UN Votes to allow Homosexuals to be executed

Other News and current events
1

And South Africa voted yes too. W. T. F.

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people were once again subject to the whims of homophobia and religious and cultural extremism this week, thanks to a United Nations vote that removed “sexual orientation” from a resolution that protects people from arbitrary executions. In other words, the UN General Assembly this week voted to allow LGBT people to be executed without cause.

According to the International Gay and Lesbians Human Rights Commission, the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee on Social, Cultural and Humanitarian issues removed “sexual orientation” from a resolution addressing extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions this past week in a vote that was overwhelming represented by a majority of African, Middle East and Carribean nations. For a UN committee that addresses human rights questions that affect people all over the world, by removing protections for LGBT persons from a category of arbitrary executions, belies the objective and purpose of a committee whose focus this year is “on the examination of human rights questions,” according to its website.

And

Bromley expressed great disappointment in losing all the Southern African countries on the vote, including Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, Nambia and South Africa, the latter, whose domestic laws and record on LGBT civil rights have held great regard throughout the world. Nonetheless, according to Bromley, from the days of former President Thabo Mbeki through present day leader Jacob Zuma, South Africa has been recalcitrant in its opposition to extending human rights to LGBT persons within international legal structures.

Entire article

What the hell is wrong with these people? Why are we voting for this? Where the FUCK does it say in the constitution that you can kill ANYONE, never mind because they are gay?
FFS…

2

This is so sick and hilites the farce the UN has become…it needs to be dismantled

3

This epitomises the tragic despair any sane human must feel whenever ignorance and outdated superstition triumph over reason, an all-too-common occurrence. Man is never so cruel to his kindred than when he loses his taste for reason and evidence.

There are, simply, no words that can do adequate justice to the depravity of this cluster-fuck.

'Luthon64

4

How does this voting work? Who is voting for us? This person/s / institution should provide answers.

5

Surely voting in favor of this is against our constitution? I’m hoping this is going to start a shit storm here. I would definitely take to the streets in solidarity with homosexuals.

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

6

After a bit more reading it seems that it’s not as clear cut.
They changed the existing clause
“In operative paragraph 6 (b), replace any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation”
to
“discriminatory reasons on any basis”

which seems to be pretty clear cut, no discriminatory reason, but then a commenter on reddit says:

Lawyer here. Technically it only covers any "discriminatory reason". But whether sexual orientation is a discriminatory reason might be open to discussion for some people and this is why a clarification was needed. It is usual for contracts / laws to include specifically certain groups of people or events when the exact extent of the main category is unclear or disputable. Think for instance that a statement "all citizens are entitled to vote" might not be deemed as covering women in the 1800s. In such a case a clear drafting (at that point of time) would read "all citizens, including women, are entitled to vote". Same logic applies here and for me there is a loophole for some states to consider that unacceptable sexual orientation is not a discrimination, but rather an autonomous crime (as in saying that imprisoning rapists is not a discrimination on their sexual styles and preferences).
So it might not be as bad as I initially thought it looks like, but not particularly good.
7

I am disgusted. Far as I can tell, Mr. Baso Sangqu, is the ambassador and Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations. Interestingly enough, according to Permanent Mission of South Africa to the United Nations

South Africa is committed to promoting and achieving its vision of an African Continent, which is prosperous, peaceful, democratic, non-racial, non-sexist and united, and which contributes to a world that is just and equitable through effective multilateralism at the sub-regional (SADC), regional (AU) and global level (UN).
That, to me, does not sound consistent with the vote that was cast.
8

Here is the full paragraph:

6. Urges all States: (b) To ensure the effective protection of the right to life of all persons under their jurisdiction and to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including those targeted at specific groups of persons, such as racially motivated violence leading to the death of the victim, killings of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, killings of persons affected by terrorism or hostage-taking or living under foreign occupation, killings of refugees, internally displaced persons, migrants, street children or members of indigenous communities, killings of persons for reasons related to their activities as human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists or demonstrators, killings committed in the name of passion or in the name of honour, all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, [b]including sexual orientation[/b], as well as all other cases where a person’s right to life has been violated, and to bring those responsible to justice before a competent, independent and impartial judiciary at the national or, where appropriate, international level, and to ensure that such killings, including those committed by security forces, police and law enforcement agents, paramilitary groups or private forces, are neither condoned nor sanctioned by State officials or personnel;
They removed the part in bold, which seems nefarious considering all the other specifications that is in the clause, why take that one out? And the fact that a large part of the countries that voted for this is explicitly against LGBT rights based on religious reasons, makes it seems all the more suspect.