Written by Marilyn Farhat | 03 December 2010

According to Peter Tatchell, The U.K. gay rights and human rights campaigner:
“This is a shameful day in United Nations history. It gives a de facto green light to the on-going murder of LGBT people by homophobic regimes, death squads, and vigilantes. They will take comfort from the fact that the UN does not endorse the protection of LGBT people against hate-motivated murder.
“The UN vote is in direct defiance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees equal treatment, non-discrimination and the right to life. What is the point of the UN if it refuses to uphold its own humanitarian values and declarations?”
The United States Mission Delegate to the United Nations had this to say in an official statement:
“Although we abstained on the adoption of this resolution today, we wish to join the sponsors of the text in condemning extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions against all persons, irrespective of their status. We of course agree that all States have obligations to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and should take effective action to combat all extrajudicial killings and punish the perpetrators. We agree that countries such as ours, which have capital punishment, should abide by their international obligations, including those related to due process, fair trial, and use such punishment for only the most serious of crimes. Indeed, we agree with much of the text of this resolution. However, we have some concerns.
“At the outset, let me say that the United States strongly agrees with and appreciates the cosponsors’ efforts to retain language specifically condemning ESAs targeting vulnerable groups, particularly members of the LGBT community, and we were dismayed that this reference could not survive an unfriendly amendment.”
The delegate went on to explain that the targeting of individuals by their governments is forbidden under International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law.
Tanya Domi, Adjunct Assistant Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, blames this vote on the rise in political and religious fundamentalism caused by the floods of Christian missionaries that spread across the African continent, including within Muslim nations.
“The most blatantly destructive policy outcomes of pervasive Christian fundamentalist proselytizing in Africa has been in Uganda, where “ The Family,” also known as “The Fellowship,” a Christian and political organization based in the United States, played a key role in advising its parliament to adopt legislation last year that called for the death penalty of known homosexuals.”
Morocco provided the following reasons for supporting the amendment removing sexual orientation:
“The representative of Morocco, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the Group was seriously concerned by controversial and undefined notions that had no foundation in international human rights instruments. Intolerance and discrimination existed in cases of colour, race, gender, and religion, to mention only a few. Selectivity intended to accommodate certain interests over others had to be avoided by the international community. Such selectivity would set a precedent that would change the human rights paradigm in order to suit the interests of particular groups. An attempt to create new rights was a matter of concern for the Group. All Member States were urged to continue to devote special attention to the protection of the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society.”
Domi believes that Morocco, the Holy See (The Vatican) and the Organization of the Islamic Conference will band together in unity to oppose the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” into any international treaty that protects human rights.
Christian flag used by several South Sudan militias.
1.  Tatchell, Peter. “UN Vote Against Sexual Orientation  is Shameful. http://www.petertatchell.net/international/world_general/UN-vote-shameful.htm
2. “Explanation of Vote by a U.S. Advisor of Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions Resolution (A/C.3/65/L.29), Third Committee.” The United States Mission to the United Nations. http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2010/151133.htm
3. Domi, Tanya. “UN Vote Allowing Gays To Be Executed Result of Political, Religious Fundamentalism.” The New Civil Rights Movement.  http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/un-vote-allowing-gays-to-be-executed-result-of-political-religious-fundamentalism/legislation/2010/11/23/15480
4.  Ibid.