Canada Played Leading Role Against Family
Last month, from March 3-16, radical feminists from the west took another stab at advancing
their pro-abortion and homosexual agenda at the United Nations during the Beijing+5 PrepCom.
Once again, however, they were beaten back by aggressive pro-family forces and resisted by
developing countries, organized at the UN as the G-77.
A conference reviewing the progress in setting up an International Criminal Court followed on
the heels of the Beijing+5 PrepCom, and continued to push similar radical agendas.
At the Beijing+5 PrepCom, the UN was reviewing the compliance of signatory nations to the
Beijing Platform for Action agreed upon five years ago at the UN Conference on Women in
Beijing. The March PrepCom was supposed to result in a final document to be endorsed at a
special session of the UN General Assembly on women in June. The conference failed to
accomplish this goal, however, because Western nations, including Canada, were pushing for the
introduction of terminology in the document that would advance abortion rights, homosexuality
and affirmative action, as well as language that would undermine national sovereignty. In
fact, the G-77 introduced stronger language regarding national autonomy, but western powers
have so far rejected it.
Due to the failure to reach agreement over essential aspects of the document at the March
PrepCom an “intersessional” meeting is being planned prior to the special session of the UN in
June. C-Fam notes that this situation “works to the disadvantage of the cash-strapped
delegations from the more conservative G-77 who may find it difficult to send delegations to
another meeting. Pro-life delegations fear that an ‘intersessional’ could deplete their
already tiny ranks.”
ICC to serve feminist interests
Meanwhile, at the ICC meeting, radical feminists were pushing for an institution that would
enforce the Beijing Platform for Action rather than an objective criminal court. The Women’s
Caucus for Gender Justice released a pamphlet which outlined the feminist wish list. Perhaps
their most controversial proposal is that “withholding abortion from raped women should be
explicitly defined as a war crime and a crime against humanity.” In effect, this would define
an aspect of fundamental Christian doctrine and morality as a prosecutable offense in
international law.
As C-Fam pointed out in a communique on the ICC meeting, this development follows a
controversial battle over the introduction of the term “enforced pregnancy” into the ICC
document. Feminists claimed that their intent behind the term was prosecution of rape
practised for the purposed of impregnating women, as was charged by Bosnian women against Serb
soldiers. Conservative experts, however, noted that the term had recently been used in a 1991
Utah court case in reference to a woman who was prevented from procuring an abortion.
Motherhood
The main theme promoted by pro-family forces at the Beijing+5 meeting was motherhood.
Lobbyists walked around the UN wearing bright red “motherhood” buttons, drawing the attention
of delegates to the failure of the Beijing document to affirm motherhood as a legitimate
choice for women.
Pro-family representatives maintain that this situation is intentional and represents a
radical feminist agenda to restrict the freedom of women by pushing them out of the home and
into the work force. For example affirmative action proposals promoted through the Beijing
agenda, including advocacy of a 35% quota for women in the military and quotas for
politicians. Affirmation of motherhood also undermines the population control agenda that is
being pushed in Beijing deliberations by western nations because it affirms the value of
children and family life.
The success of pro-family lobbyists lies in the G-77’s growing courage to challenge the west
and its allies, especially as its understanding has grown concerning euphemisms such as
“reproductive rights” and “sexual orientation.” Additional terms such as “diversity of women”
and “sexual rights” appeared during the Beijing+5 PrepCom and were rejected by the G-77
because they were undefined and were seen as simply new tools in the rhetorical arsenal of
those who want to advance abortion and homosexual rights.
Negotiations ground to a halt and even stalled within the first few days of the PrepCom due to
the introduction of such controversial language. Canada also drew attention to itself by
introducing over 200 amendments to the draft document in what some critics saw as a deliberate
strategy to wear down other delegates, particularly those unfriendly to the radical feminist
agenda.
Canada continued to take the lead at promoting abortion and homosexuality at the Beijing
PrepCom as part of a coalition that has been given the acronym JUSCANZ – representing Japan,
the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. The European Union and the Mexican
delegation also advocated radical positions.
The Canadian delegation could not have been more biased if it had been designed with such a
goal in mind. It was headed by Florence Levers of Status of Women Canada (SWC). The deputy
head as well as six of the eleven advisors were also from SWC. Four of the other advisors were
from “women’s” or “gender” divisions of other departments.
Youth lobbyists meet with success
Among pro-family lobbyists the greatest success – if the response of their opponents is any
indication – was experienced by young people who organized themselves within the past few
months as the World Youth Alliance. They came together in response to the formation of a
Beijing Youth Caucus at the 43rd Session on the UN Commission on the Status of Women in March
last year.
After, only three days into negotiations, feminist radicals were publicly decrying the WYA.
The European Women’s Lobby distributed an “alert” on March 7 about the participation of these”right-wing, ‘pro-life’ participants.” At one meeting, an NGO representative complained that”the Youth Caucus is paralysed because of the World Youth Alliance. They are dominating. We
can’t work for awhile.”
In fact, according to WYA members speaking to the on-site pro-family newspaper, Vivant!, the
feminists would dismiss meetings when pro-family spokesmen tried to introduce their views into
discussions. The feminists were under the impression that the pro-family group had 250-300
members at the conference. The WYA kept their numbers secret during the conference, the actual
figure being well below 100. Pro-family forces were also amused at the suggestion that the WYA
was being funded by the Vatican and other wealthy unnamed backers.
Pro-family youth inspired a real furor in the middle of the second week of negotiations, when
feminists spoke openly about their frustration over pro-family participants at a WEDO (Women’s
Environmental & Development Organization) meeting . One feminist broke down crying at the
meeting, distraught at what she saw as the unravelling of the Beijing agenda at the hands of
social conservative participants. This exemplifies the kind of attitude that pro-family
spokesmen have said exists among the UN’s radical feminists – the idea that international
politics is their domain and, therefore, that they should not be placed in a position where
they are expected to have to justify their extreme views, let alone defend them in a rational
and coherent manner. Instead, they break down in tears, abruptly terminate meetings, and
interrupt pro-family speakers with shouting and jeers.
Vatican Controversy
Another hallmark of the Beijing+5 PrepCom was the controversy stirred up by Catholics For a
Free Choice over the Holy See’s status at the UN. CFFC, a pro-abortion NGO headed by Frances
Kissling, has become tired of the Holy See’s success at defending life and family against a
population control agenda that includes abortion and homosexual rights, so it has launched a
lobbying effort to pull the Vatican’s Permanent Observer Status. The focus of their argument
is that the Holy See (the Holy See is the name the Vatican has given to its UN mission) does
not meet the criteria of a state, which is the requirement for holding such credentials at the
UN.
In response to CFFC, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam) launched its own
initiative to rally support behind the Holy See. They held a press conference towards the end
of the Beijing+5 PrepCom to announce that over the past two months they had garnered the
support of 1,015 organizations from over 50 countries for the preservation of the Holy See’s
UN status. Supporters included many inter-denominational and non-Catholic organizations,
including Focus on the Family, Concerned Women of America and the Family Research Council.
The campaign for support of the Holy See continues with C-Fam asking organizations to sign
their declaration of support and send it to them. The declaration can be found at
https://www.c-fam.org/HolySee/index.html