They do, according to a UN body:
New York, Mar. 30, 2007 (C-fam.org/CWNews.com) - At the UN's Human Rights Council in Geneva this week, a radical homosexual umbrella group released a document that claims that even the youngest children are capable of discerning their sexual identity and they should be given governmentally protected free reign to express it, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam) reports.
The document, authored by several UN human-rights officials, goes on to demand revision of international and national laws to reflect these and other ideas on the far frontier of social policy, notes Samantha Singson in C-Fam's Friday Fax.
Called the Yogyakarta Principles, the document lists 29 rights that already exist in binding international law such as the right to life and freedom from torture, and reinterprets each one to include homosexual rights. Based upon the idea that “international human-rights law imposes an absolute prohibition of discrimination in regard to the full enjoyment of all human rights,” the Principles assert that nations are legally bound to change their constitutions and penal codes to incorporate homosexual rights.
The Principles also assert that states that must force changes in school curricula, facilitating “access" by those who seek sex change operations, “the right to express identity or personhood, including through speech deportment, dress, bodily characteristics, choice of name or any other means,” non-discrimination “against asylum seekers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and “the right to found a family, including through access to adoption or assisted procreation (including donor insemination).”
It is my view that a person only has a right to those things an individual can at least potentially do on their own - thus, live, speak, believe, etc. Whenever anyone else is called in to assist, that doesn't constitute a right, but a privilege - thus, health care, education...and sex change operations.
I believe that this absurd expansion of the definition of "human right" is designed with the intention of undermining what we call "tradiional morality". We long ago passed the point of tolerance and have moved forward into an area of social engineering - a deliberate attempt to alter societal norms to accomodate people either do not like, or do not fit into, traditional morality. What is morally right and what is morally wrong is written on the human heart and thus a person who violates the provisions of traditional morality knows full well that he is doing wrong. But people who do wrong often don't like to feel they are doing wrong - and so we see this attempt to re-write morality where it is not a matter of tolerating bad behaviour, but of calling bad behaviour, good.
Coupled with this drive is the now rather old desire of the political left to steamroller all individuality and all local law and custom. This is where the demand that everyone change their laws to fit the dictates of a UN elite comes in. It isn't enough for the UN to proclaim that being transgendered is a basic human right - no, Utah must make provision in its laws for such a thing...and face sanctions if they don't.
It is this sort of thing which makes the UN odious, and makes the ever stronger case for our withdrawal from the organization.
Posted by Mark Noonan at April 1, 2007 12:52 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
Let me get this straight.....so by your logic, if a person could physically perform their own sex change then it would be considered a "human right"?
Posted by: robert at April 1, 2007 01:46 AM
robert,
Well, grab a knife and have at it...
It is physically impossible to perform a sex change on one's self...the mere angle of cutting makes it so.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 1, 2007 01:52 AM
Well you could do it. But I don't think it'd be pretty. :p
ANYWAY...
What I hate is the part where if this were accepted it'd force all of the UN members to change their local laws and Constitutions to bend to these ideas? HuH?!
"...the Principles assert that nations are legally bound to change their constitutions and penal codes to incorporate homosexual rights."
Um... no. That's exactly what they're trying to do against gun owners as well by making "UN Law" which "supercedes" local laws. It's just an end run to get what they want from someone who's more than willing to force feed ideas to everyone else.
Posted by:
Gozer at April 1, 2007 02:11 AM
Gozer,
Just the secular left amoral steamroller at work...the fundamental reason, in my view, that the elite of the world despises the United States (and this would include the American elite) is that we are a federal system with strong local autonomy...nothing bugs a lefty elitist more than to think that some pettifogging little school board or city council will dare defy them....thus all the lawsuits and attempts to make UN law superscede local law.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 1, 2007 02:16 AM
Would UN 'Law' also supercede Sharia Law?
Considering the makeup of the UN, I don't think so.
