UN General Assembly: Summary execution of queers okay

[Julie]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

It is horribly sad. I get the relationship to the word troops. We need to bring those kids home! I could go on and on.....

Maybe if there is a way to send messages to the UN delegates from other countries, you could let us know? Or we can find out how to help groups against these executions in those countries financially?

I am against the death penalty and executions of any kind, and was trying to ask why we in general only get this upset when it is people like us being executed?

This is way BIGGER than me or my organization - sadly. I have contacted some other human rights people I know, who are pretty aggressive. I am waiting to hear back from them. This is not a USA issue - this is the UN which just happens to be in the USA. We tend to think the UN is American, because of this.

We can as individuals write to each and every one of the UN General Assembly Country members. Though, I am having difficulty finding the names of each individual who voted. I am working on that now.

http://www.un.org/en/members/

http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/background.shtml

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by InfiniteFemme

This is way BIGGER than me or my organization - sadly. I have contacted some other human rights people I know, who are pretty aggressive. I am waiting to hear back from them. This is not a USA issue - this is the UN which just happens to be in the USA. We tend to think the UN is American, because of this.

We can as individuals write to each and every one of the UN General Assembly Country members. Though, I am having difficulty finding the names of each individual who voted. I am working on that now.

http://www.un.org/en/members/

http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/background.shtml

Thank you!

It is likely an issue that will have to be fought country by country without them feeling like the USA is trying to force our way of life down their throats.

Because the UN is in the USA, I do tend to expect more of the USA in regards to the UN. But as we saw during the last administration in the USA, we fall way short.

I appreciate you putting together the list, and for discussing this!

Maybe many small voices together can make a difference.

[Isadora]

From Rachel Maddow's site:

The vote was 79-70. Here's the list of countries that wanted to reserve the right to kill the gay:

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

[Glenn]

17 Countries abstained. 26 were absent. South Africa? They recently legalized our marriages!?!

Originally Posted by Isadora

From Rachel Maddow's site:

The vote was 79-70. Here's the list of countries that wanted to reserve the right to kill the gay:

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

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I'm curious, when do these nations become full moral agents? When, in other words, can we hold them responsible for their actions instead of holding other nations--Western nations all--responsible. I know you do not intend this but what you are doing is making these nations children, poor little backwards brown and yellow people who, were it not for the intervention of Europeans, wouldn't even think of such a thing. Poppycock!

They aren't looking for queers as an excuse. Their *religion* teaches them that queers should be killed. Not colonialism or imperialism. Most of these nations threw off the shackles of empire four or more decades ago. At *some* point we have to start treating them as full moral agents.

These nations would have thought this up if they had *never* had contact with a Westerner. It is instructive to note that each of those nations has *also* voted against anything related to women's rights in the UN, claiming--of course--local cultural integrity. They didn't learn sexism and patriarchy from the colonial powers, that was in play when the Western navies first appeared on the horizon. I see no reason to believe that homophobia was something that imperialism brought to these nations.


Cheers
Aj

Great answers as always.

In many of these countries Women get executed for being raped, etc. But you know that. I know this seems worse because it is so shocking and so right now.

You are right . Countries are full moral agents and it probably is belittling of me to wish that the US were a better example and that we ourselves acted better in the realm of torture and execution and so forth. Like Jess said, if we even had full civil rights for our selves it might help...but maybe not.

The countries who voted to take out the part about sexual orientation are not all yellow and brown, but some of them are allies of the US, maybe that is something to look at? My Argentine childhood with the US in the background pulling strings was decades ago, yes. I should get over it and so should other countries. But does it work like that? History builds on itself and the same things repeat. Maybe none of this has anything to do with these countries wanting to take a stand that the "West" can't tell them what to do (kind of reminds me of states right fight here), but it kind of seems like that...though, several of the countries are in the "West".

I don't know what the answer is. I have a difficult time with people who automatically follow what their religion teaches and I know you do too. Yes, we can boycott countries based on this vote, but what about the countries who did not vote or who abstained? There are no surprises on the list of who voted, but if a few more other countries had stood up for what is right, the vote would not have gone as it did. It is so sad that a vote about a group of human's right to be alive should be so political.

While I am against the death penalty, I can see your point about the difference between people who commit crimes and people who don't. But who gets to pick the what crimes are heinous? We the people of the USA? Is it ok to execute people for political reasons? for being raped? for torture...but not if it is during war time?

I don't know.

Really interesting thread!

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

Great answers as always.

In many of these countries Women get executed for being raped, etc. But you know that. I know this seems worse because it is so shocking and so right now.

Actually, it doesn’t seem worse to me. As a matter of fact, one of the things that caused me to have an epiphany regarding the moral danger of cultural relativism was a discussion the 'dash' site a few years ago where feminists--in the name of not being culturally imperialist--excused the stoning of a woman who was raped on the basis that women in America were still not paid equal money for equal work and therefore we had no room to be exercised about the punishment of women who were raped. At that point I realized something had gone seriously, deeply wrong.

You are right . Countries are full moral agents and it probably is belittling of me to wish that the US were a better example and that we ourselves acted better in the realm of torture and execution and so forth. Like Jess said, if we even had full civil rights for our selves it might help...but maybe not.

Here is why I am skeptical of this idea that IF the United States were a better example then other nations would behave differently: look at the experience of the civil rights movement. The United States, despite what we might think, is not unique in having a sizable ethnic minority population. However, after the Civil Rights movement showed great success in the U.S. did it substantially change the way that, for instance, the fate of the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka? Nope, not at all. I'm not sure that we can find an example of a foreign national government deciding to broaden the circle of inclusion in their nation to include an ethnic minority *because* of the civil rights movement.

The countries who voted to take out the part about sexual orientation are not all yellow and brown, but some of them are allies of the US, maybe that is something to look at? My Argentine childhood with the US in the background pulling strings was decades ago, yes. I should get over it and so should other countries. But does it work like that? History builds on itself and the same things repeat. Maybe none of this has anything to do with these countries wanting to take a stand that the "West" can't tell them what to do (kind of reminds me of states right fight here), but it kind of seems like that...though, several of the countries are in the "West".

Firstly, while not all of them are brown or yellow the vast majority of them are. Most of those nations I would not consider part of the West (in this usage, the West isn't a geographical term but a cultural one. If your nation does not draw its roots from Greco-Roman civilization with a line connecting the European Renaissance to the present day your nation isn't a Western one. I'm not saying 'get over it', I'm saying---well, let me put it this way. I am one generation removed from Jim Crow segregation and no more than three generations (because of the generational gulf between my parents and I) from bondage. Does that excuse me from acting right? If I were a racial bigot and homophobic ass would you excuse my behavior as the legacy of slavery? Would you excuse that behavior as I beat you and/or your loved ones to a pulp? I think you wouldn't excuse it. I am saying that no matter WHAT history of colonization or imperial subjection a nation has gone through, it does not let that nation off the moral hook.

I don't know what the answer is. I have a difficult time with people who automatically follow what their religion teaches and I know you do too. Yes, we can boycott countries based on this vote, but what about the countries who did not vote or who abstained? There are no surprises on the list of who voted, but if a few more other countries had stood up for what is right, the vote would not have gone as it did. It is so sad that a vote about a group of human's right to be alive should be so political.

I, for one, do not think rights should be up for a vote that's why they are rights. Rights are not negotiable, in my book. Either they exist or they do not exist and if they exist they transcend local culture, political history or democratic voting.

While I am against the death penalty, I can see your point about the difference between people who commit crimes and people who don't. But who gets to pick the what crimes are heinous?

My examples were chosen very deliberately. Is there ANYONE here who would argue that setting off a 10 kiloton tactical nuclear device in the middle of New York City would be a heinous act? Is there ANYONE here would debate that releasing back into the wild the only virus medical science has ever actually defeated would be a heinous act? Keep in mind that smallpox killed fully a third of the people who encountered in Europe where people had *immunity*. Here in the Western Hemisphere where people hadn't evolved defenses against the virus that number jumps into the 80% range.

