I, and some four friends, are walking on Dedza Mountain right now- and I must say the small town down there looks marvelous.
On our way up here- which started four hours ago- we have seen a variety of birds. I must say I have never seen most of the before.
And there are other interesting things, too.
It is god and beautiful on Dedza Mountain.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Declaration by the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, on behalf of the European Union
on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, 25 November 2010
Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. I take this opportunity to call on the international community to work harder to counter violence against women worldwide.
Violence against women and girls is probably the most widespread human rights violation of our time. It claims millions of victims each year, cuts across age, socio-economic, educational and geographic boundaries and affects all societies.
Sexual violence and rape as a tool of war bring about grave suffering and undermine peace-building as well as economic development. The tenth anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 is an opportunity to strengthen the fight against sexual violence, to empower women to take action in securing peace and to bring perpetrators to justice. A decade after the fact, the EU is ready to lead by example.
However, violence against women is by no means a problem limited to conflicts. Eliminating all forms of violence against women and girls is a priority for the European Union. I urge all countries to step up their fight against impunity and to protect and reintegrate victims of violence. These include women and girls affected by harmful traditional practices such as female genital mutilation, female infanticide and pre-natal sex selection as well as victims of domestic violence, which is one of the most common and least visible forms of violence against women. The EU will support third countries in their efforts.
The establishment of a new UN entity dedicated to women’s rights and gender equality, "UN Women," should help bolster the capacity of the international community to counter violence against women. I look forward to close collaboration with UN Women.
Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. I take this opportunity to call on the international community to work harder to counter violence against women worldwide.
Violence against women and girls is probably the most widespread human rights violation of our time. It claims millions of victims each year, cuts across age, socio-economic, educational and geographic boundaries and affects all societies.
Sexual violence and rape as a tool of war bring about grave suffering and undermine peace-building as well as economic development. The tenth anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 is an opportunity to strengthen the fight against sexual violence, to empower women to take action in securing peace and to bring perpetrators to justice. A decade after the fact, the EU is ready to lead by example.
However, violence against women is by no means a problem limited to conflicts. Eliminating all forms of violence against women and girls is a priority for the European Union. I urge all countries to step up their fight against impunity and to protect and reintegrate victims of violence. These include women and girls affected by harmful traditional practices such as female genital mutilation, female infanticide and pre-natal sex selection as well as victims of domestic violence, which is one of the most common and least visible forms of violence against women. The EU will support third countries in their efforts.
The establishment of a new UN entity dedicated to women’s rights and gender equality, "UN Women," should help bolster the capacity of the international community to counter violence against women. I look forward to close collaboration with UN Women.
Journalists on the frontlines of press freedom honored
For Immediate Release
New York, November 24, 2010—Outstanding journalists at the forefront of the battle for press freedom in Ethiopia, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela were honored Tuesday evening at the Committee to Protect Journalists’ 20th Annual International Press Freedom Awards benefit dinner.
The event raised a record of nearly $1.5 million for CPJ’s work exposing press freedom violations, providing assistance to targeted journalists, and advocating for solutions to guarantee the right to independent and critical reporting.
Celebrating at New York’s Waldorf-Astoria, 900 guests paid tribute to the courage shown by Dawit Kebede (Awramba Times, Ethiopia), Nadira Isayeva (Chernovik, Russia), and Laureano Márquez (Tal Cual, Venezuela) in reporting the news and keeping citizens informed. A fourth award winner, Mohammad Davari, (Saham News, Iran), remains imprisoned in Iran for having reported on alleged rape, torture, and abuse at the now-closed Kahrizak Detention Center. The Burton Benjamin Memorial Award, honoring a lifetime of work to advance press freedom, was presented to Aryeh Neier, president of the Open Society Institute.
“These journalists embody the struggle to report the news without fear of reprisal. Their work defies censorship,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “Their courage is a shield for many journalists asking questions and exposing uncomfortable truths, even at personal risk.”
The awards dinner was chaired by Sir Howard Stringer, chairman and CEO of Sony Corporation, and hosted by CPJ board member and former “NBC Nightly News” anchor Tom Brokaw, replacing current NBC anchor Brian Williams, who was originally scheduled to host the evening.
With a view toward the future, Paul Steiger, CPJ chairman and editor-in-chief of ProPublica, reflected on strides made in advancing press freedom and outlined recurrent challenges that require the perseverance of organizations such as CPJ.
The awards to Márquez and Kebede were presented by Victor Navasky, chairman of the Columbia Journalism Review, and Robert Thomson, editor-in-chief of Dow Jones and managing editor of The Wall Street Journal. Isayeva’s award was presented by author, journalist, and human rights defender Kati Marton. CPJ co-founder Michael Massing presented the award to Aryeh Neier. Christiane Amanpour, host of ABC News’ “This Week,” introduced award winner Davari and urged dinner guests to sign a petition addressed to Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei, as part of CPJ efforts to help release Davari. The petition will also be promoted online in the lead up to International Human Rights Day on December 10.
J.S. Tissainayagam, a formerly imprisoned Sri Lankan journalist who was given a CPJ International Press Freedom Award in 2009, received his award in person on Tuesday, presented by Gwen Ifill, senior correspondent for “The PBS NewsHour.”
The event included the premiere of a short documentary commemorating the anniversary of the massacre in Maguindanao province, Philippines, in which 57 people were ambushed in a shocking act of political violence. Thirty-two of those killed were journalists and media workers. CPJ is working with local journalist groups to advocate for justice, and is providing financial assistance to victims’ families as part of its Global Campaign Against Impunity, which is supported by the John. S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
During his acceptance speech, Laureano Márquez pointed to the role of humor in conquering fear, saying, “Fear is not only a concern for citizens of countries enduring authoritarianism. Fear transcends borders and finds complicit silence in other countries and in international organizations that should speak up and take a position, but don’t.”
Dawit Kebede referred to the innate curiosity that led him to become a journalist and talked about the irony of a particular law in his native Ethiopia: “My country receives millions of American taxpayer dollars to fight terrorism in the Horn of Africa, but under our anti-terrorism law, I risk 25 years in prison if I interview certain opposition politicians.”
Nadira Isayeva faces the possibility of eight years in prison but in addressing the audience, she spoke of what would be worse to her than jail: “What frightens me more is the possibility that some day in the future, a reader of my newspaper might say to me: ‘When people were kidnapped, tortured, and executed without trial, you were silent.’ ”
New York, November 24, 2010—Outstanding journalists at the forefront of the battle for press freedom in Ethiopia, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela were honored Tuesday evening at the Committee to Protect Journalists’ 20th Annual International Press Freedom Awards benefit dinner.
The event raised a record of nearly $1.5 million for CPJ’s work exposing press freedom violations, providing assistance to targeted journalists, and advocating for solutions to guarantee the right to independent and critical reporting.
Celebrating at New York’s Waldorf-Astoria, 900 guests paid tribute to the courage shown by Dawit Kebede (Awramba Times, Ethiopia), Nadira Isayeva (Chernovik, Russia), and Laureano Márquez (Tal Cual, Venezuela) in reporting the news and keeping citizens informed. A fourth award winner, Mohammad Davari, (Saham News, Iran), remains imprisoned in Iran for having reported on alleged rape, torture, and abuse at the now-closed Kahrizak Detention Center. The Burton Benjamin Memorial Award, honoring a lifetime of work to advance press freedom, was presented to Aryeh Neier, president of the Open Society Institute.
“These journalists embody the struggle to report the news without fear of reprisal. Their work defies censorship,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “Their courage is a shield for many journalists asking questions and exposing uncomfortable truths, even at personal risk.”
The awards dinner was chaired by Sir Howard Stringer, chairman and CEO of Sony Corporation, and hosted by CPJ board member and former “NBC Nightly News” anchor Tom Brokaw, replacing current NBC anchor Brian Williams, who was originally scheduled to host the evening.
With a view toward the future, Paul Steiger, CPJ chairman and editor-in-chief of ProPublica, reflected on strides made in advancing press freedom and outlined recurrent challenges that require the perseverance of organizations such as CPJ.
The awards to Márquez and Kebede were presented by Victor Navasky, chairman of the Columbia Journalism Review, and Robert Thomson, editor-in-chief of Dow Jones and managing editor of The Wall Street Journal. Isayeva’s award was presented by author, journalist, and human rights defender Kati Marton. CPJ co-founder Michael Massing presented the award to Aryeh Neier. Christiane Amanpour, host of ABC News’ “This Week,” introduced award winner Davari and urged dinner guests to sign a petition addressed to Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei, as part of CPJ efforts to help release Davari. The petition will also be promoted online in the lead up to International Human Rights Day on December 10.
J.S. Tissainayagam, a formerly imprisoned Sri Lankan journalist who was given a CPJ International Press Freedom Award in 2009, received his award in person on Tuesday, presented by Gwen Ifill, senior correspondent for “The PBS NewsHour.”
The event included the premiere of a short documentary commemorating the anniversary of the massacre in Maguindanao province, Philippines, in which 57 people were ambushed in a shocking act of political violence. Thirty-two of those killed were journalists and media workers. CPJ is working with local journalist groups to advocate for justice, and is providing financial assistance to victims’ families as part of its Global Campaign Against Impunity, which is supported by the John. S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
During his acceptance speech, Laureano Márquez pointed to the role of humor in conquering fear, saying, “Fear is not only a concern for citizens of countries enduring authoritarianism. Fear transcends borders and finds complicit silence in other countries and in international organizations that should speak up and take a position, but don’t.”
Dawit Kebede referred to the innate curiosity that led him to become a journalist and talked about the irony of a particular law in his native Ethiopia: “My country receives millions of American taxpayer dollars to fight terrorism in the Horn of Africa, but under our anti-terrorism law, I risk 25 years in prison if I interview certain opposition politicians.”
Nadira Isayeva faces the possibility of eight years in prison but in addressing the audience, she spoke of what would be worse to her than jail: “What frightens me more is the possibility that some day in the future, a reader of my newspaper might say to me: ‘When people were kidnapped, tortured, and executed without trial, you were silent.’ ”
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Rains expose Blantyre's poor drainage system
Heavy rains in Blantyre have exposed, yet again, the city's poor water drainage system, with water flloding into shops in the Central Business District.
Blantyre: Beautiful city marred by a poor drainage system
The rains, which are still falling now, have forced such shops as White Rose Botique, Jeet Hardware, among others, to close down as knee-high rain water continue to flow into the shops.
A motorcyle, Dz 1745, is half-merged in water, and a dozen drivers outside White Rose Botique are stranded- unable to get into their vehicles because of the dirty water sorrounding their vehicles.
"The situation is very bad. This has been a longtime problem and the Blantyre City Assembly seems to be failing us. Of course, they have tried to renovate and repair the drainage system but, everytime the rains come, we continue to experince the same problem: water overflows into shops," says Michael Banda, owner of a Toyota Camry vehicle Registration Number CZ 254 now sorrounded by water.
Its tyres are submerged. Banda has to take off his shoes if he wants to go home now.
Blantyre City Assembly officials say the city has a development plan, but bemoan lack of public interest in the same, saying the development has translated into increased numbers of infrastructre constructed in undesignated places.
The rains, which are still falling now, have forced such shops as White Rose Botique, Jeet Hardware, among others, to close down as knee-high rain water continue to flow into the shops.
A motorcyle, Dz 1745, is half-merged in water, and a dozen drivers outside White Rose Botique are stranded- unable to get into their vehicles because of the dirty water sorrounding their vehicles.
"The situation is very bad. This has been a longtime problem and the Blantyre City Assembly seems to be failing us. Of course, they have tried to renovate and repair the drainage system but, everytime the rains come, we continue to experince the same problem: water overflows into shops," says Michael Banda, owner of a Toyota Camry vehicle Registration Number CZ 254 now sorrounded by water.
Its tyres are submerged. Banda has to take off his shoes if he wants to go home now.
Blantyre City Assembly officials say the city has a development plan, but bemoan lack of public interest in the same, saying the development has translated into increased numbers of infrastructre constructed in undesignated places.
I will not leave DPP- Vice-President Joyce Banda
Her comments follow increased pressure on the veep to support the presidency of Mutharika’s younger brother, Peter. DPP officials have been openly endorsing Education Minister Peter, with nobody coming out in support of Banda.
The veep has not has it smooth the past five months: state-run media now shun her; senior government ministers pester her to support Peter; DPP officials no longer openly associate with her, in fear they may be branded ‘traitors’ by party zealots- situations compounded by an accident the veep had earlier this week, when a lorry rammed into her official Mercedes Benz minutes after she changed vehicles.
Banda is, however, unfazed
“I will not leave the ruling party, and will be there till 2014 and beyond. There are many issues to look into: maternal mortality and morbidity, increased malaria and Tuberculosis deaths, the suppression of women in Malawi, and increased poverty levels. That is why I have had no time for petty issues,” said Banda.
She expressed gratitude to president Mutharika, saying his continued support for women empowerment “has kept me going, even in the face of difficult challenges”.
“It is because of His Excellency the State President, Ngwazi Professor Bingu wa Mutharika, that I am hear. I appreciate his support for women, and hope that he will continue to respect and protect the dignity and rights of women in the country,” said Banda.
Banda said experiences encountered in the course of her work as Vice-President have “made me strong, and I hope to continue representing Malawian women. Women have a role to play in development, and should not be cowed by men” and this is what “I have learned from my office” so far.
The Vice-President also thanked Malawians for their support.
“Malawians have done a lot for me. It is my prayer that we will continue to work together, and that God will always be on our side. My appeal to Malawians is that they should learn to stick to their principles, and not be forced to toe other people’s line of thinking when that is against the common good. If it is for the common good, it does not hurt to change one’s stand over an issue; if it is meant to serve selfish purposes, don’t do it,” she added.
