Rome Could Have Stopped the New UN LGBT Czar

Rome Could Have Stopped the New UN LGBT Czar

AUSTIN RUSE
12/23/16

This week the brave African delegations to the UN fought a rear-guard action to stop a new UN office that will seek out and punish any country or institution that does not bend to the will of the dominant LGBT ethos.

This months-long fight began at the Human Rights Council in Geneva and it was almost stopped there. It could have been stopped there. It could have been stopped anywhere along the way as it moved from Geneva to the Third Committee of the General Assembly and finally this week to the General Assembly itself.

All that was left to the Africa Group was to try and delay the office’s implementation for “further study.” This very well could have been the end of it, but the Africans couldn’t even win that, as hard as they tried.

For decades the radical LGBTs have used the Human Rights Council to advance the notion of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) as a new category of identity that can be enforced by international law. To date, the LGBTs have made very little progress.

The only mention of sexual orientation and gender identity to appear in a General Assembly resolution has been the annual resolution condemning summary execution and extra judicial killing. Even that was a struggle. Even the Vatican opposed that and for their trouble was accused by the New York Times, no less, of favoring the execution of homosexuals. The Vatican and other delegations have opposed any introduction of SOGI into UN documents because no matter how benign the usage, it would eventually be bootstrapped into a new category of nondiscrimination on par with freedom of religion and other more broadly accepted categories.

A few years ago, the Human Rights Council agreed to fund a report on violence based on SOGI. Everyone knew this was only the beginning. This new global LGBT enforcer is the culmination of that effort. Well, not really, the culmination will be the persecution of countries, groups, and individuals who may oppose the left’s sexual agenda.

At the debate this week, echoing what the New York Times viciously said about the Vatican a few years ago, Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN, accused the Africans of being willingly complicit in the massacre of homosexuals in Orlando and the throwing of homosexuals off the top of roofs by the thugs of ISIS. This is despicable and Power should be ashamed that she would stoop so low but she isn’t.

The final vote to delay the new office was 84-77 with what appears to be 31 abstentions. The US and the EU put the hammer down on this proposal. They put pressure directly on ministries of foreign affairs all over the world. They likely made threats. And even with all that, they only won by seven votes.

The very discouraging news is that the rapacious and extremely radical Europeans would not allow their member states to have a conscience vote, that is, to vote as they wished, but insisted that the EU consensus in favor of the new office not be broken. The consensus is something that is always driven by France, Germany and the United Kingdom. More conservative countries like Hungary, Poland and Croatia might have done the right thing, but they would not break the EU consensus. They issued strong statements instead. Big deal. Very brave. What about Catholic Malta? Malta just made it illegal for counselors to treat anyone who has unwanted same-sex desire. Malta is lost.

I say this could have been stopped by Rome and by that I mean the Vatican secretariat of state. I am not suggesting that the Vatican supported this new office. They did not. I am also not pointing fingers at the Holy See delegations in either New York or Geneva. They could not kill this proposal all on their own, especially one that has the full support of the UN bureaucracy, the EU and the US. The Vatican delegations in New York and Geneva do heroic work, but they are small in number and simply overwhelmed by the sheer numbers on the other side.

No, what was needed was a fully engaged Vatican secretariat of state and maybe even a pope willing to work national capitals, to send out diplomatic cables, to call ministers of foreign affairs. Rome might have broken the EU consensus. At the very least, Rome could have moved a few of the abstentions to our side. All that was needed was the changing of four votes.

I have seen what happens when Rome gets so engaged. It is a sight to behold. Countries are moved. Foreign ministers change their minds. Allies are bolstered and emboldened. In the many years my team and I have been doing this work at the UN, we have seen the ability of the Vatican in Rome to make things happen at the UN. It is remarkable.

Pope Francis knows about this issue. He speaks beautifully about it. He calls it “ideological colonialism” and he is exactly right. He has heard for years from the African Synod of Bishops calling out for relief from rapacious western NGOs and governments trying to impose the anti-family agenda on their countries. Standing publicly against this new UN enforcer on LGBT would have been the perfect expression of the pope’s opposition to ideological colonialism.

So, here we are, there is this great victory for the LGBT radicals and this is what will happen. The new LGBT czar will come after traditional peoples. He will come after the Africans. He will come after the Catholics. He will come after the Vatican. Recall, a few years ago when a UN treaty monitoring body ordered the Church to change her ancient teachings on homosexuality and other aspects of human sexuality? This will be that and in spades.

This could have been stopped at any point along the way even unto its tragic approval in the General Assembly this week. I do not accuse Pope Francis. He cannot do everything and he can only do what is brought to him. And there are folks in Rome whose priorities are simply out of balance because there is a far greater threat to souls from the LGBT agenda than from global warming. You have to know that if this was a special UN office to promote the use of greenhouse gases, it would have been stopped cold.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2016/12/23/rome-could-have-stopped-the-new-un-lgbt-czar/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

One comment on “Rome Could Have Stopped the New UN LGBT Czar

  1. New UN Czar for Homosexual and Transgender Rights Taunts General Assembly

    By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. | December 8, 2016

    NEW YORK, December 9 (C-Fam) With his job still on the line, the newly appointed UN independent expert for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights laid out a provocative agenda for his 3-year term last week.

    “This mandate will cover every country under the sun and under the moon,” Thai Professor Vitit Muntarbhorn is reported to have said, further antagonizing countries that have already promised not to cooperate with him.

    His speech at an international LGBT conference in Thailand effectively dared the UN General Assembly either to suspend him or watch him promote an eclectic and far-reaching gamut of policies to further the homosexual agenda internationally.

    He not only promised to work to achieve widely agreed upon goals like ending violence against individuals who identify as LGBT, but also goals that do not enjoy political support even in socially liberal countries, like curtailing religious freedom and incorporating LGBT issues in the UN peace and security agenda.

    Muntarbhorn’s agenda was summed up in 5 points: decriminalizing sodomy, preventing mental health professionals from treating homosexuality as a disorder, ensuring legal documents reflect individuals’ subjective gender identity, imposing social acceptance of homosexuality, including by challenging religions, and indoctrinating children and society through propaganda at all levels.

    His declarations come as the General Assembly considers placing his mandate on hold until it has an opportunity to review the very close decision of the 47-member strong Human Rights Council in Geneva to establish his post. Just 23 UN member states voted in favor of the mandate in Geneva. A decision is expected at the end of next week by all 194 UN member states in the General Assembly plenary.

    The mandate, currently formulated as addressing “violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity” has been described as vague, overly inclusive, and not sufficiently specific as UN mandates are required to be.

    In the last five years the UN bureaucracy prepared two reports under this same rubric, promoting legal recognition of homosexual relations, transgender identity rights, special protections in criminal, employment, and asylum laws, and other controversial policies.

    The African Group of countries insisted during a very close committee vote two weeks ago that there was simply no legal basis for the mandate. They lost that vote by 84 to 77, with 17 abstentions, and with at least 18 countries that prohibit sodomy voting in a way inconsistent with their laws.

    Many more supported the mandate even though they would not endorse the 5-point agenda put forth by Muntarbhorn. Countries that have LGBT-specific non-discrimination laws but do not recognize homosexual civil unions or permit homosexual adoption are likely candidates to support further review of the mandate.

    Even before Muntarbhorn’s post was established in June, and he was appointed to it in September, opponents of the position assumed it would promote acceptance of broad agenda and not just focus on preventing “violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity” as the Obama administration and other Western governments insisted it would. The new 5-point plan fulfills the worst expectations of the critics of the post.

Leave a Reply