U.N. votes to remove protection of gays, lesbians, transgenders from execution
Posted on 25 Nov 2010 at 8:17pm

http://www.dallasvoice.com/votes-remove-protections-gays-lesbians-transgenders-protection-execution-1053744.html

In a 79-70 vote, the United Nations voted last week to remove LGBT people from a list of protected groups that have historically been targeted for genocide. Seventeen countries abstained and 26 countries were not present.

For the past 10 years, sexual orientation was included on the list of protected groups, which also includes members of ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities.

The motion to eliminate sexual orientation from the list was introduced by Benin, a small country in West Africa.

Horrifying

Have LGBT people been targeted for genocide...?

Something tells me your every day non-LGBT people are not on this list either...

QuoteSouth Africa was the first country in the world to include equality based on sexual orientation into its constitution. Same-sex marriage is legal in South Africa. That country voted for killing gay people.

This article is ridiculous. The wording shows a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I'm not saying I understand the facts that well, but I highly doubt it was a vote to 'OK' killing of gay people. At best it removes special privileges which must be done if we expect to have equal rights.

Could Benin have an ulterior motive along with many other gay-hating African countries? Sure, but it's not like they will be getting away with genocide anyway.

This is interesting. Look at the statis of Benin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_right

Quote from: Crimbuki on November 26, 2010, 02:27:10 PM
Have LGBT people been targeted for genocide...?

Something tells me your every day non-LGBT people are not on this list either...

The Nazis did. Much international human rights law, particularly those related to genocide, stem from the Holocaust.

So, yes, there is a historical reason to think LGBT people may be targeted with genocide.

Quote from: Crimbuki on November 26, 2010, 02:27:10 PM
Have LGBT people been targeted for genocide...?

Something tells me your every day non-LGBT people are not on this list either...

This article is ridiculous. The wording shows a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I'm not saying I understand the facts that well, but I highly doubt it was a vote to 'OK' killing of gay people. At best it removes special privileges which must be done if we expect to have equal rights.

Could Benin have an ulterior motive along with many other gay-hating African countries? Sure, but it's not like they will be getting away with genocide anyway.

Getting protection under the law because you are a minority and have been previously targeted for genocide should not have any bearing on equal rights. If we go by what you are saying we should remove every single law and protection that protects anyone in any kind of minority whether it be race, gender, orientation, financial status, religious belief or political belief because that's just not equal rights is it?

Some minorities NEED protection so they can continue to fight for equal rights. Protection under the law =/= not having equal rights.  I was told of an article  that a Norwegian newspaper did about one african country who published the names of people who may or may not have been gay in their newspaper and pretty much said 'These people are gay, go find them and kill them." Now tell me that's not exactly the thing that this article is talking about and the thing that should be prevented. If a country allowed to remove protection for GLBT people against these kind of hate crimes then nobody will go punished for it because 'It's ok, the law said so.'

The fact that the UN basically sat on their thumbs and did nothing disgusts me more than the bigotry of these countries (which doesn't surprise me one bit but also sickens me.)

Very disturbing. However, much of these protections are really only bandaid solutions. A hate crime law for instance will make penalties tougher and allow for added enforcement but it won't prevent the crime from happening. I'm not extremely concerned, however. Should someone show up to my door deciding that I as a trans person do not have a right to live, then I have guns, ammo, and accessories to solve that problem. I believe that worldwide regardless of the strictness of various self defense laws people can devise some type of personal protection plan. It is dangerous to assume that because now everything is mostly fine that history cannot or will not repeat itself.

I blame the straight people - they keep making all these gay and trans babies.

Quote from: Phate on November 26, 2010, 08:06:43 PM
If we go by what you are saying we should remove every single law and protection that protects anyone in any kind of minority whether it be race, gender, orientation, financial status, religious belief or political belief because that's just not equal rights is it?

That is a bit of a leap, don't you think?

QuoteSome minorities NEED protection so they can continue to fight for equal rights.

This has nothing to do with protection and more to do with retribution. Enhanced retribution is not my idea of being protected, only given special rights that I won't even need in the event they are used.

QuoteIf a country allowed to remove protection for GLBT people against these kind of hate crimes then nobody will go punished for it because 'It's ok, the law said so.'

Again, this is another leap in logic, standard laws "for" non-GLBT people should still apply to GLBT people.

QuoteThe fact that the UN basically sat on their thumbs and did nothing disgusts me more than the bigotry of these countries (which doesn't surprise me one bit but also sickens me.)

Nothing new here.

Quote from: Crimbuki on November 26, 2010, 02:27:10 PM
I'm not saying I understand the facts that well, but I highly doubt it was a vote to 'OK' killing of gay people. At best it removes special privileges which must be done if we expect to have equal rights.

