2011 round up: Part three: Decriminalization of homosexuality and anti-discrimination

Image via Wikipedia

By Paul Canning

I'm rounding up the year in a series of posts - in which no doubt I've missed something, so please let me know what I've missed in the comments!

Decriminalization of homosexuality and anti-discrimination

We saw an increased impact in 2011 of the work of the UN Human Rights Council, particularly its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process of interrogating country's human rights records, and other long term work by activists starting to bear fruit in other parts of the United Nations and other international bodies as well.

The passage of a resolution against killings of LGBT at the end of last year, reversing an attempt by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and some African countries at halting LGBT progress in international bodies, sparked a global reaction, including demonstrations and novel contact with governments by local LGBT.

It marked the change in approach by Rwanda in particular, which had previously backed off criminalization, with its UN ambassador drawing on the country's experience of genocide to send a message to those claiming that LGBT is not defined or that LGBT don't even exist.

It marked the first sign of historic change in Cuba, which appears likely to culminate in same-sex unions and anti-discrimination laws agreed by the Communist Party next year. The way that other Caribbean countries changed positively on the UN vote on killings also marked a development which continued in several island nations during 2011.

A change of approach by South Africa on the international LGBT rights front, due to internal civil society pressure, led to them proposing the historic July resolution affirming LGBT rights at the Human Rights Council, which then led to the publication of the first UN report on LGBT human rights in December. That July resolution also caused further ripples, including the first public affirmation of LGBT rights by a Gulf civil society group, in Bahrain.

It emerged that the organised backlash against LGBT rights in international bodies, led by the OIC, Russia and the African group, was receiving support from American Christian fundamentalist bodies such as CFAM. The same people who are losing the 'culture war' at home have shifted to intervening in Africa and the Caribbean and various countries repeated their arguments/lies, such as Uganda claiming at the UN Human Rights Council that lesbians and gays 'recruit'. However it was also clear from investigative reporting at UN HQ that many of the no-shows, abstentions or yes votes of various countries during key UN LGBT rights votes was largely down to US diplomatic pressure. This showed how both US and European pressures on LGBT rights is already happening, and working, in a year which saw extensive simplified and often inaccurate reporting on the use of such 'leverage', like the supposed 'colonialist' tying of development aid to LGBT rights.

Four countries committed themselves to decriminalization: São Tomé and Príncipe; Nauru; The Seychelles, and; Northern Cyprus.

In Botswana LGBT launched, then put on hold, a legal push for decriminalisation. and in Belize LGBT started their legal challenge to criminalisation on constitutional grounds. Jamaican law is to be challenged at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the opposition leader called for a review of the buggery law.

In Chile all anti-gay discrimination was banned. Colombia passed an anti-discrimination law which includes prison terms. In South Africa government action began on so-called 'corrective rape', following massive international attention. But in Brazil, passage of a hate crimes law failed due to increased evangelical Christian influence in that country. And in Malawi, the government criminalized lesbians and used LGBT rights as a wedge issue against its opponents.

The anti-criminalization effort at the Commonwealth Summit failed but it did raise the issue widely in media worldwide.

Several former African leaders came out for decriminalization. In her fantastic speech on gay rights at the UN in December, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointedly mentioned one, former Botswana leader Festus Mogue. But only the Zimbabwean leader Morgan Tsvangarai offered support for LGBT amongst current African leaders.

Related articles

• UN publishes landmark LGBT rights report (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• What preceded Hillary Clinton's UN speech? (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

What preceded Hillary Clinton's UN speech?

By Douglas Sanders

Hillary Clinton’s fine speech in Geneva on LGBT rights saw the US playing catch-up to initiatives of a dozen other Western countries. As activists, we welcome the US to the process. But dawn is not yet breaking everywhere.  There are many time zones.

