From Russia with Love: 126 non-governmental Organisations in Russia and Ukraine condemn UN attempts to manufacure false “human rights”

By J.C. von Krempach, J.D. | December 15, 2011

On 24 November 2011, representatives from 126 non-governmental organisations in Russia and Ukraine have adopted an impressive statement called the Saint-Petersburg-Resolution, calling the UN and its various organisations to order.

The Resolution, which in unconpromising language condemns the “anti-family tendencies prevailing in the UN and various of its committees”, is built on the model of the San José Articles, from which it quotes extensively. But at the same time it goes beyond, dealing not only with false assertions of the UN bureaucracy with regard to a manufactured “right to abortion”, but also with attempts to manipulate the meaning of key concepts such as “marriage” and “family”,

For the non-Russian-speakers among our readers, here are some excerpts from what must be considered an outstandingly clear-sighted analysis of the activities of certain UN bureaucrats.

The key word in the resolution is “естественная семья”, which can be translated both as “the natural” or “the real family”. In article 1, the Resolution affirms it to be self-evident that where international human rights documents (such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights or the ICCPR) refer to the family, the term must be understood “в этом естественном и традиционном понимании” (i.e. in that traditional and natural sense).

In article 2, the Resolution asserts that

“the artificial separation of the birth and upbringing of children from the natural family and from marriage constitutes a violation of human rights of the children cioncerned and will lead to the destruction of any society where such ideas are accepted”.

(As inhabitants of the former Soviet Union, the authors of this text surely know what they are speaking of…)

Article 3 affirms that

“children have the nautural right to be born into their natural (real) family, founded on the marriage between a man and a woman, to live with their natural father and mother, and to be educated by them”.

(One can conclude from this, and with good reasons!, that the divorce of their parents’ marriage violates the rights of the children concerned.)

In Article 4, the authors of the Resolution express their full support to the position expressed by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation that

“family, motherhood and childhood in their traditional and ancestral meaning are the values ​​that provide for a continuous renewal of generations, act for the preservation and development of the multinational people of the Russian Federation, and therefore deserve special protection“.

Article 5 expresses grave concern that

“over the last years some international organisations, violating the rights of soverign nations and manipulating the understanding of ‘human rights’, have undertaken actions aimed at the artificial fabrication of previously unknown ‘rights’ that have no foundation in human nature and society, such as a ‘right to abortion’ or ‘a right to free choice of sexual orientation and gender identity’. In reality, such rights do not exist in International Law”.

But even assuming that such provisions were contained somewhere in national or international law, they

“must be considered illegitimate, because they are contrary to human nature and the true natural rights of man”.

Article 6 states:

“We are seriously concerned over the activities of some very small groups who proclaim their own ideals on behalf of the entire civil society, while in fact those interests are contrary to the true interests of sovereign nations. The real interests of any nation focus on the natural (traditional) family, the preservation of its rights and benefits, and the protection of traditional family values.”

In Article 7, the Resolution expresses the serious concern that

“in pursuing their destructive purposes, these groups are trying to use the resources of the authoritative international organizations such as the United Nations and its specialized agencies and structures (such as theWorld Health Organization, UNICEF, the UNFPA and other). Using opaque procedures that are far removed from real democracy, and masking their intentions with pretty words, they press reputable international organizations to endorse documents that adversely affect the position of the natural family in different countries, leading to the gradual destruction of the family (and, consequently, of the states themselves)”.

Article 8 is even more explicit:

“In particular, we are extremely concerned that today, under the pretext of protecting an unusually broad understanding of ‘children’s rights’, which are recently mixed up with fictitious new ‘human rights’ (such as ‘sexual rights’), the UN and its agencies lend their support to the destruction of the understanding of family life prevailing in many nations, including in our countries (i.e. Russia and Ukraine). These activities must be considered a form of ideologically driven violence, directed against the right of our soverign nations to preserve their cultural identity and their traditions. (…) Such activities, which contribute neither to the development nor to the stability of societies, but rather to their destruction, are an unacceptable form of neo-colonialism.”

In Article 9, the authors of the Resolution insist

“that states must respect the unique role and place of the natural (biological) parents in their children’s lives. Any interpretation of the rules of both international and national law must reflect the natural pre-presumption that parents usually act in good faith and in the best interests of their children. The rights of parents regarding their children are natural and not ‘conferred’ upon them by any national or international authority. it is therefore illegal for governments and other (including international) authorities to overstep their competences with regard to parental rights and family rights.”

(The article then specifically addresses certain interpretations that have been made with regard to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.)

