The ever-expanding definition of ‘rights’

When Pope Benedict addressed the UN General Assembly in April 2008, he framed his eloquent speech in the language and moral grammar of ‘rights’. It should have been a course correction for the United Nations to better apply their Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But their understanding of ‘rights’ differs from Benedicts.

Which remains abundantly clear.

A week after nations criticized a United Nations (UN) special rapporteur for exceeding his mandate in order to push a redefinition of the term “gender” and a controversial “gay rights” document known as the Yogyakarta Principles, a second special report – this time on health – is sparking similar concern.

Presented to the UN General Assembly late last month, “The Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health” by special rapporteur Anand Grover references not only the Yogyakarta Principles, but also a hotly-disputed “General Recommendation” by the Committee monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Recommendation 20 would read a new non-discrimination category based on “sexual orientation and gender identity” into that treaty, even though UN member states have repeatedly rejected inclusion of such a category in any binding international law document.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Specifics in this stealth effort to force changes to law that would never be accepted if presented openly and honestly…..

The specific Principles referred to in the Grover report are Principles 17 and 18…Principle 17 would require states to “Facilitate access by those seeking body modifications related to gender reassignment” (i.e., “sex change” operations), while Principle 18 would require that states “Ensure that any medical or psychological treatment or counseling does not, explicitly or implicitly, treat sexual orientation and gender identity as medical conditions to be treated, secured or suppressed.” Such a mandate would deny someone struggling with sexual disorders the option of receiving reparative therapy.

Note the word “require”. Given the force of law, these radical sex change rules would be mandated and protected by the United Nations. Which is increasingly becoming Wonderland.

Grover is an activist attorney from India who litigated the case that resulted in a lower court ruling this past summer that India’s anti-sodomy law violated the nation’s constitution. Last year he succeeded Paul Hunt – one of thirty Yogyakarta draftsmen – as special rapporteur on health…

Grover’s appointment as health rapporteur was welcomed by activist organizations such as the International HIV/AIDS Alliance. The group, which promotes “community action on AIDS in developing countries,” noted at the time that “Anand has passionately advocated for the rights of sex workers, drug users and men who have sex with men,” calling the appointment “a tremendous opportunity and a step in the right direction.”

Using this map, the cliff is hard right.