Test 2

Please select your preferred language.






初到 Fridae?

Fridae Mobile


More About Us


« 較新的 | 較舊的 »
22 Dec 2010

UN restores "sexual orientation" clause to killings resolution

UN member states voted on Tuesday to restore a controversial reference to sexual orientation in a resolution against the unjustified killing of minority groups after it was removed last month at the urging of Arab and African nations.

The latest amendment was introduced by the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice who said said she was "incensed" at the move to remove the sexual orientation clause and vowed to restore the original language in a U.S.-sponsored amendment. Prior to its removal, the original 2008 declaration had included an explicit reference to killings committed because of the victims' sexual orientation alongside killings for racial, national, ethnic, religious, or linguistic reasons, and killings of refugees, indigenous people, and other groups.

"It is not called the partial declaration of human rights."It is not the sometimes declaration of human rights.It is the universal Declaration, guaranteeing all human beings their basic human rights… without exception." - UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, December 10, 2010

The resolution was adopted on Dec 21 by the 192-member General Assembly on a vote of 93 for and 55 against, with 27 nations abstaining.

Gay rights groups, who worked ahead of the vote to lobby countries that had abstained earlier in hopes of getting them to approve a U.S.-sponsored amendment, naturally welcomed the result.  Albania, Colombia, Rwanda and South Africa were reportedly among the countries the US or rights groups have persuaded to approve the amendment.

Boris Dittrich, director of the gay rights program at Human Rights Watch, credited Rice with introducing the new amendment and told The Washington Post  was "relieved" by the result. "The resolution does justice to gays, lesbians and transgender people in countries where they are targeted for assaults and killings," Dittrich said. "Hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity must be countered just like hate crimes on the basis of race or religion."

The IGLHRC [with ARC International, CariFLAGS, COC Nederland, International Day to End Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO) and International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Association (ILGA) World] issued a joint statement on Dec 21, 2010 highlighting the efforts of a massive mobilisation effort by civil society groups including through action alerts issued by ARC International and by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission:

On Tuesday, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted overwhelmingly in favor of restoring reference to "sexual orientation" in a high-profile resolution condemning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The reference to sexual orientation had been removed by an earlier amendment at the committee level by governments opposed to ensuring protection for individuals targeted because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation. The vote - which passed 93 to 55, with 27 abstentions and 17 absent or not voting – demonstrated that efforts to exclude vulnerable groups from human rights protections at the UN will be vigorously opposed.

Today's dramatic vote comes after a UN General Assembly sub-committee responsible for human rights issues voted in November to remove the reference to "sexual orientation" from a paragraph enumerating vulnerable populations in the resolution condemning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

The earlier removal of the reference to sexual orientation, approved in committee by a vote of 79 in favor, 70 opposed, with 17 abstaining and 26 not voting, was met by an international outcry – including from governments such as the United States who vowed to re-open the issue. 

Introducing today's amendment, the representative of the United States called on governments to acknowledge that all persons have the right to be free from extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, including those targeted because of their sexual orientation. The US later went on to note that the voices of civil society and human rights defenders had been heard. They also called on UN Member States to sign onto the 2008 General Assembly declaration confirming that international human rights protections include protection from violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. 

The discriminatory vote in November prompted a massive mobilization by civil society including through action alerts issued by ARC International and by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission – an organization which, in July, faced unsuccessful efforts by the same conservative forces to prevent it from gaining official NGO status at the UN. 

"This, of course, could not have happened without the concerted and passionate efforts of several governments. But what this victory also demonstrates is the power of civil society at the UN and working across countries and regions to demand that their own governments vote to protect LGBT lives." said Cary Alan Johnson, Executive Director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC). "The outpouring of support from the international community sent the strong message to our representatives at the UN that it is unacceptable to make invisible the deadly violence LGBT people face because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation."

