By Alan Mercer
As covered in Part 1, the exercise of freedom of conscience (see Charter of Rights and Freedoms) by Ontario doctors who refuse to participate in procedures they consider unethical–birth control being the example featured in the media–is being reviewed again by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The College is the government-empowered agency that regulates medical doctors in Ontario.
Now I’m going to present evidence that this local push to “review” and undermine freedom of conscience is consistent with the policies of international organizations and agreements.
ICPD and Human Rights: 20 years of advancing reproductive rights through UN treaty bodies and legal reform (from this page)
by the Center for Reproductive Rights | www.reproductiverights.org | June 2013
You can download ICPD and Human Rights from this page at the UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) website (accessed Sept. 1, 2014) where the summary states:
This publication highlights the progress countries have made through their laws and policies to implement the ICPD Programme of Action. It also describes national and international human rights developments on issues related to sexual and reproductive health and rights.
ICPD and Human Rights is authored by the Center for Reproductive Rights, with
financial support and technical input from UNFPA. The human rights issues described in this publication are built on legal and policy developments in the jurisprudence of different UN treaty monitoring bodies, in national legislation and in other sources. The views of the author do not necessarily reflect the views of UNFPA.” (Introduction, p. 1)
the lead UN agency for delivering a world where every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, and every young person’s potential is fulfilled.
The UN Population Fund’s marketing proceeds to explain why they must interfere with “the most intimate and fundamental aspects of life” everywhere on the planet.
The UN Population Fund (whatever that is) claims that it “advocates for the rights of young people” and their “welfare” by “promoting the human rights of adolescents”. It creates “safe spaces for adolescent girls”. I thought that was the role of parents and families, but the United Nations claims to have that role now, being quite superior to everyone else.
This is excellent marketing for an agency that exists to help the oligarchy manage the world’s population. I guess they can’t have been involved in any of these incidents of forced sterilization and forced abortion: India, India, India, United States, Peru, Colombia, China, China, Uzbekistan.
They claim that “Families are smaller and healthier” since the UN Population Fund got busy in 1969. Notice how “small” and “healthy” mean the same thing now.
Aldous Huxley advocated population control in his 1950s Brave New World Revisited. And in that non-fiction book, he explained the propaganda technique of persuasion-by-association, which is associating your message with appealing concepts and images.
On this UNFPA population control marketing page, wonderful healthy things are associated with having less children.
On the other hand, sex outside the context of UN hegemony is associated with disease, oppression and poverty. Sounds like simplification and generalization to me. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if things were becoming a lot less healthy with all the culturally weaponized entertainment being spread around the world. You know, the movies with all the torture and gross-out comedy. It’s bound to be making the world a more enlightened place everywhere they’re seen.
“Less is more”. Having less children is associated with “health.” Some of us aren’t quite making the connection, so we haven’t caught up yet. That’s where global standardized government education comes in. Repeat the slogans until you believe them.
So we have pregnancy associated with something unhealthy, unwanted and dangerous. We have “maternal” associated with non-maternal, or preventing or reversing maternity. And abortion is a “right” and “freedom”, so it must be something we should want.
Maybe most of the world has something better to do than raise children, like slave away for pennies a day in order to pay for taxes and basic needs. Welcome to the low-carbon low-children post-consumer future.
The implication is that parenthood is oppressive, especially for women, and we’re just supposed to think traditional cultures are always oppressing women by making them pregnant.
Regardless of what we believe, it’s clear that this United Nations agency has been put in charge of managing human reproduction and using public relations marketing to sell surgical procedures and drugs as pain-free, non-toxic and paradise-generating.
And nobody asked us to vote on it, or whether we want to pay for it. And most of us never heard of these organizations and what they do. We were never told about this by our school systems, and it is never explained by the media except through heavy propaganda filters.
The older belief systems and cultures of Canada have been subverted so quietly and gradually, that most Canadians probably know nothing about these UN organizations and what they do. Ironically, we know that some Canadians were heavily involved in creating this system.
Another point the UNFPA makes on their About page:
UNFPA advocates for the rights of young people, including the right to accurate information and services related to sexuality and reproductive health.”
First of all, are the authorities and corporate media and doctors really providing “accurate information” about drugs, vaccines, birth control procedures and abortion? I don’t think so.
