Ireland votes against UN resolution in support of natural family

Discussion in 'Ireland' started by Sanctus, Jul 12, 2015.

  1. Sanctus

    Sanctus Guest

    Ireland votes against UN resolution in support of the natural family
    [​IMG]

    Ireland was one of fourteen countries that voted against a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution called on countries to protect
    the family as the “natural and fundamental group unity of society”.

    Citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a sitting of the Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva voted 29 to 14, with four abstentions, in favour of the 'Protection of the Family' resolution, requiring countries to offer increased protections for the family unit.

    Calling on nations to recognise “increasing vulnerabilities” facing the modern family, the HRC suggested that protections offered could include specific laws and family-friendly policies, noting that while the state had responsibility for protecting human rights, due consideration should be given to the family as “the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children [and having] the primary responsibility for the nurturing and protection of children”.

    The resolution was immediately criticised by various lobby groups for its failure to offer a diverse interpretation of the family unit, reflective of moves in various countries to redefine the family and marriage and downgrade the importance of the natural family consisting of mother, father and child.

    America and Britain were among the other countries that voted against the resolution.

    However, its passage was hailed by pro-family groups. Family Watch International described the move as an “unprecedented tremendous victory for the family”.

    “It is the first time ever in the history of the United Nations that a comprehensive resolution has been passed calling for the protection of the family as a fundamental unit of society, recognising the prior right of parents to educate their children, and calling on all nations to create family-sensitive policies and recognize their binding obligations under treaty to protect the family,” a spokesperson for the group said.

    The US-based Centre for Family and Human Rights echoed these sentiments and hailed the UN's resolution as “a tremendous victory for the pro-family world”.

    Like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Irish Constitution sees the family as the “natural and fundamental unit group of society” but following the passage of the recent referendum redefining marriage and the family now regards the marriage of two people of the same sex as being as natural and fundamental to society as the marriage of a man and a woman
    ."
    http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3993
     
  2. Indy

    Indy Praying

    Does this mean the gay marriage referendum we just had in Ireland will not come to pass?
     
    DeGaulle likes this.
  3. I'm a little confused. This seems to have happened already last year even though it is published now as news but without any dates. Did anything happen recently on this respect? I can't find any information.

    News, UN Human Rights Council passes pro-family resolution
    Geneva, 26 June 2014: The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council today passed a resolution for the "Protection of the Family" (link), despite opposition from the United States, the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The resolution was passed by 26 votes in favour, with 14 votes against the resolution and six abstentions. Supporters of the resolution included the Russian Federation, India and Indonesia.

    Earlier the Council rejected an amendment, designed to undermine the resolution, which promoted the false concept of "various forms of the family", as opposed to the natural family based upon marriage between a man and a woman.

    Patrick Buckley, representing the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) www.spuc.org.uk at Geneva, described the vote as "truly historic". He said: "Rarely has a resolution been so vigorously resisted by anti-life and anti-family forces."

    The resolution:

    • calls for "concerted actions to strengthen family-centred policies and programmes as part of an integrated comprehensve approach to human rights and development"
    • recognises that "the family has the primary responsibility for the nurturing and protection of children"
    • says that the family is "the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children"
    • describes the family "the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State"
    SPUC's communications department can be contacted on:

    • email news@spuc.org.uk
    • mobile 07939 177683
    • direct dial landline 020 7820 3129
    • Twitter @spucprolife
    Notes for editors:

    Roll-call of votes on the resolution:

    Yes (26):

    • Algeria
    • Benin
    • Botswana
    • Burkina Faso
    • China
    • Congo
    • Cote d'Ivoire
    • Ethiopia
    • Gabon
    • India
    • Indonesia
    • Kazakhstan
    • Kenya
    • Kuwait
    • Maldives
    • Morocco
    • Namibia
    • Pakistan
    • Philippines
    • Russian Federation
    • Saudi Arabia
    • Sierra Leone
    • South Africa
    • United Arab Emirates
    • Venezuela
    • Vietnam
    No (14):

    • Austria
    • Chile
    • Czech Republic
    • Estonia
    • France
    • Germany
    • Ireland
    • Italy
    • Japan
    • Montenegro
    • Republic of Korea
    • Romania
    • United Kingdom
    • United States of America
    Abstained (6):

    • Argentina
    • Brazil
    • Costa Rica
    • Mexico
    • Peru
    • The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
     
  4. Bernadette

    Bernadette Archangels

    Thank you for that information WCWTS! I guess from browsing through the list that the Yes votes will be the countries that the majority of souls will convert when it comes time for the warning and the No votes will be the countries that the majority fall away and remain obstinate. Not sure about the abstain, they're probably the lukewarm countries that could go either way.

    God Bless!
     
  5. From what I read somewhere, "abstain" might be the countries whose arms the US manage to twist hard enough to vote for abstention.
     

Share This Page