In the years since the Second World War lesbians and gay men have gradually been recognized as legitimate minorities in the West. Soon half of Western Europe will have legal same-sex marriage (and most of the rest will have registered partnerships in parallel with heterosexual marriage). Latin America has begun to follow the same path, with marriage in two key states (Argentina and Mexico) and equal rights in other places (including strong leadership by Brazil). 

The combination of Western European and Latin America support has turned the tide at the United Nations, allowing (a) the accreditation of LGBT NGOs for lobbying purposes, (b) support from UN human rights experts, and (c) the first resolution by a UN political body in June, 2011, supporting LGBT rights (in the Human Rights Council). 

There is now some jockeying for applause by leading states. Which country has taken the lead and should get special praise? Is it the Netherlands? Is it Brazil? Is it France? Is it Argentina? Is it the UK? Is it the US? We have become fashionable! Hillary Clinton was photographed with a clutch of LGBT leaders from around the world after her speech.

Who is on the other side? Russia. States in the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Most of Black Africa. Who says nothing? India. China (which has stopped simply siding with opposing states on the issues).

The Netherlands must get the ‘lifetime career’ Oscar. It had the first post-war gay organization, and led in funding both for local and international LGBT organizations. Its domestic policy was termed gay and lesbian ‘emancipation.’ In 2001 it was the first country to open marriage. HIVOS, a humanist foundation, administers a part of Dutch foreign aid, and its name is inevitably on the supporters list for international events.  Sweden also gets credit now for supporting the International Lesbian and Gay Association.

The 1993 UN World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna was the first ‘coming out’ party for governments. Five stepped forward to state their support for gay and lesbian equality rights: Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany and the Netherlands. Singapore also stepped forward – the only government to state their hostility to homosexual rights (and skepticism about human rights in general). 

Read more »

UN human rights commissioner tells General Assembly 'LGBT rights should be non-controversial'

Navi Pillay image via Wikipedia

Source: UN

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay 20 October presented her annual report [PDF] to the General Assembly. The written report touched on SOGI [sexual orientation and gender identity] issues in the following section of text:

“The Office continued to draw attention to human rights violations, including discrimination, perpetrated against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. By resolution 17/19, the Human Rights Council, expressing grave concern at acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against persons because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, requested me to commission a study on relevant discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence. The findings of the study will be discussed by the Council at its nineteenth session.”

In her oral statement introducing her report this morning, the High Commissioner [HC] also mentioned SOGI-related work in the context of other discrimination-related work that the Office is carrying out, saying:

“Moving now to the topic of countering inequality and discrimination, OHCHR continued to draw attention to human rights violations, including discrimination, perpetrated against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. In June, the HRC adopted resolution 17/19 “expressing grave concern at acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against persons because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.” The resolution requests my Office to commission a dedicated study which will be discussed at the Council’s 19th session.”

During the Q and A session that followed the High Commissioner’s statements, a number of States asked questions or made statements referring to the Office’s focus on SOGI-related issues. Notably, the United Arab Emirates speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) devoted its entire statement to the issue, expressing serious concern at “an attempt to introduce to the United Nations some undefined notions that have no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument.”

The OIC was:

“disturbed at the attempt to focus on certain persons on the grounds of their sexual interests and behaviours … our alarm does not merely stem from concerns about the lack of legal grounds, but more importantly it arises from the ominous usage of that notion. The notion of sexual orientation spans a wide range of personal choices that expand way beyond the individual’s sexual interest. The OIC reaffirms that this undefined notion is not and should not be linked to existing international human rights instruments.”

Speaking for the African Group, Kenya also expressed concern about the allocation of resources to “social issues” that lie outside of agreed human rights frameworks and urged the Office to wait until States are in agreement on the scope of such issues and any new obligations before pursuing work in such areas.

Benin suggested that the HC should restrict herself to human rights that were universally agreed by the internationally community and deplored the attempt to introduce new rights or concepts such as sexual orientation in the name of universality.

Iran also stressed the need for the HC to avoid insisting on issues which are not yet covered by internationally recognized norms and standards.

