Latest UN shocker: 'It's ok to kill gays'.

Augustus

Homosexuality may be called a sin by every religion, but nobody has the right to sentence
homosexuals to earthly punishments, just as adultery should not be judged over and punished by one's fellow humans.
That's why it's imperative to keep religion and the state seperate. Only God in entitled to judge the sexual nature of individual humans. Even if homosexuals are different, they
deserve our complete respect. What must become of the UN when such kinds of debate slip in? In any event this is a gross
violation of human rights.

DanGrover

In their defence, it's a resolution *re-affirming* that they do that. It really doesn't matter if they sign it or not, they're still free to investigate or not investigate at their will, as it should be. On the same line of reasoning, though, why might ask why they would vote *against* such a resolution. Perhaps they think countries should be able to make up their own minds, free from international jurisdiction. In which case, what are they doing in the UN?

davod

Did the Brits abstain or vote for the amendment in keeping with new UK-Arab relationship.

DougS

This piece of disgusting rubbish-resolution tells you all you need to know about the United Nations.

LibertarianLou

Spot on Melanie.

SAM ARMSTRONG

I always felt that the left liberal consensus would fall apart if the lifestyle choices of the West were interfered with. We wait to see what happens here.

J D Bryan

Most of the western Hard Left should be happy. They are getting what they have always wanted. That is, the displacement of the western global influence by any non or anti-western movement or regime.

J D Bryan

Obliged for reasons of real politic, the admission of totalitarian Soviet Union, then Mao’s, China, as permanent members of the security council prevented the UN from being a global force for good. This is often forgotten because the UN was seen to represent a global democratic institution. Yet, democracy does not secure freedom, only if tempered by liberalism (the classical definition not the Lefty corruption of the term “liberal“) can it represent liberty. As in liberal democracy.

There has been a similar misunderstanding developing once the Cold War was won, a victory underwritten by America. Though, former Communist regimes, like China and Russia, though dropping socialism and freeing up their markets, they are not capitalist, liberal democracies as yet. Though they may become thus in the future, hopefully! Meanwhile, their critical or anti-capitalist/western bent will evermore counter the western influence.

Whereas, liberal democracies thrive on free debate the prickly nature of China and Russia is obvious. They may well agree with the west on many issues, but certainly will not as per western standards of governance, openness, meaningful, thus liberal, democracy, essentially, the autonomy of the individual, because they are still authoritarian regimes - though they are improving. China made her feelings quite clear when Norway issued a Nobel Peace prize to a Chinese dissident - probably the last time the (Soft)Left leaning committee dare admonish China. This will have a corrosive effect on the UN, thus become ever more amenable to large numbers of non or anti-liberal developing nations, hence the above homophobic outcome. Thus represents the relative decline of the west.

No doubt this must be music to the ears of the western anti-American/anti-capitalists, a sizable section of the Hard Left. Though they will get what they wanted but will not like what they get. When the dominant global powers are no longer benign thus easy to vilify as has been America and the west- perhaps, they may learn before it is too late. The only hope for humanity is that India, if not China, become the beacon for liberal democracy within the next few decades.

Adam B.

As long as the UN is a bastion for US and Israel hating dictators and police states, the leftists will look the other way on such issues. They already looked the other way on issues such as Darfur, DRC, China and the laughingly called Human Rights Council. Saudi Arabia just got elected onto the body promoting women's rights - this is a country where women are banned from driving a car. The UN is a grotesque inversion of what it was established to be.

The leftists' hatred of the West is greater than their love for...well, anything. So ultimately they won't care - and will still endlessly refer to the UN as some kind of moral arbiter of the globe.

Roger K

The United Nations has drifted away from it's original core aims many years ago. Or has it? I wonder if a study of it's history will in fact reveal another hidden agenda? But leave that one side and assume it had the best of intentions, where is it now?
Like the adoptiion of multi-cultralism, the inclusion of many nations and their cultral, moral and belief patterns will ensure no culture, morality or belief other than the very lowest. I do not believe in many forms of democracy, just, one man, one vote with a guaranteed time period. If you have an international body that has authority it should be because in order to become a member a nation should be able to demonstrate an acceptable level of democracy and morality. No, these are not up for discussion, yes it does mean at this basic level to "imposing" my/our values on others. Yes, we can talk to these rogue nations but no, they will have no international standing and will not be let near the levers of international power.
Let me scare you further. The United Nations intends to become an organisation over and above all nations, it itends to have it's own army while outlawing individual nation's armies. It's separate financing will come directly from Climate Change taxes and small margins on international finance exchanges, which will be billions paid directly to the U.N.
The United Nations will not then need a moral authority just it's muscle.
Am I a loony? Read Ex New Zealand U.N. worker now N.Z. M.P.(Labour) David Shearer who worked closely with Helen Clark current U.N. Development Director former N.Z. Prime Minister. Read Ian Wishart "Aircon" invetigative journalist. Read Mike Moore former W.T.O representative.
Please look these up before someone writers anabusive reply.

maddy1

Yes ok! but were are the lawsuiuts the sanctions and the moral outrage? Our Ganghi inspired do gooders pick their cherries very carefully to aviod the thorns!