Posted by: Hermie at April 1, 2007 10:11 AM
It just goes to prove that each time it appears Liberals have reached the ultimate lowest in their crazy, idiotic, and utterly stupid beliefs, the Looney Liberals manage to dig still deeper in their mental sewers and come up with yet another of their insane "ideas", "causes", and, "rights".
DEMOCRATS support, encourage, embrace, and vote for the LUNATIC LIBERALS, their anti-American agenda, their idiotic beliefs and causes, and Liberalism (their religion). DEMOCRATS ARE LIBERALS!!!
If Americans don't wake up and stop the nutty Liberals (Democrats), our entire nation is headed for the trash heap of history just like the Romans!
Maybe Queen Pelosi can add this to the list of her "priorities" and worthless causes to push through the DEMOCRAT Congress so the American people can see just how insane the DEMOCRATS really are!
These are the kinds of stories that we need to get out to the American public and repeat over and over until the voters see who and what the DEMOCRATS really are!!!
AAR
Posted by: AAR at April 1, 2007 11:22 AM
Interesting post. I think you're right in that this is a kind of social engineering, and I can't help wonder how responsibly this is being used right now. That is, a transgendering operation is supposed to be a way of overcoming alienation, right? A person feels alienated from their gender, so they get an operation that makes it better. Or is it that a person identifies with another gender, so they get an operation that makes it better?
The trouble is, alienation is an experience, a feeling, and the mind makes sense of it by associating it with things around a person. And how can we reliably know if a person is experiencing alienation for social or other reasons rather than biological or cultural. That is, the social engineering of the women's movement is is the process of making it immoral to behave in a masculine way. We teach our children that the rough and tumble play characterstic of boys around fourth grade is unacceptable, we don't tolerate figthing. So is it a big stretch to think that this type of social engineering (transgendering because of alienation men) is often solving problems created by the social engineering of making it immoral to behave in a masculine way.
If a guy likes soft fabrics or bright clothes, does that mean he's a woman in disguise? Or if he also likes guns and sports, does that mean he's balanced in his gender rather than being specifically masculine or feminine? I'm just not sure where the idea came from that a man who enjoys doing culturally feminine things was supposed to be born a woman. In one of my graduate psych classes, we took the Bem gender inventory available at http://www.neiu.edu/~tschuepf/bsri.html
and I came down on the feminine side, and a few women came down on the masculine side. That is, I can be more shy, affectinate, and loyal (culturally feminine traits) than athletic, assertive and forceful (culturally masculine traits). But there's a big difference is accepting I'm loyal and wanting to cut myself up on an operating table. Given my experience with transgendering individuals, my sense is that cutting themselves up isn't going to make it all better. From my experience, they've got daddy issues, and those issues will continue to be there whether or not they have an adam's apple.
But we don't require people seeking this kind of life changing operation to get extensive counseling beforehand, despite that because of perhaps biological reasons (something familiar but different in one way typically results in a fear response) may result in increased alienation. Personally, I would think liberals would embrace the solution of making peace with the experience of alienation, and in doing so making peace with both genders. But of course that wouldn't serve a political purpose of having all social constructions and values appear superficial.
Posted by: Morris at April 1, 2007 01:50 PM
"It is this sort of thing which makes the UN odious, and makes the ever stronger case for our withdrawal from the organization."
Yeah! That would really strengthen our weak position with our allies and help bring global peace! What a genius idea!
Posted by: TPMguy at April 5, 2007 10:52 AM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
Let me get this straight.....so by your logic, if a person could physically perform their own sex change then it would be considered a "human right"?
robert,
Well, grab a knife and have at it...
It is physically impossible to perform a sex change on one's self...the mere angle of cutting makes it so.
Well you could do it. But I don't think it'd be pretty. :p
ANYWAY...
What I hate is the part where if this were accepted it'd force all of the UN members to change their local laws and Constitutions to bend to these ideas? HuH?!
