Pavel Parfentiev

Europe: Violations of Home Educating Families’ Human Rights [1]

Introduction: Home Education and Human Rights

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights «Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children» (Article 26(3)). This fundamental right of the parents is recognized in the same Article of UDHR that proclaims the universal right to education itself. Therefore it is obvious that the universal right to education and the fundamental right of the parents to choose the kind of education for their children are intrinsically interconnected.

The reason why the drafters of the UDHR included this right of parents into this fundamental document was to avoid any future possibility of repeating the forced ideological indoctrination of children by the state through state-run schools like that done by the Nazis. Therefore the UDHR intended to preserve the freedom and diversity of education by linking it to the sphere of family freedom and fundamental rights of parents.

This prior right of parents is holistically interconnected with the whole set of internationally recognized fundamental rights of parents, such as their liberty to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions (Art. 18(4) of ICCPR, Art. 13(3) of ICESCR), their right to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State (Art. 13(3) of ICESCR), their right to provide appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise of their children’s rights, including the right to education (Art. 5 of CRC taken together with its Art. 28) etc. All these rights should be viewed in the light of the fact, recognized in the Preamble to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that “the family, as the fundamental group of society” is “the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children”.

Taking into consideration all these facts it is obvious that the fundamental right of the parents to choose the kind of education for their children, which is the necessary protection of the society from any form of governmental totalitarianism, necessarily include both the right of the parents to establish and direct their own independent schools and their right to choose parents-run home education for their children.

This obvious truth was recently restated in the Berlin Declaration, the civil society document presented at the first Global Home Education Conference held in 2012 in Berlin, Germany [2]. Citing numerous international human rights instruments the Berlin Declaration reminds “that numerous international treaties and declarations recognize the essential, irreplaceable and fundamental role of parents and the family in the education and upbringing of children as a natural right that must be respected and protected by all governments”, affirms home education as a practice where parents and children undertake the activity of education themselves to pursue learning that meets the needs of the family and children, and condemns “the policies of those nations that prohibit the practice of home education and permit the persecution of home educating families through excessive or coercive fines, threats to parental custody and application of criminal sanctions”.

The aforementioned rights of parents and family are foundational and indispensable for preserving the genuine freedom of the society and are, therefore, closely interrelated with the whole scope of civil and political human rights.

The educational function and educational task naturally belongs to the family and parents. This educational dimension of the family precedes that of the state. It should not and cannot then be destroyed by the involvement of the State into the area of education. All the activities of the state in the area of education should always be performed with due respect to the abovementioned fundamental rights of parents – and children’s rights corresponding to them. That means that the government’s involvement into education should always follow the principle of subsidiarity. In the area of education the state is the secondary actor, while the family remains and would always be the primary and leading actor, whose role should prevail over governmental interests.

Unfortunately these basic human rights of parents and children’s rights in the area of education corresponding to them are seriously threatened in many countries of the world, including European countries. One of the main causes of this problem is the unbalanced and biased interpretation given to the international human rights treaties that groundlessly places the authority of the government in the educational sphere over the fundamental rights of parents [3].

As a matter of fact, the governments under different pretexts often seek to prohibit home education or to restrict the freedom of parents to choose it for their children without any real and due reasons. Very often it seems like an attempt to revive and to preserve the educational monopoly of the state as an instrument of restricting human freedom through indoctrination.

In some European countries, especially Germany and Sweden, these illegitimate restrictions imposed on the fundamental rights of parents are leading to brutal violations of basic human rights of both parents and children, including groundless removal of children from their parents as well as threatening the responsible and good parents whose only “failures” are their independent educational decisions with administrative and criminal sanctions. It’s necessary to note that those violations of the prior right of parents to choose the kind of education for their children are often accompanied by violations of the right to freedom of conscience and religion.

We consider these actions of the governments to constitute clear and serious human rights violations. Below is a list of some of the recent cases of this kind, based on the information gathered from open sources or provided to us by different NGOs including the Home School Legal Defense Association, an international human rights advocacy organization based in USA.

Violations of Human Rights of Home Educators in Sweden

The Case of Domenic Johansson

The Case of Domenic Johansson is illustrative for the human rights violations home educators and their children are facing in Sweden. The application before the European Court of Human Rights gives the following overview of the case:

On June 26th, 2009, Domenic Johansson, a seven year-old boy (born on September 9, 2001) who is a dual citizen of Sweden and India, was seated in a commercial airliner awaiting departure of a flight to India. Without a court order or any kind of preliminary notification, Swedish authorities boarded the plane and removed Domenic from the custody of his parents, Christer Johansson (a Swedish citizen) and Annie Johansson (an Indian citizen). The sole purpose of the removal of Domenic was to prevent his parents from moving with him to India.

At the time of the removal, the sole issue that motivated the actions of the Swedish government was the fact that Domenic was being homeschooled. No other information concerning minor medical issues (which have arisen since the boy was unlawfully removed from his parents) was known to any Swedish authority at the time he was peremptorily removed from his parents.

Swedish officials removed this boy from an international flight solely to prevent his parents from moving to another nation and from educating him in a manner that is lawful in India, in Sweden, and in a majority of nations. 

Since this extraordinary separation on June 26th, 2009, Mr. and Mrs. Johansson have been allowed extremely limited contact with their son and only under overbearing state supervision. All attempts by the parents to offer alternatives for Domenic’s education, as well as their offers of sincere cooperation on the other minor matters that have since been addressed, have been rebuffed by the Swedish authorities. It now appears obvious that the Swedish government intends to keep permanent custody of this boy simply because his parents wished to move to India and to homeschool him [4].

Since then the child is still separated from his parents on the sole ground of being home educated at the time of the removal [5].

Families Forced into Exile: Himmelstrands and Other Cases

Many other home educating families that faced the danger of administrative persecution or were forced to pay large fines for merely home educating their children had to leave Sweden in order to live and educate their children in countries that are more tolerant and are respecting their human rights.

Among those who had to leave their native country because of this governmental persecution of home educators is Jonas Himmelstrand, the president of the national home education organizations of Sweden ROHUS, who left Sweden in 2012 [6].

Mr. Himmelstrand’s decision was also based on his substantiated fear that social workers might seize their children in response to their decision to educate them at home.

According to the news website New American, local school officials reported the Himmelstrand family to the social services in November of last year when their 7-year-old son did not show up at the local school. Mr Himmelstrand — like many other homeschoolers in Sweden — was forced to meet with local officials to explain himself.

