UN/Biden Use “Anti-Rights” Label to Punish Critics

By | October 10, 2024

NEW YORK, NY October 11 (C-Fam) Does opposing abortion as a human right make you “anti-rights?” What about opposing gender ideology? To many on the left at the international level, the answer is a resounding yes. And they want to do something about these “anti-rights” groups.

A new analysis explores how in recent years this term has been promoted by feminists and LGBTQ+ groups at the UN and how it is being taken up by UN officials and the Biden administration to punish pro-life and pro-family critics.

While human rights pertain to multiple issues, the “anti-rights” rhetoric is closely tied to issues of gender, sexuality, and reproduction.  The “anti-rights” label is being applied almost exclusively to mainstream conservative voices that promote sovereignty, the defense of human life at all stages, and the traditional family as the best place for children to be raised.  To the extent that it is used to describe repressive groups like the Taliban or other extreme outliers, it is for the purpose of likening mainstream conservatives to them under the umbrella of “patriarchy.”

Ever since abortion and gender ideology made its way into UN policy three decades ago, they have been heavily contested both between UN member nations and civil society groups that participate in UN processes.  Attempts to redefine human rights to conclude these controversial elements through normal channels—General Assembly negotiations or negotiated treaty texts—repeatedly failed.

Progressives’ frustration turned into panic as they saw Donald Trump elected as the U.S. president and the subsequent fall of Roe v. Wade, which had made abortion the law of the land for almost forty years.  UN feminists noticed that conservative movements were becoming increasingly organized, professional, and successful in their engagements with multilateral institutions.  They complained about the “pushback,” “backlash,” and “anti-rights movements” preventing their progress.

As the new paper discusses, this rhetoric becomes dangerous when it is used to sideline or silence one side of arguments that have been ongoing in both national and multilateral political contexts for decades.  When the Secretary-General of the UN publishes a report expressing concern that the UN’s civil society engagement channels are “being used by anti-rights actors, who advance agendas that appear to promote rights, but in practice go against core human rights instruments,” he is clearly picking a side in the debate, and gesturing toward narrowing those channels to sidestep free argument.

The Biden administration told the Department of State to pursue “enhanced tracking of data on, and mapping of, transnational financial and advocacy activities of anti-rights groups and movements to better inform targeted interventions and engagement.”  While the specific targets of such efforts were not clearly defined, it is clear that any organization that works on life and family issues from a conservative perspective is in the crosshairs.

The “anti-rights” rhetoric follows a familiar playbook used by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which designates mainstream social conservative groups as purveyors of “hate,” and whose enemy lists have made their way into the work of the FBI.  It also follows the trend that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic of silencing dissenting voices under the rhetoric of “disinformation.”  Ultimately, the purpose of such labels is not to win important policy arguments, but to prevent them from going forward.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter