Pro-Gay Resolution at UN rebuffed

[Sky]

A statement by the Syrian delegation on behalf of DPRK, Iran, Libya, Zimbabwe, 57 countries in all, on so-called gay rights.
http://www.un.org/webcast/ga.html (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga.html)


We are seriously concerned at the attempt to introduce to the UN some notions that have no legal foundation in any international human rights instruments. We are even more disturbed at the attempt to focus on certain persons on the grounds of their sexual interests and behaviors while ignoring that intolerance and discrimination regrettably exists in various parts of the world be it on the basis of color, race, religion, to mention only a few. Our alarm does not merely stem from concerns about the lack of legal ground or that the said statement delves into matters which is within the domestic jurisdiction of States, counter to the commitment in the UN Charter to respect sovereignty of States and principal of non-intervention. More important, it arises owing to the ominous usage of those two notions. The notion of orientation spans a wide range of personal choices that expand way beyond the individual’s sexual interest in a behavior with a normal consenting adult human being, thereby ushering in the social normalization and possibly delegitimizing many deplorable acts, including pedophilia. The second is often suggested to attribute particular sexual interests or behavior to genetic factors—a notion that has been scientifically rebuffed repeatedly.

It follows that vulnerable individuals and groups are those women, children, elderly, people under foreign occupation, refugees, asylum seekers, migrants, internally displaced person—deprived of their liberty. And people belonging to ethnic and linguistic, or national, religious minorities will become vulnerable as a result inter alia of intolerance and discrimination. We strongly deplore all forms of stereotyping, exclusion, stimgmitization, prejudice, intolerance, discrimination, and violence directed against peoples, community, individuals on any ground whatsoever, wherever they occur. We also affirm Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and rights of member states to enact laws that they meet just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare in a domestic society. We recognize that enumerated in HR rights were codified in subsequent international legal instruments. We note with concern attempt at creating new rights or new standards by misinterpreting international treaties to include such notions that were never articulated or agreed by the general membership. These attempts undermine not only intent of drafters or signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also seriously jeopardize entire international human rights framework.

We call on all member states to eliminate all forms of xenophobia, racial discrimination, racism, and related intolerance. We also call on member states to refrain from priority to the rights of certain individuals which can result in a positive discrimination on the expense of others’ rights and thus run in contradiction of principle of non-discrimination and equality. We urge all states and NGOs to continue to devote special attention to protect the family as the natural and fundamental group of society in accordance with Article 16 with the Universal Declaration.

[GPDP]

Translation: Homosexuality leads to pedophilia, and will destroy the family, and in turn society itself.

[Dean]

Shameful nonsense. Those nations have a lot more pressing concerns than their anti-gay agenda.

[jake williams]

While the fanatic and disturbing homophobia in a very large number of countries is disturbing, I think frankly there are bigger issues, and I think trying to force something which for whatever reason is so controversial is not the most brilliant of diplomatic moves, especially considering the relatively small scale of homosexuality vis-a-vis other as of yet unresolved issues, say, nuclear weapons. The point about this move potentially undermining the UDHR framework does have a contorted truth to it, albeit not likely in the way the signers (?) intended it.

tldr: This is ridiculous, but not surprising, and while part of me is glad to see some international push on the question, it's probably not the smartest move.

[redguard2009]

"Dude, why are we fretting about homosexuality for? Hundreds of millions of people are dying and starving and you're here talking about whether we should let a man blow another man? Come on, there are bigger issues. Homosexuality is nasty anyway."

That's basically the jist of it, right? "There are bigger things we should be talking about, and gay sex is nasty anyway."

Obviously I agree there are probably bigger issues that need dealing with, and obviously I disagree that gay sex is nasty. I liked the "we need to fight racism and intolerance... BUT DON'T LET GAYS MARRY WTF THEY'LL KILL US ALL'

[Qwerty Dvorak]

While the fanatic and disturbing homophobia in a very large number of countries is disturbing, I think frankly there are bigger issues, and I think trying to force something which for whatever reason is so controversial is not the most brilliant of diplomatic moves, especially considering the relatively small scale of homosexuality vis-a-vis other as of yet unresolved issues, say, nuclear weapons. The point about this move potentially undermining the UDHR framework does have a contorted truth to it, albeit not likely in the way the signers (?) intended it.

tldr: This is ridiculous, but not surprising, and while part of me is glad to see some international push on the question, it's probably not the smartest move.
It's easy to say that there are "bigger issues" than the institutional and social discrimination against homosexuals when you are in the cushy position of being a heterosexual. Your post is pretty vile and ignorant TBH.

[lombas]

The UN, a playground for the bourgeoisie.

I stood in front of it once. It was dark. So are the brains of those in it.

[jake williams]

It's easy to say that there are "bigger issues" than the institutional and social discrimination against homosexuals when you are in the cushy position of being a heterosexual. Your post is pretty vile and ignorant TBH.
It's easy to say rights of teeny sexual minorities are the most important thing in the world if you're in an otherwise privileged member of a wealthy imperialist country. I think the positions maybe the majority of the world takes on homosexuality are repugnant and absurd, but in an ugly world there are uglier issues. Further, some of the points in the statement are, like I said, in a contorted way correct - this does exist outside of the framework of international law, and it does infringe on the sovereignty of nations. You can say that we should infringe on the sovereignty of nations, and I'm sympathetic, but it's far too close to some of the uglier manifestations of imperialism we've seen, often quite hypocritical ones.

