|
|
|
A file photo of Dr. Farooq Hassan
|
IslamOnline.net
interviewed Dr. Farooq Hassan, an expert in international law and
human rights, via Instant Messenger on Tuesday, February 7, 2005.
IOL:
Thank you for your time, Dr. Hassan.
I’d like you to comment on some specific items in the Sanya
Declaration on Family.
The
preamble to the Sanya
Declaration says:
Nevertheless,
in the light of the last decade new global challenges and the deep
changes of the ongoing development, the society is reorganizing the
world vision, the basic values, the economic, social and political
structures and reformulating institutions. Such changes
consequently, rebound in the family dynamics. … Therefore to
promote opportunity and equal rights and chances for women and men
to assume their roles within the family and society, in conditions
of freedom, equity, security and human dignity, and to promote
policies to bring about better life conditions to all families,
respecting their diversity and peculiarity is mandatory.
Do you agree with this idea of
respecting the “diversity and peculiarity” of families?
Dr.
Hassan: I do not agree to
this “diversity.” However, similar language is used in Kofi
Annan’s message. The Sanya Document is an 11-page text and in many
ways asserts this point about different forms of family ... a code
phrase for having anti-family platform accepted. But most
importantly it should be remembered that the China text is most
relevant since although, coming later than Doha, it ignores it
completely. Furthermore though some of the institutional
participants were the same, e.g., the UN itself, it was considered
appropriate to accept in the Sanya text “different forms of
family” “and the matter of children’s rights,” to the dismay
of the Doha
philosophy.
IOL:
Christian and Muslim NGOs fight
against this phrase because they feel that it will include same-sex
couples. I have also heard Christian NGOs complain that the Muslim
delegates do not object to this phrase because they want polygynous
marriages to be recognized. Two questions arise. One, it seems
sometimes that the pro-family groups do not want to recognize that
there are other forms of the family, whether they are
extended, nuclear, single-parent, or what have you. So, first, if a
UN document uses such a phrase to recognize what exists, does that
necessarily mean that it endorses what exists or other forms that
might be legalized? Does it necessarily condone same-sex couples or
unmarried parents?
Dr.
Hassan: This is a very
profound question involving both jurisprudence and current evolution
of the controversy between pro- and anti- family forces (in the
Western sense). Technically, this question is easily answered as a
matter of law. When the UN documents say that something exists, it
has in fact given a “definition” of marriage. This has legal
connotation which is entirely disruptive of the traditional family
philosophy—mainly as propounded by the Western NGOs now in the
forefront of this movement on pro-family NGOs. You may have seen the
Manchester Guardian
asserting in a piece by Brian Whitaker [“Fundamental
Union,” January 25, 2005] that when Her Highness said that
family was in danger, etc., she was speaking to an audience where
that kind of message made no sense. That is the point I have also
maintained. The Doha Conference in terms of its message did not take
into account the real issues currently being debated in the
relevant UN and international forums. There was only an emphasis on
rhetoric and platitudinous points. Your point about Islamic states
and the question of polygyny should have been brought out in panel
on Islamic contributions. To my regret nothing was done. So the end
result is that we have a coalition of Western NGOs heavily extreme
right-wing by even American standards, plus contributions from a
handful of nice and well-motivated scholars not really well-versed
in the substance of the controversies. For instance, not having any
debate on the international legal questions and having learned
discourses on the dangers of divorce and unwed mothers from US data
bases, has hardly any relevance to an audience like we had in Qatar.
So I agree with the innuendo of your inquiry that there appears to
be an unnatural and artificial getting together of well- motivated
and noble individuals but not much critical self-awareness of what
we are really in pursuit of. There is a lack of clarity of reachable
objectives.
IOL:
Do you think that the phrase
“family in all its forms” could be defined satisfactorily
in some subsequent document? Or should we continue to fight to
eliminate it?
Dr.
Hassan: First the matter is
one of law and we must contest it in a definitional stage. For
instance in the Geneva UNCHR
[UN Commission on Human Rights] meetings in both 2003 and 2004,
Brazil introduced the Sexual Orientation Resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L
92) under the “discrimination” clauses of the European Human
Rights laws. As such the manner of having “diversity of family”
recognized is only and entirely dependent on the opportunity that
the anti-family NGOs choose to pick. I am thus clear that although
there exists a majority of people throughout the world that favor
the traditional family concepts, it only needs one legal maneuver by
the opponents to have it recognized as valid international norm to
have their agenda on the tracks they have hoped for. In the United
States, for instance, more people are of traditional thinking, but
still the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision or the one given by
the US Supreme Court in June 2003 in the Texas case virtually
legalizing sodomy, have been enough to defeat even President
Bush’s personal involvement when he asked in the US Senate for a
Constitutional Amendment in favor of traditional [family] and got
defeated in May 2004. So I am sure that the real tussle is to
contest such moves of anti-Family protagonists at all legal forms.
Otherwise the awe and majesty of a law is such that it will
eventually prevail over moral values inherited by us.
IOL:
The Commission on Human
Rights will hold its 61st
session March 14–April 22, 2005, and it is expected that
the Sexual Orientation Resolution will come up again to a vote.
