Thwarting the Anti-Family Agenda 
An Eyewitness Account of the Commission on Human Rights
By Lynn Allred

Have you ever known you were supposed to do something that you just didn’t want to do? 

As Director of Communications for United Families International, I monitor and report on significant events taking place at the United Nations that impact families worldwide.  I had been following with great interest the Commission on Human Rights meetings held in Geneva, Switzerland during March and April.  As always, there were a number of controversial proposals under consideration by the member states that make up the Commission. 

Even before the six-week long meeting began, I had questioned colleagues as to whether we planned on sending UFI representatives to Geneva.  Our fulltime attorney, who usually represents United Families at UN meetings, was unable to attend and it appeared that we were going to sit this one out and observe from afar.    

Until one very long, sleepless night.

Geneva Bound

It was one of those nights when you look at the clock every half hour thinking that with a little luck you could still get maybe five (or four, or three, or two. . .) hours of sleep.  Next thing you know it’s morning. When I went to bed that night I had the feeling that someone from United Families needed to be at the Commission on Human Rights, and after considerable tossing and substantial turning, by about two o’clock A.M., I knew that it was going to be me. . . whether I wanted to or not.  By three o’clock A.M. I had flights figured out.  By four, accommodations. 

Since we usually work in pairs, I emailed our Director of Public Policy, Marcia Barlow, told her I was going to Geneva and that she was coming with me.

The Commission on Human Rights

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) meets at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.  The Commission is made up of 53 member states elected by the Economic and Social Council, whose delegations gather annually for six weeks during March and April.  Throughout the course of its regular session the Commission negotiates and adopts about one hundred resolutions on human rights—including civil and political rights, economic rights, cultural rights, children’s rights, women’s rights and social rights.  The resolutions cover everything from Racial Discrimination to Torture, Health to Execution, Violence Against Women to Indigenous Peoples.

Member states that adopt the resolutions are then obligated to implement the rights contained therein.  Countries are required to report regularly to the committees that are established to monitor their compliance.  Appointed human rights experts, representatives and rapporteurs report to the Commission annually.

As with most UN meetings, documents are decided by “consensus,”  meaning all parties agree to the language.  Negotiations are always tedious, and often excruciating, as individual paragraphs are discussed sentence by sentence, and word by word until all the delegations concur.

The Infamous Brazilian Resolution

We at United Families have learned over the years that regardless of the subject of a United Nations conference, whether it’s children’s rights, or sustainable development, you can just count on certain volatile issues coming up.  The CHR was no exception.  “Reproductive health rights”  (UN-speak for abortion), of course was an issue.  “Sexual orientation” was another one that we anticipated.

The Brazilian Delegation had introduced a very dangerous and controversial resolution proposing that “sexual orientation” be recognized as an international human right.  International policy experts reasoned that if this resolution were to pass, it could very likely pave the way for the legalization of same-sex marriage across the world.  The resolution reads in part:

“The Commission on Human Rights,

. . . Stresses that human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human beings, that the universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question and that the enjoyment of such rights and freedoms should not be hindered in any way on the grounds of sexual orientation;

 Calls upon all States to promote and protect the human rights of all persons regardless of their sexual orientation. . .”

While we feel great compassion for those who struggle with same-sex attraction or any other gender identity issue, special human rights (rather than equal human rights) which are granted based on sexual behavior are dangerous indeed.  Every individual should be entitled to the same human rights regardless of race, color, sex or national origin.  The extension of rights should never be based on behavior.

Here is one reason: according to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, there are 22 different “sexual orientations.”  These include behaviors involving non-human objects, suffering or humiliation, children or other non-consenting persons.  It is not discrimination to recognize that these kinds of “sexual orientations” and their inherent behaviors are unhealthy.  If the term “sexual orientation” is allowed in a UN document in this context, it would open a box that Pandora could only have dreamed about.

Making a Major Difference

When we realized the potential danger of the Brazilian resolution, UFI generated an action alert which was distributed to our email list.  We asked our faithful members and friends to email the 53 UN delegations on the Human Rights Commission and express their opposition to the sexual orientation proposal.  The response to this action alert was overwhelming!  Thanks to those who responded, over 345,000 email messages were generated and sent to these UN missions!  This is the first time that we know of that any organization has generated thousands of emails to put pressure on UN delegations.

We were told by our good friend, Amr Roshdy, a member of the International Advisory Board of United Families, and a valuable member of the Egyptian delegation to the UN, that the emails that were sent to UN missions by UFI supporters were probably responsible for the eventual withdrawal of the Brazilian Resolution from consideration.  Citing a lack of international support, the Brazilian delegation tabled the resolution.  They are already planning to try again next year.  When they do, we’ll call on our supporters again!

At the World Congress of Families III held in March in Mexico City, United Families representatives distributed to many members of the profamily coalition our latest publication, A Guide to Family Issues:  Sexual Orientation.  (Available on our website — www.unitedfamilies.org.) The Guide is a collection of the myths surrounding homosexual behavior and the realities that debunk them.  In addition, it contains a wealth of peer-reviewed social science data which shows the dangers of homosexual behavior to individuals, families, and societies.  Mr. Roshdy encouraged UFI to take the Guide to Geneva and distribute it to as many UN delegations as we could.  That’s exactly what we did.

