Yogyakarta Principles
Foreign-funded pro-sodomy NGOs in Sri Lanka are among many to invoke the so-called ‘Yogakarta Principles’ in support of their pro-gay cause.
So what are these ‘Yogakarta Principles’ that seem to be doing all the heavy lifting in the pro-sodomy campaign in the developing world? Do they have any legal force or any standing in international law?
Do the ‘Yogakarta Principles’ have any legal force?
The answer to the last question is ‘No, none at all’. The Yogakarta Principles only read like a UN Treaty because that is how they were deliberately drafted before being published (pretentiously claimed to be ‘adopted’) in 2006.
They are headed: ‘Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.’ The ‘Preamble’ begins ‘We, The International Panel of Experts in International Human Rights Law and on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity,’
Note the vanity of that description. Not: ‘An international bunch of activists’, but ‘The International Panel of Experts …’. (One recalls professional singers Luciano Pavarotti, Plácido Domingo and José Carreras in the late 1990s calling themselves ‘The Three Tenors’ as if there weren’t any other tenor male
voices in the world.)
Deliberate UN language
The ‘Preamble’ continues with a string of paragraphs deliberately written in ‘UN-speak’ ‘RECALLING that…’, ‘DISTURBED that …’, ‘AWARE that …’,‘UNDERSTANDING …’, ‘OBSERVING that …’, ‘NOTING that…’,‘RECOGNISING that …’, ‘ACKNOWLEDGING that …’ before launching into the ‘Principles,’ each including: ‘States Shall’, as if were a real UN treaty document.
So it was that the ‘Yogyakarta Principles’ were promulgated by a self-appointed bunch of gay and trans activists. Journalist Geoff Holloway writes on mercatornet.com: ‘The site of the first meeting in November 2006, Yogyakarta in Indonesia, was chosen because it was “south of the equator, in a Muslim majority country and in a jurisdiction ruled by a Sultan”.
There must have been significant funding for the project from antichrist foundations such as Ford Foundation, Open Society, HIVOS, Sigrid Rausing, etc, but is has proven difficult to track it down. However, the ‘Principles’ have been enthusiastically endorsed by pro-trans German NGO Heinrich Böll Stiftung, so that may give a clue as the kind of funding sources the activists went to.
Delegates carefully selected
The co-chairs of the meeting were from Thailand and Brazil and representation was carefully selected from outside the West and Latin America, including individuals from Botswana, China, India, Indonesia,
Kenya, Nepal, Pakistan, South Africa, Thailand and Turkey. The participants came from only 25 countries.’
For example, the Kenya representative was Maina Kiai, who turned out to the ‘Chairperson’ of the ‘Kenya National Commission on Human Rights’, which was and remains no more than a Western-funded pro-gay pressure group and foreign agent in Kenya.
The activists claimed to address ‘lesbian, gay and bisexual rights’. In 2017, more principles to accommodate transgenders were added. Principle 3 now argues for a right to have ‘self-defined’ gender identity replace sex on all identity documents, including birth certificates, and in all situations. The ‘Yogyakarta Principles’ thus introduced the concept of ‘gender identity’ for the first time.
Academic now ‘listening to women;
Two years ago, in ‘The Critic’, Julie Bindel and Melanie Newman wrote: ‘The (Yogakarta) Principles were drafted and signed by a group of lawyers, human rights experts and trans rights activists, including Robert Wintemute, professor of human rights law at King’s College London.
‘Since then Wintemute has had second thoughts. He says women’s rights were not considered during the meeting and that he should have challenged some aspects of the Principles. Admitting he “failed to consider” that trans women still in possession of their male genitals would seek to access female-only spaces, Wintemute, who is gay, says: “A key factor in my change of opinion has been listening to women”.’ Astonishingly, ‘The female co-chair of the meeting, Brazilian sexual rights activist Sonia Correa, wants references to inequality of the sexes eliminated from human rights discourse and holds up the Yogyakarta Principles as an example to follow because they do not mention the word “woman”.
‘Correa has said she refuses to use the term “women’s rights” because she believes feminism should not be related to female bodies and that sex is a nineteenth-century Western social construct. In her opinion, the view that biological difference between the sexes are materially important is “fundamentalist”.’
’Outrageous’ extension
What happened in 2017, say Mss Bindel and Newman, was that ‘some of the Yogyakarta signatories reassembled, and, together with additional experts signed ten additional Principles. These went much further than the original ‘Principles’.
