PDA

View Full Version : U.N. Human Rights Commission takes up Gay and Gender Identity


randy
10-01-2005, 10:05 AM
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity: Human Rights Concerns for the 61st Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights

Objective

The Commission on Human Rights should adopt a resolution affirming that human rights cannot be denied on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Such a resolution is important not only to shed light on violations that are often shrouded in stigma and silence — but also to uphold the principle that all human rights must be enjoyed equally by all people. The Commission should also integrate language condemning abuses based on sexual orientation and gender identity into other thematic resolutions.
Background

“Sexual orientation” refers to the way in which a person’s sexual and emotional desires are directed. “Gender identity” refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal sense of belonging to a gender. These are profoundly rooted, fundamental aspects of the human personality and of human dignity.

Persecution and discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity are widespread around the world. Almost one hundred countries still legally prohibit sexual relations between persons of the same sex. In other countries, vaguely worded and sweeping laws against “public scandals” or “indecent behavior” are used to penalize people whose only crime is looking, dressing, or behaving differently from rigidly enforced social norms. In many countries, people detained on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity are tortured and otherwise ill-treated in police custody. Many people face violence in the community or family because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Many government officials, driven by prejudice, refuse to protect them.

Human Rights Watch and many others have documented these egregious abuses on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. United Nations human rights mechanisms and bodies have also drawn attention to such abuses.

Most notably, the Human Rights Committee has condemned unequal treatment based on sexual orientation. In its landmark 1994 decision in the case of Toonen v Australia, the Committee held that sexual orientation be understood to be a status protected against discrimination under articles 2 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Human Rights Committee has continued to be concerned with sexual-orientation-based discrimination in its comments to a number of countries.

Drawing on this strong precedent, Brazil introduced a resolution on “Human Rights and Sexual Orientation” at the 59th session of the Commission on Human Rights. Affirming the inadmissibility of discrimination as a fundamental principle, the resolution expressed “deep concern at the occurrence of violations of human rights all over the world against persons on the grounds of their sexual orientation.” Consideration of the resolution was postponed for two successive sessions of the Commission. It is incumbent on the Commission to act on it.

The resolution’s condemnation of such abuses is well grounded in human rights standards and United Nations precedents. In recent years, the Commission’s resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has called on states “to investigate … all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation.” The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions has noted that “criminalizing matters of sexual orientation increases the social stigmatization of members of sexual minorities, which in turn makes them more vulnerable to violence and human rights abuses, including violations of the right to life.”

Similarly, in his 2001 report to the General Assembly, the Special Rapporteur on torture stated that “members of sexual minorities are disproportionately subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment, because they fail to conform to socially constructed gender expectations. Indeed, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation may often contribute to the process of dehumanization of the victim, which is often a necessary condition for torture and ill-treatment to take place.”

The Special Representative of the U.N. Secretary General on human rights defenders also noted in her 2001 report the “special importance” of “human rights groups and those who are active on issues of sexuality, especially sexual orientation. … These groups are often very vulnerable to prejudice, to marginalization and to public repudiation, not only by state forces but other social actors.”

The U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention also held that detaining people on the basis of their sexual orientation violates fundamental rights even when the laws under which they are detained do not expressly refer to homosexual conduct.

The 2004 report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health notes that “discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is impermissible in international law,” and finds that “[t]he legal prohibition of same-sex relations in many countries, in conjunction with a widespread lack of support or protection for sexual minorities against violence and discrimination, impedes the enjoyment of sexual and reproductive health by many people with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender identities or conduct.” The Rapporteur observes a basic “duty on the State to respect an individual’s freedom to control his or her health and body.”

Finally, at the domestic level, numerous countries have institutionalized protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In 1996, post-apartheid South Africa became the first country to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation in its Constitution.

Recommendations

The Commission on Human Rights should adopt a resolution that:


Affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination on any grounds;



Expresses concern at the occurrence of discrimination and violations of human rights based on persons’ sexual orientation or gender identity;



Stresses that the enjoyment of human rights should not be hindered on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity;



Calls upon States to promote and protect the rights of all persons regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity;



Encourages all special procedures of the Commission on Human Rights, as well as the treaty bodies, to give due attention within their mandates to human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity;



Requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to pay due attention to such violations, and to present a report on this issue to the 62ND session of the Commission on Human Rights.


The Commission on Human Rights should also:


Integrate language condemning abuses based on sexual orientation and gender identity into its other thematic resolutions. People are subjected to torture on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity; violence against women is often a punishment for their exercise of sexual autonomy; human rights defenders face retaliation for working with marginalized and stigmatized groups; and people are denied basic rights in areas such as health, education, and housing. The Commission should draw attention to these impermissible forms of discrimination and abuse.


http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/10/global10303_txt.htm

stinky*felix
10-01-2005, 10:09 AM
Sounds good. As long as they don't also endorse same-sex marriage.

randy
10-01-2005, 10:19 AM
LOL LOL LOL LOL

Stinky OK IF we legally created another institution and called it "partnership" and attached the same legal rights, would that be OK with you? Is it just the label of marriage?