We the people of the USA? Is it ok to execute people for political reasons?

No. That is not a large scale crime against the species.

for being raped? for torture...but not if it is during war time?

No, because that is not a large scale crime against the species.

Cheers
Aj

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Actually, it doesn’t seem worse to me. As a matter of fact, one of the things that caused me to have an epiphany regarding the moral danger of cultural relativism was a discussion the 'dash' site a few years ago where feminists--in the name of not being culturally imperialist--excused the stoning of a woman who was raped on the basis that women in America were still not paid equal money for equal work and therefore we had no room to be exercised about the punishment of women who were raped. At that point I realized something had gone seriously, deeply wrong.




Here is why I am skeptical of this idea that IF the United States were a better example then other nations would behave differently: look at the experience of the civil rights movement. The United States, despite what we might think, is not unique in having a sizable ethnic minority population. However, after the Civil Rights movement showed great success in the U.S. did it substantially change the way that, for instance, the fate of the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka? Nope, not at all. I'm not sure that we can find an example of a foreign national government deciding to broaden the circle of inclusion in their nation to include an ethnic minority *because* of the civil rights movement.



Firstly, while not all of them are brown or yellow the vast majority of them are. Most of those nations I would not consider part of the West (in this usage, the West isn't a geographical term but a cultural one. If your nation does not draw its roots from Greco-Roman civilization with a line connecting the European Renaissance to the present day your nation isn't a Western one. I'm not saying 'get over it', I'm saying---well, let me put it this way. I am one generation removed from Jim Crow segregation and no more than three generations (because of the generational gulf between my parents and I) from bondage. Does that excuse me from acting right? If I were a racial bigot and homophobic ass would you excuse my behavior as the legacy of slavery? Would you excuse that behavior as I beat you and/or your loved ones to a pulp? I think you wouldn't excuse it. I am saying that no matter WHAT history of colonization or imperial subjection a nation has gone through, it does not let that nation off the moral hook.



I, for one, do not think rights should be up for a vote that's why they are rights. Rights are not negotiable, in my book. Either they exist or they do not exist and if they exist they transcend local culture, political history or democratic voting.



My examples were chosen very deliberately. Is there ANYONE here who would argue that setting off a 10 kiloton tactical nuclear device in the middle of New York City would be a heinous act? Is there ANYONE here would debate that releasing back into the wild the only virus medical science has ever actually defeated would be a heinous act? Keep in mind that smallpox killed fully a third of the people who encountered in Europe where people had *immunity*. Here in the Western Hemisphere where people hadn't evolved defenses against the virus that number jumps into the 80% range.



No. That is not a large scale crime against the species.



No, because that is not a large scale crime against the species.

Cheers
Aj

OK OK, I understand better now what you are saying and agree. Thank you for explaining yet more...I am just on cup of coffee #1 for some reason.

I get what you are saying about the death penalty and get that my own beliefs about how our judicial system is run get in the way of who does and does not deserve to die. Yes, if I saw and knew 100% solidly that someone spread smallpox all over, or detonated a bomb that took out a major city, it would be difficult to to argue against execution, though I still could not make that decision myself.

And you are right, while I wish the US acted better, I agree that Sri Lanka likely cares less what we do, as long as we don't invade them.

I would say we agree that not getting paid equally in the US or having full Civil Rights in the US does not equate being stoned to death anywhere.

What I do need to work on, is that in my head and in my experience, if someone were beating me to a pulp, I would assume they would be white based on how I was treated when we first moved to TN from South America. But that is another thread.

I do think looking at who did not vote or even show up will be interesting.

As always, much to think about and digest! Thank you!

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by popcorninthesofa

17 Countries abstained. 26 were absent. South Africa? They recently legalized our marriages!?!

Maybe this shows that the UN delegates do not entirely represent the wishes of the citizens amd courts of each country.

Kind of like, our Government.