| Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events The off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum. |
 | 
11-24-2010, 07:23 PM
|
#1 | | Need to Seek Professional Help
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,074
Thanked 187 Times in 74 Posts
Failed 97 Times in 34 Posts
| 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. Quote:
The UN has removed a reference to sexual orientation from a resolution condemning arbitrary and unjustified executions.
The UN General Assembly resolution, which is renewed every two years, contained a reference opposing the execution of LBGT people in its 2008 version. But this year's version passed without any reference to gay rights after a group of mostly African and Asian countries, led by Mali and Morocco, voted to remove it.
Gay rights groups fear the move -- which passed in a narrow 79 to 70 vote -- will act as a signal that persecuting people for their sexual orientation is internationally acceptable.
“This vote is a dangerous and disturbing development,” Cary Alan Johnson, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, said in a statement. "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."
Johnson was referring to a bill introduced in Uganda's legislature last year that would mandate the death penalty for multiple acts of gay sex or for any gay person carrying HIV. Though the bill appeared to be shelved after an international outcry, its principal supporter said last month the bill would be law "soon."
Uganda was among 79 countries that voted to remove the reference to sexual orientation from the resolution. Among the other countries were Afghanistan, China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Most Western countries, including the US, voted in favor of keeping the reference to sexual orientation in place.
The US abstained from the final vote to approve the resolution, with diplomats telling the UN General Assembly the US was "dismayed" at the decision.
The resolution "gives a de facto green light to the on-going murder of LGBT people by homophobic regimes, death squads and vigilantes," said Peter Tatchell, a British LGBT activist. "They will take comfort from the fact that the UN does not endorse the protection of LGBT people against hate-motivated violence and murder."
He added: "The UN vote is in direct defiance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees equal treatment, non-discrimination and the right to life. What is the point of the UN if it refuses to uphold its own humanitarian values and declarations?"
| http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/u...ays-execution/
__________________
Surf, Party, Sleep.
| 
|  | |
11-24-2010, 08:58 PM
|
#2 | | I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,679
Thanked 10,395 Times in 3,918 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
|
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
Last edited by StylinRed; 11-24-2010 at 09:06 PM.
| |
| | |
11-24-2010, 09:24 PM
|
#3 | | DOES HE LOOK LIKE A BITCH?
Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 11,037
Thanked 2,572 Times in 690 Posts
Failed 578 Times in 161 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by m!chael  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/ | 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: Quote: |
A proposed amendment (document A/C.3/65/L.65) would, in operative paragraph six, replace the words “any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation” with the words “discriminatory reasons on any basis”. (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2...hc3997.doc.htm)
| because up to this point it was too much to reach a consensus by using the term "sexual orientation"
| |
| | |
11-24-2010, 09:41 PM
|
#4 | | WOAH! i think Vtec just kicked in!
Join Date: May 2005 Location: vancouver
Posts: 1,620
Thanked 218 Times in 59 Posts
Failed 43 Times in 16 Posts
|
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?
| |
| | |
11-24-2010, 09:46 PM
|
#5 | | I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,679
Thanked 10,395 Times in 3,918 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
|
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
| |
| | |
11-24-2010, 09:55 PM
|
#6 | | Need to Seek Professional Help
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,074
Thanked 187 Times in 74 Posts
Failed 97 Times in 34 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinRed 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 | 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.
__________________
Surf, Party, Sleep.
| |
| | |
11-24-2010, 10:08 PM
|
#7 | | I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,679
Thanked 10,395 Times in 3,918 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
|
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)
Last edited by StylinRed; 11-24-2010 at 10:21 PM.
| |
| | |
11-24-2010, 10:21 PM
|
#8 | | DOES HE LOOK LIKE A BITCH?
Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 11,037
Thanked 2,572 Times in 690 Posts
Failed 578 Times in 161 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by m!chael 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. | What part of "discriminatory reasons on any basis" do you not see encompassing "discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation"?
| |
| | |
11-24-2010, 10:24 PM
|
#9 | | Rs has made me the man i am today!
Join Date: May 2007 Location: New West
Posts: 3,163
Thanked 1,341 Times in 557 Posts
Failed 206 Times in 108 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by m!chael 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. | 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
| |
| | |
11-24-2010, 10:31 PM
|
#10 | | DOES HE LOOK LIKE A BITCH?
Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 11,037
Thanked 2,572 Times in 690 Posts
Failed 578 Times in 161 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by PiuYi 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.
| |
| | |
11-24-2010, 10:33 PM
|
#11 | | Banned (ABWS)
Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: MacLeod
Posts: 7,298
Thanked 542 Times in 289 Posts
Failed 1,639 Times in 418 Posts
|
gays are homo..
nuff said.
| |
| | |
11-29-2010, 03:31 AM
|
#12 | | Marcosexual Fan Club, CEO
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: US Bush-country
Posts: 7,741
Thanked 823 Times in 284 Posts
Failed 236 Times in 113 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Culture_Vulture What part of "discriminatory reasons on any basis" do you not see encompassing "discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation"? | 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.
__________________
Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.
| |
| | |
11-29-2010, 05:30 PM
|
#13 | | Need to Seek Professional Help
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,074
Thanked 187 Times in 74 Posts
Failed 97 Times in 34 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinRed 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) | 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.
__________________
Surf, Party, Sleep.
| |
| | |
11-29-2010, 05:50 PM
|
#14 | | Need to Seek Professional Help
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,074
Thanked 187 Times in 74 Posts
Failed 97 Times in 34 Posts
|
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?
__________________
Surf, Party, Sleep.
| |
| | |
11-29-2010, 06:58 PM
|
#15 | | DOES HE LOOK LIKE A BITCH?
Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 11,037
Thanked 2,572 Times in 690 Posts
Failed 578 Times in 161 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco911 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. | Quote:
Originally Posted by m!chael 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. | 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.
| |
| | |
11-30-2010, 07:05 PM
|
#16 | | Wunder? Wonder?? Wander???
Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: richmond bc
Posts: 214
Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
Failed 38 Times in 6 Posts
|
ok who cares?
Gays have FU#$ing issues. Case Closed.
__________________
03' 986, 08 gl420
If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough
| |
| | |
11-30-2010, 07:58 PM
|
#17 | | I bringith the lowerballerith
Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: vancouver
Posts: 1,149
Thanked 457 Times in 190 Posts
Failed 397 Times in 91 Posts
|
being gay is a disease :S they should go see psychiatrist.
jk.
| |
| | |
11-30-2010, 08:42 PM
|
#18 | | I don't get it
Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: vancouver
Posts: 422
Thanked 259 Times in 88 Posts
Failed 282 Times in 74 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by geeknerd being gay is a disease :S they should go see psychiatrist.
jk. | You should see a psychiatrist for making a stupid comment.
| |
| | |
12-02-2010, 02:23 AM
|
#19 | | Need to Seek Professional Help
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,074
Thanked 187 Times in 74 Posts
Failed 97 Times in 34 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Culture_Vulture 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. | 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.
__________________
Surf, Party, Sleep.
| |
| | |
12-02-2010, 10:28 AM
|
#20 | | I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Neverland
Posts: 2,705
Thanked 641 Times in 339 Posts
Failed 191 Times in 65 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by darkfroggy You should see a psychiatrist for making a stupid comment. | 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 | |
| | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:14 PM.
|
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
