By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) An advisory report on the protection of human rights in the context of counter terrorism recently submitted to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly (GA) includes a radical redefinition of the term "gender," claiming that it is a purely social construct not connected to biology.
UN Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin was asked to report to the UN on "gender-based human rights abuses in counterterrorism measures" – with an intended focus presumably upon hardships encountered by women caught up in the war on terror. Instead, in his report, Scheinin asserted "Gender is not synonymous with women but rather encompasses the social responsibilities that underlie how women's and men's roles, functions and responsibilities, including in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity, are defined and understood."
Labeling gender a "social construct," the non-binding submission claims that "gender is not static," but rather "changeable over time and across contexts." Readers are told that "understanding gender as a social and shifting construct rather than as a biological and fixed category is important because it helps identify the complex and inter-related gender-based human rights violations caused by counterterrorism measures."
Such a definition of gender has been bitterly debated in formal UN settings for years and has been rejected repeatedly by member states in negotiated UN documents. There is a longtime tension on this question between the sovereign states of the GA and the UN bureaucracy. Even though the GA has repeatedly defined gender in a traditional way, the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women defines gender, similar to this new bureaucratic report, as a social construct.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which is binding upon ratifying nations, states that gender "refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society." In addition, two non-binding UN conference outcome documents – the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action and the Report of the Conference on Human Settlements held the following year in Istanbul – consider "gender" to be "understood in its ordinary, generally accepted usage."
Another concern with this new document is its promotion of “gender identity and sexual orientation.” The document asserts that three treaties – including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – now require States to ensure "de jure and de facto" non-discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation and gender identity." In support, the report cites the non-binding Yogyakarta Principles, a statement devised by representatives from various non-governmental organizations and UN special rapporteurs. Critics point out that not only do the treaty texts fail to mention sexual orientation and gender identity as a human rights category, but member states have repeatedly rejected inclusion of such a category.
Originally circulated during the sleepy summer months, the report has only recently begun to attract attention from delegates to the GA's Third Committee, which is the usual forum for vetting contentious social issues. One delegate told the Friday Fax that "it would not be surprising that not only was the document released during the summer months," but that it was snuck into a report ostensibly on counterterrorism to avoid immediate notice. He speculated that once implanted, advocates would begin to cite the "stealth" document as additional authority in support of a gay rights agenda.
http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1452/pub_detail.asp
Comments (9)
I'm rec'ing this, because I know all of your posts are worthy. But even after reading this, my jaw is still on the floor. I'm back to re-read, and comment further, once I've absorbed the nonsensical crap of another UN proposal
@ShamelesslyRed@xanga - Afraid I may be misunderstanding your comment, I ask that you please elaborate on (or define) "nonsensical crap"?
Hmmm...I'm not sure I can sit on the opposite side of the fence on this particular proposal. Now, social pre-conditional and societal norms dictate that gender is only male and female and is static. By saying this, those that have sex changes or are gay, thus emulating the opposite sex are deemed "criminal" in most respects. In this way, people's rights are trampled on. I believe they have a right to happiness so long as it does not interfere with another's happiness or well-being.
The aspect of women rights is certainly debatable. I believe I have seen legislation in some Afghan provinces that further restrict women and force them to be more subservient to their male counterparts. And this is something that has only happened in the last couple of years. In effect, one can say this was done to undermine the US. Like a slap in the face, if you will. I've also heard it contested that it is possible to win this war if women could simply stand up to it. If they realize that, as humans, they are entitled to the same rights as men, and that Sharia law is simply a bit twisted.
Now, on the proposal itself, it should not be sneaked in with other counter-terrorism measures. If it's needed, then it should be sound enough to stand on it's own. I do feel that gay rights and more importantly women rights in other nations should at least be addressed and responded to. Who are we to say that women should be subservient and beneath even the animals on the land? Who are we to tell two men, or two women, that they cannot marry? And who are we to trample on another's beliefs simple because what they do isn't acceptable to us?
The facts are the facts, I feel I can stand behind this proposal. However, I question the sneak approach and wonder just how many other legislation has passed without prior knowledge of it?
@xplodinglastbullet@xanga - The problem is the re-defining of definitions that have already been set for Millenia. If "human rights abuses" are what they are trying to fix, then why not focus on the abuse itself?
Problem in Afganistan is, like Pakistan they keep trying to appease the radicals, which pretty sets back everything this "war on terror" or freedom or whatever was supposed to achieve. The politicians don't care for "freedom" or human rights or becoming civilized - only that they are able to hold power.
But the fact that a redefining/questioning of gender identity has been snuck into a counter terrorism report speaks to a hidden and larger agenda of the UN.
@DailyConstruct - I can see that. By censoring and further controlling the public, it could make way for more power. However, the problem with gender bias and any form of prejudice is ignorance and personal bias. Collectively, humans condition theirselves in large groups by passing on specific ideals from parent to child. In this way, we're stuck having to define marriage as between one male and one female and gender as being male and female statically. The fact is, they have been focusing on the abuse itself for many many generations. However, you can't save a life after someone else has already taken it. Nor can you really stop someone from talking. Furthermore, you can't stop a population from voicing their opinions about a particular issue. And of course, what one person does, someone else naturally has to follow suit.
To correct this problem, you have to attack the bias at the source. You have to recondition the people into thinking that gender isn't static and that gays are perfectly normal and productive members of society. The result is less violence and less lives lost. It also produces more conformity. And this is really just a take from a psychological perspective. It's a Brave New World concept I've been haggling with.
Where do we draw the line? I believe that is the main question. How much do we force people to adhere to a fixed idea? Where does the conditioning stop and the re-programming begin.
I conclude, however, that trying to stop the abuse without fixing the real problem isn't going to stop it. We have laws against it and yet people still do it.
If, however, you stepped up and made it so that gays had the same rights and straight couples and re-wrote the legal definition of gender, most would have to concede or simply revolt and cause mass chaos. I feel the former is more likely.
@xthread@xanga - trust me, you don't want to expend your energy on that blogger.
@xthread@xanga - yeah just ignore him. Seriously.
Each country should figure this out for themselves, in my opinion. Having the UN legislate for everybody is trouble.
Different cultures handle gender differently. Aside from those who abuse people based on gender, leave them be to develop on their own. We can't all be the same.
@TheBillion@xanga - @RaVnR@xanga - Thanks for the heads up, friends.