UN deletes gay reference from anti-execution measures

[MarieDelta]

UN deletes gay reference from anti-execution measures
By Jessica Geen • November 18, 2010 - 16:54

A United Nations panel has deleted a reference to gays and lesbians in a resolution condemning unjustified executions.

The motion was introduced by Morocco and Mali and the vast majority of countries in support were African or Arabic.

Many of the supporting countries criminalise homosexuality and five treat it as a capital offence.

The amendment called for the words “sexual orientation” to be replaced with “discriminatory reasons on any basis”. The resolution makes explicit reference to a large number of groups, including human rights defenders, religious and ethnic minorities and street children.

It narrowly passed 79-70 and was then approved by the UN General Assembly committee with 165 in favour and ten abstentions.

The amendment, which condemns extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions and other killings, is voted on by the UN General Assembly every two years.

It has contained a reference to sexual orientation for the last ten years.

Cary Alan Johnson, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, said: “This vote is a dangerous and disturbing development.

“It essentially removes the important recognition of the particular vulnerability faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people – a recognition that is crucial at a time when 76 countries around the world criminalise homosexuality, five consider it a capital crime, and countries like Uganda are considering adding the death penalty to their laws criminalising homosexuality.”


http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/11/18/un-deletes-gay-reference-from-anti-execution-measures/

Seems scary enough out there. Now this.

[12voltman59]

It is kinda scary to be sure. I am sure that we have a group here in the US who even though they don't much care for the UN---don't have any problem with the gutless wonders at the UN who voted to strike the "gay" reference from the resolution and are probably actually pleased it happened.

[DuckiesDarling]

The amendment called for the words “sexual orientation” to be replaced with “discriminatory reasons on any basis”.

Seems to me they are still covering sexual orientation under discriminatory reasons on any basis while hiding behind ambiguous prose to appease a few countries.

[darkeyes]

Excuse me, but am I being thick here? Does not the replacement words signify all discrimination.. including sexual orientation. I havent had time to delve into it but is there an exemption contained somewhere regarding sexual orientation?

The article doesnt clarify things at all.. and while I dont doubt what people think and fear, as far as I can tell on first glance, unless there is an exemption then all forms of discrimination are included, including sexual oreintation..

[DuckiesDarling]

OMG Hell froze over I agreed with Fran before she posted :p

[darkeyes]

OMG Hell froze over I agreed with Fran before she posted :p

brrrrrrrr.. bloody freezin innit??:eek:

[Nadir]

I dont think its such a big deal... seems scary, for sure, but as darkeyes said, they are probably trying to appease those countries by playing with the prose. Its funny but this days I have been making some research on homosexuality and Islam, and I have found a lots of Muslim LGBT associations (particularly in secular countries like Turkey and Indonesia) and groops on Google,Yahoo,on blogs... fighting the good fight, enlightnening people. A lot of heart. All of them :)

[darkeyes]

I have done a little further study and reading on this, and in reality, there is no doubt in my mind that my original instinctive reaction holds good. Yet having read the UNs own minute of the debate, and the record as published in their press statement, there can be no doubt in my mind that some nations among the winning voters (I cant say majority cos there were so many abstentions and absentees) have undoubtedly voted to delete the reference to lgbt for their own ends.. the new resolution does not change anything however, and nations affiliated to the UN are still expected to adhere to the spirit of the intent of the resolution. Lgbt's should still under the terms of this new resolution continue to be protected just like any other individual or group of individuals in the same way as had the reference to LGBT people not been deleted. It places upon member states precisely the same obligations as has been the case since 1999 when the referece to lgbt was first introduced.

However, several nations references to the word "interpretation" do cause me concern and this must be kept an eye on. These nations are not exactly the most lgbt friendly and so it has to be expected that their contribution to the protection of lgbt will be at best limited. But that was the case prior to the adoption of the resolution in any case. Several nations, like South Africa and Cuba agreed they would continue to protect the LGBT and that they felt that an all encompassing resolution was the best way to proceed and that there was no need for lgbt to be contained as a specifically named group. Some countries felt that since there was no agreed UN legal interpretation of what gender orientation meant, that the reference should be deleted at least until an agreed interpretation could be found. Bull if you ask me and a cop out!

While I understand the need of lgbt people to have the protection that they deserve just like any other citizen of their, or indeed any country, in principle I do not believe there to be a need for a specific reference to our kind in any resolution.. yet such is the way of the world I think for the moment I would prefer that it was there just so no governemnt of any country could wheedle out of its responsibilities and obligations to all of its citizens of whatever sexual orientation. This word "interpretation" which keeps cropping up does concern me. Yet I am not too despondent about it because of what I said before.. I do not think it will make one jot of difference to what was going on before the adoption of the new resolution at least in the short to medium term.. time will tell if in the longer term the definition "all" in some countries means "all except the LGBT".

Like with any UN resolution there will be those who honour the spirit and intent of the resolution, the wording of it as they interpret it, and some will ignore it, so from that point of view there is no change. Everyone in the spirit, intent and wording of the resolution is protected.. just what that means in practice will remain to be seen. It is to be hoped that the next time the resolution comess up for adoption, those more progressive countries in the field of lgbt issues dont let themselves get ambushed in quite the ame manner and develop a form of words which make the interpretation quite clear, and leaves no room for misunderstanding among any of the member states.. I dont know about them, but when written in English, I dont actually think there is any room for interpretation.. how it is translated into hundreds of other languages now, is quite another matter...

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/gashc3997.doc.htm

[NotLostJustWandering]

Aren't all these UN resolutions toothless declarations that are routinely ignored, anyway?

[darkeyes]

Aren't all these UN resolutions toothless declarations that are routinely ignored, anyway?

Very often Atiq.. and not always by countries who are considered the baddies here in the west...

[Annika L]

I am sure the intent is to replace a specific reference to sexual orientation with a stronger statement, but unless I'm missing something important, I fear that the effect is to weaken the resolution.

First, the resolution doesn't sound like it stands against execution generally...just "unjustified execution". Well, y'know, lots of people think killing LGBT people *is* justified. So removing that specific language weakens our protections.

Ok, so they still say we shouldn't "unjustifiably" execute a person for any discriminatory reasons (presumably including orientation). Well, why the hell else *do* people "unjustifiably" execute people? Why not just make a blanket resolution against execution? Precisely because they don't intend to do away with execution...just "unjustifiable" ones. But making the language more general and less specific (regardless of the intent) leaves "unjustifiable" and of "discrimination" in the hands of the executor. We discriminate against perpetrators of genocide, we discriminate against child molestors, etc. ...will we no longer do that? If that's the case, then what remain as "justifiable" executions? If nothing remains, then I ask again, why the discrimination language...why not just ban executions?

I believe the reason is that people were uncomfortable having LGBT people mentioned in writing in their resolutions, and wanted to get rid of us...the mention of us...and in doing so, they almost completely nullify the meaning of their resolution...which probably didn't upset the countries who were backing the proposition one bit.

So yes, Atiq...if it wasn't toothless before, it now is.

[vittoria]

Excuse me, but am I being thick here? Does not the replacement words signify all discrimination.. including sexual orientation. I havent had time to delve into it but is there an exemption contained somewhere regarding sexual orientation?

The article doesnt clarify things at all.. and while I dont doubt what people think and fear, as far as I can tell on first glance, unless there is an exemption then all forms of discrimination are included, including sexual oreintation..

Said the same thing m'self, dearie!!

Semantics and some antics, arent they? Oft I wonder if people who write articles state things in such a way to create havoc unwittingly or unbeknownst to others.