Where's the Criticism of U.N.'s Non-Condemnation of Gay Genocide?

While GLBT blogs and news sites condemn the United Nations having recently scrubbed GLBT-inclusive language in a resolution mandating police action on "arbitrary and unjust executions," the mainstream media has had little to say.

The U.N.'s Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions resolution had previously contained a provision that investigators should look into killings "committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation." A recent U.N. vote removed the last three words of that sentence. The change was in response to Asian and African nations pushing to delete those protections, which had been part of a similar resolution in 2008. GLBT equality advocates now worry that nations with anti-gay governments will see the deletion as carte blanche to step up persecution against sexual minorities.

Anorak noted on Nov. 26 that the resolution listed categories of protection such as "ethnicity, religious belief and linguistic minorities," along with "journalists, lawyers and demonstrators, street children and indigenous communities. But not the gays," the Anorak article said. "Not any more. So, now if gays are killed for being gay in such places of freedom as Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iraq--five consider it a capital crime--the UN will do nothing."

The head of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Cary Alan Johnson, condemned the change as "dangerous and disturbing," saying that the deletion of the language "essentially removes the important recognition of the particular vulnerability faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people--a recognition that is crucial at a time when 76 countries around the world criminalize homosexuality, five consider it a capital crime, and countries like Uganda are considering adding the death penalty to their laws criminalizing homosexuality."

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission is a U.S.-based organization that only recently won accreditation from the United Nations. The Obama administration had pressed for that accreditation, and welcomed it as an "important step forward for human rights," in the words of President Obama. A number of the same nations that voted to strip the resolution of language to protect gays also voted not to accredit the IGLHRC.

African nations Morocco and Mali joined in calling for the change. Uganda, an African nation that has a bill pending to impose the death penalty on gays, joined 78 other countries worldwide in voting to strike the protections for sexual minorities from the resolution. Kenya, another African nation, also voted to de-list gays; that nation recently announced intensified persecution of gays. A number of other African nations also voted to scrub GLBT protections from the resolution, including Cameroon, Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda, Sudan, and even South Africa, which is the only nation that specifically protects GLBT rights in its constitution.

Others among the 79 nations voting to strip language protecting gays from the resolution included Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Iraq. 70 nations voted to retain those protections, including the United States.

A Nov. 23 Huffington Post article noted that many of the nations that voted in favor of deleting the GLBT protections are infamous for a wider range of human rights abuses, including China, North Korea, Malaysia, and Pakistan, among others.

"The UN has a remarkable track record of doing virtually nothing when presented with mass killings or genocide," the Huffington Post article stated. " 'Never again!' was the cry after the holocaust. Since then, the world has witnessed a dozen more never against with strong condemnation from the UN coming after the corpses pile up. A resolution of the sort that was voted on in the General Assembly is significant for its clarity of message: 'It's okay to kill the gays.' "

While many political leaders and the mainstream media have yet to take up the issue, some Christians have voiced their objection. Christian website Ekklesia reported on Nov. 26 that the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) had denounced the U.N. vote.

"The reference to sexual orientation was part of a list which highlights many of the groups that are targeted by killings--including those belonging to national or ethnic groups, human rights defenders and street children and members of indigenous communities," stated the leader of the LGCM, the Rev. Sharon Ferguson. "Until now it has been accepted that the mention of sexual orientation is required to draw attention to the fact that this is often the specific reason why individuals are killed," Ferguson continued.

"The removal of this reference sends a message that people do not merit protection based upon their sexual orientation and will further fuel homophobic hatred and violence," the LGCM's chief executive added.

The South African vote against the resolution's now-eradicated GLBT protections drew some protest from within that nation. The South African Mail & Guardian reported on Nov. 25 that political party the Democratic Alliance (DA) wrote a letter objecting to the vote. "We believe that this vote runs contrary to our constitution and will serve to weaken the international community's response to extrajudicial killings based on sexual orientation," the DA letter, written by shadow minister for International Relations and Cooperation Kenneth Mubu, stated.

British GLBT equality campaigner Peter Tatchell struck out at the vote, saying, that scrubbing the language that would have extended protection to gays "gives a de facto green light to the on-going murder of LGBT people by homophobic regimes, death squads and vigilantes. They will take comfort from the fact that the UN does not endorse the protection of LGBT people against hate-motivated violence and murder."

Noted Tatchell, "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?"