Mr. Lemon Pocket
10-01-2005, 10:30 AM
hahaha,

Why do you think they are doing this, stinky?

Bush snubbed the UN, and is also kaiboshing same-sex marriage all over the U.S. as a result of his high-falutin' "principles".

so,

U.N. now goes after same-sex marriage and gay rights in general as a pre-requisite of sorts ill imagine, just to piss him off.

And good for the homos, i say. They need to be allowed marriage so that my cousins wedding shop can get some more buisness.

stinky*felix
10-01-2005, 10:36 AM
LOL LOL LOL LOL

Stinky OK IF we legally created another institution and called it "partnership" and attached the same legal rights, would that be OK with you? Is it just the label of marriage? Randy (are we the only ones here this morning?), I think that any two people who have been in a committed relationship for a set period of time should be afforded the same legal rights as couples who are married - if that is what they want. I do not believe that these unions should be as binding as marriage, nor as difficult to terminate. The terms of the union should be set by the parties involved, rather than being determined by the State (i.e. community property).

I see these unions as being contracts, to insure that the parties are entitled to the same benefits as married counterparts (whether they be same-sex or opposite-sex relationships) rather than "marriages", and would object to anything that is not or should not be a normal process as a result of their union, such as having or adopting children.

Mr. Lemon Pocket
10-01-2005, 10:44 AM
Dad-gum gays aint takin the word marriage off'n'a me and mine.

stinky*felix
10-01-2005, 10:58 AM
Dad-gum gays aint takin the word marriage off'n me and mine. Mr LP, I believe this should apply to both gays and straights. One of my sons has had the same girlfriend for 6 years. They have lived together for 3 or so. They will eventually get married, but are hesitant because both her mother and father have each been married 3 times - they don't want to "jinx" a good thing. :)

My son has a excellent job, and his gf is well-employed, but her field does not enjoy the benefits his does.

In all honesty, I really don't see how a marriage certificate would make any difference to their relationship - at least in the legal-sense of the term, yet she is not entitled to medical benefits on is policy, and he cannot note her as his beneficiary since they are not legally married - even though he loves her more than anyone else in the world.

Until the time they decide to become married and have children, a "contract union" would be of benefit to them.

Mr. Lemon Pocket
10-01-2005, 11:02 AM
my mistake.

So in essence, you want to create a tier based relationship system in which people can contractually draw up thier own legal levels of commitment based on the desires of the commited parties of the first and second part?

Would gays be allowed to shoot for those stars and calk thier relationship with the high-test level of marriage if they so desire, just like when a straight couple so desires? Or does thier rights end with the tier below it?

stinky*felix
10-01-2005, 11:11 AM
my mistake.

So in essence, you want to create a tier based relationship system in which people can contractually draw up thier own legal levels of commitment based on the desires of the commited parties of the first and second part?

Would gays be allowed to shoot for those stars and calk thier relationship with the high-test level of marriage if they so desire, just like when a straight couple so desires? Or does thier rights end with the tier below it? Nope. No gay marriage.

Although I wouldn't campaign or vote against such a measure (I wouldn't vote for it, either). It's really just a personal belief for me, and if gays were allowed to marry, I wouldn't go over the edge about it.

I do know it would be a mistake if children were involved, and that is mainly where my objection arises - giving gays the option of legalized marriage affords them all the rights of married couples, including adoption.

Mr. Lemon Pocket
10-01-2005, 11:23 AM
This is where most who are against gay marriage find thier point for being against it: adoption.

Why do you know allowing two women or two men all gay to adopt and raise a child to be a mistake?

Is thier any research or even evidence to suggest that a child brought up by gay or lesbian parents is any more detrimental or beneficial than a straight marriage?


I mean, other than, "I dont believe its right"

You can't deny people the things they want based on "i don't think its right" without empirical proof that it isn't right.

stinky*felix
10-01-2005, 11:46 AM
This is where most who are against gay marriage find thier point for being against it: adoption.

Why do you know allowing two women or two men all gay to adopt and raise a child to be a mistake?

Is thier any research or even evidence to suggest that a child brought up by gay or lesbian parents is any more detrimental or beneficial than a straight marriage?

