Greater Democracy: World Congress of Families IV: Genesis, Philosophy & Ambit

June 8, 2006

World Congress of Families IV: Genesis, Philosophy & Ambit

Professor Dr. Farooq Hassan

At the beginning of May 2006, a Preparatory Committee Meeting was held in Warsaw, Poland, to work the details of the next World Congress of Families IV to be held there in 2007. This will be the fourth such international event, the previous three having been held in Prague, Geneva and in Mexico City. Each of these famous international Congresses, known by their sequential numbers as I, II and III, produced landmark Declarations for the protection, welfare, and support of the Family by the State and the society as a basic human institution.

These memorable documents contained a forceful reiteration of the leading international text on this subject, namely Article 16 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which had proclaimed as far back as 1948 that:

“The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by the society and the State.”
The credit for organizing these hugely successful events goes to the distinguished scholar Dr. Allan Carlson who heads The Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society in Rockford, Illinois in the US. As is well known, Dr. Carlson founded the World Congress of Families in 1997. His far sighted and pioneer thinking on this topic, more importantly his clear visions to identify the looming threats to this fundamental of all human institution, has been the moving spirit behind the holding of these international meetings. I may add that these meetings included, as in Geneva in 1999 and in Mexico City in 2004, literally thousands of participant’s from 75 nations of the world.

The last such meeting was very important. It included the patronage of the first Family of Mexico, President Vicente Fox and First Lady Marta Sahagún. Indeed First Lady Marta Sahagún personally graced the occasion by her presence. This Conference included personal endorsement by the US President, George W. Bush, who expressed his deep appreciation for holding this Conference and importantly observed: “Around the world, families are the source of help, hope and stability, for individual and nations.”
The Warsaw meeting included 25 international participants from diverse continents, the Americas, Central America, Europe, Asia and Africa, as well as this author. There were twelve nations represented in this intellectually vigorous group that produced most lively and analytical discussions. An impressive aspect of these three days of intense, around the clock, deliberations was the highest sense of wonderful participation by the Polish delegation. There were in this large group 30 members listed as participants. The presence of the Government of Poland as the host country was clearly visible, as all the working sessions of the Preparatory Committee were held in the Office of the Prime Minister, HE Mr. Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz and his Advisor of Family Affairs, whom I came to know well during the sessions. Others who attended our meetings included the Ministers of Culture and Labor. The Chief of Staff of the Premier also attended the inaugural session. The participants also included representatives from the senior bureaucracy of the European Parliament, many dignitaries of the pro Family NGO community as well as leading local lawyers, professors, journalists and members of the Polish Senate. This shows the tremendous interests of the relevant people.

Also deserving special mention is the assistance of the Catholic Church in promoting this next important international meeting on Family. An audience arranged for the benefit of the International Committee members with the Honorable Archbishop Jan Majdanski underscored it. For this purpose, we traveled some 30 miles out of Warsaw to the town of Lomianki. The Archbishop is a most distinguished older gentleman who was a prisoner of the Nazis in the concentration camp at Dachau during World War II. He had been a close friend of the late Pope John Paul II and, in 1975, set up in this town where he now resides the first International Institute of Family Studies any where in the world. I toured this Institute, talked to students and found its course offerings most impressive. I also visited their publications center; it was good to see that it had produced a vast range of important research papers. Its work includes the dissemination of the pro family matters and material through televising programs.

I am already well aware of the contributions of the Catholic Church in the field of preservation of the traditional family and its heritage. At the international level as diplomatic representative of my native country to the UN General Assembly Sessions in New York, as member and delegate to the UN Human Rights Commission and the Sub Commission for Protection of Human Rights in Geneva and, more recently, as a special UN Ambassador for Family of the World Family Alliance at the UN, I know the tremendous work undertaken by the Vatican. In this regard I came across at the Family Institute at Lomianki a publication, which begin with the famous words of the late Polish Pope who in a letter to this institution of 3 May 2000 said:

“We owe much to the Institute in what constitutes Family, understanding its greatness and vocation as well as the defense of life. The Family is God’s greatest gift to human kind and we ought to guard it as the greatest of treasures, defending it and sparing no effort to save it being stripped of its proper value to mankind.” (Emphasis supplied)