Banda said, even in the face of "so many mounting challenges, I will stand still and worki "tirelessly for mother Malawi: our people need development".
She also said she was grateful for the trust the international community has placed in her, citing her recently confirmed role as one of Africa’s top sexual reproductive health rights campaigners.
“It is an honour, not only on me, but Malawi as a whole. Through mu humble efforts, Malawi’s flag will fly high,” she said.
Heterosexual couple refused civil partnership
A heterosexual Quaker couple, Ian Goggin and Kristin Skarsholt, were refused a civil partnership at Bristol Register Office this morning, Tuesday, 23 November. The registrar cited the legal ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships as the reason for the refusal.
Commenting on the refusal, Kristin Skarsholt (22) said:
"We are disappointed that we were not able to have our relationship legally recognised. Ian and I genuinely wish to secure legal recognition as civil partners. We are determined to fight through the courts to end the legal segregation that continues to keep straight and gay couples in separate institutions.
PHOTO CREDITS: CHRIS HOUSTON
"Just as our gay friends are excluded from civil marriage, we are being excluded from having a civil partnership. This is discriminatory segregation on the basis of sexual orientation. It is wrong," she said.
Ian Goggin (21) added:
"Although the register staff were extremely helpful, they were unable to offer us a civil partnership. They felt obliged to act in accordance with the law as it currently stands. We thank them for their politeness. We regret this rejection but our resolve to carry on the campaign for equality remains strong.
"We are hopeful that our forthcoming legal case, led by Professor Robert Wintemute and Peter Tatchell, will eventually end discrimination against heterosexual couples in civil partnership law. Next time we come here to apply for a civil partnership we are confident there will be a happier outcome," he said.
See more quotes from Ian and Kristin at the end of this news release.
Skarsholt and Goggin are both Bristol-based students at the University of West England. Kristin is studying Arabic and Ian is studying music technology. She was born in Norway and he in Ireland. They've been in a relationship together for two years. Both are Quakers and met at a Quaker retreat.
Kristin and Ian's application today is part of the new Equal Love campaign, which seeks the repeal of the twin prohibitions on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships.
www.equallove.org.uk
Kristin and Ian are the fourth of eight couples who will file applications at register offices across the country, in an effort to overturn the "sexual segregation" in civil marriage and civil partnership law.
The Equal Love campaign is organised by the gay rights group OutRage! and coordinated by the human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.
Ian and Kristin are being advised by the Equal Love campaign's legal expert, Robert Wintemute, Professor of Human Rights Law at Kings College London.
"By excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, and different-sex couples from civil partnership, the UK Government is discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation, contrary to the Human Rights Act," said Professor Wintemute.
"The twin bans violate Article 14 (protection against discrimination), Article 12 (the right to marry) and Article 8 (the right to respect for family life).
"The rights attached to civil marriage and civil partnership are identical, especially with regard to adoption of children, donor insemination, and surrogacy. There is no longer any justification for excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage and different-sex couples from civil partnership. It's like having separate drinking fountains or beaches for different racial groups, even though the water is the same. The only function of the twin bans is to mark lesbian and gay people as inferior to heterosexual people," he said.
\
Equal Love's campaign coordinator, Peter Tatchell, was in Bristol for the civil partnership application attempt and to support Skarsholt and Goggin. He added:
"We seek heterosexual equality. In a democratic society, everyone should be equal before the law. There should be no discrimination based on sexual orientation.
"Denying heterosexual couples the right to have a civil partnership is discriminatory and offensive. We want to see it ended, so that straight couples like Tom and Katherine can have the option of a civil partnership.
"The bans on same-sex civil marriages and on opposite-sex civil partnerships are a form of sexual apartheid. There is one law for straight couples and another law for gay partners. Two wrongs don't make a right.
"We see the Equal Love campaign as a historic quest for justice; morally equivalent to the campaigns to overturn the bans on inter-racial marriage in apartheid South Africa and the Deep South of the USA.
"From 2 November onwards, eight couples will file applications at register offices in London, Northampton, Bristol and Havant. Four same-sex couples will apply for civil marriages and four heterosexual couples will apply for civil partnerships. One couple will make an application every week until 14 December. Once all the applications have been refused, the eight couples will consult our lawyer and agree a joint legal action.
"Our aim is to secure equality in civil marriage and civil partnership law. We want both systems open to all couples, gay and straight, so that everyone has a free and equal choice.
Just as gay couples should be able to marry, civil partnerships should be available to straight couples.
"Same-sex marriage is the growing trend all over the world. It exists in Canada, Argentina and South Africa, as well as seven of our European neighbours: Portugal, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Iceland. We want marriage equality in Britain too.
"Political support for ending the ban on gay marriage is growing. London Mayor, Boris Johnson, and former Conservative Party Vice-Chair, Margot James MP, have both come out in favour of allowing lesbian and gay couples to marry in a registry office, on the same terms as heterosexual partners.
"This view is also endorsed by the leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, and by the deputy prime minister Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats.
"Both the Liberal Democrat and the Green party conferences have voted overwhelmingly in favour of ending the bans on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships," noted Mr Tatchell.
Public attitudes have shifted strongly in favour of allowing gay couples to marry. A Populus opinion poll in June 2009 found that 61% of the public believe that: "Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships." Only 33% disagreed.
See here:
http://www.populuslimited.com/the-times-the-times-gay-britain-poll-100609.html
Ian Goggin (21) said:
"We want a civil partnership for two reasons. It better reflects our relationship, and we can't condone the baseless discrimination between civil marriages and civil partnerships.
"We seek the security and stability of a legal commitment, without the necessity to be associated with the language and culture of marriage. I don't identify with this culture, and cannot think of Kristin as my 'wife'. She is my partner, we work together, sharing responsibilities.
"We believe in access to civil partnerships for all. The similar Pacte Civil de Solidarité in France is extremely popular, with 95% of those taking it up in 2009 being heterosexual couples.
"A key reason we won't get married is that we don't want to take part in an institution that excludes our homosexual friends. We feel a fair society shouldn't countenance this kind of hurtful sexual orientation discrimination and hope this campaign can go some way towards challenging such discrimination," he said.
Kristin Skarsholt (22) added:
"It is important for me to be recognised as a 'partner' to Ian, and for him being acknowledged as a 'partner' to me; rather than him being 'the husband' and me being 'his wife'. A civil partnership is a better reflection of our equal relations and our love for each other.
"Having both civil marriages and civil partnerships open to everyone is an important part of the struggle for equality. It recognises the universality of love, commitment, stability and security.
"We should all have the right to choose the institution that best reflects our relationship.
"Segregating gay and straight couples means that people of different sexualities are not being treated equally before the law," she concluded.
Commenting on the refusal, Kristin Skarsholt (22) said:
"We are disappointed that we were not able to have our relationship legally recognised. Ian and I genuinely wish to secure legal recognition as civil partners. We are determined to fight through the courts to end the legal segregation that continues to keep straight and gay couples in separate institutions.
PHOTO CREDITS: CHRIS HOUSTON
"Just as our gay friends are excluded from civil marriage, we are being excluded from having a civil partnership. This is discriminatory segregation on the basis of sexual orientation. It is wrong," she said.
Ian Goggin (21) added:
"Although the register staff were extremely helpful, they were unable to offer us a civil partnership. They felt obliged to act in accordance with the law as it currently stands. We thank them for their politeness. We regret this rejection but our resolve to carry on the campaign for equality remains strong.
"We are hopeful that our forthcoming legal case, led by Professor Robert Wintemute and Peter Tatchell, will eventually end discrimination against heterosexual couples in civil partnership law. Next time we come here to apply for a civil partnership we are confident there will be a happier outcome," he said.
See more quotes from Ian and Kristin at the end of this news release.
Skarsholt and Goggin are both Bristol-based students at the University of West England. Kristin is studying Arabic and Ian is studying music technology. She was born in Norway and he in Ireland. They've been in a relationship together for two years. Both are Quakers and met at a Quaker retreat.
Kristin and Ian's application today is part of the new Equal Love campaign, which seeks the repeal of the twin prohibitions on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships.
www.equallove.org.uk
Kristin and Ian are the fourth of eight couples who will file applications at register offices across the country, in an effort to overturn the "sexual segregation" in civil marriage and civil partnership law.
The Equal Love campaign is organised by the gay rights group OutRage! and coordinated by the human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.
Ian and Kristin are being advised by the Equal Love campaign's legal expert, Robert Wintemute, Professor of Human Rights Law at Kings College London.
"By excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, and different-sex couples from civil partnership, the UK Government is discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation, contrary to the Human Rights Act," said Professor Wintemute.
"The twin bans violate Article 14 (protection against discrimination), Article 12 (the right to marry) and Article 8 (the right to respect for family life).
"The rights attached to civil marriage and civil partnership are identical, especially with regard to adoption of children, donor insemination, and surrogacy. There is no longer any justification for excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage and different-sex couples from civil partnership. It's like having separate drinking fountains or beaches for different racial groups, even though the water is the same. The only function of the twin bans is to mark lesbian and gay people as inferior to heterosexual people," he said.
\
Equal Love's campaign coordinator, Peter Tatchell, was in Bristol for the civil partnership application attempt and to support Skarsholt and Goggin. He added:
"We seek heterosexual equality. In a democratic society, everyone should be equal before the law. There should be no discrimination based on sexual orientation.
"Denying heterosexual couples the right to have a civil partnership is discriminatory and offensive. We want to see it ended, so that straight couples like Tom and Katherine can have the option of a civil partnership.
"The bans on same-sex civil marriages and on opposite-sex civil partnerships are a form of sexual apartheid. There is one law for straight couples and another law for gay partners. Two wrongs don't make a right.
"We see the Equal Love campaign as a historic quest for justice; morally equivalent to the campaigns to overturn the bans on inter-racial marriage in apartheid South Africa and the Deep South of the USA.
"From 2 November onwards, eight couples will file applications at register offices in London, Northampton, Bristol and Havant. Four same-sex couples will apply for civil marriages and four heterosexual couples will apply for civil partnerships. One couple will make an application every week until 14 December. Once all the applications have been refused, the eight couples will consult our lawyer and agree a joint legal action.
"Our aim is to secure equality in civil marriage and civil partnership law. We want both systems open to all couples, gay and straight, so that everyone has a free and equal choice.
Just as gay couples should be able to marry, civil partnerships should be available to straight couples.
"Same-sex marriage is the growing trend all over the world. It exists in Canada, Argentina and South Africa, as well as seven of our European neighbours: Portugal, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Iceland. We want marriage equality in Britain too.
"Political support for ending the ban on gay marriage is growing. London Mayor, Boris Johnson, and former Conservative Party Vice-Chair, Margot James MP, have both come out in favour of allowing lesbian and gay couples to marry in a registry office, on the same terms as heterosexual partners.
"This view is also endorsed by the leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, and by the deputy prime minister Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats.
"Both the Liberal Democrat and the Green party conferences have voted overwhelmingly in favour of ending the bans on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships," noted Mr Tatchell.
Public attitudes have shifted strongly in favour of allowing gay couples to marry. A Populus opinion poll in June 2009 found that 61% of the public believe that: "Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships." Only 33% disagreed.
See here:
http://www.populuslimited.com/the-times-the-times-gay-britain-poll-100609.html
Ian Goggin (21) said:
"We want a civil partnership for two reasons. It better reflects our relationship, and we can't condone the baseless discrimination between civil marriages and civil partnerships.
"We seek the security and stability of a legal commitment, without the necessity to be associated with the language and culture of marriage. I don't identify with this culture, and cannot think of Kristin as my 'wife'. She is my partner, we work together, sharing responsibilities.
"We believe in access to civil partnerships for all. The similar Pacte Civil de Solidarité in France is extremely popular, with 95% of those taking it up in 2009 being heterosexual couples.
"A key reason we won't get married is that we don't want to take part in an institution that excludes our homosexual friends. We feel a fair society shouldn't countenance this kind of hurtful sexual orientation discrimination and hope this campaign can go some way towards challenging such discrimination," he said.
Kristin Skarsholt (22) added:
"It is important for me to be recognised as a 'partner' to Ian, and for him being acknowledged as a 'partner' to me; rather than him being 'the husband' and me being 'his wife'. A civil partnership is a better reflection of our equal relations and our love for each other.
"Having both civil marriages and civil partnerships open to everyone is an important part of the struggle for equality. It recognises the universality of love, commitment, stability and security.
"We should all have the right to choose the institution that best reflects our relationship.
"Segregating gay and straight couples means that people of different sexualities are not being treated equally before the law," she concluded.
I am committed to Moroka Swallows- Kanyenda
Flames striker, Esau Kanyenda, has dismissed suggestions he has signed for South Africa's Premier League side, Moroka Swallows, to ease the pressure of hunting for a team.
The Malawi National Soccer team forward will be contracted to the bottom-stuck Swallows up to June 2011, raising concerns in South Africa that he was out to make money, and abandon the team should it face the chop.
"I am committed to Swallows and have just signed the one-season contract for a start. I hope it will become a long-term romance," he said.
The Malawi National Soccer team forward will be contracted to the bottom-stuck Swallows up to June 2011, raising concerns in South Africa that he was out to make money, and abandon the team should it face the chop.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Pilirani Lazaro: Cuts testicle to become Malawi's uncrowned 'new face of poverty'
No, there is no madness in it- it is a 'real' act, done to better his life and family's well-being.
Here is a man, now in pain at Kamuzu Central Hospital, who wanted the best for his stomach. Next year, he wants to eat, but he will only eat if he works to day.
How does he do that without fertiliser, to pump productivity in his crops. It is maize we mean, by reffering to crops.
So, he decided to get rid of his testicles. 'They' might have done their job already- let's go to his home and count his children!
He wanted food for his family, so he decided to get rid of any 'extra' buggage.
Anything that 'clings' to you is a burden- it was never meant to be there!