I mean, other than, "I dont believe its right"

You can't deny people the things they want based on "i don't think its right" without empirical proof that it isn't right. I can't say for sure, Mr LP. All I know is that it is hard enough for kids to grow up well-adjusted in loving homes. There are a ton of kids who should never have been born to the parents they have. But these were not conscious choices made by other people - "you're going to live here with these people, even though there's a d@mn good possibility it may be difficult for you.," whereas placing a child in a home with gay parents is.

randy
10-01-2005, 11:53 AM
I can't say for sure, Mr LP. All I know is that it is hard enough for kids to grow up well-adjusted in loving homes. There are a ton of kids who should never have been born to the parents they have. But these were not conscious choices made by other people - "you're going to live here with these people, even though there's a d@mn good possibility it may be difficult for you.," whereas placing a child in a home with gay parents is.


And leaving them in the Foster Care system or an orphanage is such a more preferred plan of action?

My God Stinky, do you think gay parents would turn the children gay or something?

Mr. Lemon Pocket
10-01-2005, 11:56 AM
I assume you mean that you think a child may suffer resultant prejudices symptomatic of having gay parents?

That these prejudices, such as "i believe gays shouldnt be allowed to adpt because they are gays", can and will make life harder for the adopted child?

would you then say that growing up in a foster home with no parental figure, nor parental love, nor parental physical contact such as hugs and kisses from mommy or daddy, would be better than living in a home with two qualified parental figures that happen to be gay?

whats better? no parents at all? Lots of kids never get adopted.

What if state laws on books or adoption firms were to perhaps change thier statements from "homosexuals will be denied the adoption prcess" to

"hispanics, blacks, whites, indian, catholic, muslem, espiranto speaking jackdaw midgets with a bumleg, will be denied the adoption process"

will that be outrageous to you?

stinky*felix
10-01-2005, 01:13 PM
And leaving them in the Foster Care system or an orphanage is such a more preferred plan of action? After witnessing what some parents can do to their children, I believe that foster care, and orphanages would be of benefit to them. I have often stated that if we had dormitories, and could keep some of our students from ever having to go home, they would be much better off.

Foster care homes often take the brunt for the damage already done by a parent. A disturbed child is going to have problems, regardless of their environment. And foster children generally take the anger they feel toward their parents "abandonment," out on their foster care families.

My God Stinky, do you think gay parents would turn the children gay or something? First, I don't even know that is possible. But that is a non-issue to me anyway. I don't find anything "wrong" with gay people, other than those who flaunt their homosexuality in ways that probably many of the gay population find objectionable.

But, during the last few years, I have come to believe that for some people, homosexuality is a choice rather than a predisposition.

would you then say that growing up in a foster home with no parental figure, nor parental love, nor parental physical contact such as hugs and kisses from mommy or daddy, would be better than living in a home with two qualified parental figures that happen to be gay? I think you've been watching too much Lifestyle.

You are assuming that because the children are not theirs, foster parents have no love to give to them (?).

I have never run into an abusive foster home. What I have come in contact with, are those that do their jobs, and do them well. And others that go far above what is expected of them, even eventually adopting some of the children in their care.

And more "mature" couples are entering the foster care system. Those of us who have grown children, but miss having a younger child in the house. I am considering becoming a foster care parent at some point within the next few years, although as a "single parent," I may not qualify.

The shortcomings lie in the social service system. For the most part, they are lazy and apathetic. They are the ones who continually advocate "reunification of the family," at the child(ren)'s expense.

Children are in generally in multiple foster homes because SS finally takes them from the home (and this nearly always means that the child is in immediate danger, or has already been abused), and put the child in a shelter, places them in a foster home, requires the family go into counseling and/or drug rehab, sets up visitation between the parent(s) and child, reunifies them, discovers the problems that were there initially are still there, takes the child out of the home again, puts them in a shelter, places them in another foster home, and so on.

Eventually (after the child has become totally disillisioned, non-trusting and hostile), SS determines that the parent(s) are unfit. But the damage to the child has already been done.

Last year I met a perceptive little girl. She approached our Principal about the abuse she was suffering at home. Naturally a CPS report was filed, and (luckily) the girl was removed from the home.

Mom has attempted to get her daughter back, but the daughter has refused. As most children, she loves her mom in spite of her shortcomings, but she is able to look at them from an adult point of view, and realize that even though she loves her, her mom does not have her best interests at heart.

randy
10-01-2005, 01:18 PM
QUOTE

"But, during the last few years, I have come to believe that for some people, homosexuality is a choice rather than a predisposition"


Stinky please carefully explain to me how a person COULD choose to be sexually responsive to another person, enjoy it and make a conscious decision to continue to pursue that course when it runs CONTRARY to their basic instincts and nature as a human being?

Could you CHOOSE to have sexual relations and enjoy them with a member of the gender that is NOT your preference?

Buckeye1sid
10-01-2005, 01:21 PM
My God Stinky, do you think gay parents would turn the children gay or something?

