“Universal Periodic Review”: How radical groups seek to enforce new “rights” that nobody has ever recognized

ILGA Europe, the sodomy-and-gender-perversion lobby lavishly funded by the European Commission and George Soros, has released a report that explains how the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism is used at the UN to promote new “LGBT rights” that actually have never been internationally recognized and therefore have no basis in international law. 

The UPR is a mechanism under which the UN bureaucracy assesses the human rights record of all 193 Member States in regular five-year cycles. The mechanism is easy to manipulate for the pro-sodomy-lobby, given that the UN bureaucracy is stacked with people with a strong ideological bias against the traditional, natural-law-based concepts of marriage and family, and in favour of a laissez-faire attitude with regard to even the most unusual sexual behaviours. In addition, the system is open to submission from “civil society stakeholders”, which allows LGBT pressure groups (such as ILGA and similar, all of them financed by a small number of always the same EU governments and some wealthy individuals, thus creating a false appearance of “pluralism”) to inundate the UN with complaints about alleged “violations” of “LGBT rights”, and thus to create the false impression as if this were a priority for the UN to deal with.

The result is a myriad of reports in which the so-called “UN experts” have repeatedly expressed their “concern” over the lack of “protection” for sexual perverts, and made suggestions that create political pressure on governments. There is nowadays practically no UPR without such recommendations – and this despite the fact that the substance of what is being promoted is clearly far outside the scope of any human rights that states have actually agreed upon.

This mechanism of manipulating and falsifying human rights works very efficiently for the homo-lobby, and will continue to function well for as long as the international community continues to take the utterances of the UN seriously. This is, however, less and less the case – what the ILGA report fails to take into account is that their manipulations, of which there is an ever increasing awareness, is in the long run undermining the credibility of the UN’s activities on human rights as a whole.

Here are some excerpts from the ILGA report:

“From a legal perspective, the UPR has not only consolidated the contained international recommendations made by other international, regional and national mechanisms. It has also triggered unprecedented political traction for the recognition [read: manipulation and re-definition] of the right to found a family, with the recognition of the diversity of ‘family’. It constitutes, in that respect, the most progressive arena for the protection of the LGBTI community at the international level.”

“One in every ten civil society submissions in the UPR has included SOGIESC [this is their new acronym for “sexual orientation/gender identity/gender expression/intersex/sex characteristics” – none of which is a recognized term under international law] issues.”

“There are several factors that make the UPR a unique mechanism. Firstly, the UPR is founded on the principle of universality: all 193 states are reviewed in an equal manner and the review covers all human rights. This is different from the state review by the treaty bodies, which only covers rights outlined in one specific treaty. [Nota bene: the alleged “right” that ILGA and others are promoting under the code SOGIESC are not part of any treaty. In other words, the UPR is systematically used to promote what in reality are non-rights.] Therefore the range of issues covered in the UPR are vast…”

“The total number of recommendations made at the UPR is impressive. Over the 22 UPR sessions considered here, states have made 46,584 recommendations on more than 55 different topics. Of these, a total of 1,110 recommendations have been on SOGIESC issues … and more than 150 countries of all regions have received SOGIESC recommendations.” [This is indeed impressive and showswhat a massive effort is being made to falsify human rights … at the same time it is clear that for the sodomy-lobby quantity is far more important than quality. A convincing legal argument for the alleged “LGBT rights” is never made – but the mere repetition of the baseless rights claims is what is decisive…]

“Sexual orientation and gender identity – like disability, age and health status – have progressively been added to the list of prohibited grounds [add: of “discrimination”, i.e. of making a free decision to choose one’s contract partner, etc.]  by treaty bodies, charged with the interpretation of these instruments. Most notably, in 1994, the Human Rights Committee (HRCtee) spelled out in the Toonen case the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. [Crucially, the strategy is to always avoid the -necessary – distinction between “sexual orientation” and sexual behaviour.] In the general comments adopted since then, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR); the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC); the Committee Against Torture (CAT); and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) explicitly included the prohibited grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity in the implementation and interpretation of the treaty they are respectively tasked to monitor [while in fact those treaties still do not contain any reference to the bogus term “sexual orientation”…].”

In so doing, the Committees align the interpretation of the core international treaties with the growing amount of national and regional jurisprudence protecting the rights of LGBTI persons. [Note that in most cases this is not “jurisprudence”, as neither the treaty monitoring bodies, and even less the UPR, have a function of adjudicating cases. Once again, the strategy consistently is about creating the false appearance of “binding legal obligations”, which in reality do not exist.] Looking only at regional and international legal instruments, a number of soft law instruments were adopted, especially in Europe. However, it is only in 2013 that the concepts of ‘sexual orientation’, ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’ were altogether incorporated for the first time in a legally binding instrument, the Inter-American Convention against all Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance. [Unwittingly, this recognises that the so-called “soft law”, not being binding, is in fact not law at all.]

