State Dept. Defends Vote on Gay Groups WASHINGTON - The State Department said Friday that concern over potential support for pedophilia was behind the U.S. vote to exclude two gay rights groups from membership on a United Nations panel. ADVERTISEMENT "We did not vote against the group because they are a gay rights group," State Department spokesman Edgar Vasquez. "The United States remains a champion of human rights for all in the world and committed to the right of individual freedom of expression." The department was responding to criticism that the U.S. had sided with Iran, Zimbabwe and other repressive regimes in excluding two gay rights groups the U.N. Economic and Social Council. "I had hopes for better from you," Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., said in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this week. Frank told Rice he was "deeply troubled to learn that the U.S. government, presumably at your direction, sided with some of the most undemocratic, anti-human rights regimes in the world" in voting against the two gay groups. "To refuse them status, what else is it except an act of bigotry?" Frank said. Frank is openly homosexual. Human Rights Watch, the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights organizations also complained in a letter to Rice shortly after the Jan. 23 membership vote for the Economic and Social Council. The U.N. panel is a think tank of nongovernmental agencies from around the world. The Brussels, Belgium-based International Lesbian and Gay Association sought inclusion in May, along with the Danish National Association of Gays and Lesbians. Nearly 3,000 organizations hold "consultative status" with the body, meaning they can participate from within in discussions among United Nations member states. According to Human Rights Watch, states that joined the United States in voting against the applications were Cameroon, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Senegal, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Chile, France, Germany, Peru and Romania voted for inclusion. Colombia, India and Turkey abstained and the Ivory Coast was absent. Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe are among nations regularly criticized by the State Department for repression and human rights abuses. The United States has also criticized China's human rights record, and made milder recent statements about the continuation of military rule in Pakistan and increasingly undemocratic moves by Russian President Vladimir Putin. In 2002 the United States voted to support the International Lesbian and Gay Association's request to have its status reviewed. U.S. officials have not explained the change. "We hope you will provide the reasons for this reversal," Human Rights Watch and about 40 other groups wrote to Rice. The letter asked whether it is now U.S. policy to oppose panel membership for any gay rights group. Vasquez said Friday: "The United States continues to implement a law requiring certification by the United Nations to prohibit funding of NGOs that condone pedophilia. The United States as a policy matter remains concerned about support for pedophilia, and we believe that ILGA must establish a verifiable process" to ensure that neither it nor its member organizations promote or condone pedophilia. U.S. officials thought there was enough ambiguity about the situation that they were uncomfortable voting for the groups. The State Department documents abuses based on sexual orientation in annual country-by-country reports on human rights practices. A report on Iran two years ago noted that Iranian law punishes homosexual conduct between men with the death penalty. Human Rights Watch said it has documented four cases of arrests, flogging or execution of gay men in Iran since 2003. "We find it incomprehensible that the U.S. government would recognize these human rights abuses while denying the people subject to them the right to make their case, alongside other respected human rights organizations, before the U.N.," the Jan. 25 Human Rights Watch letter said. The groups noted that three other international gay rights organizations have pending applications before the Economic and Social Council.
So homosexuality automatically condones paedophillia? I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose. When it comes right down to it, the US is as primitive and fundamentalist a culture as Iran... Just barbarism with diet Coke, mobile phones and satellite TV.
Well...either the US is equating homosexuality with paedophillia (the argument being that both are "aberrant" behaviors) or maybe that there are plenty of general human rights organizations already and that an abuse against gays is already covered as an abuse of human rights. As far as I'm concerned I think that an abuse of human rights is an abuse, whether it is to children, women, whoever. I think it could be a simple nit-picking legalism as well. If the group(s) had some charter or statement or something outlining their goals/position that specifically disavowed support of paedophillia I don't think there would be a problem. Can't rule out barbarism either as Nexxo points out. Conservatives will be just that.
BECAUSE QUEERS ARE EVIL!! (they arnt really) "The United States remains a champion of human rights" This has to be the funniest statement in the article.
Be careful. That type of sweeping stereotype is just as incorrect and ignorant as the line of thinking you're condemning.
I couldn't agree more. And, as in all posts with overgeneralized comments against any one country, the obligatory definition of Race and Racism: Race: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock. (i.e. a country) Racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race How it applies to this post: I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose. When it comes right down to it, the US is as primitive and fundamentalist a culture as Iran... Just barbarism with diet Coke, mobile phones and satellite TV. -Nexxo Congratulations, by definition, you're a racist against the United States. That the people or nation belonging to the same stock (i.e. the US/US Culture) is the determining factor that attributes the capacity of its people, specificaly in this instance as it pertains to being primitive and barbaric. Barbarian: of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people As Arthur2Sheds implied, I am not condoning what you are arguing against, just how you are making your argument. In your argument you attribute barbarism to the entire US Culture. Just as suicide bombing isn't a prevalent cultural trait of Muslims, ignorance, barbarism, and primitivism are not cultural traits of the US. Equal rights, freedom of speech, and religious tolerance are some positive cultural traits. Consumption, over-zealous capitalism, and far too many installed Microsoft products are some negative cultural traits. But reguardless, none of these traits should be used to target a negative comment at an entire culture, especially as our culture is simply a blanket that covers the cultures of every other culture that has migrated to our country. SanFrancisco, California is a major US city, just as Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, New Orleans, and Miami are. Taking a small sampling of any city gives proof that the US is not as closed minded as the rest of the world would like to believe. (and yes, I would give the same argument to someone stating similar comments against any other country or any other religious/ethnic/cultural group.)
