By: Peter Smith
There were 65 resolutions this year. I thought 47 were reasonable, 7 not so good and 11 were terrible.
But before we look at these resolutions, I would like to say that the whole approach of the UN since the late 1940s is wrong. They just push all this human rights approach to almost everything and never talk about human responsibility. If you look in the Bible its 99% about responsibility. I have been watching a very famous Canadian, Jordan Peterson , who has the same view. He has written a book called 12 rules for life .
For a summary see : www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApC0faRYabI
He is very opposed to just this rights idea with no mention of responsibility, which has produced a disaster in the Western World. Just ask yourself, when you last challenged a teenager about their bad behaviour and they said, “But it’s my right to so that.”
One resolution was on: The human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation
You would think what could be wrong with this. Well here is what was snuck in :
“Deeply concerned also that the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic perpetuates and exacerbates existing inequalities, and that those disproportionately at risk are women, girls and persons in vulnerable situations, recognizing the need to expand as a matter of utmost urgency access to adequate water and sanitation services, including for menstrual health and hygiene management, and to ensure continued access to existing services in this regard, including sexual and reproductive healthcare services, and gravely concerned that 2.3 billion people worldwide lack basic hand-washing facilities at home, which is urgently needed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases,”
The wording above in bold type is considered by many countries to include a right to abortion.
The UN conducts all its negotiations on a system called consensus. If you look up a dictionary is says consensus is “ the conclusion of a decision based on collective agreement”.
Before 1994 if three delegations disagreed with any term or phrase in a UN document they could object during negotiations and the offensive wording was removed. That all changed at the Cairo Population conference (1994) and the Beijing Women’s conference (1995). At both these meetings some 25 countries objected to the term “reproductive health” and were told to just post a reservation. This was under a Clinton/Gore White House.
Another resolution was on: Strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing periodic and genuine elections and the promotion of democratization
Into this resolution was introduced the term, sexual orientation and gender identity,” There was a call for a vote .to remove “sexual orientation & gender identity” from one paragraph. The result was : For 58 , Against 90 , Abstain 13.
Another paragraph had the phrase “women in all their diversity” , this is transgenderism (Men pretending to be women) There was a call for a vote to remove “women in all their diversity” from this paragraph, The result was : For 56 , Against 89 , Abstain 12
After the vote to remove non-agreed language was lost, the chair called for acceptance of the original document and no countries were brave enough to object. Silence means agreement at the UN. So, 58 countries can now object out of 152 counties and the UN claims this is a consensus document. It would be very hard for a country to object to a whole resolution on voting & democracy.
I would like to quote from the parable of the shrewd manager. Lk16:8 “…. For the people of this world are shrewder in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light.” A Democrat held White House is much more ruthless and effective than one held by the Republicans. The EU is just awful all the time, especially promoting sexual depravity and gender confusion.
The Netherlands made an intervention at that time bragging about how they co-chair, with Argentina , a group of countries promoting LGBTQI+ “rights”.
Peter Smith represents CCI at the UN in New York