Is UN Secretary General against patriarchal male dominance?

António Guterres believes that a male-dominated culture damages everyone. Photo: UOJ

On August 31, 2020, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in his speech, “The pandemic is only demonstrating what we all know: the millennia of patriarchy have resulted in a male-dominated world and a male-dominated culture, which damages everyone – women, men, girls and boys."

Such an attitude of the UN Secretary General to traditional values, which undoubtedly include patriarchal foundations, should have caused criticism of the entire UN structure as a whole from modern traditionalists, conservatives and Orthodox Christians.

Moreover, such criticism is heard quite often – both the European Union and the UN are accused of promoting non-traditional values, anti-Christian policies, protecting the rights of LGBT people, etc. In part, these accusations are justified, but it is necessary to better understand the mechanism of lobbying for anti-Christian ideas in modern society. The system of international law itself, as it was originally approved in the world, has nothing to do with this, since the norms of the main conventions, including such as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, did not and do not contain explicit norms bearing an anti-Christian and anti-traditionalist character.

Legal constructions on same-sex marriage, on the "right" to abortion, on the prohibition of criticism of homosexuality by clergy are adopted by the parliaments of countries not under pressure from the body of international legal norms, but mainly under pressure from an active lobby – various NGOs, public organizations sponsored by business and other structures interested in changing the ideological values of the worldview of a modern person.

Constructions on same-sex marriage, on the "right" to abortion, on the prohibition of criticism of homosexuality by clergymen are adopted by the parliaments of countries under pressure from active lobbies – various NGOs, public organizations sponsored by business and other structures interested in changing the ideological values of the worldview of modern man.

It can be surely said that the erosion of law as a factor of deterring evil at the national and international level is rather a private than a global initiative that does not come from civil society and is not supported by the ruling elites but is powerfully pushed from outside by a private and active lobby. At the same time, it attracts politicians to its side, providing them with additional career and political vista.

It is through the efforts of this "third force" that various pseudoscientific conferences are held, grants are issued for research and legal substantiation, and funds are found for the work of human rights organizations in the committees and commissions of the UN, EU and other structures. Anti-Christian lobbying did indeed achieve certain results during the first decades of its activity, when the fruits of its activity were not yet obvious to civil society. Our opponents faced both defeats and victories, but their painstaking, diligent and systematic work ultimately yielded results – the parliaments of many countries fell beneath before them, and today their ideological positions are firmly fixed legally, albeit not at the level of international law.

Our opponents faced both defeats and victories, but their painstaking, diligent and systematic work ultimately yielded results – the parliaments of many countries fell beneath before them, and today their ideological positions are firmly fixed legally, albeit not at the level of international law.

It should be realized that the undermining of the traditional ideological structure in the minds of the political establishment did not occur within one or two years – it took entire decades at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. However, it is encouraging that as soon as the activity of the "third force" infiltrated from international offices into countries and knocked on the doors of every family with gay pride parades, sex education and juvenile justice, the conscious civil society responded to these challenges, and a social movement arose across the world to defend family values and traditional way of living.

The confrontation of civil society is aimed not so much at criticizing opponents as in defending one's right to treat vice in accordance with one's religious beliefs as part of the right to religious practice.

For example, we have observed for some time in the EU handling of lawsuits against Christian clerics who quoted the Holy Scriptures to testify their beliefs about vice. However, for the most part, these processes were lost, though the clerics did not suffer significant punishment. The media gave little coverage of such cases – a greater deal of publications related to gay pride parades instead, as well as the widespread coercion of the authorities to publicly demonstrate respect for non-traditional orientation. Hence, there is an impression that anti-Christian views predominate in the legal positions of international bodies.

We have observed for some time in the EU lawsuits against Christian clerics who quoted the Holy Scriptures to testify their beliefs about vice. However, for the most part, these processes were lost, though the clerics did not suffer significant punishment. The media gave little coverage of such cases – a greater deal of publications related to gay pride parades.

Reflecting further on this issue, it is worth bearing in mind that the UN and its predecessor, the League of Nations, were created through an interstate compromise. Subsequently, all international conventions and the rules of law contained therein became legally binding on states, if the latter expressed their full consent and acceded to the corresponding text.

Unfortunately, the efforts of lobbyists at the UN and other structures lead to the fact that numerous commissions and committees of the UN and other bodies begin to go beyond their specific legal competence and actually impose on the UN member states a body of norms that are not norms of international law, since the states did not give their consent thereon. At the same time, at the international level, a lot of declarative documents are adopted, such as resolutions, plans, recommendations and the like, which should have the format of motions for discussion or versions of further developments. On the other hand, various NGOs at the level of parliaments and other state bodies of a particular country exert pressure and motivate states to adopt legal norms of the nature they want. Thus, the understanding of the essence of “LGBT rights”, “right” to abortion, as well as the attitude to the patriarchal order in the speeches of speakers, conference materials, resolutions and declarations do not fit into the norms of international law and do not oblige states to absolutely anything.

The understanding of the essence of “LGBT rights”, “right” to abortion, as well as the attitude to the patriarchal order in the speeches of speakers, conference materials, resolutions and declarations do not fit into the norms of international law and do not oblige states to absolutely anything.

Another issue is that representatives of modern society, who defend traditional values and Christian views, have not yet been able to withstand their opponents powerfully enough on the platforms of the UN, OSCE, EU and other international structures. These platforms serve merely as a field for voicing ideas which are not always endorsed by the member states of these structures.

Nevertheless, it seems to us that this matter is quite feasible and, from a spiritual point of view, is conditioned by the moral state of society, depending on which the will of God for a particular nation and for the whole world is fulfilled.

Read also