I think the treatment of gay rights in virtually all countries in the world is a problem, well probably a whole set of problems, but this isn't the way to deal with it. This isn't how the UN functions. The UN can barely work toward already codified aims that 90% of the General Assembly vocally agrees on - even if I happen to agree with the text of new legislation, it doesn't mean it's practical or intelligent to try to put it in place. And at any rate it wouldn't work.

Maybe in the future it will. Certainly in the future it should. Presently, however, the will of populations as well as of governments in maybe most of the world, certainly most of Africa and Asia, is against this happening, and that's not something you can beat around with enforced legislation. To me it seems both more practical and more moral to try to change views instead of changing wordy statements about rights that wouldn't be obeyed anyway.

If this actually could be passed through the UN and thereby have some sort of special moral authority in the world, we'd be arguing from a different place.


Don't think that this doesn't bother me. I wish this particular struggle wasn't presently in this particular place, but it is, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. It's delusional and so it diverts from more productive work (like, say, working within our own countries, or even our own queer communities), but it also dangerously associates sexual minorities and imperialism. The assumption that Western powers have a right to determine the sexual culture of other countries is ugly, even if they're correct, but there's also a flipside - it turns gay people into anti-imperialist scapegoats.

I just don't think people who would advocate this type of action realize the implications of what they're suggesting.

[Phalanx]

I believe the US was alone in the Western world to refuse to sign it, just so we're clear on where the Bush policy lies. He'll ally with the DPRK or Iran when it comes to restricting gay rights, but in terms of nuclear power? Hell no.

[jake williams]

I believe the US was alone in the Western world to refuse to sign it, just so we're clear on where the Bush policy lies. He'll ally with the DPRK or Iran when it comes to restricting gay rights, but in terms of nuclear power? Hell no.
It's not just that. Neo-cons are more than willing to support Bush administration policies on the basis that these backward countries have bad records on gay rights, which they certainly do, while their own hero isn't much better.

[Black Dagger]

A statement by the Syrian delegation on behalf of DPRK, Iran, Libya, Zimbabwe, 57 countries in all, on so-called gay rights.
http://www.un.org/webcast/ga.html (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga.html)


Thanks for the post, but what is the point of this thread? You haven't posed any questions or even expressed yourself to that end at all. What do you think about this issue? And about this statement?

[Demogorgon]

The "we have bigger things to worry about" argument has to be the one of the worst of all the silly arguments against gay rights or whatever cause is being advanced. It is the last line of defence for those who oppose something even when all rational reasons for doing so have run out. Unless legalising homosexuality where it is banned or giving gay people the same rights as heterosexuals is preventing these bigger problems from being addressed, it is a complete red herring.

[Black Dagger]

Indeed, and it's an argument rehashed by conservatives for centuries - 'we'll get to you in a sec, we've just gotta take care of this other thing first - in the mean-time give it a rest eh?' It's essentially a stall tactic, the same argument was used for a long time in relation to civil rights for Black americans, and also women, sexism etc.

[jake williams]

Unless legalising homosexuality where it is banned or giving gay people the same rights as heterosexuals is preventing these bigger problems from being addressed
It arguably is. This is known to be a divisive issue and fanatical pursuance of it could quite conceivably undermine the UN human rights framework. The gay rights movement is one of the most resistant to these sorts of tactical questions and that disturbs me.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It arguably is. This is known to be a divisive issue and fanatical pursuance of it could quite conceivably undermine the UN human rights framework. The gay rights movement is one of the most resistant to these sorts of tactical questions and that disturbs me.
Okay so where are these more pressing issues that are being ignored. TBH I'd rather see homosexuals given greater legal rights than listen to world leaders blather on about nuclear weaponry for years. The fact that nuclear weapons exist and are dangerous isn't going to change any time soon, even if we keep oppressing homosexuals. In any case homosexual rights is a subject that actually affects real people in real life, whereas nuclear weapons are only a major issue if they're being used or about to be used, which they're not.

[jake williams]

Okay so where are these more pressing issues that are being ignored. TBH I'd rather see homosexuals given greater legal rights than listen to world leaders blather on about nuclear weaponry for years. The fact that nuclear weapons exist and are dangerous isn't going to change any time soon, even if we keep oppressing homosexuals. In any case homosexual rights is a subject that actually affects real people in real life, whereas nuclear weapons are only a major issue if they're being used or about to be used, which they're not.
Nuclear weapons are a very serious threat, but that's not really my point. The pertinent point is the fact that this type of diplomatic action, which is what it is, is not actually going to get things done for gay rights, it's just going to piss people off and maybe even weaken domestic support in some countries for progress on the issue.

[Sky]

Thanks for the post, but what is the point of this thread? You haven't posed any questions or even expressed yourself to that end at all. What do you think about this issue? And about this statement?I agree with the ideas presented in the statement. Homosexuality and sexual behavior in general cannot reasonably be equated to race and nationality. The resolution in concern is just an arrogant attempt by the imperialist powers to impose their standards on oppressed peoples.

[RGacky3]

Homosexuality and sexual behavior in general cannot reasonably be equated to race and nationality. The resolution in concern is just an arrogant attempt by the imperialist powers to impose their standards on oppressed peoples.

Its not the same as race and nationality perse, but its still important, whether the imperialist powers or whatever have those freedosm does'nt make a difference. Freedom is freedom, and gay people have a right to that freedom the same way anyone else does, no matter if their from the netherlands or Saudi Arabia.

Saying its a small issue is missing the point, its the principle of it, yes we fight against starvation and mass exploitation and the big issues, but that does'nt mean we should just ignore other injustices simply because they affect a lesser amount of people, its the principle that counts.