(Note, while this is not to justify the stance they took on this issue, they have replied to our request for a response via email, we have recorded their response, from Helen Zille: in another post: in which they reaffirm party policy, to allow in the SA Parliament: Freedom of Conscience, on moral issues: Response of the Office of Helen Zille (DA Leader) on concerns over homosexuality statements: http://southafricancatholic.blogspot.com/2009/01/response-of-office-of-helen-zille-da.html )
Article by Marc Aupiais
The DA, who have previously gained a relatively good rating from us, have done something, which calls into question their dignity. Tony Leon, their Foreign Affairs spokesperson, has asked, via questions submitted in parliament: the ANC's Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, who is South Africa's foreign minister, why RSA ("The Republic of South Africa"); did not vote for a UN (United Nations) push, considered as anti-religious discrimination, by the Vatican: which affirmed "Gender Theory", and attacked religious: in a move, claimed to be aimed at legalizing homosexuality throughout the world.
Their stance, if with an understanding of the document: would seem to insinuate support for Gay marriage: a definite seeming change in policy on the issue.
This note is based on an article in IOL: stating that Tony Leon Stated:
""Our failure to translate our domestic constitution and legislation into international support for human rights is clearly motivated by a desire not to offend some of the most retrogressive and authoritarian countries in the world," Leon said."
9IOL (Independent; Secular; South African) 12 / Jan / 2009)
The DA's previous record on "claimed" neutrality on moral issues, seems somewhat broken in this recent escapade. The UN resolution, fronted by France, was apposed by 60 nations, via a direct, joint statement, and in a addition,in a statement, which also rejected calls by those 60 nations: linking homosexuality to child molesting: as incorrect, the Vatican also rejected such: saying that they rejected it: due to clauses which encouraged anti-religious persecution.
66 nations, including the EU: supported the initiative.
The wording of the resolution, was thought by the Vatican to contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in it's affirmation of Gender theory: in so far as the Vatican directly stated: that it would likely lead to persecution of natural, universally accepted marriage: and put pressure on nations to accept "Gay Marriage": something, which the church considers an objective evil. Attacks on marriage: which the church considers the union between one man and one woman, aimed at unity and childcare: are considered enough to disqualify a party: so far as voting is concerned: unless voting for such a party: consists of supporting the lesser of two evils; so as to prevent greater evil.
4 out of 5 (80%) of South Africans, consider homosexual acts to be always wrong.
We have sent an electronic communication to the DA's Guateng Representation, asking for comment on this issue, and informing them of the "Gender Theory" bias of the proposition, they seem to be raising issues about. We will hopefully have a response, or update on this issue soon.
We have also informed the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference of this, we shall hopefully be able to keep you up to date on such things.
The ANC, which is seemingly, politically speaking: "radically" in support of the pro-abortion, and pro-gay marriage camps, as compared definite opposition in South Africa: and their choice to force these issues through (i.e. "radically" when nine out of ten South Africans (90%) appose abortion, and 4 out of 5 think homosexual acts are always wrong: they still chose to force MPs (Members of Parliament) to support such,something which makes them different in this issue, than South Africa's norm in demographics), responded, saying that they simply had not gotten around to signing it, but supported it. The South African ambassador to the UN (United Nations), Dumisani Kumalo, stated that it was not signed: so as not to offend other African nations: of which 6 alone sign it. 47 African Nations did not sign the December 18th proposal.
Abortion laws in South Africa: are considered in Catholic theology, to violate the right of conscientious objection, to participating in the killing of the yet to be born baby.
January 18th, is set forth as a day for the sanctity of Life, in the United States (Of America), under outgoing US (American) President George W Bush, who is doing so, in a stance by the White House against abortion. US (American) President Elect Barak Hussein Obama, has vowed to overturn laws requiring parental consent for abortions, and recently voted to allow a child which survived abortion, to be killed. His most clear promises, seem to be in this field: where he plans to get more funding to abortionists, and wherein, many appointees to vital positions in his administration: are ideologically pro-abortion, raising questions, as to his purpose in appointing these people to such positions.
His vowed legislation, is radical, and seems biased. Many American Catholic bishops, outright apposed him, including a senior Vatican aid. Vatican Representation, say that if legislation, he has promised to pass, passes, such would be seen as an act of war.
One the DA Issue, their own website states:
"TONY LEON, MP
DA SPOKESPERSON ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
On receipt of the news that South Africa refused to support a declaration by the United Nations General Assembly on Human Rights Day in December 2008 calling for the decriminalisation of homosexuality I submitted on Friday 9 January 2009 the following questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs:
1. Whether she can indicate why the South African government failed to support a declaration by the United Nations General Assembly on Human Rights Day, calling for the decriminalisation of homosexuality; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
2. whether her Office has considered the ramifications of the South African government’s failure to support this declaration for the South African government’s reputation, both internationally and domestically, in terms of being committed to (a) upholding its Constitution and the values enshrined in it and (b) promoting the freedom of its people as well as the people of other countries; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?
Our failure to translate our domestic Constitution and legislation into international support for human rights is clearly motivated by a desire not to offend some of the most retrogressive and authoritarian countries in the world. This contradiction between what we practise at home and preach abroad is entirely and unhappily consistent with our role call of dismal votes on the United Nations Security Council during our ill-starred tenure there which ended in December 2008."
(DA (Seular; South African; Political party: Press Release 11 / 01 / 2009; no copyright listed)