Mr Adequate

Not surprising that Benin brought this amendment up; it has always had a poor record in coming to terms with homosexuality.
Remember the rhyme?
"Beware and take care of the Bight of Benin. There's one comes out for forty goes in."

john

High time to bring John Bolton's idea of a Union of Western Democracies to the table which would exclude the rogues and thugs from membership. There is some speculation that John Bolton may well run for the Republicans in 2012.

Derek BLADES

Roger K., like several other contributors, makes the elementary mistake of thinking that the United Nations is something other than its members. The United Nations secretariat in New York - of which I was a member for some years - provides meeting rooms, interpreters and secretarial services for representatives of its member countries to meet and discuss matters of mutual concern. Thinking of the United Nations as something apart from its member countries leads to the mad kinds of conspiracy theories so popular on this blog.

Although they have had their failures, the member countries of the United Nations have more often acted together to do much good and to limit much harm. A good example is the humanitarian aid provided to the Palestinian refugees. Without the support of the UN member countries their situation would be even more desperate than it now is.

Grow up children.

Miranda Rose Smith

Israel voted, in the U.N., that it's wrong to kill gays. In Israel, Gay Pride Marchers are politely asked to hold their march is some city that isn't full of ultra-religious people. Yet there are gays that align themselves with the Arabs, that form and join organizations like "Queers Against Israeli Terror," that call Israel an apartheid country for building a fence to keep out people who like to murder Jews-and gays.

Dave

Meanwhile we happily let in hundreds, possibly thousands of homophobes every year with the good intentions of thinking we can 'multiculturalise' them (or at least their off-spring) once they go to school. And yet Jamaicans, and certain muslim factions, generations later are being allowed to opnely demonise gays , because, well, it;'s their culture innit.

Where's the sense in it all.

Btw, Ed West covered this prettty well in the Telegraph recently with the question: Why do we give foreign aid to countries that still persecute gay minorities. Dont think anyone has this one yet, though.

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Mr. Adequate
"Beware and take care of the Bight of Benin. There's one comes out for forty goes in."
Not familiar with it, but thanks.

Alex Bensky

Actually, Derek Blades, without the UN's "humanitarian" aid to the Palestinians, the problem would have long since been settled the way every other refugee problem has been since Ionian Greeks were forced out of what became Turkey after World War I: by resettlement in new homes. The UN has made it easy for the Arabs to keep the Palestinians in refugee camps, the Palestinians having value to their brother Arabs only as political sticks with which to beat Israel and the west.

But I digress. This is yet another example of the fact that whatever really motivates the left, it isn't it's proclaimed values. Otherwise Israel would be showered with praise for maintaining the only spot in the Middle East where gays can live openly without fear of losing liberty or life.

Mr R

Blades says: "The United Nations secretariat in New York - of which I was a member for some years....." Says it all, really.

Dave M

Out of interest, in the Roman World I believe this whole conception of sexuality never existed. Of the first Julio Claudian emperors I think only Claudius was what you might call "straight", although this concept wasn't understood as sex wasn't a hangup. As for Caligula he was prone to cross dressing, similar to Nero. Let's not even go into Elagabalus who was Rome's first virtual transgendered ruler.
I can onluy assume that in modern society sexual orientation has become an obsession as if you can simply tick a box and put each person into a grouping. Of course, this ignores the fact sexual orientation changes in both genders so someone who's a lesbian could well become hetero in later life or vice versa.
Needless to say, the modern approach doesn't work does it? We all know priests who try to deny their sexual identity often became abusers. Thus, I think any attempt to simplify sexuality isn't practical and we should all just forget about ticking boxes. It ain't that simple really.
As for religion, not a lot has been clearly stated in the New Testament but biology teaches us clearly hormones play a huge role in orientation. Ask any female athlete who's currently on steroids.

Rob-NY

Thanks for posting. I was surprised that the Huff Post was talking about this but when you read the column, the author totally spins this outrage at the UN against Christians.