Our man, Pilirani Lazaro, searched for something that was there, but was, in actual fact, not supposed to be there! He looked for anything 'hanging', and found that there was something that to his terbanacle of clay, but was always covered. If you take out something that can't be seen, it's as if it was not there- our man might have thought. And so he went on, to get rid of something he did not invent but found- something that was there when he came down the way of all the world.
Out, go, he thought; I want a bag of fertliser now.
Well, the 'thing' went; but the pain has become incessant- so discomfortable Lazaro has been complaining aroud: 'It pains!'.
But it's gone, the thing is gone.
Doctors at Kamuzu Central Hospital, the main hospital in the Central region, have failed to 'bring it back'. It is gone.
What we learn, from this story, is that poverty is real in Malawi- not only in Dowa where the man (?) hails from.
People are struggling to make ends meet.
People have wishes, and want to have the basics in life.
If they fail to get them by hook or crook, they will go the extra-mile. Inflicting pain on themselves and others. Shaming the nation.
Pilirani Lazaro is Malawi's living face of poverty today. And this must give us, all of us, food for thought.
What has 'gone' here may be small, but the implications are big.
'Small things' like 'these' have been known to 'build' nations!
Ask Abraham, the Father of All Nations!
Here we are.
CNN MULTICHOICE AFRICAN JOURNALIST AWARDS 2011
CNN International and MultiChoice this week officially launched the CNN MultiChoice African Journalist 2011 Awards. The winners of these prestigious annual Awards will be announced at a gala ceremony to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa in June 2011.
Tony Maddox, Executive Vice President and Managing Director of CNN International, said: “The CNN MultiChoice African Journalist Awards have been encouraging excellence in journalism across the continent for 16 years and are truly a highlight in CNN's editorial calendar. I’m delighted that they continue to grow in stature and prestige, and it’s a humbling experience each year to see and experience such dedication, passion and talent. 2011 promises to be another year of stellar African journalism.”
Collins Khumalo, President MultiChoice Africa, said: “MultiChoice Africa is delighted to once again participate in Africa’s largest and most coveted journalism awards. Each year we are proud of the talent showcased at the awards and excited about the great progress made in African journalists telling the African story. We believe as an African company that our participation makes a significant contribution towards the development of media in Africa.”
Sam Rogers, from e.tv South Africa, was awarded the top prize at the CNN MultiChoice African Journalist 2010 Awards ceremony. Sam, won for ‘The Curse of the Nobody People’, which was chosen from among 2074 entries from 44 nations across the African continent.
Sam said: “Winning the CNN MultiChoice African Journalist of the Year was possibly the highlight of my career. What an honour to be chosen a winner among so many brilliant African journalists, to be listed alongside the very best who have won this prestigious accolade over the years. What a wonderful platform the CNN MultiChoice award is. It has allowed us to broadcast to a wider audience, to highlight the plight of persecuted Tanzanian albinos and has begun changing perceptions in that region. Their voices were finally heard. “
Over the past 16 years, the competition has grown in size and status to become Africa’s most prestigious media event. In 2010, a ‘Highlights Programme’ of the ceremony, held in Kampala, Uganda, was broadcast in 47 African countries, on the Africa Channel in the US, UK and the Caribbean, OBE TV and RTP Africa.
This year, the competition will recognise excellence in the following categories:
· Arts & Culture Award
· Digital Journalism Award
· Economics & Business Award
· Environment Award
· Free Press Africa Award
· The HIV/AIDS Reporting Award
· Mohamed Amin Photographic Award
· MSD Health & Medical Award
· Print General News Award
· Radio General News Award
· Sport Award
· Television Features Award
· Television News Bulletin Award
· Tourism Award
· Francophone General News Awards
· Portuguese Language General News Award
From these category winners, the judges choose the overall winner - The CNN MultiChoice African Journalist 2011.
Finalists in the 2011 competition will participate in a four day finalists’ programme that will include a media forum and networking opportunities with senior journalists, editors, business leaders and media owners from across the continent, culminating in a gala awards ceremony in June, 2011. All finalists receive a cash prize and each category winner also receives a laptop and printer. The CNN MultiChoice African Journalist 2011 will receive an additional cash prize and a trip to CNN Center in Atlanta.
The independent judging panel includes: Ikechukwu Amaechi, Editor, Daily Independent, Nigeria; Jean-Paul Gérouard, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, France 3 TV; Ferial Haffajee, Editor-in-Chief, City Press, South Africa; Joel Kibazo, journalist and media consultant; Arlindo Lopes, Secretary General, Southern African Broadcasting Association; José Luís Mendonça, Press Counsellor, Angolan Permanent Delegation to UNESCO; Zipporah Musau, Managing Editor, Magazines, The Standard Group Ltd, Kenya; Kim Norgaard, CNN Bureau Chief, South Africa.
The competition is open to African nationals who are professional journalists including freelancers across print, television, internet, photographic and radio. Full details on how to enter can be found by logging on at www.cnn.com/africanawards. The closing date for entries is 27 January 2011. There will NOT be any extensions of this closing date, and entries received after this date may be disqualified. The judging will take place in April, 2011. All entries should be broadcast or published during January 2010 – December 2010. www.cnn.com/africanawards
Issued: 19 November 2010
Tony Maddox, Executive Vice President and Managing Director of CNN International, said: “The CNN MultiChoice African Journalist Awards have been encouraging excellence in journalism across the continent for 16 years and are truly a highlight in CNN's editorial calendar. I’m delighted that they continue to grow in stature and prestige, and it’s a humbling experience each year to see and experience such dedication, passion and talent. 2011 promises to be another year of stellar African journalism.”
Collins Khumalo, President MultiChoice Africa, said: “MultiChoice Africa is delighted to once again participate in Africa’s largest and most coveted journalism awards. Each year we are proud of the talent showcased at the awards and excited about the great progress made in African journalists telling the African story. We believe as an African company that our participation makes a significant contribution towards the development of media in Africa.”
Sam Rogers, from e.tv South Africa, was awarded the top prize at the CNN MultiChoice African Journalist 2010 Awards ceremony. Sam, won for ‘The Curse of the Nobody People’, which was chosen from among 2074 entries from 44 nations across the African continent.
Sam said: “Winning the CNN MultiChoice African Journalist of the Year was possibly the highlight of my career. What an honour to be chosen a winner among so many brilliant African journalists, to be listed alongside the very best who have won this prestigious accolade over the years. What a wonderful platform the CNN MultiChoice award is. It has allowed us to broadcast to a wider audience, to highlight the plight of persecuted Tanzanian albinos and has begun changing perceptions in that region. Their voices were finally heard. “
Over the past 16 years, the competition has grown in size and status to become Africa’s most prestigious media event. In 2010, a ‘Highlights Programme’ of the ceremony, held in Kampala, Uganda, was broadcast in 47 African countries, on the Africa Channel in the US, UK and the Caribbean, OBE TV and RTP Africa.
This year, the competition will recognise excellence in the following categories:
· Arts & Culture Award
· Digital Journalism Award
· Economics & Business Award
· Environment Award
· Free Press Africa Award
· The HIV/AIDS Reporting Award
· Mohamed Amin Photographic Award
· MSD Health & Medical Award
· Print General News Award
· Radio General News Award
· Sport Award
· Television Features Award
· Television News Bulletin Award
· Tourism Award
· Francophone General News Awards
· Portuguese Language General News Award
From these category winners, the judges choose the overall winner - The CNN MultiChoice African Journalist 2011.
Finalists in the 2011 competition will participate in a four day finalists’ programme that will include a media forum and networking opportunities with senior journalists, editors, business leaders and media owners from across the continent, culminating in a gala awards ceremony in June, 2011. All finalists receive a cash prize and each category winner also receives a laptop and printer. The CNN MultiChoice African Journalist 2011 will receive an additional cash prize and a trip to CNN Center in Atlanta.
The independent judging panel includes: Ikechukwu Amaechi, Editor, Daily Independent, Nigeria; Jean-Paul Gérouard, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, France 3 TV; Ferial Haffajee, Editor-in-Chief, City Press, South Africa; Joel Kibazo, journalist and media consultant; Arlindo Lopes, Secretary General, Southern African Broadcasting Association; José Luís Mendonça, Press Counsellor, Angolan Permanent Delegation to UNESCO; Zipporah Musau, Managing Editor, Magazines, The Standard Group Ltd, Kenya; Kim Norgaard, CNN Bureau Chief, South Africa.
The competition is open to African nationals who are professional journalists including freelancers across print, television, internet, photographic and radio. Full details on how to enter can be found by logging on at www.cnn.com/africanawards. The closing date for entries is 27 January 2011. There will NOT be any extensions of this closing date, and entries received after this date may be disqualified. The judging will take place in April, 2011. All entries should be broadcast or published during January 2010 – December 2010. www.cnn.com/africanawards
Issued: 19 November 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Lucius Banda at the bridge of life
This year, he clocked 40 years.
He was happy: "40 years is a bridge. It will help me link with the youth while growing old. That is why I want to make a try on the United Democratic Front presidency," said Lucius.
As he piles year after another, he seems to have grown in his compositions. Increasingly, he is talking about love.
Any political lessons from Rev. Daniel Gunya?
We all know that Rev. Daniel Gunya stood as a United Democratic Front aspiring Member of Parliament in Machinga and, sorry to say, never made it to Parliament.
Zachimalawi thought Rev. Gunya could be the light to those seeking to combine religion and politics. That is the business now- trying to contact the flamboyant Reverend and tap from his experiences.
Soon, Rev. Gunda will share with us.
Register on Youth Leadership Project Malawi
And create your own Poetry site.
http://poetry.atmalawi.com/
http://poetry.atmalawi.com/
Bulletin of Christian persecution
November 1 - November 18, 2010
November 1, 2010
Iraq
Jihadis kill 58 Catholic Christians in church in Iraq. Update HERE. See photos HERE (Hat tip to AtlasShrugs Warning: graphic images). UPDATE: Exiled Archbishop calls on Iraqi Christians to leave the country. UPDATE: Christian refugees head for France.
Russia
Two Russian Orthodox churches and one Baptist church were targeted by arsonists on Monday night. One of them was almost burnt to the ground. More HERE.
November 2, 2010
Turkey
On the night between 28 and 29 October, unknown assailants entered, in the cemetery of the island of Panagia Imvros and seriously vandalised 78 graves.
Bangladesh
Muslim villagers last month beat a 63-year-old Christian convert and his youngest son because they refused to return to Islam.
November 3, 2010
Iraq
Al qaeda group says Christians are legitimate targets for 'terrorism."
November 5, 2010
Azerbaijan
Police burst into a private home and arrested 4 of Baptist Christians "guilty" of praying together.
Kuwait
Islamic fundamentalists preventing the construction of a church in Kuwait.(Sharia law that says that Christians cannot build new churches or fix old ones).
November 7, 2010
Israel (Hat tip to JihadWatch)
Israeli authorities have charged the imam of a mosque in Nazareth with inciting violence against Pope Benedict and supporting al Qaeda and "global jihad."
Malaysia (Hat tip to InfidelsAreCool )
Muslim converts to Christianity in Malaysia have been taken to Islamic camps to try to force them back to Islam.
November 8, 2010
Iraq (Hat tip to JihadWatch)
In another attack against Christians in Iraq, a week after the massacre in the Syrian Catholic Church of Our Lady of Salvation in Baghdad, two worshipers were killed.
November 9, 2010
Pakistan
A Christian woman is sentenced to death for committing blasphemy against Islam by speaking of how Jesus had died on the cross for the sins of humanity and asking Muslim women what Muhammad had done for them. More HERE.
November 10, 2010
Iraq
A string of anti-Christian bombings has cost six more lives in the wake of the Baghdad church bloodbath, sowing panic in Iraq's 2,000-year-old minority on Wednesday, many of whom now want to flee. More HERE.
November 11, 2010
Iran
Senior Islamic cleric calls on the Pope to "react to U.S. crimes and to… consider the Qur'an as holy as the Gospels and Torah and condemn the disgraceful act of torching the Qur'an.
November 13, 2010
Egypt
Muslim/Christian tensions boiling up in Egypt.
Iran
An Iranian Christian pastor was sentenced to be hung for apostasy.
Europe
An article on Christian refugees who are fleeing from Iraq to Europe and there is no mention of the cause. Why?
Afghanistan
Afghan convert to Christianity goes on trial for aspostasy. Background on this story HERE.
November 15, 2010
Canada
A Roman Catholic bishop speaks out about the persecution of the massacre of Iraqi Christians.
Egypt
Muslim attackers in upper Egypt started fires in Coptic Christian houses while Copts were still inside. Update HERE.
November 16, 2010
Nigeria
Muslim gunmen raided Ranwianku, attacking villagers with rifle fire and machetes; homes were burned and cattle killed.
November 17, 2010
Mid-East (Hat tip to InfidelsAreCool)
The Arab Christians of the Mid-East are being driven to extinction.
November 18, 2010
Pakistan
A man accused of blasphemy was shot and killed near his home in Lahore shortly after being granted bail by a court.
November, 2010
Special Report from France Translated (Hat tip to derville, via AtlasShrugs)
derville said...
. . . As you probably know, Christian cemeteries in France are profaned about every two days:
"In 2008, 275 Christian places of worship have been vandalized (146 cemeteries and 129 churches, chapels and shrines). The following year, the figures rose from 42% to 180 and 209. And for the first half of 2010, we are already at 288 acts listed, all Christian places of worship included. "(...) This increasingly aggressive climate against Christians now lead to church attacks.