Speaking in support of the Office’s work in the area of SOGI were Chile, Ireland, Norway, South Africa, the United Kingdom, all of whom said they looked forward to the release of the HC’s forthcoming study on violence and discrimination against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity. In its statement, South Africa referred to the discussion of the study’s findings and recommendations in March as a potential opportunity for dialogue rather than finger-pointing.

In her response to question, the High Commissioner said:

“As a human rights challenge, countering discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity should be non-controversial. We are not trying to create new rights or extend human rights into new, uncharted territory. What we are doing is insisting that all people are entitled to the same rights and to the equal protection of international human rights law—doesn’t matter who they are, what they look like, or whether you approve of them or disapprove of them."

“In June 2011, the Human Rights Council adopted resolution 17/19, expressing deep concern at acts of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The resolution requests my Office to prepare a study documenting violence, discriminatory laws and discriminatory practices, and setting out ways in which international human rights law can be used to prevent these kinds of human rights violations in future. In March, we will have a panel discussion at the Human Rights Council, as foreseen in resolution 17/19, at which Member States can discuss the findings and recommendations contained in the study.

“If we can just focus on the facts, on the violations themselves—on cases of people being killed, raped, attacked, imprisoned, tortured and executed for being gay, lesbian bisexual or transgender, or simply discriminated against—then I think we will begin to see more and more support for action to address these problems in a more effective manner at the national level.”

Related articles

• UN passes historic LGBT human rights resolution (madikazemi.blogspot.com) 
• Video: UN Human Rights Commissioner's powerful support for LGBT human rights (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Video: some Arab and African nations obstruct on HIV/Aids at UN, whilst South Africa makes historic pro-LGBT stand

This video is of the first person living with HIV/Aids prepared to be open about their sero-status in Egypt.

Source: AlJazeeraEnglish

According to the UN specialist news source Inner City Press the Syrian representative denounced a HIV/Aids resolution on Friday at the United Nations whilst pretending to speak for all Arab countries

Matthew Russell Lee reports that Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari claimed that the Arab Group objected to the listing of vulnerable groups - which includes 'men who have sex with men' (MSM) and others often labeled 'MARPS' (most at risk populations) - in the resolution saying that such designations are up to member states and their “national characteristics.”

But Green was told by Lebanon's expert on the AIDS negotiations that Syria did not speak for all of the Arab Group: “He was speaking for himself.”

During the same session, The Holy See (the Vatican) denounced condoms, ignoring the Pope's recent historic statement.

Lee asked UNAIDS chief Michel Sidibe about Iran's speech, where they denounced “risky and immoral behavior”. He replied that he will keep speaking out on these “controversial” topics, continue to work on it. There's much work to be done in Iran, he was asked - “a lot,” Sidibe replied. 

Lee heard numerous complaints from civil society and medical groups about the politics and prejudice inside the closed UN room.

Read more »

South Africa leads fightback against LGBT rights at United Nations

Image via Wikipedia   

By Paul Canning

South African and international human rights bodies have expressed horror at a resolution tabled by South Africa at the United Nations to establish an intergovernmental process to discuss defining "sexual orientation" and "gender identity".

South Africa has been 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."

In both their statement to the UN Human Rights Council and in the resolution they put forward South Africa said that "the issue of sexual orientation needs to be clearly defined." This argument has been put forward by some African countries as well as the 57 member Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) as LGBT rights have made steady gains in international bodies. Jessica Stern of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission said that the reason for the resolution was because "South Africa has put regional political interests before human rights and is trying to appease other African countries."

OIC and Arab states have also sought to fight LGBT progress as a 'human rights violation' through the “defamation" of religious ideas resolution, which has received extensive support at the UN and is also backed by the Vatican. This is seen as part of an attempt at a wholesale redefinition internationally of the concept of 'human rights'. South Africa alongside China, Russia, and Cuba have backed  the 'defamation' resolution at the UN. However last year some fellow African nations broke with a decade of votes for it: Cameroon, Burkina Faso and Benin abstained and Zambia voted against.

Similarly, the December vote against extrajudicial killings at the UN - which included "sexual orientation" and was the focus of extensive lobbying - saw one third of African countries either be absent, abstain or vote for the resolution, including Rwanda and Angola voting yes. South Africa also votes yes - having earlier voted no - following lobbying by South Africans, and it cited as a reason for the change a "constitutional imperative."

In the debate on the extrajudicial killings resolution the Rwandan delegate pointedly referenced his country's experience in saying that a group does not need to be "legally defined" to be targeted for massacres. "We can't continue to hide our heads in the sand" he said. "These people [LGBT] have a right to life."

South African LGBT activist Zackie Achmat, co-founder of the Social Justice Coalition said that the South African proposal 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." 

He said the resolution also suggests that sexual orientation and gender identity are not part of international law. Achmat, noting South Africa's constitutional protections of LGBT rights, said that: "as it stands the [UN] resolution would be unconstitutional."

The South African foreign ministry said: "The issue of sexual orientation is sensitive and impacts on a whole range of issues … this issue should be addressed openly, transparently and inclusively.

The South African Lesbian and Gay Equality Project is this week expected to launch a case in the South African constitutional court to force the government to align its foreign policy with the constitution.

HT: African Activist

Related articles

• New Dawn: How Africa is changing for the better on LGBT rights (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• Video: Record support for LGBT rights at United Nations (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Video: Record support for LGBT rights at United Nations

Source: International Service for Human Rights 

On 22 March 2011 the United Nations Human Rights Council (the Council) held a general debate on follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (VDPA). The VDPA reaffirms core principles of the international human rights framework, including the universality of human rights and non-discrimination. The highlight of the meeting was a joint statement delivered by Colombia on behalf of 85 States on ending acts of violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity. 

85 is the highest number of States ever signing on to a statement of this kind. A joint NGO statement, with 119 signatories, including ISHR, commended States for the initiative and noted in particular the broad cross-regional support for the statement.

The debate also saw vital participation of networks of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI) from all regions, including a cross-regional joint statement of NHRIs in support of the statement by the group of States. It emphasised that NHRIs all over the world are advocating the rights of LGBTI people regardless of the different cultural backgrounds they are working in. The statement further called on the Council to hold a panel discussion on the protection of human rights of LGBTI people.

Read more »

Will Ban Ki-Moon back up his positive words on LGBTI rights?

Image via Wikipedia

By Paul Canning

Inner City Press, which covers the United Nations beat, reports that the application for observer status by the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) has been tossed out again - they've been trying for it for ten years or more.

At the UN's Economic and Social Council the vote called by Pakistan to throw out ILGA's application went:

Peru No, Russia Yes, Senegal Yes, Sudan Yes, Turkey No, USA No, Venezuela Yes, Belgium No, Bulgaria No, Burundi Yes, China Yes, Cuba __, India No, Israel No, Kyrgyzstan Abstain, Morocco Yes, Mozambique Not present, Nicaragua Yes, Pakistan Yes

In the UN's committee on non-governmental organization last week an application for accreditation of the Autonomous Women's Center from Serbia, which mentioned discrimination against lesbians, was questioned and opposed by Pakistan, Morocco, Russia and Sudan.

Pakistan's representative asked sarcastically if the discrimination of lesbians was “against men.” He mocked the application's reference to disability, asking if “lesbianism is a disability.”

An application by the Australian Lesbian Medical Association was similarly mocked:

Pakistan's delegate asked if homosexuals are more prone to sexually transmitted diseases, in terms of having and transmitting those diseases. He asked the NGO support its response with medical documents...

Egypt's representative said:

He did not recognize there was any legally bounding definitions for terms as sexual preferences or orientation or that such terms had been defined by any internationally recognized instrument in the human rights arena.