If some doctors aren’t keeping up with the right doctrines and don’t want to associate various “reproductive” (non-reproductive) procedures with health and healing, but associate them with something harmful, unhealthy, unethical, toxic, and destructive, then they don’t want to recommend these procedures to patients. The “right to [supposedly] accurate information” is the policy which clashes with freedom of conscience.
Shouldn’t doctors be permitted to make their own educated judgments about drugs and procedures? Shouldn’t we expect doctors to exercise independence when it comes to products? The global order doesn’t have anything to do with using independent judgment and exercising independent belief.
It’s all about regimentation and drilling into us our expected collective responses of obedience during “emergencies” of all sorts, including “public health” crises. The “authorities” don’t want doctors thinking about their conscience when they’re told to shoot people up with the latest drugs and vaccines during the latest “emergency”. Emergencies don’t allow for conscience. That’s when “men of action” take over, with their brains switched off, and do whatever they’re told.
Doctors exercising their freedom of conscience doesn’t make for a smooth population management operation. Such individuals are not falling in with the standard belief system in our standardized world. So their attitudes are coming under “review”. They’re just not in accord with the latest indoctrination received by twenty-somethings from radicalized change-agents teaching at government-funded schools and universities.
ICPD: Cairo, 1994
ICPD stands for the International Conference on Population and Development (see Report of the International Conference on Population and Development: Cairo, 5-13 September 1994) (pdf).
In Cairo, 1994, as explained in ICPD and Human Rights,
179 countries came together and adopted a Programme of Action, in which they agreed that population policies must be aimed at empowering couples and individuals—especially women—to make decisions about the size of their families, providing them with the information and resources to make such decisions, and enabling them to exercise their reproductive rights. For the first time in an international consensus document, states agreed that reproductive rights are human rights that are already recognized in domestic and international law. (Introduction, p. 1)
So managing the human population has all sorts of marketing terms, including “reproductive rights”, to give the impression of something benevolent, kinder and gentler. At least it sounds like something you would want to have. But, despite the media, we’ve managed to hear about some cases that were not so nice at all.
The Center for Reproductive Rights
The author of ICPD and Human Rights is the Center for Reproductive Rights. Their About page states the following:
For 20 years, the Center for Reproductive Rights has used the law to advance reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right that all governments are legally obligated to protect, respect, and fulfill.
Our groundbreaking cases before national courts, United Nations committees, and regional human rights bodies have expanded access to reproductive healthcare, including birth control, safe abortion, prenatal and obstetric care, and unbiased information.
So this refers to government-funded access to procedures such as abortion, that many people, including doctors, might not feel “unbiased” about at all.
They might not want to provide information about these procedures. They might disagree that they have anything to do with their role as doctors.
Will they be allowed to disagree? Are even local or national governments allowed to disagree with global policies? Is it a question of local democratic representation? It doesn’t look like it.
ICPD and Human Rights Section III p. 2 states:
Human rights bodies have noted that where abortion is legal, states must ensure that it is available, accessible (including affordable), acceptable, and of good quality. They have also urged states to abolish barriers to accessing safe abortion services, such as third-party authorization requirements, including spousal authorization, and to enact clear guidelines on the conditions under which abortion is legal. Human rights standards dictate that states should ensure that women’s access to and the availability of abortion is not hindered by conscientious objection by monitoring its practice and implementing mechanisms to ensure that women systematically receive timely referrals to another service provider. . . .
Section X. p. 2:
States must ensure sexual and reproductive health information and services are available, accessible, acceptable, and of good quality by:
. . .
•monitoring and regulating conscientious objection to ensure its invocation does not prevent women from accessing comprehensive reproductive health care;
. . .
Section X. p. 3:
To ensure that laws and policies being implemented are attaining their desired aims, states should consistently monitor and evaluate laws and policies by:
. . .
•ensuring through legislative and other measures that regulatory, legal, and social barriers, including conscientious objection, mandatory waiting periods, and requirements for third-party authorization, do not prevent access to comprehensive reproductive health services.
So this UN-funded document is interpreting and building on the 1994 ICPD Cairo programme of action, signed by governments. And it refers to “conscientious objection” as a “barrier” to so-called reproductive health services, calling on governments to do something about this.
So doctors who see these “services” as not so reproductive and not so healthy are barriers. I suppose taxpayers who refused to fund these would be considered a barrier also if their numbers grew and politicians were forced to listen to them. But I think the propaganda has been successful so far in neutralizing ways of thinking that stand in the way of this global agenda.
Value for value. If you appreciate this post, please donate a small amount to encourage more research and commentary.