Christians stoned during mass in the Church of Viguier (5th November)
Tuesday, November 2, around 18:30, when he celebrated Mass for the deceased in the presence of about sixty followers, two teenagers of North African origin have entered the church whose doors were obviously open. "They started throwing stones at people, and hard pine cones. They must have been 13 or 14 years old. A woman was slightly injured. [...] "With previous generations, we have the best possible relations. We even received last year the wishes of the Muslim community for Christmas. But there is a young generation with a more and more aggressive behavior, "says Bruno Garrouste. More HERE (Hat tip to IslamInEurope).
Insulting tags and feces thrown on St. John Church in Avignon (12th November)
For several months, Father Gabriel's church St. John's, has been the target of obscene and offensive tags and excrements. Last week, the fire was set at Cypress adjacent to the religious building, threatening to spread flames to the church. For this priest, "these acts have a direct link with what is happening in Iraq where Christians were attacked."
At the outset, Father Gabriel talks about inter-community tensions and denounces "an increasingly aggressive climate and violence maintained by a small group of young people 12/13 years up to 16 years old." A few days before the burning of Cypress, a youth entered the church during mass, urinating on the porch saying, "We'll toast you all, you and your church."
November 1, 2010
Iraq
Jihadis kill 58 Catholic Christians in church in Iraq. Update HERE. See photos HERE (Hat tip to AtlasShrugs Warning: graphic images). UPDATE: Exiled Archbishop calls on Iraqi Christians to leave the country. UPDATE: Christian refugees head for France.
Russia
Two Russian Orthodox churches and one Baptist church were targeted by arsonists on Monday night. One of them was almost burnt to the ground. More HERE.
November 2, 2010
Turkey
On the night between 28 and 29 October, unknown assailants entered, in the cemetery of the island of Panagia Imvros and seriously vandalised 78 graves.
Bangladesh
Muslim villagers last month beat a 63-year-old Christian convert and his youngest son because they refused to return to Islam.
November 3, 2010
Iraq
Al qaeda group says Christians are legitimate targets for 'terrorism."
November 5, 2010
Azerbaijan
Police burst into a private home and arrested 4 of Baptist Christians "guilty" of praying together.
Kuwait
Islamic fundamentalists preventing the construction of a church in Kuwait.(Sharia law that says that Christians cannot build new churches or fix old ones).
November 7, 2010
Israel (Hat tip to JihadWatch)
Israeli authorities have charged the imam of a mosque in Nazareth with inciting violence against Pope Benedict and supporting al Qaeda and "global jihad."
Malaysia (Hat tip to InfidelsAreCool )
Muslim converts to Christianity in Malaysia have been taken to Islamic camps to try to force them back to Islam.
November 8, 2010
Iraq (Hat tip to JihadWatch)
In another attack against Christians in Iraq, a week after the massacre in the Syrian Catholic Church of Our Lady of Salvation in Baghdad, two worshipers were killed.
November 9, 2010
Pakistan
A Christian woman is sentenced to death for committing blasphemy against Islam by speaking of how Jesus had died on the cross for the sins of humanity and asking Muslim women what Muhammad had done for them. More HERE.
November 10, 2010
Iraq
A string of anti-Christian bombings has cost six more lives in the wake of the Baghdad church bloodbath, sowing panic in Iraq's 2,000-year-old minority on Wednesday, many of whom now want to flee. More HERE.
November 11, 2010
Iran
Senior Islamic cleric calls on the Pope to "react to U.S. crimes and to… consider the Qur'an as holy as the Gospels and Torah and condemn the disgraceful act of torching the Qur'an.
November 13, 2010
Egypt
Muslim/Christian tensions boiling up in Egypt.
Iran
An Iranian Christian pastor was sentenced to be hung for apostasy.
Europe
An article on Christian refugees who are fleeing from Iraq to Europe and there is no mention of the cause. Why?
Afghanistan
Afghan convert to Christianity goes on trial for aspostasy. Background on this story HERE.
November 15, 2010
Canada
A Roman Catholic bishop speaks out about the persecution of the massacre of Iraqi Christians.
Egypt
Muslim attackers in upper Egypt started fires in Coptic Christian houses while Copts were still inside. Update HERE.
November 16, 2010
Nigeria
Muslim gunmen raided Ranwianku, attacking villagers with rifle fire and machetes; homes were burned and cattle killed.
November 17, 2010
Mid-East (Hat tip to InfidelsAreCool)
The Arab Christians of the Mid-East are being driven to extinction.
November 18, 2010
Pakistan
A man accused of blasphemy was shot and killed near his home in Lahore shortly after being granted bail by a court.
November, 2010
Special Report from France Translated (Hat tip to derville, via AtlasShrugs)
derville said...
. . . As you probably know, Christian cemeteries in France are profaned about every two days:
"In 2008, 275 Christian places of worship have been vandalized (146 cemeteries and 129 churches, chapels and shrines). The following year, the figures rose from 42% to 180 and 209. And for the first half of 2010, we are already at 288 acts listed, all Christian places of worship included. "(...) This increasingly aggressive climate against Christians now lead to church attacks.
Christians stoned during mass in the Church of Viguier (5th November)
Tuesday, November 2, around 18:30, when he celebrated Mass for the deceased in the presence of about sixty followers, two teenagers of North African origin have entered the church whose doors were obviously open. "They started throwing stones at people, and hard pine cones. They must have been 13 or 14 years old. A woman was slightly injured. [...] "With previous generations, we have the best possible relations. We even received last year the wishes of the Muslim community for Christmas. But there is a young generation with a more and more aggressive behavior, "says Bruno Garrouste. More HERE (Hat tip to IslamInEurope).
Insulting tags and feces thrown on St. John Church in Avignon (12th November)
For several months, Father Gabriel's church St. John's, has been the target of obscene and offensive tags and excrements. Last week, the fire was set at Cypress adjacent to the religious building, threatening to spread flames to the church. For this priest, "these acts have a direct link with what is happening in Iraq where Christians were attacked."
At the outset, Father Gabriel talks about inter-community tensions and denounces "an increasingly aggressive climate and violence maintained by a small group of young people 12/13 years up to 16 years old." A few days before the burning of Cypress, a youth entered the church during mass, urinating on the porch saying, "We'll toast you all, you and your church."
From the Population Council: Results from a Contraceptive Gel Study
The Population Council is developing a contraceptive gel that can be applied to the skin and contains the progestin Nestorone® and a form of estrogen called estradiol. Council Director of Clinical Development Ruth Merkatz presented results from a promising small study at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in October 2010.
The study
The colorless and odorless gel, provided to the Population Council by Antares Pharma, Inc., dries quickly and leaves no residue.
The Population Council evaluated three different doses of the gel applied on the woman's abdomen to determine which dose worked best to prevent ovulation (the monthly release of an egg from the ovary).
The study also evaluated gel safety and women's perceptions of using this gel as a contraceptive method.
Eighteen women in their 20s and 30s volunteered to be in the trial, which was conducted in Chile, the Dominican Republic, and the United States.
Each participant was instructed to use one of the three doses for 21 days. After a month of not using the gel, the woman then proceeded to the second dose for 21 days, followed by another month of nonuse before proceeding to the third and final testing cycle.
The women were asked to put a small amount of the gel on their abdomen once a day. They were instructed to cover the application site with clothes after the gel dried and to wash their hands after they had used the gel.
The study measured ovulation suppression. It did not measure whether or not the volunteers would get pregnant. In fact, the women in this study were not at risk of becoming pregnant. Some had a tubal ligation, others had partners with a vasectomy, but all volunteers were selected because they were not going to get pregnant.
The findings
The data demonstrated that the gel prevented ovulation in all women who used it as recommended.
The study results have helped the investigators determine the appropriate dose for preventing ovulation and ensuring that a proper level of estrogen is maintained in the woman's body.
There were no serious health concerns reported during the study.
Side effects that were reported were mild, such as a headache.
A majority of women in this small study reported that they found the gel easy to use and convenient.
This study did not evaluate the gel's impact on breastfeeding women. Contraceptives that contain estrogens are not recommended for use in breastfeeding women.
Additional studies will now need to be carried out in larger populations of women to evaluate whether the gel is effective in preventing pregnancy, how it affects the monthly bleeding patterns, and to confirm its safety on a larger scale.
If further studies continue to yield positive results, a product could be available to consumers in approximately five years.
This research is part of the Population Council's ongoing efforts to expand the array of effective, safe, affordable, and easy-to-use contraceptive options.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Governments Remove Sexual Orientation from UN Resolution Condemning Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions
For Immediate Release
Contact:
John Fisher
Co-Director
ARC International
ph: +41-79-508-3968 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +41-79-508-3968 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
john@arc-international.net
www.arc-international.net
Sara Perle
Ric Weiland Research & Policy Associate
IGLHRC
ph: 212-430-6015 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 212-430-6015 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
sperle@iglhrc.org
The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and ARC International are deeply disappointed with yesterday’s vote in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly to remove a reference to sexual orientation from a resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The resolution urges States to protect the right to life of all people, including by calling on states to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. For the past 10 years, the resolution has included sexual orientation in the list of discriminatory grounds on which killings are often based.
The removed reference was originally contained in a non-exhaustive list in the resolution highlighting the many groups of people that are particularly targeted by killings - including persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, persons acting as human rights defenders (such as lawyers, journalists or demonstrators) as well as street children and members of indigenous communities. Mentioning sexual orientation as a basis on which people are targeted for killing highlights a situation in which particular vigilance is required in order for all people to be afforded equal protection.
The amendment removing the reference to sexual orientation was sponsored by Benin on behalf of the African Group in the UN General Assembly and was adopted with 79 votes in favor, 70 against, 17 abstentions and 26 absent.
“This vote is a dangerous and disturbing development,” said Cary Alan Johnson, Executive Director of IGLHRC. “It essentially removes the important recognition of the particular vulnerability faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people - a recognition that is crucial at a time when 76 countries around the world criminalize homosexuality, five consider it a capital crime, and countries like Uganda are considering adding the death penalty to their laws criminalizing homosexuality.”
This decision in the General Assembly flies in the face of the overwhelming evidence that people are routinely killed around the world because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation, and renders these killings invisible or unimportant. The Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions has highlighted documented cases of extrajudicial killings on the grounds of sexual orientation including individuals facing the death penalty for consensual same-sex conduct; individuals tortured to death by State actors because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation; paramilitary groups killing individuals because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation as part of “social cleansing” campaigns; individuals murdered by police officers with impunity because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation; and States failing to investigate hate crimes and killings of persons because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation.
"It is a matter of great shame that the responsible Committee of the United Nations General Assembly failed in its responsibility to explicitly condemn well-documented killings based on sexual orientation," said John Fisher, Co-Director of ARC international. "The credibility of the United Nations requires protection of all persons from violations of their fundamental human rights, including on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. We thank those States which supported the inclusion of sexual orientation in the text, and will redouble our collective efforts to ensure that Member States of the United Nations maintain the standards they have sworn to uphold."
The amendment runs counter to other positive developments in UN and regional human rights systems where there is increased recognition of the need for protection from discrimination regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. At a September 2010 panel held in conjunction with a session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon unequivocally recognized “the particular vulnerability of individuals who face criminal sanctions, including imprisonment and in some cases the death penalty, on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Sixty-eight countries have also signed a joint statement in the UN General Assembly on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity which calls for an end to “human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity … in particular the use of the death penalty on this ground [and] extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.”
IGLHRC and ARC International urge all States, regardless of their vote on this amendment, to sign the UNGA joint statement affirming support of the human rights of all people, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity and to continue in efforts to decriminalize same-sex conduct and to end other discrimination, including violence, on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
The votes to amend the resolution were as follows:
In favor of the amendment to remove sexual orientation from the resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (79):
Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Sala, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Opposed to the amendment to remove sexual orientation from the resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (70):
Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia (FS), Monaco, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela
Abstain (17):
Antigua-Barbuda, Barbados, Belarus, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Colombia, Fiji, Mauritius, Mongolia, Papau New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Vanuatu
Absent (26):
Albania, Bolivia, Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Marshall Island, Mauritania, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Sao Tome Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Togo, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan
Contact:
John Fisher
Co-Director
ARC International
ph: +41-79-508-3968 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +41-79-508-3968 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
john@arc-international.net
www.arc-international.net
Sara Perle
Ric Weiland Research & Policy Associate
IGLHRC
ph: 212-430-6015 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 212-430-6015 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
sperle@iglhrc.org
The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and ARC International are deeply disappointed with yesterday’s vote in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly to remove a reference to sexual orientation from a resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The resolution urges States to protect the right to life of all people, including by calling on states to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. For the past 10 years, the resolution has included sexual orientation in the list of discriminatory grounds on which killings are often based.
The removed reference was originally contained in a non-exhaustive list in the resolution highlighting the many groups of people that are particularly targeted by killings - including persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, persons acting as human rights defenders (such as lawyers, journalists or demonstrators) as well as street children and members of indigenous communities. Mentioning sexual orientation as a basis on which people are targeted for killing highlights a situation in which particular vigilance is required in order for all people to be afforded equal protection.
The amendment removing the reference to sexual orientation was sponsored by Benin on behalf of the African Group in the UN General Assembly and was adopted with 79 votes in favor, 70 against, 17 abstentions and 26 absent.
“This vote is a dangerous and disturbing development,” said Cary Alan Johnson, Executive Director of IGLHRC. “It essentially removes the important recognition of the particular vulnerability faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people - a recognition that is crucial at a time when 76 countries around the world criminalize homosexuality, five consider it a capital crime, and countries like Uganda are considering adding the death penalty to their laws criminalizing homosexuality.”
This decision in the General Assembly flies in the face of the overwhelming evidence that people are routinely killed around the world because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation, and renders these killings invisible or unimportant. The Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions has highlighted documented cases of extrajudicial killings on the grounds of sexual orientation including individuals facing the death penalty for consensual same-sex conduct; individuals tortured to death by State actors because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation; paramilitary groups killing individuals because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation as part of “social cleansing” campaigns; individuals murdered by police officers with impunity because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation; and States failing to investigate hate crimes and killings of persons because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation.
