UN CEDAW and the Strategy of Deceit

The CEDAW Committee - at work in the developing world

globaljusticecenter.net

You may be aware of the CEDAW committee of the UN - a group of 23 radical feminists who give directives to the governments of the world.  They are empowered, even by their own organisation, only to make "recommendations", but these are made with great venom.  Currently, https://www.humandignitytrust.org/what-we-do/cases/sri-lanka-case-before-un-committee-on-the-elimination-of-discrimination-against-women-cedaw/  they are telling the government of Sri Lanka to promote lesbianism.

The essay below gives a historic glimpse into how the CEDAW committee has worked - and how it continues to operate even today.

CEDAW ideology and the strategy of deceit

– Uncovering the Women’s Rights Bill

Introduction

CEDAW is the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and it sounds like something good.  Yet CEDAW requires that a 10 year old girl child should have education in and access to contraception, with the associated “rights” to sexual activity and abortion all without her parents’ knowledge or consent.  CEDAW trounces national sovereignty and undermines religion, seeks to abolish the traditional family, despises motherhood and pregnant women, and encourages lesbianism and prostitution.  The Government of Sri Lanka was instructed by 23 women at the UN, the CEDAW committee, to legalise the abortion of children.  The CEDAW committee requires that doctors be legally bound to commit an abortion of a child in the ninth month, even when, knowing that it is murder, they do not wish to do it.  CEDAW further requires the judiciary to be bound to promoting such “women’s rights” as contained in CEDAW.  This is CEDAW, and the bill on Women’s Rights has as its objective the advancement and implementation of “women’s rights” in order to “give effect” to CEDAW.   This article sets out to describe the sterile and disordered nature of CEDAW and indicate that it would be national lunacy to enact a law that makes the nation legally bound to implementing the ideology of CEDAW.

Verbal Engineering

The text of CEDAW states in its preamble that “a change in the traditional roles of men and women in family and society is needed to achieve equality” for women.  The achievement of equality may be a noble aspiration, and it is true that the female and the male are equally human, and therefore have equal dignity as human beings.  However, it is of essence that “equality” as understood by CEDAW involves changing the family and its associated sex roles.  It will be shown that CEDAW’s distorted view of “equality” requires the perilous abnegation of what is specifically female and what is specifically male - such as motherhood and fatherhood.  The term equality is widely understood to be a good thing, but it must be noted that “equality” as CEDAW requires the word to be interpreted is not equality as widely understood. 

One may also believe that it is a noble aim to eliminate discrimination.  However, it is striking that the text of CEDAW defines “discrimination” as meaning “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex” (cf. Article 1).  That is, CEDAW outlaws the recognition, let alone the celebration, of the differences and complementarity between women and men.  It then follows that to honour a woman for being a mother would constitute “discrimination” according to CEDAW.  It will be shown consequently that the CEDAW committee loathes motherhood, because it is a traditional role of women in family and society, and a role not performed by men.  It is construed, almost defying belief, that motherhood is a “stereotypical” condition of inequality, the protection of which constitutes “discrimination” against women.  Elimination of such “discrimination” is the aim of CEDAW.

It must be noted that “women’s rights” in the context of the Sri Lankan bill on Women’s Right means women’s rights as recognised by the international treaty on women’s rights, which is CEDAW.  It follows that “women’s rights” are to be understood as meaning the rights to “equality” and “non-discrimination” as interpreted by CEDAW.  Seeing through this verbal engineering is crucial in order to understand what CEDAW and the bill on Women’s Rights which aims to incorporate CEDAW into Sri Lankan law, has as its true purpose.  The bill on Women’s Rights has in fact been produced in obedience to the CEDAW committee’s command to “give legal force” to CEDAW (cf. Concluding Observations of the CEDAW committee of Sri Lanka’s Third and Fourth Combined Report, 545th and 546th meetings, 2002).

