A culture war has broken out at the United Nations over whether gays should be singled out for the same protections as other minorities whose lives are threatened.
The battle will come to a head tomorrow when the General Assembly votes to renew its routine condemnation of the unjustified killing of various categories of vulnerable people.
It specifies killings for racial, national, ethnic, religious and linguistic reasons and includes refugees, indigenous people and other groups.
But the resolution, because of a change promoted by Arab and African nations and approved at committee level, has dropped 'sexual orientation' and replaces it with 'discriminatory reasons on any basis'.
The U.S. government says it is 'incensed' at the change, as are gay rights campaigners.
'Even if those countries do not support gay rights, you would think they would support our right not to be killed,' said Jessica Stern of the New York-based International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.
Stern said gay people all over the world are frequent targets of violence because of their sexual orientation.
Paul Elam's take is most interesting:
The United Nations has been a long time ally of gender ideologues, promoting feminist politics on a global level and creating countless committees and funding organizations dedicated to women’s causes. Intertwined in the language from many of those organizations are statements of support for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered citizens of nations across the world.
It is consistent with popular feminism’s apparent support for people in those communities, as you would find stated in the charters in most feminist organizations.
If you sense a but here, there is one, and it is big enough to make J-Lo jealous.
On the 17th of this month, the nations of the U.N. voted to remove sexual orientation from a resolution condemning summary and arbitrary executions. The resolution admonishes member nations to protect the right to life of all people, and calls on states to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. For the past 10 years, the resolution included sexual orientation in the list of discriminatory grounds on which killings are often based.
But the specification of gays was removed by a vote of 79 for, 70 against, 17 abstentions and 26 absent. It effectively issued an international gay hunting license for the numbers of nations that consider homosexuality to be a criminal offense, often looking the other way when gays are murdered, and including the 5 or so nations that treat it as a crime punishable by death.
As you might imagine, the feminist reaction has been, well, it has been… nonexistent.
In another moment of selective and convenient political silence by western feminists, their reaction to this shocking vote echoed with the intensity of their objections to Bill Clinton lying and obstructing justice related to his extramarital sexual exploits.
In other words, they, for once, kept their mouths shut.
If you visit the NOW website and do a search on the United Nations, you will get a number of returns on that organization. The top three are rants about why the U.N. has not elected a female Secretary-General. The remaining pages of results are filled with standard NOW fare concerned with the treatment of women and girls across the planet, especially in nations where feminist ideology meets the staunchest resistance.
Off to the left, as you can see in the pic provided, is a link to a single page outlining NOW’s valiant efforts to support lesbians, especially across the more solvent demographics of white, professional, western culture.
What you will have difficulty finding anywhere on the site is any mention of the fact that the United Nations, the organization that has become a hotbed for promoting their influence, just issued fag hacking carte blanche to any nation who wants it. A number of them do.
And of course, it makes me wonder.
Could it be because those laws are almost exclusively enforced against men?
Well, that would be the case.
While most countries that outlaw and even execute homosexuals are regarded as dangerous to both gays and lesbians, their laws are not written in gender neutral terms. For instance in Iran, under Sharia Law, the penal code contains the following provisions:
“The punishment for sodomy [lavat] where penetration has occurred is death, and the method of execution is at the discretion of the Sharia judge.”
-- Article 110, Islamic Republic Penal Code
In other words, the death penalty is only provided for acts common to male homosexuals, e.g. penetration. So while lesbians may well be punished, the most severe consequences are reserved for men.
This holds true for even lesser offenses, and the laws are written in a fashion that targets males even more specifically. Article 123, for example, reads: “If two men, unrelated to one another, lie, without necessity, naked under the same cover, they will each be punished by up to 99 lashes of the whip.”
Again, this is not to say the lesbianism is condoned or would go unpunished, but it is clear that the laws target males by design.
This is further evidenced and documented in a report from Iranrights.org:
In July 2005, after an inconclusive medical report, a court in Esfahan sentenced five young men to 75 lashes apiece and three years of exile to Khouzistan province for “having confessed one time to a homosexual act.” According to Arsham Parsi, founder of Iranian Queer Organization, “being flogged has become routine for many Iranian gays who may even express relief at the fact that they were ‘only sentenced to corporal punishment.’ ”
Twenty-nine years of institutionalized violence and discrimination have driven Iranian gays and transsexuals [bold text mine] to an underground life marked by the fear of being caught. It has also made them easy targets of violence in recent government campaigns against “hooligans”. In the summer of 2007, the Revolutionary Tribunal of Shiraz sentenced several “hooligans” to prison and other punishments. Among them were two men whose punishment included 175 lashes each for homosexual acts.  More recently, in March 2008, another “morality campaign” led to the arrest of 30 male guests at a party in Esfahan. Security forces broke into a private home, and the guests were arrested, detained for weeks with no access to legal counsel, and reportedly examined for evidence of homosexual sex. 
Where are the female victims in all this madness?
My guess, and I have to qualify it as a guess because empirical gender breakdown statistics are elusive, is that in relative terms they don't exist any more than feminist outrage over dead gay men.
And of course one would have to figure that if watchdog organizations wanted to invoke the maximum sympathetic response from the world community, they would be showcasing such travesties committed against women.
But time and time again as I researched this information, it was references to males, and males only, who were beaten, imprisoned, hanged and stoned for their sexual choices and conduct.
Does NOW’s silence make a little more sense now?
At the start of last month, I wrote a piece “The Problem With Gay Rights,” in which I asserted my belief that gay men in western culture were backing the wrong horse by siding with feminist ideologues simply because they have taken to flying a gay banner and have been making some meaningless political noise about gay marriage.
I have just been proven right again.
The women’s movement is quick to toss out the catch all phrase, “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered.”
Don’t buy it for a minute. The only word that really matters at all to feminists in that phrase is Lesbian, because lesbians are female, and because lesbians comprise a healthy percentage of their leadership and power players.
Gay men who think that feminists are really their advocates are nothing more than window dressing; useful idiots used to garner public approval from the egalitarian minded. And as we can witness, with our own eyes on this very day, they will be abandoned to malicious and murderous judgement, like all other forms of male fodder, without a second thought.
The only discernable reason for it, other than inherent utility and disposability as males, is that the real focus for feminists is to get another white, western woman elected to a lucrative and powerful position so that she can return favours to the sisters that got her there.