For example, ‘Principle 31’ asserts that all countries must “end the registration of the sex and gender of the person in identity documents such as birth certificates”. If registration of sex or gender continues, it must be done on the basis that there are no restrictions on self- identification, such as “a psycho-
medical diagnosis, minimum . . . age . . . marital . . . status, or any other third party opinion”.’
Apparently, Professor Wintemute was not invited. Today, we read, ‘He says of Principle 31: “It’s outrageous! There is no country in the world that has ended the registration of sex on birth certificates.” The original Principles “were based on the law as it existed somewhere in the world, even if only in one country”, he explains.’
UK was first ‘trans example’
That ‘one country’ which had already allowed its people to falsify their birth certificates was, as it happens, the United Kingdom. In 2004, with the passing of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), the UK had already become the first country in the world to legally recognise ‘trans people’ as the opposite sex to what they really were without medical treatment.
We are certainly not arguing for ‘medical treatment’, simply showing how UK law gave the Yogakarta crew a lift by allowing people to ‘self-identify’ their gender identity, albeit with a doctor’s note affirming ‘gender dysphoria’.
Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
’Plus 10’ are pure fantasy
The ‘Plus 10’ are thus pure fantasy, a wish-list of what a self-selected group of the world’s most extreme pro-trans activists would like to see. However, for a document with no legal force, the ‘Yogyakarta Principles Plus 10’ have had extraordinary influence.
The governments of Argentina, Ireland, Denmark, Malta, and some Canadian provinces, have introduced ’gender identity’ recognition on the basis of self-identification as demanded by Principle 31 iii, which says: ‘States shall … Ensure that no eligibility criteria, such as medical or psychological interventions, … shall be a prerequisite to change one’s name, legal sex or gender.’Amnesty International now relies on ‘Plus 10’ as it ‘campaigns around the world for pre-operative males who identify as women to be housed in female-only accommodation.’
Amnesty approved Scottish fiasco
Amnesty even called on Hong Kong to detain prisoners in facilities ‘consistent with their gender identity’. Laughably, in the cold light of how rapist Adam Graham, aka ‘Isla Bryson’, was put in a women’s jail and sent Nicola Sturgeon’s world into freefall, Amnesty referred approvingly to the Scottish Prison Service’s policy.
Amnesty said:‘A male-to-female person in custody living permanently as a woman without genital surgery should be allocated to a female establishment. She (sic) should not be automatically regarded as posing a high sexual offence risk to other people in custody and should not be subject to any automatic restrictions of her (sic) association with other people in custody.’
The UN body UNAIDS cites these ‘Yogyakarta Principles’ and their ‘Plus 10’, the Asia Pacific Forum of GANHRI has commemorated them, trans activists love them and they all act as if they are law. But despite the pompous self-important language deliberately written in ‘UN-ese’, they aren’t.
Right to Truth!
The ‘Plus 10’ document, all 27 pages of it, would be funny if its implications for truth and decency weren’t so serious. It even has a ‘Principle 37: the Right to Truth’. This says: ‘Every victim of a human rights violation on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics has
the right to know the truth about the facts, circumstances and reasons why the violation occurred.’
Its front page says: ‘Additional Principles and State Obligations On the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics to
Complement the Yogyakarta Principles, As Adopted on 10 November 2017, Geneva.’
Yogyakarta never adopted by UN
The ‘Plus 10’ put together by the activists were ‘adopted’ by no-one except themselves. The original ‘Yogyakarta Principles’, let alone the ‘Plus 10’, have never been recognised by UN States in a treaty. They are published on the UNAIDS website although they have been rejected by the UN General Assembly. They are not a legally binding part of international human rights law in any shape or fashion.
Despite that, activists assert the ‘Principles’ are intended to serve as ‘an interpretive aid’ to actual human rights treaties. But that is just playing with language. They aid no-one except the godless people who put them together and the evil people making money out of the ‘pink pound’ and ‘trans’ drugs and mutilation.
Christians, especially those in the developing world, under constant assault from foreign agent activist NGOs, must be aware of all this and let their lawmakers know: There is no right to commit sodomy or change sex in any international treaty.
And if the Yogyakarta mob want to ‘know the truth’, here it is:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Deut 8:6 Therefore thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God,
to walk in his ways, and to fear him.
Isaiah 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! … Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? 10 Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?
Matt 19:4 (Jesus speaking) … Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
2Thess 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
