Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  stumbles

Why Is South Africa Still Pushing A Bill That Would Keep The UN From Investigating Anti-Gay Atrocities?

Looks like South Africa’s suspect involvement in the United Nations effort to crack down on gay persecution isn’t resolved. After originally offering a resolution (to substitute the one put forward by the United States) that called for the study of “new concepts such as sexual orientation,” rather than explicitly add sexual orientation and gender identity to a list of demographics that need protection from violence, South Africa is still holding up its original proposal. And it has The Gays — and constitutional protectors — in a fury.

On March 31 47 members of the United Nations Human Rights Council will vote on whether to pass the resolution proposed by South Africa on March 17. The resolution calls for an “open-ended intergovernmental working group to elaborate [on] new concepts such as sexual orientation”, and “decides that the aforementioned working group shall be the single modality and framework of the United Nations Human Rights Council within which all the deliberations on sexual orientation … shall be undertaken”.

The proposal has riled South African and international human rights and gay rights activists. Said Zackie Achmat, co-founder of the Social Justice Coalition: “As it stands the resolution would be unconstitutional. It stops any further UN investigation or report on sexual orientation and gender identity anywhere. “If enormous hate crimes happen, as in Uganda, then the UN can’t investigate. It must first decide what sexual orientation means.” He said the resolution also suggests that sexual orientation and gender identity are not part of international law. Although South Africa has shown some willingness to change its international relations policy relating to sexual orientation, there has been confusion about the direction to take because of the antigay prejudices of countries such as Russia, the African group and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Achmat said he is discussing the matter with the department of international relations and cooperation.

If South Africa’s proposal sounds ridiculous, that’s because it is. While we understand the country has gotten behind the U.S.-led statement “Ending Acts of Violence and Related Human Rights Violations Based On Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity,” which provides a non-binding consensus among 85 countries that LGBTs need protecting, South Africa’s entry into the space instead puts the breaks on such a progressive effort, in favor of tip-toeing around the issue of anti-queer violence.

By:           JD
On:           Mar 25, 2011
Tagged: ,

  • 3 Comments
    • The sane Francis
      The sane Francis

      From what I’ve read, South Africa’s main intentions are to appease the fact that they are surrounded mostly by anti-gay areas. Also, just because S.A. has same-sex marriage does not make it a necessarily gay accepting place.

      All in all, this is just more of an indication that our basic humanity and basic equality is under debate or flat out dismissed and denigrated and hated by many worldwide, the fact we are not considered equals in comparison to other groups, and, although we’ve made progress, we have a long way to go to change hearts and minds, especially in these African/Middle Eastern/Asian countries.

      Mar 25, 2011 at 10:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tdww
      tdww

      Take it from someone who lives in SA, it is by no means straightforward. SA may have one of the most progressive constitutions in the world when it comes to sexual orientation but this is balanced with its role within the rest of Africa which is less than accepting of homosexuality. Unfortunately, in this area, as in many other areas, there is a complete disconnect between SA’s domestic policy and its foreign policy.

      Mar 25, 2011 at 3:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • D Smith
      D Smith

      so let us see…

      the states put forth a bill in the UN to declare that LGBT individuals need protection…

      and we do not have a national hate crime or non-discrimination bill…

      blatant hypocrisy is blatant

      Mar 25, 2011 at 3:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.