Following the November vote, civil society from around the world – including strong coalitions from the Global South – were vocal in pressuring their governments to support critical human rights protections for LGBT people. As the ad hoc civil society coalition from South Africa noted:

"The November amendment … aggravates an already difficult environment for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people and their defenders, who live in continual fear of violent attack and experience discrimination throughout Africa and many other parts of the world. ...and ignores the overwhelming evidence that people are routinely killed around the world because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation."

Following today's successful inclusion of language on sexual orientation, the resolution itself passed with a vote of 122 in favor and 1 against (with 62 abstentions and 17 absences). It now states, "To ensure the effective protection of the right to life of all persons under their jurisdiction and to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including those targeted at specific groups of persons, such as...killings of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, or because of their sexual orientation...."

This marks a return to previous inclusive language that governments in the UN have supported for close to a decade. These abuses have also been consistently documented by UN Special Rapporteurs in reports to the UN Human Rights Council and its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights, a point noted in today's statement by Belgium on behalf of the European Union.

Regrettably, governments have so far failed to include in the resolution mention of, or specific protection around, killings committed on the basis of gender identity. This is despite the fact that transgender people around the world are among those most vulnerable to violence and killings.

Today's vote to reinstate protections passed with broad cross-regional support. Many states took the floor in support of inclusion of reference to the vulnerability of LGBT people and calling for a stronger response against killings on the basis of sexual orientation that take place all too frequently around the world.

Several swing states indicated a change from their votes in November. South Africa, a key vote from the African region, stated that in today's vote they were "guided by our Constitution that guarantees the right to life" and that "no killing of human beings can be justified whatsoever." Colombia, which abstained on the earlier vote, also offered its unequivocal support during the new vote.

Although several countries claimed a supposed lack of a definition of sexual orientation in international law as a reason for their opposition, countries such as Rwanda firmly rejected this saying: "Take my word, a human group need not be legally defined to be the victim of executions and massacres as those that target their members have [already] previously defined [them]. Rwanda has also had this bitter experience sixteen years ago. It is for this that the Delegation of Rwanda will vote for this amendment and calls on other delegations to do likewise." 

Today's vote affirms the message of UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon, who on International Human Rights Day, delivered an unequivocal statement - much quoted by States supporting the amendment - on the obligation of the UN and its member states to end violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. 

He declared, "Together, we seek the repeal of laws that criminalize homosexuality, that permit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, that encourage violence. People were not put on this planet to live in fear of their fellow human beings."

Watch the video from Human Rights Day Event and read UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon's full statement.
Read the formal communications from human rights defenders in countries that lobbied their governments on this vote (PDF).

In favor of amendment restoring sexual orientation to UNGA resolution on executions (93):

Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua-Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Marshall Island, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela

Opposed to amendment (55):

Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Sala, Burkina Faso, Burundi, China, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Abstained (27):

Belarus, Bhutan, Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao, Lesotho, Liberia, Maldives, Mali, Mongolia, Mozambique, Philippines, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome Principe, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Vietnam

Did not vote/Absent (17):

Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Cote D'Ivoire, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Seychelles, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan


1. 2010-12-22 22:37  
This sadly shows how much more work needs to be done in those countries that were not in favour of human rights for ALL, regardless of sexuality...pretty poor show really...;-(
2. 2010-12-22 22:57  
Quite disappointed with the following voters:

Opposed to amendment (55):
Afghanistan, China, Indonesia, Iraq, Malaysia, Russia

Abstained (27):
Cambodia, Lao, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam

3. 2010-12-22 23:55  
im really dissapointed with these opposing voter
indonesia , malaysia , singapore ( for being anstained ) i just dont know whats goin on in their head....so killing poeple based on sexual orientation should be justified? what a blatant discrimination ......
4. 2010-12-23 00:44  
At least insanity has been overturned but it gives those of us in SEAsia little confidence given the circumstances. As many point out we have a long way to go.
5. 2010-12-23 03:20  
What do I have to do to obtain their love?
6. 2010-12-23 03:39  
Why the UN proposed to delete the sexual orientation clause at the first placed baffled me. On the other hand, why Indonesia keeps trying to keep the clause ignored somehow doesn't surprise me. Good show, though... At least it's 55 against 93 (or 99 against 93... depending on how we see it).
7. 2010-12-23 06:22  
Reply to Buttercake / comment #3

Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom, a (Malaysian)Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, calling on the religious authorities to monitor the activities of gay groups.

