By The Thusian Institute for Religious Liberty Inc.
The Thusian Institute for Religious Liberty registers its serious concerns about the action of the Government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines in its recent signing of the European Union and Organization of African Caribbean and Pacific State Partnership (EU-OACPS) or the Samoa Agreement.
Our ongoing study of this 400-plus page document, and other documents to which it states that the parties to the EU-OACPS commit, reveal what we describe as a treaty recolonisation effort, which also constitutes an attempt of the EU to colonise our conscience, our morality.
Despite claims of the NGO Equal Rights Access and Opportunities SVG Inc., that “the agreement does not mention the legalisation of abortion, same-sex relationships, or transgender rights”, the document clearly points to the parties’ commitment to these demoralising evils in more than one way.
Moreover, Prime Minister Gonsalves has claimed that his government did not sign on to legislative alterations “in relation to same sex marriages” and or “issues regarding transgender”. He indicated that there is “no commitment for us to change our laws in relation to these matters”. Furthermore, he called on persons to “point out” anything that is “subversive … of what we know traditionally as Christian morality”.
We will point out some important things here now, and later.
SOME CONCERNING FACTS ABOUT THIS AGREEMENT (There are more):
#1. The agreement covers a total of 106 out of 193 countries in the United Nations, representing around two billion people globally, and its general parts, annexes and the three protocols thereof (African protocol, Caribbean protocol and Pacific protocol) all “shall be legally binding” (General Provisions, Article 6-structure- 1-3).
#2 We have seen neither provisions for nations to make reservations nor provisions for declarations (seeking clarity on terms etc.) in the document, sore points highlighted by Namibia, one of 35 nations who refused to sign the agreement in its current state (ministerial statement in parliament by Deputy Prime Minister Hon. Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah- https://www.namibian.com.na/namibia-wont-sign-new-20-year-eu-deal/).
#3 Article 101(7) threatens “appropriate measures” for a nation’s failure to fulfil obligations; this phrase is unclear. It strongly suggests link to sanctions, considering that Article 86 commits to establishing the OACPS-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, for whom the EU parliament adopted resolution on the Work of the ACP-EU joint parliamentary Assembly in 2015, wherein it said, “It also called for reinforcement of the principle of non-negotiable human rights clauses and sanctions for failure to respect such clauses … with regard to discrimination based on sex … sexual orientation or gender identity“.
POINTING OUT EXAMPLES OF COMMITMENT TO LEGALISATION OF ABORTION, PROSTITUTION, AND LGBT “SEXUAL RIGHTS” AGAINST CHRISTIAN MORALITY.
Prime Minister Gonsalves praised the agreement for intending to address “inclusivesness, within the parameters of human rights, gender equality, special consideration for women and girls”. In the Caribbean protocol of the Samoa Agreement, at Article 48(7) (Gender Equality and empowerment of women and girls), it says, “The Parties shall commit to the full and effective implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the outcomes of their review conferences. They shall further stress the need for universal access to quality and affordable comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and education, taking into consideration the UNESCO international technical guidance on sexuality education, as well as the need for the delivery of sexual and reproductive health-care services. They shall pursue the effective implementation of the Montevideo Consensus on Population and Development, as appropriate.”
How many citizens would take time to read the 400-plus-page document that is the Samoa Agreement, let alone search for these other declarations, programmes and documents to which our nations commit when they signed it? A look into one of them reveals the shocking promotion of LGBT perversions, legalisation of abortion and prostitution (contrary to SVG’s Criminal Code), promotion of sexual activity among adolescents (which starts at age 10) (attacks on criminal codes against sex with children), attack on parental rights, expansion of discrimination grounds to include gender identity and sexual orientation (not countenanced in SVG’s Constitution), expansion of rights to includes “sexual rights” including to a “full sex life” which suggests same-sex marriage demands and redefinitions of “gender equality”, “woman” and even “citizenship” and more.
THE MONTEVIDEO CONSENSUS…
Under the subheading “B. Rights, needs, responsibilities and requirements of girls, boys, adolescents and youth”, Article 12 says, “Implement comprehensive … sexual health and reproductive health programmes for adolescents … to enable adolescents and young people to exercise their sexual rights and reproductive rights, to have a responsible, pleasurable and healthy sex life…”
We ask, what “sexual rights … responsible, pleasurable and healthy sex life” should a 10-year-old adolescent be learning about at school? This is teaching minors to engage in sex, against our Criminal Code. To implement the Montevideo Consensus, which the Samoa Agreement says parties commit to, would warrant CHANGE OF OUR LAWS to facilitate such learning as a part of comprehensive sexuality programmes at school. Article 14 says, “prioritise the prevention of pregnancy and eliminate unsafe abortion among adolescents through comprehensive education on … sexuality, and timely…services, including emergency oral contraception without a prescription and male and female condoms.”
WHAT? Read it again. This encourages children into sexual activity and will promote pregnancy and abortion, not prevent them. That’s what Samoa Agreement says SVG has committed to by signing it. Read a few more:
“D. 34. Promote policies that enable persons to exercise their sexual rights, which embrace the right to a … full sex life … as well as the right to take … decisions on their sexuality, sexual orientation and gender identity without discrimination”. These terms are all rife with demands for law to guarantee new so-called rights such as same sex marriage and, “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” subverts Christian morality which teaches that there are only two binary fixed, chromosomal and genetic genders — male and female (Genesis 1:27).
“36. Design policies and programs to eradicate discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the exercise of sexual rights“. Here, rights are redefined and new anti-discrimination grounds are being elevated to legally binding treaty status, rivalling our constitutional provisions.
“37. Guarantee universal access to good-quality sexual health and reproductive health services, bearing in mind the specific needs of … adolescents and young people … lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons”. Sexual health and reproductive services (SHRS is code for legalise abortion).
“42 … and urge all other states to consider amending their laws, regulations, strategies and public policies relating to the voluntary termination of pregnancy … to protect the lives and health of … adolescent girls…” “E–Gender Equality. Considering that discrimination … on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity places lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in a vulnerable position, preventing their access to equality and to the full exercise of citizenship.”
Samoa agreement binds you to commit to promote gender equality also defined as LGBT fake rights, via legal amendments on discrimination and even redefining concepts of citizenship, as if you are bowing to the lie that they “were born that way”.
“57. Enforce existing policies and adopt, on the one hand, preventative and punitive measures, and on the other means for protecting and caring for women in order to eradicate all forms of violence … and ensure effective and universal access to fundamental services for all victims and survivors of gender-based violence, with special attention to women in high-risk situations, such as … sex workers … lesbian, bisexual and transgender women“.
While we agree that everyone must be protected from violence, the Montevideo Consensus here requires that the state accepts that “women in high-risk situations” includes “transgender women” (a man who insanely thinks that he is a woman), which is a sick perversion of God-given biology (science) and Christian morality. Moreover, why must the state enforce policies to specially provide services for LGBT and prostitutes? Why not all biological females? It reeks of an attempt to force acceptance of the behaviours of buggery and prostitution, decriminalising them contrary to our criminal law.
Will the state view opposition to such behaviours as among “all forms of violence” and enforce (law) “punitive measures” against our moral conscience? These are just some of the evils to which parties to the Samoa agreement (EU-OACPS) have legally committed.
T.I.R.L. will continue this exposure. Article 48 (7) of the Samoa Agreement also legally binds its parties to implementing “universal access to quality and affordable comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and education, taking into consideration the UNESCO international technical guidance on sexuality education”.That guidance document, influenced by recommendations from the WHO standards for sexuality in Europe document, is now of binding treaty status, and when Vincentians behold their calls to teach CHILDREN to have “sexual relationships” and “romantic and sexual partners”, and that as young as “0-4 years old” must do “early childhood masturbation” (that’s a quote) and all manner of LGBT perversions, they will want to vomit. Will Gonsalves demand reservations on these? Or will need for EU funding for “survivability” against sovereignty, as his pastor friend said, overrule?
The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].