Abortion and LGBT Debates at the 47th Session of the Human Rights Council

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. | July 8, 2021

That the United Nations system is promoting abortion and the LGBT agenda is a well-established and generally known fact in diplomatic circles. That UN experts and mandate holders disingenuously attempt to manufacture new international rights related to abortion and LGBT issues that were never internationally agreed by states is also somewhat known among diplomats who interface with the United Nations. But the extent and the vituperation with which UN mechanisms go about doing this remains for the most part hidden. This is evident in the paucity of occasions on which UN member states have attempted to hold UN mandate holders accountable.

The ongoing 47th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva provided the latest example of UN experts and mandate holders pushing the envelope to manufacture new international rights related to abortion and LGBT issues that were never negotiated or agreed by states. I am happy to report that, breaking with precedent, several UN member states strongly  pushed back against this, signaling that more and more member states begin to realize the threats to life and family from the United System. Below is a summary of the most egregious examples of the UN system promoting abortion and LGBT rights, including the pushback they received or not from UN member states.

Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health

The special rapporteur on the right to health South African doctor Tlaleng Mofokeng, an abortionist and advocate for the legalization of prostitution, as reported in the Friday Fax. In her report to the Council this year Mofokeng outlined her “strategic priorities” for her mandate in the years to come. Unsurprisingly, abortion and the LGBT agenda were left, right, and center.

Her report details:

The Special Rapporteur plans to apply a life-cycle approach to her work, paying special attention to groups in vulnerable situations, or that have historically been subjected to discrimination. In addition, she will continue to pay attention to the issue of criminalization of: same-sex relations; being trans-diverse or transgender; abortion; sex work; and health status, such as being HIV-positive or being diagnosed with COVID-19 infection. She aims to make proposals for States to mainstream a gender perspective in their health-related policies, planning, programmes and research, with a special focus on sexual and reproductive health rights as an integral part of the right to health.

She also claimed that there is an international obligation to allow abortion and legalize sodomy and any other consensual sexual activity between adults under the right to health:

Under the right to health framework, States have an obligation to respect, fulfil and protect the right to sexual and reproductive health, including in relation to contraception and family planning. Violations of the obligation to respect the rights to sexual and reproductive health include criminalization of women undergoing abortions; the criminalization of consensual sexual activity between adults; banning or denying access in practice to sexual and reproductive health-care services and medicines…

The report also promotes the decriminalization of prostitution and calls it “sex work.” This is an issue that is increasingly fracturing the feminist movement.

When Mofokeng presented her report to the Council two weeks ago UN member states did not object to the report or her statement. This is likely because of the limited staff and resources of member states, which makes them unable to respond to every overreach by every UN mechanism in real-time. As can be seen below, in response to the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women in Law and Practice, a sizeable number of UN member states are not ok with the use of UN mandates for this kind of advocacy. And when they are able, they try to organize a response.

Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity

The independent expert on LGBT issues in the UN system, or LGBT Czar for short, is Victor Madrigal-Borloz, a law professor and LGBT activist. His latest report to the Council is on the topic of gender ideology, as report on in this week’s Friday Fax.

Madrigal-Borloz presented his report to the Council and to the press, outlining his belief that international law prescribes an obligation to allow individuals to legally change their sex or gender based on subjective self-identification, including for minors.

There was no pushback in the Human Rights Council when the expert presented his report two weeks ago. This is not because countries are not opposed to the LGBT agenda promoted by Madrigal-Borloz, but because the countries in opposition to the LGBT agenda, including the member states of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, said they did not consider the establishment of the independent’s expert’s mandate legitimate and that they would not engage the mandate holder in any forum.

The only discordant note in the Human Rights Council was from activist Ruben Navarro on behalf of the civil society groups CitizenGo and Hazteoir. Navarro criticized the totalitarian tendencies of the LGBT movement and how it uses its close ties to the mainstream media to silence and marginalizes anyone who disagrees with the LGBT agenda. Madrigal-Borloz’s reply was that hate speech was not acceptable.

“We must distinguish valid discourse that recognizes others in their humanity and hate speech,” he said.

Even more interesting than the exchange in the council was the Madrigal-Borloz press conference reported in the Friday Fax this week.

