Latest UN shocker: 'It's ok to kill gays'.

[slark01]

An article from The Spectator. If true seriously disgusting.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6520779/latest-un-shocker-its-ok-to-kill-gays.thtml

I must admit that I am very liberal, I certainly do not care if a person is gay or not, or anything else for that matter ( as long as it's not harmful to others or to myself ).
If this article is true I hope that there are mass demonstrations towards the UN.

Discuss..


Ste.

[speedplay]

I'm off to find reeder....

[husky03]

its not right

[-Ralph-]

article from The Spectator

...is a lot of carp anyway.

Concluding that the UN is the problem, in relation to world peace, not the resolution, simply because less than half it's member states house cultures that have not yet sufficiently evolved to accept homosexuality?

Amongst the worst pieces of journalism I have ever read.

[Ed]

Ditto. I had a hunt in the minutes of the Third Committee (for social affairs) and I can't find it. Not to say that it isn't there, but the debates are so turgid that I gave up looking.

[B1k3R]

Just let people be who they want to be providing all are consenting.

What worries me is it could be another reason for people to come to the UK and claim asylum. Just add it to the list.

[timwilky]

Of course it is OK to kill gays.
So long as the crime they are sentenced for is not for being gay.

Well actually, I would rather nobody ever was murdered by their state.

[-Ralph-]

Well actually, I would rather nobody ever was murdered by their state.

I dunno, being a British citizen, then living your entire life off cheating the benefits system, then plotting to blow up (or succeeding in the case of July 7) the taxpayers who supported you all your life.

And this is just one of the many examples, where I'd be quite happy if the state would just knock off some of it's citizens ;)

[Ed]

Dangerous territory...

...absolutely opposed.

[slark01]

Just gone through a shed load of documents and yes they did have a meeting on the 15th november 2010 to do with this. I'm now getting a blooming headache, so have decided to leave it for now, but will check it out at a later date.
However what is curious is that there is a document that shows they had the vote on the 16th:- http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/65/docs/voting_sheets/L.29Rev.1.pdf
If this article is a load of bull, then ok ignore it, however if it is not, then we as humans have failed BIG time.

Ste.

[-Ralph-]

Not disputing the results of the vote, but many of those votes are from parts of the world where you couldn't expect any different. I'm disputing the conclusions drawn by the journalist.

[Biker Biggles]

I dunno, being a British citizen, then living your entire life off cheating the benefits system, then plotting to blow up (or succeeding in the case of July 7) the taxpayers who supported you all your life.

And this is just one of the many examples, where I'd be quite happy if the state would just knock off some of it's citizens ;)

My recollection of that Thursday morning is that those particular "citizens" did a good job of knocking themselves off;)
One thing about suicide bombers is that they save us from having the capital punishment debate eh? :D

[-Ralph-]

My recollection of that Thursday morning is that those particular "citizens" did a good job of knocking themselves off;)
One thing about suicide bombers is that they save us from having the capital punishment debate eh? :D

Pity the state didn't get to them first though eh?

[Mr Speirs]

That's a ****ing disgrace!! If there are countries in the UN that don't recgnise the basic human rights of gay people then they shouldn't be in the UN!! The UN was started because of the atrocities the Nazis inflicted upon people in the holocaust. The holocaust wasn't just about exterminating jewish people but black, disabled, insane, sick, people with genetic defects and homosexuals.
It is the very reason the UN exsist yet they let these countries who discriminate even against women be part of the United Nations!!
They've lost sight of their mission.

[-Ralph-]

They've lost sight of their mission.

Or they accept that Rome wasn't built in a day.

You can't force attitude change, you have expose to something different, then steer and coax. If they don't allow the countries that harbour these attitudes be members, then how will they ever achieve that mission?

Whether the UN have lost sight of their mission, or whether they are effective in their mission is another argument. But this vote on gays doesn't conclude that argument.

[yorkie_chris]

You can't force attitude change,

Go explain that to the seppos! :p