Even though the Brazilian Resolution had been withdrawn, we were anxious to share the Guide with the UN delegations in Geneva because we weren’t certain that something similar to the Brazilian resolution wouldn’t be proposed by another country.  When we presented the Guide to the delegation from the Holy See (the Vatican) they thanked us profusely for the “splendid Easter gift,” and told us they would use it often.  The UFI Guide provided delegations with the facts they needed to defeat any subsequent proposals that could arise which might be similar to the Brazilian resolution.

Faster Than a Speeding Bullet

I discovered a secret about our Egyptian friend Amr Roshdy during our time in Geneva.  I began to suspect that beneath his shirt and tie there was very likely a big red “S.”  In his work at the United Nations, Amr is a fearless defender of the family.  During the course of each day, as we monitored the negotiations of numerous resolutions with our colleagues from several other pro-family NGOs (non-governmental organizations), we would often pass by one of them in the hall, frantically looking for Amr.  “Where’s Amr?”  “Go find Amr!”   “We need Amr!”  Amr would race from room to room whenever a problem arose that required pro-family input.  He literally saved the day on many occasions.

One of the most amazing things we witnessed during the course of the Commission on Human Rights took place during the negotiation of a resolution on “extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.”  Occasionally, the negotiations are closed to the NGOs that attend UN meetings.  We unknowingly found ourselves in one of these closed negotiating meetings.  There were a number of individuals from homosexual activist organizations in the room, so the delegate from Sweden who was chairing the meeting couldn’t throw us out without also removing them.

The meeting was attended by the cosponsors of the resolution.  There were no delegates from the United States or from any Arab country present.  (Thankfully, the U.S. and the Arab countries are invaluable when it comes to promoting pro-family language in UN documents.)  We were aware that there was a good deal of anti-U.S. and anti-Bush sentiment, but we were not prepared for what we heard.  Usually, during negotiations delegates are very formal, calling each other, “my esteemed colleague.”  In this meeting, we heard some absolutely venomous remarks from several delegates who stated that they would not subject negotiations to “blackmail” by the United States and that they would not permit the U.S. to “water down” the document.  Attitudes of this nature are likely displayed often in closed meetings, but we had never witnessed them before.  It was very disturbing.

Important Lessons Learned

From my experience at this and other UN meetings, I think there are some lessons that all of us who support traditional marriage and the family must understand and apply.  The first, of course, is that we have to show up everywhere marriage and the family is under assault.  If we do not, those who oppose marriage and family will win by default.  The UN bureaucracy is generally sympathetic to the opposition.  Most of the major industrialized nations and even some of the developing nations are also supportive and actively lobby for such things as the Brazilian Resolution.  They (and under the previous administration, the United States) are part of the problem.  The anti-marriage and anti-family NGOs are more numerous and better funded than we are, and they often employ fulltime professionals who seek every opportunity to promote their agenda.  

A second lesson is the impact that citizens around the world and especially UFI supporters in the U.S. and Canada had on this conference.  We must do this in the future and UFI is presently developing some even more effective ways to let various UN delegations and other key international bodies know of the concerns of marriage and family supporters around the world.

Our experience in Geneva also reinforced the importance of bringing the best and most relevant facts and data to bear in defense of marriage and the family at these UN conferences.  This is not a new lesson for UFI.  In fact, it has been a hallmark of our actions at the international level for the entire 25 years of our existence and is one of the reasons we have been so effective.  The UN Negotiating Guide we developed a few years ago is, literally, the “Bible” for pro-family NGOs and UN delegations from conservative countries at these UN meetings.  The summary of the American Psychological Association’s 22 different types of sexual orientation referred to previously was produced and distributed by Focus on the Family, another effective pro-family NGO.  It also had a major impact.  We must continue to devote our resources to develop and effectively use this kind of data and information.

Finally, as I look over the bills from this trip, the lesson is driven home once again that defending marriage and the family is not cheap.  Even though we stretch the limited dollars available in every way we can--using trained and committed volunteers whenever possible, staying with friends and supporters instead of at expensive hotels, packing food from home so we don’t have to eat out, flying standby, and every other way we can think of to cut corners, Geneva is an expensive city and expensive to get to.  We could not afford to attend these meetings and stage the defense of marriage and the family that we were able to without the generous financial support of UFI members.  These donations are sacred to us and we are extremely conservative and very careful as to how they are used.

Some of us are able to travel to conferences and help directly in this work.  No one can do everything but everyone can do something.  Whether it is e-mailing UN delegations, making a financial contribution or staying informed on the issues.  It is a team effort and everyone is important and should feel satisfaction from the successes we have had in Geneva and in other forums. 

To paraphrase a famous aphorism, defending marriage and the family in today’s world requires eternal vigilance and the commitment of time and resources by good people who understand how important that is to our future.  Our very civilization may depend on it.

Perhaps this is the most important lesson of all.

United Families International (UFI) is a nonprofit, nondenominational organization dedicated to promoting the family as the fundamental unit of society at the local, national, and international level. UFI promotes respect for marriage, life, religion, parental rights and national sovereignty.

As a nongovernmental organization with official ECOSOC status at the United Nations, UFI works closely with UN Ambassadors and delegates to promote pro-family policies in UN documents. For more information or to become a member of United Families International and receive our quarterly newsletter, please go to our website at www.unitedfamilies.org or call our office in Arizona at (480) 632-5450.