The Associated Press has quoted sources to say that the US will support a UN declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalisation of homosexuality. Some 75 countries outlaw same-sex relations and at least six countries impose the death penalty.
It was reported that the declaration will be endorsed by the Obama administration, a 180-degree turn from former President George W. Bush's refusal to sign last December.
Last year, the UN General Assembly heard two statements on LGBTI rights, one in favour, the other opposing. At the time, 66 states including all 27 members of the European Union, Australia, Japan, Nepal and New Zealand supported the statement while 57 states including the Holy see and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference opposed the declaration.
The groundbreaking however nonbinding declaration was co-sponsored by the Netherlands and France with Argentina making the actual statement in the General Assembly.
In a column for Fridae, Douglas Sanders - a Canadian law professor and prominent academic on the on-going effects of Section 377, an often encountered law which prohibits same-sex relations in former British colonies - noted that "Asia, unfortunately, was something of a disaster" with regards to the declaration.
"No member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations supported the statement. Thai activists met with the Foreign Ministry and with the Chair of the National Commission on Human Rights and collected signatures on a petition. A group of organisations petitioned the government of China. Both countries abstained - maybe they were out having coffee together when the statement was read."
Supporting the Argentinian statement were:
Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Capte Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Sao Tomo and Principe, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslave Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Supporting the Syrian statement were:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Cote d'Ivoire, DPR Korea, Dijbouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.
The rest of the 192 members either abstained or were absent.
打印版本
RSS Feed: 
读者回应
Am i reading correctly here? Malaysia supported the Syrian statement? If yes, that's fantastic ... however, surprisingly.
====================
Ya, u must have misunderstood. Supporting the Syrian statement is NOT good. It's basically against. So how is that fantastic? >:(
I like that...Singapore has no balls! LOL! Is that the reason why merlion was struck by lightning? Bad karma..??
Proposition 8 and this latest news are all well and good, but it would be meaningless if we cannot apply the lessons locally.
With the whiff of general elections in the air, right or wrong, I wonder where gay Singaporeans stand with regards to the political party/ies they support.
The PAP is far more interested in protecting the feelings of its Christian fundamentalist cabinet ministers, MPs and its Christian fundamentalist support base; it's antagonistic towards gay rights, one or two friendlier voices notwisthstanding.
The SPP and WP are spectacular in their uselessness; three seats in Parliament, two of whom are lawyers and not a squeak from any of them, paticularly during the debates of October 2007.
The SDP - yes, that party painted by the MSM as extremist - is the first, and thus far the only party that is supportive of full equality for gays.
It's not unusual in advanced liberal democracies that gays rally around one party en masse, though never in complete totality. Shouldn't gay Singaporeans be logically rallying around the SDP?
There have been murmurs among some Singaporeans in the opposition parties' support base that gays are a self serving lot; they are essentially PAP supporters who will return to the PAP fold after their rights have been secured.
Are we going to prove those detractors right?
I know that the there is always this question: Will the SDP run in my constituency/GRC in the first place?
It's a valid question.
I propose a broad strategy instead: punish every political party who doesn't support gay rights by spoiling your vote.
Thus, if the WP runs in your constituency/GRC, you may want to spoil your vote since neither party supports your rights.
However, if the SDP runs in your constituency/GRC, you may want to reward the party, SDP, by voting for them.
There is however a very real fear among Singaporeans that your vote is not secret. If that is the case with you, then spoiling your vote - if you want to punish the PAP even if you cannot reward the SDP - will still be a workable strategy: it will draw votes away from the PAP and bring the tally closer to the SDP's, say, so that the SDP still has a fighting chance.
I would be interested in feedback. (The catty need not apply.)
afraid we gay people rule hah???
so hypocrite lah u!!!
On M*S*N, I almost felt the pride that he took of the approach chosen by his government and his nation in treating gays.
How would you expect Singapore to change with a bunch of Singaporean gays thinking like the one described above?
