Tweet
The United Nations General Assembly has just adopted the USA’s amendment to restore “sexual orientation” to the Resolution on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions. The vote on the amendment was 93 yes, 55 no with 27 abstentions. The General Assembly then went on to adopt the Resolution itself by a vote of 122 to 0, with 50 abstentions.
Today the Unite Nations sends a strong message that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people are entitled to the fundamental human right to life.
Today’s amendment was necessary in the aftermath of a vote last month in the UN’s Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian & Cultural), where 79 countries voted to strip “sexual orientation” from the UN Resolution on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions. Only 70 countries supported retention of the term, while 43 countries abstained or didn’t vote.
This is the only UN resolution to include an explicit reference to sexual orientation, so today’s vote was crucial to keeping international focus the fact that LGBT people are specifically targeted for human rights abuses around the world.
Update: Statement by Ambassador Susan Rice and other reactions are below the fold.
Update 2: How the countries voted. Countries that voted in November in the Third Committee to remove “sexual orientation” from the Resolution but switched their votes on Dec. 21st to restore it are in boldface):
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, VenezuelaOpposed 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, ZimbabweAbstained (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, VietnamDid 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
Related:
* Demand that Governments of the World Condemn LGBT Executions
* Association of British Muslims criticizes UN for removing sexual orientation protections
* Gays on safari in Kenya are now themselves fair game
Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Statement by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, After Adoption by the General Assembly of a US-led Amendment to the Resolution on Extrajudicial, Summary, and Arbitrary ExecutionsSusan E. Rice
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
New York, NY
December 21, 2010FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Today, the United Nations General Assembly has sent a clear and resounding message that justice and human rights apply to all individuals regardless of their sexual orientation.
Several weeks ago, on November 16, the General Assembly’s Third Committee voted by a narrow margin to eliminate any mention of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals from a resolution condemning extrajudicial killing of vulnerable people around the world. The United States fought hard for that reference when it came to a Committee vote, and we lost. As I have said before, I was incensed by that vote.
In the weeks following that setback, the United States was proud to introduce an amendment to restore this critical language to the biennial resolution on Extrajudicial, Summary, and Arbitrary Execution before it came for a final vote of the full UN General Assembly. On December 10, at an event marking Human Rights Day, I announced our effort and said, “We’re going to stand firm on this basic principle, and we intend to win.”
The U.S built a broad coalition of partners and together we galvanized member states to support this effort – and to win.
Today, the General Assembly voted by a significant margin, 93 to 55, to approve the U.S.-led amendment and condemn the extrajudicial killing of people around the world due to their sexual orientation.
The voices of civil society and human rights defenders around the world have been heard today, and for that my delegation is especially proud. Less than two weeks after we celebrated the 62nd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, today’s vote ensures that the principles enshrined in that Declaration are put into practice – and indeed live on – in the 21st Century.
Rick D. Barton, U.S. Representative to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations
Remarks by Rick D. Barton, U.S. Representative to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, on the Vote on the General Assembly Resolution on Extrajudicial, Summary, and Arbitrary Executions contained in the Report of the Third CommitteeAmbassador Rick Barton
U.S. Representative
New York, NY
December 21, 2010AS DELIVERED
Mr. President,
Thank you for this opportunity to take the floor after the vote.
The United States would like to thank countries for their support. We applaud those member states that have stood with us to oppose efforts seeking to block language on “sexual orientation” from this resolution.
Along with many countries in this room today, the United States was deeply disappointed by the vote in the third committee, which eliminated any mention of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals from this resolution condemning extrajudicial killing of vulnerable people around the world.
The voices of civil society and human rights defenders around the world have indeed been heard by the member states of the United Nations – and for that my delegation is especially grateful. The General Assembly has sent a clear signal today that justice and human rights apply to all individuals regardless of their sexual orientation.
As Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said this year on Human Rights Day, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to all human beings without exception and that “violence will end only when we confront prejudice.”
Having just celebrated the 62nd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, today’s vote ensures that the principles enshrined in that Declaration are put into practice and indeed live on in the 21st century. We have reaffirmed that “all human rights apply to all.” We hope that we can continue to make progress on this at the UN and that all member states will consider signing the statement on LGBT human rights before the UNGA.
We thank the member states of the General Assembly for their support today.
Thank you Mr. President.
Statement by Secretary Clinton – UN General Assembly Action on Sexual Orientation
For Immediate Release December 21, 2010
2010/1850STATEMENT BY SECRETARY CLINTON
UN General Assembly Action on Sexual Orientation
I am pleased by the UN General Assembly’s action today to include sexual orientation in a resolution condemning extrajudicial and summary executions. The United States introduced this language to send an unequivocal message in concert with our many international partners: No one should be killed for who they are.