At the time the UPR was launched in 2008, the Yogyakarta Principles had just been endorsed (2007). However, the introduction of SOGIESC topics into the UPR has not been easy [probably because States are well aware that genuine human rights cannot be fabricated through bogus documents such as the “Yogyakarta Principles”…] . In the very first session of the UPR in 2008, seven countries out of the 16 that were reviewed received SOGI recommendations.”

According to one of the INGOs already active at the UPR at that time, the recommendations put to Ecuador were not well received by some states: ‘… I remember the very first time when a sexual orientation recommendation was made to Ecuador. Egypt went ballistic… and the debate carried on late into the evening that they “will never accept any report that includes these words” and almost blocked the adoption of the report because it included a sexual orientation recommendation. And Ecuador said: “this is our report, our UPR process, these are issues we have worked in the past, are working on now and want to work on in the future and we feel comfortable with this recommendation in our report and it should not be struck out”. The recommendation got in. [Which is a perfect example of a phenomenon in international human rights manipulation that would deserve far greater attention than it currently does: the phenomenon of the “willing victim”. Ecuador, lead by a far-left government that is extremely hostile to the family, was actually thankful for the biased recommendations in its UPR, which provided an appearance of necessity and legitimacy for its own pro-sodomy policies. Similar behaviours can occasionally be observed on other occasions, for example when the ECtHR delivers patently ill-founded findings obliging states to provide for same-sex civil partnerships (such as in Oliari vs. Italy) or accept gestational surrogacy [Menesson and Labassée v. France), and the respective States’ governments make no serous efforts to defend themselves…  they want these ill-founded condemnations to occur, because they find them politically useful for their anti-family agenda.]  Now in every UPR report there is a paragraph saying that the recommendations in this report are the views of the states proposing them and do not reflect the official position of the Human Rights Council. [So in reality what we have is a number of radically-minded governments giving “recommendations” to other, less perversely-minded governments…  and of course the most productive recommendation givers are the US (under Obama, Canada, and some Northern European countries who still think they are the sole arbiters of “human rights”, whereas the rest of the world is laughing at that pretension… stupid West, stupid white (wo)men.] And that was added by Egypt to make clear that SOGI recommendations should not be seen as endorsement by the Human Rights Council.’ (Representative from a human rights INGO – cisgender gay man)”

“Over eight years, 46,584 recommendations have been made at the UPR. Of these 1,110 were SOGIESC-specific and were made to 158 states under review from all regions. There has been a stark increase in the number of SOGIESC-related recommendations made. For example, during session one in 2008, seven states under review received 13 recommendations. In contrast, during session 22 in 2015, 11 states received 97 recommendations. In Cycle 1 a total of 499 recommendations were made. Since the beginning of Cycle 2 and up until session 22 there have already been 610 SOGIESC recommendations. Based on current trends there will have been an increase of more than 70 per cent in SOGIESC recommendations from the first session of Cycle 1 to the last of Cycle 2.”

“The three top-priority topics addressed were the principle of non-discrimination, the right to security and the right to privacy, through the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships.”

‘One thing we get from states in relation to gender identity issues is that their own laws are not perfect and they do not feel they can hold other states to account on issues they have not yet addressed. That is a bit of a flawed premise, because it means the issues only a few states have addressed will become a repeating, systemic problem that nobody is raising, because nobody has got it right. [Thus, there is still a limit to what even the most radical governments are prepared to do. ILGA are unhappy, and try to push for more:] So what we tried to recommend to states is that the premise of the UPR is that nobody’s human rights record is perfect; that everybody is striving to do better. So it is perfectly fine for a state to say “look we have challenges working on this ourselves, but we are working on it and would like to know what you are doing, too”.’ (Representative of an human rights INGO – cisgender gay man)”

[But the sanior pars of the International community is now also beginning to make recommendations. ILGA is annoyed:]The fourth most frequently addressed topic was on the right to found a family. Concomitantly, a number of states have made recommendations that are either openly or obliquely hostile to LGBTI persons and their right to found a family. Principally, though not exclusively, these have focused on the protection of the family. Such recommendations have been made by Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Holy See, Indonesia, Iran, Libya, Morocco and Syria in Cycle 1. In Cycle 2, additional states have started making recommendations in that sense, namely Egypt, Eritrea, Kuwait, Malaysia, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan. [In other words, the number of countries to resist the homo-perversity-agenda keeps growing!] Examples include a recommendation made by the Holy See to Brazil to: ‘Protect the natural family and marriage, formed by a husband and a wife, as a basic cell of society as it provides the best conditions for raising children.’