There is thus ample evidence of the continuous goodwill of the Church in furthering the cause of family that was visibly shared and forcibly espoused by numerous other known NGOs from all over the world. Amongst the prominent NGOs from the US were such as Family First and the Sutherland Institute from Utah, most commendably represented by Charles Carriker and Paul Mero respectively. Also present were distinguished delegates representing a number of established NGOs with known scholarship on this subject from diverse countries such as the United States, Germany, France, Spain, Pakistan, Qatar (through Professor Richard Wilkins of BYU and now with the Doha Family Institute), and Mexico - as well as the World Islamic Family Coalition based in London. This exhibits the tremendous efforts of the Organizers to gather the widest possible spectrum of nationalities, views and perspectives for thinking about the next 2007 World Congress.

The essential Aims of the next Congress are:

         To promote family as the natural and fundamental unit of the society.
         To remind the world about the mission of he Family.
         To recognize the treats to the family and continuous anti-family acts.
         To create a forum for presenters belonging to political, religious or other learned fields to echo their thoughts
         To share the experiences of amongst the pro-family adherents the content of current activities in this area.

It will be seen that this is quintessentially the central theme of the prior declarations as well of the earlier World Congresses. It shows the determination of the current leadership of the world pro-family movement to keep the efforts of the international community focused on what is fundamentally required in this context. The threats to the family are the result of current movements aimed to unsettle the established role of family in society. Regrettably, the nucleus of the international community, which has power and influence at the UN, is willing to lend its support to such philosophical ideas that are inherently baneful.

For pro family protagonists, the one solid ray of hope has been the conduct and willingness of Islamic countries to support efforts to stop fundamental alterations to the established concept of what constitutes marriage and what the institution of family historically signifies. The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) that has 60 countries, 57 Members and 3 as Observers, has constantly supported all such initiatives that aim to preserve such idealism. I personally know that, were it not for the efforts of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in both 2003 and 2004, the Sexual Orientation Resolution moved by Brazil may well have been adopted by a narrow vote at the Annual Meetings of the Human Rights Commission in Geneva in both these years. As such, the dire need of support from these countries continues.

The great doctrinal threat to family is the strenuous efforts of anti-family lobby to espouse a definition of marriage that runs afoul of heritage of mankind. Among the best definitions is the one provided by the Planning Committee of the World Congress of Families II at Rome in 1998. It says: -

“The natural family is the fundamental social unit, inscribed by the Creator in human nature, and centered around the voluntary union of man and a woman in a life long covenant of marriage…and ensuring the full emotional development of children ”

This lexicographical conceptuality has all the ingredients and factors of what constitutes a family. It has clear reference to human needs of the two people involved in a marriage, the results of its fulfillment and the religious basis of such a purpose. However, in these last few decades, with other modalities of “unions” being floated, this traditional view has been challenged at the level of the Church, the courts and in legislatures in the US and at the UN. As such, all these topics need an in depth examination which hopefully will be appropriately examined next year in Warsaw.

One aspect that requires an additional thought is that, on some issues considered important by the conservative elements of the Western pro family protagonists, there is clearly within Muslim nations’ themselves a modification in their erstwhile perspectives of such matters. I have already reported, as a Rappoteur of the two important UN regional conferences on family and children held in Islamabad in May 2005, that the shift I refer to is manifestly there. Family planning is clearly on agenda of many such Third world countries and so is the lessening of parental control in what is referred to as “spanking” issues. Such a metamorphosis requires a deeper examination and I feel would be analyzed the next World Congress.

Without question, such issues require a scholarly expose so that we can move ahead appropriately by countering in time the vicissitudes of our age. I must also say that rhetorical re-iteration of known perspectives of friendly audiences is important; however, what is equally required is the dissemination of impressive and meaningful ideas in opposition to perspectives being canvassed by anti-family advocates.

