UN vote against sexual orientation protection "shameful"

[With thanks to Vidyarata Kissoon from Guyana who brought this to my attention]

This coming Monday, December 20, the United Nations General Assembly will vote on whether to include protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in a crucial resolution on extra-judicial executions and other unlawful killings. For the past 10 years, this resolution has urged states “to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including… all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation.” It is the only UN resolution to ever include an explicit reference to sexual orientation. Just last month, South Africa voted with a number of states to remove the reference to sexual orientation from this important resolution.

The United Nations voted this week to remove sexual orientation from a resolution calling on countries to protect the life of all people and to investigate extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions that are motivated by prejudice and discrimination.

Arab and African nations succeeded in getting a U.N. General Assembly panel to delete from a resolution condemning unjustified executions a specific reference to killings due to sexual orientation.

The UN:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2...hc3997.doc.htm

IGLHRC & ARC:
http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/a...ease/1257.html

Commenting on the UN vote, gay rights and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said:

"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?

"This vote is partly the result of a disturbing homophobic alliance between mostly African and Arab states, often inspired by religious fundamentalism. LGBT people in these countries frequently suffer severe persecution.

“Many of the nations that voted for this amendment want to ensure that their anti-gay policies are not scrutinised or condemned by the UN. Even if they don’t directly sanction the killing of LGBT people, they have lined up alongside nations that do.

"South Africa and Cuba claim to support LGBT human rights, yet they voted to remove sexual orientation. They can no longer be considered gay-friendly states. Both countries have allied themselves with tyrannical, violent, homophobic regimes, like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Presidents Raul Castro and Jacob Zuma should hang their heads in shame. They've betrayed the liberation ideals that they profess to uphold," said Mr Tatchell.

"It's a step backwards and it's extremely disappointing that some countries felt the need to remove the reference to sexual orientation, when sexual orientation is the very reason why so many people around the world have been subjected to violence," said Philippe Bolopion of Human Rights Watch.

States will have the opportunity to restore the reference to sexual orientation – and hopefully extend it to also include gender identity – when the resolution comes up before the UN General Assembly on Monday, December 20.

We call on the Government of South Africa to change its vote and to reverse the removal of sexual orientation from the resolution. This resolution seeks to bring attention to the most serious human rights violation, the loss of the right to life. The Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial executions has constantly underlined that people are subject to extra-judicial executions because of their actual or presumed sexual orientation or gender identity.

On International Human Rights Day, 2010, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon addressed a UN side event: ‘Ending Violence and Criminal Sanctions on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.’ This panel was convened by, among other countries, Norway and Brazil.

The Secretary General in his remarks noted that “When individuals are attacked [or] abused … because of their sexual orientation, we must speak out… It is not called the ‘Partial’ Declaration of Human Rights. It is not the ‘Sometimes’ Declaration of Human Rights. It is the Universal Declaration, guaranteeing all human beings their basic human rights, without exception.”

We call on the Government of South Africa to ensure that regardless of what the perceptions of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender persons are, that the government will not endorse the torture or killing of people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

To fail to do so is to reverse the progress South Africa has made locally and internationally in advancing human rights.

From cohesion to cowesion

The term cohesion is a powerful one. In scientific terms, cohesion is an attraction between molecules of the same substance, whereas adhesion is an attraction between molecules of different substances.

"Social cohesion", a popular concept in the field of economic and social sciences, conveys the message of the "glue that holds us together". It attempts to describe the outcome of processes whereby people hold on to one another despite differences, hardships, or adverse circumstances. It is used widely in literature and in the field of conflict transformation and the prevention of violent conflict. For example, in Guyana I worked as a United Nations Peace and Development Advisor for the UNDP's Social Cohesion Programme.

What I find, especially when interacting with people at community level, is that the term "social cohesion" is not easily understood. It does not appeal to people. "I can't find the diamond in the concept", someone said yesterday in the Stellenbosch Social Cohesion Movement meeting. Furthermore, it's hard to pronounce for some non-English speaking persons. Hearing people pronouncing it as "co-heh-sion" (sounds like "heh-heh"!) makes people ever further confused.

Trevor Phillips, the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality in Britain, dislikes the term and says it lacks clarity. He prefers to talk about "integrated societies". The Club of Madrid talks about "shared societies".

What I begin to understand is that the underlying value/intended outcome of social cohesion is a sense of "we-ness", as opposed to divisions and unhealed multiple woundedness (as Martha Cabrera calls it) that are usually characterized by blaming of "the other". Destructive conflict and dysfunctional relationships firmly create an "othering" or "you-ness", instead of a "we-ness".

I am therefore proposing the coining of a new concept: social cowesion: n. 1. the extent to which people unite and include others to constructively satisfy fundamental human needs and rights for everyone; 2. a sense of unity and purpose to design and implement societies, systems and institutions that are just, fair and empowering for everyone; 3. a description of the quality of relationships between people who value, build and respond to constructive conflict; 4. a description of a shared and integrated society that values "we-ness" instead of divisions.

This is work in progress, and your views are welcome. What do you think? Maybe the confusion will be even greater? Who knows.

Blessed Unrest

If there has ever been a compelling argument to include civil society in dialogue and other conflict transformation processes, Blessed Unrest by Paul Hawken provides that beautifully.

The international community, especially those who only view track one diplomacy as the major tool, miss the point if they think that power only resides in the politicians.

Watch the video - it's powerful. (Click on the title above or go to http://www.blessedunrest.com/video.html.)

Read the book. It's unique.

'n Storm Broei

Lees my artikel oor die Instituut vir Vrede en Geregtigheid se Versoeningsbarometer by http://www.beeld.com/By/Nuus/n-Storm-broei-20100924

Die Volk se Bank?

Die SMS wat Absa se Hoofbestuurder aan Oregin Hoskins gestuur het haal selfs die redaksionele kommentaar van Die Kerkbode van die NG Kerk. http://www.kerkbode.co.za/Hoofartikel.asp

Hier is my kommentaar:

Die redaksionele artikel in Kerkbode van 15 Oktober 2010, “Absa is die NG Kerk se bank ook” verdien kommentaar omdat dit so sterk herinner aan die “verbintenis” tussen die NG Kerk en die destydse Volkskas (“hierdie ou volksinstelling” soos die redakteur dit stel) tydens die apartheidsbedeling. Kom ek verduidelik.

In 1986 het die sinode van die destydse NG Sendingkerk (vandag die Verenigende Gereformeerde Kerk) op voorstel van die Burgersdorp afgevaardiging Volkskas se traagheid betreur “om op die platteland positief mee te werk aan die aftakeling van apartheid in al sy vorms”. Die kwessie was dat Volkskas, die bank van die NG Sendingkerk, teen lidmate gediskrimineer het deur aparte en minderwaardige ingange vir sogenaamde “anderskleuriges” te hê.

Die Burger berig op 30 September 1986 soos volg: “Ds. Chris Spies van Burgersdorp het gesê hy en sy kerkraad het sedert Mei 1984 deur al die moontlike kanale vertoë tot die bank gerig oor sy skeidingsmaatreëls. Dit het niks opgelewer nie, behalwe 'n onuitgevoerde belofte dat alle skeidings ‘op 'n ordelike manier’ verwyder sal word. Volkskas het deurentyd ontken dat enige diskriminasie ter sprake is. Ds. Spies het gesê...Volkskas is die Sendingkerk se bank wat oor baie jare 'n gewaardeerde diens lewer. Die bank het egter op Burgersdorp nie aan geregtigheid voorkeur gegee bo die dreigemente van welgestelde inwoners nie." (http://152.111.1.87/argief/berigte/dieburger/1986/09/30/11/8.html)

Konserwatiewe Afrikaners was woedend. As leraar van die gemeente is ek op ‘n spesiale kerkraadsvergadering van die NG gemeente op die dorp veroordeel vir my “liefdeloosheid”. “Hoekom wag hy nie maar totdat die tyd ryp is nie?” het hulle gevra. Dié veroordeling is op briefies by die deure vir lidmate uitgedeel.

“Hoekom”, vra ons kerkraad toe vir hulle, “kies julle kant vir ‘n bank wat openlik apartheid voorstaan in plaas daarvan om saam met ons, julle broers en susters, te staan teen ongeregtigheid?” Daarop kon hulle ons nie antwoord nie, alhoewel die gesprek ‘n paar jaar later tog vrugte afgewerp het.

‘n Afvaardiging van die Broederbond het my kom sien en gewaarsku dat ek nou “aan die Afrikaner se baba gevat het” en dat hulle my “nooit sou vergewe nie”.

Die bank het my ook bygekom en die koers van my studentelening opgeskuif van 6,5% tot 23% sonder om my daaroor in te lig.

Terug by die hede. Is dit nie interessant nie dat die NG Kerk se amptelike koerant (wat op die voorblad entoesiasties getuig oor die opvlam vir steun van eenheid) weer die indruk skep dat die kerk die beskermer van die volk, en per implikasie witmense se belange, is? Die voorbeeld wat die artikel aanhaal is van “jong wit sportmanne wat alles insit om bo uit te kom en dit is nie goed genoeg vir die land nie” is ook interessant. Wat van swart spelers wat presies dieselfde kan sê maar hulle word ook nie gekies nie?

Hoekom anders sal die Kerkbode saam met Afriforum vir Absa van onetiese optrede beskuldig en die verdagte aanname maak dat per implikasie witmense nou weer bygekom word? (“Eers was dit die politieke strukture wat hulle die deur gewys het, nou wil hulle bank dit ook doen.”) Is Absa nie ook die bank van duisende swart kliënte nie? En is dit waar dat Absa vir wit sportmanne die deur wil wys?

Afriforum se histeriese “boikot Absa” veldtog was ‘n ondeurdagte en “vang-‘n-sondebok” opsie. Dit was nog altyd makliker om die boodskapper te skiet as om te vra hoekom ‘n borg, wat miljoene aan die ontwikkeling van rugby bestee, die rooi fakkel opskiet oor te min swart spelers wat deurkom. Dis nie net Absa wat die kleurkaart speel nie. Dit sou in elk geval nie nodig gewees het as die kleur van die kaarte meer eweredig versprei was nie.

Die Kerkbode sê tereg: “Swart rugbyhelde is nodig”. Enige een wat skole en universiteitsrugby kyk sal erken dat die verteenwoordiging van swart spelers baie beter is as op provinsiale vlak. Absa se vraag oor hoekom daar nie meer swart spelers op provinsiale vlak speel nie is ‘n redelike vraag wat dieper ondersoek vra. Maar in plaas van die regte vrae te vra, maak Afriforum en die Kerkbode sommer groot spronge om “hierdie volksinstelling” van onetiese optrede te beskuldig.

Sien ons weer dat solidariteit met die “Volk” swaarder weeg as die reg om die status quo te bevraagteken?

Absa se moed om die saak lewendig te hou moet verwelkom word. Ons land het wonderlike talent wat oral ontgin moet word, ongeag velkleur. Ons kan nie wag “totdat die tyd eendag ryp is nie”.

Moet asseblief nie toelaat dat die Kerkbode weer die indruk skep dat die kerk kant kies in die styd tussen die volk en die bank nie.