CEDAW ideology

CEDAW’s definitions of equality and of discrimination reveal its radical feminist nature.  Mathematicians make the distinction between equations and identities.  However, for radical feminists such a distinction is blurred.  Radical feminists believe that women should not flourish in their femininity, but should rather become the same as men.  Since child-bearing and motherhood will make women “unequal”, the desire and need for contraceptives and abortion becomes central to eliminating “discrimination” and achieving “equality”.  That is, “equality” is attained only when reproductivity is controlled.   This is particularly so in the culture in which such thinking originated, where gaining freedom from the consequences of promiscuity was important in order to be, it was thought, equally free as men from the associated responsibilities.  The blind adoption of this bankrupt ideology by local feminists have resulted in attempts to thrust upon unsuspecting women the “rights” to be administered steroidal pills that harm them but which have names such as “Mithuri” (lady-friend), to have pieces of metal installed within them, and to have their children torn piece by piece from their wombs.  It is no surprise that the Women’s Charter which forms the schedule to the bill on Women’s Rights, and which is based on CEDAW, requires that “the State should ensure women’s right to control her reproductivity” (cf. Article 13(iii)).  Those who can see through the deception will read that as the right to violate women with birth control devices, sterilisation and abortion.  This termination of motherhood is called empowerment, and this oppression of femininity is called the elimination of discrimination.  It is ironic that our local feminists pushing imported ideologies on our local women are unknowingly playing into the hands of international racists who exploit the feminist movement in seeking to decrease the population of our race (cf. Mosher, S., 2003, Population Research Institute Review, 13(1)).

It must be reiterated that the “right” to unrestricted abortion is necessarily the principal objective of CEDAW, which seeks the achievement of radical feminist equality via the control of reproductivity.  Other aspects of CEDAW and its instruments such as the Women’s Charter and the bill on Women’s Rights, are associated with or directed to this principal objective, or else they form the peripheral packaging designed to distract from this principal objective in order to gain acceptability for the whole ideology.

Pregnancy and Motherhood

The theory of CEDAW has been outlined.  Let us now examine CEDAW in practice.  In 1999 the CEDAW committee criticised the Irish constitution for “promoting the stereotypical view of the role of women as mothers and caregivers [since it] constitutes a serious impediment to the implementation of the Convention”.  The nation of Belarus was criticised in 2000 for celebrating Mothers’ Day and condemned for instituting the Mothers’ Award because it “encourages women’s traditional roles”.  Belarus was further instructed to “review its occupational health and safety legislation and standards, with a view to reducing protective standards on women in general and pregnant women in particular”.  Providing extra care for pregnant women was considered to “have a discriminatory effect”.  The Czech Republic was criticised in 1998 for “the increase in over-protective measures for pregnancy and motherhood” and told that “the cultural glorification of women's family roles could exacerbate the negative impact of economic rationalisation policies on women”.  Slovenia was criticised in 1997 that not enough children were “in formal day care”.  That is, CEDAW requires children to be brought up by the state, and not by their mothers.  These are only a few examples of how CEDAW manifests itself in its assault on motherhood and pregnant women.  This is CEDAW which the bill on Women’s Rights seeks to give legal provision to and honour obligations to.

CEDAW and Abortion

The National Committee on Women (NCW) attached to the Ministry of Women’s Empowerment, whose functions are dominated by a few yet forceful local pro-abortas from universities and NGOs who pretend to represent the women of Sri Lanka, submitted to the international CEDAW committee that “abortion is an unresolved issue… in terms of a woman’s right to determine her fertility” (cf. Third and Fourth Combined Report, 1999).  This reveals that the drive to legalise abortion is not from the reasons commonly given to the public such as poverty or the extreme circumstances faced by a woman pregnant with child.  The drive is clearly from the disordered desire for the abortion a child as the right of a woman.

