The global human rights education project: a Trojan horse

Aug 31, 2015 by

Barend Vlaardingerbroek, Mercatornet: The “global human rights education project” is a collective term for a worldwide rights-advocacy campaign through both formal and non-formal education channels. Amnesty International (AI), a major actor in human rights education (HRE), describes HRE on its website ) as  “a deliberate, participatory practice aimed at empowering individuals, groups and communities through fostering knowledge, skills and attitudes consistent with internationally recognized human rights principles.” Sounds innocuous – laudable, even – until one takes a long, hard look at how it defines and applies those ‘principles’. The legal basis for “universal” human rights is fragmented and weak. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the UN Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training, being UN General Assembly resolutions, have no legal force. Most international human rights treaties are toothless tigers. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is non-judiciable. The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women is hamstrung by the numerous reservations nation-states entered (those who signed up at all). This list can be added to at leisure. Unless incorporated into domestic law, “universal” human rights are more in the realm of whims than hard law. HRE crusaders nonetheless doggedly pursue their global agenda. The manner in which they play fast and loose with international law will be illustrated using same-sex marriage. Read here...

read more

LGBT rights and human rights in Africa

Jul 9, 2015 by

Nigeria Rebukes UN High Commissioner For Pushing LGBT as Human Rights By Wendy Wright, C-Fam: Nigeria publicly chastised the UN human rights office for trampling on universally-agreed rights as it seeks to impose same sex marriage and outlaw commonly-held views on homosexuality. The sharp rebuke accused the UN officials of infringing on the right to democracy, religious freedom, and cultural standards that strengthen families. The statement, delivered last week in Geneva, came in response to a report released last month by the UN human rights office. The report on discrimination and violence against individuals based on sexual orientation and gender identity criticizes laws protecting children from LGBT propaganda and condemns therapy to help people with unwanted sexual attractions. Expressing negative views on homosexuality contributes to violence, the report claims. The UN report, which governments are free to ignore but which will be used to pressure them, also tells countries to legalize same sex marriage or unions, and provide benefits. The majority of countries define marriage as the union of a man and woman. Nigeria strengthened its law in 2014. Nigeria rebuked the UN officials for disrespecting the democratic process and endangering universally-agreed human rights. Religious freedom and cultural rights are “fundamental parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Nigeria stated. Countries have a “duty to ensure the family values, the religious values and the cultural values of its citizens are protected,” which are “the bedrock of the moral values of the individual.” Nigeria’s marriage law “is intended to uphold and strengthen these values.” Nigeria has the largest population in Africa and the majority of its 170 million citizens are Christian or Muslim. Read here See also Kenyan leader warns: if Obama preaches “gay agenda” we will tell him to shut up and go home, By Dr Susan Berry, Breitbart: Why African Christians want Obama to keep quiet about gay rights, by Lucinda Borkett-Jones, Christian Today    ...

read more

The Human Rights Act can never protect our human rights

Jul 9, 2015 by

by Prudence Dailey, The Conservative Woman: Predictably, the Government’s proposals to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a ‘British Bill of Rights’ have met with an ongoing storm of protest. Oddly, however, there has been little questioning as to whether it is legitimate in principle for the courts—made up of unelected people who will inevitably have their own personal beliefs—to have power to strike down legislation on the basis of what are essentially philosophical principles. After all, this country didn’t have anything like a Human Rights Act until the Blair government introduced it in 1998: while recourse to the European Court over alleged breaches of human rights was possible before that date, such matters were outside the remit of the British courts. The Americans, with their written Constitution and their doctrine of ‘the separation of powers’—a concept alien to the tradition of British Parliamentary democracy—have been at it a lot longer. The function of the Supreme Court in adjudicating on Constitutional principles is enshrined in the Constitution itself. While the judgements of the court are always shrouded in judicial language, giving an appearance of objective impartiality, the commonly-accepted descriptors of ‘liberal justices’ (appointed by Democratic presidents) and ‘conservative justices’ (appointed by Republican presidents) give the game away. Similar dynamics are also at work in the lower courts. In truth, the idea that general principles can be objectively applied, independent of the personal perspectives of the judges making the ruling, is a fiction. The US Declaration of Independence makes high-minded assertions of a commitment to liberty and equality: and at the same time coexisted with the brutality of slavery. How is such a thing possible?Were the slaves on the sugar plantations free and equal? How was this contradiction not immediately recognised, and the institution of slavery struck down by the courts? Read here...

read more

Global good news – please sign!

