(LifeSiteNews) — A top Kenyan attorney has urged African nations to reject a European Union treaty that would force the countries to accept the so-called “rights” to abortion, LGBT practices, and child sex education.
Charles Kanjama warned during the Second African Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty held last week that the newest iteration of a 20-year trade agreement between 79 African Caribbean Pacific (ACP) countries and the European Union (EU) and its member states, now being considered by African legislators and known as the Samoa Agreement, threatens the values of African nations.
“The first job of the representatives who are here, of the various countries in Africa, is to ‘blow the whistle,’ to sensitize the organs in our own state to the problems with this treaty,” Kanjama said.
Kanjama pointed out that while the the Cotonou Partnership Agreement – the predecessor to the trade agreement – was originally focused on securing “preferential access to European goods and substances in the African market,” the EU later conditioned their acceptance of the treaty on its expansion to include “human rights” as well as democracy, peace and security, and social development issues.
As the Kenyan attorney noted, the EU’s understanding of “human rights” includes “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” and can effectively force its trade partner countries to agree to LGBT, abortion, and sex education “rights” that violate these nations’ traditional values.
He pointed out that while the treaty does not use the term “LGBT” or “abortion,” it uses “euphemistic language” in order to sneak in agreement to these priorities.
“In 2010, when the constitution of Kenya was coming up for a referendum process… a similar strategy was used,” said Kanjama, explaining how when a Member of Parliament (MP) from Kenya inserted the affirmation that marriage is between a man and a woman, he was taken to court over the issue on the basis that the traditional definition of marriage constitutes “discrimination on the basis of sex.”
“Eventually that euphemistic language is the door that is used to bring in all these agenda under the guise of human rights,” Kanjama said.
He advised that the representatives of the African nations present at the conference draw their government’s attention to Family Watch International’s analysis of the harmful provisions in the text of the trade agreement, which points to several vague, undefined terms that can be used to push for an abortion, LGBT, and sex education agenda.
Faith Watch International has flagged such terms and statements in the general section of the ACP-EU treaty as extremely problematic, such as: “The Parties undertake to prevent, combat and prosecute all forms of sexual and gender-based violence and discrimination.”
Faith Watch International points out that “In General Comment #35 on gender-based violence, the U.N. Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Committee declared the ‘criminalization of abortion’ to be a form of “gender-based violence that, depending on the circumstances, may amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”
As another example, the family values watchdog group flagged the treaty statement “The Parties, recognising the importance of tackling all factors contributing to violent extremism in all its forms, including religious intolerance, hate speech, xenophobia, racism as well as other forms of intolerance.”
Faith Watch International commented:
Will ACP country laws against sodomy or that limit the LGBT agenda or prohibit the promotion of transgenderism or homosexuality to children be characterized as ‘hate’ under this treaty? Will warning children about the health risks associated with sodomy similarly be characterized as hate? Many good organizations that work to protect the family and marriage between a man and a woman are unjustly being characterized as being ‘hate groups.’
The Entebbe Declaration, issued last year by the African Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty, took aim at the Samoa Agreement because it undermines both national sovereignty and African values. The declaration’s participants decried the treaty’s promotion of the “sexualization of the African child” through its “comprehensive sexuality education” (CSE) mandate, calling such CSE, which often includes graphic sexual content, “harmful” and an affront to African “cultural values.”
To accuse the African Caribbean Pacific-EU treaty of encouraging the sexualization of children is not an exaggeration because so-called “sexual rights” of minors are baked into the EU’s human rights framework. A 2021 European Parliament resolution “affirms that all women and girls (emphasis added) are entitled to make their own free and informed choices with regard to their sexual and reproductive health and lives.”
The CSE advocated by the EU, including programs recommended by the U.N., also targets minors by default.
Faith Watch International has also highlighted the treaty’s requirement that African Caribbean Pacific governments “provide access to ‘comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and education’ (CSRHE) in accordance with the U.N.’s controversial ‘technical guidance’ on sexuality education.”
“This U.N. ‘guidance’ includes teachings on homophobia, transphobia, sexual pleasure, and more,” Faith Watch International reported.
According to C-Fam, a few of the African Caribbean Pacific nations are reconsidering their consent to the treaty, including Nigeria, which was not present at its signing and said that the agreement was being reviewed with a “view to ensuring that its provisions do not contravene Nigeria’s domestic legislation,” and Namibia, which issued a ministerial statement noting that several treaty provisions are “not in line with the Namibian Constitution.”
However, Kanjama explained that despite the problems with the treaty, African countries feel that “they will not be able to trade with the EU” without it, and therefore “many of the countries in Africa have already buckled under pressure to sign the agreement.”
The attorney believes that the “ideal” solution to the treaty would be to amend it, but he pointed out that this would require something difficult: convincing the 27 member states of the EU to drop certain provisions.
“Honestly, the only way amendment would work is if the African countries and the Caribbean (and) Pacific countries decline or delay the process of ratification of the treaty and apply subsequent pressure to have the treaty re-negotiated,” Kanjama said.
He recommended that African nations consider this option “in parallel” with that of making a reservation – which if effective, means a particular part of the treaty “will not apply,” according to the Vienna Convention – or making a “conditional declaration.”
Kanjama explained that a conditional declaration is a “unilateral statement by a state or international organization made when signing or ratifying” a treaty, in which “the state indicates it is approving the treaty or it is agreeing to be bound by it on the basis that a certain provision will be interpreted a certain way.”
Dr. Daniel Thomas, president of the Love March Movement, has warned that the treaty will have a potentially devastating impact on African nations’ values considering its long term of 20 years.
“That’s how long it takes to brainwash a whole generation,” he told Philippa Davies, advocacy officer from the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, last year.