Himmelstrand went to the social services and asked the social services if they would guarantee that his family could remain in Sweden safely. They said no, matter-of-factly stating that to homeschool safely, the family would probably have to leave country.

The following month, the family received a letter explaining that the authorities had decided to impose a fine of about $26,000 – $13,000 per parent. “At that point we kind of felt like, are these people crazy?” Himmelstrand told The New American in a telephone interview. “Don’t they realise that would ruin our family?”

The Himmelstrands responded with a letter asking officials to clarify whether they intended to split up their family based on this political principle. The family also told authorities that they would leave as exiles before allowing themselves to be destroyed by the punitive fines.

The local government responded with a letter imposing yet another fine. Mr. Himmelstrand said this was the last straw. 

The family moved promptly thereafter, not making the news public until everyone was safely beyond the reach of Swedish officials. Mr. Himmelstrand said he did not want to wait around to find out what the local government’s next move might be.

They moved to Aland, a Swedish-speaking island off the coast of Finland [7].

Himmelstrands family is just one of the families that had to leave Sweden and Germany because of state persecution for their legitimate educational choices [8].

Violations of Human Rights of Home Educators in Germany

The right of educational freedom is severely violated in Germany. Home educators are persecuted and could be deprived of their custody rights, fined or threatened with jail sentences. This is done under the unbelievable pretext that the uniform school education is necessary in order to preserve the pluralistic society and to prevent “the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions” [9]. This logic of prohibiting pluralism and diversity in order to preserve pluralism and diversity is, in our mind, totally opposed to the genuine logic of universally recognized human rights norms.

The Wunderlich family

In October 2012, state youth officials were granted formal legal custody of the Wunderlich children by a German court based solely on the fact that the family was homeschooling.

The children of the Wunderlich family were seized by the state authorities in a violent way just because their parents were home educating.

Dirk Wunderlich, father, described the frightening turn of events:

“I looked through a window and saw many people, police, and special agents, all armed. They told me they wanted to come in to speak with me. I tried to ask questions, but within seconds, three police officers brought a battering ram and were about to break the door in, so I opened it.

The police shoved me into a chair and wouldn’t let me even make a phone call at first. It was chaotic as they told me they had an order to take the children. At my slightest movement the agents would grab me, as if I were a terrorist. You would never expect anything like this to happen in our calm, peaceful village. It was like a scene out of a science fiction movie. Our neighbors and children have been traumatized by this invasion.” [10]

Andreas Vogt, the attorney representing the Wunderlich family whose children were seized in an early morning raid on August 29, says that the actions of social workers remind him of the harsh policies of the former communist East Germany. The Wunderlichs had not seen or heard from their children since they were taken and only knew that they were residing in some kind of group home.

The children were later returned to the family by the court on the condition that they would attend an ordinary school. The family was also denied the possibility to leave the country with the children in order to home educate them in a country where it is permitted.

Given that no charges were ever brought against the parents other than their home educating their children, the only reason for this violent interference into their family life was the educational choice of the parents. It’s also necessary to note that no claims were made that the education provided by the family was in any way inappropriate or of unfitting quality [11].

The Schaum family

Thomas and Marit Schaum, parents of nine children educated at home living in the German state of Hesse have also faced state persecution for their legitimate educational choice. In 2013 in order to stop them home educating a sentence of six months’ imprisonment for each of the parents has been issued by penalty order – without a formal trial. Thomas Schaum (51) and his wife Marit (48) from the German state of Hessia have been accused of  “permanently and obstinately obstructing compulsary school attendance” by the authorities and the state attorney. As a result of the trial the parents were criminally convicted and fined over 1,200 euros (about $2,000) for not sending their children to school [12].

The Dudek family

In 2008 the parents of a homeschooling Dudek family in the German state of Hesse have each been sentenced to three months in prison for the “crime” of educating their seven children at home [13]. In 2009 the jail sentence was overturned by the higher court and substituted with criminal fines. Many times this family was criminally fined for home educating their children. In 2011 regional school officials have threatened to “take custody of the children from the parents” or to “transport the children to school by force.” [14]

In 2013 Daniel Dudek applied to spend a second semester at the “Südringgauschule” in order to obtain his secondary school certificate at the school. He was rejected by the authorities and was ordered to start in 9th form. The state’s supervisory school authority in Bebra, Germany stipulated a fine against the 16-year-old student because he had declined to attend the ninth grade of the Südringgauschule in Herleshausen [15].

Executive Summary

The present Report deals with issues around the actions of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child charged with overseeing the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Particular attention is given to past ultra vires (beyond its authority) acts by the Committee. The Report notes with concern that many CRC acts can be viewed as being:

• contrary to the principle of sovereign equality of UN member States (Article 2 of the UN Charter);
• beyond the mandate of the Committee;
• contrary to or not based on intergovernmental consensus.

In particular, its acts included:

• pressuring states to change their abortion laws irrespective of intergovernmental consensus and with no foundation in international human rights instruments;
• indirectly promoting controversial concepts with no established intergovernmental consensus behind them (legalising same-sex sexual relationships, legal recognition of same-sex marriages and partnerships, decriminalisation of prostitution);
• demanding that states should give children sexuality education regardless of and access to reproductive health services regardless of and without parental consent and knowledge, with no basis in the UNCRC or other international human rights instruments whatsoever and contrary to the Cairo Programme of Action and the Beijing Platform for Action (both showing a degree of intergovernmental recognition at the UN level);
• using an ultra vires (beyond its authority) interpretation of the UNCRC to unlawfully introduce a new ‘obligation’ for the states parties (to outlaw any parental corporal punishment of children) not following from the UNCRC itself, and then demanding compliance, up to the point of changing their national legislation;
• demanding of states (contrary to the principle of the sovereign equality of states and with no basis in the UNCRC) ratification of international agreements hitherto not signed by them.
• unlawfully interfering in religious freedoms.

All these acts (documented in the Appendix), regardless of their ethical assessment, are shown to be ultra vires and must be recognised as violating the principle of sovereign equality and exceeding the treaty monitoring body mandate. The Committee’s ultra vires acts, though not directly legally binding, seriously affect the legal regime in the states parties to the UNCRC. They affect national law enforcement practice, changes to national legislation, and influence legally binding decisions by other international bodies.

Such ultra vires acts by the Committee must, nevertheless, be recognised as internationally illicit and, therefore, null and void.

