The UN promoting LGBTQIA+ – Violating its own mandate

 

We are now observing a “scaling back” of corporate LGBTQIA+ promotion due to boycotts & loss of revenue. A project backed by corporate funding has now backfired. The same project was pursued within the halls of the UN. On what grounds has the UN gone against its own mandate to promote LGBTQIA+ abandoning its former & original commitments to the family, parenting, the child, the biological man & woman? Why this sudden push for “gender ideology” which critics claim is overstepping UN mandate, interfering with domestic jurisdiction of sovereign member states & most importantly conflicting with the traditional family structures & religious values passed down over generations. It is violating the spirit of UN’s own Charter & foundational instruments. If corporates reviewed & reversed its stand. It’s time the UN return to its mandate too.

 

UN Charter & Foundational Instruments vs liberal Human Rights Interpretations

 

Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, states: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State…”

 

When less than 30 nations have legalized LGBTQIA why does the UN wish to impose LGBTQIA on nations that value religious, cultural & traditional beliefs who strongly believe that the definition of marriage, family, gender identity & sexual morality must remain a domestic issue.

Have member states agreed to the broad interpretation of human rights to include sexual orientation or gender identity rights?

Is this not unmandated expansion of international law?

Do these SOGI rights which are construed to be Western social norms “imposed” on sovereign states & interfering in the national sovereignty of member states?

As a result, does this not contradict the foundational clauses in the UN human rights treat obligations?

 

Specific Clauses Upholding Traditional Family, Morals, Ethics, and Biological Sex:

 

The foundational UN human rights instruments aligned with sentiments of sovereign states as can be seen in the following clauses.

 

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948):

• Article 16 (1):“Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.”
• Article 16 (3):“The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

 

• Commentary on Violation of Mandate:Article 16 is clear that marriage is between “men and women,” However, the UN’s current advocacy for legal recognition of same-sex marriage or alternative family structures directly reinterprets or overrides this foundational text without any universally agreed-upon instrument.

 

Is this, not a violation of the original mandate and the principle of state consent to international norms.

 

2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966):

 

• Article 23 (1):“The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”
• Article 23 (2):“The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.”

 

• Commentary on Violation of Mandate:Why has the UN changed what “Family” and “Marriage” mean? Who gave UN the right to this overreach?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) confirm that the family is natural and fundamental, and that men and women have the right to marry.

How can Human Rights Committee stretch this to include same-sex relationships and other family types.

They are not interpreting the law – they are changing the law without countries agreeing or without even seeking consensus.

Why is the UN ignoring its own rules and overstepping what sovereign nations agreed to.

 

3. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966):

 

• Article 10 (1):”The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that: The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children. Marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses.”
• Commentary on Violation of Mandate:This Covenant also emphasizes the “natural and fundamental” nature of the family, and its role in the “care and education of dependent children.”

By promoting diverse family models that may not align with this traditional, procreative understanding (e.g., through advocating for same-sex adoption in nations where it’s culturally or legally prohibited), UN bodies are pushing beyond the original scope of the covenant, undermining national family laws and moral frameworks. Who gave the UN bodies this mandate?

 

4. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989):

 

• Preamble:“Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community.”
• Article 5:“States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents… to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of his or her rights.”
• Article 18 (1):“States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents… have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child.”
• Commentary on Violation of Mandate: CRC’s strongly emphasized on the “family” as the “natural environment” for children and the “primary responsibility” of “parents” (implicitly, father and mother, as traditionally understood).
• How can UN entities like UNICEF or the Committee on the Rights of the Child promote gender identity concepts in schools or endorse non-traditional family structures that are viewed as conflicting with parental authority or traditional moral education? This violates the CRC’s mandate to respect parental rights and the traditional family’s role.
• UN is implicitly promoting “gender ideology” that undermines biological sex distinctions.

 

5. Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (BPFA, 1995) & International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Programme of Action (Cairo, 1994):

 

• Though LGBTQIA+ lobbies cite this, the original texts reveal thus,
  • BPFA, Preamble, Para 29:“The Platform for Action is based on the recognition that the human rights of women and the girl child are an inalienable, integral and indivisible part of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.” (This is often read in conjunction with the UDHR’s traditional family definitions).
  • ICPD, Chapter V, Paragraph 5.1:“The family is the basic unit of society and as such should be strengthened. It is entitled to receive comprehensive protection and support.” (Some states, like Argentina, included reservations emphasizing the family’s origin in the “union between man and woman” when adopting the ICPD PoA).

 

• Commentary on Violation of Mandate:

As you can see nowhere does it speak about “gender” that allows gender fluidity or non-binary identities, nor endorses same-sex marriage or relationships.

Who gave a mandate to UN Women or UNFPA to promote “gender-equality” to include SOGI rights or even challenge biological sex?

These new “re-interpretations” are not only violating original member state consensus but violating the original negotiated & finalized mandate.

 

The “New Push” for LGBTQIA+ Rights and allegations of Mandate Violation:

 

What we can now observe critically is that all of the UN human rights mechanisms (Treaty Bodies, Special Rapporteurs, High Commissioner’s Office etc) are re-interpreting the foundational texts to include SOGI – who gave them this mandate??

 

• Judicial Overreach / Treaty Reinterpretation:Suddenly UN human rights committees and experts are engaged creating new human rights law (or expanding existing ones) without a formal intergovernmental process (like negotiating a new treaty or a universally agreed General Assembly resolution). This bypasses the sovereignty of member states to define their own legal and moral frameworks. This is violating the “accountability” “transparency” that these agencies promote globally to member states.

