by Clara Rita A. Padilla
April 11, 2008, Geneva—Atty. Clara Rita Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights, present at the Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review held in Geneva said that, “Several countries raised issues and recommendations related to women, migrant workers, children, indigenous peoples, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and compliance with Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and UN mechanisms including the recommendations of Special Rapporteurs.”
New Zealand raised the issue of the prevalence of violence against women (VAW) and called for wider judicial and non-judicial interventions and a gender-responsive environment addressing VAW.
China raised the issue of trafficking of women and finding means to address this issue; the Republic of Korea recommended the prevention of cross-border trafficking and sexual exploitation of women; Azerbaijan raised the need to combat trafficking; Belarus related the fact that the upcoming Global Forum on Migration is going to be held in the Philippines; Japan and Azerbaijan raised the issue of addressing the needs of vulnerable groups including women.
Several countries such as India, China, Guatemala, Palestine and Sri Lanka raised the issue of the high rate of migration and migrant workers. Algeria cited the CEDAW Committee Concluding Comments on the Philippines that seeks to address the root causes of migration. They cited the report of the Special Rapporteur on Migrants that tackles the social causes and effect of migration. The Algerian delegate sought an explanation from the Philippines on why there is a high rate of Filipino women migrants while Bangladesh reiterated the social cost of migration. Egypt, on the other hand, wanted to hear about the measures being taken by the government to educate migrants. Both Bangladesh and Egypt asked whether the non-accession/ratification of receiving countries on the Migrants Convention is a hindrance.
One Philippine government delegate gave a dismissive response on the issue of feminization of migration by saying, “feminization of migration is a global problem, it’s not just a problem in the Philippines."
Syria raised concern on the vast growth of the Philippine population.
Tunisia raised women issues in relation to the Philippine obligations under CEDAW. The delegate recommended the reduction of gender disparities and the further mitigation of gender disparity particularly in labor. Turkey raised the need for a comprehensive legal framework on CEDAW while Mexico raised the issue of compliance with CEDAW.
Italy and Cameroon raised concern on the compliance on the Concluding Comments of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the committee tasked to monitor the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Sudan raised compliance with the Millenium Development Goals. Sudan and Belarus raised the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights in the Philippines.
Russia and Palestine raised the issue on the rights of indigenous peoples.
Canada raised the issue of human rights abuses and the culture of impunity and expressed its continued concern on the fact that there are few convictions. They also raised concern on Administrative Order 197 that impacts on the Rule on the Writ of Amparo issued by the Supreme Court and the need for security forces to be made aware of human rights. France and Switzerland raised concern on enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings and the low number of resolved cases. France and Australia also wanted to be informed on the follow up regarding the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur Philip Alston. Norway wanted information on the government’s measures to eliminate extrajudicial killings and disappearances. Other countries that raised concern on extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances were Japan and Brazil.
Mexico, Slovenia, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom and Netherlands recommended for the Philippines to ratify either or both the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Slovenia also recommended for the Philippines to report regularly to the Committee against Torture, the committee tasked to monitor the implementation of CAT, since the last report of the Philippines was submitted in 1989.
The United States raised the human rights compliance by the police.
Mexico raised the need for the Philippine National Plan of Action to take into consideration the UN mechanisms and the Special Procedures [the procedure allowing submission of individual complaints, country visits and country and thematical reports by the Special Rapporteurs]. Sri Lanka also raised compliance with the UN mechanisms and Special Procedures while Brazil recommended for the Philippines to extend invitations to Special Rapporteurs.
United Kingdom expressed concern on corruption and the delayed reporting with the treaty monitoring bodies. Atty. Padilla added, “The following reports are due to be submitted by the Philippine government: CEDAW Committee 7th & 8th country report in 2010; Committee on ESCR 5th country report on June 30, 2010;
Human Rights Committee 3rd country report overdue since Nov. 1, 2006; Committee on the Rights of the Child 3rd & 4th country report overdue Sept. 19, 2007; and
Committee against Torture 2nd-5th reports overdue since ’92,’96, 2000, and 2004.”
“I just hope the Philippine government agrees to the recommendations of the UN member-states and the Human Rights Council in this Universal Periodic Review to officially form part of the ‘recommendations’ portion of the UPR report on the Philippines. The government’s agreement is significant to its compliance with international human rights standards,” Atty. Padilla stressed.
(Copies of the full text of statements as well as audio files may be accessed at http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil and on the UPR extranet page)
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
UN Member-States Raise Concerns on the Philippines
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
A Bishop’s courageous stand
A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) By Jose C. Sison
Friday, July 18, 2008
As poverty in this country worsens, some politicians mostly in Congress always seize the opportunity to single out the alleged overpopulation as its main cause, in order to mightily push for the forced reduction of population growth through certain bills now more attractively and euphemistically called “Reproductive Health and Population Management Bills”.
Their problem however is that more and more people are now realizing that our country remains poor and is getting poorer because of their own extravagance and corruption in the performance of their job. If they can just give up their pork barrels and forego with their expensive junkets abroad, our country will have saved billions of pesos enough to help improve our economy. Our country remains poor because of corruption in government that started on a large scale during the Marcos regime and continues up to the present on an even larger scale, and not because of the alleged overpopulation and the rapid population growth.
