A U.N. expert is shining a spotlight on those who dare oppose the world body’s ubiquitous LGBT agenda, singling out “actors” who resist the promotion of “gender ideology.”
A new inquiry from the independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity, based in Geneva, solicits information on these actors and their “strategies” with the objective of showcasing the “culprits” at an upcoming session of the U.N. Human Rights Council—thus “naming and shaming” governments and organizations alike that criticize the U.N.’s promotion of sexual orientation and gender identity.
With a mandate to protect “against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” the independent expert has been subject to considerable controversy since its establishment in 2016, including a U.N.-wide vote citing incompatibility with international law.
While no person, anywhere, should ever be subject to violence or unjust discrimination, the Human Rights Council’s legitimate human rights credentials have been tarnished due to frequent attempts to go beyond the protection of human rights and exert pressure to change national laws in a manner contrary to international law.
The latest questionnaire requests that respondents identify the “main actors who argue that the defenders of human rights of LGBT individuals are furthering a so-called ‘gender ideology.’”
With an inquisitorial tone, it asks: “Have they been effective in regressing the human rights of LGBT individuals?” And, implying a related contempt for women’s rights, it further inquires: “Have their strategies directly or indirectly also impacted on the human rights of women and girls?”
Numerous are the “actors” who would fall victim to this insidious mischaracterization.
The majority of countries in the world continue to enshrine in law marriage as the union of a man and a woman, with only 29 having legalized same-sex marriage.
Resistance to the independent expert’s agenda is a manifestation of the right every country has to defend its sovereign laws.
Violence or unjust discrimination should never be met with impunity; however, governments have the sovereign prerogative to ward off ideological encroachments that go beyond the law, such as calls for the decriminalization of “sex work” or the legal recognition of “gender identity.”
By seeking to expose the governments and other organizations that reject intrusions into matters of national jurisdiction, the U.N. perpetuates a climate of fear in the very place designed to be the global platform for free and fair dialogue.
Opposition to the independent expert largely has focused on the office’s promotion of radical agendas, instead of what should be its primary objective; namely, ensuring that no person experiences violence.
Rather than focusing on holding governments accountable for legitimate abuses, the office instead has delved into the promotion of so-called sexual rights, which have no foundation in international law.
Moreover, it has evinced a commitment to advancing radical “sexuality” education for minors, even at the cost of crushing fundamental human rights, such as the rights of parents and the right to freedom of religion.
Despite the flagrant misuse of his authority, the independent expert’s efforts are likely to have a chilling effect on some governments. Particularly vulnerable are those dependent on the U.N. for significant sums of aid money.
There certainly will be governments that would prefer to subordinate their views, rather than be subject to the U.N.’s obloquy. Others will attempt to defend their traditional cultural and religious stances, only to be labeled human rights abusers.
Regrettably, that can backfire, with governments facing an onslaught of human rights issues feeling justified in ignoring the U.N. as a result of all-too-frequent, undue intrusions on their national sovereignty.
While it remains to be seen what the independent expert will do with the information garnered from this investigative exercise, it’s clear that the U.N. is far from immune to the perils of so-called cancel culture.
For example, the upcoming Generation Equality Forum—a major event sponsored by U.N. Women with the stated goal of bringing together 2,500 representatives of feminist organizations in a manner that is “inclusive of underrepresented and marginalized communities”—already has issued stark silencing directives.
The forum’s online platform states that it “does not tolerate the following,” listing amorphous “hate speech” as a criterion for being removed from the discussion site.
Opponents of the United Nations long have warned of the dangers of unfettered global bureaucracy, but few could have imagined the subtlety with which the takeover would happen.
Instead of charging into war-torn territories with blue helmets, we instead are confronted with the tyranny of blue checkmarks with the U.N.’s own campaign to police “misinformation.”
It is in this context that the role of the United States in rejoining the Human Rights Council, abandoned by President Donald Trump in 2018, must be carefully considered.
Regardless of who is in the White House, the U.S. must remain a beacon for the defense of national sovereignty.
It’s crucial that the U.N. be held accountable to its founding promise to serve a world in which we “practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours,” ultimately based on “respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.