- checking login information
The Human Rights Cause
608,629 people care about Human Rights
Loading...UK Muslim Group Condemns UN Vote Removing Sexual Orientation from Executions Resolution
The United Nations Social, Humanitarian Cultural Affairs Committee on November 16 voted to remove specific sexual orientation-inclusive language from the UN resolution condemning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.
Now, The Association of British Muslims has expressed dismay at this decision and has called on U.N. member states to refuse to ratify this change and retain the sexual orientation-inclusive language.
UN Committee Votes to Remove Sexual Orientation
The resolution affirms member countries’ obligation to human rights and highlights groups that have historically been subject to extrajudicial executions, including ethnic, religious and other minority communities, therein asking that member nations make a commitment to thoroughly investigate such killings. For the past 10 years, the resolution has recognized sexual orientation as a reason why a person may be subject to such an execution.
More on the vote from Reuters:
Western delegations expressed disappointment in the human rights committee’s vote to remove the reference to slayings due to sexual orientation from the resolution on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions.
[...]
The General Assembly passes a resolution condemning extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions and other killings every two years. The 2008 declaration included an explicit reference to killings committed because of the victims’ sexual preferences.
But this year, Morocco and Mali introduced an amendment on behalf of African and Islamic nations that called for deleting the words “sexual orientation” and replacing them with “discriminatory reasons on any basis.”
That amendment narrowly passed 79-70. The resolution then was approved by the committee, which includes all 192 U.N. member states, with 165 in favor, 10 abstentions and no votes against.
The U.S. delegation voted against deleting the language but abstained in the final vote.
More on the vote from the Huffington Post:
A collection of notorious human rights violators voted for the amendment including Afghanistan, Algeria, China, Congo, Cuba, Eritrea, North Korea, Iran (didn’t Ahmadinejad tell the world there were no gays in Iran?), Egypt, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, Sudan, Uganda, Vietnam, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.
Add to this Bahamas, Belize (where you get 10 years for being gay), Jamaica (10 years of hard labor), Grenada (10 years), Guyana (life sentence), Saint Kitts and Nevis (10 years), Saint Lucia (10 years), Saint Vincent (10 years), South Africa (Apartheid? What apartheid?), and Morocco (ruled by a gay monarch!). They are all on the list of nations that do not think execution of gays and lesbians is worthy of condemnation or investigation.
[For a full list of how the member nations voted, please click here.]
Echoing human rights groups from around the world, Philippe Bolopion of Human Rights Watch has condemned this move, saying: “It’s a step backwards and it’s extremely disappointing that some countries felt the need to remove the reference to sexual orientation, when sexual orientation is the very reason why so many people around the world have been subjected to violence.”
While this action may have been precipitated by several religious-conservative nations, including Islamic nations, one Muslim group has reacted strongly against the vote.
British Muslim Group Condemns U.N. Vote
Last week, The Association for British Muslims released a statement condemning the vote and urging member nations against ratifying this decision:
The Association of British Muslims views this decision with considerable concern. It is the duty of the UN’s Human Rights Committee to uphold the rule of law, so it should vigorously oppose any extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions by whatever party and for whatever reasons.
It should also act to preserve the human rights of all vulnerable communities.
Removing this clause at this time will send quite the wrong signal to those regimes that indulge in these barbaric practices, implying as it does that United Nations is no longer concerned at the maltreatment of people because of their sexual orientation or considers it to be a lesser matter.
Referring to the Nazis, Paster Martin Niemoller once wrote, ‘First they came…’. Have we not learned anything since the tragedies of World War 2?
[...]
The Association of British Muslims calls on member states of the General Assembly not to endorse the decision of its Third Committee, and to reinstate the deleted clause.”
Founded in 1889, the Association of British Muslims defines itself not as a political group but rather a cultural organization which aims to demonstrate that a “British Way-of-Life” and “British culture” can be compatible with Islam.
The vote is to be ratified by member nations in December.
Read more: association of british muslims, british muslims, human rights, islam, muslims, sexual orientation, united nations
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may
not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
Recent Comments from Causes
I think the cut is fair.
Well there is bad news and worse news. Bad news is that if ALL nations do NOT stop poisoning our air…
I don't have an account with them.
meet our writers
82 comments
+ add your ownUN Is globalist front..all the globalist fronts work to undermine freedom and public ownership of resources..to pillage..gouge, deny access..etc etc..the wolves guard the sheep by day..feast by night..in secret plotting against humanity and setting themselves up as global dictators..all sham..NATO is globalist fisting planet.
@Christopher Fowler
"It figures that the only group that opposes this measure, publicly, is an extremist sect of Islam. I am surprised that a coalition of extremist Christians didn't say anything, but then, it could just be as simple as social/religious politics. They oppose each other to the point of not even agreeing on the things that they already agree on.
Even so, good for the UN. Finally standing up for what's right with serious forethought and not just using a knee-jerk reaction like our government tends to do."
Sir, with respect, you have completely misread this article, badly written though it was.
The UN REMOVED language that protected gays or suspected gays from being summarily executed, a HUGE step backward in terms of human rights.
The Muslim group opposing the removal of said language are in fact the MODERATE MUSLIMS we are all wanting to hear from. So here they are, Muslims who feel assimilation with British culture does not diminish their Muslim faith, speaking out against a UN measure that will increase violence and oppression.
You have it backwards! In this case, the UN is kow-towing to extremists, and a moderate Muslim group in Britain is vocally taking a stand in opposition. May God keep them safe.
What a world we live in. As those of us who want to expand rights to others, continue to work for progress, the Middle Ages exists all over the world.
@ mike p -- for heavens sake-- reread the article! the Association of British Muslims is organized to demonstrate that living as a Muslim is compatible with " the British way of life" and is calling on the UN to restore the original wording of the clause.
granted that the article could be more clearly organized, there is nothing in it to justify your comments about "these fanatics" when referring to the Association of British Muslims
The sooner that these fanatics realise that it is a privilege, and not a right, to live in Britain the better - they need to adopt British standards rather than try to make Britain into their country of origin. If Britain is not what they want and they really want the issues supported by their country of origin please feel free to return there and allow Britain to remain British. Support British ideals and happilly remain with our good will.
Oops; That's "where's the LEG. boy".
Leghorn Cleghorn. ........
Inside western joke Sakim.
Sakib; zat you chuckling in the background?
Haven't got a leg to stand on..........Pretty funny huh?
Where'd the eg go? wow is this muslim humour?
Or are you saying.....................??????????
To say I'm surprised by this is an understatement. I am overjoyed to hear such sensitivity and equalitarian thinking from the Association of British Muslims.
And obviously disgusted at those member nations who think gay people have any say over their sexual orientation. And at the UN for capitulating to them.
BTW - this article could have been a *little* bit better written as it took me 3 reads to ascertain that the AoBM was condemning the decision to remove the wording specifically referring to protections for sexual orientation.
I applaud The Association of British Muslims for speaking out and up about this, now if we could get more to join in perhaps something could be done to rectify.
Sharia law and brutal punishments may be consistent with islam but is contrary to the the teachings of Jesus and his God of love.Those who condemn others blaspheme God and condemned themselves.
login to add your comment
use your care2 login
add your comment
20