Home Politics & Debate

United Nations

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru

Comments

  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    I really don't understand the problem... Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
    The way it was worded before, it forbid execution of people because they're not straight. The way it's worded now, it forbids execution of people because they're not straight or not white or not muslim etc. It sounds like it includes more cases than it did before and removes none.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I really don't understand the problem... Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
    The way it was worded before, it forbid execution of people because they're not straight. The way it's worded now, it forbids execution of people because they're not straight or not white or not muslim etc. It sounds like it includes more cases than it did before and removes none.
    Maybe because under the new wording, it is more open for abuse?

    For example, in Iran, sexual acts between two adult consenting men can be punishable by death, but it is the act that is punished, not the orientation (so far as I know?).... Remember that Ahmadinejad denies homosexuals even exist in his country!

    So changing the wording makes LGBT people invisible and also, makes persecution harder to challenge in an international context.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can't see why you don't have both discrimnatory reasons on any basis and then say including sexuality, gender, race, etc, etc

    Not that whether its in or not will make the slighest difference... It's not like Iran or North Korea or dozens of other shitholes are suddenly going to turn round and say look the UN says not to do it so we better not do it
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Namaste wrote: »
    Maybe because under the new wording, it is more open for abuse?

    For example, in Iran, sexual acts between two adult consenting men can be punishable by death, but it is the act that is punished, not the orientation (so far as I know?).... Remember that Ahmadinejad denies homosexuals even exist in his country!

    So changing the wording makes LGBT people invisible and also, makes persecution harder to challenge in an international context.
    I don't really see that. In your example, if it was a man and a woman there would be no punishment therefore it's still discrimination.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't really see that. In your example, if it was a man and a woman there would be no punishment therefore it's still discrimination.
    Because if your government doesn't recognise homosexuality, but the international community does and has it in legislation, you have more foundation to challenge your government and the discrimination of queer people.

    Again, it gives recognition to non-straight people, it challenges invisibility.

    Many countries will not listen to the UN, but it can be useful to put pressure on them.

    If you take the example of women... Women have a committee recognising gender discrimination, queer people do not and probably will not for some time. Including them in the documents mentioned above is at least a start on achieving something globally.

    I am not 100% pro-UN in everything they do, but can see the argument.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The way it was worded before, it forbid execution of people because they're not straight. The way it's worded now, it forbids execution of people because they're not straight or not white or not muslim etc. It sounds like it includes more cases than it did before and removes none.

    No, because they'll just argue that homosexuality is a legitimate reason, not a discriminatory one. It's no coincidence that this amendment was put forward and voted for by all of the world's homophobic hell holes. You don't think the Arab world was concerned about the anti-discrimination law not being inclusive enough, do you?
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    No, because they'll just argue that homosexuality is a legitimate reason, not a discriminatory one. It's no coincidence that this amendment was put forward and voted for by all of the world's homophobic hell holes. You don't think the Arab world was concerned about the anti-discrimination law not being inclusive enough, do you?
    If that's it then I do see the problem. But I thought laws like that were enforced by the UN, not each country themselves. In other words, it doesn't matter what Homophobeland thinks is discriminatory, it matters what the UN as a whole thinks is discriminatory. Isn't that so?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Once upon a time, but now that has changed with the rewording. It's giving these countries open doors since the UN majority vote was to overturn it. As Namesete said most countries don't listen to the UN, but I think Cameron should stand up and say something and get backing from other co-operative countries in the UN so this isn't just brushed under the carpet. He is trying to show himself as supportive of gay people, so this is a prefect chance.
Sign In or Register to comment.