"It is a matter of great shame that the responsible Committee of the United Nations General Assembly failed in its responsibility to explicitly condemn well-documented killings based on sexual orientation," said John Fisher, Co-Director of ARC international. "The credibility of the United Nations requires protection of all persons from violations of their fundamental human rights, including on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. We thank those States which supported the inclusion of sexual orientation in the text, and will redouble our collective efforts to ensure that Member States of the United Nations maintain the standards they have sworn to uphold."
The amendment runs counter to other positive developments in UN and regional human rights systems where there is increased recognition of the need for protection from discrimination regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. At a September 2010 panel held in conjunction with a session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon unequivocally recognized “the particular vulnerability of individuals who face criminal sanctions, including imprisonment and in some cases the death penalty, on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Sixty-eight countries have also signed a joint statement in the UN General Assembly on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity which calls for an end to “human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity … in particular the use of the death penalty on this ground [and] extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.”
IGLHRC and ARC International urge all States, regardless of their vote on this amendment, to sign the UNGA joint statement affirming support of the human rights of all people, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity and to continue in efforts to decriminalize same-sex conduct and to end other discrimination, including violence, on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
The votes to amend the resolution were as follows:
In favor of the amendment to remove sexual orientation from the resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (79):
Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Sala, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Opposed to the amendment to remove sexual orientation from the resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (70):
Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia (FS), Monaco, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela
Abstain (17):
Antigua-Barbuda, Barbados, Belarus, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Colombia, Fiji, Mauritius, Mongolia, Papau New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Vanuatu
Absent (26):
Albania, Bolivia, Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Marshall Island, Mauritania, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Sao Tome Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Togo, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan
General Assembly Will Hold ‘World Conference on Indigenous Peoples’ in 2014,
16 November 2010
General Assembly
GA/SHC/3997
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Sixty-fifth General Assembly
Third Committee
46th Meeting (AM)
General Assembly Will Hold ‘World Conference on Indigenous Peoples’ in 2014,
Under Terms of Resolution Recommended by Third Committee
Also Approves Five Other Texts on Extrajudicial Executions, Leprosy,
United Nations Refugee High Commissioner, Practices Fuelling Racism, Globalization
Concerned about the extreme social and economic disadvantages that indigenous peoples have faced, the Third Committee approved a draft resolution today that would have the General Assembly organize a high-level plenary meeting in 2014 — to be known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples in 2014 -- to share perspectives and best practices on the realization of indigenous peoples’ rights.
Approved without a vote, the document would invite the President of the General Assembly to determine the modalities for the high-level meeting, including indigenous peoples’ participation at the Conference, through open-ended consultations with Member States, indigenous people’s representatives in the framework of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples.
The Assembly would also expand the mandate of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations, so that it could assist representatives of indigenous peoples’ organizations and communities to participate in sessions of the Human Rights Council and human rights treaty bodies.
The draft resolution on indigenous issues was one of six that the Committee took action on this morning, addressing such issues as extrajudicial executions, contemporary forms of racism, discrimination against persons affected by leprosy, globalization’s impact on the enjoyment of human rights and the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
During action on the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Committee engaged in a debate over and ultimately approved by a vote of 79 in favour to 70 against with 17 abstentions an amendment removing “sexual orientation” as one of the discriminatory reasons that killings had been committed and warranted investigation.
The representative of Benin, on behalf of the African Group, the main sponsor of the amendment, said that sexual orientation had no legal foundation in any international human rights instruments and there was no legal justification to highlight it. St. Lucia stated that listing specific groups was dangerous because it could lead to the omission of some people and legal manipulation by following the letter of the law in an unintended way, while Morocco asserted that such selectivity should be avoided because it accommodated particular interests and groups over others. South Africa added that a formal process to define sexual orientation and its parameters under human rights law was needed to prevent future division on the issue.
On the other hand, the representative of Sweden stated that sexual orientation had often been the motive for extrajudicial killings, and the deletion of the reference would amount to the Committee looking the other way concerning arbitrary executions based on sexual orientation. Both Finland and France noted that the reference to sexual orientation had been included in the resolution since 1999, based on the Special Rapporteur’s concern for homosexuals that had been victims of such crimes – a concern that still persisted. Switzerland pointed out that homophobic violence was still a reality caused by law enforcement forces in many countries.
In the end, the draft resolution, by which the General Assembly would strongly condemn all extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions that continued throughout the world and demand that all States ensure the practice of such executions be brought to an end, had sufficient agreement to be approved by a vote of 165 in favour to 0 against, with 10 abstentions.
The Committee approved the draft resolution on the inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to 1 against, with 55 abstaining. The draft resolution on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights was approved by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to 53 against, with 0 abstaining. The draft resolutions on enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members were adopted without a vote.
During action on draft resolutions, statements and explanations of vote were also made by the representatives of Bolivia, United Kingdom, Russian Federation, Belarus, Benin, Belgium (on behalf of the European Union), United States, Switzerland, Sudan, Cuba, Iran, Jamaica, Norway, Japan, Egypt, Brazil and Chile.
Also, a draft resolution on follow-up to the Durban Declaration was introduced by the representative of Yemen (on behalf of the Group of 77 and China).
Background
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to hear the introduction of a draft resolution entitled Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/C.3/65/L.60).
It was also expected to take action on the following draft resolutions; Enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/65/L.24/Rev.1); Indigenous issues (document A/C.3/65/L.22/Rev.1); Inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/C.3/65/L.50); Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/65/L.29/Rev.1 and an amendment thereto contained in document A/C.3/65/L.65), Elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members (document A/C.3/65/L.37) and Globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/65/L.38).
Introduction on Draft Resolution
The Committee first heard the introduction of a draft resolution entitled Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/C.3/65/L.60), by the representative of Yemen, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.
He said that, throughout the past 10 years, the world community had witnessed difficult progress in the implementation of the Durban Declaration to eradicate the scourge of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. New manifestations of racism were being seen and they must be confronted. In the current session, document L.60 was being presented to the Committee, with a focus on the forthcoming 10th anniversary of the 2000 World Congress against Racism, to be held in New York in September 2011. The event provided a timely opportunity to mobilize the political will of heads of States. The co-sponsors would like to see the 10th year commemoration celebrated in a different manner, with the culmination and being adoption of an outcome showing global resolve to end racism.
The text incorporated general principles that guided the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, he said. It included the issue of racism in sports, shown through the “Say No to Racism” campaign during the recent FIFA World Cup. That legacy started in Germany and was encouraged to continue in Brazil and the 2014 World Cup. The work of the Special Rapporteur and some of his recommendations had been included in the resolution, to ensure that there was a follow-up on the matters he raised. Work on the Durban follow-up mechanisms was also included. The practical implementation of the Durban Declaration could be seen in the decision to erect a monument to the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and there was a call for financial support to finalize that decision. The co-sponsors hoped the resolution would be adopted by consensus, and they would show flexibility by not tabling a separate resolution concerning the high-level event to commemorate the 10th anniversary, with the understanding that a facilitator would be appointed to carry out that task.
Action on Resolutions
The Committee then took action on a draft resolution regarding Enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/65/L.24/Rev.1).
It would have the General Assembly decide to increase the number of members of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from 79 to 84 States, and request the Economic and Social Council to elect the additional members at its resumed organizational session for 2011.
The draft was approved without a vote.
The Committee then took action on a draft resolution on Indigenous issues (document A/C.3/65/L.22/Rev.1).
By its terms, the General Assembly would approve the expansion of the mandate of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations in order to facilitate the participation of representatives of indigenous peoples’ organizations in sessions of the Human Rights Council and of human rights treaty bodies. The Assembly would also decide to organize, under the auspices of the United Nations, a world Indigenous Peoples’ Conference in 2014, to adopt measures to pursue the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and invite the President of the General Assembly to begin consultations with Member States to determine the modalities of the conference.
The representative of Bolivia summarized the contents of the draft resolution and made an oral amendment. It was a great honour to announce that the list of co-sponsors now included the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Brazil. Bolivia very respectfully invited other delegations to consider joining the co-sponsors.
The draft was then approved as orally revised without a vote.
The representative of the United Kingdom expressed support for the draft on the understanding that the rights of indigenous peoples were as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The concept of collective law in international law, apart from the right of peoples to self-determination, was not recognized by the United Kingdom, which considered it important that individual rights not be superseded by collective rights. Collective rights could be granted only as a matter of national law.
The Committee then took action on a draft resolution on Inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/C.3/65/L.50).
By its terms, the General Assembly would express deep concern about the glorification of the Nazi movement and former members of the Waffen SS organization, including by erecting monuments and memorials and holding public demonstrations in the name of the glorification of the Nazi past, the Nazi movement and neo-Nazism, as well as by declaring or attempting to declare such members and those who fought against the anti-Hitler coalition and collaborated with the Nazi movement participants in national liberation movements. It would also express concern at recurring attempts to desecrate or demolish monuments erected in remembrance of those who fought against Nazism during the Second World War, as well as to unlawfully exhume or remove the remains of such persons. It would note with concern the increase in racist incidents in several countries and the rise of skinhead groups, which have been responsible for many of these incidents, as well as the resurgence of racist and xenophobic violence targeting members of ethnic, religious or cultural communities and national minorities.
The Assembly would stress that such practices do injustice to the memory of the victims of crimes against humanity committed in the Second World War, while at the same time fueling racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and contribute to the multiplication of extremist political parties, movements and groups, including neo-Nazis and skinhead groups. In that regard, it would call for increased political and legal vigilance, and call upon States to take more effective measures in accordance with international human rights law to combat those phenomena and the extremist movements, which pose a real threat to democratic values.
The representative of the Russian Federation, the main sponsor, who made an oral amendment to the draft, said this year was the sixty-fifth anniversary of the victory in the Second World War, as well as the Nuremberg trials. Sixty-five years had also passed since “our fathers and grandfathers” united against the forces of evil and called themselves the United Nations. They had come together for the future; why should their example be rejected? At issue was not political correctness, but the horrors of National Socialism and the rise of extremist groups, including neo-Nazis and skinheads, who often found inspiration in practices that the United Nations had been created to combat. During negotiations on the text, some had insisted that victory in the Second World War was unrelated to international human rights standards and that glorifying Nazism has nothing to do with human rights. That argument could not have been made 20 or 30 years ago, when veterans of the Second World War were still alive; how could it possibly be made now? Adoption of the resolution with the broadest possible support would contribute to combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance.
The representative of Belarus noted the urgency of the resolution. It would provide the young generation with a moral reference point. Events linked to Nazism were still remembered in his country, which lost about a third of its people in the Second World War. As a famous Russian poet had said, this was not for the dead, but for the living. Belarus would vote in favour of the draft.
The Chair, MICHEL TOMMO MONTHE ( Cameroon) said a recorded vote had been requested. When asked by the representative of the Russian Federation which delegation had asked for the vote, the Chair replied the United States.
In an explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Belgium, on behalf of the European Union, called neo-Nazism an abhorrent manifestation of racism and racial discrimination. Its threat had to be confronted at local, national and international levels. Neo-Nazism sought to undermine the core values of the United Nations. However, the fight against all manifestations of racism and xenophobia should not be used for extraneous purposes. Despite its desire to contribute to making the draft a comprehensive and credible response to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, some of its most serious concerns had not been addressed. As in past years, the draft was selective; it also contained language that would undermine a comprehensive approach, under which the Special Rapporteur on the issue would report to Human Rights Council and the General Assembly regularly. The European Union remained strongly committed to fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance and it remained ready to work on a text that would make a strong contribution in that regard. It would abstain from voting on the draft.
The representative of the United States said that his country had a deep commitment to honouring the memory of the lives lost in the Holocaust. However, it remained concerned that the resolution failed to distinguish between actions and statements that, while offensive, were protected by freedom of expression. The United States shared concern over the growing number of racist expressions; however, it did not believe in curtaining the freedom of expression. Individual freedom of speech should be robustly protected, even when ideas were full of hatred. Hateful ideas would fail because of their lack of merit. Offensive speech should not be criminalized. Instead, there should be measures such as proactive government outreach to minority groups and the vigorous defence of freedom of speech and religion. For those reasons, the United States would vote against the resolution.
The Committee then, approved the resolution on practices that fuel racism (A/C.3/65/L.50) by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to 1 against ( United States) with 55 abstaining.
After the vote, the representative of Switzerland said it regretted there had been only one informal meeting and that the concerns of some countries were not taken into account. Switzerland had abstained, because the resolution only referred to some forms of racism, and it believed that issues that fuelled racism were not limited to one historical period, but could be found throughout history.
The Committee then took action on a draft resolution on Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/65/L.29/Rev.1).
By its terms, the General Assembly would again strongly condemn all the extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions that continue to occur throughout the world, and demand that all States ensure that the practice of such executions is brought to an end and that they take effective action to prevent, combat and eliminate the phenomenon in all its forms and manifestations. It would reiterate the obligation of all States to investigate all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, to bring to justice those responsible, to grant compensation to the victims or their families, and to adopt legal and judicial measures to put an end to impunity and to prevent the further occurrence of such executions.
In addition, the Assembly would urge all States to take all necessary and possible measures, in conformity with international human rights law and international humanitarian law, to prevent loss of life, in particular that of children, during public demonstrations, internal and communal violence, civil unrest, public emergencies or armed conflicts. It would also urge States to prevent and, where such situations exist, to end prisoner control of prisons, and call upon those States that are under an obligation to cooperate with the International Criminal Court to provide such cooperation and assistance in the future, in particular with regard to arrest and surrender, the provision of evidence, the protection and relocation of victims and witnesses and the enforcement of sentences. It would go on to express its concern over the occurrence of vigilante killings and encourage States, in order to support efforts to prevent and end such killings, to undertake or facilitate systematic studies of the phenomenon, with a view to taking necessary legislative, judicial, administrative, and educative measures.