Yeah, especially on the male side of this question. In addition, what about the situation yhis puts a child in with their peers? Gays can have rights, but not the right to screw up a child!

stinky*felix
10-01-2005, 01:31 PM
QUOTE

"But, during the last few years, I have come to believe that for some people, homosexuality is a choice rather than a predisposition"

Stinky please carefully explain to me how a person COULD choose to be sexually responsive to another person, enjoy it and make a conscious decision to continue to pursue that course when it runs CONTRARY to their basic instincts and nature as a human being?

Could you CHOOSE to have sexual relations and enjoy them with a member of the gender that is NOT your preference? Randy, there are many couples who are married for years, then "discover" they are gay. If homosexuality is in fact predisposed at birth, this could not have happened. I think that sometimes, "gayness" is a result of failed relationships with those of the opposite sex.

Could I choose? Probably very easily. And perhaps I could even choose a gay lifestyle. It is quite easy to get lonely as one gets older, and older men appear to have a "predisposition" to younger women.

Would that make me gay?

randy
10-01-2005, 01:37 PM
Randy, there are many couples who are married for years, then "discover" they are gay. If homosexuality is in fact predisposed at birth, this could not have happened. I think that sometimes, "gayness" is a result of failed relationships with those of the opposite sex.

Could I choose? Probably very easily. And perhaps I could even choose a gay lifestyle. It is quite easy to get lonely as one gets older, and older men appear to have a "predisposition" to younger women.

Would that make me gay?


I disagree Stinky. Gay people often have straight marriages in order to mask who they are and many have children. From my knowledge of the subject I also believe many gay people, especially males, who are married to women simply "cheat' with other men on the side. This beyond a doubt is wrong, IMO. I cannot see how anyone would make a choice, that they could avoid and subject themselves to the discrimination that gay people face in the United States. If you could "easily" choose to be with a woman sexually and be happy, YEA that could make you gay or at least bisexual, IMO.


"My God Stinky, do you think gay parents would turn the children gay or something?


Yeah, especially on the male side of this question"


HOW?

Buckeye1sid
10-01-2005, 01:48 PM
Through the environment that would necessarily be there. Gays want to be treated as though they're a normal part of society, they're not. No amount of parades or "special" laws are going to change this. Their desire to push for this aspect of normality is doomed, doomed I say, doomed! If they pursue it to far, they will lose much of the ground they have gained in other areas.
Their per centage of the world's population is probably less than four. They are going to get a backlash if they don't stop pushing.

randy
10-01-2005, 01:58 PM
Through the environment that would necessarily be there. Gays want to be treated as though they're a normal part of society, they're not. No amount of parades or "special" laws are going to change this. Their desire to push for this aspect of normality is doomed, doomed I say, doomed! If they pursue it to far, they will lose much of the ground they have gained in other areas.
Their per centage of the world's population is probably less than four. They are going to get a backlash if they don't stop pushing.

Really? That would be unfortunate. Not for sure what "normal" is though. Is normal the 98% of child molesters who are hetrosexual? Is normal the overwhelming majority of male hetrosexuals who beat and kill the women they supposedly love? Is normal the straight males who abandon and forget they have procreated children? Not for sure normal is THE thing to be in some cases. :)

Buckeye1sid
10-01-2005, 02:03 PM
You're off-topic, the folks you mention are not the subject of this thread! You are wallowing in rhetorical questions. Gays adopting children would only add to the problems you bring up.

randy
10-01-2005, 02:06 PM
You're off-topic, the folks you mention are not the subject of this thread! You are wallowing in rhetorical questions. Gays adopting children would only add to the problems you bring up.

And YOUR A HATEFUL, SPITEFUL BIGOT whose obvious past time is to spew venom. I take note that you chose NOT to answer those questions though. :)

Buckeye1sid
10-01-2005, 02:09 PM
Start a new thread if you want those questions answered. I love it when you talk dirty!

randy
10-01-2005, 02:10 PM
Start a new thread if you want those questions answered. I love it when you talk dirty!

In case you hadn't noticed Sid, THIS IS MY THREAD, I started it. :)

Buckeye1sid
10-01-2005, 02:14 PM
And I finished it!

randy
10-01-2005, 02:17 PM
And I finished it!


LOL LOL LOL LOL

We shall see.

Jannilu
10-01-2005, 02:18 PM
Really? That would be unfortunate. Not for sure what "normal" is though. Is normal the 98% of child molesters who are hetrosexual? Is normal the overwhelming majority of male hetrosexuals who beat and kill the women they supposedly love? Is normal the straight males who abandon and forget they have procreated children? Not for sure normal is THE thing to be in some cases. :)

Excellent point, Randy...and not off topic at all.

Sid & Stinky don't think it's right (a.k.a. normal) for gays to raise kids. Sid says the kids will turn gay & Stinky says they should end up in orphanages or foster care. Sad...vey sad.

randy
10-01-2005, 02:19 PM
THANK YOU Jannilu!!!