July 1st 2000


  Buy Issue 2586
Qty:

Articles from this issue:

Cover Story: The Roebuck Plains land scandal

Editorial: Issues for the Defence White Paper

Canberra Observed: National Party caravan still hitched to Coalition

Economics: World’s farm subsidies rising: wake up Australia

Rural: Dairy deregulation turning sour

Straws in the Wind

News Weekly, National Civic Council, Colin Teese, TRansurban, CityLink, Steve Bracks, Victoria, GST, toll roads, Victorian Labor Government

Economics: Funny flags and Australian shipping

United Nations: Family groups attacked at UN meeting

East Asia: Japanese election: more of the same?

Education: Drugs in schools: adults failing the challenge

Letter: Aboriginal land claims

Letter: Benalla by-election postscript

Letter: 'Pitch Black' obscenities

Books promotion page

survey link

FONT SIZE:


United Nations: Family groups attacked at UN meeting


by News Weekly

News Weekly, July 1, 2000
The increasing success of pro-family organisations, in countering the radical feminist agenda of abortion “rights” and undermining the family at the United Nations, has led to attacks on them from organisations such as the UN Women’s Caucus and Amnesty International.

“The gains we made in Beijing are fragile, and they are in danger today,” said Regan Ralph, executive director of the Women’s Rights Division of Human Rights Watch. “Some governments have come to New York with the clear intent to dismantle what progress we’ve made.” She, however, refused to identify the governments by name.

However, Amnesty International accused the Vatican and seven UN member states of forming an “unholy alliance” to try to roll back the conclusions of the 1995 Beijing Women’s Conference.

Pierre Sane, secretary-general of Amnesty, said the Holy See, Iran, Algeria, Nicaragua, Syria, Libya, Morocco, and Pakistan were attempting to deny what was affirmed in Beijing.

Pro-family organisations rejected that characterisation and said they were only trying to prevent radical feminists and secularised Western governments from forcing upon developing nations their anti-life, pro-abortion doctrines, as a fundamental human right.

Separately, a radical feminist network in Canada — funded by the Canadian Government, which supports the left’s agenda — has published an analysis of the growing challenge to radical feminist, homosexual and lesbian influence in the UN.

The document, called “Right Wing Anti-Feminist Groups at the UN”, focused on the last meeting of the preparatory committee held in New York, from March 3 to 16, 2000. The authors said their document “should support a more adequate response to anti-feminist groups and their anti-democratic strategies during the upcoming United Nations meetings on women’s rights.”

The document, produced by the Institute of Feminist Research and Studies at the University of Quebec, said, “The presence of representatives of openly anti-feminist, right-wing groups was particularly marked during the last meeting of the 44th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, held in March 2000.”

The Commission was a preparatory committee for the United Nations General Assembly Special Session held from June 5 to 9, 2000, to evaluate implementation of the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women and the Beijing Platform for Action. This process is better known as Beijing +5.

According to the radical feminist document, the presence of “right-wing anti-feminist” groups at the United Nations has been intensifying since the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo, Egypt in 1994.

“Officially, these groups calling themselves pro-life and pro-family have no more than a dozen organisations accredited with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. However, taking advantage of the lack of clearly established guidelines at the UN [which the radical feminists had used to stack the NGO meetings for many years] they were able to send large numbers of representatives to the last meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women.”

A range of pro-family groups and organisations were present at the Status of Women commission, including:

- R.E.A.L. Women of Canada;

- the Campaign Life Coalition and the Life Ethics Education Association in Canada;

- the International Right to Life Federation representatives;

- the National Right to Life Committee (USA);

- the Couple to Couple League International;

- the World Movement of Mothers; the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, the Alliance for Life, Canada;

- the American Life League, USA;

- the Comite Nacional pro-vida of Mexico;

- Pro-vida Dominica of the Dominican Republic;

- Concerned Women for America;

- the Eagle Forum, USA;

- the Family Life Counselling Association of Kenya;

- the Family Life Council, USA;

- Family Life International, New Zealand;

- Family Life Promotion and Services, Kenya;

- the Family of the Americas Foundation, USA;

- Focus on the Family, USA;

- the National Institute of Womanhood, USA;

- Human Life International, Switzerland;

- Life Choices, USA;

- Lifeline, Canada;

- the National Institute of Womanhood, USA;

- the National Right to Life/Education Trust Fund, USA;

- the Value of Life Committee, USA; and

- the World Christian Life Community, Italy.

