UN restores reference to sexual orientation in violence policy – UPDATED

UPDATE: Paul Canning has this story from all angles. He has the vote changes listed and notes that 47 countries switched votes from the last time this issue came up.

His summary demonstrates the striking changes in votes from the first time around when sexual orientation was removed as a basis for condemning executions.

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.”

“These people have a right to life,” said the Rwandan delegate. Will this sentiment spread to neighboring nations, including Uganda? We shall see…

This just in from Reuters…

The United States succeeded on Tuesday in getting the United Nations to restore a reference to killings due to sexual orientation that had been deleted from a resolution condemning unjustified executions.

Western delegations were disappointed last month when the U.N. General Assembly’s human rights committee approved an Arab and African proposal to cut the reference to slayings due to sexual orientation from a resolution on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions.

The committee’s move also had outraged human rights activists and groups that lobby for gay rights. Philippe Bolopion of Human Rights Watch (HRW) said at the time that it was a “step backwards” and “extremely disappointing.”

The 192-nation General Assembly approved a U.S. amendment to the resolution that restored the reference to sexual orientation with 93 votes in favor, 55 against and 27 abstentions. The amended resolution was then adopted with 122 yes votes, none against and 59 abstentions.

The main opposition to the U.S. amendment came from Muslim and African nations, which had led the push to delete the reference to sexual preference from the resolution last month.

Young conservatives and DADT – So What?

If RenewAmerica has a Christmas party, I want to attend just to watch Jamie Freeze take on the good ol’ boys. Jamie is a young conservative woman and a student at Regent University law school who thinks the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a good thing. Elsewhere, on the 17th, the ACLJ’s Jordan Sekulow essentially yawned at the repeal. I will discuss his WaPo column after I briefly excerpt Freeze’s article titled, “General George S. Patent Leather: Conservatives and DADT,” Freeze counters fellow Renew America  columnist Bryan Fischer’s effort to link the lunar eclipse with the repeal of DADT.

Freeze is a traditional evangelical regarding sexuality but she does not believe government should require citizens to adopt her views. She says:

…as one Christian associate said, “For us to feel appointed to execute some sort of cosmic justice on the Lord’s behalf is the height of hubris.”

Our government governs Christians and non-Christians. America was founded on Christian principles by Christians and non-Christians. It was not an exclusively Christian nation or else the 1st Amendment would have been nullified from the start. Our founders quickly realized that mandating church attendance and tithing were futile attempts in changing the hearts of men. That is why the Baptists were the forerunners of separation of church and state in colonial America — they did not want a state church because God did not need the state to accomplish His plan. The state interfered with God’s work. As a Baptist, I am proud of the tradition that Isaac Backus and John Leland gave America, and I seek to preserve it.

I would add Roger Williams to the list as well. Williams and then later the early Baptists Backus and Leland stood for a state that protected the rights and conscience of all. I really like this quote attributed to Leland by Wikipedia:

“The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever…Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.” – A Chronicle of His Time in Virginia.

Freeze then addresses several arguments social conservatives have raised against DADT, in one case citing a soldier friend who believes sexual orientation is irrelevant to service. She adds that we need all hands on deck while fighting two wars and channels Barry Goldwater’s observation that people who shoot straight need not be straight.

In what has passed for conservatism in recent years, Freeze rightly notes that the divide over social issues is growing.

As a conservative, I have already received much criticism for the views expressed in this article, and I anticipate more. One man, a prominent local Republican clearly offended by my views, told me I held no claim to the ideology of conservatism. However, I will share with you what I told him: “If by conservative, you mean valuing life, liberty, and property above all other rights, then yes, I am conservative. I am a Lockean to the core. However, if, by conservative, you mean I want the government to mandate our lives to the smallest details all for the sake of public morality, then no, I am not a conservative.”

I agree with Freeze here but I do not dismiss the concerns of social conservatives lightly, especially those who are not working for advocacy groups. Many people I know are afraid that the government is going to make them believe things they can’t believe. They are afraid that the kind of philosophy espoused by Williams and Leland will require them to adhere to views they cannot accept. Not so. When laws are judged fairly, protecting the freedom of others does not remove mine. In a society where equal protection is for everyone, it is to my advantage to stick up for the rights of all. By doing this, I am sticking up for my rights to pursue my conscience as well. Where rights seem to be in conflict, we can try to work it out as citizens or involve the judiciary.

