US Intel exec ‘actively responsible’ for driving anti-LGBTQ+ agenda in Africa
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Everything they stand for seems to run counter to helping the populace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Watch_International?wpr...
They’re essentially extremely regressive missionaries.
Do you understand what consultative status means? If so, can you explain it in plain English? I'm reading online, but it's not really clear.
A lot of these programs are (intentionally and should be) run on RAND terms. A lot are not. For the ones on RAND terms, it's often critical to protecting minorities whom the majority disagrees with, and making processes open and transparent. A majority of minorities we disagree with are wrong and get in as a result of this, but that's an okay price to pay for (1) the sake of the ones who we disagree with who are right (or just different) (2) checks-and-balances on governance and transparency (which the UN lacks otherwise). It often takes just one bad actor as a pretext to kill policies like these, and we're all worse off.
I'm not really sure what FWI's relationship to the UN is. If there's an intentional partnership with bad actors, they should be cut off. If it's an open program, the costs of keeping it open almost always outweigh the benefits of excluding bad actors.
There are also intermediate terms, such as making clear that being part of a program does or does not imply endorsement, and how a name can be used in advertising. The UN's name should not be used in misleading ways.
The Wikipedia article mentions a few UN events they’ve spoken at.
It’s one of the things that has allowed them to have so much reach and credibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Watch_International
Which references:
https://politicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/Co...
This claims an antagonistic relationship with the UN. I don't see the UN doing anything wrong on a quick skim, but rather this describes FWI abusing their relationship with the UN.
There is also the (much more vague and less specific):
https://politicalresearch.org/sharon-slater-going-global-wit...
Wikipedia makes bold statements from very tentative language. Clicking through references here turns up documents like:
https://familywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/05/R...
Which is a FWI guide to the UN, but can't be confused for a UN document. Through the game of telephone, this somehow became referenced as if it were in publications attacking FWI.
At least on 5-10 minutes of clicking, I can't find any specific, primary reference to the UN doing anything wrong.
Last time I testified at a major public hearing, the person before me ranted and raved about brains and electromagnetism from household electronics. Were they crazy? Batshit crazy. Did everyone dismiss them? Yes. Did they have a right to do that? Absolutely.
As a footnote, unfairly cutting crazy people out of conversations has two problems:
1) You can't talk to them and convince them otherwise. Conversations are two-way streets.
2) It gives them a huge soapbox. If a person ranting about EM waves impacting brains was shut out of public comments and unfairly oppressed by [corporations / government / etc.], if anything, that oppression would support their argument.
The article is about an (anti-LGBTQ) agenda not something thar is anti-(LGBTQ agenda).
"Is there any lgbtq agenda in Africa to begin with?"