Dr. Farooq Hassan, D.Phil.;
BA (Juris),MA,M. LiTT (OXON);
DCL (Columbia),DIA(Harvard);
Sen.Adv.Sup.Ct. (Pakistan),
Barrister at Law (UK),Attorney at Law(US).

Posted by Jock Gill at June 8, 2006 7:15 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Very informative material. Even it would made sense to a lay person. It's doctrinal message about family values may be disputed by those who think differently about such core intsitutions of mankind. But to most believing Christians these views are welcome coming as they do from Dr. Farooq Hassan, a leading Islamic thinker of this age.

Posted by: Professor Kenith Williams at June 9, 2006 11:53 AM

Excellent piece of our most learned and beloved legal legend Dr.Farooq Hassan. I very glad to see that the Catholic religion and Muslims think alike on Family matters. It is very good to see that in these troubled times Dr. Farooq Hasan is working towards interfaith harmony in many of his writing thst we see almost daily in the Sub-Continent.

Posted by: Wasim Rehan, MBA, Counillor at June 11, 2006 12:00 AM

Farooq,

While I very strongly disagree with the position you take in your essay on the possubility of there being only one acceptable definition of family, I have, none the less, posted it to Greater Democracy. I am not a censor.

I reject absolutely the suggestion that the definition of family you propose is the only possibly correct family arrangement. I am very pro-family in the broadest sense of the world. Thus I am deeply offended by your suggestion that, by supporting a full spectrum range of possible family configurations, I must be anti-family.

On what basis do you claim to have a superior knowledge of what constitutes family? As your knowledge is just as imperfect as mine, or any other human, regardless of title or position, I suggest that a good deal of humiltiy is required in the face of what must always be uncertainty, ambiguity and contradiction. I further suggest that no claims of special authority can legitimately be derived from unprovable claims regarding "special knowledge" derived from any referenced supernatural beings or their suggested values.

If you chose to believe these things, I respect that choice. I do not grant you the right to then impose on me your values base on unprovable assertions based upon claims made about possible supernatural creators.

I suggest children in a happy and intact family based upon, for example, a same sex union are FAR better off than children abandoned by an orthodox union held together by fear or dissolved in a nasty divorce. The social research verifies this.

This raises a more fundamental question than you ask: What is the goal of "family" and what metrics most nearly give us a good idea if a family is functioning in healthy or pathological process?

I assert that ANY family configuration can be pathological. Clearly there are many heterosexual unions that are severely pathological in their operation and results. It would appear that a simple measure of hetrosexuality is far from any useful metric for evaluating the health of a family unit. In fact, the evidence suggests that heterosexuality is neither necessary nor sufficient for a healthy family.

"Justice as Fairness" does not require require Intelligent Design nor any super natural figures. Nor does it require the imposition of fundamentally religious beliefs on others of different religious beliefs - or non at all. To impose a belief that can not be proven false, is to fundamentally assert that your knowledge is privileged and less imperfect that those being judged. This is hubris and provably a false claim, as it is easily proven that perfect knowledge is an impossibility.

So I respect your choices. Can you respect mine? I do not attempt to impose my views on you. Do you claim the authority to impose yours on me? I trust not.

Regards,

Jock

Posted by: Jock Gill at June 11, 2006 10:40 AM

Dear Jock

I am in complete agreement with you over the central point of your thesis…that is freedom of choice and freedom of expression…. I am thus happy that, despite your philosophical disapproval of my ideas about “family”, you did post my work!

You see your basic premise about the issues you bring out, most articulately if I may say so, are well taken and supported by large number of very learned people and many leading countries…indeed the US had the same position on these issues until the current Administration which actually appointed an Ambassador at the UN for this purpose in 2000! (Mrs. Ellen Suarbrey).

This piece of mine had nothing new or original as far as I can tell but re-iteration of the well know positions of the divergent schools of thought on this matter…. it is essentially, as you will clearly see, a descriptive article rather than an analytical one…and far from espousing a philosophical idea it simply is in alignment with a more conservative "moral" perspective over a societal subject!

I understand that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts has been grappling with some aspects of this matter and the State Legislature has for some time now also been involved in it!

