Activists find inspiration, new enemies from the West
Homophobia a major obstacle to prevention efforts
|
ADRIAN BRUNE
Friday, April 09, 2004
Sumil Pant was on a mission to get to Geneva and nothing was going to stop him.
The founder of the Blue Diamond Society, Nepal’s sole gay and lesbian
advocacy group, had stories to tell from his country, stories about gay men
blackmailed by police, and lesbians tortured into marriage.
So he boarded a plane in Kathmandu on April 3 bound for the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights to push for passage of the “United Nations
Resolution on Sexual Orientation,” which would provide his society with
legal grounds to fight open discrimination by the Nepalese government.
After a two-day journey through the airports of four cities on four airlines,
Pant arrived without his luggage to some disappointing news: Brazil, the resolution’s
lead sponsor, had petitioned to have its consideration postponed until the
2005 session, fearful it would be killed for lack of support. But instead of
returning to Nepal, Pant bought new clothes and vowed to stay with a new mandate:
lobbying for the consensus Brazil says it needs.
“The resolution spreads hope around the world, especially in countries
like ours,” Pant said from the echoing halls of U.N. headquarters in
Geneva. “It’s a matter of justice, and every country should step
forward to support it.”
Brazil initially introduced the historic — and unexpected — resolution
during the 11th hour of the 2003 U.N. Commission on Human Rights, but acquiesced
to the Commission’s vote on postponing debate until the current session.
But on March 29, despite broad European and Canadian backing, the country decided
it would not wait for the commission to decide the resolution’s fate.
“Brazil considers that the treatment of any issue in the commission
should not lend itself to exploitation of a political nature,” the country
said in a statement issued from its mission in Geneva. “Since November
last year, we have been consulting with delegations of several countries on
the text.
“We have not yet been able, however, to arrive at a necessary consensus.
By its very nature, a subject such as nondiscrimination and sexual orientation
presupposes the search for consensus.”
Human rights advocates contend Brazil had all the backing it needed, and caved
to the Organization of Islamic Conference’s surreptitious threats to
jeopardize the country’s fall 2004 summit of Arab and Latin American
leaders. The OIC, especially member nations Egypt and Pakistan, also threatened
to jeopardize trade relations with Brazil if it pursued the resolution’s
passage, according to Scott Long, a consultant to Human Rights Watch.
Long and representatives from Amnesty International said they would now direct
their efforts toward finding another sponsor for the resolution.
“We saw a group of countries stand up and actually use economic pressure
to crush a progressive move on sexual orientation. But it’s not defeated,
just deferred,” Long said. “We have this incredible convergence
here, and we’re going to continue to create as much visibility as we
can to stand up to the OIC. It cannot silence these voices.”
The United States also opposed the measure.
The disputes over the proposed resolution, which instructed governments to
promote and protect human rights of people “regardless of their sexual
orientation,” began almost immediately.
Supporters of the measure claimed the specification of protections for gays
augmented the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N.’s 1948
edict that recognizes the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of all members
of humanity. They also said the resolution’s objectives do not differentiate
from U.N. conventions on safeguards for women and children, or other minorities.
But its adversaries, specifically the OIC, asserted the wording of Brazil’s
resolution directly affronted the tenets of Islam and other religions. In forcing
these countries to adhere to a U.N. order acknowledging the rights of gay men
and lesbians, the U.N. would threaten their religious freedom and end public
discourse about the morality of same-sex relationships, they said.
“The Organization of the Islamic Conference has amongst its consecrated
traditions, the respect of the cultural specificities of every human community,
and it feels in return that the cultural and faith-related specificities of
the Islamic communities should also meet with due respect,” said Dr.
Abdelouahed Belkeziz, the secretary-general of the OIC, in a speech before
the U.N. commission.
“Proceeding from this, we feel that the idea of imposing upon the Islamic
peoples laws that are incompatible with their morals and values, should be
eschewed for the sake of preserving the units and solidarity of the international
community at a time when we are facing so many challenges of greater dimension
and which constitute a threat to us all.”
Approximately one-third of the U.N.’s 191 member countries prohibit
homosexuality, and gay people within those countries face persecution and,
in drastic cases, execution.
|