Ultra vires acts by the Committee can seriously threaten the sustainability of international human rights framework, the sovereignty of the states parties, the cultural identity of their peoples, and the standing of the family, which is ‘the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State’ (Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), and, therefore, by the international community.

In these circumstances it is deemed inappropriate and dangerous for the states parties to grant the Committee new powers by signing and ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure (A/RES/66/138).

A special section of the Report highlights specific problems inherent the Protocol, such as:

• procedural flaws in its development;
• its undermining of domestic legislation and judicial systems;
• its erosion of the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule;
• its potential belittlement of the value of the family.

The Report points out that to remedy the situation created by the Committee’s ultra vires acts, legitimately concerned states parties can employ a number of means, such as:

• exercising their right to issue interpretative declarations on the UNCRC;
• exercising their right to point out the limits of the Committee’s mandate in replying to its requests for additional information related to periodic reports, as well as in other kinds of official statements;
• warning the Committee of the possibility of their denunciation of the UNCRC in case a relevant reform of its activities does not take place;
• refusing to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure until a relevant reform of the Committee is taken place;
• actively participating in reforming UN treaty bodies to bring their activities into strict conformity with their mandates, to give it greater transparency, and to bring it under more effective states parties’ control.

These means can, after due assessment of the consequences of their implementation, be employed at the discretion of states to protect the rights of their sovereign peoples, the family, and their cultural, religious, and moral identity.

Apart from containing additional information on the Committee’s activities post-2012 (including its 65^th session), the present revised version of the Report has been substantially restructured for improved readability and expanded with new sections on various issues, miscellaneous addenda, as well as a special Appendix containing excerpts from CRC documents published in 2012-2014.

Download the complete Report (pdf)

Pavel Parfentiev

Protecting the Family at the International Level
Reclaiming the True Meaning of International Law

A 3^rd All-Ukrainian Parents’ Forum Address

The family based on a marital union of a man and a woman aimed at the begetting and raising of children, is the foundation of the human society, of every culture, and all the civilizations. This simple truth is universal. That is, it is universally acknowledged wherever there is still humanity left, for to deny it is to deny the very human nature and to threaten the very existence of humankind.

Life and family are the two primal elements of any people, any nation. Whereas in a society one cannot have social justice without abolishing slavery, establishing the rule of law and the presumption of innocence, without life and family there can be no society in the first place. A nation that ceases to acknowledge the sanctity of human life is undermining itself; a nation that threatens the family is rapidly approaching self-destruction.

No sensible people would destroy itself. However, nowadays whole nations are virtually pushed to self-destruction. Paradoxically, this is being done in the name of so-called “human rights”. We are told to believe that human rights require killing unborn children, tolerating propaganda of homosexualism and other immoral and deviant forms of sexual behaviour, recognizing cohabitating homosexuals as “families”, allowing them to adopt and raise children. We are told that the rights of the child are being violated by their own parents wanting to give them moral and religious education or trying to maintain a sensible discipline, and, at the same time, that probably the biggest threat to our society is the so-called “domestic violence”, tackling which demands intense constant supervision of the parents by the state.

These are all lies. There is no mention of the so-called “right to abortion” in any international human rights treaty. The alleged right to promote immorality, undermine the natural idea of the family and supplant it with artificial homosexual constructs follows from no human rights instrument. No international agreement bans loving parents from raising their children the way they want, in accordance with their faith and convictions. Unfortunately, today’s human rights discourse is saturated with lies that many take for undisputed truths, daily passed for “international human rights standards” and imposed upon nations and peoples of the world as something they must comply with, whatever they think of it.

As a Belgian lawyer Jakob Cornides, J.D., rightly points out, “What was once considered a crime is to be transformed into a right, and what was once considered justice into a human rights violation”[1].

How did it happen, and how can we oppose it? How did something that another Belgian expert Marguerite Peeters, making it a title of her study of global control mechanisms, neatly named “Hijacking Democracy: The Power Shift to the Unelected” come about?

According to its 1945 Charter, the United Nations was established “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind”. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights aimed at protecting the inalienable rights of all people to preclude the repeating of the horrors of Nazism.

Today many are beginning to forget what some of these horrors were. For example, ten of the Nazi leaders were denounced by the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal because under them “abortions were encouraged and even forced”, and it was called “a crime against humanity” [2].

The Nazi state was taking children away from their parents and appropriating the right to educate them. Parents who did not wish their children to join the Hitlerjugend were being persecuted and charged with “abuse of parental rights”. It is to preclude the repeating of these very horrors that Article 26 of UDHR declared that parents have “a prior right to choose the kind of education . . . given to their children”. Later Article 18(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expanded this right to cover “the liberty of parents . . . to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions”.

Even the Convention on the Rights of the Child, with its many controversial provisions, recognizes the right of the child not be separated from his or her parents against their will, save for exceptional circumstances (Article 9), and the right to appropriate direction and guidance by parents in the exercise of his or her rights (Article 5).

All these fundamental rights are currently being violated in numerous developed countries, including Europe. These grave violations of genuine human rights that can justifiably be classified as criminal are formally perpetrated in the name of protecting human rights and the rights of the child, while actually contravening the most fundamental, universal, and generally acknowledged norms of international law.

Using human rights rhetoric as a cover, abortions are being propagandized to limit birth rates throughout the world. Coupled with immorality falsely promoted as freedom, this encourages entire peoples to demographic suicide. It is common knowledge that increasing, or at least maintaining, population figures is vital to successful economic and social development of every nation. Merely maintaining its population size requires aggregate birth rates to stay above 2.1 child per woman. In Ukraine it is currently below 1.5. The only way out for a nation thus threatened is to revive the traditional large family, the family way of life, traditional family and moral values.

UHDR and ICCPR are both explicit in declaring that the family is the “natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”. They are equally clear in that “men and women of full age” have the right to marry and to found a family. Only this, the natural kind of family based on a marital union of a man and a woman and aimed at the begetting and raising of children, is recognized by norms of international law.

The same instruments indicate that individual rights are linked to obligations and responsibilities towards the society, and most of them can be limited by law when necessary for protecting the public order, health, morals, and the rights of others. Public order is recognized in international law as norms and values without which a democratic society cannot remain secure and stable.