Article 11 and 12 address the issue of abortion, extensively quoting from the San José Articles, as follows:

“We are also very concerned that, under the pretext of a fictitious ‘right to abortion’ of women, the right to life of unborn children receives no protection. We know very well that ‘as a matter of scientific fact a new human life begins at conception’ and that ‘from conception each unborn child is by nature a human being’. Unborn children are human beings, wherefore States are under an obligation derived from international law to protect their life on a par with the life of others. At the same time ‘there exists no right to abortion under international law, either by way of treaty obligation or under customary international law.’ In this context we are concerned over the actions of a number of UN Comittees overseeing the implementation of international treaties, in particular the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the CEDAW Committee. ‘Treaty monitoring bodies have no authority, either under the treaties that created them or under general international law, to interpret these treaties in ways that create new state obligations or that alter the substance of the treaties. Accordingly, any such body that interprets a treaty to include a right to abortion acts beyond its authority and contrary to its mandate. Such ultra vires acts do not create any legal obligations for states parties to the treaty, nor should states accept them as contributing to the formation of new customary international law. (…)

It is all too well known that ‘the CEDAW Comittee has read a right to abortion into the CEDAW and has pressed more than 90 countries to liberalize their abortion laws’. “

The Resolution then goes on to criticize the way in which the CRC tries to promote its own distorted views on human sexuality through sexual education programs:

“Similarly, the Committee of the CRC and the Committee of CEDAW ‘included’ into the Treaties they are monitoring an obligation of States to provide compulsory sex education for children, regardless of the views of their parents and families. Such interpretation is unreasonable and in fact directly contradicts Art. 5 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. At the same time, some UN agencies such as WHO have developed regional ‘standards’ for sex education beginning at birth, arguing that such education for children is part of their ‘sexual rights’ (…). These standards also foresee that children must get access to explicit ‘information’, the distribution of which would in some countries be viewed as a corruption of minors, and hence be treated as a criminal offense. (…) We believe that these actions and interpretations of UN treaty monitoring bodies are unacceptable and that they undermine the true foundation of international law.”

As we read in Articles 13 and 14, the UN treaty monitoring bodies, rather than guaranteeing the protection of human rights, are themselves the greatest threat for them:

“Given the existence of a number of blatant examples of illegal actions by the UN treaty monitoring bodies, we firmly believe that conferring to these bodies any additional powers, in particular the right to make any interpretation or to take any action that would be legally binding for States Parties, would be outright dangerous for the public good and the future of sovereign nations. Therefore, as representatives of civil society, we firmly oppose any attempt by those treaty monitoring bodies to pretend that any of their interpretations of international human rights instruments are legally binding.

In this context, and with regard to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the procedures for reporting, in this context, we believe that those procedures are being used not for the protection of the rights of children, but to impose dubious and socially dangerous interpretations of that Convention on States parties.
Unfortunately, taking into account the above precedents, the CRC Committee cannot be trusted. We are alarmed by this situation and believe it would not only be unwise, but reckless and dangerous, to confer to the CRC Committee any authority, even if it is limited to issuing reports that are not formally binding.”

In Article 15, the Resolution declares that international human rights instruments must always be interpreted in the light of Natural Law:

“We affirm and declare our firm conviction that all UN treaties on human rights must be construed favorably to the natural family and the natural rights of parents. They should also be interpreted as protecting the natural right to life of unborn children from the time of their conception. All interpretations are contrary to this approach must be rejected as contrary to the natural rights of man, even if they were issued by any authoritative body. If any provision of any international treaty or document can not be interpreted in accordance with this principle, then that provision should be changed, or the treaty or document must as such be considered a violation of human rights. If any international organization or any international agency insists on any interpretation that is contrary to this approach, States should openly condemn such policy as being destructive to society. In such cases, States, in the interest of their peoples and of humanity, must coerce the organization or agency concerned to recognize the natural rights of man, the natural rights of the family and the natural parents’ rights, or terminate their participation in that organization or agency.”

In its final Article, the Resolution addresses the following appeal to the Russian and Ukrainian Governments as well as to the UN:

“As representatives of civil society in our countries and of the families belonging to our nations, we ask the authorities of our states and all international organizations, including the United Nations, its bodies and agencies, to consistently uphold the interests of the natural family, which is the foundation of any society.
We ask the UN General Assembly to refrain from approving the new Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child until such time when UN treaty monitoring bodies will have been brought into line with the above principles. If the Optional Protocol is approved without such a policy change, we ask our governments, as well as other national governments, not to sign and ratify it. We also declare that we will not tolerate any acts of representatives of any international organizations that may be viewed as disruptive to the traditional culture of our countries, including our traditional family life and child rearing. If these actions do not cease, the general public in our countries will seriously question whether our countries should continue adhering to such organizations. We strongly believe that the membership of our sovereign nations in any organization, however reputable it may be, is less important than the preservation of the foundations of our societies – the natural (traditional) family and cultural identity.”

A link to the full text of the Resolution, including the list of the 126 Signatory NGOs, is here.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter