As the Friday Fax reports, the new UN Special Rapporteur on alleged “discriminations” of people with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disorders, Vitit Muntarbhorn, has outlined a strategy for his three-year term before dozens of supportive UN bureaucrats, delegates, and activists in a meeting last week.
Participation in the consultation was limited to States and NGOs supportive of the LGBT agenda. Others who had opposed the creation of the controversial Rapporteur’s post did not want to legitimize his agenda by attending the event. The outcome of the meeting cannot therefore be described as representing a wide consensus, even if the UN bureaucracy may have wanted to make it look that way.
Muntarbhorn described education as an entry point for children to be “born and bred from a young age” with the right attitudes. In other words, he wants children to be educated to believe that sodomy and other sexual behaviours are “normal” and should be accepted or even rewarded. Put more bluntly, the moral corruption of innocent children is one of his stated priorities.
Among the very few participants in the event who opposed Mr. Muntarbhorn’s sinister agenda there was a representative of the Transatlantic Christian Council. He asked about possible conflicts between LGBT rights claims and religious freedom. Mr. Muntarbhorn’s answer was categorical: “There are some absolute rights,” he said, “but there are some that are not absolute.” He went on to explain that “freedom of expression and expression of religion” are not absolute rights and that they could be curtailed if necessary.
In other words, the right of sodomites to engage in perverse sexual behaviours, and their promotion and propagation, is a “human right” according to Mr. Muntarbhorn, whereas the everyone else’s right not to be constrained to act in contradiction to his conscience isn’t a human right.
Thank you, Mr. Rapporteur, we can see where you’re coming from.
While calling for compromise, respect, and dialogue, he appeared irritated by the fact that someone had asked a critical question .
“We can agree or disagree on whether the family should be big or smaller, which is not totally settled” he said—perhaps a nod to population control—but emphasized that “whatever the differences, you can’t kill people. I’m sorry about that.” With this, he very likely did not mean to express opposition to abortion, but instead made the nasty, disingenuous, and completely unfounded, insinuation that opponents of his agenda are “killing LGBT people”.