U.N. Monitoring Committees As Judicial Activists in the Culture War

Photo Credit: www.neglisc-gateway.com

The United Nations attack on the moral teaching of the Catholic Church in the name of human rights points to a more general problem with the application of U.N. human rights treaties, namely, that the monitoring committees charged with reviewing compliance read into them a social radical agenda, which is then claimed as an international norm, binding on nation-states. This was a key point of participants at a Family Research Council presentation on the United Nations and the Vatican on March 3. Presenters were Austin Ruse, President of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), Travis Weber, Director for Religious Liberty at FRC, and Pat Fagan, Senior Fellow and Director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI).

Ruse discussed briefly the different types of documents issued by the U.N., specifically the non-binding General Assembly resolutions and “hard law” treaties. The latter include such documents as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Monitoring committees review the progress of nations who are signatories to the treaties in implementing them, hold hearings in which those nations report on their progress, and issue reports on nations’ progress. The report critical of Catholic moral teaching was issued by the monitoring committee overseeing implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, because the State of the Vatican (although not the Catholic Church) is a signatory to that treaty. The United States, on the other hand, has not ratified the “human rights” treaties (CEDAW, the Rights of the Child, and now the U.N. Disabilities Treaty).

Ruse said that the text of these treaties is to some considerable degree problematic in itself. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, for instance, establishes the child as an “independent rights-bearing person” separate from his or her parents, notably having full religious freedom not to adhere to the parents’ religion, in opposition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, according to which parents choose the kind of education that is given to their children. However, the monitoring committees have gone far beyond the problematic language of the human rights conventions themselves to specify things not specifically mentioned in them, particularly reproductive rights (i.e., abortion), diverse forms of family (i.e., homosexual couples), and other requirements favored by advocates of radical social change. This shows the progression of the U.N. from a commitment to ethics rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition to a secularist vision. U.N. human rights committees now argue against the classical freedoms of religion and speech the Universal Declaration was committed to. The report criticizing Catholic teaching is, however, the first time a monitoring committee has specifically condemned the teachings of a religion.

Fagan said concerning the report that he “see[s] this development as a good thing, it is actually making clear what the agenda is.” He claimed that “it has been there for some time.” As noted by Ruse, heads of U.N. agencies met with monitoring committee heads in 1996 in Glen Cove, New York, to discuss the failure of the radical social agenda to progress to the extent they desired. It was concluded that the monitoring committees should be filled advocates of radical social change, who would create “rights by stealth” not mentioned in the treaties. As noted above, representatives from the Vatican appeared before the U.N. monitoring committee reviewing compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child because the State of the Vatican had ratified the convention. However, only the nation-state of Vatican City is actually bound, not the Catholic Church, Fagan noted. It is doubtful how many, if any, children are actually raised in Vatican City, he said. Yet Ruse said that the report directed its recommendations at the Catholic Church, asking it to change Canon Law to identify situations in which “access to abortion services can be permitted,” recognize “diversity of family setting” (“U.N. parlance” for homosexual family units), “overcome all barriers and taboos surrounding adolescent sexuality,” which involves abandoning church teaching against fornication, and prohibit spanking for all Catholics. The monitoring committee also asked the Vatican to withdraw its “reservations” to some of the provisions of the convention, although nation states may take exception to those provisions of U.N. conventions they disagree with. The report accuses the church of “fomenting violence against homosexuals” and addresses adolescent sexuality “in context of HIV/AIDS.” Essentially, what should have been evidence against the sexual revolution thus becomes evidence against traditional morality, because moral autonomy is taken as an absolute. Ruse called the report “among the most wicked reports that any of these human rights monitoring bodies has ever issued.”

Travis Weber claimed that “issues pertaining to religious liberty … are going to increasingly pervade the public debate, they are not going away.” While the comments and recommendations of the U.N. monitoring committees are non-binding, they are important because they are cited as international standards to which signatory states must conform. Ruse noted that Harold Koh, formerly dean of Yale Law School and recently a State Department legal advisor, “believes that the comments of these committees are normative, governments are bound to follow them.” He also noted that there are “powerful actors who take these comments and really spin very dangerous things out of them.” This is essentially what occurred in Colombia and Argentina, where national courts cited international conventions those nations adhered to in overriding national law to impose liberalized abortion laws. While some countries have stood up to the monitoring committees, rejecting their requirements, as did Pakistan, in rejecting a demand that abortion be legal there with the claim that that country regards abortion as murder, no nation has ever questioned a monitoring committee’s right to ask questions about issues not specifically mentioned in the treaties the committees are monitoring.

The result is that international law is no longer about the relation of nation-states to one another, but instead is developing as a global legal code, binding on individuals, and embodying the far left’s commitment to the sexual revolution. Ruse noted that monitoring committee members, while nominated by their home countries and approved for their positions by the U.N., are responsible to no one, simply promulgating their own views, which are offered as that of experts in human rights. They thus do function as types of international supreme court, like the United States Supreme Court, responsible to no one and imposing their own social vision as judicial legislators.

Fagan said that “there is a very long-term battle going on, on very deep issues of the nature of mankind, of right and wrong, of good and evil, of love, of God, does he exist, should we pay attention to him … If you look at the players on the monitoring committees, these are almost to a man and a woman, players who are intent on totally changing the whole game.” In such a conflict “reason has no place.” While they may want there to be dialogue about the issues they address, they are not interested in serious dialogue, but “in messaging perception of what is accepted and what other people think.” Therefore, the only reasonable response is to withdraw from the process. It was noted that Australia has withdrawn from the review process, an action recommended for other Western nations and the Vatican.

Ruse noted that even treaties which America has not ratified are in fact cited by the Supreme Court in making binding constitutional law. America reserved a portion of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which prohibits the death penalty, yet that portion of the convention was cited by the court in prohibiting the death penalty for juveniles. These treaties are thus relevant for the United States “no matter what.” Weber pointed out that a claim by U.S. courts that citing international conventions which the U.S. has not ratified is reasonable because they are widely ratified is false, because the signatory countries do not necessarily enforce them. Ruse claimed that when the Roe vs. Wade decision is revisited by the Supreme Court, “U.N. treaties, [such as the CEDAW treaty] will be used either by the majority in upholding Roe, or by the minority when Roe is overturned.” He observed that “it’s very important that we stop the ratification of these documents,” but even human rights conventions the U.S. has not ratified will be cited by courts in decisions on social issues.

Finally, Fagan noted that what is happening with the monitoring committees of U.N. human rights conventions “is much the same thing that is happening in our country on matters of law … those who totally disagree” with the system of elected legislatures “ and its output have learned how to use law, courts, treaties, these legal documents, to undo the will of the people … that’s what’s happening, this is where I see a similarity between the attack and the overthrow of laws in this country” which are passed in intense public debate, and then overturned by the courts, overruling the will of the people. “This is part of this radical re-orientation of the structure of society … [it] is about all of us and all of our freedoms and the fundamental right to be the governors of our own countries.”