The natural family is a universal value recognized by international law, and the basis of every society. It is impossible for any society, democratic ones included, to exist without it. That is why undermining the family, any attempt at discrediting it, limiting the natural rights of the parents, equalizing it with other forms of cohabitation, including homosexual ones, propaganda aimed against the family and basic family values are all actions undermining the very fundamentals of public order.

They are essentially similar to acts expressly prohibited by international law, like propaganda of war, or advocating racial or religious hatred. Limiting or prohibiting those does not constitute violation of human rights. On the contrary, protecting the family is an action necessary to protect genuine human rights universally recognized by all of mankind. This is the direct corollary of true fundamentals of international law genuinely recognized by the peoples of the world.

Unfortunately, the fundamentals of international law are being aggressively attacked through unlawful actions of a rout of activists and the organizations, both local and international, they managed to hijack. Regularly targeted by this destructive kind of activism are reputable international institutions, UN treaty monitoring bodies in particular, like the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Human Rights Committee, and some Council of Europe bodies, including the European Court of Human Rights itself.

This in fact amounts to a concerted effort by a relatively small group of people to radically change the society on a global scale – all in pursuit of their narrow interests. This is deliberate social engineering, which, though retaining an outwardly peaceful and civilized appearance, is highly aggressive in its manifestations. Pretending to be “asserting democratic values”, it has nothing democratic about it as it seeks to bypass the will of sovereign peoples and their elected governments. Employing freedom-loving rhetoric, it is incompatible with freedom as it consistently silences all dissent. Its logical end result would be a new dictatorship denying all that the humankind held to be its main values – true dignity, family, faith, and morals.

Nowadays NGOs advocating anti-family ideas are active in many of the most important international bodies, consistently and expertly influencing their decisions. They are zealously lobbying for their representatives to be included in official government delegations, put into high-ranking positions inside these organizations, while those who support life, family, and morals are facing tremendous pressure barring them from participating in international processes.

Advocating radical social ideas that would establish an unnatural new social order, these well-organized groups are actively engaging with intergovernmental bodies such as the UN, the Council of Europe, and the European Union, influencing international talks, various instruments and decisions, while at the same time using the international funding they manage to secure to support, usually through direct financing, their ideological allies at the local level. Acting against the true interests of their peoples, these local organizations are lobbying hard their respective governments, pushing them to comply with illegal anti-family recommendations they claim to be “international standards”.

Lastly, the success of this global operation is secured through serious financial and political leverage, in particular, blackmail involving humanitarian and financial aid. Thus, bypassing national sovereignty and without any real legal foundation, radical social ideas are becoming the new international legislation.

Here are but a couple of examples illustrating this reality.

UN treaty monitoring bodies are meant to be independent expert groups. Albeit nominated and appointed by states parties, once elected, they are totally independent and unaccountable. International anti-family pressure groups, like those advocating radical feminism or special rights for homosexuals, are exerting considerable efforts for these appointments to specifically include their own supporters. Thus staffed, is it any wonder that the activities of these treaty bodies often prove to be quite destructive?

In particular, although not authorized by their respective treaties to pass binding interpretations of their text, these Committees are regularly doing just so in their so-called “General comments”. These comments are often used to effectively rewrite norms of international law, giving them a wholly different meaning not intended by the parties by whom they were ratified.

For example, the CEDAW Committee have on more than one occasion demanded from sovereign states to rewrite their constitutions. It demanded that they abolish holidays such as “Mother’s Day” or “Father’s Day”. Dozens of times it demanded that their national legislation should be rewritten to provide a right to “swift and easy” abortions. It even argued for legalizing prostitution and the right of underage girl to access contraceptives and other “reproductive health” services without their parents’ consent. In vain may you browse the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women looking for any mention of these rights. There are none. These fictitious “rights” and the states parties’ “obligations” allegedly following from them are all unauthorized illegal constructs produced by the Committee itself in its interpretations.

Both CEDAW and CRC, another UN treaty monitoring body, in their recommendations have repeatedly insisted that all children, boys and girls alike, must have access to comprehensive sexual education. The latter was especially insistent that such access must be granted regardless of their parents’ consent.

One must have a clear understanding what this “sexual education” advocated by UN-affiliated organizations is. In vain may you search their documents for information on family values and dangers of promiscuity, encouragement of premarital continence, and other sensible advice. Their content is quite opposite. WHO, for example, have issued a Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe. A framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities. It calls for sexual education for children from new-born and onwards. Document demands that children aged 0 to 4 (!) be shown the “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body, early childhood masturbation” (p. 38). It then demands that children aged 9 to 12 be given information on their “sexual rights, as defined by . . . WAS” (World Association for Sexual Health) (p. 45). One of these “sexual rights” is defined by WAS as “[t]he right to sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure, including autoeroticism, is a source of physical, psychological, intellectual and spiritual well being”. There is, incidentally, no mention in international human rights treaties of any “sexual rights” whatsoever – there simply is none among the legally binding international norms.

Here is another striking example of UN treaty monitoring bodies illegally redefining norms of international law. In 2006, relying on minor, questionable, and sometimes outright false arguments, the Committee on the Rights of the Child in its General comment no. 8 have ruled that from that moment on all states must prohibit corporal punishment of children, even by their own parents. A slap on a naughty child’s bottom must be regarded as intolerable abuse of children and be prosecuted accordingly. This surprising inference did not, however, follow from the text of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Committee itself noted in its commentary that such a ban was not even considered when the Convention was drafted. Moreover, ratifying it, the Republic of Singapore had expressly declared that it considered the Convention as not prohibiting judicious application of corporal punishment in the best interests of the child, something that no-one objected to – and something the Committee had, incidentally, failed to mention. In addition to that, USSR’s proposal to completely ban corporal punishment of children in schools was rejected by the majority of states parties.

In its 2011 General comment no. 13 the Committee went even further, demanding that state parties that had not yet done so must immediately ratify a whole number of international treaties and review and withdraw declarations and reservations contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. It demanded that any kind of extremely widely interpretable “violence” against children, including not only spanking, but also “scaring or ridiculing” the child, must be prosecuted. Lastly, it demanded that the state parties must by all means allocate necessary funding for the implementation of its decisions, and also establish special national child protection agencies.

Such recommendations constitute clear and blatant intrusion into national sovereignty of each and every state. One can only wonder why these states are not resisting this intrusion, and often cave in to this illegal pressure by UN committees. In particular, in 2007 many nations have obediently followed this illegal recommendation and criminalized any corporal punishment by parents, including spanking. This was done in spite of there being virtually no legal ground for such a move in international norms.