This is the same argument brought up in the December vote in which lesbians and gays were added to a UN resolution against extrajudicial executions.

Pakistan is pushing the point. Last week they argued at the UN that whatever UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon may have said, it was on his own behalf, not on behalf of member states. Discrimination against gays and lesbians is “not recognized by the UN,” says Pakistan.

Ban Ki-Moon has spoken about LGBTI rights numerous times. In December, and notably in relation to the debate on extrajudical killings, he said:

“Where there is tension between cultural attitudes and universal human rights, universal human rights must carry the day. Personal disapproval, even society's disapproval, is no excuse to arrest, detain, imprison, harass or torture anyone - ever.”

Last week he said:

"We must reject persecution of people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity -- who may be arrested, detained or executed for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. They may not have popular or political support, but they deserve our support in safeguarding their fundamental human rights."

"Cultural practice cannot justify any violation of human rights. Women's treatment as second-class citizens has been justified, at times, as a 'cultural practice.' So has institutional racism and other forms of inhuman punishment. But that is merely an excuse. When our fellow humans are persecuted because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, we must speak out. That is what I am doing here, that is my consistent position. Human rights are human rights everywhere, for everyone."

Pakistan's statement has led Inner City Press has asked for "the Secretariat's - ideally, the S-G's -- response to this characterization of the S-G's statements and whether discrimination against LGBT is “recognized by the UN.”" And also whether Ki-Moon will defend those NGOs asking to be recognised by the UN.

Related articles

• Anger as pan-African human rights body rejects lesbian observers (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• At the United Nations, Arab and African nations get gay reference cut from violence measure (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• Historic UN vote on 'gay killings' sparks international reaction (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Historic UN vote on 'gay killings' sparks international reaction

By Paul Canning

Updated, see end.

The reversal last month of a UN vote to exclude sexual orientation from a resolution against extrajudicial killings has sparked reaction around the world.

The vote followed a move by the United States to reverse action led by Islamic and some African countries to strip LGBT from a resolution urging States to protect the right to life of all people, including by calling on states to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. For the past ten years, the resolution has included sexual orientation in the list of discriminatory grounds on which killings are often based. These included persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, persons acting as human rights defenders (such as lawyers, journalists or demonstrators) as well as street children and members of indigenous communities.

It was the latest attempt by Islamic and some African countries to reverse gains made for LGBT at the United Nations.

Dan Littaeur, reporting for Gay Middle East, says these countries object to the idea of any legal definition to sexual orientation, call sexual orientation a “personal choice” and an “individual sexual interest” which has no legal foundations in International Human Rights Instruments. The no vote was lead by Tajikistan on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on behalf of the Arab Countries, and Benin on behalf of the African countries.

UAE and OIC signaled that member countries will now seek to fight the issue through the “defamation" of religious ideas resolution, also passed at the UN, as a human rights violation. OIC further cryptically added that adoption of sexual orientation will lead to less flexible voting on “other issues."

Read more »

Big victory for USA in fresh United Nations 'gay killings' vote

By Paul Canning

The United Nations General Assembly tonight voted 93 for, 55 against with 27 abstaining to reinsert 'sexual orientation' into a resolution condemning extrajudicial killings. The vote followed the United States insistence on bringing the resolution back for another vote.

It was removed last month in a move led by African and Islamic countries.

This means that 23 nations changed their vote to yes, 15 didn't vote no and nine more abstained - 47 in total went in a positive direction. This is a quarter of the UN membership.

• One third of African countries changed their vote positively, including Rwanda and Angola voting yes. 
• Almost the whole of the Caribbean changed their vote positively, including Jamaica.

In the debate at the UN the most moving contribution was from the Rwandan delegate who said that a group does not need to be "legally defined" to be targeted for massacres and referenced his countries experience. "We can't continue to hide our heads in the sand" he said."These people have a right to life."

The reference to 'legal definition' was a pointed reference to the argument of other African countries, led by Benin, as well as the Islamic countries, led by Tajikistan and Arab countries, led by UAE, that 'sexual orientation' wasn't defined and wasn't covered by international human rights agreements.

The debate also saw South Africa pointedly reverse its previous vote citing its constitutional protections for LGBT but at the same time lamenting the 'sensitive' nature of the subject. Colombia, which had previously abstained, spoke strongly in favour.

A low point came from the Zimbabwean delegate who said sexual orientation "is not a human right" and compared it to bestiality and pedophilia.As well the Benin delegate said that 'this vote determines the very future of humanity! and that it "go down in annals of history".

As well as the United States, the EU and other countries, numerous human rights organisations as well as individual activists have been lobbying UN delegates for the past two weeks.Cuba's Foreign Ministry met with LGBT representatives prior to the vote, though it did not say whether it would reverse it's previous support for the removal of sexual orientation from the resolution.

The full break down of the vote is now available. Here's how the votes changed:

Read more »

Major lobbying effort underway to reverse UN vote OK'ing killing of LGBT

Image by European Parliament via Flickr   

By Paul Canning

Various international bodies have joined the American initiative to reverse last month's UN vote to remove sexual orientation from a resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

Arc International has singled out the following countries for lobbying:

Latin American and Caribbean: Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname.

Africa: States which might be approached for support include South Africa, as well as the six African States that endorsed the UN joint statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity: Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Mauritius, Cape Verde, Sao Tome & Principe.

Other States might be encouraged to abstain or refrain from voting, rather than opposing human rights, eg: Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, United Republic of Tanzania.

Asia/Pacific: Fiji, Kazakhstan, Nauru, Palau, Philippines, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Japan, South Korea, India, Nepal, Timor-Leste

Central/Eastern Europe: Albania, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Turkey

The vote will take place 20 December. Arc have called for people to urge their government's Ministry of Foreign Affairs to support the text of the resolution calling on states to protect lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people from unlawful killings. They note that it is "also useful to send a copy of any message to the ambassador of your country in New York."

Arc's historical note containing more information on this resolution follows "and you can share it with your government."

They say:

You better know your country. Feel free to adapt these data to the context of your country or region, while maintaining a constructive approach.

It's a good idea to ask a specific answer to your query. If time permits, you can request an urgent meeting to discuss the matter further.

If your government has failed on the inclusion of sexual orientation was the last time, encourage them to support the reference Monday. If your government objected to the reference, encourage them to support the model - or at least to refrain from or avoid voting against human rights. If your government has supported the reference, encourage them to vote accordingly on Monday and ask them to urge other states to vote in favor of inclusion.

Arc have also provided a record of votes on the amendment last month, "so you can see if your government has supported the reference to sexual orientation, opposed, abstained or has not voted (DNV)."

You can keep Arc informed of the response of your government by emailing coordination@arc-international.net

Resolution on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions: Some points to consider

At the United Nations, Arab and African nations get gay reference cut from violence measure

Correction: The final vote is here [PDF]. The United States abstained. Here is the explanation offered for that:

The resolution as worded only contributes to legal uncertainty about how these two important bodies of law [international human rights law and international humanitarian law] apply to an array of factual circumstances

Something to do with the Iraq war?

Source: International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and ARC International are deeply disappointed with yesterday’s vote in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly to remove a reference to sexual orientation from a resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The resolution urges States to protect the right to life of all people, including by calling on states to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. For the past 10 years, the resolution has included sexual orientation in the list of discriminatory grounds on which killings are often based.

The removed reference was originally contained in a non-exhaustive list in the resolution highlighting the many groups of people that are particularly targeted by killings - including persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, persons acting as human rights defenders (such as lawyers, journalists or demonstrators) as well as street children and members of indigenous communities. Mentioning sexual orientation as a basis on which people are targeted for killing highlights a situation in which particular vigilance is required in order for all people to be afforded equal protection.

Read more »