US stands up for gay rights at the UN

[Camikaze]

UN restores gay clause to killings resolution

UN member states have voted to restore a controversial reference to sexual orientation in a resolution against the unjustified killing of minority groups.

The clause had been removed after pressure from some Arab and African member states but the US had pushed to have it reinstated.

The General Assembly voted 93 in favour of the US proposal, with 55 countries voting against and 27 abstaining.

The outcome was welcomed by human rights advocates.

"We are relieved by the result," said Boris Dittrich, of Human Rights Watch.

"Countries that tried to roll back crucial protections for gay and lesbian people have been defeated."

'Criminal'
The US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, also welcomed the adoption of the amended resolution, saying it sent a "clear and resounding message" that justice and human rights applied to all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

In a statement, the White House said that the vote marked an important moment in the struggle for civil and human rights.

Killing people because they were gay, it said, was not "culturally defensible, but criminal" and could not be "rationalised by diverse religious values or varying regional perspectives".

But ahead of the vote, Zimbabwe's ambassador to the UN, Chitsaka Chipaziwa, attacked the US amendment, saying there was no need to refer explicitly to sexual orientation.

"We will not have it foisted on us," he said, according to Reuters. "We cannot accept this, especially if it entails accepting such practices as bestiality, paedophilia and those other practices many societies would find abhorrent in their value systems.

"In our view, what adult people do in their private capacity, by mutual consent, does not need agreement or rejection by governments, save where such practices are legally proscribed," he added.

The General Assembly passes resolutions condemning extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions and other killings every two years.

The original 2008 declaration had included an explicit reference to killings committed because of the victims' sexual preferences.

It also expresses opposition to violence motivated by racial, national, ethnic, religious or linguistic reasons, as well as the killings of refugees, indigenous people and other groups.

It's good to see the US of late living up to its reputation as a strong supporter of human rights. This to me seems to be the type of positive foreign policy that is needed more often in the world.

So do you think the US should extend this principle to all its dealings and consider human rights the absolute priority in all matters?

 

[Quackers]

Good sign.

In reality is it really gonna make an effect on the ground?

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I think that human rights being foremost should be the sine qua non of all diplomatic relationships.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Bout damn time. I wonder how the fundies (excluding Dommy, as I already know exactly what he's going to say) think of this measure.

 

[Ajidica]

Well, I don't think we have any violent fundies on this forum.

OT: Good job US. Lets try good foreign policy such as standing up for human rights (and NASA) rather then military adventurism and 'freedom fries'.

 

[JollyRoger]

Bout damn time. I wonder how the fundies (excluding Dommy, as I already know exactly what he's going to say) think of this measure.

I expect a black widow angle.

 

[Glassfan]

Admirable, but human rights issues have often been a block to negotiations with countries like Communist China.

Where do you think the next area of civil rights will occur? Pederasty or incest (sexual orientation). I don't mean this as an incendiary comment, accepting homosexuality was extremely outrageous just 30 years ago.

 

[Cutlass]

My impression, and I haven't studied it in enough detail to be certain, is that when the US does something in foreign policy simply because it is the right thing to do, that's where we get the best results in the long run. And when we are expedient, or greedy, it ends up biting us on the ass.

 

[Arwon]

Admirable, but human rights issues have often been a block to negotiations with countries like Communist China.

Where do you think the next area of civil rights will occur? Pederasty or incest (sexual orientation). I don't mean this as an incendiary comment, accepting homosexuality was extremely outrageous just 30 years ago.

I don't think those things are compatible with the emerging norms of respect for adult individual sexual autonomy - which is the sexual framework under which homosexuality is now considered totally acceptable. Things like informed consent and manipulative power dynamics make them totally different - and those are the reasons why we think they're gross and will continue to do so. It's not just blind religious traditionalism in those cases. They would require entirely different changes in societal perceptions which are simply not happening.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Where do you think the next area of civil rights will occur? Pederasty or incest (sexual orientation). I don't mean this as an incendiary comment, accepting homosexuality was extremely outrageous just 30 years ago.

You know darn well that pedophilia and homosexuality aren't comparable by any means for one reason: consent.

As for incest, that's probably banned to protect the well-being of the unborn.

 

[cardgame]

This is the juicy quote right here

But ahead of the vote, Zimbabwe's ambassador to the UN, Chitsaka Chipaziwa, attacked the US amendment, saying there was no need to refer explicitly to sexual orientation.

"We will not have it foisted on us," he said, according to Reuters. "We cannot accept this, especially if it entails accepting such practices as bestiality, paedophilia and those other practices many societies would find abhorrent in their value systems."

He doesn't even know what it is, and he's against it. This is why ignorance is bad, folks!

 

[Ajidica]

Hmmm. Sounds like some of the religous fundies here on CFC before they got an education.

 

[Dumanios]

Silly Zimbabwean Ambassador, use the internet, I'm sure the UN has computers!

 

[Tani Coyote]

Any states who voted against this should definitely feel the heavy hand of US foreign policy.

Key word is should since lord knows we won't do anything unless it directly benefits us.

 

[Glassfan]

I don't think those things are compatible with the emerging norms of respect for adult individual sexual autonomy - which is the sexual framework under which homosexuality is now considered totally acceptable. Things like informed consent and manipulative power dynamics make them totally different - and those are the reasons why we think they're gross and will continue to do so. It's not just blind religious traditionalism in those cases. They would require entirely different changes in societal perceptions which are simply not happening.

You know darn well that pedophilia and homosexuality aren't comparable by any means for one reason: consent.

As for incest, that's probably banned to protect the well-being of the unborn.

I don't disagree with your points. My point is that there were once equally vaid arguements against homosexuality. But over time opinions - including scientific opinions - have changed.

So you don't like Ped or incest. What do you think the next fight will be?

 

[Mango Elephant]

I really can't see what's wrong with incest. I think for most people it's a 'it's always been that way' or an 'eww' kind of reason to opose it. I think it should be legal, there's just not enough people who practice it to actually make a difference in the law today.

And yay, go US.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Bout damn time. I wonder how the fundies (excluding Dommy, as I already know exactly what he's going to say) think of this measure.

Well, you already know I don't see "Killing because of hate" as any "Worse" than any other totally unjustifiable murder. And of course, you know this isn't going to change anything.

That said, I certainly am in favor of people NOT being killed because of their sexual orientation.

What did you expect me to say?

@T-Fox- As horrible as the killing of homosexuals in the name of Sharia law is, we still have to deal with North Korea and Sudan first

And we can only get involved in so much...

 

[Tani Coyote]

I don't disagree with your points. My point is that there were once equally vaid arguements against homosexuality. But over time opinions - including scientific opinions - have changed.

I don't think the arguments against a 100% consensual relationship with no harm to anyone else have ever been valid. So no, still not comparable.

So you don't like Ped or incest. What do you think the next fight will be?

Polygamy I think. Less icky than incest so will enjoy more support, and also fully consensual.

 

[cardgame]

I was expecting a tangent against the UN myself.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Polygamy I think. Less icky than incest so will enjoy more support, and also fully consensual.

I'd support that as long as it works both ways. If one sex is allowed to have multiple partners and not the other then it is just wrong. Oh and I wouldn't support duplicitive bigamy (i.e. where the bigamous partner is hiding their other marriages) either.