For the first time, the General Assembly has unanimously adopted a resolution that includes “sexual orientation and gender identity.” In diplomatic statements during the session, twenty-two countries objected to the inclusion of the controversial terms. Still, no country opted to vote against the resolution.
The Ambassador of Saudi Arabia said the controversial terms “sexual orientation and gender identity” were “not in harmony with divine nature.” He emphasized that “God created man and woman as a couple, male and female.”
Many countries said the inclusion of the terms “sexual orientation and gender identity” in the U.S.-sponsored resolution on free and fair elections said the terms ran against their cultures and laws. They insisted that the terms are not agreed internationally and should not be included in future resolutions. And they questioned the relevance of including them in a resolution about free and fair elections.
“In your country, do you have to confirm your sexual orientation when you collect your ballot paper?” asked a Russian delegate derisively after the resolution was adopted.
A delegate from Egypt said the inclusion of the language “undermines” the human rights system and was “imposing vague concepts pertaining to private matters that are outside the human rights framework.”
A vote on the resolution was expected yesterday afternoon in the plenary session of the General Assembly when the resolution was to be finally adopted. The UN secretariat staff running the meeting had taken steps in anticipation of a vote rather than passage by unanimous consensus. An online statement submitted by Saudi Arabia appeared to call for a vote. Under intense pressure from the Biden administration, in the end, no vote was taken.
The language in the resolution goes beyond asking for respect or privacy. It commits countries to “eliminate laws, regulations and practices that discriminate, directly or indirectly” or that may have an effect on the participation of individuals who identify as LGBT in elections as a human right obligation. This broad language could be interpreted by the UN system as requiring recognition of homosexual marriage and hormone therapies for children who identify as being of their opposite sex as well as comprehensive sexuality education.
Full story at C-Fam.org.
“Still, no country opted to vote against the resolution.” I wonder how the Vatican would have voted if it was a voting member.
An unjust law is no law at all.
It is not a law.
Maybe you meant the laws in the countries that discriminate against LGBT persons?
“Maybe you meant the laws in the countries that discriminate against LGBT persons? cd, what a loaded term: “discriminate.” So any law preventing a child at any age from assuming a new gender (and being supplied with appropriate drugs/surgery) and using bathrooms and competing in sports of that new gender would constitute discrimination? To discriminate also means to discern between good and evil, between good and bad– a diagnostic action. We discriminate this way every day with every act of will. Governments have to discriminate between what might be good and bad policies. The promulgation of harmful policies results from a lack of discriminating between or among courses of action. Failure to discriminate or diagnose accurately is a failure of prudential leadership. Therefore the phrase “discriminate against LGBT persons” has no meaning unless a specific measure or law intended for a specific group is under consideration. At least that’s my take.
I shortened the phrase from the article. I should have used quotes: apologies. I was just trying to find out what Anne TE meant. At first I thought she meant the UN resolution, then I thought maybe she meant the laws that the resolution was about.
Did you read the article?.
I was referring to the proposed resolutions as being unjust. A longer post I sent previously explaining all that did not go through. My was similar to Dan’s.at 10:17 am.
Thanks for clearing up my confusion. Merry Christmas..
A Merry Christmastide to you, too, and a Blest New Year.
US out of UN
UN out of US
Stop the ideological colonization and blackmailing of developing and third-world nations!
The Pope has spoken out against this.
The white mans’ burden has been replaced by the woke persons’ burden.
These ignorant, tradition-bound non-European cultures cannot be trusted with their own lives and futures. Elites in media, politics and Hollywood must save them from themselves. What would the world do without leftists in the top one percent income bracket?
I agree with you, except for one thing. It is not just “whites” that are pushing this cr_p on other races. Some in the other races are pushing this garbage on their own people too. Just look at communist China and its abortion industry. There are some Africans pushing it on other Africans too. It all needs to stop.
Something strange is going on here. I wrote the article that is named “needs to stop”, but I do not know who put that phrase name in as I did not. Perhaps I accidentally left out my name and the editor put that one in instead.
Regarding my reply to “woke imperialism rising”, I was assuming the person was using some sarcasm, thus the way I replied.
Also, one longer reply to cd and another poster that I wrote did not go through for some reason. In answer to cd, my Dec. 21 post at 8:20 pm was referring to the proposed resolutions as being unjust laws.