Argh, this issue as whole annoys me, and I'll pay more attention to it tomorrow when I have brain power. But for gods sake, why does everyone keep referring to Iran as undemocratic? They have elections every four years in which they vote in a new leader, and that new leader then chooses who his aides will be, its the same damn system as the USA in that respect. Ok, they have an overall leader, kinda like the monarchy of our own country though. Its really annoying me that people are implying Iran is a dictatorship, its not, its a democracy. /rant
Let me say that as an American I agree completly with Nexxo. We only like to think we're civilized. I wonder if they are making a similar effort to keep the Catholic Church out of this organization as well. The church after all has a long and now very public history of issues with pedophilia amongst their members. Yes, I know this is an unfair generalization, but so is the US arguement for not allowing these gay rights froups to join.
Simply turning standards back on those who advocate them, dude. The US goverment is pretty fond of pointing out when countries come out wanting where it concerns Truth, Justice and the Democratic Way, especially if those countries 1. hold a political ideology that the US does not share, and 2. are in a strategic or economical position to threaten US interests. And it is none too shy about being pretty sweeping in their generalisations either. And it just pretty much equated homosexuals with potential paedophiles. Glass houses, dude... Of course I can point out that most Western countries, including my own home country, are exactly the same. So by that definition I am racist towards everyone, including my countrymen. The reason I did not explitly mention this in that post, however, is because the issue at the start of the thread predominanly concerns the US. Also in this case, "the US" is shorthand for a range of cultural beliefs and influences that I observe to be particularly predominant in the Bible Belt but also the current Republican administration. I am sorry if you somehow felt included, but I did not feel like writing an exhaustive, politically correct list of exactly which subgroups of the US population I do and do not include, with an attachment of exclusions and exemptions and a disclaimer that in general, Americans are really OK dudes. I sort of figured (perhaps wrongly) that people would interpret my post in the context it was intended. Hey, just attribute it to my blunt Dutch nature.
No you're not. You're turning them back on the whole of the US culture, which is where I had a problem. Once again, no one argued against this. Your main point is not wrong, Nexxo. We just objected to being called barbarians who somehow hate everyone else and feel far superior. We're not. And are you a barbarian? Would you fit in nicely in Iran? Didn't think so, and you probably would object if I said otherwise. As you should. How the hell are we not included? We live here. You're right, that shouldn't be necessary. Unless you use sweeping generalities like you did earlier. Again, no one's disagreeing that the US government, and some of its citizens, has problems and can be very close-minded. But for the record, I don't drink Diet Coke and I don't have satellite or cable TV. I guess I'm guilty on the mobile phone bit. But I'm not a barbarian, and I'm going to let this die here.
That's sort of the whole point. Think about it. Who's "we"? Look, no personal insult intended. If you feel what I said does not apply to you personally, that's cool. When I said: "the US" I obviously did not mean ALL Americans. Like when the International Affairs section of the news refers to "The US", or "The UK" or "The French" it does not mean every single soul in the US or the UK or France. However there is a line between political correctness and pedantry and I cannot help but feeling we are crossing it.
I guess where I get annoyed is that everywhere I turn I see "facts" about how "the US" is ignorant. Most of these facts apply to only a handful of politicians. I am a Christian, would love to live in the bible belt, and usually vote Republican. I run Linux, look forward to getting a hybrid vehicle, feel that Hemp should be the primary source of materials and oil in the US, and think going to war over everything is generally a bad idea. On the other hand, I am also against recreational marijuana, the middle class being responsible for financially supporting the lower class, and abortion. People hear Conservative and think oppressor, they hear Christian and think ignorant, they hear American and think Barabian. Since I'm a member of the majority minority, White Male Christian Conservative American, I feel I get ridiculed by so many members of my own country, and moreso members of other countries. The most I've seen any real Christian do to society is envoke equal rights, provide food and clothing for the poor, and welcome everyone with open arms. Show me a person who says "God hates fags" and I'll show you a hypocrite. Naming all members of a culture by the ignorant few only gives yet another victory to ignorant faction. The majority of the people I see in America dislike the war, are all for equal rights, and don't apply to the sweeping generalizations offered in this thread. My personal belief is that homosexuality is wrong, but so are a lot of things I'm guilty of. I don't judge people based on their personal sins, and won't stop anyone from forming a group or demanding rights, as long as that sin does not interfere with what they are trying to do, and I don't see how any bible-believing Christian could not do the same. I have just as much right to believe that homosexuality is a sin as you do to believe that the Bible is not true, and I respect that. But it's about time people start respecting my rights, and stop associating ignorance and barbarism with Republicans, the Bible Belt, and the US in general. I guess this isn't 100% towards you, Nexxo, it's just towards everyone that lets comments like that slip out as though they are true without thinking twice about it.
The arrogance. Why do people assume thatall christians are aganst gays. Many christians who I know do not think that gays are in any way wrong. Lastly, why do people believe that christians see everyone else as sinners and themselves as perfect. That is the biggest load of rubbish, as every week, christians ask for forgiveness for the sins they have comitted, admitting that they themselves are sinners.
Isn't that just catholics? Anyway, not everyone assumes that christians are anti-gay, but many christians fight strongly for the notion that christianity is anti-gay, so there is a strong viewpoint in much of the church thats frequently presented to the public. As for the christian sinner thing, well, original sin kinda implies that we are all sinners, and christians, while not perfect, are no doubt to be considered a good deal better, simply due to the fact that they're going to sit near jesus in heaven and everyone else is going to burn in the fiery depths of hell for all eternity.