Instead of it, the Committee’s experts are, in fact, relying on dubious arbitrary constructs created and propagated by social engineering radical “experts”. Using this procedural back door, and without any oversight by the sovereign peoples, international law is step by step being amended with new concepts – such as radical theories of gender construction.

For example, in 2006 a group of experts advocating so-called “sexual minority rights” adopted a document called The Yogyakarta Principles. By misinterpreting the relevant international legal norms, its authors attempted to create new rights with no real foundation for them. In particular, this document claims that “gender identity” amounts to “each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth”. In spite of explicit objections from a whole number of states, first, UN officials began citing these Principles, and then documents of similar nature began to be quoted in official Council of Europe documents.

Despite being extremely questionable scientifically, theories of sex-independent “gender identity” are increasingly informing the definitions being used first in “soft” international recommendations, and then, having become viewed as a given, in legally binding norms. For example, Article 3 of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence that Ukraine signed on November 7, 2011, but not yet ratified, explicitly defines gender as “socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes”, while Article 14 of the same document demands that children should be taught “non-stereotyped gender roles”. This has already caused the Catholic Polish Episcopal Conference to protest against this document, declaring that it is “based on utterly unacceptable and false ideological premises”.

All this is not merely destructive; it is a matter of manifestly unlawful activities using false references to international law to undermine the sovereignty of independent nations and the welfare of peoples, families, and individuals. We are currently at the critical turning point: either the peoples of the world manage to change this situation, pushing the highest echelons of international politics back towards working for their good, protecting the family, providing genuine necessary protection for the childhood, or radical activists continue using international bodies to irrevocably undermine families, peoples, and societies. The latter would mean that, increasingly losing all legitimacy, these international bodies will inevitably become the aggressor in a sort of new global war – the war against family and mankind. The impact of today’s international family policy on the life of every nation is too great to be ignored. The civil societies of the world must make a conscientious decision which international force to support – the one advocating a healthy family-based society, or the one pursuing its unmaking.

What chance do we have of turning the situation around, of protecting our peoples, our families, and our children? There is one, and it is one we ought to use. Here is what we must do to succeed:

1. It would be a mistake to believe that the anti-family trends outlined above have really become some sort of international standard or an unshakable norm. In reality, international politics is becoming a battle ground in the fight to protect the family. It is vital that all rational state and public forces ally on the international stage against those who seek to destroy the family, the traditional family and moral values, and the sanctity of human life. Anti-family organizations appropriating the right to speak for the civil society are currently enjoying comfortable representation in international organizations. This right must be denied. Pro-family civil society forces must step by step increase their presence on the international stage, just as the anti-family forces did – in a consistent, well thought-out, and competent manner, finding and using all the necessary resources available.

A special role in this effort is played by international initiatives such as the World Congress of Families – the largest international project of its kind uniting supporters of the natural family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, traditional family and moral values, people opposed to abortion, homosexualism, and other socially disruptive phenomena. Taking part in it are organizations, experts, social activists, and politicians from more than 80 countries around the world. WCF is not an organization in the usual sense, not a centralized body – rather, it is a massive network movement supported by millions of people across the globe. Its main task is holding large-scale international conferences dedicated to protecting the natural family, parental rights, and the right to life. So far it has organized six such World Congresses of Families. These international events usually witness more than 3000 delegates from all the five continents, including politicians, community leaders, writers, scholars, and lay individuals as well. The 7^th World Congress of Families is to take place in 2013 in Sidney, Australia [3], and the one after that is set to take place in 2014 in Russia.

World Congress of Families is very effective at protecting the family, family values, parental rights, and the right to life at the international level. Much is being done by its partner organizations. This includes winning major domestic and international pro-family court cases, successfully removing anti-family provisions from draft international legislation – and seriously influencing national politics. In particular, then last September the majority of Australian parliamentarians refused to approve same-sex marriages, this was achieved thanks in part to WCF partners’ efforts.

2. Local organization representatives must make their views clearly heard on the international stage by issuing well though-out and well-prepared civil society documents setting forth such views in an educated and competent manner. Examples of such documents include the San Jose Articles convincingly arguing that there is no “right to abortion” in international law; the 2011 St. Petersburg Resolution, supported by hundreds of organizations across Russia and Ukraine expressing their unequivocal protest at the abuse of international mechanisms and setting forth the principles by which the norms of international law can be lawfully interpreted in the interests of the family and the society; and the report on unlawful actions by the UN CRC Committee prepared by our FamilyPolicy.ru Group and available in English.

Growing incrementally, step by step, the body of such works can produce very tangible influence on international political processes. Thanks to these steps we have already successfully stopped some of the dangerous international anti-family initiatives.

3. Attempts at unlawfully exerting outside control on sovereign peoples amounts to ideological and cultural coercion, a kind of peaceful-looking invasion. Its aim is to gradually erode the sovereignty of independent nations, their peoples’ rights to self-determination, self-government by just laws, and domestic values and traditions. This calls for all supporters of the family, family and moral values, and the sanctity of human life to consistently stand up for their countries’ sovereignty. It is not a question of sovereignty narrowly defined as a formal international recognition of an independent state. It is the actual, not the formal right to shape one’s own destiny independently and without unlawful international pressure.

Against this backdrop, faced with the possibility of joining the European Union and therefore virtually abandoning much of its national sovereignty, the people of independent Ukraine have to ask themselves some very important questions. Do the sovereign people of Ukraine need a Union top-heavy with the new breed of apparatchiks complicit in advancing radical feminism and the so-called “sexual minority rights”? Do the sovereign people of Ukraine really want to come under the jurisdiction of the European Parliament with its self-declared intergroup on “LGBT rights” and its human rights resolutions invoking homosexual rights so often one might think homosexualism the new Europe’s most treasured value? And, in the light of all this, isn’t it, perhaps, the Ukraine that should be setting down terms on which it might be willing to join the European Union, and not the other way round? These, I think, are important questions that must be decided by the whole people of Ukraine, and not by members of narrow political elites.

All the three components of protecting the family on the international stage outlined above have essentially one goal: to reclaim the true meaning and purpose of international law. Because, just like any other law, its true purpose is maintaining and building up the society, not undermining and destroying it.