Could Benin have an ulterior motive along with many other gay-hating African countries? Sure, but it's not like they will be getting away with genocide anyway.

I'm sure Benin and all those African and other countries that voted to remove the "special privileges" had nothing in mind but promoting the equality of GLBT.  /sarcasm

So what do you suggest?

Crimbuki, are you really unaware of the incredible violence and hatred of gay people in many parts of Africa today? Here's the short version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Africa

The long version involves incredibly vicious murders, rhetoric blaming gay people for all manner of ills, and the very likely possibility of Uganda passing a law that not only makes gay sexual activity punishable by death, but makes it illegal to fail to report someone else within 24 hours if you suspect that they are gay. Now, all of this is strangely and sadly tangled up in the history of colonialism; on one hand, homosexuality is seen as a Western corruption, and on the other hand, much of the anti-gay propaganda comes from the very conservative form of Christianity practices in much of sub-Saharan Africa, which not only came initially from Western conservative missionaries, but continues today to be supported and influenced by the radical Christian right in America. To start, you can check out this interview from NPR's Fresh Air.

In other words, though you might not be inclined to believe it, much of Africa is incredibly hostile towards gay people, just like most of the world was just one or two generations ago and like a great deal of it remains today (which is why some of that doesn't even seem all that far-fetched for America today).

Quote from: Alyssa M. on November 30, 2010, 12:08:34 AM
Crimbuki, are you really unaware of the incredible violence and hatred of gay people in many parts of Africa today?
...
much of Africa is incredibly hostile towards gay people, just like most of the world was just one or two generations ago and like a great deal of it remains today (which is why some of that doesn't even seem all that far-fetched for America today).

I am aware of the hatred and laws, how could anyone not have heard about the bull->-bleeped-<- in Uganda, but what does this have to do with result of the U.N. vote?

Read the title again, "U.N. votes to remove protection of gays, lesbians, transgenders from execution."

Excuse me? What protection? You say "incredibly vicious murders" which I interpret to mean "there was no protection".

So realistically what has changed? Explain that to me. Are you saying that if this motion had not passed that execution in Africa would cease? That there would be no hostility?

This U.N. "protection" business is completely useless and while I, too, find the motion despicable, I fail to see how it effects anyone in the real world.

So this UN nonsense how does that relate to individual countries federal laws? I don't really know anything about the UN but after reading that wiki page on lgbt rights I'm shocked and disgusted by the amount of hate and stupidity in this world. Not to mention the double standards of some countries that allow female same sex PDAs but not male same sex PDAs. What a joke.. a scary joke that is :-/

You want to know the point? If there is a point, it is simply to clearly state international consensus that killing people on account of their sexuality is unacceptable, to the end of exerting diplomatic pressure against countries like Uganda that would criminalize being gay. But, sure, it's the U.N., and you might reasonably question the efficacy of their actions. But in that case, I don't understand what you're talking about regarding "special rights."


You started with this:

Quote from: Crimbuki on November 26, 2010, 02:27:10 PM
Have LGBT people been targeted for genocide...?

Something tells me your every day non-LGBT people are not on this list either...

This article is ridiculous. The wording shows a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I'm not saying I understand the facts that well, but I highly doubt it was a vote to 'OK' killing of gay people. At best it removes special privileges which must be done if we expect to have equal rights.

Could Benin have an ulterior motive along with many other gay-hating African countries? Sure, but it's not like they will be getting away with genocide anyway.

So that's mostly what I was replying to. Specifically:

(a) yes gay people have been "targeted for genocide," and disproportionately so in countries that voted for this amendment;

(b) "your every day non-LGBT people" are indeed on this list:

Quote from: ReutersThe resolution, which is expected to be formally adopted by the General Assembly in December, specifies many other types of violence, including killings for racial, national, ethnic, religious or linguistic reasons and killings of refugees, indigenous people and other groups.

(c) There are plenty of other sources for this story if you don't like this article. Here's that Reuters piece, for example. I don't see how not being executed on account of your sexual orientation is a "special privilege," but evidently many countries do. It's a fallacy that "special" laws that protect people who are specifically singled out for persecution are in some way the cause of that persecution or perpetuate it. This is the proper order: equality first; then get rid of obsolete laws. Not the reverse. I simply don't see how you can interpret this any other way.

(d) Um, yes, they are "getting away with genocide."

When you say, "Again, this is another leap in logic, standard laws 'f'or' non-GLBT people should still apply to GLBT people," you are incorrect, as my previous post illustrated. In countries where being gay is illegal, those laws are only for "non-GLBT" people. The only way you can argue that they are for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, is to appeal to some higher law; specifically, universal human rights, which these days are oh-so-imperfectly formulated by -- that's right -- the U.N.

Quote from: Crimbuki on November 30, 2010, 12:25:36 AM
Are you saying that if this motion had not passed that execution in Africa would cease? That there would be no hostility?

This U.N. "protection" business is completely useless and while I, too, find the motion despicable, I fail to see how it effects anyone in the real world.

By that logic, the UN should not condemn genocide of anyone.

Quote from: Crimbuki on November 30, 2010, 12:25:36 AM

This U.N. "protection" business is completely useless and while I, too, find the motion despicable, I fail to see how it effects anyone in the real world.

At the risk of going against the grain here, I can see this point.

These sort of protections do little to protect those most in need. This is evidenced by the continuing persecution of minorities.

They give strength and encouragement to some particularly nasty examples of persecution, as evidenced by the claims by Zionists that any criticism is anti-semetic. (Except of course, when the criticism comes from Jewish people when it's self hating Jews. http://www.masada2000.org/list-A.html )

In any case, these categories do little to protect people. Many states continue to pass and enforce laws which allow persecution of gays. Even states which don't, often fail to give people basic human protection, simply because they are gay.

My concern with this latest resolution is that it may be seen as giving encouragement to persecution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11864702

Quote from: Alyssa M. on November 30, 2010, 01:20:56 AM
You want to know the point? If there is a point, it is simply to clearly state international consensus that killing people on account of their sexuality is unacceptable, to the end of exerting diplomatic pressure against countries like Uganda that would criminalize being gay. But, sure, it's the U.N., and you might reasonably question the efficacy of their actions. But in that case, I don't understand what you're talking about regarding "special rights."

Any right that only applies to a minority is a special right. It is senseless to think this kind of law is necessary if you believe all people should be protected for all cases unless found guilty of some heinous crime. It's ridiculous that anyone must single out any particular group for "protection".
As far as your "international consensus" theory, it looks nice on paper, but it is essentially the meek elementary teacher asking the school bully to leave little Billy alone after class. He will pretend to care and roll his eyes, but when the bell rings it's back to business as usual. The teacher feels morally superior for having stated their opinion and the bully still doesn't give a ->-bleeped-<- what the teacher thinks.

QuoteYou started with this:

So that's mostly what I was replying to. Specifically:

(a) yes gay people have been "targeted for genocide," and disproportionately so in countries that voted for this amendment;

(b) "your every day non-LGBT people" are indeed on this list:

I guess the qualifier "historically" threw me for a loop. I figured any GLBT-related murders were a current affair considering the relative youth of the concept, not "historic". "Genocide" is an arguably appropriate term but I suppose it does roll off the tongue quite nicely.

Quote(c) There are plenty of other sources for this story if you don't like this article. Here's that Reuters piece, for example. I don't see how not being executed on account of your sexual orientation is a "special privilege," but evidently many countries do. It's a fallacy that "special" laws that protect people who are specifically singled out for persecution are in some way the cause of that persecution or perpetuate it. This is the proper order: equality first; then get rid of obsolete laws. Not the reverse. I simply don't see how you can interpret this any other way.

That's fine ... if you think it is at all effective. Changing the laws won't change the belief of the people, but might make them feel oppressed even if they are making morally inferior decisions. "Special laws" are a band-aid solution to an informational/educational problem. You can't force tolerance.

Quote(d) Um, yes, they are "getting away with genocide."

When you say, "Again, this is another leap in logic, standard laws 'f'or' non-GLBT people should still apply to GLBT people," you are incorrect, as my previous post illustrated. In countries where being gay is illegal, those laws are only for "non-GLBT" people. The only way you can argue that they are for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, is to appeal to some higher law; specifically, universal human rights, which these days are oh-so-imperfectly formulated by -- that's right -- the U.N.

Being homosexual is only as illegal as far as the accuser is willing to claim. It's not something that can be "proven" without a first-hand confession. The problem isn't that homosexuality is illegal, the problem is that people whom rely on dogma and propaganda as the foundation of their beliefs have enough power to get away with making such accusations regardless of actual sexuality, and yes it does happen. While those countries are certainly ...misguided in their persecution of gender and sexual deviants their societies as a whole are essentially cumulatively nefarious relative to our own countries anyway.
What I'm saying is a lack of "protection" for GLBT people is not the problem, but the [likely religiously-motivated] propagandist rhetoric fueling those societies disinformation is the primary source of discrimination and unless that is solved the passing of any U.N. ghost laws is nothing but utterly futile.

• 
  It's not a "special right"; everyone ought to be allowed to have consensual sex with someone of the same sex or gender if they so desire. Everyone ought to be free from pressure to "prove" they are straight, lest they be murdered. Gay-bashing happens to straight people, too. I'm sure you're aware of the murder of Jose Sucuzhanay.
  