I hope this is just an isolated phenonenon. Otherwise, I cannot help thinking there must be something wrong with the ways Singapore educates its citizens.
I note that China abstained, but China has deciminalized gay sex for more than 10 years. Singapore with 70% ethnic Chinese is even more underdeveloped than China back in 1990s?
I don't want to walk down Orchard Street as one of pardoned criminal, so I dislike Singapore and I wont make any personal trip to Singapore until its government stop criminalizing gay sex.
Best law is in own heart
Let everyone be free and live their live
Without who approve who
Who do you think you are to approve or not approve
Think about that
narrow minds breed hate
anyway, glad US is last but not least . . .
progress so pop a bottle of Champagne
percole : you do have a case in point but what you are advocating is technicalities with regards to gay activism which i feel is probably still much (much) too advanced for SG. I think we're dealing with the general apathy of SG peeps, queer or straight alike. I think most of our people are just feeling a slight tinge of discomfort towards 377. Yeah, give em a petition and they'll probably sign it but since our PM promised to NOT put 377 in action but merely have it on the book, they probably don't see the need to repeal it. The significance of decriminalizing what they CAN and will practise behind closed doors seems like a like-to-have, more than a must-have. But i like your strategy. =) 377 pushes us further into our closet, people. The worst thing is, they put cherries in the closet and we're now GLAD we're in it.
Anyway, I have confidence under the Obama administration the US will rise from its ashes after 8yrs of mis-management by his predecessor :p
God bless America. :)
But I fear there may be a not-minor side-effect we can't afford to overlook: fascist / Conservative- Christian Americans will no doubt be resentful of the current administration & may relocate en masse to countries in Asia. Our spineless govts will not do much, if anything, to stop them...so it's really up to us to be more vigilant & aware of the movement.
More GAYS LESS ABORTIONS!! WORLD PEACE=)
Always thought Singapore has tight ties with US, and cos of such controversies, SG dun have the guts to show its support for gay decriminalization. So afraid to offend the neighbouring Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia... Whatever...
Sometimes I really wonder Singaporeans really truly live up to its pledge - harmony, equality, democracy... the irony!!
Maybe there are people out there hired to sell the preposterous government position to the gay community, on the internet; or are they simply so blind they can't see when they've been sold out?
What a weird thing to say. It suggests that perhaps it is those people in those parties that are the self serving ones, if they're not prepared to stand up for gays as a matter of principle, because discrimination is wrong, but instead require some impossible quid pro quo that all gay people support whatever the rest of their policies are for the rest of their lives. Maybe such politicians are more interested in power than justice.
I'm not familiar with the policy differences between the parties in your country, but gay people have the same range of political beliefs (if any) as the rest of the population. One thing though that most of us have in common is a belief we should not be criminalised or discriminated against. So maybe there are votes to be gained by people who make a stand for us, but the votes will certainly not be gained or retained if it's just a cynical ploy to boost numbers.
However, I've not heard of any party in Sg actually standing up for gays. Is a stand against discrimination, or even simply for decriminalisation, published in the manifesto of the party you mention? If so, surely it would have been mentioned on Fridae?
http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=2124&viewarticle=1
February 9, 2007
singapore's main opposition party declines to take up gay sex issue
http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=1853&viewarticle=1
The Workers' Party (WP) - thought to be a likely ally of the gay community - disappointed many this week by revealing that it is divided over this issue of gay sex and is unable to "move (the issue) forward as part of the party agenda."
I've realised my second para might be ambiguous, so here it is a bit clearer:
Perhaps it is people in those parties that are self serving, if they're not prepared to stand up for gays as a matter of principle because discrimination is wrong, but instead require some impossible quid pro quo that all gay people support whatever the rest of their policies are for the rest of their lives. Maybe such politicians are more interested in power than justice.
I think that the tactic of spoiling your vote strategically is one of those things that may seem anti-intuitive but makes a lot os sense when we allow the idea to brew a little in our heads.
It has the potential to make ALL political parties fight among themselves for our vote. (Huh! WE are more pro-gay rights than you!)