These groups accredited members of other pro-life or pro-family groups, including:

- the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (USA);

- the Howard Center (USA);

- the NGO Family Voice (USA);

- the Family Research Council (USA);

- Rock for Life (USA);

- the Mouvement en faveur de la vie/Campagne Québec-Vie, the Family and Society Program of the Civic Institute of Prague in the Czech Republic (director, Michaela Freiová);

- True Love Waits of Kenya (this group delegated two young women and two young men);

- United Families International; and

- the World Youth Alliance.

Anti-feminist groups organised a caucus on stable families at the Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations (CONGO).

Positions taken by pro-family groups

The mobilisation of pro-family groups has been co-ordinated by Austin Ruse. Last December, Ruse sent an email message inviting pro-life and pro-family organisations from different religions and denominations to participate in Beijing +5 in order to fight the radical feminists who wanted to use it to advance their anti-human agenda of reproductive “rights”, i.e. abortion, homosexual rights, and the radical feminist attack on “authoritarian, patriarchal” family and social structures.

Instead, they argue that the strengthening of the family structure and support for life is an essential condition for human development.

Pro-life and pro-family groups developed multiple strategies for participating in United Nations meetings. During the Beijing +5 PrepCom II, held in March 2000, they targeted the work of particular caucuses, distributed information in their information leaflets, and lobbied national governments.

Pro-life groups are also waging campaigns in Chile, Brazil and other Latin American countries, demanding that their governments adopt a national day for the family.

According to the document, it will be necessary for the radical feminists to counter the “disproportionate presence” of pro-life groups at future meetings of the Commission on the Status of Women, as “these groups intend to intervene in the future whenever women’s rights are at issue on the international scene. Ever since the 1996 Habitat II Conference, these groups seem to have made important gains on the international scene, some even referring to the ‘miracle of Habitat II’.”

The document called for the rules for NGO representation at the United Nations to be restricted, to prevent groups sending “overly many delegates”.

It added, “It is important to inform the Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations and the UN Committee in charge of accreditation of the abuses perpetrated by particular groups. These bodies may then consider punishing the offending groups or even removing the right to participate in UN meetings from groups that do not respect democratic practice. The rules for accreditation clearly state that groups, like States, must subscribe to the principles of the UN Charter and actively support these principles, if they want to participate in the work of the United Nations.”

In other words, if people object to radical feminist practices, they will be thrown out of the UN meetings.The increasing success of pro-family organisations, in countering the radical feminist agenda of abortion “rights” and undermining the family at the United Nations, has led to attacks on them from organisations such as the UN Women’s Caucus and Amnesty International.

“The gains we made in Beijing are fragile, and they are in danger today,” said Regan Ralph, executive director of the Women’s Rights Division of Human Rights Watch. “Some governments have come to New York with the clear intent to dismantle what progress we’ve made.” She, however, refused to identify the governments by name.

However, Amnesty International accused the Vatican and seven UN member states of forming an “unholy alliance” to try to roll back the conclusions of the 1995 Beijing Women’s Conference.

Pierre Sane, secretary-general of Amnesty, said the Holy See, Iran, Algeria, Nicaragua, Syria, Libya, Morocco, and Pakistan were attempting to deny what was affirmed in Beijing.

Pro-family organisations rejected that characterisation and said they were only trying to prevent radical feminists and secularised Western governments from forcing upon developing nations their anti-life, pro-abortion doctrines, as a fundamental human right.

Separately, a radical feminist network in Canada — funded by the Canadian Government, which supports the left’s agenda — has published an analysis of the growing challenge to radical feminist, homosexual and lesbian influence in the UN.

The document, called “Right Wing Anti-Feminist Groups at the UN”, focused on the last meeting of the preparatory committee held in New York, from March 3 to 16, 2000. The authors said their document “should support a more adequate response to anti-feminist groups and their anti-democratic strategies during the upcoming United Nations meetings on women’s rights.”

The document, produced by the Institute of Feminist Research and Studies at the University of Quebec, said, “The presence of representatives of openly anti-feminist, right-wing groups was particularly marked during the last meeting of the 44th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, held in March 2000.”

The Commission was a preparatory committee for the United Nations General Assembly Special Session held from June 5 to 9, 2000, to evaluate implementation of the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women and the Beijing Platform for Action. This process is better known as Beijing +5.

According to the radical feminist document, the presence of “right-wing anti-feminist” groups at the United Nations has been intensifying since the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo, Egypt in 1994.

“Officially, these groups calling themselves pro-life and pro-family have no more than a dozen organisations accredited with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. However, taking advantage of the lack of clearly established guidelines at the UN [which the radical feminists had used to stack the NGO meetings for many years] they were able to send large numbers of representatives to the last meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women.”

