Apropos yesterday's post on the modifications to the Durban II text, the AP and AJC's Durban Dispatch list some of the "red lines" still remaining. There are apparently two major issues outstanding: first, the deletion of a Dutch proposal to have a clause banning discrimination on basis of sexual orientation, and second, the blanket reaffirmation of the Durban I declaration, which contains the demonization of Israel that sparked controversy in the first place.
On the former, I am of course very upset that anti-gay discrimination likely will not be addressed at this conference. It is testimony to the degree of homophobia present in the world that this is still an issue -- unfortunately, the areas of discrimination which are most pressing are also least likely to be addressed because they are supported by empowered nations. As to what our response should be, I think that is something that should be done with reference to the gay and lesbian community. Particularly if the conference engages in outright condemnation of gay rights (or legitimizes anti-gay bigotry), I think that would be just as deserving of a walkout as anti-Semitic bigotry warranted the last time around.
On the latter issue, I'm more ambivalent. The blanket reaffirmation strikes me as more boilerplate than anything, and doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on. That being said, I admit I don't know much about the mechanics of international declarations and diplomacy, and I can very much imagine folks saying things like "as was put in the Durban I declaration, overwhelmingly reaffirmed at Durban II, yadayadayada...." So I don't know enough to say.
Wholly aside from these issues, there still is the fact of the conference itself to worry about, and Charles Ettinson points out that there is little in the way of safeguards to prevent the organizers -- Libya, Cuba, and Iran among others -- from running amok once the event begins. So, again, even if all the pre-conference issues are resolved, it would be wise to remain wary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
unfortunately, the areas of discrimination which are most pressing are also least likely to be addressed because they are supported by empowered nations.
Which nations do you consider the empowered ones? I would think even countries like the United States that don't ban discrimination against homosexuals might be able to get behind a prohibition on the death penalty for homosexuality. That's fairly pressing for folks in Pakistan, UAE, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran...
At UN events, the NAM bloc is significantly more powerful than the United States. And at least under the previous administration, even relatively moderate measures in favor of gay rights didn't enjoy American support.
Decriminalization is a stronger measure than what I suggested, which would just be forbidding the death penalty. After all, the U.S. only decriminalized sodomy because of Activist Judges.
Which is precisely my point -- even the US won't make any meaningful stand on gay rights (the Dutch proposal prohibiting discrimination is way beyond even domestic US law right now). It is a truism that the most marginalized are going to be those least able to exert pressure on policymakers -- that's true on national and international levels.
Right, but what I am trying to articulate is that "don't execute people for being gay" is a baseline position that even the U.S. should be able to support. Sodomy was criminal in several states until Lawrence (2003), but we haven't executed people for sodomy since the Civil War. Baby steps, is what I'm saying.
"the deletion of a Dutch proposal to have discrimination on basis of sexual orientation...
Should the word "have" in that sentence be "ban"?
I think it was supposed to be "have a clause banning". But you never know with those Dutch folk....
Post a Comment