Killing Gay People Is Ok ...

[AyG]

Back in November the United Nations voted to allow the extrajudicial killing of gay men and women. The amendment was passed thanks to the votes of Moslem and African countries. No surprise in how they voted.

This month there was a follow-up vote intended to restore protection to gay people against state-sponsored murder.

Thailand abstained. The Thai government apparently doesn't have an issue with other governments wiping out their gay populations, performing a form of genocide.

This morning there was a small protest in front of Government House - about 50 people - against the government's abstention.

However, I'm not sure what shocks me more: the government's abstention, or the tiny size of the protest.

(The vote actually passed, and the United Nations no longer supports governments murdering gays. So I guess everything is OK now.)

[mstribling]

In Uganda they out you in the newspaper. Frontpage.

I'm not sure but this resolution didn't permit the hunting down and murder of gay people just because their gay.

[AyG]

I'm not sure but this resolution didn't permit the hunting down and murder of gay people just because their gay.

That's exactly what it did do. See for example:

http://progressivenation.us/2010/11/18/the-united-nations-fail-to-ban-the-arbitrary-killing-of-gays/

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=540

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/united-nations-approves-killing-gays

[mstribling]

Well that sounds pretty grim. Hope everything works out.

[tombkk]

I think one reason that the protest in front of government house had such a low turnout is that nobody knew about it.

[SweatiePie]

I think one reason that the protest in front of government house had such a low turnout is that nobody knew about it.

Possibly, Tom, but on the other hand maybe those who knew didn't want to protest.

........I'm not sure what shocks me more: the government's abstention, or the tiny size of the protest.

The original vote was discussed here.

The claims made then and here are incorrect:

The resolution condemning extrajudicial, arbitrary and summary executions is non-binding, so it nether "allows" nor prohibits anything.

The amendment to the resolution replaced the words "sexual orientation" with "discriminatory reasons on any basis". Nothing more. Hardly a vote "to allow the extrajudicial killing of gay men and women".

While the Moslems are the preferred Western target, as usual, the countries which originally voted for the amendment were in fact equally split between Islamic and Christian.

The third link contains the usual picture of Ayaz Marhoni and Mahmoud Asgari being hung in Iran, supposedly for being gay. The reality is that they were hung for the abduction at knifepoint and gang rape by five men of a 13 year old boy, which Human Rights Watch and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission have stated unequivocally "was not a gay case" (not that that excuses the execution of minors, which is an entirely different issue).

You're "shocked" that Thailand abstained and there was a "tiny" protest? Why? "Shocked" that we wanted no part of a pointless argument that was nothing more than playing with words? Or "shocked" that for the vast majority of gay Thais your gay issues are not our gay issues and that unlike you we do not automatically assume that everyone is against us simply because we are not constantly singled out for special treatment in every piece of legislation?

Edited December 28, 2010 by SweatiePie

[Ijustwannateach]

Well, the protest certainly wasn't highly publicised beforehand in foreign press or websites... if it was a 'foreign' issue (the protest) why didn't plans for the protest get more into foreign news or websites?

Considering the recent history of the Thai government (on all political 'sides') and extrajudicial killings (Muslims, 'drug dealers', political dissidents of all brands), I would think that the populace here should be concerned about ANY 'extra' extrajudicial powers any flavour of government could claim against them..... but that would be projecting my own democratic bias.

[SweatiePie]

Well, the protest certainly wasn't highly publicised beforehand in foreign press or websites... if it was a 'foreign' issue (the protest) why didn't plans for the protest get more into foreign news or websites?......

Maybe because it wasn't quite the issue some would like it to be and it was treated accordingly.

"Extrajudicial killings" are hardly a "recent" innovation here - political assassinations at all levels have gone on for decades, as have crackdowns on some protesters (but by no means all). Some people would be "shocked" to learn quite how accepted the "war on drugs" and the highly questionable deaths of hundreds if not thousands of alleged drug dealers was with Thai people, of every social level, (and how popular its re-introduction would be)

[Suradit]

An eminently sensible and unusually rational move.

If you avoid the Tatchell rhetoric and read what the amendment actually said it was simply broadening the scope of the amendment in what is a totally ineffective, non-binding and widely ignored resolution.

What I find particularly interesting here, though, is Suradit's insertion of the word "Islamic" ('"......the vast majority of countries in support were [Islamic] African or Arabic countries") when this is not in either of his references and when the countries which voted for the amendment are in fact almost exactly equally split between Islamic and Christian. Maybe "fundamentalist" would have been a better description.

Suradit didn't insert anything. This was a direct quote from some gay website (can't recall which). They may have inserted something, but not me. I've lived in the UAE and Pakistan and have no axe to grind with either Muslims or Arabs. Before accusing someone of making racist or religionist (?) comments, please make sure of your facts.

On the other hand seeing pictures of gay boys in Iran being executed is disgusting in the extreme.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Suradit

[Suradit]

The third link contains the usual picture of Ayaz Marhoni and Mahmoud Asgari being hung in Iran, supposedly for being gay. The reality is that they were hung for the abduction at knifepoint and gang rape by five men of a 13 year old boy, which Human Rights Watch and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission have stated unequivocally "was not a gay case" (not that that excuses the execution of minors, which is an entirely different issue).

But as human rights groups looked into the initial Iranian accounts, the waters muddied. The boys, identified as Ayaz Marhoni and Mahmoud Asgari, were said to have been convicted not for homosexual conduct but for raping a 13-year-old boy. Gay journalists, writing on blogs, cited sources in Iran who said that claim was a smoke screen used by the Iranian government to deflect outrage over the execution. One account, again based on unnamed sources in Iran, suggested that a group of boys had been involved in consensual sexual activity and that the youngest of them (or members of his family) may have claimed he was coerced to avoid trouble for himself. In a country where an accusation of homosexuality is certain to bring harassment, often brings brings prison and torture, and occasionally brings death (by stoning, hanging, bisection with a sword or being dropped from a height, say gay rights groups), that scenario is plausible.

Scott Long of Human Rights Watch says that even a year later international groups know "very little" about what happened. The images are horrifying enough, he says, even if the boys were guilty of rape. And his group has documented plenty of "horror stories," including executions, that have been visited on people caught in same-sex activity in Iran. But can his group say anything about the rape charges?

"Nobody should trust the Iranian government on its face, but we can't document that," he says by phone from his office in New York.

Yes Suradit inserted the bold print.

http://www.washingto...6071902061.html

Edited January 2, 2011 by Suradit

[Ijustwannateach]

Well, the protest certainly wasn't highly publicised beforehand in foreign press or websites... if it was a 'foreign' issue (the protest) why didn't plans for the protest get more into foreign news or websites?......

Maybe because it wasn't quite the issue some would like it to be and it was treated accordingly.

"Extrajudicial killings" are hardly a "recent" innovation here - political assassinations at all levels have gone on for decades, as have crackdowns on some protesters (but by no means all). Some people would be "shocked" to learn quite how accepted the "war on drugs" and the highly questionable deaths of hundreds if not thousands of alleged drug dealers was with Thai people, of every social level, (and how popular its re-introduction would be)

No, not shocked, sadly. Education has a long way to go in this and every country.

[SweatiePie]

Suradit didn't insert anything. This was a direct quote from some gay website (can't recall which). They may have inserted something, but not me. I've lived in the UAE and Pakistan and have no axe to grind with either Muslims or Arabs. Before accusing someone of making racist or religionist (?) comments, please make sure of your facts.

On the other hand seeing pictures of gay boys in Iran being executed is disgusting in the extreme.

The "facts", Suradit, are that the word Islamic was not in the report in either of the links to the "gay websites" which you gave as sources. Its insertion (whoever it was by) was deliberately misleading since as many Christian countries supported the amendment as did Islamic countries.

Simply living in a particular country does not necessarily make you tolerant or respectful of that country's inhabitants - you need look no farther than this forum for countless examples of that idea!

I too am appalled by the sight of "boys" or any minors being executed in any country, but unless their sexual orientation was the reason for their execution (which it was not in this case) I do not see why their being "gay" should make me any more disgusted than if they were straight.

Yes Suradit inserted the bold print.

"Please make sure of your facts", Suradit. This case that has now been as thoroughly researched as it is possible for it to be, and as your own link says " the pictures are not so much forensic documents as they are dramatizations of something that almost certainly exists". There is plenty to find fault with in Iran, including extreme homophobia and the torture and execution of minors - this particular case, however, is an emotive but poor example.

The only named source in Iran was the NCRI, the political wing of the MKO which is an internationally recognised terrorist organisation. The ISNA and Quds both published details of the trial, the charge and the rape on the day of the execution - this was ignored by the gay blogs written by Peter Tatchell and Doug Ireland (who later made similar claims over four men supposedly hung for being gay when they were in fact hung for heterosexual rape, two for the rape of girls aged 8 and 10).

If you are interested in the known facts of the case, and can read arabic or farsi following your time in the Middle-East, there are plenty of reports and enquiries available (as there are in English and Dutch). If you want informed opinion (particularly informed gay opinion) you should read what Doug Long actually wrote about the case, unedited, in Gay City News or an article by Faisal Alam, founder of the lesbian and gay Muslim group the Al-Fatiha Foundation in the UK Gay News which included the following:

"Very few people took the time to research the details of the case or even consult with experts who deal with such news on a daily basis. In fact it was almost a week later that we began to read more accurate accounts of why the teens were executed from international human rights groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission – all of whom have contacts in Iran and ways to confirm news of such incidents from independent sources. While no one will ever know why these two young men were executed in Iran, what remains clear is that the hysteria surrounding the executions was enormous and only fed to the growing Islamaphobia and hatred towards Muslims and the Islami

c world."

[tominbkk]

what a lovely country!

http://www.google.co.th/images?hl=en&q=iranian%20executions&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1024&bih=584

[Deserted]

In Uganda they out you in the newspaper. Frontpage.

I'm not sure but this resolution didn't permit the hunting down and murder of gay people just because their gay.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/27/ugandan-gay-rights-activist-murdered