The grand deception becomes more sinister because the bills’ sponsors and their supporters who cutely style themselves as “pro quality of life” as well as some misinformed media people continue to insist that these bills do not promote abortion. They even unfairly criticized some bishops, more specifically Ozamiz Archbishop Jesus A. Dosado CM for allegedly spreading disinformation on the bills because he is courageous enough to come out against them with a firm Pastoral statement that politicians who do not promote the sanctity of human life in his territory should be denied communion because “you cannot call yourself Catholic in good standing and at the same time publicly hold views that are contradictory to the Catholic Faith and if you are legislators in my territory then I have the right to refuse you Holy Communion”.
The Archbishop correctly observes that the bills are using and citing the argument that women should retain the right to decide to kill their own children by aborting them under the guise of making their own decisions about their bodies’ reproductive health. And thus he clearly declared that “anyone – politician or otherwise – who thinks and publicly proclaims it is acceptable for a Catholic to be pro-abortion is in very great error, puts his or her soul at risk, and is not in good standing with the Church”.
It is true that Section 3 of the substitute bill approved by the Committee on Health states that “nothing in this act changes the law on abortion, as abortion remains a crime and is punishable”. This is precisely where the deception lies. Such declaration merely means that abortion is not being legalized. There is a great distinction between promoting abortion and legalizing it. In fact the bill is actually promoting abortion, something that remains illegal, because in another section, it gives women the right to choose between the artificial and natural family planning means of birth control and makes available a wide range of contraceptives.
It has been repeatedly pointed out by medical tests and actual experience, especially in the USA where the powerful International Groups pushing for this bill are based (Planned Parenthood, UNFPA), that some of these contraceptives cause abortion. The IUD prevents a fertilized egg – “a new little human being” – from implanting in the uterine wall. The pill does not always stop ovulation but sometimes prevents implantation of the growing embryo. The new RU 486 pill works altogether by aborting a new fetus, a new baby.
But the greater evil here is that contraceptives whether causing abortion or not, are directly linked to abortion. “A society in which contraceptives are widely used is going to have a very difficult time keeping free of abortions since the lifestyles and attitudes that contraception fosters, create an alleged need for abortion” (Janet Smith, The Connection between Contraception and Abortion). In the same article, Ms. Smith, an associate professor at Dallas State University, even quoted the US Supreme Court in the case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, thus: “The intimate relationships facilitated by contraceptives are what make abortions necessary. Intimate here is a euphemism and a misleading one at that. Here the word intimate means sexual; it does not mean loving and close. Abortion is most often the result of sexual relationships in which there is little true intimacy and love, in which there is no room for a baby, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse. Contraception enables those who are not prepared to care for babies, to engage in sexual intercourse; when they become pregnant, they resent the unborn child for intruding itself upon their lives and they turn to the solution of abortion”.
So the proponents themselves and their financially powerful supporters are the ones spreading disinformation. The bill really promotes abortion. This is very evident in the same section 3 which talks about “post abortion complications” of women who shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner. If the bill does not promote abortion why talk of “post abortion complications”?
Instead of being criticized, Archbishop Dosado should be supported by CBCP and the Church. It is true that the Church does not have any power (in the juridical sense) over temporal issues. Earthly affairs enjoy their own autonomy, their own order and laws. However one cannot decide on these affairs as if they had no relation to their Creator. Christ’s sovereignty reaches all human issues because these issues imply not only technical problems, but also problems of conscience. All human actions have a necessary relation to man’s last end; thus all actions must conform to God’s law. And the Church is the guardian, interpreter, and infallible teacher of God’s law. Thus it belongs to the Church to pass moral judgments even in matters relating to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of soul requires it, using only the means that are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances” (Gaudium et Spes 76, quoted in “Faith Seeking Understanding Vol. I, 432).
So Catholic politicians in Congress or in city councils who sponsored and supported these pro abortion measures should not complain if they are denied the Sacraments; or try to sway public opinion against the Church for their predicament. They “should have the integrity to acknowledge” that their stand is contrary to their Faith, and voluntarily refrain from receiving the Sacraments “until they have a change of heart”, as Archbishop Dosado admonished.
Hello!
I am Ronald S. Lim from the Students and Campuses Section fo the Manila Bulletin. We would like to do a story on the Reproductive Health Bill, and we wanted to ask you guys a few questions regarding your stand on this issue. We will also be talking to opponents of the Reproductie Health bill regarding their stand on the issue.
Here are the questions.
1. Why is there a need for the Reproductive Health Bill?
2. How has your group been delivering their views on the Reproductive Health Bill?
3. Is there no possibility for your group to work alongside the Church to come up with a bill that satisfy's both camps? Why or why not?
4. Opponents of the Reproductive Health Bill say that teaching children about sex should be the job of the parents and not some stranger. How do you respond to that argument?
5. How do you address concerns that the passing of the bill would result in moral and social decay?
6. How do your respond to criticism that high maternal mortality rates could just as easily be countered by better facilities and obstetricians?
7. How do your respond to people saying that the passage of this bill goes against the constitutional mandate to protect the sanctity of life and the family?
8. Opponents say that the bill does not really address the root cause of poverty. How do you respond to that?
9. How do you respond to former Sen. Tatad's assertion that using Catholic taxpayers' money to fund programs that go against their beliefs is unjust and unfair?
10. How do you respond to people who say that this bill imposes beliefs on themselves and their children, at the risk of their own spiritual health?
You can contact me at ronlim20@gmail.com, or through my mobile number, 09063761854.
Thank you so much for your help!
Ronald S. Lim
Writer
Students and Campuses
Manila Bulletin
Post a Comment