Jul 8, 2015 by

Please note that the UK voted AGAINST this resolution. Please sign the letters and forward if you can. Help support pro-family organisations at the UN: Recently the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) passed one of the strongest pro-family resolutions ever adopted by any UN body! This major victory was the result of the hard work and determination of a small coalition of pro-family UN delegates who pushed this family resolution through in the face of great opposition. More details about the family resolution are summarized below. Please support these pro-family countries by cosigning the two letters posted below. One letter expresses appreciation and support to the countries voting for the resolution, the other expresses disappointment to the countries that voted against it and asks them to reconsider their position. As pro-family countries (many of which are small, developing countries) have increased their efforts at the UN to protect the family, they have faced mounting pressure and opposition from developed nations. Increasingly, rich nations are blackmailing smaller pro-family countries, threatening to cut off foreign aid, and otherwise trying to intimidate them and silence their support for pro-family policies at the UN. In addition, anti-family organizations have also been intimidating pro-family countries, conducting email and letter writing campaigns aimed at officials in these countries, complaining about their actions at the UN in defending the family. We hope you will sign the two letters below to show UN Member States that people around the world are watching their actions and that we appreciate and support those that stand strongly for the family. Please join us in co-signing these letters! VIEW THE EMAIL ALERT CLICK HERE VIEW THE HRC RESOLUTION VOTE AT THE UN CLICK HERE Read...

read more

On Justice Kennedy’s Tenuous Grasp of Human Dignity

Jul 2, 2015 by

By Anthony Esolen, Crisis Magazine: “At the heart of liberty,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, poetaster supreme, versifying for the majority in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), is “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” That included the mysterious business of taking other lives, inconvenient lives brought into being by actions obviously designed to do just that. Most lately, inObergefell v. Hodges, Kennedy has insisted that “the opportunity to marry is integral to human dignity,” and that “excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage demeans the dignity of these couples.” I wonder whether words mean anything anymore. Let us look at a plain fact. There are many people who will not have the opportunity to marry, who do not suffer any loss of dignity on that account. Some people do not have the intellectual capacity for marriage. Some people do not have the emotional capacity for it. Some people lack the physical capacity to consummate a marriage. That does not mean that they are less human than their more fortunate brethren. Nor does it mean that they are incapable of love, or not deserving of our reverence. The man who says that he is not capable of joining with a woman in the ordinary way of nature is asserting a psychological incapacity, analogous to the incapacities I have mentioned above. Suppose we take him at his word. What then? We have not prevented him from marrying. He has simply refrained from availing himself of the opportunity. A man who cannot add and subtract would like to claim his household expenses as “business” losses. We do him no indignity when we say to him that he is in fact not in business. Read here...

read more

UK Equality report: Police should spend more time in gay bars, says sample size of 50 LGBT people

Jun 30, 2015 by

From Breitbart: A new report by Britain’s taxpayer-funded Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has recommended that UK police should be spending more time “socialising in known LGB&T venues and community ‘hubs’” in order to make Britain’s gay community feel safer. The report, entitled “LGB&T Hate Crime Reporting: Identifying Barriers and Solutions” was produced with a sample size of just 50 people, by the University of Leicester’s ‘Centre for Hate Studies’, which looks exclusively at LGBT issues, far-right groups, and Islamophobia. The centre does not spend any time or money researching Britain’s militant left, jihadist groups, or researching anti-Christian or anti-Semitic activity in Britain. Nevertheless the report, which was published a week ago, declared that by interviewing 50 people it had found ways in which to tackle homophobic incidents, including asking the police to keep in touch with victims after the reported a crime, and socialising in “LGB&T venues and community hubs”. The report was commissioned by the EHRC, which paid the University of Leicester to research the issue. The EHRC refused Breitbart London’s requests as to how much taxpayer money was used on the study, but said it stood by the report’s findings, particularly the notion that there are 35,000 unreported LGBT hate crimes in Britain each year. This, despite the fact that even some of the reports interviewees dismissed the idea of having to report a hate crime for everything. Read here...

read more