I have a cultural background which is simply the one that believe I inherited which has this outlook…in the Subcontinent, where you can see great religious diversity, most people have, I believe, similar (if not entirely the same) thoughts on marriage and children and family that I have seemingly supported. On the other hand, I know and realize the opposite view of many in the West where I grew up…I have many close friends who are protagonists of such views whom I respect and have great affection for!

It is thus not my definition of family that is the correct one. It is one amongst many. I just feel more attuned to it…certainly your averments on this point are fine and I totally agree that my quoting a particular one is really pertaining to lexicographical choices and not the one to be necessarily adopted!

I recall many such fine debates that I sat through in the Third Committee of UN GA and in the UN Human Rights Commission meetings…

So, my good friend, I am very honored that you spent some time in writing to me and in the same spirit and goodwill I have taken the opportunity to very briefly respond….

With warmest good wishes,

Farooq

Posted by: Farooq Hassan at June 11, 2006 12:31 PM

Dear Farooq,

Thank you for your gentle and courteous reply.

The question we are engaged in conversation about is the deep nature of power: who determines its organizing principals and thus who has it and who does not.

A person with choice has power. A person without choice has less power. The freedon to choose is clearly one form of power -- often a very personal one.

Historically, as you know, many power structures were based upon an asymmetrical organizing principal, ie were top down, hub and spoke, or Master / Slave in nature. People in the center, to justify their asymmetrical power advantage, have always created many claims to privileged status in order rationalize their power.

The hub and spoke model goes back at least as far as the Roman Army, whose organizational principals were largely embraced by the Catholic Church in the West, and thus embedded deeply into Western culture. For example, it has been used with great success by corporate industrialists. It is, in the end, fundamentally anti-democratic. Why so? Because it allows the notion that some are more equal than others and then enforces that notion with brutality.

On the other hand, we have a new model emerging: egalitarian peer-to-peer mesh networks in which all are "peers" and all have the power of choice. This is the power of the internet. It is also the organizing principal that most closely mirrors and embodies the core values of a democracy of citizens, all created equal, under the rule of law.

I expect the peer-to-peer organizing principal to win out in the end as it benefits more people in more ways, promotes democracy, and increases communications between people. By increasing communications and transactions, the peer-to-peer model will increase social activity, cultural activity, economic activity, innovation, artistic activity as well as political activity. It will in the process redefine the process of the distribution of power. Therefore it will be objected to and fought against by those who have benefited from the asymmetrical and anti-democratic power paradigm of the old hub and spoke organizing principal.

Returning to the discussion of family, if we allow, as I believe we must, a richer and more diverse definition of what is a family, we will be creating a tension. We will be threatening the power structures that depend on the power to deny choice to many others in order to maintain their privileged positions in this world. To empower "the other", whether it be women, gays, the handicapped, other religions, other skin colors, etc is to reduce the power of the current elites in the center -- who ever and where ever they are. This they will fight tooth and nail.

This is, I expect, the ultimate reason for the passion on all sides of the issue of what is a "family" and what is "family friendly". My family is my choice, unless some “other” wishes to assert that I do not have the power to make that choice. Then the question becomes: What is the source of the legitimacy of the “other”’s claim to the power to deny me equal power? My view is that legitimacy can only come from below, from the people. Further it must be freely given based upon a full and transparent presentation of all reasonable alternatives.

The legitimacy of power can never come from the top, nor from superior might, and never from claims of special relations with supernatural powers. At least this is the tradition established in America by our revolt from the abuse of power, political and economic, by the King of England and the East India Company, the first multi-national.

In closing this comment, I observe that the question of power is about to be severely tested as we confront the challenges thrust upon us by global warming. Can we, all of humanity, learn to cooperate across cultures, religions, economic values, and political organizing principals to prevent the C02 level in the atmosphere from crossing the 500 part per million threshold? Will we be able to agree that it is essential to make releasing sequestered carbon into the atmosphere a very expensive, even prohibited, option? Will we, in the end, be up to the test?

The livs of 100s of millons of us depend upon our collective success.

Best regards,

Jock

Posted by: Jock Gill at June 11, 2006 5:49 PM