www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall UN passes pro-family resolution against will of the US, UK

It's apparent now where the lines in the sand are being drawn. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/80578.htm

I guess China is making progress. They now only force women to abort after the second child. Seriously, I don't understand how some Americans think the nations who voted the pro-family resolution are morally superior to the west, when most of them commit extreme human rights violations.

Anthony, can you post a link to the nations which voted for the pro-family resolution? I expect that it is mostly Latin American, African and some East European countries.

If you look objectively, the USA under the current Administration is promoting evil and fighting traditional Christianity. What is left of my patriotism demands that I say this, although with a heavy heart.

UN Pro-Family Resolution

http://www.familiam.org/famiglia_eng/society/00008326_UN_Pro_Family_Resolution.html

The Human Rights Council recognizes that "the family has the primary responsibility for the nurturing and protection of children"


By 26 votes in favor, 14 against and 6 abstentions, on June 25th, the UN Human Rights Council acknowledged that "the family has the primary responsibility for the nurturing and protection of children and that children, for the full and harmonious development of their personality, should grow up in a family environment and in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding." On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the International Year of the Family, the UN Organization has also decided to create a working group for the promotion of positive references to the family and to reverse the trend that in recent times has seen the family only as a center of conflict, problems and human rights violations.

This resolution to "protect the family" was backed by Algeria, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and Vietnam. Opposition was put up by Italy, Austria, Chile, the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Montenegro, the Republic of Korea, Romania, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries abstained: Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru and the Republic of Macedonia. Cuba did not vote.
During the meeting, Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi, Permanent Observer of the Holy See at the UN in Geneva, spoke of the family as "the basic unit of human society," highlighting its "great vigor", despite the attacks of those who seek "to eliminate it as a relic of the past, or an obstacle to the emancipation of the individual, or to the creation of a freer, egalitarian and happy society." Archbishop Tomasi added that family and society are "mutually linked by vital and organic bonds" and complementary "in the defense and advancement of the good of every person and of humanity," and that people "find unique protection, nurture, and dynamic energy from their membership in a strong and healthy family founded upon marriage between a man and a woman."

The article on Msgr. Tomasi’s intervention, with the complete text of his discourse>>

Part of the justification in the west for not supporting this resolution is a practical one- and not a politicized one. Simply stated when a family fails to adequately protect a child from violence or sexual behavior within said family, the state will intervene 'in loco parentis' and as a last resort remove the child and try to heal the family through the provision of support services. The stated goal of all fifty states when a child is removed is to plan for the return of the child to the family when the family is able to properly raise the child. Such a concept of state intervention is unknown in many of the countries that supported the broad language and indeed is against the religious foundations of many in those regions.

Speaking from my own professional experience in New York, for example, there is a strong legal presumption that a child should be raised by its natural parent(s) but that presumption is rebuttable. Long term, non emergency temporary removal of a child requires that a court find a preponderance of the evidence in support of the removal and that all means have either been exhausted to prevent the need for removal or that such means would be futile.The permanent termination of parental rights requires the much higher standard of clear and convincing evidence. A clever advocate or a politically motivated judge might use an international resolution as such to imply some loopholes in what the law mandates. (Family Court judges are typically mechanics in the sense that the law and procedures are clear and established. Mischief is more likely to be made on an appellate level.) I am not going to argue anecdotal references to this or that bad example of the process, but I can say that endorsing a broad resolution in an international body like this might lead some courts to import foreign law concepts into Anglo-American jurisprudence which ironically many social conservatives rail against in other contexts.

So while on the surface one can be aghast that the west rejected this formulation, from a day to day practical legal perspective it is understandable. There are radicals in the extreme minority among everyday child service advocates, who dismiss the family interest but again, contrary to popular misconceptions, that view does not comport with reality. There are however loud advocates on the other side who take the position that child protection laws are inherently contrary to natural law and God's law and look for ways to weaken them. I realize that is not the intent of the Church here, but the law of unintended consequences comes into play in terms of the secular analysis of the same.

While the Church's support here is understandable, the conservative legal stance in such matters
(which might impinge upon sovereignty by allowing for the granting of greater weight to non-national, non statutory and foreign law formulations) is to not support the same. That has been the traditional American diplomatic stance in response to being entangled with international declarations of certain legal principles since the early days of this republic.

Sorry for the legal mumbo jumbo, it's the best I could do on a Friday...

And I do agree with the sentiments of the resolution on a personal level, one can not really argue with them. But the legal implications and inferences call for caution, our own laws need to be carefully followed as well as appellate case decisions for Americans to ensure that family law remains pro-intact family.