• 
  The logic of DADT is not acceptable; being required to hide something you do is tantamount to it being illegal. If you think smoking pot should be legal, saying, "Well, it's legal as long as nobody catches you," just doesn't cut it; similarly when you say, "It's not something that can be 'proven' without a first-hand confession."
  


• 
  Yeah, it's pretty much "genocide" when it's people whose intent is to rid the world of gay people -- or at least certain parts of it -- lest they somehow (through having their own kids or through "recruiting") make someone else gay.
  


• 
  The entirety of the real negative impact of including gay people in the list that you have states is that if "might make [people in favor of executing gay people] feel oppressed." You know what? I don't care if they feel oppressed. In fact, I want everyone else to see that they are so incredibly oppressed on account of their blood lust that they think, "Thank God I'm not one of them." I want the oppressors to feel the opprobrium of the world. I want them to know that we see what they are doing, and it is not okay. Eventually, that can change people. Not everybody, but some.
  
  
  
  
  • 
    But let me back up for just a second ... We're talking about gay people being murdered under the auspices of the law, and you're worried about the murderers' feelings?
    ... Never mind ... back to our regularly scheduled program.
    
  
  


• 
  Having this protection makes a difference by counteracting for allies and gay people the very same abstract "feeling of oppression" you fear the bigots might feel, even if it makes no difference in the outcome of a specific legal decision. Far from being a "special right," it is a partial antidote to something far more unjust than any "special right" can ever be; that is, "special persecution."
  


• 
  No, it's not a solution. It's part of a solution. It's one small part, with limited usefulness, but it's still worthwhile. And if the problem is education, then it's that much more important, because law is an expression of the moral standards of the people who write the laws, and as such, it amounts to education -- partly, in the ways I have described above.
  



• 
  When you criticize the methods used by people who are fighting for equality for an oppressed class, you risk being diversionary. "You should do 'X' instead of 'Y'" is a common tactic used by privileged classes to maintain their privilege, and when members of the oppressed class say things like that, it is often used as evidence that members of the oppressed class "just need to get their act together" or something to that effect. See the following entries from "Derailing for Dummies":
  
  
  
  
  • http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#backup
  • http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#false (specifically, by analogy: "If only they could let it go, the whole world would live in post-racial harmony!")
  • http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#angry (note: "You are damaging your cause by ...")
  • http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#hostile (this applies to your statement that having this protection "might make [the bigots] feel oppressed")
  
  


• 
  I'm not trying to silence you. If you really see the fight against the existence of what you describe as "special rights" to be of truly grave importance, then fight on. I hope you will understand if I'm not there fighting by your side. I understand you're point of view, and I don't share it, and re-stating it will not change my mind. Alas, I fear restating mine probably won't change yours either, but I do see this as a matter of truly grave importance, so it's worth it for the small chance of success.
  
  If it's not all that important, please just drop it. Defending the legitimacy of the fight for equal rights for gay people gets old really fast, and frankly it gets wearisome doing so with straight cis people enough already that I'm not all that excited about hearing the same arguments from trans people, too.
  

While I do think that such a declaration from the U.N. has minimal results it does have some result. Since the U.N. can negotiate with various governments over various policies having such a statement against hate crimes and genocide can be useful. There are other factors at play as well. The first is with the oppressed people themselves. You cannot change the world but you can change yourself and by changing yourself, others around you change, and thus part of the world does to. Living your life as a positive and successful example of say a transgendered person can help convince many around you that you are still just as normal as you were before you transitioned. They will now have a better understanding and acceptance of trans people than they did before when their only exposure of the issue came from idiots on Oprah, Jerry Springer, and B-rated movies. Education starts in the home and in the family and eventually moves to schools, workplaces, and the larger society. People hate and fear what they don't understand. Educate them and take away their reasons for hatred and they no longer hate. That is why it is important for GLBT people to come out of the closet, eventually move on from the "safe spaces" and be open and live their lives normally in all areas of society. That is much greater education for others than it being discussed in a school classroom or shown in a TV documentary.

Another important aspect of not being a victim is the ability to utilize basic survival skills. This means self defense. Six million Jews and millions of others in WWII would not have been genocided if the bulk of them had been well armed and not afraid to fight. Time and time again you hear about trans people being brutally murdered in hate crimes. You don't hear any articles about trans people successfully fighting back. I'm not talking about vigilante justice but simple survival skills. Laws or no laws, you are a human being with a human and natural right to attempt survival and live your life. When someone tries to stop that, you fight back either peacefully or violently depending on what is the most logical for the situation. A lot of the work has to be done by the victims themselves. I'm certainly not blaming victims or people in my minority for instance. I am being practical, however. It is a lot less effective to ask some international peacekeeping organization to make a statement to your government "to please stop killing us" than it is to start educating those around you right at home and in your community and learn how to protect yourself.