Human Rights Watch director trashes Poland, Hungary at WEF for championing family values

DAVOS, Switzerland (LifeSiteNews) — Tirana Hassan, the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, slammed the pro-family policies of Poland and Hungary, calling them “divisive” and claiming that they “increase acts of violence and discrimination.” 

===

Comment: This is the first Human Rights Watch director that is so openly ignorant of human rights. She has better educate herself on the subject of human rights and stop trying to change them. We the People are not giving up on them. Here are some fundamental human rights on the subject of family:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Art. 16

  1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
  2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

“…without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion…” – but not due to “sex” or “gender”. Therefore, Section 1 refers to marriages between men and women, not to marriage between men or marriage between women. Regardless of this distinction, section 3 clearly states that family is the natural and fundamental unit of society and it is entitled to protection by the State. “Natural” means able to reproduce as it is amply illustrated in the natural world of animals where “families” serve that purpose exclusively.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Art. 23

1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

Interpretation

Whether the above laws recognize the marriage of men with men or women with women should not be decided by the state or by the society in a referendum specifically designed to answer this question. Such a solution would take away the rights of a losing minority to decide about their lives and their future. Some guidlines in this area are provided in Art. 18 of the ICCPR, which states:

Art. 18

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

In other words, it is a private matter and state has no business interfering in it.

On the other hand, the role of the State in this area should be limited to such regulations only that have an impact on demographics and economic development of the country. Therefore, any benefits offered by the state to any of the stakeholders, family included, should be limited to these two areas only. Benefits should be granted to support a function, not a status. Taxpayers should have the right to decide whether they want their hard earned money to be used in order to finance somebody else’s lifestyle, instead of financing a function that serves the society at large. The only reasonable exception is a social support for the sick, the disabled, and the elderly who don’t have a choice about their status.

In addition, all related policies should take under consideration security, safety, and healthy development of children. This should be considered a priority. In particular, states should refrain from any attempts to promote, encourage, order, or discouraged cultural and moral values held by the society. This is a domain of the people, not the governments.

Art. 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

End of story.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.