Holy See addresses UN Human Rights Council on Gender
Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi, the Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United
Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva addressed the 19th
Session of the Human Rights Council on Friday regarding "Item 3" in the General Debate
and Panel Discussion on “Discriminatory Laws and Practices and Acts of Violence against
Individuals based on their Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.” The text
of his speech and a comment given to Vatican Radio by Archbishop Tomasi follow below:
Mr. Chairman,
1. The Holy See Delegation has noted with careful
attention the Report on “Discriminatory Laws and Practices and Acts of Violence against
Individuals based on their Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity”. The Holy See has
condemned repeatedly violence against people because of their perceived sexual differences.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in fact, states: “Every sign of unjust discrimination
in regard [of homosexual persons] should be avoided.” The teaching of the Catholic
Church on this issue was authoritatively set forth in a 1986 letter to all
the Catholic bishops throughout the world, as follows: “It is deplorable that homosexual
persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such
treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals
a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of
a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in
word, in action, and in law.”
2. Sections III and IV of the Report cite numerous
and lamentable examples of ways in which the dignity and human rights of persons have
been transgressed because of their perceived sexual differences. These represent tragic
incidents of how some human beings are treated by other members of the human family
in a most inhumane manner. Most regrettably, examples of such unacceptable treatment,
on the basis of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, can be listed
in similar fashion. All such behavior, whether fomented between individuals, by social
and cultural groups, or by the State itself, should be proscribed and sanctioned since
it is not in conformity with the principle of universality enshrined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, which states that “all human beings are born free and
equal in dignity and rights.”
3. In this specific regard, the Report refers
to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action that states: “While the significance
of national and regional peculiarities and various historical, cultural, and religious
backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political,
economic, and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental
freedoms.” Mr. Chairman, it is the firm view of the Holy See that the grave problems
of discrimination and violence toward the population upon which the Report focuses,
or toward any other victimized groups or individuals, must be pursued on the basis
of the principle of subsidiarity. Thus these problems should receive attention and
effective action at the level of national and local governments, civil society, religious
and cultural leaders. Such situations cannot be resolved by defining new categories,
laws or policies that posit rights and privileges to special groups in society.
4.
In Section II of her Report, entitled “Applicable international standards and obligations”,
the Report advances compelling arguments, based in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, to affirm the need for protection of the “right to life, liberty and security
of persons…” It further argues, on the basis of the Human Rights Committee general
comment No. 6, that “The State has an obligation to exercise due diligence to prevent,
punish and redress deprivations of life, and to investigate and prosecute all acts
of targeted violence.” My Delegation, however, finds both confusing and misleading
the High Commissioner’s decision to further develop her argumentation with an exclusive
focus on those persons subjected to discrimination and violence on the basis of their
perceived sexual differences. The rights cited by the High Commissioner are rights
that should and must be universally respected and enjoyed; thus efforts to particularize
or to develop special rights for special groups of people could easily put at risk
the universality of these rights.
5. Moreover, the Holy See Delegation wishes
to raise serious concern with the insertion of terms such as “sexual orientation”
and “gender identity” which do not enjoy mention in binding documents of the United
Nations and which are ambiguous in nature since they lack specific definition in international
Human Rights instruments. In fact, my Delegation believes that the use of the term
“gender identity” was settled, in 1998, during the discussion leading up to the promulgation
of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, which states, “For purposes of
this Statute, it is understood that the term ‘gender’ refers to the two sexes, male
and female, within the context of society. The term ‘gender’ does not indicate any
meaning different from the above.” Thus the Holy See notes that the categories ‘sexual
orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ “find no recognition or clear and agreed definition
in international law.” Any requirement for States to take such terms into account
in their efforts to promote and implement fundamental human rights could result in
serious uncertainty in the application of law and undermine the ability of States
to enter into and enforce new and existing human rights conventions and standards.
6.
In paragraph #68 of her Report, the High Commissioner rightly asserts that “the Human
Rights Committee has held that States are not required, under international law, to
allow same-sex couples to marry.” She immediately proposes, however, that Sates have
an obligation to “ensure that unmarried same-sex couples are treated in the same way
and entitled to the same benefits as unmarried opposite –sex couples.” In this regard,
the Holy See expresses grave concern that, under the guise of “protecting” people
from discrimination and violence on the basis of perceived sexual differences, this
Council may be running the risk of demeaning the sacred and time-honoured legal institution
of marriage between man and woman, between husband and wife, which enjoyed special
protection from time immemorial within legal, cultural, and religious traditions and
within the modern human rights instruments, starting with the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, and extending to numerous other covenants, treaties, and laws. Marriage
contributes to society because it models the way in which women and men live interpedently
and commit, for the whole of life, to seek the good of each other. The marital union
also provides the best conditions for raising children; namely, the stable, loving
relationship of a mother and a father; it is the foundation of the natural family,
the basic cell of society. States confer legal recognition on the marital relationship
between husband and wife because it makes a unique and essential contribution to the
public good. If marriage were to be re-defined in a way that makes other relationships
equivalent to it, as has occurred in some countries and as the High Commissioner seems
to be encouraging in her Report, the institution of marriage, and consequently the
natural family itself, will be both devalued and weakened.
7. In conclusion,
Mr. Chairman, the Holy See Delegation condemns discrimination and violence against
any human person, including those who are so targeted because of perceived sexual
differences. We urge this Council, however, to preserve and maintain the universality
of human rights and to fulfill its mandate to promote and monitor respect for the
dignity of each and every human person. We raise serious concern with attempts to
define new categories, introduce new terms, or posit new rights, for special groups
of people, within human rights law and instruments that already enjoy universal consensus.
Such attempts pose a threat both to the universality of human rights, to national
sovereignty, and to the social, cultural, and religious institutions that are working
to promote and attain the common good of all members of the human family. endsxxx
Listen
to Archbishop Tomasi’s comments on the discussion given to Vatican Radio :