United States Backs UN NGO Status for Homosexual Activist Groups Once Associated with Pedophiles

Life Site News ^ | May 19, 2006 | John-Henry Westen

[topher]

Home | Previous Page | Source URL: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06051902.html LifeSiteNews.com Friday May 19, 2006 United States Backs UN NGO Status for Homosexual Activist Groups Once Associated with Pedophiles By John-Henry Westen NEW YORK, May 19, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a move that has pro-family groups shaking their heads, the United States has backed the application of homosexual activist groups to acquire special status at the United Nations.  A coalition of largely Asian and African countries sought to dismiss the applications for NGO status of two homosexual activist groups which they felt had not yet sufficiently distanced themselves from pedophilia, and were moreover doubtful of the contributions that the groups would make to the UN's work. At a meeting of the UN Economic and Social Council Committee on NGO's Tuesday, Iran, with the backing of eight countries, proposed the rejection of the application of 'Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany'.  In submitting her proposal, the representative of Iran, supported by the representative of the Sudan, said concerns about paedophilia had in earlier sessions lead to the rejection of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) application. It seemed that now, she contended, that NGOs affiliated with ILGA were applying.  It was not clear whether ILGA and affiliated organizations had taken sufficient measures to prevent or fight paedophilia, she stated. Immediately, Germany attempted to quash the measure by tactics rather than a simple vote on the issue.  Germany submitted a motion of 'no action'.  The tactical manoeuvre to scuttle the proposal to reject the homosexual activist group,was supported by the United States, as well as Chile, Colombia, France, Germany, Peru and Romania. However the motion to take no action was defeated by the block of nine countries. The vote on Iran's proposal ensued and again the United States voted against the measure.  In the end, the Committee rejected NGO status for the homosexual activist group  in a recorded vote of 9 in favour (Cameroon, China, Côte d'Ivoire, Iran, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan and Zimbabwe), 7 against (Chile, Colombia, France, Germany, Peru, Romania and the United States), and 2 abstentions (India and Turkey). The exact same scenario played out Wednesday with another homosexual activist group ILGA-Europe.  Again the nine countries backed the proposal with Germany unsuccessfully attempting the delay tactic with its contingent of support which included the US.  And again the measure passed with the votes the same as the day previous. The countries which lost the vote on the issue were bitter.  Germany and France especially complained of a "discriminatory trend" and an unfair process, however other countries noted that due process was followed. The Vatican representative, who has only observer status in the committee, took issue with the notion that the demands of homosexual activist organizations had anything to do with human rights.  Sexual orientation was not comparable to race or ethnic origin, he said, and homosexuality was not a positive source of human rights.  He suggested such groups were in fact not asking for equal rights, but for special rights. LifeSiteNews.com contacted the US State Department to inquire about its support of NGO status at the United Nations for homosexual activist groups.  Calls were not returned by press time. The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) obtained NGO status with the United Nations in 1993, but thereafter many countries complained of its formal association with pedophile groups including the notorious North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).  Opposition from the US was particularly intense.  In 1994, former President Bill Clinton signed into law a bill proposed by Republican Senator Jesse Helms to withhold $119 million in U.N. contributions until it could be shown that "no UN agency grants any official status, accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes, condones, or seeks the legalization of pedophilia, that is, the sexual abuse of children". ILGA scrambled to expel NAMBLA and similar groups but the UN revoked its NGO status.  ILGA still has resolutions which are inline with NAMBLA, namely those against age of consent for sexual activity laws.

(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).

NEWS TIPS to lsn@lifesitenews.com or call 1-866-787-9947 or (416) 204-1687 ext. 444

Donate to LifeSiteNews.com at http://www.lifesite.net/contribute/

[topher]

The Bush Administration needs to wake up!

[topher]

From the article:

The Vatican representative, who has only observer status in the committee, took issue with the notion that the demands of homosexual activist organizations had anything to do with human rights.

During the Clinton Administration, there was an attempt to oust the Vatican totally from the UN (Hillary and crowd).

Something Catholic voters should remember about the Clintons and their anti-Catholic non-sense.

[mikeus_maximus]

All together now, loud and clear: "THE BUSH ADMINSITRATION IS NOT CONSERVATIVE-- THE GOP LIED".

Thank-you.

[Gordongekko909]

Did Bolton take the day off or something?

[ishabibble]

SHOW ME THE PROOF.

[topher]

My thoughts exactly. With Bolton there, I don't expect this stuff to happen...

[ishabibble]

MEANT FOR MIKEUS-MAXIMUS.

[BenLurkin]

I would favor the complete and immediate "decertification" of every single one of the so-called U.N. NGOs.

[Unam Sanctam]

Mr. Bolton, please get on this case.

[iluvlucy]

They will not wake up, I fear.

