大象传媒

Has the intention been misunderstood?
A UN panel has deleted a specific reference to gays & lesbians in a resolution condemning unjustified executions. The motion was introduced by Morocco & Mali.
The amendment called for the specific words 鈥渟exual orientation鈥� to be replaced with 鈥渄iscriminatory reasons ON ANY BASIS鈥�.
The resolution then goes on to explicitey refer to a large number of groups - human rights defenders, religious minorities, ethnic minorities, even street children.
The new wording was approved by the UN General Assembly Committee 165-10. Surely the homophobia is not this pervasive. I have to think the new wording was intended to be ALL inclusive when it comes to condeming unjustified executions.
The clause has contained a reference to sexual orientation for the last ten years, but the way I read the clause, it still includes sexual orientation. It uncludes ALL unjustified executions.
If my interpretation is correct, the UN should issue a clarification - the sooner the better.

It does seem very strange that UK taxpayers give so much money in overseas aid to countries such as Malawi that opposed this resolution. Since the year 2003/4 Malawi has received well over 拢1 million a week in aid from UK taxpayers. The figure is rising significantly. If these countries wish to return to the "Dark Ages" UK taxpayers should not be paying for it.

I note also that 17 countries abstained from the vote and that 26 were "absent". It is a particular concern that next to the absent Seychelles, Palau, Sao Tome Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Togo, and Tonga we have Turkey: a country with a population of around 75 million and which may soon be a member of the EU.

The issue, from where I sit, is that many of the countries who voted for this do not see killing homosexuals as discrimination, they see it as gods work. The removal of this clause is, for them, a removal of an impediment to them instigating anti-homosexuality laws.

So in essence if they kill someone for being gay, that is not discrimination and so does not violate the new wording of the UN directive.

The question I would ask is - if this is a non issue, why was there pressure to remove the clause ?

I agree with Newlach.If Malawi is being propped up to the tune of 拢1million+ a week, just by the UK, there should be an ethical dimension to the money given. Perhaps a UK organisation with extensive knowledge in human rights and economic and social infrastructure development should be present in countries to distribute the money we offer.
If money is desperately needed & offered, the culture from which it is given should be enshrined in that money. Much in the same way Religious organisations, who set up missions offer help and support within the context of its religious beliefs being propogated. If many social and religious attitudes are a legacy from colonial times, then its our duty to update them. Especially if the cultural legacy left hasn't sufficiently equipped these countries & its people with human rights protection and economic success

South Africa's vote is especially shameful, and worrying: not only does it fly in the face of reason, human rights, and basic decency; it is also in direct opposition to the country's own constitution and laws, which not only guarantee non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and numerous other criteria), but impose a responsibility on government to promote these values.

Gay South Africans, and all who support human rights for all, should be very worried by the government's stance. Gay tourists should ask serious questions of South African representatives as to whether they, their partners, and their families, will be safe if they choose to visit the country, as it seems clear that the government has no regard whatsoever for the principles of human rights and equality that it nominally espouses.

Any Christian who looks at the above photograph and continues to attempt to justify the 'sinfulness' of gay people on the contents of the Bible, (or on any other grounds), really needs to rethink his or her morality.

What a horrendous image. Shame on every country involved. They are the ones who are unnatural, intrinsically evil and disordered.

RJB,

Unsurprisingly I totally agree with you. That is a deeply moving image, and whatever their 'crime', the barbarity of their treatment was inhuman by any measure in today's world especially when you realise that at least one was a minor when executed and both were minors when their 'crime was committed.

Prior to their execution they each received over 200 lashes, the hanging itself is by strangulation (they are simply knocked off the back of a flat-bed truck whilst suspended from a crane in the town square). There is also a report on another couple executed the same way where the executioners removed their blindfolds so they had to watch each other die while the executioners and crowd shout and laugh.

There are 3 other proscribed methods of execution for homosexuality in Iran: stoning, beheading or being thrown off a cliff all preceded with 100's of lashes.

If the the UN is to have any credibility as a protector of Human Rights and the vulnerable then it has to find a way to stop making stupid and dangerous decisions at the behest of cruel or uncaring regimes.

As regards Aid, I have a problem with adding conditions to Aid insofar as to require change. It smacks of the kind of cash for souls which I detest in religious missionary work. We should not be funnelling money through cruel and corrupt regimes that does not mean that we cannot find a way to help the vulnerable directly. Change must come from within the countries all we can do is try to alleviate the worst of the suffering and give them the best chance of self determination.

It is bad enough to see what goes on in the name of religion in some countries but what is being taught in is pretty disturbing.

Of course the bible used as the basis for teaching in many Sunday schools and ordinary schools in the UK and Ireland is hardly any more compassionate so I guess the same criticism could be levelled there too.

The U.N is a disgrace. It is prey to manipulation by irrational, mean, religious cranks.

The 大象传媒 Story I mentioned in my post #9 is here and on Panorama tonight

You're right Romejellybeen and Dave, it's an incredibly upsetting image that any civilised human being would find uncomfortable to look at and take onboard.
Dave you have more faith in human nature than me. Although change must come from within, I think it's a duty for more progressive , richer countries who are offering monetary help to gently guide countries with the expertise of the donor culture. If you don't someone else will, as can be seen with the spread of Islamic Wahhabism

Here's the list of how countries voted:

In favour of the amendment (79): Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Sala, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Congo, Cote d鈥橧voire, 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

Opposed to the amendment (70): Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia (FS), Monaco, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela

Abstain (17): Antigua-Barbuda, Barbados, Belarus, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Colombia, Fiji, Mauritius, Mongolia, Papau New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Vanuatu

Absent (26) : Albania, Bolivia, Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Marshall Island, Mauritania, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Sao Tome Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Togo, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan

Maybe those who were in favour could just start there own Klingon planet :p But seriously, it's indicative that human society doesn't always progress forwards, however much we like to wrap ourselves up in the technology & comfort of Ipods and nice cars etc. Parts of the world are living a very different earth experience.

It's almost a who's who list of oppresive states.

With the notable exception of China (who always seems to buck the trends) and Russia (who seems to just pretend to be a western nation), I'd postulate that the voting follows GDP lines; lower GDP = voted no. I'm sure there's other factors involved, educational provision, state supported ideologies and so on, but it's telling all the same.