We become the swing vote. ("Do what we want you to do or my vote goes to your opponent.")
And the kingmaker
However, it is a party that is under siege by the true extremists, the PAP, which has bent over backwards to ensure that there will be no SDP seats in Parliament.
Perhaps, if you've not read about it on fridae, it may add credence to the claim that gays - as evidenced by the editorial bias here - are essentially pro-PAP, the only party in a position to decriminalize, but doesn't budge on the issue, and only went on to legislate even more discrimatory laws against gays.
Yes, it's true that gays do span the political spectrum, but pre-rights they have tended to overwhelmingly support the party with the strongest position on their rights.
(In Canada, that party has always been the New Democratic Party, and it still has a sizable and loyal queer following even after full legal equality has been achieved here.)
I would have to dispute Kellen's claim that the Workers Party is any ally; they are mere puppets of the PAP and this has been borne out by many political events in Singapore.
"steveuk, as I mentioned previously, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) is the only party whose official position is decrmianlization and full equality for gays since 2005."
So is it published in their manifesto? Where is the evidence for your statement? I doubt Fridae is pro any particular party, and I think it would have published such a stand if they knew of it.
That was why i asked if i have read it correctly or not. If Malaysia would support, i would be damn surprised!
Here's the correction: "Is not fantastic at all then. Unfortunately, these countries that claimed themselves as "religious" will definitely opposed. It is just a matter of time that these countries will change ... will we live to see this happen?
On the brighter side (for Singaporeans); at least your country is not in the list of Syrian statement unlike my country. There is still hope, sg. As long as our "money-sucker politicians" are still around, there's very little hope!
Thank you euro-asian, jammyboi & amoebavirgin for pin-pointing my comments ;)
Btw, keep a reminder in your mobile phone:
March 28, 8:30pm - Lights off for the Earth hour.
"As a nation, we must not only show tolerance but also acceptance of our fellow citizens regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or political persuasion. Discrimination of our fellow human beings has been one human frailty that has wreaked much destruction and misery."
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/the-party/what-we-stand-for
However, I don't recall reading about "sexual orientation" in their vision in 2006. Does anyone know when it was added?
The problem is that they have no representation in Parliament and they had only contested 1 Group Representation Constituency (GRC) and 1 Single Member Constituency (SMC) in the last elections.
I quote you:
"The problem is that they have no representation in Parliament and they had only contested 1 Group Representation Constituency (GRC) and 1 Single Member Constituency (SMC) in the last elections. "
Your stated "problem" is precisely what we have to "resolve" by awarding our support accordingly. A little bit of a chicken-and-egg paradox here isn't it?
steveuk:
"Perhaps it is people in those parties that are self serving, if they're not prepared to stand up for gays as a matter of principle because discrimination is wrong, but instead require some impossible quid pro quo that all gay people support whatever the rest of their policies are for the rest of their lives. "
Ideally, the queer support should swing in favor of a party that recognizes our rights and is at the same time competent. "Ideally". And of course there is a possibility that the anti-discrimination stance taken by a party is merely a pawn in political chess game. But with all that said, we all know politics is never clean and our leverage is our voting power which can easily turn on any ruling party which eats its word. The problem is how we get PLUs or in general most SG ppl to see the worth of that voting slip in their hands and how we unite together to exercise our (real) voting rights.
Surely you need to know what each candidate of whatever party would do to, at least, help decriminalise? I guess in the UK our non-aligned lobbyists, Ian McKellan's "Stonewall", would be writing to all the MP's and candidates explaining the situation and asking them precisely that, and publishing the results so people can make an informed choice about their local candidates.
Even while we sort out any differences there may be, I hope that you will help me keep the interest on a matter that is important to all of us.
I will be re-posting my message whenever it is opportune to do so, I hope that you will support me in this.
I am not an SDP member, but I have finally come round to supporting them because of their undeniable consistency in all human rights issues.
请先登入再使用此功能。