(See also “Human Rights, Distortions of”)
Overview
“National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs)” are supposed to be “independent,” non-governmental organizations that promote and monitor “human rights” at the national level. In practice, however, many NHRIs act as agents of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Western governments that fund the OHCHR to promote LGBT rights and abortion in national laws and policies, all under the banner of “human rights.”
The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) was established in 1993 under the auspices of the OHCHR, which serves as the GANHRI secretariat. GANHRI’s International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions (ICC) oversees five regional coordinating bodies, which in turn, oversee over 115 NHRIs that have been accredited with the ICC.
The top donors to the OHCHR are largely European governments, Canada, and, previously, the United States (under the Obama administration).[1]
The OHCHR uses its global and regional coordinating bodies to push its agendas through the NHRIs, training NHRIs through its regional conferences and guidance publications, empowering NHRIs to advance “human rights” issues in their own countries and at the United Nations.
This intricate system allows the OHCHR to push its abortion, CSE and sexual rights agenda more discreetly and indirectly—all under the banner of seemingly “independent” human rights bodies (i.e., NHRIs).
Evidence of the LGBT/Abortion Rights Agenda of NHRIs
1. The OHCHR: NHRIs to Address “Violence and Discrimination Against LGBT and Intersex Persons.” In its annual report to the UNGA (See 8A/HRC/29/23.), the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights recommended that NHRIs address violence and discrimination against LGBT persons.[2]
2. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Rights in National Human Rights Institutions. A Helpdesk Research Report, that assessed African and Asian NHRIs’ engagement “with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights (LGBTI), and the strategies they have used,” stated the following:
- “Overwhelmingly, NHRI policies on LGBTI have been developed recently. Many policies draw on the Yogyakarta principles from 2006.” (See “Yogyakarta Principles”)
- “NHRIs therefore often emphasize that LGBTI rights are contained within existing UN rights principles, particularly the rights to privacy, health, life, freedom from violence, nondiscrimination and equality.”[3]
3. GANHRI’s Home Web Page Features “SOGI’s Story,” an LGBT Advocacy Video and Comic Book. “SOGI’s Story” is about an African homosexual and begins with the statement: “Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is pervasive across many parts of the world.”[4]
4. GANHRI Publishes Manual for Advancing LGBT Rights. GANHRI’s work titled A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions to Promote and Protect Human Rights in relation to Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Sex Characteristics, provides model case studies of the work of NHRIs on human rights issues affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people.[5]
5. GANHRI Promotes LGBT Manifesto as Focal Point of Conference. One of the most radical documents ever to emerge to promote LGBT rights is the “Yogyakarta Principles,” which is a manifesto for the LGBT rights movement. GANHRI, partnering with UNDP, organized the Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights—a global conference focused on the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. At this conference, NHRIs were encouraged to advance LGBT rights in their countries.[6]
6. The OHCHR Promotes Abortion and CSE in NHRI Handbook. The “Handbook for National Human Rights Institutions: Reproductive Rights are Human Rights, published by the OHCHR, a Danish NHRI, and UNFPA, states:
- “States cannot “restrict women’s access to health services” [Translation: abortion] … Nor can States “criminalize medical procedures only needed by women” or “punish women who undergo those procedures [Translation: abortion].” Note: The medical procedures that are “only needed by women” are abortions.[7]
- “All adolescents . . . should be provided with sufficient information on sexual and reproductive health [read CSE]… irrespective of … parental or guardian consent”
7. GANHRI Regional Body Publishes Report on “Human Rights in Relation to Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and HIV.” “The report provides an update of initiatives from various NHRIs, in addressing the discrimination, stigmatization and violations facing individuals and groups who simply wish ‘to be’ what they actually are. These initiatives include research, advocacy, education, public mobilization, and contributions to judicial decisions, laws, policies and other processes to protect human rights.”[8]
8. National Human Rights Institutions Provide a Bridge for LGBT Rights. Outright International, an LGBT rights advocacy group, states on their website that NHRI “are generally thought to be a bridge between their governments and civil society.” A workshop was organized in part by UNDP on the role of NHRIs in promoting and protecting the rights and health of LGBTI people and “how to incorporate sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) into the work of NHRIs in the region.”[9]
NHRIs Encroaching on UN Negotiations
At CSW 62, the European Union and allied nations were strongly advocating for a paragraph calling upon States to “…further enhance the participation of national human rights institutions compliant with the Paris Principles at the sessions of the Commission.”