“For Muslims, we must remember that being gay is against our religious teaching,” he was quoted in the local media on Sunday as saying. “We want this activity to be monitored closely by the authorities and appropriate actions to be taken to prevent it from spreading as it can tarnish the image of Islam.”

You have it !
What surprised me, however, is that since gay sex is not considered a crime in Indonesia (unlike Malaysia) why did Indonesia oppose to the motion ? I would have understood 'abstain' in view of some radical groups but not a firm opposition.
As far as Thailand, with 30% of the gay population being either HIV+ or suffering from Aids the abstain vote in certainly not in line with the country's main religion, its tolerance if not acceptance. This vote
bedazzled me.
As for Singapore, it voted in line with its basket case gay rights history.
8. 2010-12-23 15:21  
why Korean opposed it? Fcuk ! I believe beside China as a non religion country, the others are muslim nation. Why Korea opposed to it? Are they fcuking crazy?

My Gosh, Singapore abstained it? My friend said, Kia Su attitude. Singapore is a most backward in Human rights among the developed nations. Singapore was the only developed nation abstained it. Hahaha Shame !

Thailand. hahahaha If you don't see gay in every corner in Bangkok, I will cut my cock to feed the representative who abstained it. No brain at all.

Singapore, Korea and Thailand ...... real fcuking.

9. 2010-12-23 15:26  
it shouldn't have been bloody removed in the first place, there was no good reason the UN should be carefully monitored in future, of course I maintain the less than satisfactory sexual behaviour of bi/homosexual men in liberal countries, the perceived lack of responsibility and decency for halting sexually transmitted diseases does much to encourage the negative views of conservatives and disadvantages the momentum of 'Gay' human rights groups in emerging Democracies and totalitarian states
修改於2010-12-23 15:28:02
10. 2010-12-23 19:09  
Tolerating homosexuality may 'tarnish the image of Islam' LOL. Rather, I'd say tolerating something may improve its image. I don't think Islam could be tarnished any further in my opinion - unfortunately, because I do see the nice sides of Islam too. :)

@Kazukicanada - It was only North Korea that opposed it, which is not a surprise considering making music is illegal there.
Just let's be clear that South Korea voted in favor of restoring it. ^^
11. 2010-12-23 20:49  
Just because Mohd was an ignorant bigot and clearly had no interaction with ANY god, a quarter of the world's population are committed in ignorance to perpetuating his prejudices

Gods do not discriminate against their own creations.... Its as simple as that
12. 2010-12-23 23:47  
No real love in gay's life? I dont wanna b gay! Coz i need real love! :-(
13. 2010-12-24 02:59  
The fact that all Muslim and many African countries opposed the reinstatement is hardly surprising, given that their religions preach intolerance and hate against gays. As for Russia and China, despite being officially "atheist", their Communist legacy which was actively intolerant of
and in denial of gays still permeates the ruling elites. No brainer.
Singapore is understandable but unforgivable given their level of economic and social development.
14. 2010-12-24 11:35  
Indonesia and Malaysia voting against the amendment - no big surprise there.

Singapore and Thailand abstaining - no big surprise there either. They are just trying to keep the peace with their less tolerant ASEAN neighbours. At least they did not vote against the amendment. That's a small but incremental measure of progress towards 21st century inclusion and acceptance of minority group rights.
15. 2010-12-24 13:59  
well, well, well.. so this is what the world is coming to. 55 countries
opposed and 27 countries abstained to a section to protect
someone who was born different... and we all know that the
representatives of these countries have gay men and women
in there families.. i dont agree with the u.s. involment in
afghanistan and iraq but why must more americans die for
governments who voted to delete the "sexual orientation"
phrase? it really is depressing to see several of these countires
names who voted to delete when they try to project an image
of progressive , modern and industrial powers... ha ha it seems
they are still living in the dark ages.
16. 2010-12-24 14:12  
It goes to show which countries governments are ignorant, surpressed, in denial, intollerant, controlling, repressive and outright stupid. I'm sure many other negative words could be added to my list.
回應#17於於2010-12-25 05:05被作者刪除。
18. 2010-12-25 05:04  
Dear 10