Sadly, many people around the world continue to be targeted and killed because of their sexual orientation. These heinous crimes must be condemned and investigated wherever they occur. We look forward to continuing our work with others around the world to protect the human rights of those facing threats or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press SecretaryDecember 21, 2010
Statement by the Press Secretary on Adoption of U.S. Sponsored Amendment to Ensure Gays and Lesbians Are Covered By UN Resolution on Extrajudicial Execution
President Obama applauds those countries that supported the amendment offered by the United States to ensure that “sexual orientation” remains covered by the United Nations resolution on extrajudicial, summary, and arbitrary execution. Killing people because of their sexual orientation cannot be rationalized by diverse religious values or varying regional perspectives. Killing people because they are gay is not culturally defensible – it is criminal.
While today’s adoption of an inclusive resolution is important, so too are the conversations that have now begun in capitals around the world about inclusion, equality, and discrimination. Protecting gays and lesbians from state-sponsored discrimination is not a special right, it is a human right. Today’s vote in the United Nations marks an important moment in the struggle for civil and human rights. The time has come for all nations to redouble our efforts to end discrimination and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.
20 Comments
Glad to hear it.I was trying to watch it on the live feed but didn’t know which resolution it was exactly, so I ended up just watch the IGLHRC’s facebook & twitter feed and saw when it passed there.
In looking for which resolution number it was a part of I came across this:
http://www.advocate.com/News/D…
Makes me happy that Bolton is no longer our ambassador and that the US is on the right side of this.
This is what I meantWhen I spoke on the DADT-is-being-maligned-by-the-trannies thread:
People take credit for helping trans people when they do nothing for trans people.
I’m happy this amendment passed and restored sexual orientation. I’m happy for all those who live under governments far more repressive than my own in the US. I’m happy for all those non-trans GLB folk. I’m even happy for me, as someone whose sexual orientation isn’t “straight”.
But Lurleen, please don’t make patently false statements. This isn’t a victory for T folk. It is an amendment about sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not gender. Being G is not the same as being T.
Running off with LGBT is not increasing trans visibility. By asserting that sexual orientation protection is a victory for trans people you are rendering us invisible again by throwing us under the gay blanket…
Please don’t do us any favors by throwing the T on the end of GLB willy nilly. Wait until people actually fight for Trans people before you give them credit for helping trans people.
Looking at page 2 of that artitcleI just noticed this (I wonder if there is actually anything to it – emphasis added):
Awesome!
We get to live. Now how fucking precious is that?
I wish you had listened to the debate todayIf you had, you would have learned that delegates were using “sexual orientation” as a catch-all to include LGB and T people.
It’s was only in 2008 that the silence on teh civil rights of LGBT people was broken in the UN with the introduction of a declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity. Due to the extreme, virulent anti-LGBT sentiments in many African and Arab & Muslim countries, no formal votes have yet been taken on that resolution or on a related declaration.
So you see the dialog is only beginning in the UN. Eventually I’m sure they’ll carefully define apart sexual orientation and gender identity, but at this point in time the distinction isn’t on paper.
The U.N. is FOREVER sullied by that prior vote…NOTHING can EVER change what they did. NOTHING.
Until that day I had a very high opinion of the U.N.
the prior vote was in a committeethis vote today was in the general assembly. if a committee had approved of the protections for us and the general assembly had refused them, i’d have a low opinion of the u.n. too. but what happened today was just the opposite and is a positive sign.
It’s culturalWestern LGBT communities may separate and divide gender identity and sexual orientation and decide they have absolutely nothing to do with each other ever and there is never any overlap, but other cultures don’t…especially the countries with anti-homosexuality laws.
Canada moved an amendment to protect Gender identity tooI believe it was not adopted.
are you talking about 2008?or this year? the 2008 declaration and resolution i referred to above included both SO & GI. if there has been an effort to add GI specifically this year, pls let me know!
Historic African/carribean votesFull breakdown is here http://madikazemi.blogspot.com…
47 nations in total went in a positive direction. This is a quarter of the UN membership.
* One third of African countries changed their vote positively, including Rwanda and Angola voting yes.
* Almost the whole of the Caribbean changed their vote positively, including Jamaica.
In the debate the most moving contribution was from the Rwandan delegate who said that a group does not need to be “legally defined” to be targeted for massacres and referenced his countries experience. “We can’t continue to hide our heads in the sand” he said.”These people have a right to life.”
This Rwandan contribution is missing from MSM and unfortunately LGBT media coverage, in favour of nasty words from Zimbabwe. This historic vote from Africa has been missed!
I’ll be providing partial transcripts soonSo people can “hear” from the sane delegates not just the crazies.
On a Personal NoteIt’s always nice to know that one’s vacation plans need not include a note to “avoid being executed.”
This yearAn additional amendment moved by Canada, according to one report.
That committee should be severely sanctioned or eliminated.There MUST be consequences for such a monstrous act of hate.
Until such time as I see consequences, which will be never, I will hold the U.N. in utter contempt.
That is excellent news!Although I wish it was in the news. Not even the horrible vote last month made any news to speak of, although I was really happy to hear BBC and NPR coverage of Tuesday’s restorative vote. But UN goings on don’t usually rank too high in American news.
