This video is of the first person living with HIV/Aids prepared to be open about their sero-status in Egypt.
"And so it goes at the UN," writes Lee.
The final agreement formally adopted did call for "intensified national efforts to create legal frameworks to eliminate stigma, discrimination, and violence related to HIV" - and does, for the first time, mention MSM - but thanks to the efforts of the usual suspects it does undermine or dilute a targeted focus on MSM as well as other MARPS such as injection drug users, and sex workers.
Global Forum on MSM and HIV (MSMGF) EO George Ayala told Medscape:
"Although important, culture, values, and sovereignty should not take precedence over international human rights obligations."Evan Wood, director of the Urban Health Research Initiative at the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS in Vancouver, spoke to Medscape about the agreement fudge on prevention amongst injecting drug users - but could be speaking about all MARPS:
"Can you imagine any other disease where the [World Health Organization] and other UN partners would write evidence-based guidelines and then the best the international community can do is suggest that states consider them?"
It is described as a improved version of the resolution signed by 85 nations in March, over vocal opposition by the African Group, which represents many but not all African countries. (A similar resolution tabled by New Zealand in 2005 drew 32 signatories and one tabled by Norway in 2006 drew 54.)
In March, South Africa appeared to side with the African Group's argument (and that of The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, OIC) that the resolution was being rammed through and positioned 'sexual orientation and gender identity' as a new concept. There was also a technical delaying tactic: that the resolution made the inter-governmental working group the exclusive modality for discussing issues of sexual orientation and gender identity at the UN. This would mean that no other UN body, including special procedures, treaty bodies, and the Council itself, could discuss 'sexual orientation and gender identity', and the violations that individuals suffer on those grounds, until such time as the proposed inter-governmental working group had concluded its work.
At the time South Africa was accused of "collaborating with governments that refuse to acknowledge discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation" and of ignoring its own constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on "sexual orientation."
South African LGBT activist Zackie Achmat, co-founder of the Social Justice Coalition said in March that the South African move would stop 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."Inside South Africa the loud criticism of the government's position at the UN has led to the change of direction by them and an in-depth conversation with a broad range of constituents both there and at the UN.
According to The International Service for Human Rights (ISHR):
"the 17th [UN Human Rights Council] session promises to mark the moment at which the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity moves beyond the damage done in the past and, despite the inevitability of continuing opposition, into an era where momentum lies on the side of universality of human rights."HT: African Activist