Thanks for letting me know my mistake.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea = North Korea
Republic of Korea = South Korea

hahaha. I think North Korea should not use " Democratic People " very confusing. When I saw the word, Democratic, I think it was South Korea. Never thought of ever they use such a nice name for North Korea. Shame !

Dear 14

"Singapore and Thailand abstaining - no big surprise there either. They are just trying to keep the peace with their less tolerant ASEAN neighbours. "

I don't think they worry of their neighbours. First, Thailand never been colonized by other include Japan. They were the only two countries never been colonized by others, I believe, fear isn't their dictionary. I lived in Bangkok for 2 years, I had never had a day did not see gays on the streets and shopping malls. Thai gays are visually visible. Abstaining sound stupid and lack of care of their own people. Well, Singapore, Kia sure attitude (scare of losing) is always .... Oh, Better I don't say much here since they have ISA. Singapore should know, all the developed nations would vote to support the amendment. They knew it, why they have to .... STUPID. Look at the list :

Abstained (27):

Belarus, Bhutan, Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao, Lesotho, Liberia, Maldives, Mali, Mongolia, Mozambique, Philippines, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome Principe, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Vietnam

ALL the deveping and poor nations. Perhaps Singapore is a rich nation (GDP/C) but poor in their brain (I mean its Government), lack of understanding basic human rights. Well, Singaporeans should keep fighting to free themselves from...... Good luck.
19. 2010-12-25 05:26  
Dear Singapore representative,

I want you to wake up and listen to your heart. Do you have heart beat? If you do, there should have love/compassion. Abstaining has no different from those who against it. It was an important basic human rights issue. Almost all The world leaders stood up and with their compassion to restore it. Where were u? Hiding? Voting to restore it would not affect Singapore laws to against gay rights. So to speak. Perhaps someday, when your loved one being killed due to his/her sexual orientation, then you tell me it is fine to keep silent. I will salute you.

My voice may not as valuable for you to listen. Listen to this man, perhaps when there is another chance for you to represent many kind hearted Singaporeans, you will stand up as a real man/leader/human being and make human being, human being.


'We Cannot Be Silent' UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said

The U.S. and EU position on the issue is in line with that of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who has established himself as a firm advocate of the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgender people.

Speaking at the UN Human Rights Day event, Ban said wherever there is tension between cultural attitudes and universal human rights, rights must carry the day. Personal disapproval, or societal disapproval, he said, is no excuse to arrest, detain, imprison, harass, or torture anyone.

"As men and women of conscience, we reject discrimination in general, and in particular discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity," he said. "When individuals are attacked, abused, or imprisoned because of their sexual orientation, we must speak out. We cannot stand by. We cannot be silent."
20. 2010-12-27 15:05  
the others are understandable given their conservative nature but China, Malaysia and Russia?? and then Thailand, Philippines and Singapore abstaining?! seriously!
21. 2010-12-28 23:53  
Good to see civilisation and progress prevail against ignorance and social retardation. There is hope yet for this species.

It is a reminder for us all to be vigilant. Because even this basic right (not to be arbitrarily killed!!!) can be so easily removed. It is a reminder that evil exists just around the corner waiting to drag the world back to the dark ages.
22. 2010-12-31 10:22  
This list is great as a travel guide of countries to visit and countries to avoid! Hehe ;) Happy NYs everyone!
23. 2011-01-03 08:29  
24. 2011-02-06 09:46  
Dear UN, please,please,please...take note:


Sincerely and With Thanks,
A concerned Lesbian World Citizen





Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!


View this page in a different language:



 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia