ONU a votat o rezoluţie pro-gay

Titlul rezoluţiei: Resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (Rezoluţie privind drepturile omului, orientarea sexuală şi identitatea de gen). Rezoluţia nu are caracter obligatoriu.

Detalii pe site-ul UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council), unde mai apar şi alte rezoluţii votate pe 17 iunie 2011 (Libia, Coasta de Fildeş, Flotila Gaza, Violenţa împotriva femeilor, Sărăcia extremă, Sănătate, Drepturi culturale şi respectul diversităţii, Dreptul la pace, Drepturile copilului).

Textul rezoluţiei (PDF)

Action on Resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

In a resolution (A/HRC/17/L.9/Rev.1) regarding human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, adopted by a vote of 23 in favour, 19 against, and 3 abstentions, the Council requests the High Commissioner to commission a study to be finalised by December 2011 to document discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, in all regions of the world, and how international human rights law can be used to end violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity; decides to convene a panel discussion during the nineteenth session of the Human Rights Council, informed by the facts contained in the study commissioned by the High Commissioner and to have constructive, informed and transparent dialogue on the issue of discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity; and decides also that the panel will also discuss the appropriate follow-up to the recommendations of the study commissioned by the High Commissioner.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (23): Argentina; Belgium; Brazil; Chile; Cuba; Ecuador; France; Guatemala; Hungary; Japan; Mauritius; Mexico; Norway; Poland; Republic of Korea; Slovakia; Spain; Switzerland; Thailand; Ukraine; United Kingdom; United States and Uruguay.

Against (19): Angola; Bahrain; Bangladesh; Cameroon; Djibouti; Gabon; Ghana; Jordan; Malaysia; Maldives; Mauritania; Nigeria; Pakistan; Qatar; Republic of Moldova; Russian Federation; Saudi Arabia; Senegal and Uganda.

Abstentions (3): Burkina Faso; China and Zambia.


JERRY MATTHEWS MATJILA (South Africa), introducing draft resolution L.9 Rev 1, said that dialogue was an extremely powerful tool when dealing with a difficult subject matter. Persons should not be subjected to discrimination or violence based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The resolution did not seek to impose values on Members States but sought to initiate a dialogue which would contribute to ending discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation, gender identity or gender identity. In South African non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity was constitutionally protected. Despite this there were still challenges relating to violence against such individuals. South Africa believed that intergovernmental dialogue could find ways to address this subject. Further, although South Africa was a predominantly Christian society, all religions were treated the same; and although South Africa was predominantly a black country, all racial groups enjoyed equal rights. It further noted in relation to apartheid that when some were imprisoned moral and political support was received from all sections of the world; South Africans never said that they could not accept support on the basis of gender identify. South Africa stressed that the United Nations was the common parliament for the international community and as such it should discuss complex and difficult issues. The resolution called for the UN Human Rights Council to offer an opportunity to the international community to have a factual based dialogue relating to discrimination against those who had different sexual orientation or gender identity. South Africa requested that the Commission put together a fact based study, the outcome of which should form the basis of the discussion in 2012. South Africa noted that the co-sponsors for the draft resolution were Brazil United Kingdom, Uruguay, Germany, Serbia, United States, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, Ireland, Switzerland, Israel Canada, France, Czech Republic Australia, Austria, Croatia, Luxemburg, Portugal, Argentina, and Greece.

MARIA NAZARETH FARANI AZEVEDO (Brazil), also introducing draft resolution L.9 Rev. 1, congratulated South Africa for its leadership on this initiative and the constructive and transparent work on this draft resolution. This was the spirit that presided over work on draft resolution L.9 Rev. 1. The resolution reflected the aspiration of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights that all human beings are born with equal dignity and rights and the importance of condemning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Brazil reiterated the importance of discussing perspectives; it was high time to move from perspectives to improve understanding on the basis of transparent dialogue. This was the proposal contained in this draft resolution which aimed at creating a place for dialogue, promoting a better understanding and contributing to make the commitment to ensure respect for human rights a reality.

SHAFQAT ALI KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the Organization of the Islamic Conference was very concerned that the Council had chosen to discuss very controversial notions contained in the L.9 Rev 1 on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity. The Organization of the Islamic Conference was very concerned about attempts to include in this forum notions that had no basis in international law and international legal and human rights standards. The Organization of the Islamic Conference noted with concern the attempts to create new standards and include notions that had never been agreed before. The international community had agreed during the Vienna Conference that while considering human rights, national, regional and cultural specificities would be taken into account. The draft resolution L.9 Rev 1 would divert the attention of the Council from other important issues. The Organization of the Islamic Conference would call for a vote on this draft resolution and would vote against it.

ANDRAS DEKANY (Hungary), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, thanked South Africa for tabling the resolution. The European Union thanked South Africa for accommodating many European Union concerns, making it possible for the European Union to support the resolution. The European Union believed that the resolution was a genuine attempt to create an open and constructive dialogue. It noted that the resolution did not attempt to create new rights but to affirm existing rights in relation to persons that were the subject of discrimination on the basis of gender identify and sexual orient. Issues of sexual orientation and gender identity were sensitive issues for many States and the European Union hoped the international community could agree that no human being should face discrimination. The European Union would vote in favour of the resolution.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that African countries, and more than 90 per cent of the African people did not support this draft resolution. South Africa had referred to a declaration of African leaders indicating desires to deal with human rights in an objective and non-confrontational manner and accused the resolution of disregarding the universality of human rights and putting individual conduct above international instruments. Notions on sexual orientation should not be imposed on countries. A panel discussion would initiate the progress. Some issues of individual nature should not be under discussion at the Council.

ABDULWAHAB ABDULSALAM ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on L.9 Rev.1, said the draft resolution was not in line with internationally agreed human rights principles. It was not appropriate to impose these values on other countries. Cultural and religious considerations should be taken into account. It was not appropriate to impose values without considering them as counter to Sharia in Islam, and other religions.

MUNA ABBAS RADHI (Bahrain), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, condemned the attempt to make the Council deal with controversial issues such as gender identity. This was an attempt to create new standards and new human rights by misinterpreting the existing international human rights standards. These were issues based on personal decisions and were not fundamental human rights.

NAHIDA SOBHAN (Bangladesh), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on L.9 Rev.1, said Bangladesh supported all human rights, including the right to development and condemned violence against individual groups. There was no legal foundation for this draft resolution in human rights instruments. Bangladesh was disturbed by the focus on personal sexual interests while discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion and other issues remained ignored. Bangladesh believed that rights included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had been coded into international instruments. By introducing notions not articulated in human rights instruments, these very instruments and the human rights framework were undermined.

KHALID FAHAD AL-HAJRI (Qatar), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, stressed the need to respect cultural diversity in relation with article 29 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the responsibility of States in maintaining social and democratic order. Qatar indicated that this issue went against Islam and for this reason intended to vote against this draft resolution.

JUAN JOSE GOMEZ CAMACHO (Mexico) speaking in explanation of the vote before the vote on L.9 Rev.1, expressed the deepest appreciation to the co-sponsors of the resolution. Mexico recognized the fact that the question of sexual orientation undoubtedly represented a series of difficulties, polemics and arguments and was closely linked to culture and practices in society around the world. It was an issue that faced controversies. For Mexico, what was being discussed should be seen in relation to something else, not the imposition of values, not something linked to changing cultural practices or condemning or condoning individual cultural practice. It was a question of non-discrimination, not a new subject in the Council. Non-discrimination on grounds of race and religion and non-discrimination against women, the elderly and those with disabilities were values that stood fully recognized by all. Non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation was the same thing. Mexico did not share the views of colleagues that the Council would be imposing non-recognized rules. This was a human right. For that reason and with the utmost respect for other Member States, Mexico supported with complete conviction the draft resolution. Needless to say, Mexico would vote in favor of the resolution.

CHEIKH AHMED OULD ZAHAF (Mauritania), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on the draft resolution L.9 Rev. 1, said that Mauritania considered that this issue was not within the scope of any international treaty. In addition to be a highly controversial subject on many levels, cultural, moral, religious, this issue had nothing to do with human rights, as did other issues dealt with in the Human Rights Council, such as violence against women or violations of human dignity. Imposing this issue was unacceptable and that was why Mauritania called on all Member States to vote against this draft resolution.

HECTOR RAUL PELAEZ (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, welcomed the adoption of resolution L.9 Rev. 1 and congratulated South Africa for taking the leadership on this issue. Argentina emphasised the importance of addressing issues of discrimination and violence as part of protection of human rights. This was a historical resolution that marked the inclusion of the issue in the framework for protection of human rights and paralleled developments in the national framework, including national legislation, for the protection of human rights in Argentina.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote on L.9 Rev.1, said the United States was thrilled to join South Africa and other Member States on this resolution. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights was the first full affirmation that all people should enjoy full rights and freedoms. An important step forward was made in recognizing that human rights were universal. Violence against any person on grounds of sexual orientation was a violation of human rights. The right to choose who to love was sacred. Each human deserved protection from violence. Moving forward with this resolution confirmed the aspiration to attain the best of human nature. The United States thanked the South African Government and its Ambassador for the consultative approach taken and its stunning leadership and looked forward to cooperation in implementing this exceptional step forward.

SANDRINE KOA WING (Mauritius), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote on the draft resolution L.9 Rev. 1, said that on the issue of human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity Mauritius had a nuanced position.

MUTAZ FALEH HYASSAT (Jordan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote on the draft resolution L.9 Rev. 1, said that the text before the Council had rendered it divided and prevented it from obtaining a joint position. Jordan regretted it could not join the consensus on this draft resolution.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote on L.9 Rev.1, said the African Group remained committed to the principle of non-discrimination. Nigeria believed that no human being should be subjected to discrimination based on any particular behavior. Nigeria believed strongly that at all work of the Human Rights Council should be focused in a way that advanced collective commitments to human rights, not that undermined human rights. Nigeria said it was unacceptable that countries lacked the ability to have laws on sexual orientation and countries lacked the political will to subject themselves to a true picture of democracy. It went against all norms preached in the Human Rights Council, such as transparency, accountability and democracy. This was a signal that the Human Rights Council should be careful to not again go against its roots.

CHEIKH AHMED OULD ZAHAF (Mauritania), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said in response to the supporters of resolution L.9 Rev.1, that that the resolution did not promote the advancement of human rights but rather the dehumanisation of human beings.