This is just what I have been saying for some time, even since the Michael Jackson disaster started. Adult child sexual relations are the next target for normalization and it is to be pitied but many calling themselves conservative today will be okay with it in a decade or less. Most will call me names for suggesting it and still in 10 years or less will say it is "part of who they are" and calls for polite acceptance. They will back a GOP pol who talks about their pedophile son in 10 years yet today take umbrage at my words predicting this very thing.

Want proof? Just look at the next thread on a female school teacher having sex with a male student. (The more attractive the teacher the more proof will be in evidence)

20 years ago it would have been a firing offense for a College Professor to be found dating a student even if the student was older than the Professor. It was called an unseemly abuse of ones professional relationship back then and we are talking both people being full adults. Now it is not unusual to see sympathy for an adult (or a reasonable facsimile of one) and a 13 year old junior high student, and many only see the "Love". Love my butt, this stuff has gone too far.

[smokeyb]

SHOW ME PROOF THAT HE IS.

[navyguy]

In 25 years here's where we'll be...

* The US gov't will only be a figurehead state. All actual gov't decisions will be made by the UN.

* The USA will be nothing more than a 'satellite economic zone' of the EU.

* Our borders will be patrolled by Mexico in a bid to save money by outsourcing.

* The military will consist of 3 guys in blue helmets, all gay.

* Our police will not carry guns, but will have direct numbers to grief counselors.

God help us all.

[iluvlucy]

"SHOW ME THE PROOF."

Which year's budget would you like to see?
The Borders?
The Vice Pres. and his daughter?
Rx drug benefits?
The Kennedy Educations bill/aka no child left behind?
The pork?
Where is the challenge to the courts on abortion?
The support of Arlin Specter?

Want more???? had enough????

[darkangel82]

sick and depraved ping to both lists

[untrained skeptic]

Bush is conservative on some things, and liberal on others.

This however is not one of the topics in which he's shown himself to be liberal in the past.

The State department doesn't get cleaned out with each administration, and as we've seen there are a lot of very liberal people at State as well as at the CIA that are working toward their own agendas.

We do need to get an answer from the administration as to if this reflects the administration's policy and if not, what is being done to make sure this doesn't happen again.

It's also Bush's responsibility to get control of those working in his administration even if he simply inherited them from a previous administration. He's done an absolutely horrible job at doing that, and it's caused some serious problems.

While this doesn't seem consistent with Bush's personal views and actions, it's his administration and he's responsible for it's actions. He's been in office for over six years now.

THE BUSH ADMINSITRATION IS NOT CONSERVATIVE-- THE GOP LIED

Actually Bush has pretty much done what he said he would do during his election campaigns. He talked about a lot of big spending. His idea of fiscal conservatism is stimulating the economy through tax cuts so the government has move money to spend by taking a slightly smaller percentage of the earnings of a larger economy.

He didn't lie about such things. I think that a lot of us just didn't listen carefully enough to what he said or thought he was trying to present himself favorably to swing voters.

[mikeus_maximus]

He didn't lie about such things. I think that a lot of us just didn't listen carefully enough to what he said or thought he was trying to present himself favorably to swing votersTrue, true. But the GOP leaders labelled him a conservative. Those of us who were listening hoped he wouldn't be as liberal as he sounded, because he was the lesser of two evils.

I've played that GOP game for almost 2 decades now. No more.

[VOA]

bump

[untrained skeptic]

But the GOP leaders labeled him a conservative.

Some did, but of those "leaders" how many of THEM would you consider conservative?

Others concentrated on the issues on which he is relatively conservative.

Others simply described him as more electable than his competition in the primary.

Don't forget that his main competitor in the primary was McCain.

Those of us who were listening hoped he wouldn't be as liberal as he sounded, because he was the lesser of two evils.

Exactly.

Among the major candidates for either main party, I have a hard time believing that any of the others were really a better choice.

I'm disgusted with Bush's utter refusal to enforce our immigration laws, and his efforts to support amnesty for illegal immigrants.

I'm disgusted with him not vetoing port laden bills.

I'm unhappy with his approach to a lot of things.

What other even slight viable candidates were there that would have been a better choice overall?

I've played that GOP game for almost 2 decades now. No more.

If you've got a plan that you think will help keep us from having to make the same kind of choices in 2008 I'm interested in hearing what you've got to say, because I don't like the direction our country is headed, and I agree that the GOP doesn't seem to be making genuine efforts to take us off of the path of bigger and bigger government and economic stagnation.

[little jeremiah]

Sick feeling deep in pit of stomach.

Get the (freaking) UN out of the US, and the US out of the (freaking) UN.

It is beyond disgusting that the UN is on our soil and that our government participates in its activities.

Personally, I'm coming to the conclusion that so much is FUBAR that only divine intervention of some sort will change the direction.

[darkangel82]

I'm starting to think that way too. There's no rational explanation for this.