Dr.
Hassan: I think so. The Sexual
Orientation Resolution was initially introduced by Brazil in 2003 as
E/CN.4/2003/92. It was about to be voted on in April when a
filibuster led by Islamic states such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia,
by introducing many amendments, made a vote impossible. By my
calculation the vote would have been approximately 23 to 20 to 21
(with about 11 abstentions) against the resolution.
IOL:
But the Miami
Herald yesterday [February 6, 2005] carried an
opinion piece on the CHR that said, in part
It
is no surprise that many dictatorships such as Cuba, Saudi Arabia
and Zimbabwe go out of their way to become members and block
resolutions or investigations dealing with their abuses. Recently,
an action panel was established that will influence what complaints
the Commission will investigate. The panel includes Cuba, China,
Zimbabwe, Hungary and the Netherlands. The Commission has become
useless.
Would
you agree that the CHR is useless? If that is so, should we be
concerned about the upcoming vote on the Sexual Orientation
Resolution?
Dr.
Hassan: No, I do not think so. The
UNCHR is the world’s most influential legal body in the human
rights area. If it endorses the Sexual Orientation Resolution, I
feel that a great deal of pious and good work in the last many years
by pro-family NGOs would have gone to waste. Already we should keep
in mind that in the Texas case in the US Supreme Court, justices
referred to many international texts. However, should the CHR
endorse this kind of a conduct which we find totally unacceptable in
a moral sense, most of what we wish to realize will be lost.
IOL:
Article 2 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights says:
Everyone
is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status. ...
Is
there anything in the history of the drafting of the UDHR that would
give some indication of what the drafters did or did not have in
mind when they included that phrase “other status”?
Dr.
Hassan: Yes, there is material to
that effect. It is forcefully reflected in Article 13 (3) of the
UDHR 1948. But the point now is about the evolution that has since
occurred. There has been more than revolution in the Western world
in matters of sex. First we have the developments in the United
States briefly alluded to be me. Then there are the havoc-producing
developments in Scandinavian countries. In Sweden there is
constitutional allowance of same-sex marriage and it is an offense
to say anything bad about “them.” Then similar developments have
surfaced in Holland and elsewhere where Muslim preachers have been
prosecuted for speaking out against such conduct. As such we have to
be mindful of the latest legal trends and not be content with what
the 1948 UNDHR text asserts. Besides the current debates clearly
assert these new dimensions of this controversy.
IOL:
So it would be useless, then, to
call upon article 29 of UDHR to prevent the passage of the Sexual
Orientation Resolution. Article 29, paragraph 2 is
In
the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject
only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the
purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and
freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality,
public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
It
seems there is no longer any morality in the United Nations—and in
much of the world, for that matter.
Dr.
Hassan: You are right.
There does not seem to be much “morality” to be found in the UN.
I am very worried that the anti-family NGOs are much better
organized. The NGOs that support what I believe in have just the
capacity to have small offices to send out “news” items. They do
not seem to realize or just do not have the funds that these matters
need, like government embassies, proper facilities for able
representation to advocate what is needed. I have seen many good
pro-family NGOs just sending volunteers to sit in small booths set
up for news dissemination purposes. The most effective one is the
BYU [Brigham Young University]-based World
Family Policy Center in Utah. But that, too, I understand on
good authority, has no funds to have anyone being deputed to
accomplish lobbying at an appropriate level. Another big NGO to do
splendid work in this area is the UFI [United
Families International] based in Arizona. They, too, do not
have the financial means to see such anti-family moves appropriately
countered. Last year I was fortunate to see that London-based CARE
and Focus really did a remarkable job in furthering such genuine
lobbying efforts undertaken in both New York and at Geneva. So I
hope that funds and means available to pro-family activists are
appropriately utilized. This is a tough campaign and needs quality
responses to the relevant international forums. Above all, the
measures should be cost effective. It is pointless to canvass in the
corridors and halls of the UN if you are not going to do well in the
influencing of people inside who matter. Such NGOs should cut down
on their own bureaucracies and concentrate on having effective
representatives in such UN and related meetings.
IOL:
I’d like to switch gears here and
ask you about family issues in general and the cooperation of
Christian and Muslim NGOs.
Dr.
Hassan: Fine. Go ahead.
IOL:
You keep saying that the problem of family only exists in the
industrialized West. I can’t agree with you on that. Yes, the
Muslim world does not have the high rates of divorce and pre- and
extra-marital sex that are found in the West.
But
we DO have problems with domestic violence—though it is often not
documented—and with high illiteracy rates among women. And in
Egypt, at least, we have large numbers of “orphans” that are
really illegitimate children; young women are duped into
unregistered “marriages” that are worthless contracts; housing
shortages prevent many young people from marrying; the government
gets pressure from foreign governments and NGOs to change its
policies and laws regarding homosexual activities.
Do
you still say that these problems of family exist only in the West?
And
then of course, there is the question of the UN agencies and how
they are pressuring nations—developing and otherwise—to
formulate laws and policies that are not in the best interest of
traditional family. Often these proposals run counter to Shari`ah. I
can give you many examples just from the CEDAW
Committee. So how can you say that the problem of
family—at the international level—exists only in the West?