In this connection allow me to quote the international St. Petersburg Resolution:

“We declare and proclaim our strong conviction that all UN human rights treaties must be interpreted in a way favorable to the natural family and natural parental rights. They also must be interpreted as defending the natural right of unborn children to life from the moment of conception.

All interpretations contradicting this approach must be rejected, as contrary to natural human rights, even if given by an authoritative body. If any provision under any international treaty or other international human rights instrument cannot be interpreted in compliance with this principle, such a provision must be amended or such an instrument must be denounced in tote as inhuman.

If any international organization or agency insists on any principle or norm contrary to this approach, this policy should be openly identified by the governments as socially destructive. In such a case, the governments, acting for the good of their peoples and mankind, should either compel such an organization to recognize natural human rights, natural family rights and natural parental rights or to leave such an organization or agency”.

Concluding my address, I would like to firmly state the following: natural family, matrimony, motherhood and fatherhood, and natural parental rights are all of them not the creation of man. They follow from the human nature itself without which we can no longer remain human. The law can only acknowledge this incontestable fact and respectfully accept it; and neither the national legislators nor the people drafting international legal norms have a right to arbitrarily redefine human nature.

Thank you for your attention!

About the Author: Pavel A. Parfentiev is the Managing Director of the FamilyPolicy.ru Advocacy Group and the Chairman of “For Family Rights” NGO (Russia). He’s also the World Congress of Families Ambassador to European Institutions and the WCF Adviser for International Human Rights Law.

The Memorandum is a strong and powerful civil society proclamation of the fundamental principles of any human society and of the foundations of the genuine human rights. We urge the governments, civil society representatives and all people of good will to act according to those immutable principles.

Here’s the complete text of Yalta Memorandum:

Memorandum on the Protection
of Family, Fatherhood, Motherhood and Morals
[Yalta Memorandum]

Adopted at the International Parents Forum
12 June 2013, Yalta, Ukraine

We, the participants of the International Parents Forum gathered in Yalta (Ukraine), representing the civil society of Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Moldova, as well as family and parents organizations of our countries, declare that the Natural Family based on the marriage of a man and a woman and aimed at childbirth and child rearing is a unique and indispensable foundation of any human society. It is in the family where spouses find love and joy, children gain wisdom and experience they need for their adult life, and the society gets a secure basis for steadiness and prosperity. It is the family that joins generations and thus teaches people to serve each other, and in difficult times it lends protection and support for each of its members. All the countries agreed that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State” (Art. 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Unfortunately, in these days family is facing serious threats and outright attacks. The family is endangered due to the active destruction of traditional family values and culture of child-rearing, matrimonial and parental roles, propaganda of lowering childbirth rates, contraception and abortion, divorce and sexual promiscuity, premarital and extramarital sexual relationships, prostitution and homosexuality,  systematic deprivation of children of their innocence and good morals by the so-called “sexual education” programs, artificial promotion of erroneous “gender theories” that imply groundless rejection of the natural differences between the sexes and of their complementarity.

The governments of some countries calling themselves “democracies” have even adopted legislation that, desecrating justice and human nature, ignoring the will and genuine interests of their peoples, families and children, provide legal grounds for perversion and destruction of the very notion of family, by recognizing homosexual cohabitations as “families” and “marriages” and granting such couples the right to adopt children. In addition to these unprecedented acts of tyranny of the law, detrimental for childhood and directed against human nature, family and society, many of these governments persecute and oppress those who courageously raise their voices to protect family and marriage. Recently, we have all witnessed such persecution in France against those who stand for justice and genuine human rights, as well as the rights of children and families.

We are also concerned to see that freedom of believers is infringed in some countries of Europe. It is the Christians of various denominations whose rights are being infringed, and who are increasingly finding themselves forced to act contrary to their conscience, by unjust laws in particular. Some of the aggressively antireligious governments are already calling for destruction or restriction of the natural right of parents to freely give their children religious upbringing and education.

We feel anger and indignation at the fact that the most fundamental and genuine human rights, the rights of family and parents, are being destroyed under the pretext of the protection of “human rights”, and the tool that has always been intended for the society’s welfare and edification is thus used to curse and destroy it. More and more often the international norms aimed at the protection of life, natural family and the rights of parents and their children, are construed in ominously wrong way, and their sense and purpose are distorted beyond recognition.

Under the pretext of protection of the so-called “sexual minorities” from discrimination, the supporters of healthy and traditional moral values are persecuted and discriminated against. On the grounds of women’s rights protection women are being deprived of their right to choose family and motherhood as their main mission. Under the veil of the rights of children, which are for no good reason interpreted too loosely, children everywhere in the world are deprived of the reliable parental moral guidance and upbringing, and sometimes they are simply taken away from their families. In many countries of the world, including the countries of the participants of the Forum, representatives of the state increasingly infringe upon fundamental human rights by interfering freely with the internal affairs of a family, and cruelly take children away from their parents under various arbitrary and far-fetched pretexts. We are convinced that this is one of the most serious mass crimes of our time.

In this context, public initiatives spring up in many countries to protect the Natural family, the marriage between a man and a woman, major rights of parents, traditional family and moral values. We are convinced that the international cooperation and people’s diplomacy in this sphere must develop and grow stronger, and the healthy public forces all over the world must support each other in the protection of family, society and morality.

Thereupon, on the basis of the principles that have served as a basis for all truly universal human right norms, we solemnly reaffirm the following provisions recognized by all the countries of the world in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948:

• that only “men and women of full age <…> have the right to marry and to found a family” (Art. 16.1);
• that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State” (Art. 16.2);
• that “parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children» (Art. 26.3).

We declare that these provisions originate from the very nature of human beings, family and society, and do not depend on the agreement of governments and legislators but have to be always recognized and observed by everyone.