A proposed amendment (document A/C.3/65/L.65) would, in operative paragraph six, replace the words “any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation” with the words “discriminatory reasons on any basis”.
The representative of Finland, the main sponsor, said the list of co-sponsors had grown to 58 countries. However, it had not been possible to reach consensus on a reference to sexual orientation.
The Chair drew attention to the proposed amendment. The representative of Benin, its main sponsor, on behalf of the African Group, said the Group had repeatedly asked during informal negotiations for language that would bring needed comprehensiveness to the draft resolution. Sexual discrimination had no legal foundation in any international human rights instruments and there was no justification to highlight it. It was in the spirit of reaching consensus that the amendment, phrased in generic language, was being put forward. Comprehensiveness rather than selectivity was the key to ensuring the commitment of the international community against extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. If the international community wanted to discuss sexual orientation, it should do so in a direct way, in an agreed format, on another occasion.
The representative of Finland said the proposed amendment was unacceptable. She requested a recorded vote.
The representative of Morocco, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the Group was seriously concerned by controversial and undefined notions that had no foundation in international human rights instruments. Intolerance and discrimination existed in cases of colour, race, gender and religion, to mention only a few. Selectivity intended to accommodate certain interests over others had to be avoided by the international community. Such selectivity would set a precedent that would change the human rights paradigm in order to suit the interests of particular groups. An attempt to create new rights was a matter of concern for the Group. All Member States were urged to continue to devote special attention to the protection of the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society.
Wishing to make a general statement before the vote, the representative of Sweden said that, as one of the main sponsors, Sweden objected to the proposal to amend the resolution, by deleting the term “sexual orientation”. Sexual orientation had often been the motive for extrajudicial killings. The deletion of the reference would amount to the Committee looking the other way concerning arbitrary executions based on sexual orientation. States would not live up to their obligation to investigate and bring to justice those who committed such crimes. Denying the right to life and disregarding those in a vulnerable situation would not be acceptable to Sweden, so it would vote against the amendment. Sweden appealed to others to show that they did not condone unlawful killings and also to vote against the amendment.
As a traditional co-sponsor of the resolution, Switzerland said that it would vote against the amendment. Protection of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals was important. It was not an issue of protecting a specific group, but that a group would not be protected. Switzerland could not accept that lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals would not be covered. The reference to sexual orientation was not a general reference with regard to commitment. Switzerland believed that the reference was particularly important in this context and that people who were particularly threatened should be included. It was important to point out that homophobic violence was a reality caused by law enforcement forces in many countries throughout the world. The number of people killed on the basis of sexual identity had reached new levels, which was a major concern for all. That was a subject of concern for the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, who had been following the issue for more than 10 years. Switzerland called on States to vote against the amendment.
The representative of Finland noted that the reference to sexual orientation was first introduced a few years ago and a vote had been often called for, but always remained in the text. It was included in 1999 following the Special Rapporteur’s comments concerning execution and people at risk. That risk still persisted. The Special Rapporteur had continuously raised the risk in his report and in appeals to Member States. No one was claiming that one category was more worthy of protection than another. The purpose of including the reference was to alert States to arbitrary executions. The term “discriminatory racism” would include sexual orientation, but not everybody would understand, so it needed to be spelled out in the resolution, just as the Committee spelled out killings that were racially motivated or killings of national or linguistic minorities. The inclusion of sexual orientation in this list aimed to protect against execution on this basis – nothing more, nothing less. The main sponsor could not accept the amendment and would be voting against it. Finland asked others to do the same.
The representative of the United Kingdom said that the need for prompt investigation of all killings, including on the basis of sexual orientation, existed because of the continuing cause for concern. The list in the resolution could not be considered exhaustive and reflected abhorrent killings that the Special Rapporteur continued to identify in his reports, whether they be racially motivated killings or of human rights defenders. It was right that the resolution identify those at risk and call for appropriate action to be taken in that regard. Descriptive lists were getting longer and the instinct was to streamline them, but, sometimes, the attempt to streamline could suppress something that needed to be highlighted, and more was needed. The United Kingdom believed the current instance was one of those cases. To accept the amendment was to accept that these people did not need mention, and was an affront to human dignity. Like the main sponsor, the United Kingdom could not accept that and would be voting against the amendment.
The representative of St. Lucia, first, recognized the importance of the resolution and underscored the country’s commitment to human life and the dignity of each person. St. Lucia reaffirmed its commitment to the prompt investigation of killings of humans, so that all persons had equal protection under the law. St. Lucia expressed its belief that specific groups should not be listed, as lists had the danger of leaving some groups out and the danger of misinterpretation. That led to legal manipulation, by following the letter of the law in an unintended way. In the attempt to list individuals, undefined terminology was used. To ensure that all individuals received equal protection, it was imperative that the terms used be clear. The term proposed by the African Group was comprehensive and, for that reason, St. Lucia would vote in support of the African Group’s amendment.
The representative of the United States strongly opposed the amendment, finding without merit the argument that deleting the reference somehow reinterpreted the right to life, or that bringing attention to abhorrent practices somehow made that less inclusive. The United States urged all States to vote against the amendment.
The Committee then approved the amendment to operative paragraph 6 by a recorded vote of 79 in favour to 70 and 17 abstaining.
Providing a statement in explanation of the vote after the vote, Brazil said that, by adopting the amendment that deleted the reference to extrajudicial executions committed based on sexual orientation, the organization would not be sending a positive message. For that reason, the country had not supported the amendment. It also wished to note that possible improvements of the text could come in the form of incorporating references to other forms of discrimination that motivated killings, such as racial discrimination and xenophobia. There was a need to promote dialogue and understanding in order to bridge differences.
The representative of South Africa said that, with regard to the amendment proposed by the African Group to provide comprehensive non-discrimination, South Africa voted based on its belief in the principle of non-discrimination on any grounds, including sexual orientation. South Africa was conscious of the fact that there was no international agreement regarding the definition of sexual orientation, and believed that there needed to be a formal process on the issue. South Africa believed that they should define sexual orientation and establish parameters under human rights law. Until there was such a discussion, there would be division, which had characterized the issue over past years.
The representative of Cuba said that it maintained its traditional position against any form of discrimination and that Cuba had voted for the amendment proposed by the African Group, which was sufficiently general and comprehensive. It related to all killings, including executions on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Then, making a general statement, Morocco said that it had the honour to inform that it would join the consensus on the resolution provided with the amendment adopted.
The Committee then took action on the draft resolution entitled Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/65/L.29/Rev.1), as a whole as amended.
The representative of Finland said there was widespread agreement that this was an important issue. The draft resolution captured what delegations wanted to put into it. Her delegation would vote in favour.
The representative of Benin on behalf African Group said the Group could support the text as amended.
Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Sudan said his delegation had voted in favour of rejecting the attempt to inject the idea of sexual orientation into the draft resolution. It rejected repeated attempts by some delegations to introduce some ideas that had not been internationally accepted. However, Sudan would abstain from voting on the draft resolution as a whole, despite its firm belief in the importance of the issue that it addressed. It believed that the responsibility for combating racism fell within the responsibility of States within the framework of their international commitments. Regarding operative paragraph 10, which referred to the International Criminal Court, there was no obligation by States that had not joined that Court to implement its decisions. The role of the Court had been extremely exaggerated; in the 10 years since its foundation it had not even finished its first trial. Much ambiguity surrounded its work, including its relationship with the Security Council. The Court had also proven that it sought to politicize justice. Operative paragraph 10 was not welcomed by Sudan, which rejected it.
The representative of Morocco asked the Chair who had requested a recorded vote. The Secretary of the Committee, OTTO GUSTAFIK, explained that under Rule 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, when one or more amendments to a draft resolution were adopted, then the amended text shall be voted upon.
The Committee then approved the draft on extrajudicial executions (document A/C.3/65/L.29/Rev.1), as revised, by a vote of 165 in favour and 0 against, with 10 abstentions.
In an explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of France welcomed the approval of the draft. Several categories of persons particularly vulnerable to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions had been covered in operative paragraph 6(b). The reference to sexual orientation had been made since 1999 by the Special Rapporteur, who had repeatedly and explicitly underlined that homosexuals had been victims of such crimes. The General Assembly had recognized as much in 2008 and it was regrettable that such an explicit mention would not be made this year, even as many people were still victims of murder and violence due to their sexual orientation.
The representative of Iran said his country condemned extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions. His delegation had joined the Organization of the Islamic Conference position on the amendment, but it had reservations regarding operative paragraph 5, which refers to the death penalty.
The representative of the United States agreed that it was the obligation of all States to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. Countries such as hers which applied capital punishment should abide by their international obligations and use the death penalty only in cases of the most serious crimes. The United States agreed with efforts to retain the language condemning executions of members of the “LGBT” community and it was dismayed that the reference could not survive an unfriendly amendment. Additional concerns meant that the United States had been unable to vote for the draft as a whole.
The representative of Jamaica, which voted in favour of the draft, was disappointed that operative paragraph 5 had not been further amended. The way in which the text had been drafted implied that the use of the death penalty automatically amounted to extrajudicial execution. The suggestion was that they were one and the same. Jamaica did not share that interpretation. Regarding operative paragraph 6(b), a more holistic approach was required. It was cumbersome and unwieldy; several categories of vulnerable persons could have been included. It was hoped that, in future, the co-sponsors would consider a more general reference to all vulnerable groups, without discrimination.
The representative of Norway regretted that the amendment deleting the reference to sexual orientation had been adopted. The vulnerability of persons in that group had been note by the Special Rapporteur.
Making a general statement, the representative of the United Kingdom recalled the application of international humanitarian law in situations of armed conflict.
The Committee then took action on a draft resolution on the Elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members (document A/C.3/65/L.37).
The text would have the General Assembly take note of the work of Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members. Also taking note with appreciation of the Revised principles and guidelines for the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members (document A/HRC/AC/5/2), it would encourage Governments, the United Nations system, other intergovernmental organizations and national human rights institutions to give due consideration to the Principles and Guidelines in the formulation and implementation of their policies and measures concerning persons affected by leprosy and their family members. It would encourage all relevant actors - including hospitals, schools, universities, religious groups and organizations, business enterprises, newspapers, broadcasting networks and other non-governmental organizations - to give due consideration to the Principles and Guidelines, in the course of their activities.
The representative of Japan, the main sponsor, by way of an oral revision, made a “technical correction” to the draft.
The Committee then approved the draft without a vote, after which the representative of Japan expressed sincere appreciation to all delegations that had supported it.
The Committee then took action on a draft resolution on Globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/65/L.38).
The draft would have the Assembly emphasize the need to fully implement the global partnership for development, enhance the momentum generated by the 2005 World Summit and reaffirm the commitment to promote fair globalization and the development of the productive sectors in developing countries to enable them to participate more effectively in, and benefit from, the process of globalization. It would express concern at the negative impact of international financial turbulence, as well as rising global food, energy and climate challenges, on social and economic development and on the full enjoyment of all human rights, and at the inadequacy of measures to narrow the widening gap between the developed and the developing countries, which has contributed to deepen poverty. It would call upon Member States, relevant agencies of the United Nations system, intergovernmental organizations and civil society to promote equitable and environmentally sustainable economic growth for managing globalization, so that poverty is systematically reduced and the international development targets are achieved.
The representative of Egypt, the main sponsor, said that the fact that 86 States had co-sponsored the resolution gave wider recognition to the belief that the benefits of globalization were not limited to one region or another. They were attempting, through international cooperation, to maximize opportunities and overcome challenges. However, the challenges of globalization were not to the favour of developing countries. The resolution emphasized the need to address crucial challenges with a view towards minimizing the impact, thus enabling States to mobilize resources towards the protection of all human rights. It highlighted even and fair distribution by all relevant actors and the importance of respecting the differences of members of the international community to enrich their common human heritage. That endeavour was exactly what the international community emphasized through the outcome of the documents. Unfortunately, certain States categorically refused to engage in constructive dialogue, despite attempts to engage through informal meetings over past two months. The co-sponsors regretted such an approach regarding issues affecting the whole world, but looked forward to more engagement by partners. It was hoped that the resolution could be adopted by consensus.
A recorded vote was requested by the United States.
In a statement in explanation of the vote before the vote, the representative of Brazil said that, in recognition of the positive developments of the proposal, Brazil would support it. The country valued the importance attributed by the resolution towards international cooperation in the field of human rights. It valued the recognition that globalization affected countries differently, and that globalization offered both risks and rewards. Brazil welcomed the focus of the text – which was in line with the resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council – that, without boosting international partnership, they would not be able to ensure enjoyment of the benefits and, thus, social rights for all. Brazil called on States to alleviate any negative impacts of the global financial crisis, in order to realize the effective enjoyment of all human rights. The country reiterated its conviction that, while national and regional particularities must be kept in mind, it was the duty of States, regardless of their economic, political and cultural systems, to protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The representative of Belgium, on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union could not support the draft resolution. The European Union regretted that the text remained the same as last year, so it could not change its position. Dealing with globalization and its effects was high on the European Union’s agenda. Globalization was a multidimensional phenomenon, and its challenges were of a global nature. Globalization could tackle more acute problems, like poverty. The European Union acknowledged that benefits were not evenly shared, but, at same time, globalization could produce growth and prosperity and wield positive influence on human rights. Globalization could have implications concerning human rights, but the draft resolution inaccurately stated that it affected all rights - a generalization to which the European Union could not subscribe. The European Union was not convinced that globalization affected all human rights. This relationship had to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Thus, the European Union would vote against the resolution, and respectfully asked others to do the same.
