Human Rights Commission:
LATEST THREAT TO AUSTRALIAN FAMILIES
AND FREE SPEECH
Babette Francis, December 11, 2010
Australian Human Rights
Commission president, the Hon. Catherine Branson QC, has been accused
of polarising public opinion and insulting the intelligence of half
the electorate.
These comments were made by the legal affairs editor of The Australian,
Chris Merritt, in reference to an address Ms Branson recently made to
an audience of lawyers, in which she encouraged lawyers to become
lobbyists for a political point of view. (The Australian, November
19, 2010).
Merrit added that her provocative speech was reminiscent of her role during
the debate on the charter of rights, and that, despite her status as a
public officer, Branson became one of the chief advocates of a change
that polarised opinion. These are not the only examples of provocation
by Branson. Recently, during an AHRC community consultation, which I attended,
on Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, sex and/or
gender identity, Branson openly lobbied for federal legislation
banning such discrimination. She implied that Australia was under some
kind of commitment to pass such legislation because of the Yogyakarta
Principles, which, she claimed, are an interpretation of already
binding international agreements from the viewpoint of sexual orientation
and gender identity.
I pointed out that the Yogyakarta Principles reflect only the views of
a narrow group of self-identified experts and are not binding
in international law. The principles have not been negotiated nor agreed
to by member-states of the United Nations indeed, not a single
UN human rights treaty mentions sexual orientation, and repeated attempts
to pass resolutions promoting broad homosexual rights have been repeatedly
rejected by UN member-states.
Dr Branson probably did not expect that someone at the consultation would
have attended as many UN meetings as I have. The Yogyakarta Principles,
among other things, conflict with parental authority over minor children,
and with freedom of speech, freedom of religion and national sovereignty.
A doctor of jurisprudence, Piero A. Tozzi, of the New York-based Catholic
Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), has highlighted six problems
with the Yogyakarta Principles, and these are summarised below:
Problem #1: The Yogyakarta Principles undermine parental and familial
authority, assume that children are capable of identifying
with a particular sexual orientation or gender identity, and that this
will sometimes be opposed by families, requiring the intervention of state
social services.
Problem #2: The principles undermine freedom of speech. In tandem with
affirming the right of individuals, regardless of sexual orientation
or gender identity, to engage in freedom of opinion, the principles
call upon states to ensure that the exercise of freedom of opinion
and expression does not violate the rights and freedoms of persons of
diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.
Problem #3: The principles undermine religious freedom. Under the guise
of affirming the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,
without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity, religious liberty
is undermined.
Problem #4: The principles undermine national sovereignty and national
democratic institutions. The principles
obliquely call for a supra-national authority to vigorously
investigate, prosecute, try and punish government officials who engage
in state-sponsored or state-condoned attacks on
persons based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, although
it does not state what that authority might be or how it obtains jurisdiction
over government officials.
Problem #5: The principles encourage (physically, psychologically and
morally) unhealthy choices. Throughout the principles, behaviour is advocated
as being a good when in fact it is more likely a bad
for individuals who engage in such behaviour. For example, the principles
posit surgical modification of bodily appearance or function
as a good.
Problem #6: The principles fail to provide objective standards for evaluating
conduct. The principles, by their own terms, are intended to be evolving
and not grounded in currently accepted societal norms. The working group
declares itself to be The International Panel of Experts in International
Human Rights Law and Sexual Orientation
and Gender Identity, presuming that it possess authority to opine
on the issues before it. It appears to be a self-selecting group, comprised
primarily of activists. Dissenting voices among, for example, psychologists
are not to be heard, and indeed any assertion that sexual orientation
or gender identification is capable of being treated or cured is considered
a form of medical abuse which must be proscribed.
The Australian Human Rights Commissions recent community consultation
was held on behalf of the LGBTIQ, i.e., Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgendered, Intersex, Queer community. I am not sure why the
AHRC doesnt include all the other letters of the alphabet, so that
we could all be covered, including U for the unborn child.
Federal legislation banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
sex and/or gender identity the AHRC has (to date) identified 19
genders, in addition to the standard male and female
will be a marvellous gravy-train for the AHRC. Jobs in the commission
are advertised as offering salaries in the $90,000-plus range.
Babette Francis
is national co-ordinator of Endeavour Forum Inc., an NGO having special
consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the UN (ECOSOC).
|