Youth Blog

Religious leaders “are critical agents of change,” Paulina Brandberg, Minister for Gender Equality in Sweden says. “As trusted voices rooted in communities, they can transform social norms, they can challenge harmful gender stereotypes…”  

I am attending a United Nations side event called, The Rise of ‘Family Values’ & Strategies for Rights-Based Family Law Reform for the 69th Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69). The quotations around “Family Values” reveal this is not a family-friendly event. The concept note for this event confirms the dismissal of the values many hold dear:  

“In the global context of anti-rights pushback including the rise of 'family values', the impacts on equality for women and girls within families is significant. The discussion will focus on how rights-based family law reform and movement-building are key strategies in advancing gender equality.”  

The language is revealing. Pro-life and pro-family groups are called “anti-rights,” because we support the natural rights of children. The “rights” that many at the UN support are often made-up “legal rights,” which they tend to pretend are internationally recognised.  

I have been standing at the back of a dimly lit room in Scandinavia House for a mere minute and fourteen seconds; already I am learning about infiltrating religious communities and using trusted authorities and influences to break down social norms.  

I can’t help but notice a pattern. The previous day, I attended an event called Turning Pushback into Progress, hosted by the Nordic Council of Ministers. One of the panelists, Iryna Trokhym, co-founder of the Centre “Women’s Perspectives” had said: 

“Religion is not static most of the time. I think a lot of people think of religion as, ‘Oh, it was something made over a thousand years ago and that’s that,’ but actually it [isn't]… 

“...people consider the churches a credible institution that you can turn to . . . we have partners working specifically on dialogue between religious leaders and the LGBT community to ensure that we curb hate speech; we [get LGBT-friendly health] services, that LGBT persons are included in community activities and stuff like that…” 

“So, it’s not just, I mean, we work also with those who want to pressure from the outside, but, the combination, I think is really effective and a good strategy.” 

Trokhym correctly noted that a part of the reason churches inspire community trust is because “…in a lot of cases, it’s actually the faith actors providing social services in the most marginalized communities.”  

Nevertheless, organisations like hers feel “that [they have] got to work with these faith actors to make sure they provide quality health services for all. And it’s inclusive and available.” Trokhym’s organisation even has a specific focus on SRHR, “to make sure that it’s available in marginalized parts of society.” 

SRHR stands for “Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights,” which is, among other things, code for abortion. 

Trokhym’s comments echo Joanna Lilja’s, the Strategic Adviser for ACT Church of Sweden. ACT refers to ACT Alliance, a coalition of churches in 120 countries that work towards goals including promoting “gender justice,” which includes abortion and “gender identity.” 

“We feel that it’s our responsibility to engage on these issues, and within this field of work, we work with everything from gender-based violence, transforming masculinities, SRHR, including comprehensive sexuality education, and [inclusion of] LGBTQ persons.”  

Comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) is age-inappropriate, obscene, and even pornographic. 

Lilja notes a growing rise in conservatism which is “affecting all policy spaces.” She finds it “very worrying,” because:  

“...over the last few years, we’ve seen how religion has really become an argument that is being used. Religion and tradition, and religion and culture . . . and it’s used in a way to push back on progress against gender equality and SRHR.” 

I muse on this clear theme from the Nordic countries as I take notes on my phone at this “Family Values” event. 

Brandberg continues, “...Therefore, strategic [cooperation with] faith actors can accelerate actions for gender justice…”  

“I’m so sorry, but we checked the guest list—” someone interrupts.  

I turn to my right to find the source of the voice. It is the lady who had allowed me to enter this event. I had arrived slightly late, and did not appear to have registered, so she had promptly taken my information and sent me upstairs. It seems she had changed her mind: 

“...we don’t think that there is enough room…For safety concerns, we don’t want anyone standing…”  

I call her bluff. 

“Look,” I point at two empty seats directly in front of me: “There are some seats there; they’ve got backpacks on them. I’ll just ask the people to move the backpacks.” 

With our heads drawn together to hear each other’s whispers, I am close enough to see her eyes widen and panic flitter across her dark irises.  

“...just because this is a closed event, and you are not registered. I’m so sorry; it’s my fault…” 

“But there are free seats available.” I point this time to the ones in the front row, and not just directly in front of me. “There are four free seats I can sit at.” 

“Yes, but this is a closed event, and you were not on the list…” 

Sighing internally, I acquiesce to the obvious relief of the woman who now escorts me downstairs. 

I am the first person barred that day from attending an event at Scandinavia House.  

I would not be the last.  

The next event being hosted at Scandinavia House is Religion, Rights and Resistance: How to Reclaim Gender Equality in Times of Backlash. Three CLC delegates registered but received emails that there was no space.  

“If you’d read the email…” the man at the door condescendingly intones.  

“I did.” A CLC delegate replies. “I want to be placed on your standby list, in case some people don’t show up.” 

Looking around, the CLC delegate recognizes other faces from like-minded organizations standing amongst the crowd, seeking to be allowed in. 

The line of hopefuls at the door thins; one by one, people on stand-by are let in by officials who whisper back and forth: 

“Which organization are they from?” 

“Oh, they’re from…” 

A nod. A motion. A confirmation. The chosen delegates enter the event room.  

When a CLC delegate questions the selection process, someone slips up and admits they are picking only organizations they agree with.  

Soon, an announcement goes out: There is no more space.  

But a pro-life and family delegate did make it through the cracks: A woman with Femina Europa and her baby. She settles into a chair as she breastfeeds. On her stroller, a bag hangs saying: “For Life & Family @iyouthcoalition.” Unfortunately, this slogan gets her noticed.  

“You’re not one of us.”  

For this crime, the lady is kicked out of the event, much as I had been earlier, perhaps even with more aggression. 

She confirms for us that, once again, there had been empty seats we could have taken.  

We are, sadly, unsurprised.  

We are also unwilling to concede. 

The next day, Scandinavia House hosts the event: Transforming Taboos: How to Change a Social Norm. Two of the CLC delegates return and place their names on the stand-by list. It is an early morning event; people are not coming.  

As the number of delegates on stand-by dwindles, security at the door looks increasingly anxious. It seems they are unable to find a credible excuse. Our delegates are allowed in but warned that filming is banned.  

“Progressivism is a spiritual movement,” one of the panelists says. I suspect she is correct:  

“We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Eph. 6:12  

Their disdain for religion and their desire to upend it makes sinister sense. 

One of our delegates described the Transforming Taboos: How to Change a Social Norm event as “all about how to use the church to infiltrate politics.” If the event could be summarized in a sentence from the notes of our delegates, it would be this: “Leveraging faith-based leaders' moral authority and getting them to reinterpret religious teaching…”  

Yet perhaps the most disturbing element of these events is how they are all top-down. These events we fought to enter are not parallel events organized by activist groups. These are events hosted by member states themselves. The countries listed for the aforementioned events are Canada, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Mexico, Norway, Sweden, and Zambia.  

I can only conclude that these governments, (including our Canadian one), fully support infiltrating our religious institutions to co-opt them and manipulate us. They are not transparent. They are not interested in honest dialogue. They do not care what we think. 

They kick their own citizens out of the events they host.