Madrigal-Borloz only released the first part of the report at this session of the Council, outlining his belief that there is an international right to change gender or sex. He plans to release the second part of the report this Summer ahead of the United Nations General Assembly. The second part of the report should be even more interesting than the first, because it is anticipated to contain a blacklist of organizations and individuals who oppose the LGBT agenda globally.

Working Group on Discrimination Against Women in Law and Practice

The Working Group, composed of five UN experts, was founded to address laws and policies that result in discrimination against women in 2011. It has been one of the most vocal centers of abortion advocacy in the UN system, frequently intervening in the international affairs of states, including by commenting on ongoing political and legislative debates, and even judicial proceedings and holdings.

The latest report of the Working Group was focused on the COVID-19 pandemic. The report employs repeatedly the term “sexual and reproductive health rights” which is not the internationally agreed terminology used in General Assembly resolutions, namely “sexual and reproductive health” and “reproductive rights.” The term used by the Working Group implies “sexual rights”, a concept that has never been agreed by UN member states, and has been rejected repeatedly in UN negotiations.

The Working Group report says that the criminalization of abortion is a “failure to meet the obligation to guarantee equality in the area of sexual and reproductive health” and a “violation of sexual and reproductive health rights.”

The Working Group recommends that countries “regulate refusals of care based on conscience or religion” and calls on countries to “actively push back against conservative religious and racialized political ideologies.” That UN mandate holders call on governments to penalize the free exercise of religion and to suggest that the right to freedom of religion and conscientious objection are somehow secondary to a fabricated right to abortion is highly controversial, because it suggests UN mandate-holders are deciding how to resolve conflicts between human rights.

The WG report insists throughout that abortion is an “essential service” and that governments must ensure access to abortion during crises, including by repealing abortion regulation. This intrusion into national policy space during health crises is also highly concerning. Governments need wide latitude to direct health infrastructure to save the most lives. They are under no obligation to prioritize elective abortion if health resources, and personnel are needed elsewhere to save lives.

The Working Group report was so controversial that several UN member states voiced their concerns when the Working Group presented the report to the Council two weeks ago.

On behalf of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which numbers 54 UN member states, Pakistan delivered the following remarks:

We regret that the report contains certain controversial elements not universally accepted and contrary to cultural and social diversity. we encourage the working group to use universally agreed language reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, CEDAW, and other intergovernmental negotiated documents.

In the statement, OIC member states affirmed their commitment to “sexual and reproductive health,” but distanced themselves from the normative claims of the mandate holder.

“The working group would be well advised to avoid sweeping generalizations in its subsequent reports,” Pakistan concluded

Indonesia also chided the mandate:

The working group recommendations have overwhelmingly focused on the failure of states to respect, protect, and fulfill the right of women and girls sexual and reproductive rights. We regret that the report contains certain controversial elements not universally accepted and contrary to social and cultural diversity. We would like to remind you that the use of language from intergovernmentally negotiated and agreed documents would facilitate the moving forward of the working group.

Iraq was also highly critical, highlighting the Working Group’s attack on freedom of religion and conscience rights.

We reject categorically linking discrimination against women with any belief or religion. We are surprised that the Working Group believes abortion is an agreed human right. There is no such agreement in the world of such a human right. We call on the Working Group and other special procedures to stick to their mandate and work within the framework of agreed norms and not to engage in controversies. Iraq legislation does not recognize abortion as a right that can be resorted to except in force majeure, as in the case of when a mother’s life is in danger.

Brazil also emphasized that abortion is illegal in Brazil.

Joint Statement on the Human Rights Situation in Xinjiang  

 A joint statement by 44 countries denounced the human rights violations in Xinjiang, China, against the Uyghur minority population, was delivered at the beginning of the Council’s session. The statement joined by mostly Western countries was also joined by the United States. What is most interesting is that while the statement mentions “forced sterilization” it did not mention “forced abortion.” It is a mysterious omission, since the reports of forced abortions are widespread and well documented not just in Xinjiang, but across China. One has to wonder whether abortion politics were not part of the decision to omit this. It certainly was part of the statement of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on January 19, 2021 declaring the situation in Xinjiang a genocide.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter