Archives: Resources

UN Resolution 17/19 on ‘Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity’ was adopted by the Human Rights Council with a recorded vote of 23 to 19 with 3 abstentions on 17 June 2011.

It requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to commission a study “documenting discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, in all regions of the world, and how international human rights law can be used to end violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity”.

The voting was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay

Against: Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Uganda

Abstaining: Burkina Faso, China, Zambia

UN Resolution 17/15 on the ‘Promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for cultural diversity’ was adopted by the Human Rights Council on 17 June 2011.

It reaffirms that “cultural rights are an integral part of human rights, which are universal, indivisible, interrelated and interdependent”.

The HRC further agrees that “while the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of the State, regardless of its political, economic and cultural system, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms”.

UN Resolution 17/11 on the ‘Accelerating efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women: ensuring due diligence in protection’ was adopted by the Human Rights Council on 17 June 2011.

It demands that states exercise “due diligence to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of violence against women and girls” and further recognises that “effective protection requires comprehensive, integrated, coordinated multisectoral approaches involving multiple stakeholders, including women’s organizations, religious and community leaders, youth, men and boys, victim service workers and advocates” amongst others.

Important agreements include the accessibility of justice, the provision and protection of  shelters and the targeted elimination of structural discrimination.

UN Resolution 14/12 on the ‘Accelerating efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women: ensuring due diligence in prevention’ was adopted by the Human Rights Council on 18 June 2010.

It stresses states’ responsibility to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls and calls upon states to initiate and support the empowerment of women. Women should also “have the right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters relating to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence”.

To implement these measures amongst others, the resolution “calls upon States to support initiatives undertaken by women’s groups, international and non-governmental organizations, the private sector, media, faith and community groups and other relevant civil society actors aimed at promoting gender equality and the full enjoyment of all human rights by women and girls, and raising awareness of and preventing violence against women and girls”.

Joint statement on behalf of Action Canada for Population and Development, Federation for Women and Family Planning, Center for Reproductive Rights, Ipas, and others.

Mr. President,

It is my honour to deliver this statement on behalf of 285 organisations from around the world.

Through the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, States explicitly agreed to prioritize the human rights of women, including the eradication of gender-based discrimination and violence.

However, many States have not yet made the important decision that women’s human rights deserve to be upheld and their lives are worth saving. The continued criminalization of abortion and restrictions on access to and provision of abortion and post-abortion care in many jurisdictions is stark evidence of this.

Around 22 million unsafe abortions are estimated to take place around the world annuallyii, leading to 7 million health complicationsiii and 47,000 deathsiv. In addition, there are major social and financial costs to women and girls, families, communities, health systems and economies. The criminalization of abortion and failure to ensure access to quality abortion services is a violation of the rights to nondiscrimination, to privacy, and to make decisions about one’s own body, and can constitute torture or ill-treatment, as repeatedly highlighted by UN bodies and experts.v Prohibiting abortion pushes it 2 underground and gives rise to unsafe abortions, violating the rights to life, health and bodily autonomy. Moreover, the poor and those already facing multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination are disproportionately affected, making the global community’s pledge to “leave no one behind” ring hollow.

These human rights violations must stop now. On September 28, the Global Day of Action for Access to Safe and Legal Abortion, we urge the Human Rights Council to address the human rights violations arising from criminalization of abortion and the denial of access to safe and legal abortion services through its resolutions, decisions, dialogues, debates, and the UPR. We demand in a collective voice that governments across the world respect, protect and fulfill the right to access safe and legal abortion services and post-abortion care.

Thank you, Mr. President.

---

Signatories

• Action Canada for Population and Development;
• Federation for Women and Family Planning;
• Center for Reproductive Rights;
• Ipas;
• ActionAid;
• Advocates for Youth;
• ARC International (Allied Rainbow Communities International);
• Asian Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women (ARROW);
• Asociación Pro-Bienestar de la Familia Colombiana “Profamilia”;
• Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID);
• Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network;
• Catholics for Choice;
• Center for Women’s Global Leadership (CWGL);
• Centre for Health and Social Justice;
• Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS);
• Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN);
• Ekta Resource Centre for Women;
• EngenderHealth;
• European Humanist Federation;
• European Women’s Lobby;
• European Youth Forum;
• Federatie van Nederlandse Verenigingen tot Integratie van Homoseksualiteit – COC Nederland;
• FOKUS – Forum for Women and Development Norway;
• Fundacion para Estudio e Investigacion de la Mujer (FEIM);
• Generation Initiative for Women and Youth Network (GIWYN);
• Girls To Mothers’ Initiative;
• Global Fund for Women;
• Global Justice Center;
• International Commission of Jurists;
• International Federation for Human Right Leagues (FIDH);
• The International HIV/AIDS Alliance;
• International Humanist and Ethical Union;
• International Lesbian and Gay Association;
• International Planned Parenthood Federation;
• International Planned Parenthood Federation South Asia Region Office;
• International Service for Human Rights;
• International Women’s Health Coalition;
• Italian Association for Women in Development (AIDOS);
• Manusher Jonno Foundation;
• Marie Stopes International;
• Médecins du Monde – France;
• MenEngage Alliance;
• Oxfam;
• Pathfinder International;
• The Population Council;
• PROMSEX, Centro de Promoción y Defensa de los Derechos Sexuales y Reproductivos;
• Rutgers;
• Shalupe Foundation;
• Simavi; Social Charitable Center Women and Modern World;
• Sonke Gender Justice;
• Sukaar Welfare Organization Pakistan;
• Union Women Center;
• Womankind Worldwide;
• Women Enabled International;
• Women for Women’s Human Rights – New Ways;
• Women International Democratic Federation;
• Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights;
• Women’s Rights Center NGO Armenia;
• World YWCA;
• Youth Coalition for Sexual and Reproductive Rights

Initiated by the International Lesbian and Gay Association, this joint NGO statement highlights the importance of protecting rights concerning sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI).

“In too many countries, we face severe human right violations – we are criminalized including under colonial-era laws, we face the death penalty, we are murdered, lesbians are subject to rape and forced marriage; intersex people face genetic de-selection, infanticide, coerced sterilization and genital mutilation; transgender persons are demeaned and beaten, subjected to pathologisation and sterilization, their identities often unrecognized by States.

We are denied health care or needed treatment; we routinely face discrimination in work, housing and education. In many countries, our work as human rights defenders is opposed, obstructed or banned. Our rights to peacefully gather are often denied, while attempts are made to silence our voices.”

The Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations gave a statement ‘On The Outcome Document Of The United Nations Summit For The Adoption Of The Post-2015 Development Agenda “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development”’.

As an anti-rights actor, the Holy See criticises gender-related policies, contraception, family planning and sexual and reproductive rights agreed upon in the UN document. The following text is an extract from the statement.

“1. Regarding the terms “sexual and reproductive health” and “reproductive rights”, the Holy See considers these terms as applying to a holistic concept of health, which embrace, each in their own way, the person in the entirety of his or her personality, mind and body, and which foster the achievement of personal maturity in sexuality and in the mutual love and decision-making that characterize the conjugal-relationship between a man and a woman in accordance with moral norms. The Holy See does not consider abortion or access to abortion or abortifacients as a dimension of these terms.

2. With reference to the terms “contraception”, “family planning”, “sexual and reproductive health”, “sexual and reproductive rights”, “reproductive rights”, and any other terms regarding family-planning services and regulation of fertility concepts in the document, the Holy See reaffirms its well-known position concerning those family-planning methods which the Catholic Church considers morally acceptable and, on the other hand, family-planning services which do not respect the liberty of the spouses, human dignity and the human rights of those concerned.

3. With reference to “gender”, the Holy See understands the term to be grounded in the biological sexual identity that is male or female.

4. In relation to paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Statement of Position, the Holy See also reaffirms its reservations to the outcome documents of the International Conference on Population and Development, in Cairo and the Fourth World Conference on Women, in Beijing.

5. With respect to “education” or “information” on “sexuality”, the Holy See reiterates the “primary responsibility” and the “prior rights” of parents, including their right to religious freedom, when it comes to the education and upbringing of their children, as enshrined, inter alia, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In that sense, the Holy See wishes to underline the centrality of the family, “the natural and fundamental group unit of society,” as well as the role and rights and duties of parents to educate their children.”

This joint statement demands that the discussion of the ‘protection of the family’ at the Human Rights Council in October 2014 must reflect diversity and focus on human rights.

According to the  statement, “our organizations, representing a wide range of civil society from all regions of the world, urge the UN Human Rights Council to ensure the Panel discussion entitled ‘protection of the family’ scheduled to take place in September reflects the diversity of family forms and includes a focus on the promotion and protection of human rights of individuals within the family unit.

The decision to hold the Panel came in a resolution passed on 26 June 2014, as a result of the deeply flawed “protection of the family” initiative led by Egypt and other States[i] at the UN Human Rights Council.

The manner in which the initiative has been pursued gives rise to concern that some States will seek to exploit it as a vehicle for promoting a narrow, exclusionary and patriarchal concept of “the family” that denies equal protection to the human rights of individuals who belong to the various and diverse forms of family that exist across the globe.

Human Life International (HLI) is an anti-rights actor that advocates a regressive definition of ‘the family’, anti-LGBTQ and anti-choice policies.

The anti-rights actor claims that “anti-life NGOs have been infiltrating most parts of Uganda”which HLI Uganda counteracts by “sharing the truth that abortion and contraception are false solutions to the real problems of poverty and marginalisation”.

Therefore, “HLI Uganda hosted a three-day conference to expose the anti-family and anti-life agendas pushed by the media and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) who think that Ugandans have too many children. Last month’s conference drew over 8,000 Ugandans according to Father Jonathan Opio, country director for HLI Uganda.”

Human Life International (HLI) is an anti-rights actor that advocates a regressive definition of ‘the family’, anti-LGBTQ and anti-choice policies. This is their account of the 7th OAS Summit of the Americas.

The anti-rights actor claims that “Gender ideology is very present at OAS events as the new vehicle for the anti-life and anti-family agenda”.

About its objectives at the 7th Summit of the Americas in Panama, it says “HLI Colombia participated in the April 2012 Sixth Summit of the Americas and utilized its strong position to prepare HLI Panama affiliates and collaborators for this summit to promote and defend life and family before the OAS, member state, and Panamanian government officials”.

HLI also attacks progressive actors saying that “a very large presence of anti-life and anti-family proponents also sought to incorporate their agenda in the recommendations” and “the official summit documents already contained several anti-life provisions”.