The consequence is that their vote was overturned.And that’s a very, very good thing. The UN is founded on the principle of peaceful negotiation and diplomacy not slamming the door on conflict (which never works for long). In the end negotiation and diplomacy resulted in the strongest majority of countries ever to vote in favor of LGBT human rights. The previous top number was 79, and now we’re at 93. That is an astounding accomplishment and would not have happened if the committee had been disbanded after its failure. Because remember, all countries in the committee are also in the General Assembly.
Well unfortunately you still have to avoid executionin too many nations. The difference now is that if you go on vacation and get executed for your sexual orientation, a very strong majority of nations will disapprove and perhaps there will be consequences.
I was saddened …… to see China and Russia voiting against it.
And I was surprised to see the Philippines and Thailand abstaining.
I came back late……so this is only of historical note. most people will miss this.
But Lurleen, saying that Sexual Orientation includes Trans people is exactly the same as saying LGB progress includes T progress by default.
Look – as a cripple, I’ve seen a great deal of progress around treatment of people with physical disabilities. But when people talk about access or services, they almost never think about mental health. How does one make services available to the agoraphobic? To the autistic? Might those be different than services that are needed for people with physical, osteopathic, mobility disabilities?
The issues aren’t exactly the same – when people say that they progress in fighting ableism or making services accessible, that **can** be literally true even when people with psychiatric, cognitive, developmental or even sensory disabilities are excluded.
But if they build a ramp and I say that this is a victory for **all** people with disabilities, I’m not being honest, even if, in some technical way, people were bandying about the word “disability” **as if it included** all those people with any kind of disability, not only mobility impairments.
I am not saying this isn’t a victory. But **don’t say it’s a victory for T people** when T people are not included.
And, yes, I know people in other cultures use “sexual orientation” as if it included gender variations. So does the state of Minnesota, so do cities across the country and, yes, Pam’s House Blend.
But the fact that many people will occasionally use the word that way doesn’t help trans people on the ground. Because, for better or for worse, sexual orientation **does** have meaning and when laws or resolutions get to the ground, “sexual orientation” language won’t protect trannies because governments can legally, even plausibly, kill us while claiming that they are obeying these resolutions because sexual orientation is different from gender. The fact that a country’s representative misuses sexual orientation is not proof that the official policy of that country will be to interpret the UN language as inclusive of trans people.
And so I ask, I beg, you and others – but more others than you, especially others who take money for advocating for “LGBT” folk – Please – just tell the frickin’ truth.
Don’t say that an LGBT victory was won when an LG or LGB victory was won. The very fact that a sexual orientation measure can pass but that a Gender Identity measure **cannot** pass is proof that the UN (even when careless about wording in a verbal debate) sees a serious, substantive difference between protecting queers and protecting trannies.
And they have declared publicly that they are willing to protect the queers but not the trannies. (I don’t forget that they declared that this willingness to “not kill in an extrajudicial manner” is grudging through in their previous vote, but they are nonetheless willing to not kill the queers while saying quite clearly that they want to reserve the right to illegally kill trannies).
So… Just say that.
It’s a victory. It’s a huge f*ing victory. It’s **worth** celebrating. Queers have been murdered the world over for many, many years – it’s impossible to say how many.
I’m not at all upset about the vote. It’s an undeniably good thing.
I’m upset that people who aren’t willing to promise not to kill trannies are being praised for protecting trannies.
WTF???
“I reserve the right to kill you – in the dark, with no court order, even if you’ve committed no crime” is no promise of protection, it is no victory.
So celebrate for GLB folk. I’m not trying to rain on that parade. But you embarrass yourself, and worse, you sabotage the ability of trans communities to trust non-trans communities, when you engage lying about the substance of what happened, of who won the victory, of who was willing to stick out a political neck for whom.
I was accused (I think – she might have been excluding me when referencing “almost all” comments) by Azerica of being unwilling to get past “old wounds” when I discussed this deceitful manipulation of both credit and substance on a similar thread.
But I’m not talking about old wounds. I’m not talking about what happened in the past. Look at the state department’s press release. They use LGBT in relation to this vote, this story. This isn’t even a “wound”. It’s just a lie.
It’s not even a malicious lie. It’s a lie by lazy habit. People want us to be united, so they use the language of unity without thinking about what they are actually saying.
Please, don’t join with the people too lazy to notice that governments around the world reserved the right to murder me.
All you have to do is report on what actually happened. That was a victory. And it’s enough to say what actually happened, without embellishing it, without trying to overwrite the vote with some ambiguous (not to mention unofficial and non-binding) uses of the words sexual orientation.
What happened was good.
What happened was progress.
Let’s give people credit for what they did. But if we give people credit for what they didn’t do, not only will they fail to understand why we’re coming back asking them to do something they think they already did but…
…people on the ground will believe that they are protected when they aren’t.
Don’t we deserve to have the truth about when/where we’re protected and when/where we aren’t?
Can’t we have honest info about which countries plan our murders and which don’t?
I don’t think that’s too much to ask.