"...the Principles assert that nations are legally bound to change their constitutions and penal codes to incorporate homosexual rights."
Um... no. That's exactly what they're trying to do against gun owners as well by making "UN Law" which "supercedes" local laws. It's just an end run to get what they want from someone who's more than willing to force feed ideas to everyone else.
Gozer,
Just the secular left amoral steamroller at work...the fundamental reason, in my view, that the elite of the world despises the United States (and this would include the American elite) is that we are a federal system with strong local autonomy...nothing bugs a lefty elitist more than to think that some pettifogging little school board or city council will dare defy them....thus all the lawsuits and attempts to make UN law superscede local law.
Would UN 'Law' also supercede Sharia Law?
Considering the makeup of the UN, I don't think so.
It just goes to prove that each time it appears Liberals have reached the ultimate lowest in their crazy, idiotic, and utterly stupid beliefs, the Looney Liberals manage to dig still deeper in their mental sewers and come up with yet another of their insane "ideas", "causes", and, "rights".
DEMOCRATS support, encourage, embrace, and vote for the LUNATIC LIBERALS, their anti-American agenda, their idiotic beliefs and causes, and Liberalism (their religion). DEMOCRATS ARE LIBERALS!!!
If Americans don't wake up and stop the nutty Liberals (Democrats), our entire nation is headed for the trash heap of history just like the Romans!
Maybe Queen Pelosi can add this to the list of her "priorities" and worthless causes to push through the DEMOCRAT Congress so the American people can see just how insane the DEMOCRATS really are!
These are the kinds of stories that we need to get out to the American public and repeat over and over until the voters see who and what the DEMOCRATS really are!!!
AAR
Interesting post. I think you're right in that this is a kind of social engineering, and I can't help wonder how responsibly this is being used right now. That is, a transgendering operation is supposed to be a way of overcoming alienation, right? A person feels alienated from their gender, so they get an operation that makes it better. Or is it that a person identifies with another gender, so they get an operation that makes it better?
The trouble is, alienation is an experience, a feeling, and the mind makes sense of it by associating it with things around a person. And how can we reliably know if a person is experiencing alienation for social or other reasons rather than biological or cultural. That is, the social engineering of the women's movement is is the process of making it immoral to behave in a masculine way. We teach our children that the rough and tumble play characterstic of boys around fourth grade is unacceptable, we don't tolerate figthing. So is it a big stretch to think that this type of social engineering (transgendering because of alienation men) is often solving problems created by the social engineering of making it immoral to behave in a masculine way.
If a guy likes soft fabrics or bright clothes, does that mean he's a woman in disguise? Or if he also likes guns and sports, does that mean he's balanced in his gender rather than being specifically masculine or feminine? I'm just not sure where the idea came from that a man who enjoys doing culturally feminine things was supposed to be born a woman. In one of my graduate psych classes, we took the Bem gender inventory available at http://www.neiu.edu/~tschuepf/bsri.html
and I came down on the feminine side, and a few women came down on the masculine side. That is, I can be more shy, affectinate, and loyal (culturally feminine traits) than athletic, assertive and forceful (culturally masculine traits). But there's a big difference is accepting I'm loyal and wanting to cut myself up on an operating table. Given my experience with transgendering individuals, my sense is that cutting themselves up isn't going to make it all better. From my experience, they've got daddy issues, and those issues will continue to be there whether or not they have an adam's apple.
But we don't require people seeking this kind of life changing operation to get extensive counseling beforehand, despite that because of perhaps biological reasons (something familiar but different in one way typically results in a fear response) may result in increased alienation. Personally, I would think liberals would embrace the solution of making peace with the experience of alienation, and in doing so making peace with both genders. But of course that wouldn't serve a political purpose of having all social constructions and values appear superficial.
"It is this sort of thing which makes the UN odious, and makes the ever stronger case for our withdrawal from the organization."
Yeah! That would really strengthen our weak position with our allies and help bring global peace! What a genius idea!