• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Removing “sexual orientation” from the anti-execution resolution

Mycroft

High Priest of Ed
Mycroft
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
20,501
What follows is a list "of countries that voted to remove 'sexual orientation' from the anti-execution resolution":

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

Make note of the country of Afghanistan. A country that is now occupied by the US military and is allegedly on track to "freedom and democracy".

This list was taken from "United Nations vote will lead to more LGBT murders, activists claim", by Mark Singer.
Click to expand...

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/230778_Countries_that_voted_to_remove

It's just so appalling to me that the UN isn't recognized as the bastion of regressiveness that it is.
 
I'm not appalled. the resolution refers to discriminatory reasons on any basis.
That includes sexual orientation, as well as other things which are also not specifically mentioned.
 
Last edited:
kerikiwi said:
I'm not appalled. the resolution refers to discriminatory reasons on any basis.
That includes sexual orientation, as well as other things which are also not specifically mentioned.
Click to expand...

If the intent were to be inclusive, then the action would have been to edit the phrasing to add “discriminatory reasons on any basis” in addition to the phrasing as it already was, which included specific mention of sexual orientation.
 
Mycroft said:
If the intent were to be inclusive, then the action would have been to edit the phrasing to add “discriminatory reasons on any basis” in addition to the phrasing as it already was, which included specific mention of sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

"discriminatory reasons on any basis" was already the wording. It was the sexual orientation which was the addition. Adding any particular basis, whether sexual orientation or religion, is redundant. On any basis means exactly that.
 
It seems to me that crapholes like Iran would argue that executing gays isn't discrimination but rather just enforcing the law.

But no, I am sure it is just a coincidence that all the countries that would actually execute people based on their sexual orientation voted to remove the language while no western democracy did. :rolleyes:

The UN is a bad joke.
 
As an aside, Saint Vincent and Grenadines (in the OP list) is an island in the southern Caribbean that is roughly an order of magnitude smaller in area than Rhode Island. Yet their vote is the same as China, India, USA, etc. Gobsmack.

ETA: Saint Kitts and Nevis is even smaller. Wow.
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
But no, I am sure it is just a coincidence that all the countries that would actually execute people based on their sexual orientation voted to remove the language while no western democracy did. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

When was there a revolution in the Bahamas or Jamacia?
 
kerikiwi said:
I'm not appalled. the resolution refers to discriminatory reasons on any basis.
That includes sexual orientation, as well as other things which are also not specifically mentioned.
Click to expand...

Come on, people! What planet are we living on here?

You know full well that removing such a phrase has the intention of it not being covered.


When the original US constitution was passed, people debated whether to add the Bill of Rights, which listed particular rights.

On the one side were people who thought that, if rights were not listed, future politicians would claim they didn't exist, since they weren't explicitly called out.

On the other side were people who thought that, if they were listed, future politician would say, "Well, we have this other right here. Since it is not listed, it does not exist."


They compromised and added the list, along with several phrases stating these were not the only, actual, existing rights, and that their listing here did not mean the others don't exist.


And, as it turned out, both sides were right. Politicians regularly say non-listed rights don't exist. The only constant is that politicians are smarmy scumbags who we need to not only keep an eye on, but limit their powers by default.


So...now review the removal of the sexual orientation clause w.r.t. the "any reason" clause, in this context, and claim it's still there.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
So...now review the removal of the sexual orientation clause w.r.t. the "any reason" clause, in this context, and claim it's still there.
Click to expand...

"Any reason" means "any reason".
It is redundant to list 999 reasons when using the phrase "any reason".
Context does not change that.
 
This is clearly an example of excessive tolerance actually leading to the defense of intolerance. There is such a thing as too much tolerance. People need to learn this very important lesson, lest we lose certain things that were gained during the Enlightenment.
 
Darat said:
Shouldn't this just be an anti-execution resolution - it doesn't need any qualifiers does it?
Click to expand...

Well, at least two Security Council powers execute a rather high number of people per year (I'm not sure about Russia, but the U.S. and China certainly do). That could be why they had to discuss all of these qualifiers. When at least two of the five Security Council powers have the death penalty, it is unlikely that the world is at a point where banning all executions will receive serious consideration.
 
kerikiwi said:
"Any reason" means "any reason".
It is redundant to list 999 reasons when using the phrase "any reason".
Context does not change that.
Click to expand...
I disagree and think Beerina made the argument very well just above your post. If that particular reason was just one of many, why vote on it? The reason is twofold. First, so they can keep their bona fides with the tough guys back home and, second, to permit the resolution to be written in their native language and interpreted in such a way as to exclude sexual orientation.
 
Not being executed is a "special right", according to some.
 
Yes, I'm sure those countries don't hate gays, they just like things concise. :rolleyes:
 
kerikiwi said:
"discriminatory reasons on any basis" was already the wording. It was the sexual orientation which was the addition. Adding any particular basis, whether sexual orientation or religion, is redundant. On any basis means exactly that.
Click to expand...

You'd like to think so. However:

Finland said:
The representative of Finland noted that the reference to sexual orientation was first introduced a few years ago and a vote had been often called for, but always remained in the text. It was included in 1999 following the Special Rapporteur’s comments concerning execution and people at risk. That risk still persisted. The Special Rapporteur had continuously raised the risk in his report and in appeals to Member States. No one was claiming that one category was more worthy of protection than another. The purpose of including the reference was to alert States to arbitrary executions. The term “discriminatory racism” would include sexual orientation, but not everybody would understand, so it needed to be spelled out in the resolution, just as the Committee spelled out killings that were racially motivated or killings of national or linguistic minorities. The inclusion of sexual orientation in this list aimed to protect against execution on this basis – nothing more, nothing less. The main sponsor could not accept the amendment and would be voting against it. Finland asked others to do the same.
Click to expand...
 
Symbolically, this is repugnant...But realistically, will anything really change? The policy, as written, wasn't stopping countries like Iran from executing homosexuals if they felt like it. I mean, we're basically talking about changing the wording of a toothless document.
 
kerikiwi said:
"Any reason" means "any reason".
It is redundant to list 999 reasons when using the phrase "any reason".
Context does not change that.
Click to expand...

Apparently you missed the thrust of my post. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom