As per the last Friday links post, the UN recently voted to remove mention of sexual orientation from the resolution which condemned executions that target discriminatory executions. What makes it even more serious is that sexual orientation was on the resolution for 10 years until Benin brought up a new motion to exclude it — meaning that executions of people for being LGBT are now ok, at least from the UN’s toothless standpoint.
This is NOT an example of the UN sliding into irrelevance. Rather, it presents a very clear division of the world in terms of human rights and morality. While I don’t like us-vs-them rhetoric, I think here it’s warranted. We must have a good idea of who is on “our” side of the divide and who “they” are. The Huffington Post provides a full list of how each country voted but I wanted to show the geographical divide. The divide is as obvious as it is depressing.
Here’s a map I made, based on the Wikimedia Commons map. Click the map for a larger version:
5 comments ↓
Very quick response: I’m not sure I understand. Benin proposed the removal of executions on the basis of sexual orientation, right? 79 countries agreed (green), right? and the rest disagreed or abstained, right? Why is Benin not showing in green?
The countries who voted for the change (ie. to remove sexual orientation) are in red as per the key which includes Benin. Alternately if you just look at which countries are green vs red it should be even more clear which ones made the anti-gay vote!
Or do you think the wording on the key is ambiguous?
I notice that a significant amount of the red parts of the map seems to depend on the green parts of the map for economic assistance, which is kind of weird: if they are so enlightened and morally advanced in contrast to the countries that don’t want to kill gays, why do they need their money? Shouldn’t they be worried that the aid money might be tainted with gayness from all those gays that aren’t being properly killed in the countries that the money comes from?
And should the green parts of the map be giving them the money?
This is just an appalling situation, these type of decisions are an indication that the UN in it’s current form is due for a major reform and recommittment to it’s ideals, or time to abandon it and try for a new model.
Paul, unless you think it would be a net positive effect on the inhabitants of the red countries to stop foreign aid I think the answer is still yes. Although I guess it might be better if the money was shifted into NGOs…
Leave a Comment