Stuart Seacole Smith

If the real-world consequences weren't so grotesque, it would be amusing watching the left tie themselves in evermore unpickable knots over their supposed liberal values vs defence of warts and all islam as a useful trojan horse against western society.

And as for Derek Blades and his so-called "elementary mistake" of anyone assuming that the UN is more than its members - there's no need to play it so coy.

Secretariats can always play a strong but silent formative role in any organisation, through shaping agendas, writing minutes, speeches, presiding over problem resolution bilaterals etc.

Admittedly the UN is a special case, as it is such a truly discordant basket-case that it's difficult to see how even a committed subversive secretariat could make it any worse. But where there's a will there's probably a way.

But more widely, we're all aware of Gramsci's long march through the institutions. This lefty infiltration process means that many organisations are anything but true reflections of their members or constituents. Which is just the way the left like it, the sneaky bastards.

UNaccountableAgencies

D. Blades wrote:
'A good example is the humanitarian aid provided to the Palestinian refugees. Without the support of the UN member countries their situation would be even more desperate than it now is.'

What a disingenuous corruption of the truth and one so symptomatic of the contemporary Lib-Left malaise which the UN is a virulent carrier of. UN officials will have it that Palestinians are amongst the most desperate victims in the world to the effect they've got a whole agency dedicated exclusively to them. Maybe I'll adopt such a mindset when I find some Youtube vids of plump Darfuris leisurely shopping amongst stalls and supermarkets stocked to bursting.

Derek BLADES

Perhaps like others I was intrigued by Miranda Rose Smith’s comment about the organisation she referred to as “Queers Against Israeli Terror”.

As often happens Miranda has only got it approximately right. The good lady is referring to a San Francisco based group calling itself “Queers Undermining Israeli Terror”. I expect they picked this clumsy title because it gives them the neat acronym QUIT.

On their official website they say that “As queers, we are part of an international movement for human rights that encompasses the movement for Palestinian liberation, and all other liberation movements. We are also part of the growing international movement seeking active ways to express our solidarity with the people of Palestine.”

That seems pretty harmless and I can understand why they get cross when religious bigots tell them where they can hold their parade. Loosen up Miranda. Take part in the next Gay Pride demo in your neighbourhood. You might make friends there.

C.Gee

"Thinking of the United Nations as something apart from its member countries leads to the mad kinds of conspiracy theories so popular on this blog." Derek BLADES, above.

The sobering lesson of this blog is precisely that the United Nations consists of its members, and what nasty and brutish members a lot of them are. I would not hesitate to call the alliances and voting blocs among them "mad conspiracies" to institute and protect nasty and brutish practices.

As for the Secretariat, it is a global bureaucracy employing 44,000 people. It is a vast civil service. It has scores of departments and offices “arranging meetings” in every facet of UN business: economic, social, environmental, judicial, legal, political, military. It also has a special section: the Division for Palestinian Affairs. It arranges meetings throughout the world on the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. It also is a party-planner - mandated to organize the annual commemoration of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. It also helps train staff of the Palestinian Authority “to familiarize with and acquire professional expertise in the various aspects of the work of the United Nations and multilateral diplomatic work. It also provides studies helpful to the settling of the question of Palestine. It has a website and sends forth press releases. If one were cynical, one might think that the Secretariat’s Division for Palestinian Affairs was the Palestinian Authority’s out-sourced ministry of foreign affairs.

“As international civil servants, staff members and the Secretary-General answer to the United Nations alone for their activities, and take an oath not to seek or receive instructions from any Government or outside authority. Under the Charter, each Member State undertakes to respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the Secretary-General and the staff and to refrain from seeking to influence them improperly in the discharge of their duties.” And there you have it, straight from the horse’s - Secretariat’s - mouth. The Palestinian Authority, of course, is not a Member State.

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Mr. Blades: Thank you for correcting me about the name of the organization. I didn't bother to check.

They get cross with religious bigots who want them to hold their parade somewhere else and they fall all over each other to express solidarity with religious bigots who want to cut gay people's heads off. Maybe they all have chronic migraine?

If they really cared about "Palestinian" liberation, they'd be supporting Israel. It's the Israelis who keep offering the now-so-called "Palestinians" a SECOND autonomous homeland, dummies.

Lydia P Troyer

Miranda RS and Mr Adequate/Mr Malaprop

Beware, beware, the Bight of Benin,
a hundred came out where a thousand went in.

This refers to tropical diseases, in a coastal curve roughly from Abidjan to Cabinda, which felled adventurous Euro-man in prodigious numbers during the 19thC; it has nothing to do with sticking sausages in African bottoms.