The Committee proceeded to a recorded vote. The electronic voting machine registered 122 as “yes,” 53 as “no” and 1 as abstaining; however, it was noted that, because of technical errors, the vote of Benin had not been recorded by the machine and would be recorded as a “yes” vote. The resolution was adopted.
Giving a general statement after the vote, the representative of Chile said the delegation endorsed the resolution, given the inclusion of elements important for the country. Globalization held challenges, but also opportunities. Chile believed there was no reason for human rights and individual freedoms to be affected, but recognized that, amongst the challenges, were those particularly pertaining to economic and social rights. This was one of the issues that the country believed needed to be faced.
Statement by the Chair
The Chair, Mr. TOMMO MONTHE ( Cameroon), said action remained to be taken on 29 draft resolutions. The Bureau would be meeting in the afternoon to prepare a list of drafts that would be acted upon on Thursday and Friday, 18 and 19 November. After this week, three more plenary meetings were scheduled. It was his intention to conclude the work of the Committee on Tuesday, 23 November as scheduled.
* *** *
For information media • not an official record
General Assembly
GA/SHC/3997
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Sixty-fifth General Assembly
Third Committee
46th Meeting (AM)
General Assembly Will Hold ‘World Conference on Indigenous Peoples’ in 2014,
Under Terms of Resolution Recommended by Third Committee
Also Approves Five Other Texts on Extrajudicial Executions, Leprosy,
United Nations Refugee High Commissioner, Practices Fuelling Racism, Globalization
Concerned about the extreme social and economic disadvantages that indigenous peoples have faced, the Third Committee approved a draft resolution today that would have the General Assembly organize a high-level plenary meeting in 2014 — to be known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples in 2014 -- to share perspectives and best practices on the realization of indigenous peoples’ rights.
Approved without a vote, the document would invite the President of the General Assembly to determine the modalities for the high-level meeting, including indigenous peoples’ participation at the Conference, through open-ended consultations with Member States, indigenous people’s representatives in the framework of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples.
The Assembly would also expand the mandate of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations, so that it could assist representatives of indigenous peoples’ organizations and communities to participate in sessions of the Human Rights Council and human rights treaty bodies.
The draft resolution on indigenous issues was one of six that the Committee took action on this morning, addressing such issues as extrajudicial executions, contemporary forms of racism, discrimination against persons affected by leprosy, globalization’s impact on the enjoyment of human rights and the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
During action on the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Committee engaged in a debate over and ultimately approved by a vote of 79 in favour to 70 against with 17 abstentions an amendment removing “sexual orientation” as one of the discriminatory reasons that killings had been committed and warranted investigation.
The representative of Benin, on behalf of the African Group, the main sponsor of the amendment, said that sexual orientation had no legal foundation in any international human rights instruments and there was no legal justification to highlight it. St. Lucia stated that listing specific groups was dangerous because it could lead to the omission of some people and legal manipulation by following the letter of the law in an unintended way, while Morocco asserted that such selectivity should be avoided because it accommodated particular interests and groups over others. South Africa added that a formal process to define sexual orientation and its parameters under human rights law was needed to prevent future division on the issue.
On the other hand, the representative of Sweden stated that sexual orientation had often been the motive for extrajudicial killings, and the deletion of the reference would amount to the Committee looking the other way concerning arbitrary executions based on sexual orientation. Both Finland and France noted that the reference to sexual orientation had been included in the resolution since 1999, based on the Special Rapporteur’s concern for homosexuals that had been victims of such crimes – a concern that still persisted. Switzerland pointed out that homophobic violence was still a reality caused by law enforcement forces in many countries.
In the end, the draft resolution, by which the General Assembly would strongly condemn all extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions that continued throughout the world and demand that all States ensure the practice of such executions be brought to an end, had sufficient agreement to be approved by a vote of 165 in favour to 0 against, with 10 abstentions.
The Committee approved the draft resolution on the inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to 1 against, with 55 abstaining. The draft resolution on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights was approved by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to 53 against, with 0 abstaining. The draft resolutions on enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members were adopted without a vote.
During action on draft resolutions, statements and explanations of vote were also made by the representatives of Bolivia, United Kingdom, Russian Federation, Belarus, Benin, Belgium (on behalf of the European Union), United States, Switzerland, Sudan, Cuba, Iran, Jamaica, Norway, Japan, Egypt, Brazil and Chile.
Also, a draft resolution on follow-up to the Durban Declaration was introduced by the representative of Yemen (on behalf of the Group of 77 and China).
Background
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to hear the introduction of a draft resolution entitled Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/C.3/65/L.60).
It was also expected to take action on the following draft resolutions; Enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/65/L.24/Rev.1); Indigenous issues (document A/C.3/65/L.22/Rev.1); Inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/C.3/65/L.50); Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/65/L.29/Rev.1 and an amendment thereto contained in document A/C.3/65/L.65), Elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members (document A/C.3/65/L.37) and Globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/65/L.38).
Introduction on Draft Resolution
The Committee first heard the introduction of a draft resolution entitled Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/C.3/65/L.60), by the representative of Yemen, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.
He said that, throughout the past 10 years, the world community had witnessed difficult progress in the implementation of the Durban Declaration to eradicate the scourge of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. New manifestations of racism were being seen and they must be confronted. In the current session, document L.60 was being presented to the Committee, with a focus on the forthcoming 10th anniversary of the 2000 World Congress against Racism, to be held in New York in September 2011. The event provided a timely opportunity to mobilize the political will of heads of States. The co-sponsors would like to see the 10th year commemoration celebrated in a different manner, with the culmination and being adoption of an outcome showing global resolve to end racism.
The text incorporated general principles that guided the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, he said. It included the issue of racism in sports, shown through the “Say No to Racism” campaign during the recent FIFA World Cup. That legacy started in Germany and was encouraged to continue in Brazil and the 2014 World Cup. The work of the Special Rapporteur and some of his recommendations had been included in the resolution, to ensure that there was a follow-up on the matters he raised. Work on the Durban follow-up mechanisms was also included. The practical implementation of the Durban Declaration could be seen in the decision to erect a monument to the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and there was a call for financial support to finalize that decision. The co-sponsors hoped the resolution would be adopted by consensus, and they would show flexibility by not tabling a separate resolution concerning the high-level event to commemorate the 10th anniversary, with the understanding that a facilitator would be appointed to carry out that task.
Action on Resolutions
The Committee then took action on a draft resolution regarding Enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/65/L.24/Rev.1).
It would have the General Assembly decide to increase the number of members of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from 79 to 84 States, and request the Economic and Social Council to elect the additional members at its resumed organizational session for 2011.
The draft was approved without a vote.
The Committee then took action on a draft resolution on Indigenous issues (document A/C.3/65/L.22/Rev.1).
By its terms, the General Assembly would approve the expansion of the mandate of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations in order to facilitate the participation of representatives of indigenous peoples’ organizations in sessions of the Human Rights Council and of human rights treaty bodies. The Assembly would also decide to organize, under the auspices of the United Nations, a world Indigenous Peoples’ Conference in 2014, to adopt measures to pursue the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and invite the President of the General Assembly to begin consultations with Member States to determine the modalities of the conference.
The representative of Bolivia summarized the contents of the draft resolution and made an oral amendment. It was a great honour to announce that the list of co-sponsors now included the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Brazil. Bolivia very respectfully invited other delegations to consider joining the co-sponsors.
The draft was then approved as orally revised without a vote.
The representative of the United Kingdom expressed support for the draft on the understanding that the rights of indigenous peoples were as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The concept of collective law in international law, apart from the right of peoples to self-determination, was not recognized by the United Kingdom, which considered it important that individual rights not be superseded by collective rights. Collective rights could be granted only as a matter of national law.
The Committee then took action on a draft resolution on Inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/C.3/65/L.50).
By its terms, the General Assembly would express deep concern about the glorification of the Nazi movement and former members of the Waffen SS organization, including by erecting monuments and memorials and holding public demonstrations in the name of the glorification of the Nazi past, the Nazi movement and neo-Nazism, as well as by declaring or attempting to declare such members and those who fought against the anti-Hitler coalition and collaborated with the Nazi movement participants in national liberation movements. It would also express concern at recurring attempts to desecrate or demolish monuments erected in remembrance of those who fought against Nazism during the Second World War, as well as to unlawfully exhume or remove the remains of such persons. It would note with concern the increase in racist incidents in several countries and the rise of skinhead groups, which have been responsible for many of these incidents, as well as the resurgence of racist and xenophobic violence targeting members of ethnic, religious or cultural communities and national minorities.
The Assembly would stress that such practices do injustice to the memory of the victims of crimes against humanity committed in the Second World War, while at the same time fueling racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and contribute to the multiplication of extremist political parties, movements and groups, including neo-Nazis and skinhead groups. In that regard, it would call for increased political and legal vigilance, and call upon States to take more effective measures in accordance with international human rights law to combat those phenomena and the extremist movements, which pose a real threat to democratic values.
The representative of the Russian Federation, the main sponsor, who made an oral amendment to the draft, said this year was the sixty-fifth anniversary of the victory in the Second World War, as well as the Nuremberg trials. Sixty-five years had also passed since “our fathers and grandfathers” united against the forces of evil and called themselves the United Nations. They had come together for the future; why should their example be rejected? At issue was not political correctness, but the horrors of National Socialism and the rise of extremist groups, including neo-Nazis and skinheads, who often found inspiration in practices that the United Nations had been created to combat. During negotiations on the text, some had insisted that victory in the Second World War was unrelated to international human rights standards and that glorifying Nazism has nothing to do with human rights. That argument could not have been made 20 or 30 years ago, when veterans of the Second World War were still alive; how could it possibly be made now? Adoption of the resolution with the broadest possible support would contribute to combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance.
The representative of Belarus noted the urgency of the resolution. It would provide the young generation with a moral reference point. Events linked to Nazism were still remembered in his country, which lost about a third of its people in the Second World War. As a famous Russian poet had said, this was not for the dead, but for the living. Belarus would vote in favour of the draft.
The Chair, MICHEL TOMMO MONTHE ( Cameroon) said a recorded vote had been requested. When asked by the representative of the Russian Federation which delegation had asked for the vote, the Chair replied the United States.
In an explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Belgium, on behalf of the European Union, called neo-Nazism an abhorrent manifestation of racism and racial discrimination. Its threat had to be confronted at local, national and international levels. Neo-Nazism sought to undermine the core values of the United Nations. However, the fight against all manifestations of racism and xenophobia should not be used for extraneous purposes. Despite its desire to contribute to making the draft a comprehensive and credible response to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, some of its most serious concerns had not been addressed. As in past years, the draft was selective; it also contained language that would undermine a comprehensive approach, under which the Special Rapporteur on the issue would report to Human Rights Council and the General Assembly regularly. The European Union remained strongly committed to fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance and it remained ready to work on a text that would make a strong contribution in that regard. It would abstain from voting on the draft.
The representative of the United States said that his country had a deep commitment to honouring the memory of the lives lost in the Holocaust. However, it remained concerned that the resolution failed to distinguish between actions and statements that, while offensive, were protected by freedom of expression. The United States shared concern over the growing number of racist expressions; however, it did not believe in curtaining the freedom of expression. Individual freedom of speech should be robustly protected, even when ideas were full of hatred. Hateful ideas would fail because of their lack of merit. Offensive speech should not be criminalized. Instead, there should be measures such as proactive government outreach to minority groups and the vigorous defence of freedom of speech and religion. For those reasons, the United States would vote against the resolution.
The Committee then, approved the resolution on practices that fuel racism (A/C.3/65/L.50) by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to 1 against ( United States) with 55 abstaining.
After the vote, the representative of Switzerland said it regretted there had been only one informal meeting and that the concerns of some countries were not taken into account. Switzerland had abstained, because the resolution only referred to some forms of racism, and it believed that issues that fuelled racism were not limited to one historical period, but could be found throughout history.
The Committee then took action on a draft resolution on Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/65/L.29/Rev.1).
By its terms, the General Assembly would again strongly condemn all the extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions that continue to occur throughout the world, and demand that all States ensure that the practice of such executions is brought to an end and that they take effective action to prevent, combat and eliminate the phenomenon in all its forms and manifestations. It would reiterate the obligation of all States to investigate all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, to bring to justice those responsible, to grant compensation to the victims or their families, and to adopt legal and judicial measures to put an end to impunity and to prevent the further occurrence of such executions.
In addition, the Assembly would urge all States to take all necessary and possible measures, in conformity with international human rights law and international humanitarian law, to prevent loss of life, in particular that of children, during public demonstrations, internal and communal violence, civil unrest, public emergencies or armed conflicts. It would also urge States to prevent and, where such situations exist, to end prisoner control of prisons, and call upon those States that are under an obligation to cooperate with the International Criminal Court to provide such cooperation and assistance in the future, in particular with regard to arrest and surrender, the provision of evidence, the protection and relocation of victims and witnesses and the enforcement of sentences. It would go on to express its concern over the occurrence of vigilante killings and encourage States, in order to support efforts to prevent and end such killings, to undertake or facilitate systematic studies of the phenomenon, with a view to taking necessary legislative, judicial, administrative, and educative measures.
A proposed amendment (document A/C.3/65/L.65) would, in operative paragraph six, replace the words “any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation” with the words “discriminatory reasons on any basis”.
The representative of Finland, the main sponsor, said the list of co-sponsors had grown to 58 countries. However, it had not been possible to reach consensus on a reference to sexual orientation.
The Chair drew attention to the proposed amendment. The representative of Benin, its main sponsor, on behalf of the African Group, said the Group had repeatedly asked during informal negotiations for language that would bring needed comprehensiveness to the draft resolution. Sexual discrimination had no legal foundation in any international human rights instruments and there was no justification to highlight it. It was in the spirit of reaching consensus that the amendment, phrased in generic language, was being put forward. Comprehensiveness rather than selectivity was the key to ensuring the commitment of the international community against extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. If the international community wanted to discuss sexual orientation, it should do so in a direct way, in an agreed format, on another occasion.
