UN nations voted to ACCEPT the execution of Homosexuals 79-for 70-against

D_Myer_Dogasflees

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Posts
478
Media
0
Likes
6
Points
103
The UN is a toothless organization in most every circumstance I can think of; it's just marginally better than The League Of Nations, which it replaced. UN resolutions without NATO's bite are simply symbolic.

Of course, in this case the symbolism is ugly and hateful, but completely unsurprising to me. Any out-and-proud LGBT who isn't aware of the dangerously provocative nature of their identification really needs to put down the cocktail and take a look around.

I believe that religion, in this case, is a red herring: China, the most populous nation on the planet, voted with Iran on this, and last I knew, it was officially an atheist state. Our little pockets of tolerance in the West should never be taken for granted, they are profoundly meaningful but hardly ubiquitous.
China is probably the only exception here, as to all of the rest, well they are heavily religious nations. Secondly as to China, well they may have had other reasons to favour this resolution too Russia is number two, however Putin claims to be a fervent Christian ,he also likes to side with the muslim nations(probably because it irritates the Americans(afghanistan woes), or he loves chaos it raises the oil price or something).
 
Last edited:

D_Myer_Dogasflees

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Posts
478
Media
0
Likes
6
Points
103
The votes to amend the resolution were as follows:
In favor of the amendment to remove sexual orientation from the resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (79):
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
Opposed to the amendment to remove sexual orientation from the resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (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
Governments Remove Sexual Orientation from UN Resolution Condemning Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Thanks for the list 6928.
Looking at the 79 that voted to remove sexual orientation... and again, I'm not surprised in the least. Many of those countries have a long standing history of rampant homophobia.
 

D_Myer_Dogasflees

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Posts
478
Media
0
Likes
6
Points
103
Sinfully, you will also find many "christian" African countries trying to murder homosexuals. We have had several threads monitoring their christian activities.
True, however Christians are not to make it a law(Sharia), to be imposed upon non or ex-Christians. Either way this is a bigot circle jerk. Same about the Rastas (also an Abrahamic faith)
 
Last edited:

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
325
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Thanks for the list 6928.
Looking at the 79 that voted to remove sexual orientation... and again, I'm not surprised in the least. Many of those countries have a long standing history of rampant homophobia.

Precisely, which is why there's no shock in this "shocking" thread :wink:

I actually find such abstentions as Thailand and Barbados (just to name two countries where gay tourism actually exists) much more damaging and personally upsetting.
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
Precisely, which is why there's no shock in this "shocking" thread :wink:

I actually find such abstentions as Thailand and Barbados (just to name two countries where gay tourism actually exists) much more damaging and personally upsetting.


Mind you I'm surprised Trinidad and Tobago abstained, they have really really severe punishments for homosexuality. In fact in general those micro-Caribbean states tend to be extremely homophobic.
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
325
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Probably true, however the concern here is that now it is going 'legit', the same way the Nazis considered this to be legit

It's no more "legit" today than yesterday, gratuitous Nazi reference notwithstanding. It's worth remembering that homosexuality was only decriminalized in much of the US after my 40th birthday when SCOTUS finally overturned TX's sodomy law. I'll grant that there's a difference between prison and execution, though all legislated bigotry is all cut from the same cloth, ultimately.

Stonewall happened in 1969; Denmark was the first to recognize gay relationships on a national level only around 20 years ago (too lazy to link, but it was in 1989 or '90); the handful of jurisdictions that protect gay relationships is still tiny (though growing): France still doesn't go further than CUs :confused:

My point is that even the concept of LGBT equality has only really taken hold within my lifetime (and I'm not that old). I'm not unsympathetic to your larger point, and I am not apathetic about the world's larger problems. But the minds of billions of people cannot be changed in a generation or two: it will probably take a century, and then probably not.

Mind you I'm surprised Trinidad and Tobago abstained, they have really really severe punishments for homosexuality. In fact in general those micro-Caribbean states tend to be extremely homophobic.

Indeed: they're much like Jamaica as far as I know. No self-respecting LGBT would even attempt a visit; one's very life is at risk.
 

D_Myer_Dogasflees

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Posts
478
Media
0
Likes
6
Points
103
@Bbucko, well it hasn't always been like this, the Greeks, Romans, Buddihists, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese and probably every other non abrahamic tribe out there has always been accepting of it, even rejoicing(ie the Spartans) of homosexuality at times.

This is slavery of the 21st century, and considering globally it is just as worse. Slavery was not looked upon as the greatest of issues at the time it was abolished either. .. people were used to having slaves, same state with homosexuality. It better hurry up, and fast, as I don't have another few hundred years for me to wait to see progress. We've also got to fear that this supposed progress, may well not be long-standing I see no reason for it to be. We actually had to become active and fight slavery and nazism. I hope that we could do the best just thing for this too, just one thing to note is that we can't remain calm when the shark is out there to get us.
 
