Edmonton rolled out the red carpet to welcome the world to the International Human Rights Conference, Nov. 28, 1998, marking the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Seven hundred delegates and dignitaries hailed accomplishments and condemned the failures of nations which did or did not measure up to a standard arbitrarily set by the organization in 1948, and refined over the last half-century.

There is no denying that much has been made better for oppressed people around the world through some of the efforts of the United Nations – providing clean water, food, medicine for developing countries, etc. But it is most certainly true that much has also been done to destroy life, family values and faith in furthering the agendas of the UN and its offspring organizations.

For that reason, writing about this conference has been a difficult task. It involves a constant comparison of good and evil and a willingness to look that evil in the face and call it to the fore.

I have been reluctant to do this during the holy season of our Savior’s birth. Yet it is important to report to the readers of this publication that the UN agendas of one-world government and “human rights” took huge leaps forward with the blessing of our government. I am amazed and overwhelmed at the progress made by forces set in motion when I was born, and wonder what it will take to halt their momentum.


On one hand, we have Archbishop Desmond Tutu lending credibility to the conference not only by his presence, but in his testimony about racism. “South Africa’s liberation from race-based oppression to democracy and the rule of law is a spectacular victory over the forces of darkness and evil, inhumanity and cruelty,” Tutu declared. The retired archbishop won 1994’s Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end apartheid.

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a crucial document that offered a beacon of hope against the vicious policy of apartheid,” he said. Arguments against the UN seem flat when compared to this praise.

Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated that, “Discrimination based on race, religion, or ethnicity robs many peoples of their most fundamental human right – dignity.”

She spoke about the trafficking of women and children in sex trades as one of many evils, along with hunger and poverty. It seems the most basic right upheld by the UN is not life or even freedom, but dignity – dignity defined however the UN wants to define it.

Pro-life/pro-family folks know that the UN’s seeming good deeds are only a thin cover of respectability over inhumane agendas that rob people of their very lives.

We nod in agreement with those who speak against racism, exploitation, coercion, torture, false imprisonment, and then must shake our heads in disagreement with these very same people over their schizophrenic lack of concern for unborn children, people who are forced into sterilization and abortion procedures, one-child-per-couple population-control policies and the harsh silencing of voices of conscience.

We are reminded of the horrors of genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda and Bosnia. These are mentioned in the same breath as the oppressive treatment of native Canadians. Somehow, we all know that wrongs were committed in Canada, but lumping the two together as if they are equal evils does not sit well with this Canadian.


Lloyd Axworthy, Canada’s minister of foreign affairs, told the conference that “Canada needs the world’s help in establishing an International Criminal Court so dictators can be brought to justice.” But he ignored the implications a world court might have in forcing its will on ratifying countries in other matters, such as pollution and population control, sex education, parental rights and freedom of religion.

While China’s oppression of dissidents is tolerated, Canada was openly condemned by Mary Robinson for its treatment of native peoples. While Iraq refuses to allow UN weapons inspections to continue, the UN tolerates Russia’s and China’s support of Iraq through open defiance of embargoes, and remains relatively silent as the United States and Britain are reviled for planning air strikes against Iraq.

While the deeper thinkers among us are willing to contemplate and speak in opposition to an organization that looks good on the surface but advances many evils, the average person knows little about the underbelly of the UN. I am reminded of a topic I was given in the Texas State Speech and Debate Contest years ago. I won third place arguing, “Get Us Out of the UN.” Maybe that is not such a bad idea after all.