 

Example:  Human Rights Committee NOW claims laws criminalization consensual same-sex relations violates the right to privacy (ICCPR Art. 17) and the right to non-discrimination (ICCPR Art. 26). This interpretation is new – it was not what the treaty originally meant. When countries ratified (joined) the ICCPR, they had laws criminalizing same-sex relations. If these laws were allowed at the time, the treaty did not ban them. The current re-interpretation was not what was meant or accepted when the Treaty was written & nations ratified it.

 

How can UN Human Rights Committee “re-interpret” the ICCPR in favor of LGBTQIA+ rights now without the mandate of the member states?

 

This raises the question – can Treaty Law be retrospective?

 

As per Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) – Article 28 clearly states:

“Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the treaty’s entry into force with respect to that party.”

What does this mean?

• A country is only bound by a Treaty from the moment it enters into force for that country.

 

What does this imply fr ICCPR & LGBTQIA+ law & Sri Lanka

• Countries ratified ICCPR in the 1970s, 1980s when they still had laws that criminalized same-sex relations.
• The ICCPR did not prohibit such national laws at the time individual nations ratified the ICCPR
• Sri Lanka ratified the ICCPR in 1980 – it retained Penal Code Sections 365/365A which criminalize same-sex acts. Thus, Sri Lanka did not interpret ICCPR as prohibiting 365/365A
• Thus, the current UN Human Rights Committee re-interpretation (that these laws violate privacy & non-discrimination rights under ICCPR) is legally incorrect.

 

• Imposition of “Gender Ideology” / Undermining Biological Sex:
  • Why is there consistent use of terms “gender identity” “gender expression” by UN agencies of late? (e.g., OHCHR, UN Women, UNICEF, UNESCO)
  • Why are they suddenly actively promoting a new concept of “gender” detaching from biological sex?
  • Majority of nations in the UN continue to view concepts of “man” “woman” as biological & absolute.
  • Member states are concerned about unmandated UN push for “legal gender recognition” affirming non-binary identities in schools which are undermining biological reality & indirectly imposing & contradicting traditional human anthropology & morality.

 

• Example:UNESCO is issuing guidelines for “gender-inclusive” education. As a result UNESCO is asking schools to teach about gender identity being separate from biological sex. Is this not a violation of parental rights under CRC Article 5 & 18. How can UNESCO attempt to use its clout to instill values that contradict local cultures & traditional definitions for males & females?

 

• Erosion of Moral and Ethical Pluralism:

While the original UN Charter acknowledged the diversity of cultures, religions & moral systems of Member States, the current SOGI advocacy is reversing this original stand under the banner of “human rights”. These demands under the framework of western liberal secular ideology is undermining the moral & ethical autonomy of sovereign nations & their right to uphold their own traditional values & religious doctrines.

How can unmandated UN bodies force religious institutions & family traditions to change their concept of human sexuality, the family & religious beliefs?

 

The “Damage to Sovereign Nations” :

 

UN overreach via:

• Direct Legislative Pressure:

Member States are facing constant pressure from UN human rights mechanisms, the UPR, and other Western member states to amend their national laws regarding marriage, sexual offenses, and gender recognition.

 

• Cultural and Social Disruption:UN-backed campaigns and educational materials are undermining traditional family structures, religious authority, and gender norms, leading to internal social friction and accusations of foreign cultural imposition.

 

• Undermining Multilateralism:Already member states are questioning mandate of UN & its associate bodies. This erosion of trust is likely to make cooperation on global issues difficult as a result of national pressure.

 

• Resource Diversion/Conditionalities:The pressure is such that even development aid or UN programmatic funding are condition to adopting LGBTQIA+-friendly policies, thereby coercing sovereign nations into adopting policies against their cultural or political will. This violates the UN’s own Charter.

 

UN must return to its original mandate – UN cannot rewrite without Member consensus.

UN was founded to uphold peace, cooperation & mutual respect among sovereign nations.

UN was not founded to be a global legislature rewriting moral, cultural, legal norms for nations without their consent.

“Gender ideology” is unmandated & cannot be enforced on the guise of “human rights”. By doing so, the UN & associates are violating the principles on which the UN was created to protect – sovereignty, cultural diversity, primacy of family, foundational value of biological reality.

Less than 20% of the world’s nations have legalized same-sex marriage – LGBTQIA has no universal mandate.

Bureaucratic reinterpretations cannot erase longstanding religious & moral frameworks of nations.

Bureaucratic reinterpretations of Treaties without member consent cannot promote divisive curricula in schools & psychological conditioning of children’s minds without parental consent.

Global corporations that fooled the LGBTQIA+ community for corporate gain have abandoned the cause as a result of losses & public boycotts. UN too must return to its original texts & retract this unmandated LGBTQIA+ promotion overreach.

UN cannot undermine parents, redefine family, coerce sovereign governments under the threat of social, legal or financial punishment.

A UN that is divorced from its own mandate will not remain a legitimate voice for the people who showed corporates their power too.

UN cannot erase morals, traditions, religious beliefs, customs, traditional laws by introducing new laws & behaviors that clearly undermines biological man, woman, family unit, society, moral systems & redefines humanity itself.

 

 

 

 

Shenali D Waduge