UN votes against protecting gays from execution
 

Searched to see if someone posted this but didn't find anything. I'm not gay but I have a few friends who are. Whatever your sexual orientation may be, I'm sure you would find this as disgraceful as I did.

It's just sad to see what the U.N. has turned into.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/u...ays-execution/

These voted for the change

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Sala, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

17 countries abstained from Voting



BUT
They voted to change the wording from “sexual orientation” to “discriminatory reasons on any basis”. that covers more than sexual orientation (Gays and Lesbians are still protected under the new wording)

the previous list was non-exhaustive and it sounds like with the change it made the resolution encompass more people

and then finally

Approved by the UN General Assembly committee with 165 countries in favour and ten abstentions.



sounds like the media is hyping up a non story

rawstory has to be the absolute worst self-proclaimed "source" for political explications, trolls of the online news community


as StylinRed has already mentioned, this was the proposal:

because up to this point it was too much to reach a consensus by using the term "sexual orientation"

So then why the hell would all those countires vote to remove that, if now the laws cover an even larger range of characteristics? Stupidity?

its stupid to protect more?

its merely the wording i imagine those countries (christian/muslims) just dont like the wording of "sexual orientation" as they feel its like they are openly legitimizing gays & lesbians with this broader wording it still gives those (and others) protection but they dont feel like they're waving a rainbow flag



If we weren't going to be PC the previous wording is a bit redundant and silly especially compared to the new one

I find your willful ignorance on this subject to be disturbing. You seem willing to blindly accept the arguments of these disdainful regimes even if it leads to direct and absolute discrimination. The wording of the UN resolution specifically called for (and continues to call for) a halt to executions based on race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, language or other identifying characteristics. One and ONLY one group was removed from the list after being on there for nearly a decade: homosexuals. If removing a single group from an article about human rights isn't blatant discrimination, then I don't know what is. You seem to think that this is some sort of improvement; some form of compromise. But isn't the entire point of human rights that there should never be a compromise? That they are just that - rights? The resolution was already exhaustive in its language with the original wording. But for it to actually mention homosexuals as a group of real humans was just too much for this group of international bullies to handle. They were so blinded by their virulent homophobia that they were willing to compromise one of the cornerstones of international human rights to get their way. Sadly, it appears that you are willing to do the same.

THEYRE STILL PROTECTED


you're just fishing for hysteria and an argument where there isn't one

whenever i read a post from you regarding politics it sounds like im watching FOX news when they're trying to rile up the tea-baggers and hicks



On a side note, I thought you didn't give a damn about International Law and UN Resolutions anyway? (re: all the threads regarding Israeli atrocities)

What part of "discriminatory reasons on any basis" do you not see encompassing "discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation"?

to be honest, removing a word from an article isn't gonna do jack shit. Gays r still gonna be discriminated around the world. Cultural acceptance will change that but its not going to come from a word from an article in the UN resolution...

plus, according to stylinred a replacement, more encompassing, phrase replaced it

It's not like the UN ever does jack shit anyways.

gays are homo..

nuff said.

I believe the concern here is that when a particular vulnerable group is removed from specific wording, the evidence shows that broad wording offers little to no protection.

For instance, all schools in the U.S. have an anti-bully policy but the evidence has shown that school administrators have chosen to ignore bullying targeted toward gays, or those who are perceived to be gay when the wording is too general. However, in schools where the anti-bullying policy specifically mentions bulling targeted towards GLBTs, administrators are forced to act because there are clear standards and requirements.

There is a very good reason that only the banana republics, which includes China, voted for the amendment to the U.N. resolution while all the civilized nations voted against it, or abstained from voting.

1. I'm not fishing for hysteria or an argument. I simply posted the article, and gave my opinion on it. It is however really fucking annoying how you believe that since you gave your opinion, there is now no argument to be made. Get over yourself buddy.

2. I take that as a compliment if it means i'm getting people riled up over gay rights. Especially due to all the recent news over gay kids committing suicide due to bullying.

3. I would argue with you about Israel and all that crap any day of the week, but this thread is about this specific subject, so please be respectful and keep your silly agenda out of this.

Also, as some other dudes stated, the UN does jack shit, and will continue to do so for a long long time. For me it's not about actually enforcing this resolution, because it will never be done, but about what this 'move' means.

Things to think about:

"Categorizations that continue to be protected in the resolution include those in national, ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities; human rights defenders (including journalists, activists, and lawyers); homeless children; and members of indigenous communities." - (why did they not remove these specific references and just use one over arching term like their excuse for removing the sexuality term)

“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 criminalize homosexuality, five consider it a capital crime, and countries like Uganda are considering adding the death penalty to their laws criminalizing homosexuality.” - If execution based on sexuality is not explicitly stated, couldn't countries execute people for being gay because they simply committed a crime? I hope you get my drift.

which countries supported the removal of the term? which countries opposed it?

I'm not questioning the potential degenerative effects on humanity such an amendment will bring.
But the UN has enough structural problems as it is. The way I see it, this is a political move more than anything.

The media just managed to pick it up, and you know it it is, mountain out of a molehill.

ok who cares?
Gays have FU#$ing issues. Case Closed.

being gay is a disease :S they should go see psychiatrist.

jk.

You should see a psychiatrist for making a stupid comment.

I totally get what you're saying about the political move. On the other stuff I actually found it to be on the contrary. It seems like the media barely picked up on it and the only people that actually really cared about it were members of the LGBT community and their friends and family. And in that case, it's kind of understandable why they would make a big deal out if it.

i agree. In the end they are people as well. Personally i dont hate them just some uncomfort around them nothing more
Posted via RS Mobile