Homosexuality is not a Human Right

By: Ambassador / Omar Dahab

It may come to mind that this issue we are dealing with is a distraction from the immediate concern in Sudan and in the region that is witnessing the most severe forms of violations and the ugliest forms of aggression. However, I see an indisputable connection between this topic of ours and what we see as a denial of the political, cultural, civilizational and social choices of the peoples of developing countries and the incitement of various forces at home against many external forces, the direct result of which is a threat to stability, social peace and security.
I was prompted to address the issue by the confident assertion raised by Dr. Ali Baldo, the well-known Sudanese psychiatrist in our country, that homosexuality is part of human rights. In fact, “human rights” is an expression that means human rights agreed upon by the parties of the international community, either by general consensus or complete consensus, nothing more. The only objective tool against which this consensus can be measured is international law. Therefore, there is no difference between our saying (human rights) and our saying (international human rights law). The extent of international consensus is what determines the degree of binding or authoritativeness of international instruments related to human rights and others, to which national and regional instruments generally respond, especially when their obligation reaches its maximum level, which is the principle of international law with final significance: Peremptory Norm of International Law. There have been three instruments or treaties or international agreements in the field of human rights, a degree of absolute consensus from which no country in the world deviates, in which the false concept of homosexuality is not mentioned, and in fact, only what confirms, in a positive way, the opposite of this false concept.
These instruments were called the International Bill of Human Rights. They are: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1961 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1961. This international charter, in addition to the main treaties in the field of human rights, numbering seven treaties ending with the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, and every international agreement directly or indirectly related to human rights, does not, more or less, codify any relationship outside the institution of marriage between a male and a female, with repeated emphasis that this Marriage is the founder of the family, which is the first nucleus of the broad human family.
Therefore, the statement that abnormal relationships are part of human rights is not based on evidence that contradicts these repeated categorical assertions. This is despite the fact that most Western countries (not all of them) have chosen, outside the scope of this international legitimacy, to enact internal laws that codify these abnormal relations, not as they are part of universal human rights to which some demand submission (obedience), such as Dr. Ali Baldo in Sudan, but rather as a legislative choice that concerns them, Europe and other countries resorted to it and adopted it as an innovation that contradicts human consensus or agreement based on international instruments of definitive significance. Therefore, what Dr. Ali Baldo declared and called for cannot be a demand (obedience) according to his call, but rather a harmful (initiation) demand that he seeks if he wants. I am certain that the democratic means that should be resorted to in deciding these crucial issues will show him the flaw of what he calls for in our societies, which is the same flaw that will become clear to Europe and the West in general, and I fear that this will be too late.
At the African level, the Constitutive Act of the African Union of 2000 and before that the Charter of the Organization of African Unity of 1963, as well as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights of 1981 and the African Charter for Cultural Renaissance of 2006, all emphasize the unity of African values ​​in protecting the family, sanctifying the institution of marriage, and rejecting any other relationship. And the heavy emphasis on all of that. Pan-African instruments are distinguished by their striking a balance that arouses admiration and pride between rights and duties, and codifies the duty of children to take care of their parents, especially when they grow up. All of this can only be done through this institution: the family institution.
The United Nations, starting from its name, is based on the unity of human goals in peace, cooperation, and non-violence, with full recognition of diversity. There is no room for limitation and no room except for affirming sovereign equality between countries, small and large. As for the miserable reality that the world is experiencing today, there is a feverish activity taking place to practically abuse the remaining values ​​that distinguished human beings from others whom God Almighty created on earth. Man will kill his fellow man and even exterminate him, and he will cause severe harm to the environment and change the climate on his land if he does not provide himself with the values ​​to rise and progress.
In our poor societies in developing countries – at the very least – we should pay attention to our priorities. The former Washington Post correspondent in Africa, Keith Richberg, struck me in his book: “Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa,” when he lamented Africans’ indifference to the miserable situation in most public hospitals in Africa, despite its priority. What supports our common values ​​is our adherence to priorities, a commitment that has its own moral value. Comprehensive sexual education, “CSE,” for example, which prepares future generations to practice homosexuality, is now included in an agreement called (the Trade Partnership Agreement) between the European Union on the one hand and a group of countries. The African, Caribbean and Pacific, on the other hand, is in fact an agreement dedicated to these practices. This comprehensive sexual education is not one of our values, it is not a priority, and it has no place among us. Unfortunately, some specialized United Nations agencies and organizations are involved in this hectic activity due to the influence of money, the control of white-collar officials over the joints of the United Nations, who are carefully selected, and the control of the European Union and its countries.