If passed, that provision could have allowed NHRIs controlled by the OHCHR (which again, is heavily funded by EU countries), to actually participate in CSW negotiations and to participate on panels and issue reports, thus vesting them with power to heavily influence the negotiations.
This would have given the EU and their allies a much stronger voice in negotiations as it is certain that NHRIs would be supporting a controversial agenda. Fortunately, the final CSW 62 paragraph was toned down a bit, but it still mentions NHRIs five times—including in a dangerous operative paragraph that “encourages” CSW to “consider” “how to enhance the participation” of NHRIs at CSW 63 (see adopted paragraph below).
“The Commission recalls General Assembly resolution 72/181 and encourages the secretariat to continue its consideration of how to enhance the participation, including at the sixty-third session of the Commission, of national human rights institutions that are fully compliant with the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (Paris Principles), where they exist, in compliance with the rules of procedure of the Economic and Social Council.” (CSW 62, Paragraph 51.)
This is a very dangerous prospect with a huge agenda behind it because, as noted above, one of the main goals of NHRI is to promote abortion and LGBT rights.
Negotiating Strategies
It is absolutely clear that NHRIs are not independent bodies because they are directed by the OHCHR to aggressively advance LGBT rights. Therefore, it is critical to minimize their role or to remove references to NHRIs entirely in negotiated documents.
Strategy 1. Delete
Strategy 2. Limit the roles of NHRIs
Talking Points
1. While it may be appropriate for NHRIs to advocate for human rights at the national level, it is not their role to advocate at the international level because they are “national” institutions. For example, it would not be appropriate for an NHRI from Thailand to try to tell Brazil how to better protect their people’s human rights. Similarly, since the mandates of NHRIs are national in scope, it would not be appropriate for them to have a voice, especially not a negotiating voice in our deliberations at the UN.
2. It is our understanding that NHRIs are supposed to be independent, yet, through the OHCHR’s coordinating body, the Global Alliance of NHRIs, it would seem that the OHCHR is defining the scope and class of human rights that NHRIs are advocating for. Therefore, we believe their independence has been compromised, so we would prefer to delete any references to NHRIs in the document we are negotiating. (Note: Points in the “Overview” above can be cited to support this.)
3. Multiple policy manuals and documents published by the OHCHR instruct NHRIs to focus on advancing LGBT rights that are not consistent with our culture or laws and that are not recognized in any binding international law. (Note: Examples in the “Overview” above can be cited to support this.)
[1] Top 10 donors to the OHCHR in 2017: USA – $20,160,912 (this was under the Obama administration, under Trump in 2018, U.S. funding was withdrawn); Sweden – $15,994,423; Norway – $15,559,270; European Commission – $10,015,275; Netherlands – $9,803,069; Germany – $9,143,552; Switzerland – $7,504,461, United Kingdom – $7,201,458; Canada – $4,718,048; Denmark – $4,591,309; Belgium – $3,976,662. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (n. d.) Voluntary contributions to OHCHR in 2017. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/AboutUs/FundingBudget/VoluntaryContributions2017.pdf
[2] UN General Assembly. (2015). Discrimination and violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Retrieved from https://ilga.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/AHRC2923-English.pdf
[3] Retrieved from https://www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/hdq1098.pdf
[4] Retrieved from https://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/Themes/LGBT/Pages/default.aspx
[5] Retrieved from https://apcom.org/2017/08/31/manual-national-human-rights-institutions-promote-protect-human-rights-relation-sexual-orientation-gender-identity-sex-characteristics/
[6] Retrieved from https://www.asiapacificforum.net/events/conference-yogyakarta-principles/
[7] Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/NHRIHandbook.pdf
[8] Retrieved from https://www.idlo.int/sites/default/files/RegionalReportGenderHIV.pdf
[9] Retrieved https://www.outrightinternational.org/content/national-human-rights-institutions-%E2%80%93-bridge-lgbt-rights-asia-and-pacific