Another young conservative who has probably raised some eyebrows is Jordan Sekulow with the conservative ACLJ. Started by Pat Robertson, ACLJ does not have any pro-gay cred, and yet Mr. Sekulow writes, No DADT, No Problem:

The outdated, unworkable “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law will likely be repealed in the next few days. As a Christian conservative broadcaster, attorney, and activist who recently discussed DADT and my opinion about it on-air, I can say that for the most part, social conservatives are not enraged about the end of DADT. In fact, the grassroots has not been engaged on this issue for a long time.

I feel pretty sure that the Family Research Council or the American Family Association will not agree with this assessment since they have been on a full court press to stop the repeal. Sekulow locates his attitude at least partially in his youth, saying

We live in a new time. As a young member of the “religious right,” if a gay friend or family member came to me and said they wanted to join the military, I would gladly be the first to congratulate and thank them. I do not believe they should be barred from serving because of their sexual orientation.

For all those who believe social conservatism is a monolithic mass, one needs to contrast Sekulow’s statement with Bryan Fischer’s “homosexuals in the military gave us six million dead Jews” rant.

I do not want to make too much out of two young conservatives and their views on DADT, but I am inclined to think they are part of what other observers see as a moderating trend among youth toward homosexuality. These young people do not view homosexual behavior as an option within their religious views, but they also seem to be rejecting the strident, stereotyping rhetoric and policies of their elders.

Radio Australia summarizes Asia Bibi blasphemy case

This radio broadcast is the best summary of the Asia Bibi case I have found. Click the link to listen to this segment on Windows Media Player.

Radio Australia – Asia Bibi

You hear from Ms. Bibi who describes the false charges of blasphemy, the Governor who wants to pardon her, the legislator who has tabled a bill to amend the blasphemy laws, and the Imam who wants to kill her.

Please listen and go sign the petition directed at Pakistani government leaders.

What Asia Bibi is up against in Pakistan

Asia Bibi, the Christian woman in Pakistan convicted of blasphemy against Muhammad and sentenced to death, has an appeal hearing this week. However, don’t expect the legal profession as an institution to help her or push for human rights. This article in Pakistan’s The Nation, quotes the President of Pakistan’s Supreme Court Bar Association, Asma Jahangir, who urges no change in the blasphemy laws and no help for Asia Bibi.

The Bar committee, also attended by the vice president of the provinces, the secretary and the other office-holders, unanimously carried a resolution to refrain the government from amending the Blasphemy Law and also granting pardon to Asia Bibi, a condemned prisoner on the same charges. The Bar expressed serious concern over Punjab Governor Salman Taseer’s move to get presidential pardon for Asia when her appeal was pending hearing before the court of law.

They said the government functionaries were seeking amendment or a complete repeal of the said law, which it said, was a shameful effort being made under a foreign agenda, which is strongly condemnable.

“In no circumstance, any amendment encouraging or creating any effort to defile the sacred name and personality of Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) can be brought upon the statute book.”

The Committee has unanimously warned the government and the members of the Parliament to refrain from implementing any such proposal. “The SCBA and the legal fraternity would never accept any such pardon and amendment and it would be resisted by every possible efforts”, it added.

Gov. Salman Taseer has taken a great risk to call for pardon for Asia. And apparently any lawyer that will defend her will be acting in contradiction to this resolution of Pakistan’s association of lawyers. The slogan on the front page of the website is “The help you need when you need it most.” However, this is a hollow sentiment when it only applies to the Muslim in-group.

UPDATE: A report from the Pakistan Daily Times clarifies the stance of the Bar Association.

SCBA clarifies news report

LAHORE: This is to deny that the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), in its second executive committee meeting held on December 18, unanimously passed any resolution regarding either Section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code itself or any case related to it.

The facts are that a resolution to that effect was presented by a member of the executive committee, but only a portion of it was passed unanimously, which paid reverence and commitment to honour and respect the name of the holy Prophet (PBUH), while the rest of the resolution regarding 295C, the case of Aasia Bibi and its consequences was deferred with consensus.

The Supreme Court Bar Association regrets the attempt made by one of its executive members to mislead the press and the public. The SCBA is a responsible body and its resolutions will be fully debated before being passed, especially unanimously.