Dr.
Hassan: That is a
tremendous question and I am happy that you have raised it. When I
say that the problems are of essentially “Western concern” I
obviously mean the kind of issues that are being raised in current
international debates. The list of experts who are called is clearly
indicative of their sphere of expertise. So we have to generate an
atmosphere where each and every item that you touch upon can be
fully debated. I will go further and submit that the current big
sponsors of the pro-family debates should consider funding new
conferences and seminars to analyze these issues which are of Third
World or Muslim societies’ orientation. We should in all honesty
tackle these serious problems that you have raised and that are not
really tackled by international meetings. But as suggested by
Whitaker in the Guardian, there seems to be a
“fundamentalist union” thus far exhibited in places such as
Doha. No one says anything about our conference
in Kuala Lumpur in October 2004, which was more “open” than
the one at Doha in such matters. I deeply regret that the Doha
organizers did not even think it proper to discuss the Islamic
aspects of this problem despite my serious efforts. I feel that
great opportunity was lost to freely engage in debate on Islamic
issues per se as well.
IOL:
Do you envisage that the NGO-driven
Western support for the family will likely last in its enlistment of
Islamic countries support in future, as demonstrated recently in
conferences in Malaysia and Qatar? Or is it a transitory phase which
will be subject to the needs of times in the future?
Dr.
Hassan: I think that obviously the
conferences are driven by need, but the people at the helm of
affairs at many such NGOs are totally sincere. I have the greatest
respect for the Utah and Arizona NGOs mentioned above, and the BYU
WFPC has been running successfully an annual forum since 1999,
which, fortunately, I have attended. I am, however, coming around to
the conclusion that better resources management is required. Instead
of larger bureaus, more funds should be spent on a genuine
international effort directed towards issues. I also want that there
should be visibly greater participation of international people in
such Western NGOs. When I learned recently that one such NGO had
little by way of funds, I volunteered to come and work in their
bureau free.
IOL:
As you have said, the majority of
NGOs now taking the lead in defense of traditional family are
British or American. Would you like to see the campaign for family
at the UN and elsewhere truly internationalized in preference to the
present setup? How can that be done?
Dr.
Hassan: I would like this to happen,
but realistically I cannot see it happening. It can be done,
however. I was, for instance, appointed by UFI in Arizona to be a
Special UN Ambassador for Family last year. We did some good work,
but as explained earlier, there is now shortage of funds, and until
today, barely weeks before the UNCHR meeting, I do not know if I
will perform any service. Similar is the case with WFPC in BYU, who
kindly adverted me that they just cannot afford anyone representing
them anywhere. So if this is the regrettable state of affairs re
funds—and it does not cost that much—I cannot see the kind of
even modest internationalization effort that is really needed. So I
just pray that better tidings are round the corner for achieving
success on this score, which I assure is direly needed. I think a
coalition of different countries representing the US- and UK-based
NGOs is likely to do far better image-building than one without such
a component element. I hope that this materializes; otherwise, it
will be not looking much more agreeable than that which has been
seen of late.
IOL:
Thank you so much for your time, Dr. Hassan. Do you have any last comments you would like to make before
we close?
Dr.
Hassan: I want to thank you. Please
let me know when this is online. One last comment. I think the
present Western-dominated pro-family NGO setup is, as compared to
the one of anti-family, essentially of good and well-motivated
Christian people. I have the greatest respect and affection for this
class, as amply borne out by my two works, The Islamic Republic and
the Concept of State in Islam. I am sure there is improvement
around the corner if a greater diversity of faiths and cultures were
reflected in the outer image of NGOs presently in the lead of the
pro-family international movement. We should remember that the Sanya
document is the product of countries such as China and, on the other
hand, states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and others like Brazil
and the European Union. We should also try to be achieve a coalition
building of this nature.
IOL:
Thanks again, Dr. Hassan. May Allah
bless you for your efforts.
Related
Links:
(All
external links last accessed February 13, 2005.)
*
DPhil, BA
Juris, MA, MLitt (Oxon); DCL (Columbia); DIA (Harvard); Of Lincoln’s Inn, Barrister at Law, United Kingdom; attorney at law, United States; senior advocate Supreme Court (QC) of Pakistan; special UN ambassador for family for the World Family Alliance; advisor to four prime ministers of Pakistan on law and foreign affairs; delegate to the United Nations, NY, and to the High Commission on Human Rights and to the Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Geneva; leader of Pakistan’s delegation to the International Criminal Court Prep
Coms., NY; delegate to UN General Assembly Sessions. Also, inter
alia, on the Faculties of Foreign Affairs & Law, Harvard University; the Secretary General, American Asian Institute of Strategic Studies, Boston; international legal counsel before transnational tribunals and US Congress; David M. Kennedy Scholar of International Studies, Kennedy Center, Brigham Young University 2003-04; president, Pakistan Family Forum; member International Advisory Board, United Families International. You may write to Dr. Hassan at
family_under_attack@islam-online.net