The framework for interpreting the section on health in CEDAW was set forth in a document entitled  “Women and Health: Mainstreaming the Gender Perspective into the Health Sector” which was produced by the UN Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW) together with abortion promoters such as the UNFPA and the World Health Organisation (WHO).  It states not only that governments should “modify laws” in order to liberalise abortion, but also that “all adolescents should have confidential sexual and reproductive health services starting at an early age”.  At the UN, and also according to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) the largest global abortion monger whose local branch is named the Family Planning Association of Sri Lanka (FPASL), an adolescent is defined as a person between the ages of 10 and 18.  In practice, sexual health services include the promiscuity education or contraception education which is called “sex education”.  Such education is already being pushed on our school children.  Sexual health services also includes the provision of birth control devices to these children in order that they may “control reproductivity” while exercising their “sexual rights”.  In practice, reproductive health services primarily mean abortion.  Sex education is known to drive the abortion industry.  Alan Guttmacher, former president of the US sister association of the FPASL, the Planned Parenthood Federation of Amercia (PPFA), stated that “the answer to winning the battle for elective abortion once and for all is sex education”.  The CEDAW committee consistently instructs nations to implement the mandatory sex education of children, even primary school children, and to ensure their easy access to birth control drugs and devices (cf. for example, instructions to Spain in 1999, to Russia in 2002, to Uzbekistan in 2001, etc). 

Colombia was told in 1999 that “the [CEDAW] committee believes that the restrictive abortion law constitutes a violation of the rights of women”.  Zimbabwe was instructed to “reappraise the law on abortion with a view to its liberalisation”.  Mexico was criticised in 1998 for the “lack of access to easy and swift abortion”.  Slovenia was praised in 1997: “The committee notes with satisfaction the inclusion of the right to abortion in the constitution”.  Croatia was criticised in 1998 for “the refusal, by some hospitals, to provide abortions on the basis of conscientious objection of doctors. The [CEDAW] committee considers this to be an infringement of women's reproductive rights”.   CEDAW not only seeks the right to kill, but evidently does not even tolerate conscientious objection.

CEDAW and Religion

The CEDAW committee reprimanded Sri Lanka in 2002 that “the Muslim personal law… is discriminatory against women” and that the Government should work towards interpreting “Islamic law in line with the Convention”.  The CEDAW Committee even instructed Libya in 1994 that “the interpretation of the Qur’an had to be reviewed in the light of the provisions of the Convention and the current social environment”.  Tunisia became the first Muslim country to liberalise abortion in submission to CEDAW.  In view of this enmity towards Islam, it is surprising that the Muslim community in Sri Lanka is not at the forefront of the resistance to CEDAW.

Judicial Imperialism

The PPFA the US sister of the FPASL opened abortuaries in New York, the very day after abortion became legal in that state.  Neither the penal code of Sri Lanka which protects the preborn child, nor the even the constitution of Sri Lanka which states that “all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection” (cf. chapter III, article 12) may prevail against the legalisation of abortion once the bill on Women’s Rights is enacted - and the professors and doctors of law know this.  This is because implementation of the “rights” recognised by CEDAW will have been made into national law through the bill on Women’s Rights.  According to article 2 of CEDAW, nations are required to change their penal codes and even their national Constitutions in order to eliminate “discrimination” against women - discrimination as understood by CEDAW – and CEDAW will be law.  It will become a legal cakewalk to legalise, inter alia, abortion, prostitution, and mandatory and confidential “sexual health services” to children since such will be “women’s rights”.  However, if the gynaecologist is a woman, she will not have a woman’s right to choose whether or not to commit the abortion.  If the child to be terminated is a girl, she will not have the woman’s right to life.  If the man with whom the woman procreated mounts pressure on her into undergoing abortion on the grounds that the procedure is now legal, that woman will not have the woman’s right to keep her baby, her woman’s right to motherhood.  This is CEDAW.

Sri Lanka is party to many other international treaties, but these have not been incorporated in toto into national law.  However, Croatia, a victim of CEDAW, was commended in 1998 by the CEDAW committee that “the Convention has been incorporated into national laws and may be invoked before the courts by any citizen”. 

