In the past few decades there has arisen something more like instant international law. Supposedly, any time an international body meets and makes agreements, any nation represented there is subject to the new instant “international law.” Even when a nation’s representatives don’t agree. Even when the nation’s representatives are not actually national representatives but are simply members of non-governmental organizations from that country.
The absurdity of enslaving a free nation like the United States to some arbitrary ad hoc body is absurd on its face; we simply don’t need to consider these “laws” as anything more than suggestions that have no weight or relevance when considering case law within our nation. That would be true if we didn’t have judges in our country who, despite taking an oath to uphold our Constitution, they think it’s a good idea to override that with whatever international law might be pushing (Ruth Bader Ginsburg has admitted that this is her approach).
So there is an actual danger to us in the US when the UN holds meetings. You should also be aware that, at these various UN-sponsored meetings, NGOs tend to show up to lobby—because they can’t get their agendas through legislatively. And almost all of the NGOs that show up to lobby have agendas that are anti-US, anti-family, anti-woman, and anti-child. They have deceptive names, however, describing themselves pretty much as opposite of their goals.
So, during the past several weeks (February 27-March 9), was the UN “Commission on the Status of Women.” The stated theme for this conference was “The empowerment of rural women and their role in poverty and hunger eradication.” Who could be against such a goal? But since these conferences are opportunities for pushing agendas, we need someone to guard against harmful language and in favor of language that will actually help families, women, children, and the poor. One of the very few NGOs that show up with this guardianship role in mind is United Families International. Their report on thisconference is here.
Here’s an example of the challenge UFI faces:
During the negotiations on the priority theme resolution, a suggestion to include a positive reference to “wives and mothers” and a reference to the “vital role of the family in society” met with stiff resistance while the same resolution included 15 references to “gender” (gender mainstreaming, gender sensitive, gender dimensions, gender equality, gender perspective, gender inequality, gender-stereotypes, gender transformers, and on and on). The resolution on maternal mortality at one point had 18 similar references to “gender”, and the HIV resolution had 29!
This alone serves as a reminder that the UN as a whole and the Commission on the Status of Women in particular is focused on the promotion of radical feminism and that the intentional overuse of “gender” also lays the framework for the promotion of the idea that a person’s gender is “fluid”- tying it directly to the homosexual agenda.
Could we be overstating the concern? Probably not. The concept of “comprehensive sex education” is a case in point:
What exactly is “Comprehensive Sex Education?” The shortest answer is probably this: Comprehensive Sex Education is pornography for children. Those who promote it are seeking to change society by changing sexual and gender norms and that includes training young people to advocate for “sexual rights.” The pro-family coalition actively worked against the U.S. delegation who repeatedly tried to strong-arm and deceive the other delegations into including the phrase “Comprehensive Sex Education.” It was our task to inform and convince these countries of what they would be signing on to if that language were included. To see an explanation of what is included in “Comprehensive Sex Ed” programs go here. (warning: contains graphic content)
In the end, there was some good news and some bad news. First the bad news:
The U.S. sponsored resolution on maternal mortality and morbidity was adopted last Friday—in spite of countless hours of work on the part of the UFI team and other pro-family groups to strip it of some very anti-life and anti-family language. We will be doing “damage control” from this resolution for years to come. We found we couldn’t compete effectively with the lack of transparency of the closed negotiations (mostly held within the U.S. Mission complex) and the less-than-honest manipulations of a highly-aggressive U.S. delegation.
But the good news is, some agreements were not reached. The resolution on the HIV was “tabled” for this year (but vigilance will still be required next year). And there were no “agreed conclusions” on the anti-family and anti-woman language in the resolution on rural women and poverty eradication. Ironically, the blame is being placed on the US delegation that refused to accept anything that did not accept their “comprehensive sex ed” and other radical agenda points. In general, when these groups of diplomats fail to agree, that means a temporary delay in the enforcement of their agenda on us family-loving free people.
Thank you to UFI and others willing to stand up to the Goliath of negative forces in this international arena.