We also declare:

• that, in spite of many false “gender theories”, a man and a woman are different from each other and complementary to each other, this difference in their nature and mission having a fundamental character, is related to the difference of the sexes and is not artificially constructed;
• that only a marriage between a man and a woman, which is aimed at childbirth and child rearing, really constitutes a marriage;
• that the Natural Family based on the marriage of a man and a woman and aimed at childbirth and child rearing is the only genuine model of a family, which has to be recognized and protected by the society and state, including legal protection;
• that homosexual cohabitation can never be regarded as a “marriage” or as a “family”;
• that to develop normally, children need a father and a mother, as well as a genuine model of family life, therefore, their “adoption” by homosexual live-in companions is inadmissible as a cruel infringement on the genuine rights of children, and contradicts their interests;
• that children have a right, wherever possible, to live with their biological father and mother who bring them up, give advice and provide with a role model;
• that parents have a natural right to bring their children up according to their moral, pedagogical and religious believes, without any interference from state;
• that parents have an indisputable right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children, including the right to opt for home education (family education);
• that the state cannot regulate the internal life of the family and children’s rearing by their parents, apart from those rare cases when this is absolutely necessary for the protection of health and life of citizens from obvious and serious threats;
• that the most effective way to protect children’s rights is the recognition, expanding and legal protection of their parents’ rights;
• that the main demographic problem of our peoples and peoples of the world today is not the mythical “overpopulation” but birthrate decline, and, therefore, it is necessary for more rather than fewer children to be born into a family, for a big  family once again to become a respectable social norm;
• that human life is sacred and any human life has to be legally protected from the moment of conception to the natural death, while abortion and euthanasia contradict this;
• that such kinds of reproductive technology as the so-called “surrogate motherhood” contradict human rights and genuine human dignity, including dignity of the “surrogate mother” and the child, and, therefore, shouldn’t be allowed;
• that legislative, administrative, political and economic decisions taken by the governments shall not be destructive for the natural family or diminish the rights of family and parents;
• that the main aim of family policy at any level must be the preservation and consolidation of a complete extended Natural Family, family lifestyle, fatherhood, motherhood, respect to parents and solidarity between generations, traditional family values and culture of family life.

We proclaim that the marriage between a man and a woman, Natural Family, right to life from the moment of conception to the natural death, rights of parents, freedom of religion and worship, necessity to protect public morals, originate from the nature of human being and family, and constitute an indispensable foundation of any society.

All the good governments and healthy social forces must protect these values. Propaganda in favour of their derogation or destruction is similar to the propaganda of war or racial hatred and must not be tolerated. The governments that reject these values and persecute people defending them cannot be considered democratic and must be declared illegitimate, as they act against genuine interest of both their nations and humanity as a whole.

All the international human rights treaties and other international instruments must be interpreted in favor of these values and the aforesaid principles. Any norms and interpretations contradicting them must be rejected and declared void, as they are inhuman.

We declare that the attempts of some governments and NGOs, accompanied by severe pressure, to impose upon other countries and international community approaches, norms and solutions that contradict the aforesaid values and principles, as well as the traditional family and cultural values of our nations, constitute a form of cultural imperialism, and we regard such attempts as aggressive intervention in the affairs of sovereign nations.

We declare, in particular, that universally recognized norms of international law have to protect people against truly unfair discrimination on the basis of inherited qualities like ethnic background, or their devotion to great values, e.g. religious beliefs,  and not to lead to unreasonable expansion of the privileges for some groups of people. As the so-called “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” are not innate qualities, neither are they related to any sublime value, there is no reason to list these characteristics among the prohibited grounds for discrimination. Instead of protecting anyone against unfair discrimination, such inclusion results in the unfair discrimination of Christians and other supporters of traditional family and moral values, rejecting the behavior that is morally unacceptable for them. Such artificial expansion of the notion of discrimination is inadmissible and destructive.

Our countries, with their centuries-old traditions and cultures, including family values and culture of family life and child rearing, are worthy heirs of the high moral principles and standards of our glorious ancestors. Nobody has a right to force us to reject our traditions and moral values or modify them in accordance with false standards that someone has invented. The legal and diplomatic framework of the global community, including that of the modern Europe, shall take into consideration the rights of our nations and provide secure protection for our cultural and moral legacy and our families.

We own genuine family values based on Christian traditions and are convinced that the global community, including the European community, needs the cultural and moral legacy that we keep and pass on. Therefore, if any intergovernmental structure, even the one that believes itself entitled to speak on behalf of the international structures, for instance, on behalf of the whole Europe, rejects our family, moral and cultural values, imposing instead sinister things that are against nature, we will reject such structure. We do not need structures that bring destruction instead of creation.

We also recognize that our countries are connected with strong historical and cultural links, and our people share common destiny. We will not allow anyone to disseminate alienation, hostility and misunderstanding between us, to separate us and bring us far apart.

We unite our efforts to protect our common values, first of all, family and morality, and demand that our governments do the same.

Based on the above, we:

• declare our intention to develop international cooperation and people’s diplomacy in the interests of Natural Family and parents with children, for protection of traditional family and moral values;
• express our support to the social forces of France and other countries aimed at the protection of the Natural Family, marriage between a man and a woman, rights of parents, traditional family and moral values;
• support the activity of those healthy international forces that consistently defend the Natural Family, rights of parents, traditional family and moral values, in particular, the efforts of the World Congress of Families;
• condemn those governments that act tyrannically in imposing upon their nations the laws that recognize the so-called “same-sex families” or “same-sex marriages”, and especially those that allow such couples to adopt children;
• consider infamous and incompatible with the principles of democracy the actions of the government of France that persecutes those protesting against such decisions or protecting traditional family and moral values, and restricts their liberty of speech;
• consider as unacceptable, contradicting the principles of democracy and infringing human rights, legal or de facto prohibition of choosing home education (family education) by the parents for their children, which is effective in Germany, Sweden and some other countries;
• express our support for the legislative decisions aimed at the protection of family and moral values, in particular, for laws and bills prohibiting the propaganda of homosexuality among children in Russia, Ukraine and other countries;
• call upon and demand to reject any regulations or legislative initiatives that imply including such characteristics as “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” into the lists of the prohibited grounds for discrimination;
• urge the governments of our countries and other countries of the world to provide active support at the international level for the Natural Family, right to life, traditional family and moral values, and to use international and national instruments as countermeasures to the imposition of immoral approaches and norms, destructive for family both in our countries and elsewhere;
• urge the governments of our countries to use international mechanisms at different levels for stopping the illegal persecution of the supporters of the Natural Family and traditional family and moral values in France and other countries;
• urge the governments of our countries to use international mechanisms at different levels for stopping the persecution of parents choosing home education (family education) for their children in Germany, Sweden and other countries;
• urge the governments of our countries to reject the so-called “juvenile technologies” (“child protection technologies”), implying extensive intervention of the representatives of the state or non-governmental structures into the family affairs and into the relations between children and their parents under the pretext of protecting children’s rights, and to base the legislation on the presumption that the parents are acting in the interests of their children in good faith and on good grounds;
• urge the governments of our countries to consistently build the national legislation and state politics at all levels on the aforesaid principles, and to reject those national and international legal regulations and approaches that contradict these principles;
• urge the governments of our countries to develop friendship and comprehensive cooperation in all the spheres, first of all, in the sphere of protection of family and moral values;
• urge the governments and civil society of our countries to protect national sovereignty and to take decisions corresponding to the will of our peoples and their genuine interests, resisting sinister influence or pressure from elsewhere;
• urge all the civil society forces of our countries and other countries of the world to unite their efforts for protecting Natural Family, rights of parents, life and morals, contributing to the strengthening of the family, the growth of respect to fatherhood, motherhood, rights of parents, their unique role and authority in bringing up their children, as well as to consistently counteract anything that is detrimental for the family, rights of parents and public morals.

