Homosexual Activism Pits Third World and Vatican Against UN Secretariat, Canada and EU

NEW YORK, March 16, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In one of the most open displays of disagreement at the United Nations, the more than 50 countries represented by the Organization of the Islamic Conference voiced strenuous objections to a January 20 decision of the United Nations Secretary General to offer homosexual benefits to the international organization’s employees who hailed from countries where such benefits are permitted.  In a rare address to this particular committee, the Vatican added its voice to the concerns and warned that the UN provision “in essence, constituted progressive development of international law.”  Alireza Tootoonchian of Iran led the charge noting that the change in the UN’s system of addressing family status was the responsibility of member states of the international organization and not the Secretariat.  In very strong language, considering UN diplomacy, the delegate said, “Whereas no decision has been taken by the Assembly to change the long-established scope of the family definition for the purposes of entitlements, there was no justification” for the measure.  He said, the OIC “is not only seriously concerned about extension of the scope of the family definition for the purposes of entitlements, but also opposed the presumption” that the homosexual couples could receive benefits since that involved “delicate administrative and financial issues that should be dealt with, first and foremost, by intergovernmental bodies.”  The Indonesian, Syrian, Sudanese, Tunisian and Kuwaiti representatives concurred with the OIC statement and all demanded an explanation from the UN hierarchy.  The Egyptian representative used very strong language implying that the redefinition of family status in the UN’s bulletin concerning staff was an “attempt to jeopardize the role of the General Assembly.”  He said, “The attempt to impose definitions, which are not agreed upon in the multilateral intergovernmental setting, is unacceptable.”  The representatives of Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh called for the measure to be withdrawn.  Interestingly, the representative from Cameroon recalled that the discussion over such benefits had been debated several years ago at the UN without resolution.  He was unpleasantly surprised that the UN Secretariat had gone ahead and implemented the decision autocratically. “It seems to indicate a lack of respect for Member States,” he said.  He supported the proposals by the representative of Iran and asked that the bulletin be withdrawn.  The Irish representative, Ms. Stanley, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, called the UN measure extending benefits to homosexual couples “a welcome step, reflecting the Secretary-General’s determination to modernize the human resources management.”  Canada’s Jerry Kramer, speaking on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, praised the UN move and said it was simply an administrative decision to be made by the Secretary-General as chief administrative officer.  He said the Secretary General was obliged to do it. “To do otherwise would merely foster discrimination within the staff, whereby some people received family benefits according to the norms of their countries and others did not,” he said.  Speaking for the Vatican, Mr. Klee said, the issue of family status for United Nations entitlement was not just a routine administrative matter. He said, “domestic partnerships are being equated with a family,” which is “in conflict with the understanding of the family in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its implementing conventions.”  The provision, he said, “in essence, constituted progressive development of international law, which would best be discussed in an open-ended debate between Member States,  rather than left to the Administration.”  See the full UN release on the meeting:  https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/gaab3605.doc.htm