CLC Blog

Two things happened this month in relative proximity to one another: The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child opened its seventy-ninth session on September 17th and a coalition of pro-abortion groups presented a joint statement advocating for the protection of Women’s Rights defenders as Human rights defenders to the Human Rights Council in Geneva on September 24th.

The statement lays bare, with all due clarity, that women’s rights defenders includes abortion advocates and abortionists. Truthfully, it’s a smart play because if women’s rights defenders (who blatantly support abortion) can gain recognition as Human Rights defenders it can then be implied that the causes they support are also worthy of such a status - getting them one step closer to enshrining the ability to kill children in-utero in the same kinds of texts that abolished slavery, fought for an end to child labour and ensured freedom of expression for all of the world’s religions. Well played friends, well played.

So often, women’s rights defenders and other pro-abortion groups talk about abortion as if it were already a codified humane right. However, an article for the Journal of Clinical Research and Bioethics states that despite the legalization of abortion in most countries around the globe - “to this day - a “Right to Abortion” (RA) has not been enshrined in any binding international document, be it a universal convention, declaration, agreement or treaty.” Therefore, from a legal perspective, any references to abortion as a human right remain, at best, an ignorant statement and, at worst, a form of political deviance. Mr. Justin Trudeau is an excellent example of the latter. He is constantly referring to abortion as a Charter Right, which is a blatant falsity. Even his own dad, refuted that claim when the Charter first came out. Therefore, despite the Liberal’s wildest dreams, abortion continues to be excluded from the major lists of human rights at both the international and Canadian national level. But you know what isn’t? This guy:

Article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989 entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with article 49)

1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.

2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

That’s a direct quote from an official UN document. But for those of you that are used to seeing the international governing bodies and their pro-abortion colleagues bend language to their will, it has probably already occurred to you that the application of this to the preborn child can be stagnated by anyone willing to argue, against sound science, that a person isn’t a person until they are out of the uterus. However, there is hope:

“Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth,” [emphasis added]

That, my friends, is an official statement from the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Not only is it there, but it also happens to be the third statement from the top. It’s not hidden. How the world continues to bypass this particular little nugget, which has been in circulation since 1959, floors me. These founding documents were intended to act as safe guards for the people; they are the check and balance of global powers and they are rendered meaningless if they aren’t taken seriously. 

While speaking of the rule of law in Canada, specifically as it pertains to the Summer Jobs Attestation controversy, David Haskell, associate professor of religion and culture at Wilfrid Laurier University wrote in his opinion piece for CBC, that “the Liberals are letting a particular worldview, and not the law, influence their actions. The danger here is that if a government can pretend a law into existence, it can pretend others out of existence.” I would argue that a similar principle applies to the international governing bodies’ treatment of what have been globally recognized as human rights. If, guided by some ulterior ideology, the governing bodies begin to act according to values that have not been enshrined as official, natural rights (such as in the widespread devotion to the liberalization of abortion) who’s to say that they can’t then assume specific rights out of existence? They have presumed to exclude the legal rights of a preborn child, what’s to stop them from excluding religious freedom, freedom of conscience or freedom of expression?

Oh nevermind… If Canada, under the current administration, is any kind of example then we already know the answer to that question: nothing.