The remaining recommendations have targeted the right to found a family, ranging from using general expressions such as ‘traditional family values in a society’, to more restrictive expressions such as ‘protection of the family as the natural [of course, the homo lobby hates everything that is natural] and fundamental group unit of society based on the stable relationship between a man and a woman’ or sought to protect the concept of family: ‘Provide, in accordance with its obligations under international human rights instruments, effective protection for the family as the fundamental and natural unit of society’. Some have also referred to concepts such as ‘socioeconomic aspirations of its people’, or have been more specific, such as: ‘stop propaganda on relations between same-sex couples at the state level… and bring up the issue of adoption of children by same-sex couples to the public consideration’.”

“These recommendations are hostile to the rights of LGBTI persons […but friendly to the rights of Children, which however does not appear to be one of the sodomites’ priorities]. By using words such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, [shocking!!!!!] or by saying that children should be raised by a marriage that comes from a husband and a wife [booohoooo!!! how obscene! the use of such vocabulary is HOMOPHOBIC! and should as such be outlawed!!] because this environment provides the ‘best conditions’ for raising children, goes against the possibility that, for example, same-sex couples can also constitute a family.” [indeed!]

“Of the 1,110 SOGIESC recommendations received, 413 have been accepted and 697 noted. [To “note” a “recommendaiton” means in fact to politely say that it is bullshit.] This rate is relatively low in comparison to the overall acceptance rate of UPR recommendations, which is 74 per cent.” [In the case of the sodomy agenda, it is around 35%. These are probably explained by the fact – see above – that some of the addressees of the bizarre recommendations actually sympathise with them. There is still some resistance against the sodomy agenda.]

“The top ten SOGIESC recommending states (in order of number of recommendations made) are: Argentina, Canada, Czech Republic, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Slovenia, Sweden and the US. [no surprise here.] In Cycle 1, the Czech Republic made the most recommendations (53). In Cycle 2, Argentina has so far made the most (47). With 97, Canada is the state that has made the most SOGIESC recommendations during all of the UPR to date.” [While Canada clearly was to be expected to occupy a top rank among governments promoting sexual perversions, the high profile of the Czech Republic and Argentina is more surprising. It might be that upon closer examination one might find that this is in both cases due simply to one or two individual government officials, probably unelected and totally unknown to the public, who happen to sympathise with the homo-agenda…]

“UPR recommendations have no legal force as such; rather, they are commitments taken up by the executive. One of the UPR’s key and foremost features lies in the fact that it gives political traction to international human rights norms and recommendations [without any need for the homo-lobby to speak to, or convince, the wider public. The more hidden the process is, the better…]. The UPR places states as the primary actors in the process of human rights monitoring of their peers.”

 In addition, the UPR can be instrumental in addressing all national, regional and international human rights obligations together. For instance, Canada reminded Cameroon of its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) but also the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Charter), in order to call for the decriminalisation of consensual same-sex sexual activities. Cameroon responded that ‘the position adopted in domestic legislation [which criminalises same-sex sexual activities] finds support in the provisions of article 29 (2) of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and article 29 (7) of the African Charter, which represent safeguard clauses that can be invoked by any democratic society in accordance with its moral characteristics’. The country advanced the same argument during the second review in 2013. However, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) has now taken a clear stand for the protection of LGBTI persons with the adoption of the 2014 resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity. While more and more recommendations build on international, regional and national recommendations and national practice, the possibilities for countries to resort to the exception of cultural diversity to justify their position will increasingly shrink.” […or instead, the credibility of this African Commission will increasingly be questioned, which would probably not be a bad outcome.]

“Finally, in theory the ripple effect of the UPR could, in the long term, affect the development and consolidation of international customary norms. Customary international law is a source of international law emerging from consensus among states exhibited by widespread conduct (states’ practice) and a discernible sense of obligation (states’ opinio juris). If a significant number of states continuously refer to the same international norm over a longer period of time in their recommendations; if those recommendations have close to a perfect acceptance rate; if they are indeed implemented by the state under review; and if the next cycles of the UPR do not change the established dynamics, then ‘the national reports on the situation of human rights in the country would be excellent and unprecedented primary sources to gauge the state’s opinio juris on human rights’.The international customary law-making process could therefore provide for the provisions of the Yogyakarta Principles to carry the same legal force as a treaty.”  [This is now the homo-lobby’s wet dream. The truth however is that – see above – the acceptance ratio for the “recommendations” related to the promotion of sexual perversion remains low, and the number of States politely qualifying these recommendations as bullshit is on the rise.].