Media censorship and pressure to include women in the clergy – recommendations of the UN Committee

Experts from the Ordo Iuris Institute presented an opinion to the CEDAW Committee regarding the draft General Recommendation No. 41, pointing out that the document significantly exceeds the scope of the mandate under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Ordo Iuris emphasizes that the proposed changes constitute an attempt to reinterpret the treaty’s provisions in a way that imposes new obligations on countries, despite their lack of consent through a ratification process.

In the Ordo Iuris opinion, particular attention was paid to the expansion of the definition of “gender stereotypes,” which encompasses not only genuinely discriminatory phenomena but also the natural biological differences between women and men, as well as traditional social and family roles. Ordo Iuris points out that such an approach leads to a de facto change in the meaning of the Convention without applying the procedure for its amendment, which violates the principle of pacta sunt servanda (“agreements must be kept”) and undermines the stability of the international legal system.

Ordo Iuris experts also emphasize that the draft recommendations introduce the terms “gender identity” and “sexual orientation,” which do not appear in the text of the CEDAW Convention. Consequently, UN member states would be required to take these categories into account in family law, the judicial system, and administrative procedures, which, in the Ordo Iuris Institute’s view, constitutes an overstepping of the Committee’s authority and a violation of the principle that countries are bound only by those obligations to which they have consented.

The Ordo Iuris Institute also points out the risk of excessive interference with freedom of speech and economic activity. The UN Committee’s draft calls upon States Parties to adopt a range of far-reaching regulatory mechanisms directed at non-state actors. The document mandates the creation of “effective self-regulatory mechanisms” aimed at eliminating gender stereotypes and the implementation of mandatory, periodic, “quality” and “gender-sensitive” training programs. The project also includes “capacity building” for journalists, editors, professionals in the advertising and social media industries, as well as developers and designers of artificial intelligence systems. CEDAW further calls for the establishment of comprehensive “gender-responsive, human rights-based, and intersectional” regulatory frameworks with regard to artificial intelligence, digitalization, and cybersecurity, whose primary aim is ” the prevention, identification, mitigation and redress of gender bias and stereotypes.”

In Ordo Iuris’s assessment, recommendations concerning mandatory training, self-regulatory mechanisms, and the regulation of the media and artificial intelligence may lead to a restriction of pluralism in public debate and a chilling effect, especially when they are based on broadly and imprecisely defined concepts. The opinion cited standards derived from international case law that require any restrictions on freedom of expression to be proportionate, necessary, and clearly defined.

An important element of the Ordo Iuris Institute’s position is also its opposition to state interference with the autonomy of religious communities. The CEDAW Committee calls upon the States Parties to the Convention to take measures aimed at “promoting the inclusion of women in the clergy of religious institutions and ensuring their active participation in leadership and decision-making processes to identify, challenge, dismantle, and remedy prevailing stereotypes.” Further on, the Committee’s draft encourages “engaging with religious leaders and communities” to support dialogue aimed at “combating gender stereotypes” and “harmful practices,” as well as addressing potential tensions between religious principles and human rights. Ordo Iuris experts emphasize that these proposals may lead to a violation of religious freedom and the principle of the state’s ideological neutrality. The Ordo Iuris opinion noted that, in accordance with international standards for the protection of human rights, religious communities have the right to independently determine their doctrine, structure, and rules of operation.

Ordo Iuris also addressed the provisions concerning motherhood and family roles. The opinion emphasized that, while combating genuine discrimination against women is justified, imposing a single model for the division of roles within the family may lead to limiting the freedom of choice of women and families. According to Ordo Iuris experts, the state should create conditions that enable autonomous decision-making rather than promote uniform solutions.

The Ordo Iuris document also criticized calls to decriminalize abortion and to ensure broad access to it. They appeared in the UN Committee’s draft, even though the CEDAW Convention does not contain a single word about a “right to abortion,” and it does not even refer to the concept of so-called reproductive rights and sexual health, which are often interpreted by the abortion lobby as encompassing such a right to abortion. The Ordo Iuris Institute points out that the calls included in the UN Committee’s draft recommendation constitute a form of ideological pressure on states. It also emphasizes that under current international law there are no treaties establishing such a right, whereas there are numerous guarantees for the protection of life.

In conclusion, Ordo Iuris calls on the CEDAW Committee to revise the draft recommendations so that they remain within the Convention’s mandate, respect the sovereignty of states and fundamental rights and freedoms, including freedom of religion, speech, and economic activity, as well as the genuine freedom of choice of women and families.

“From the perspective of international law, it is particularly important to uphold the principle of states’ consent to the obligations undertaken. Expanding their scope through interpretations by treaty bodies, without formally amending the treaty, raises serious doubts about compatibility with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and may lead to the weakening of the entire human rights protection system,” notes Julia Książek of the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law.