A range of pro-family groups and organisations were present at the Status of Women commission, including:

- R.E.A.L. Women of Canada;

- the Campaign Life Coalition and the Life Ethics Education Association in Canada;

- the International Right to Life Federation representatives;

- the National Right to Life Committee (USA);

- the Couple to Couple League International;

- the World Movement of Mothers; the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, the Alliance for Life, Canada;

- the American Life League, USA;

- the Comite Nacional pro-vida of Mexico;

- Pro-vida Dominica of the Dominican Republic;

- Concerned Women for America;

- the Eagle Forum, USA;

- the Family Life Counselling Association of Kenya;

- the Family Life Council, USA;

- Family Life International, New Zealand;

- Family Life Promotion and Services, Kenya;

- the Family of the Americas Foundation, USA;

- Focus on the Family, USA;

- the National Institute of Womanhood, USA;

- Human Life International, Switzerland;

- Life Choices, USA;

- Lifeline, Canada;

- the National Institute of Womanhood, USA;

- the National Right to Life/Education Trust Fund, USA;

- the Value of Life Committee, USA; and

- the World Christian Life Community, Italy.

These groups accredited members of other pro-life or pro-family groups, including:

- the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (USA);

- the Howard Center (USA);

- the NGO Family Voice (USA);

- the Family Research Council (USA);

- Rock for Life (USA);

- the Mouvement en faveur de la vie/Campagne Québec-Vie, the Family and Society Program of the Civic Institute of Prague in the Czech Republic (director, Michaela Freiová);

- True Love Waits of Kenya (this group delegated two young women and two young men);

- United Families International; and

- the World Youth Alliance.

Anti-feminist groups organised a caucus on stable families at the Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations (CONGO).

Positions taken by pro-family groups

The mobilisation of pro-family groups has been co-ordinated by Austin Ruse. Last December, Ruse sent an email message inviting pro-life and pro-family organisations from different religions and denominations to participate in Beijing +5 in order to fight the radical feminists who wanted to use it to advance their anti-human agenda of reproductive “rights”, i.e. abortion, homosexual rights, and the radical feminist attack on “authoritarian, patriarchal” family and social structures.

Instead, they argue that the strengthening of the family structure and support for life is an essential condition for human development.

Pro-life and pro-family groups developed multiple strategies for participating in United Nations meetings. During the Beijing +5 PrepCom II, held in March 2000, they targeted the work of particular caucuses, distributed information in their information leaflets, and lobbied national governments.

Pro-life groups are also waging campaigns in Chile, Brazil and other Latin American countries, demanding that their governments adopt a national day for the family.

According to the document, it will be necessary for the radical feminists to counter the “disproportionate presence” of pro-life groups at future meetings of the Commission on the Status of Women, as “these groups intend to intervene in the future whenever women’s rights are at issue on the international scene. Ever since the 1996 Habitat II Conference, these groups seem to have made important gains on the international scene, some even referring to the ‘miracle of Habitat II’.”

The document called for the rules for NGO representation at the United Nations to be restricted, to prevent groups sending “overly many delegates”.

It added, “It is important to inform the Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations and the UN Committee in charge of accreditation of the abuses perpetrated by particular groups. These bodies may then consider punishing the offending groups or even removing the right to participate in UN meetings from groups that do not respect democratic practice. The rules for accreditation clearly state that groups, like States, must subscribe to the principles of the UN Charter and actively support these principles, if they want to participate in the work of the United Nations.”

In other words, if people object to radical feminist practices, they will be thrown out of the UN meetings.




























Join email list

Join e-newsletter list


Your cart has 0 items



Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers



Trending articles

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Cardinal rebuts commission's 'Get Pell' campaign

COVER STORY Anti-discrimination law validates Safe Schools

U.S. AFFAIRS First Brexit, now Trump: it's the economy, stupid!

INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENT Wikileaks reveals U.S, funding behind anti-coal campaign

COVER STORY QUT discrimination case exposes Human Rights Commission failings

FOREIGN AFFAIRS How the left whitewashed Fidel Castro

ANALYSIS What is possible to a Trump Whitehouse



News and views from around the world

19-year-old homeschooled pro-lifer wins Ontario election by landslide (Lianne Laurence)

Trump makes right choice for education secretary (National Review)

Transgender conformity (Katherine Kersten)

Sex education programs do not reduce teen pregnancy or STI rates (Philippa Taylor)

Photographer who captured Safe Schools founder harassing bystander shuts down business (Frank Chung)

Is the global middle class here to stay? (Samuel Rines)

Donald Trump could end America's new feudalism (Joel Kotkin)

It just got easier to find the perpetrators of Stalin's purges (David Filipov)

Castro's death eradicate bacillus of old-style Marxism (Gerald Warner)

Labor MP Terri Butler in QUT race case apology (Geoff Chambers)



























© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
December 2, 2016, 2:36 pm