We appeal to other organizations from different countries, including those of the former USSR countries, as well as from other Slavic states, calling them to join the present Memorandum and invite them to promote cooperation and common efforts to protect family, fatherhood, motherhood and morals.

Presented and adopted in Yalta (Ukraine) at the International Parents Forum 12.06.2013.

Signed by more than 50 NGOs.

Download Yalta Memorandum in English (pdf)

Read Yalta Memorandum ar Scribd

“Yogyakarta Principles” is a document published by self-proclaimed experts, lobbying the special interests of “sexual minorities” under the pretext of the human rights. The claims that some rights lister in the “Yogyakarta Principles” follow from the binding international human rights treaties is groundless.

Here’s the complete text of the address:

Address of the Participants of the International Parents Forum
to the members of OSCE Parliamentary Assembly

We, the participants of the International Parents Forum gathered in Yalta (Ukraine), representing the civil society of Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Moldova, as well as family and parents organizations of our countries, declare that the Natural Family based on the marriage of a man and a woman and aimed at childbirth and child rearing is a unique and indispensable foundation of any human society.

The participants of the Forum recall that all the countries have agreed that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”, and that a family is created through a marriage between a man and a woman (Art. 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ), and is the most favorable environment for children’s upbringing and development, comprehensive and harmonious development of their personality (Preamble to the UN Convention of the rights of the child).

On this basis, the participants of the Forum declare that the so-called “Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity”, which require that the countries recognize a wide range of special rights and prerogatives of the representatives of the so-called “sexual minorities”, are not based on the binding norms of international law. The Principles constitute an attempt of groundless and abusive fabrication of new international norms and new obligations of states, leading to the infringement of actual rights of citizens, especially of a child’s right to a family that includes a father and a mother, and the rights of the believers, as well as to the breach of the duty of the states to protect family and public morality.

Taking this into account, the Participants of the Forum call on the members of OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to reject the Draft resolution SC (13) SI 26 E (OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Draft Resolution on Recognition of the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity).

Submitted and adopted in Yalta (Ukraine) at the International Parents Forum on 12.06.2013.

Signed by more than 50 NGOs

Downloan Yalta Address in English (pdf)

Read Yalta Address at Scribd

The Russian version of the report can be found here.

Read online the Executive Summary of the Report

Download the 2 pages Executive Summary of the Report (pdf)

Download the complete text of the Report (without the Appendix, pdf)

Download the Appendix to the Report (pdf)

We’re publishing the Executive Summary of the document now.

Executive Summary

This Report examines the issues around the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure (UN document A/RES/66/138), such as:

• procedural flaws in its development;
• its undermining of domestic legislation and judicial systems;
• its erosion of the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule;
• its potential belittlement of the value of the family.

Due to the protocol granting the Committee new powers to consider complaints for UNCRC violations (including complaints by children), particular attention is given to past ultra vires (beyond its authority) acts by the Committee. The Report notes with concern that many CRC acts can be viewed as being:

• contrary to the principle of the sovereign equality of the UN member States (Article 2 of the UN Charter);
• beyond the mandate of the Committee;
• contrary to or not based on intergovernmental consensus.

In particular, its acts included:

• pressuring states to change their abortion laws irrespective of intergovernmental consensus and with no foundation in international human rights instruments;
• indirectly promoting controversial concepts with no established intergovernmental consensus behind them (legalizing same-sex sexual relationships, legal recognition of same-sex marriages and partnerships, decriminalization of prostitution);
• demanding that states should give children sexuality education regardless of and access to reproductive health services regardless of and without parental consent and knowledge, with no basis in UNCRC or other international human rights instruments whatsoever and contrary to the Cairo Programme of Action and the Beijing Platform for Action (both possessing a degree of intergovernmental recognition at UN level);
• using an ultra vires (beyond its authority) interpretation of UNCRC to unlawfully introduce a new ‘obligation’ for states parties (to outlaw any parental corporal punishment for children) not following from UNCRC itself, and then demanding compliance, up to the point of changing their national legislation;
• demanding of states (contrary to the principle of the sovereign equality of states and with no basis in UNCRC) ratification of international agreements hitherto not signed by them.

All these acts (documented in the Appendix), regardless of their ethical assessment, are shown to be ultra vires and must be recognized as violating the principle of sovereign equality and exceeding the treaty monitoring body mandate. The Committee’s ultra vires acts, though not directly legally binding, seriously affect the legal regime in states parties to UNCRC. They affect national law enforcement practice, changes to national legislation, and influence legally binding decisions by other international bodies.

Ultra vires acts by the Committee can seriously threaten the sustainability of international human rights framework, the sovereignty of states parties, cultural identity of their peoples, and the standing of the family, which is ‘the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State’ (Article 16 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), and, therefore, by the international community.

For states parties to recognize the new CRC power by signing and ratifying the Optional Protocol would, in these circumstances, seem impractical and dangerous.

The Report points out that to remedy the situation created by the ultra vires acts by the Committee, legitimately concerned states parties can employ a number of means, such as:

• refusing to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure until a relevant reform of the Committee is taken place;
• exercising their right to issue interpretative declarations on UNCRC;
• exercising their right to point out the limits of the Committee’s mandate replying to its requests for additional information related to periodic reports;
• warning the Committee of the possibility of their denunciation of UNCRC in case a relevant reform of its activities does not take place;
• actively participating in reforming UN treaty bodies to bring their activities into strict conformity with their mandates, to give it greater transparency, and to bring it under more effective states parties control.

These means can, after due assessment of the consequences of their implementation, be employed at the discretion of states to protect the rights of their sovereign peoples, the family, and their cultural, religious, and moral identity.

Download the executive summary (pdf)