This suggests that change in the abortion law may not even be necessary.   Marie Stopes, whose operations the police ignore, could stop calling their butchery as “womb washing” and “menstrual regulation” and admit the word abortion, and other abortion providers could argue that their abortion mills operate legally.  This is because the bill on Women’s Rights ensures “women’s rights” according to CEDAW – “rights” which the judiciary and government are required to recognise and promote - and abortion is such a “right”.   The emergency abortion drug Postinor 2 would no longer need to be disguised as “contraception”.  Sri Lankan doctors who profit by aborting Sri Lankan children would be able advertise their services, knowing that they could “invoke CEDAW before the courts” were it necessary. 

Indoctrination

Radical feminist women are already producing a collective of media reports regarding women’s right to prostitution, which is also a “right” recognised by CEDAW.  Such social engineering is indeed a prerogative of CEDAW. The Women’s Charter, the local version of CEDAW, mentions that “the State shall take all steps to ensure the elimination of gender-role stereotyped concepts… in all types of education through the revision, preparation and writing of teaching-learning material” (cf. article 9(iv)).  CEDAW itself requires the “elimination of stereotyped concepts of the roles of men and women [through] the revision of textbooks and school programs and the adaptation of teaching methods”.  That is, they will re-write school text books and make teachers legally bound to ensure that the association between women and motherhood is eliminated, and to ensure that the next generation of Sri Lankans will go through school imbibing the CEDAW ideology, never seeing an image of a girl child holding a doll, or a woman preparing food in a kitchen.  A “family” of a mother, mother and a child will be portrayed as normal, since parents constituted of father and mother will be categorised as a “gender-role stereotype”.  Children and teachers will be forbidden to recognise the fundamental differences between girls and boys (cf. for example, Meuret, L. P., Political Feminism Goes to School).  This is the feminism of CEDAW.  The bill on Women’s Rights has as its objective the fulfilment of obligations to CEDAW.

Winds of Change

Sri Lanka is on the verge of making a mistake that other nations are now beginning to rectify and recover from.  While Sri Lanka is faced with CEDAW, the tide appears to be turning abroad.  The UN General Assembly in December 2004 endorsed the Doha Declaration on the 10th Anniversary of the International Year of the Family, reaffirming the good of the family and the special care that motherhood and childhood is entitled to.  Such an entitlement is also made in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document whose language is being prostituted by radical feminists with interpretations that the authors never thought to imagine.  The Doha Declaration specifically states that the child deserves care before as well as after birth.  Indeed, the Convention of the Rights of the Child states that the child has rights before birth, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also protects the preborn child (cf. Article 6).  Pro-abortion Bill Clinton’s appointee to the head of UNICEF, the enthusiastic abortion promoter Carol Bellamy, has been replaced by a Bush nominee.  Pro-abortion Kofi Annan’s term comes to an end in 2006.  The abortion law in the US may even be repealed within the next four years of the Bush administration now that the humanity of the preborn child is scientifically indisputable and the tragedy of the mothers who are victims of abortion is now more evident.  Considering that 50 million children are killed in our world every year by surgical abortion alone, stopping abortion will also soon be admitted as a sensible move in order to address the impending global depopulation which will take place this century.  Thus “international consensus”, which appears to be a criteria for most people with regard to which laws are passed rather than whether a given law is good or not, could very soon undergo a paradigm shift. 

Conclusions

Lacking the ability to prevail through elective processes, anti-life, anti-family forces impose their individualistic values with breath-taking arrogance into the most intimate seams of the fabric of our personal lives through judicial decree.  The United Nations’ CEDAW overrides national sovereignty, undermines parental authority, requires transmogrification of the traditional family and attendant sex roles, sexualises children, and promotes the unfettered right to abortion and the associated elimination of the honour due to motherhood.  The Bill on Women’s Rights is a means of incorporating CEDAW into Sri Lankan law. 

(first published in 2005)