Home > Issues > International Organisations > The Need to Abolish CEDAW or the United Nations Itself

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

The Need to Abolish CEDAW or the United Nations Itself

Peter Zohrab 2019

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map

 

(Open Letter to The United Nations Secretary-General)

 

Dear Mr. Guterres,

 

To Mean Well is Not Enough

I refer you to Article 14.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states:

"In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: ...."

The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is in breach of the spirit of the above Article of the ICCPR, because CEDAW makes discriminatory, unsubstantiated, one-sided claims and entitles an undemocratic bureaucracy of women -- in effect -- to prosecute and judge men all over the World as being guilty of civil and criminal wrongs against women, without men having an equivalent bureaucracy to defend them against this hostile propaganda. This propaganda has real consequences for men and families in the legislatures, executives and courts of member countries around the World. The European Union also has a Feminist bureaucracy, which was part of the reason for the United Kingdom seeking to Brexit. It would not be surprising if countries sought to abolish, or exit, the United Nations, for similar reasons.

 

CEDAW

CEDAW was established without the slightest reliance on equity, evidence or intelligent thought of any kind. In other words, it was just a bone thrown by male-dominated governments to a bunch of noisy activist females, so as to enable careerist men to carry on with their own self-centred careers in peace! The Frontman Fallacy (a term which I coined) consists of the paradox that powerful men concentrate on their personal careers, whereas Feminists have always talked as if such men worked to favour men's interests over women's interests. In fact, chivalry has caused powerful men to favour women and Feminism has increased this tendency -- as we see from the fact that male-dominated governments have given women the vote, set up Ministries for Women, instituted the CEDAW monstrosity, and so on.

The CEDAW document itself consists of two parts: a premable (aimed at justifying the creation of the legal Articles) and the thirty Articles themselves. Here are my comments on the points made in the preamble as a supposed argument for the need for CEDAW:

  1. Since the Charter of the United Nations "reaffirms faith ... in the equal rights of men and women," the CEDAW preamble should have inquired into the rights of men, as well as those of women, and discussed whether there are any ways in which men have FEWER rights than women. It is typical of Feminist hypocrisy that this obvious point is simply ignored. The reason it is overlooked, of course, is that it is easy to find ways in which men have fewer rights than women -- but this would undermine the propaganda case that the CEDAW proponents are making.

  2. Since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "affirms ... that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, including distinction based on sex," CEDAW is redundant -- or should at least be replaced with a CEDAMW -- a Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Men and Women. This is because CEDAW itself is in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

  3. Since "the States Parties to the International Covenants on Human Rights have the obligation to ensure the equal rights of men and women to enjoy all economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights," CEDAW is redundant -- or should at least be replaced with a CEDAMW -- a Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Men and Women. This is because CEDAW itself is in breach of the said International Covenants on Human Rights.

  4. Since there are "international conventions concluded under the auspices of the United Nations and the specialized agencies promoting equality of rights of men and women," CEDAW is redundant -- or should at least be replaced with a CEDAMW -- a Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Men and Women. This is because CEDAW itself is in breach of the said international conventions.

  5. Since there are "resolutions, declarations and recommendations adopted by the United Nations and the specialized agencies promoting equality of rights of men and women," CEDAW is redundant -- or should at least be replaced with a CEDAMW -- a Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Men and Women. This is because CEDAW itself is in breach of the said resolutions, declarations and recommendations.

  6. Since the CEDAW signatories are "(c)oncerned ... that ... extensive discrimination against women continues to exist," they are in breach of the above-mentioned Charter, Declaration, Covenants, conventions, resolutions, declarations and recommendations, in that they are not concerned ... that ... extensive discrimination against men continues to exist -- having not even inquired into the evidence for or against this discrimination.

  7. If the CEDAW signatories are claiming "that discrimination against women violates the principles of equality of rights and respect for human dignity, is an obstacle to the participation of women, on equal terms with men, in the political, social, economic and cultural life of their countries, hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of their countries and of humanity," they should provide statistical evidence of these empirical claims, make sure than countries cease discriminating against men in order to favour women and show the same degree of concern that discrimination against men violates the principles of equality of rights and respect for human dignity. There has never been any objective assessment of "the potentialities of women," since Feminism has concentrated on lies, demonising men and on building up women's self-esteem.

  8. Since the CEDAW signatories are concerned that in situations of poverty women allegedly have the least access to food, health, education, training and opportunities for employment and other needs, they should equally be concerned that in developed countries men have the least access to unbiased justice, longevity, health research funding, education, child access, child custody and media advocacy.

  9. The CEDAW signatories have invented a non-existent "new international economic order based on equity and justice".

  10. The CEDAW signatories have shown their interest in Leftist political alliances and their inability to think logically, by stating that the "eradication of apartheid, all forms of racism, racial discrimination, colonialism, neo-colonialism, aggression, foreign occupation and domination and interference in the internal affairs of States is essential to the full enjoyment of the rights of men and women," which has nothing to do with CEDAW.

  11. The CEDAW signatories have also shown their interest in Leftist political alliances and their inability to think logically, by stating that "the strengthening of international peace and security, the relaxation of international tension, mutual co-operation among all States irrespective of their social and economic systems, general and complete disarmament, in particular nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control, the affirmation of the principles of justice, equality and mutual benefit in relations among countries and the realization of the right of peoples under alien and colonial domination and foreign occupation to self-determination and independence, as well as respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, will promote social progress and development and as a consequence will contribute to the attainment of full equality between men and women," which has nothing to do with CEDAW.

  12. The CEDAW signatories have provided no evidence that "the full and complete development of a country, the welfare of the world and the cause of peace require the maximum participation of women on equal terms with men in all fields" -- especially as women often receive preferential treatment, to the detriment of men, because of CEDAW and other Feminist pressures.

  13. The CEDAW signatories have provided no evidence that "the great contribution of women to the welfare of the family and to the development of society" is so far not fully recognized, or that the role of women in procreation is a basis for discrimination. To the contrary, Feminists in many countries have been bringing about the exclusion of men from their families.

  14. The CEDAW signatories have provided no evidence that "a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between men and women," since developed countries have already brought about such changes, resulting in almost complete female domination of men by women.

 

Conclusion

 

Simply to assume that women are discriminated against, but men are not, is a form of predetermination. As one law firm puts it:

 

The two basic components of natural justice are:

  1. the person complaining or complained about has a fair opportunity to be heard on the matters in issue; and

  2. the decision-maker is free from bias (including apparent bias) or pre-determination.

 

Unless the United Nations abolishes the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) or converts it into a Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Men and Women (CEDAMW), it will remain guilty of predetermination in this matter and the pressure will grow for member states to leave the UN or for it to be abolished.

 

See also:

 
 

 

FAQ

Webmaster

Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

18 May 2019

Top