Because I Have A Voice by Arvind Narrain

In response, the core states moved a no action motion, preventing debate on the amendment. What gives a clue as to the motivations of the sponsors was the response of the core group to the South African amendment to the resolution proposing that the resolution recognize a diversity of families. (3) The resolution also refused to acknowledge that at points there may be a conflict between individual rights and tradition. Rights holders had to be individuals, hence it was misplaced to attempt to protect the family. (2) The mandate of international human rights law is to protect individuals and not institutions.

(1) The resolution was titled protection of the family, while in reality in regions around the world, there were a diversity of family forms. The problems with the resolution, as articulated by both states opposing the resolution as well as civil society invested in working on rights of women, children and LGBTI people, were that: Was it to protect the family, or was it to use the language of protecting the family to actually target those who were vulnerable to abuse within families including children, women and LGBTI persons? The ‘controversy’ at the center of the resolution concerned the intent of the resolution itself.

The Resolution was sponsored by a cross-regional group of states including Egypt, Cote d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Mauritania, Morocco, Russian Federation, Tunisia, Uganda, Qatar, Belarus, China and Bangladesh. JURIST Guest Columnist Arvind Narrain of ARC discusses the intricacies of the definition of family in the international human rights arena and what this means for LGBTI people, women and children…Ī significant development in the 29th Session of the Human Rights Council was the passing of a deeply controversial resolution to ‘protect the family’.

Because I Have A Voice by Arvind Narrain