Thread: United Nations votes in favor of executing homosexuals

No, I'm not making this up: Thor Halvorssen: United Nations: It's Okay to Kill the Gay

For those too lazy to read the entire article, the UN voted in favor of allowing some African nations to continue to execute people for the "crime" of homosexuality. (The USA and UK voted against this, in case you are wondering; the actual vote tally, with how each member nation voted, is in the article.)

It's a very interesting article that I hope you will take the time to read.

I had no idea. How incredibly tragic. I did not watch the speaker, it is late and I am going to have to save that for another day.

10 years for being gay in Belize? It's interesting that the only middle eastern country to vote against this resolution was Israel. Of course Islam in the west is different, isn't it...

*fills hump*

Originally Posted by Baron

10 years for being gay in Belize? It's interesting that the only middle eastern country to vote against this resolution was Israel. Of course Islam in the west is different, isn't it...

I don't see why they didn't abstain, after all they don't have any homosexuals there do they? That is what the president of Iran said I believe.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

I don't see why they didn't abstain, after all they don't have any homosexuals there do they? That is what the president of Iran said I believe.

What the president of Iran actually said is that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Didn't stop Iran voting to execute them. I suppose it's a precautionary measure, just in case...

How can the UN allow this? I mean... fine, it's all about democracy, but this seems to me like it flies in the face of all human decency.

That said, I suppose there's a debate as to how much the 'opposed' countries are entitled to meddle in the domestic affairs of the 'in favour' countries... When it comes to this, an issue I feel strongly about, I'd say 'Ban it and to heck with their thoughts on the matter', but that opens up a whole other diplomatic can of worms...

What's the other side of the debate -- I'm all for executing homosexuals?

Originally Posted by JosephB

What's the other side of the debate -- I'm all for executing homosexuals?

This being a text-based atonal conversation, I'm not entirely sure how to take that one -- besides, I'm new, don't want to step on anyone's toes too hard ;] and don't want to risk getting too far off-topic, but I had to weigh in again here.

For me, the 'other side of the debate' is cultural. As I said above, to what extent does the UN have the right to say "No, regardless of your societal or religious beliefs, you do not have the right to execute gay people"? If it were the other way around... say, for example, other nations decided "Hey Britain, you're not allowed to eat fish and chips any more 'cos in our culture we find that abhorrent!" there would be hell on, and maybe to some extent rightly so. Does that mean that we (and the other sixty-nine nations who voted against allowing the practise to continue) have the right to weigh in and say "Hey guys, no more gay-killing"?

Well... let's face it, Britain's fish and chip habit isn't a moral issue and executing queers is, so the analogy doesn't quite work; furthermore, on a massive moral issue like this, maybe the UN voting countries should have some say.

To me, no, no country (or countries) have the right to decide how any other should form their society and culture. However, when the issue is the execution of people who (according to general consensus, AFAIK, in the current scientific community) can't help the fact they're sexually and romantically attracted to their own gender... surely that's no better than killing people because they're the 'wrong' colour -- and oh, wait, we already decided that was morally wrong in any culture, right?

I have some strong opinions on killing other human beings (I would bring back capital punishment in England, with a whole pile of provisos; although that's slightly OT and a whole different debate, point is that I'm not morally opposed to execution), but the fact that murdering (presumably) otherwise innocent civilians because of what they do and with whom in the privacy of their own homes isn't 'acceptable' is sickening. I also find it very strange and worrying that of all the countries in the UN, a majority of those who voted at all actually supported the motion. I wonder how different the result might have been if the seventeen who abstained and twenty-six who were absent had voted.

I wasn't being altogether serious. Sure, the debate could be about whether or not sovereign nations have the right or obligation to interfere in the affairs of other sovereign nations -- and at what point are they morally obligated to do so. So many gray areas. I think the type of thinking or environment, or whatever you want to call it, that allows for the execution of people based on sexual orientation is potentially the same that allows other human rights violations and atrocities -- genocide etc. (Maybe it is genocide -- even though that's something we usually associate with large numbers of people.) So I think we are at least obligated to speak out against it, for whatever that's worth, and in some cases, we should intervene. When and how is the big question. Boycotts, embargos, military action etc. It's hard to say.

I would be interested to know how they equte passing that with passing this, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Well, I think both probably aren't worth the paper they're written on. Would these countries do anything different had the vote gone the other way? Are there any teeth to these things -- sanctions etc.? Not that they've been very effective.

What the president of Iran actually said is that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Didn't stop Iran voting to execute them. I suppose it's a precautionary measure, just in case.

. Or maybe simply a continuation of existing policy, "There are no homosexuals in Iran (because we killed them all)".

On the other hand I can remember the repeal of the homosexuality laws in this country, and when we were in Turkey a few years back I was talking to a local. He said "Everyone has to do national service" and I asked what happened to boys like the one in the local Cafe? he was outrageously camp and hung around with the women. "Oh not him, he's a homosexual.". Totally matter of fact, no obvious censure.

Originally Posted by Baron

What the president of Iran actually said is that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

Must be why Cher cancelled her Iranian tour.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

I would be interested to know how they equte passing that with passing this, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

There is a block of Arab/Islamic countries that are repeatedly voting together on proposals that contravene the Declaration of Human Rights. The proposal currently being discussed about the "blasphemy law" is such an issue. This is a front line battleground for Amnesty International now, to try to prevent situations like this:

Christian woman sentenced to death in Pakistan 'for blasphemy'