The representative of Finland said the proposed amendment was unacceptable. She requested a recorded vote.
The representative of Morocco, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the Group was seriously concerned by controversial and undefined notions that had no foundation in international human rights instruments. Intolerance and discrimination existed in cases of colour, race, gender and religion, to mention only a few. Selectivity intended to accommodate certain interests over others had to be avoided by the international community. Such selectivity would set a precedent that would change the human rights paradigm in order to suit the interests of particular groups. An attempt to create new rights was a matter of concern for the Group. All Member States were urged to continue to devote special attention to the protection of the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society.
Wishing to make a general statement before the vote, the representative of Sweden said that, as one of the main sponsors, Sweden objected to the proposal to amend the resolution, by deleting the term “sexual orientation”. Sexual orientation had often been the motive for extrajudicial killings. The deletion of the reference would amount to the Committee looking the other way concerning arbitrary executions based on sexual orientation. States would not live up to their obligation to investigate and bring to justice those who committed such crimes. Denying the right to life and disregarding those in a vulnerable situation would not be acceptable to Sweden, so it would vote against the amendment. Sweden appealed to others to show that they did not condone unlawful killings and also to vote against the amendment.
As a traditional co-sponsor of the resolution, Switzerland said that it would vote against the amendment. Protection of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals was important. It was not an issue of protecting a specific group, but that a group would not be protected. Switzerland could not accept that lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals would not be covered. The reference to sexual orientation was not a general reference with regard to commitment. Switzerland believed that the reference was particularly important in this context and that people who were particularly threatened should be included. It was important to point out that homophobic violence was a reality caused by law enforcement forces in many countries throughout the world. The number of people killed on the basis of sexual identity had reached new levels, which was a major concern for all. That was a subject of concern for the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, who had been following the issue for more than 10 years. Switzerland called on States to vote against the amendment.
The representative of Finland noted that the reference to sexual orientation was first introduced a few years ago and a vote had been often called for, but always remained in the text. It was included in 1999 following the Special Rapporteur’s comments concerning execution and people at risk. That risk still persisted. The Special Rapporteur had continuously raised the risk in his report and in appeals to Member States. No one was claiming that one category was more worthy of protection than another. The purpose of including the reference was to alert States to arbitrary executions. The term “discriminatory racism” would include sexual orientation, but not everybody would understand, so it needed to be spelled out in the resolution, just as the Committee spelled out killings that were racially motivated or killings of national or linguistic minorities. The inclusion of sexual orientation in this list aimed to protect against execution on this basis – nothing more, nothing less. The main sponsor could not accept the amendment and would be voting against it. Finland asked others to do the same.
The representative of the United Kingdom said that the need for prompt investigation of all killings, including on the basis of sexual orientation, existed because of the continuing cause for concern. The list in the resolution could not be considered exhaustive and reflected abhorrent killings that the Special Rapporteur continued to identify in his reports, whether they be racially motivated killings or of human rights defenders. It was right that the resolution identify those at risk and call for appropriate action to be taken in that regard. Descriptive lists were getting longer and the instinct was to streamline them, but, sometimes, the attempt to streamline could suppress something that needed to be highlighted, and more was needed. The United Kingdom believed the current instance was one of those cases. To accept the amendment was to accept that these people did not need mention, and was an affront to human dignity. Like the main sponsor, the United Kingdom could not accept that and would be voting against the amendment.
The representative of St. Lucia, first, recognized the importance of the resolution and underscored the country’s commitment to human life and the dignity of each person. St. Lucia reaffirmed its commitment to the prompt investigation of killings of humans, so that all persons had equal protection under the law. St. Lucia expressed its belief that specific groups should not be listed, as lists had the danger of leaving some groups out and the danger of misinterpretation. That led to legal manipulation, by following the letter of the law in an unintended way. In the attempt to list individuals, undefined terminology was used. To ensure that all individuals received equal protection, it was imperative that the terms used be clear. The term proposed by the African Group was comprehensive and, for that reason, St. Lucia would vote in support of the African Group’s amendment.
The representative of the United States strongly opposed the amendment, finding without merit the argument that deleting the reference somehow reinterpreted the right to life, or that bringing attention to abhorrent practices somehow made that less inclusive. The United States urged all States to vote against the amendment.
The Committee then approved the amendment to operative paragraph 6 by a recorded vote of 79 in favour to 70 and 17 abstaining.
Providing a statement in explanation of the vote after the vote, Brazil said that, by adopting the amendment that deleted the reference to extrajudicial executions committed based on sexual orientation, the organization would not be sending a positive message. For that reason, the country had not supported the amendment. It also wished to note that possible improvements of the text could come in the form of incorporating references to other forms of discrimination that motivated killings, such as racial discrimination and xenophobia. There was a need to promote dialogue and understanding in order to bridge differences.
The representative of South Africa said that, with regard to the amendment proposed by the African Group to provide comprehensive non-discrimination, South Africa voted based on its belief in the principle of non-discrimination on any grounds, including sexual orientation. South Africa was conscious of the fact that there was no international agreement regarding the definition of sexual orientation, and believed that there needed to be a formal process on the issue. South Africa believed that they should define sexual orientation and establish parameters under human rights law. Until there was such a discussion, there would be division, which had characterized the issue over past years.
The representative of Cuba said that it maintained its traditional position against any form of discrimination and that Cuba had voted for the amendment proposed by the African Group, which was sufficiently general and comprehensive. It related to all killings, including executions on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Then, making a general statement, Morocco said that it had the honour to inform that it would join the consensus on the resolution provided with the amendment adopted.
The Committee then took action on the draft resolution entitled Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/65/L.29/Rev.1), as a whole as amended.
The representative of Finland said there was widespread agreement that this was an important issue. The draft resolution captured what delegations wanted to put into it. Her delegation would vote in favour.
The representative of Benin on behalf African Group said the Group could support the text as amended.
Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Sudan said his delegation had voted in favour of rejecting the attempt to inject the idea of sexual orientation into the draft resolution. It rejected repeated attempts by some delegations to introduce some ideas that had not been internationally accepted. However, Sudan would abstain from voting on the draft resolution as a whole, despite its firm belief in the importance of the issue that it addressed. It believed that the responsibility for combating racism fell within the responsibility of States within the framework of their international commitments. Regarding operative paragraph 10, which referred to the International Criminal Court, there was no obligation by States that had not joined that Court to implement its decisions. The role of the Court had been extremely exaggerated; in the 10 years since its foundation it had not even finished its first trial. Much ambiguity surrounded its work, including its relationship with the Security Council. The Court had also proven that it sought to politicize justice. Operative paragraph 10 was not welcomed by Sudan, which rejected it.
The representative of Morocco asked the Chair who had requested a recorded vote. The Secretary of the Committee, OTTO GUSTAFIK, explained that under Rule 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, when one or more amendments to a draft resolution were adopted, then the amended text shall be voted upon.
The Committee then approved the draft on extrajudicial executions (document A/C.3/65/L.29/Rev.1), as revised, by a vote of 165 in favour and 0 against, with 10 abstentions.
In an explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of France welcomed the approval of the draft. Several categories of persons particularly vulnerable to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions had been covered in operative paragraph 6(b). The reference to sexual orientation had been made since 1999 by the Special Rapporteur, who had repeatedly and explicitly underlined that homosexuals had been victims of such crimes. The General Assembly had recognized as much in 2008 and it was regrettable that such an explicit mention would not be made this year, even as many people were still victims of murder and violence due to their sexual orientation.
The representative of Iran said his country condemned extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions. His delegation had joined the Organization of the Islamic Conference position on the amendment, but it had reservations regarding operative paragraph 5, which refers to the death penalty.
The representative of the United States agreed that it was the obligation of all States to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. Countries such as hers which applied capital punishment should abide by their international obligations and use the death penalty only in cases of the most serious crimes. The United States agreed with efforts to retain the language condemning executions of members of the “LGBT” community and it was dismayed that the reference could not survive an unfriendly amendment. Additional concerns meant that the United States had been unable to vote for the draft as a whole.
The representative of Jamaica, which voted in favour of the draft, was disappointed that operative paragraph 5 had not been further amended. The way in which the text had been drafted implied that the use of the death penalty automatically amounted to extrajudicial execution. The suggestion was that they were one and the same. Jamaica did not share that interpretation. Regarding operative paragraph 6(b), a more holistic approach was required. It was cumbersome and unwieldy; several categories of vulnerable persons could have been included. It was hoped that, in future, the co-sponsors would consider a more general reference to all vulnerable groups, without discrimination.
The representative of Norway regretted that the amendment deleting the reference to sexual orientation had been adopted. The vulnerability of persons in that group had been note by the Special Rapporteur.
Making a general statement, the representative of the United Kingdom recalled the application of international humanitarian law in situations of armed conflict.
The Committee then took action on a draft resolution on the Elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members (document A/C.3/65/L.37).
The text would have the General Assembly take note of the work of Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members. Also taking note with appreciation of the Revised principles and guidelines for the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members (document A/HRC/AC/5/2), it would encourage Governments, the United Nations system, other intergovernmental organizations and national human rights institutions to give due consideration to the Principles and Guidelines in the formulation and implementation of their policies and measures concerning persons affected by leprosy and their family members. It would encourage all relevant actors - including hospitals, schools, universities, religious groups and organizations, business enterprises, newspapers, broadcasting networks and other non-governmental organizations - to give due consideration to the Principles and Guidelines, in the course of their activities.
The representative of Japan, the main sponsor, by way of an oral revision, made a “technical correction” to the draft.
The Committee then approved the draft without a vote, after which the representative of Japan expressed sincere appreciation to all delegations that had supported it.
The Committee then took action on a draft resolution on Globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/65/L.38).
The draft would have the Assembly emphasize the need to fully implement the global partnership for development, enhance the momentum generated by the 2005 World Summit and reaffirm the commitment to promote fair globalization and the development of the productive sectors in developing countries to enable them to participate more effectively in, and benefit from, the process of globalization. It would express concern at the negative impact of international financial turbulence, as well as rising global food, energy and climate challenges, on social and economic development and on the full enjoyment of all human rights, and at the inadequacy of measures to narrow the widening gap between the developed and the developing countries, which has contributed to deepen poverty. It would call upon Member States, relevant agencies of the United Nations system, intergovernmental organizations and civil society to promote equitable and environmentally sustainable economic growth for managing globalization, so that poverty is systematically reduced and the international development targets are achieved.
The representative of Egypt, the main sponsor, said that the fact that 86 States had co-sponsored the resolution gave wider recognition to the belief that the benefits of globalization were not limited to one region or another. They were attempting, through international cooperation, to maximize opportunities and overcome challenges. However, the challenges of globalization were not to the favour of developing countries. The resolution emphasized the need to address crucial challenges with a view towards minimizing the impact, thus enabling States to mobilize resources towards the protection of all human rights. It highlighted even and fair distribution by all relevant actors and the importance of respecting the differences of members of the international community to enrich their common human heritage. That endeavour was exactly what the international community emphasized through the outcome of the documents. Unfortunately, certain States categorically refused to engage in constructive dialogue, despite attempts to engage through informal meetings over past two months. The co-sponsors regretted such an approach regarding issues affecting the whole world, but looked forward to more engagement by partners. It was hoped that the resolution could be adopted by consensus.
A recorded vote was requested by the United States.
In a statement in explanation of the vote before the vote, the representative of Brazil said that, in recognition of the positive developments of the proposal, Brazil would support it. The country valued the importance attributed by the resolution towards international cooperation in the field of human rights. It valued the recognition that globalization affected countries differently, and that globalization offered both risks and rewards. Brazil welcomed the focus of the text – which was in line with the resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council – that, without boosting international partnership, they would not be able to ensure enjoyment of the benefits and, thus, social rights for all. Brazil called on States to alleviate any negative impacts of the global financial crisis, in order to realize the effective enjoyment of all human rights. The country reiterated its conviction that, while national and regional particularities must be kept in mind, it was the duty of States, regardless of their economic, political and cultural systems, to protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The representative of Belgium, on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union could not support the draft resolution. The European Union regretted that the text remained the same as last year, so it could not change its position. Dealing with globalization and its effects was high on the European Union’s agenda. Globalization was a multidimensional phenomenon, and its challenges were of a global nature. Globalization could tackle more acute problems, like poverty. The European Union acknowledged that benefits were not evenly shared, but, at same time, globalization could produce growth and prosperity and wield positive influence on human rights. Globalization could have implications concerning human rights, but the draft resolution inaccurately stated that it affected all rights - a generalization to which the European Union could not subscribe. The European Union was not convinced that globalization affected all human rights. This relationship had to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Thus, the European Union would vote against the resolution, and respectfully asked others to do the same.
The Committee proceeded to a recorded vote. The electronic voting machine registered 122 as “yes,” 53 as “no” and 1 as abstaining; however, it was noted that, because of technical errors, the vote of Benin had not been recorded by the machine and would be recorded as a “yes” vote. The resolution was adopted.
Giving a general statement after the vote, the representative of Chile said the delegation endorsed the resolution, given the inclusion of elements important for the country. Globalization held challenges, but also opportunities. Chile believed there was no reason for human rights and individual freedoms to be affected, but recognized that, amongst the challenges, were those particularly pertaining to economic and social rights. This was one of the issues that the country believed needed to be faced.
Statement by the Chair
The Chair, Mr. TOMMO MONTHE ( Cameroon), said action remained to be taken on 29 draft resolutions. The Bureau would be meeting in the afternoon to prepare a list of drafts that would be acted upon on Thursday and Friday, 18 and 19 November. After this week, three more plenary meetings were scheduled. It was his intention to conclude the work of the Committee on Tuesday, 23 November as scheduled.
* *** *
For information media • not an official record
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)