|
Pages: [1] 2 3
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals (Read 14041 times)
|
onpon4
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 709
Sharing is good.
|
I don't know how many of you are aware of this. The U.N. has recently removed sexual orientation as something that it is wrong to execute someone for. As a result of this, countries led by religious extremists have already begun executing homosexual people. LGBT people are rightfully fearing for their lives.
In protest, a collaboration video is being made by a YouTube user named Joniversity. This video explains everything. I urge anyone with a video camera of some kind to contribute; it isn't much, but it can send a powerful message.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
onpon4
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 709
Sharing is good.
|
I'm not in the habit of getting my news from Youtube user Joniversity, so I didn't click the link to his video. If this is an actual issue, and not some weird misunderstanding, I'd expect organisations like amnesty, human right watch and so forth to have picked it up already. Or some large newspaper.
I'm not in that habit either. As a matter of fact, I didn't get the news from him. I first heard of it from another YouTuber, TheTruePooka, in this video. However, I first fully understood the issue when I saw Joniversity's video (by a link from a video by ItsTheSuperFly). I was also already aware of the link in the description of that video, so I assumed that even if you wouldn't watch it, you would click the link and briefly glance at the video description.
I also have no idea what the New Civil Rights movement is, but it sounds like some internal US thing. I certainly don't recognise it as a movement famous for standing up for human rights around the world. Still ,their article is better than nothing, so thanks.
Try their About page. If you read it, you will find that it's not a rights movement organization, but a publisher of information.
In short, if you want to have a discussion on topical issues, provide a bit more background and links to something other than Youtube. You'll find a lot more participants that way.
These were linked to by the blog post:
http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/pressroom/pressrelease/1257.html (International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission)
http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2010/151133.htm (United States mission's explanation of the US's vote)
That is, for the lack of better wording, bullshit. It only removes the segregation between traditional sexual orientation and the minorities. The wording used in the article is the one suggesting that being gay is a crime. “The UN vote is in direct defiance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees equal treatment, non-discrimination and the right to life. What is the point of the UN if it refuses to uphold its own humanitarian values and declarations? note the "equal" and "non-discrimination". Why should LGBT be singled out?
I don't know what issue you're talking about, but I'm talking about the issue where the UN voted to remove sexual orientation from a list of things that it is against execution for. In other words, as far as the UN is concerned, it's OK to execute someone for the sole reason of sexual orientation.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Angelfish
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 568
|
That is, for the lack of better wording, bullshit. It only removes the segregation between traditional sexual orientation and the minorities. The wording used in the article is the one suggesting that being gay is a crime. “The UN vote is in direct defiance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees equal treatment, non-discrimination and the right to life. What is the point of the UN if it refuses to uphold its own humanitarian values and declarations? note the "equal" and "non-discrimination". Why should LGBT be singled out?
I don't know if you know it, but ANY execution, whatever the reason, is in direct defiance of that declaration  . Since the USA, among other countries, is violating that declaration on a daily basis and is still a UN member, I don't really see the reason for the sudden uproar.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
onpon4
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 709
Sharing is good.
|
I don't know if you know it, but ANY execution, whatever the reason, is in direct defiance of that declaration . Since the USA, among other countries, is violating that declaration on a daily basis and is still a UN member, I don't really see the reason for the sudden uproar.
I'm not sure what you mean here. You seem to be responding to the article, and that is talking about the UN vote to allow execution of people based on sexual orientation, not the countries that are actually doing it. It's about the UN following their own declaration, not individual states abiding by it.
But what you say doesn't sound right, anyway; can you please point to where the declaration opposes all kinds of execution? I can see where the equal treatment part comes into play, in article 2:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
And the right to life, article 3:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
But while you can easily argue that capital punishment is a violation of one's right to life regardless of what alleged crime they commit, many people would disagree. One would only have to cite that throwing criminals in jail or prison, or in fact any court order forcing someone to do something, is also a violation of their liberty. Does that mean we should not punish criminals? I'm sure most of us would agree that we shouldn't just ignore them, and while I feel that jails aren't the best solution, the solution I would prefer (rehabilitation) would still be a violation of the person's right to liberty if they don't want to be rehabilitated.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Angelfish
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 568
|
I wasn't talking about my personal interpretation of article 3, but the way it's interpreted by many countries and organisations, although it's not explicitly mentioned.
It's this article that the europeans used to write another declaration that abolished the death penalty altogether. Right now, to gain entrance into the european union the aspiring country needs to drop the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
onpon4
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 709
Sharing is good.
|
Another video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhtYx_7SEuM
It says near the beginning essentially the same thing I was going to respond to your last post with, Angelfish. It starts around 1 minute in (1:05, to be more exact). You need to keep watching for a couple minutes.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 03, 2010, 09:32:08 pm by onpon4 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Angelfish
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 568
|
Another video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhtYx_7SEuMIt says near the beginning essentially the same thing I was going to respond to your last post with, Angelfish. It starts around 1 minute in (1:05, to be more exact). You need to keep watching for a couple minutes.
I've watched it in its entirety. It's great, I totally approve of its message.
However, I think that denial of LGBT rights becomes a slippery slope, honestly. How can we, as the western world, condemn the limitation of LBGT rights if we, ourselves, treat members of the LGBT community as some kind of 'untermensch'? Right now, it's illegal for many western gays to get married, adopt children, or do service in the army. Ex-Army officials from UN member states even condemn others for allowing gays to serve in their armies.
By electing the people who keep this kind of discrimination going, we ourselves are contributing to the mass denial of LGBT rights.
Therefore, the video should not be called "You're violating human rights" or "The UN is violating Human Rights" or "Certain african and arab countries are violating human rights", but
"I am violating Human Rights."
So I'm suggesting that video's title be changed  .
Or we might aswell replace it with this one, which tells the same message in a more generic way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iym7xO3-dz4
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 03, 2010, 10:32:41 pm by Angelfish »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3
|
|
|
|
|
