in New York. The African Group held together as I heard the South African president had upset some African leaders and as a penance agreed not the split this group at the UN. Another very clever tactic of Archbishop Chullikatt was to have several Africans on the Holy See delegation. They also helped keep the African Group on side. There was  help given by Muslim countries and Russia as well.

So the pro-aborts and LGBT advocates got no advancement of their agenda at this session of the Third committee. As I have said many times before, the Holy See at the United Nations is the conscience of the world on issues of life and the family as well as many other things.

Hateful.

*Emphasis added by “Life Site”

 

Comments

  1. iknklast says

    Al Dente – I suspect if the Vatican could get what it really wanted, there would be language in there that all women (except nuns) were required to become mothers as soon as they were fertile. Why waste time? Besides, it’s really the only way to keep women in line. If women aren’t pregnant, nursing, or raising screaming kids from the age of puberty, they might have the energy and the education to become independent. Independent women (and men) don’t make good Catholics.

  2. John Morales says

    From the linked article:

    “Also contentious were important references in the initial draft acknowledging the risks faced by those working on issues of sexual and reproductive health, reproductive rights and matters related to sexuality. [Such words are always used as a euphemism for abortion and birth control.]

    Ostensibly, the Catholic Church doesn’t have any problem with adherents practicing birth control, only with the specific methods employed; accordingly, this seems disingenuous.

    It’s problematic that I had to check the source to verify that the bracketed portion was in the original rather than being appended by Ophelia, though in context it seemed very likely to be the case, but I can’t offhand think of a simple solution to it other than an explicit acknowledgement.

  3. jagwired says

    There was help given by Muslim countries and Russia as well.

    How comforting it is that these countries can put their differences aside to unite in their hatred of women.

  4. karmacat says

    I read an article somewhere about Melinda Gates talking to women in the Philippines. What these women kept asking for is access to depo provera, so they would only have to find a way to get birth control every 6 months. I would imagine it is very hard to watch your children die of starvation because you have so many and so few resources. Melinda Gates did agree to help them with this. I wish we could bring all these women and children to the Vatican, so that these “holier than thou” men can understand what real life is like

  5. says

    Hello his dad new member! I need to express that this post rocks !, terrific composed and include around important infos. I must search additional posts like that .

  6. says

    Excellent troubles completely, you just received the latest visitor. What can you suggest in regards to your post which you designed at times in past times? Almost any certain?

  7. says

    definitely appreciate your web-site but you need to take a look at the transliteration about numerous of your blogposts. Quite a few usually are filled by using spelling problems and that i still find it incredibly disturbing to know reality however I am going to surely occur once more all over again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>