Last edited:

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
325
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
@Bbucko, well it hasn't always been like this, the Greeks, Romans, Buddihists, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese and probably every other non abrahamic tribe out there has always been accepting of it, even rejoicing(ie the Spartans) of homosexuality at times.

This is slavery of the 21st century, and considering globally it is just as worse. Slavery was not looked upon as the greatest of issues at the time it was abolished either. .. people were used to having slaves, same state with homosexuality. It better hurry up, and fast, as I don't have another few hundred years for me to wait to see progress. We've also got to fear that this supposed progress, may well not be long-standing I see no reason for it to be. We actually had to become active and fight slavery and nazism. I hope that we could do the best just thing for this too, just one thing to note is that we can't remain calm when the shark is out there to get us.

I think I'm missing a larger point here, somewhere. You don't list a locale: are you from one of the places that voted to accept execution as reasonable? If so, not only do you have my deepest sympathy but I urge you to emigrate by any means to your disposal to a friendlier place. Your life might well be at risk.

If you live somewhere else (ie: more tolerant), then get involved with groups like Amnesty International, where you'll find people trying to make a real difference in the lives of the persecuted. Beyond that, I'm not sure what to say.

I was very lucky to have had the luxury of coming out at 17 (still in HS, in 1977) to a vast, collective yawn. But the '70s were very different from what came later, and religion never played a role in my parent's life (though, until I came out, the most homophobic person I'd ever encountered was my mother). But I also understood that, though not an issue, I'd never build a proper life for myself where I grew up and moved directly from HS into an apartment in downtown Boston.

Even there, I experienced active, open discrimination and hostility when outside of a very small (and tight) circle, both in trying to find housing and in employment. I'm not trying to make direct comparisons between being denied a promotion (or an apartment) and any immanent threat to my life, just that I located where acceptance was highest and clung to that rather than attempting any structural changes in the minds of others except to challenge discrimination once it became illegal. Until then, I just dealt with contempt as a fact of life.

FWIW, I do not support executions of any kind for any reason, in case you didn't know that. I just find projecting an appeal for tolerance where it's impossible is an exercise in utter futility and thank gawd I was born on this side of the fence :cool:
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
Am I reading the wrong thing?

I think that "discriminatory reasons on any basis." covers both sexual preference, political, or any other reasons not stated currently, or even stated currently.

It should be the only term used!

It's hardly a vote to kill homosexuals or adulterers - that's a scandalous headline, & either way, the UN is only condemning, neither suggesting, nor obligating its members take any preventitive action. More hot administrative hot air, & subtle wordplay methinks.
You'd be correct except in many countries homosexuality is criminalized, and the punishment is often execution. Changing the wording to include "discrimination" means that those who have homosexuality on the books as a capital offense can continue to murder them. After all, they aren't discriminating, they are merely enforcing the law. A resolution which forbade killing on the basis of sexual orientation specifically would have rendered those laws null and void.
 

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If I was gay, I would literally arm myself... You guys clearly need to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
If I was gay, I would literally arm myself... You guys clearly need to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
I kinda favor the Malcolm X approach myself.

I would think that those who originally drafted the words "sexual orientation" in the resolution would have a backup plan, but who knows. Sadly, their plan might be to pass the resolution as is then wait a year or so to have a new batch of murders they can point to as reasons why they need "sexual orientation" explicitly stated. They might be planning to make a big deal about every LGBT murdered, saying that it violates the "discrimination" clause. I think that many who just saw the revision as an amenable compromise would quickly take note that some countries had used it to create a loophole for themselves. The fact that genocide laws would be forbidden under the resolution but anti-gay laws wouldn't should be readily apparent in that case.
 
D

deleted631864

Guest
Thanks for posting this piece 6928
user_offline.gif
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
343
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Except that neither Morroco nor Mali suggested that rewording because their intention was to include gay people aswell as other classes of people being discriminated against in this way. They reworded this in that way because they knew it was vague enough to allow many countries to continue the practice of executing homosexuals because homosexuality has no protection from discrimination in most of those countries and is not recognised as a grounds upon which it is possible to be discriminated against in them. Neither Morroco nor Mali has the death penalty for homosexuality themselves, but Morroco does have harsh prison sentences for it and homosexuality is illegal there, and they undoubtedly support other countries (especially other majority Muslim ones) executing homosexuals if they wish.

Morroco huh! I'm surprised since from what I've HEARD --- there's a lot of hot happenings for visitors to that country. Must all be on the "sly"! Or maybe I should have said, must be "don't ask - don't tell!"