Miranda Rose Smith

December 8th, 2010 10:02am
Miranda RS and Mr Adequate/Mr Malaprop

Beware, beware, the Bight of Benin,
a hundred came out where a thousand went in.

This refers to tropical diseases, in a coastal curve roughly from Abidjan to Cabinda, which felled adventurous Euro-man in prodigious numbers during the 19thC; it has nothing to do with sticking sausages in African bottoms.

Dear Ms. Troyer: Thanks.

C.Gee

Miranda Rose Smith:

re: Queers Undermining Israeli Terror - QUIT .

Perhaps "undermining" was chosen rather than "against" for the sake of an acronym. It makes no substantive difference.

Perhaps they could have chosen American Liberal Queers Against Israeli Dehumanizing Agression for a really in-your-face, edgy acronym.

The point is, as you rightly pointed out, the loony gay left puts ideology before their sexuality. This idiocy will no doubt be characterized as selflessness - as their putting the interests of others (Palestinians) above their own - by those for whom no donation, not life, nor integrity, nor rationality, nor principle, is too large or too small to make a difference to the Palestinian cause. Gays sacrificing gay rights, feminists sacrificing women's rights, artists sacrificing free expression, humanitarians sacrificing humans - thank you, the Palestinians will be grateful. Please accept this pink kaffiyeh as a token of gratitude.

(A version of this post attempted earlier - if both show up, I apologize for the repetition).

Baron

Adam B. @ 11.46 & C Gee @ 7.14:

spot on, sirs, thank you

Huxley

The UN is nothing but a talking shop.
It helps no one and decides nothing.
It's members sanction each other while doing deals via third party nations. It's peace keeping is laughable. Using troops who are unless western, little more than a group of amateur gunmen

Bob Dobbs

Indeed... some turkeys DO vote for Christmas

conchovor

Turkey avoided abstaining, which would threaten its EU entry criteria, and likely upset its Islamic/Islamist neighbours, so simply absented itself from the vote.

Kevin

"sexual orientation as a basis on which some are targeted for death"

That is a heavily loaded statement. Presumably, the legal situation is that the crime of sodomy is subject to capital punishment. It is one thing to be opposed to the death penalty, but another thing entirely to impose Liberalism - the freedom to do anything (without social restraint) - on those who rightly believe that sodomy has a highly destructive effect on human relations, and is no more justified by consent than unfair contract terms.

Derek BLADES

Kevin, 11 December, speaks in favour of those who "rightly believe that sodomy has a highly destructive effect on human relations, and is no more justified by consent than unfair contract terms."

Interesting idea Kevin. I can imagine sodomy having a destructive effect on the sphincter but not on "human relations" Presumably couples, whether of the homosexual or heterosexual persuasion, do it because they like it. My guess is it would enhance their affection for each other rather than destroy a human relation. What did you have in mind?

Colin Ray

One of the (many) serious problems with the UN is that membership is unrestricted. There is no qualifying criteria for states to join. Since the UN was formed, so have many individual states been added to the global community. Many, if not most of these states have human rights records that would be worthy of trials and convictions for crimes against humanity. Yet, they are allowed to pontificate in the UN, form voting blocks, usually against Western policy, and even sit on committees that deal with Human Rights, while abusing the rights of their own citizens.

Perhaps it is time for the main contributors who finance the UN to sit together and seriously consider whether this is an organisation that deserves their support or even if it should be allowed to continue in its present form.

Is the UN really conducive to liberal, Western democracies? Personally, I don't think so.

Michael Rawls

I'd like to point out that while the New York Times has devoted multiple articles ( including one by the apotheosis of sentimental moral grandstanding, Frank Rich) to the censorship of the late homosexual artist David Wojnarowicz's ants crawling on a crucified Christ , the same periodical has had zero to say about a U.N. resolution which removes homosexuals from a call for member nations to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds.But the latter would involve violating the NYT's ( and Rich's ) own fundamentalist principles, that is, never to criticize Islamist or Communist nations for what would be unacceptable in Western democracies. It's not very nice to have your film censored, but it is rather worse to have your head cut off in a public square. Why am I sending this comment to The Spectator rather than the New York TImes? So that it might be printed.

Nectarinia

The biggest hypocrites of all were the South Africans. In South Africa homosexuals have special rights guaranteed by the Constitution, allowing them to marry, divorce, be affirmatively actionised in employment, etc. Gay white males have more rights than strait white males. Yet the SA delegation to the UN disregards their own country's supreme law and vote for the most pernicious discriminatory legislation ever to be put before the General Assembly.