"On November 16, the UN General Assembly, by a vote of 79 to 70 (with 17 abstentions and 26 absentees), removed an explicit condemnation of killings on the basis of sexual orientation from a GA resolution. The reference to “sexual orientation” has been included in previous resolutions which condemn extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The sad implication is that sexual orientation is not an arbitrary ground for executing people. This is an extremely dangerous development, with a few countries classifying homosexual activity as a capital crime (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and parts of Nigeria), and Uganda considering amendments to its law so as to prescribe execution as a possible punishment. The rampant homophobia unleashed by the Ugandan proposal is illustrated by the appalling incident of a local paper publishing the photos of 100 gay men, calling for the State to “Hang them”.
This vote will give rise to legitimate criticism of the UN. However, the UN is composed of its member States, and it is those States, or rather, the 79 who voted for the amendment, along with the abstainers and absentees, who are to blame. The vote is perhaps a sad reflection of the values of the States in the General Assembly, who each have one vote."
A translation of which would be thus:
In a world where the UN can exist as a supposedly democratic force for beneficial change, in 2010, an amendment was passed removing sexual orientation from the anti-execution resolution. As such, in 76 countries worldwide, it is considered ILLEGAL to be considered homosexual, bisexual or transgender. In 5 countries worldwide, it is considered a CAPITAL CRIME, (ie. you will be subject to the death penalty), with further countries considering the capital crime judgement.
Admittedly, the force behind the amendment was primarily African, Islamic and Asian. (One needn't render their opinion anything but a religion-based one). Perhaps the most shocking of the countries involved were Thailand and South Africa, (where same-sex marriage is legal).
There were 17 abstentions and 26 absentees - a disgraceful truth, (and one could infer from evidence, under suspicious circumstances). Abstaining, (or a formal declination to vote either in favour or against,) shows the pusillanimous countries for what they really are. Virulent cowards. One can hardly believe that the people of those countries in favour of this abomination would have voted in favour of the amendment, which begs the question, can people who hold influence over our countries vote for worldwide laws without the suitable backing from the population for whom they are the voice? It appears so.
How can true GLBT rights ever advance when such egregious, monstrous laws remain intact?
One's faith in humanity really does hang by a thread.
Peace.
This vote will give rise to legitimate criticism of the UN. However, the UN is composed of its member States, and it is those States, or rather, the 79 who voted for the amendment, along with the abstainers and absentees, who are to blame. The vote is perhaps a sad reflection of the values of the States in the General Assembly, who each have one vote."
A translation of which would be thus:
In a world where the UN can exist as a supposedly democratic force for beneficial change, in 2010, an amendment was passed removing sexual orientation from the anti-execution resolution. As such, in 76 countries worldwide, it is considered ILLEGAL to be considered homosexual, bisexual or transgender. In 5 countries worldwide, it is considered a CAPITAL CRIME, (ie. you will be subject to the death penalty), with further countries considering the capital crime judgement.
Admittedly, the force behind the amendment was primarily African, Islamic and Asian. (One needn't render their opinion anything but a religion-based one). Perhaps the most shocking of the countries involved were Thailand and South Africa, (where same-sex marriage is legal).
There were 17 abstentions and 26 absentees - a disgraceful truth, (and one could infer from evidence, under suspicious circumstances). Abstaining, (or a formal declination to vote either in favour or against,) shows the pusillanimous countries for what they really are. Virulent cowards. One can hardly believe that the people of those countries in favour of this abomination would have voted in favour of the amendment, which begs the question, can people who hold influence over our countries vote for worldwide laws without the suitable backing from the population for whom they are the voice? It appears so.
How can true GLBT rights ever advance when such egregious, monstrous laws remain intact?
One's faith in humanity really does hang by a thread.
Peace.
check you out, blogging like there's no tomorrow. how's your self portrait going?
ReplyDelete(i feel that the above was a relevant and insightful comment in relation to your actual blog post)
X