Next, They’ll Be Coming For You: Denying Basic Sexual Rights at the UN

Despite this cheerful coverage from Reuters and a series of positive releases from the United Nations, all is not going well at the close of a multi-year UN committee that is drafting a treaty to “promote and protect the rights of the disabled.”

According to Reuters, the working committee that includes all 192 UN member nations has been working on a treaty since 2001, and is involved in it’s latest “and hopefully final” drafting session right now in New York.

Reuters quotes the committee chair, New Zealand Ambassador Don MacKay as saying:

"I think there is a good chance of it concluding by the end of this session," told a news conference. Most of the technical issues are largely resolved. I think we're at the crunch point of hopefully being able to conclude."

But a news release from the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, an organization that is clearly antagonistic to the sexual rights of people with disabilities, reports that there is opposition to at least two pieces of wording in the document.

And surprise, surprise, the wording is about sex.

According to the release, Nicaragua has objected to language that states that people with disabilities have a right to "sexual and reproductive health services".

The objection was followed by: United States, Honduras, Egypt, Costa Rica, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Tunisia, Qatar, Kenya, the Philippines, and Norway, with a total of 23 nations objecting.

Countries that defended the wording include the European Union, Canada, Peru, Cuba, and Brazil.

Here is how the objection is characterized in the Catholic Family release:

“The controversial nature of the phrase is that though the UN has never defined the phrase, it has been used by radical non-governmental organizations and by some UN committees to get governments to legalize abortion. "Reproductive health" has only ever been defined once as including abortion and that was in the non-binding document produced by the Cairo Conference on Population and Development. It has never been defined in a hard-law treaty which would be binding on nations that ratify.”

But it doesn’t stop there. Not only should people with disabilities continue to be denied basic sexual and reproductive rights. Several countries would like to enshrine the already widely practiced belief that people with disabilities are not sexual at all. From the news release:

“The other controversial language the negotiators have to decide by the end of next week is whether the disabled have to the right to "experience their sexuality." Though one knows what this phrase really means, it is being supported by the European Union and other liberal governments. In negotiations Thursday afternoon, 21 countries objected to this phrase.”

I’m going to bite my tongue and not make any jokes about why these delegates can’t figure out what “experience their sexuality” means. I’m going to keep biting my tongue to keep from screaming out loud.

It’s also a bit depressing that the only outlet covering this story is one that is opposed to the wording in the first place. A good example of bias in “reporting” is the releases assertion that there was “overwhelming opposition” to the wording. With 192 nations represented, and a total of 23 countries objecting, there is hardly “overwhelming” opposition.

Of course none of this will come as a surprise to anyone living with a disability, or anyone who knows anyone who lives with a disability. The sexual and reproductive rights of people living with disabilities have pretty much always been systematically denied. Western nations (like the U.S. and Canada) like to pat themselves on the back for their progressive legislation. But ask anyone who lives with a disability and they’ll tell you at least one story about how toothless laws provide no protection (and often end up doing more harm than if they were not there in the first place).

It’s very likely that what’s primarily in the minds of the dissenting delegates is access to abortions, and wanting to make sure they’re home administrations aren’t going to be “on the hook” to provide funding for services related to sexual expression. Basically they’re trying their best to produce a document that will in no way help disability rights groups to fight for their basic rights. After all, isn’t that what a treaty meant to “promote and protect the rights of the disabled” is for?

Read more – Reuters: UN disabled rights treaty said nearly finished

Read more – Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute: Sexual and Reproductive Health Roils UN Conference on the Disabled