Op-Ed Reformatorisch Dagblad, Dutch national Daily, about 50k subscribers, 23 June, 2021
This month, Europe is once again the center of ethical and moral lows. Consider the report of Socialist origin that is up for a vote in the European Parliament (EP) this week. The title sounds very compassionate: "the situation of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) in the EU from the perspective of women's health." However, it masks a life-threatening content and calls for a multitude of horrors.
A single point in the resolution of some forty pages is about introducing comprehensive sexuality education in schools, supposedly in line with science, age appropriate and non-judgmental, without prior parental consent. The resolution then says to act in line with standards of international organizations such as the World Health Organization and commitments made at the United Nations (UN) International Conference on Population Development. It further calls for free contraception, the abolition of the right to conscientious objection to abortion, and reimbursement for gender reassignment surgery, including on minors.
Most far-reaching, the resolution seeks to establish abortion as an enforceable human right. This deliberately goes against international agreements, treaties and legislation in member states. Not to mention the fact that abortion is not a health issue, and that this subject does not fall within the EP's jurisdiction at all. With united forces we are therefore making efforts with various concerned organizations and MEPs to get rid of this report.
"Divided Nations"
Another concerning report is on the agenda at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on June 24. The so-called UN Independent Expert will then present its "Report on protection against violence and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity." This expert is in fact supposed to investigate this in member states and report on it.
In late 2016, this highly controversial post (with 84 member states in favor, 77 against and 16 abstentions) was added to the UN system. At the first consultation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Geneva, we contributed, "A majority of UN member states did not vote in favor of your mandate. This is due to conflicting world views and religious principles. To our Council it seems that the initiators of this mandate are creating a community of Divided Nations, instead of United Nations. How do you experience this reality and how do you deal with the conflicting visions related to your mandate?"
The experience of the Expert's energetic work and drive to introduce gender as a theory rather than an ideology does not bode well. In line with the 16-page input we have provided, we will also be introducing these concerns in an oral statement at the June 24 hearing.
G7
Earlier this month, President Biden came to Europe. His election and the resulting Democratic majority in the U.S. were a sledgehammer blow to pro-life, pro-family, and pro-religious and pro-educational freedoms, inside and outside the U.S. One of the many examples that illustrate this is the final communiqué of the annual meeting of the Group of Seven (G7, forum of seven rich industrial nations), which took place in the United Kingdom: "A Shared Agenda for Global Action to Build Back Better". One goes full on gender equality and SRHR, including abortion, something President Trump prevented.
Furthermore, French President Macron called for close cooperation with the so-called Generation Equality Forum (June 30-July 2 in Paris), which emanates from feminist activists, Mexico, France and the UN Women. They are fighting for accelerated progress on women's rights and gender equality in the run-up to 2030. Our registration and participation in this forum has been confirmed, but we searched the option menu of action coalitions in vain for a group of prolife and family representatives.
Neo-colonial
Finally, this: In various UN germs, voting is not done by head, but decided by consensus. This often prevents rich Western countries from pushing their controversial agenda with abortion, gender and sexual rights in the face of poor countries. Those countries often have more conservative legislation.
Recently, a former representative to the UN sounded the alarm on behalf of his African country. To his horror, he had also read the fine print in the new, binding negotiating result of the EU's Partnership with the 79-country Africa-Caribbean-Pacific (ACP). This result, agreed on April 15, runs to a whopping 187 pages. If the EU member states approve it unanimously, and so do the EP and individual ACP countries, it will go into effect at the end of 2021 for a new 20-year period.
This African was familiar with the fact that international organizations sometimes use verbose language and apparent details. He recognized that through this backdoor the EU was imposing things like the introduction of comprehensive sex education and abortion facilities. However, this goes against legislation in many nations.
We have until December to make this known to MEPs and the group of countries concerned. In the hope that there will be dissenting voices against this new, neo-colonial looking trick of the EU.
Not neutral
Much more could be said about how it came about that these kinds of issues dominate the international agendas. And why not states, but pressure groups and (subsidized) progressive NGOs are the actual drivers of change.
It was only very late that Christian-oriented NGOs understood that goals pursued by or through the UN and the EU such as human rights and "global governance" (regulation of problems that extend across national borders) were anything but neutral and that taking a seat at the table was not a luxury but a necessity. Therefore, all hands on deck in defense of unborn life, the natural family, and religious and educational freedom.
The author is founder-director of Transatlantic Christian Council (International) (TCC in the Netherlands, CCI in USA).
ANNEX:
Text Oral Statement Geneva 24 June on SOGI:
Dear Mr. Madrigal-Borloz,
As director of Transatlantic Christian Council, an ECOSOC-accredited ngo, I thank you for the opportunity to provide input relative to your report on “Gender, sexual orientation and gender identity”.
As your report is not available yet, we refer to your call for input. From the first sentence on gender is introduced as theory, which wording contains the claim of verifiable science. It portrays gender as a social construct or socially created. We believe that gender theory is an ideology. On a scientifical basis we believe that sexes are based on biology. We also believe that God created human beings male and female, according to the Bible in the book Genesis 1:27: [Quote]“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” [Unquote].That has not changed. We also acknowledge that all human beings are captive to their sinful nature in which they are fallen, and are in need of redemption. That is possible because of the coming in the world and the saving grace and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Son of God.
Our critical input asks for a rethink, but is also in the recognition of the inherent dignity of every human being as an image bearer of God, that respects the right of each individual to live, as far as feasible, in liberty. - Thank you.
Henk Jan van Schothorst – Executive Director – Transatlantic Christian Council
Here on video, 1.5 minute: