Countries vote to accept execution of gays
That is the headline in The Pink Paper.
Eddie Izzard - on Twitter - puts it "UN has decided that being gay is reason enough to be executed!"
"For the last 10 years sexual orientation has been included in a list of discriminatory grounds for executions β gay rights activists say the vote to remove that listing is βdangerous and disturbing.β
This is the article in The Pink Paper.
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on Pinterest
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit
- Copy Link to Topic
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I have no words
UN-f*kking believable
that is disgusting
Former Member
The US abstained apparently.
Reference: velvet donkey
The US abstained apparently.
....which makes me even more angry.
"passed on a narrow vote of 79 for, 70 against , 17 abstentions and 26 absent."
May of been a different outcome had the 26 absent been there.
"Some of those voting to remove sexual orientation were countries where gays are known to be or thought to be executed or summarily killed including Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iraq.
The UK, US, Australia, New Zealand and many European countries voted in favour of gays."
This doesnt surprise me either...
I don't even get why they should be voting on this sort of thing? Its quite disturbing that they even have to have a vote on it never mind nutcases voting against it.
May of been a different outcome had the 26 absent been there.
"Some of those voting to remove sexual orientation were countries where gays are known to be or thought to be executed or summarily killed including Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iraq.
The UK, US, Australia, New Zealand and many European countries voted in favour of gays."
This doesnt surprise me either...
I don't even get why they should be voting on this sort of thing? Its quite disturbing that they even have to have a vote on it never mind nutcases voting against it.
what in the feck....?
Reference:
The US abstained apparently.
Why does that not shock me
The US voted against the amendment, according to the article.
What a backward step!
What a backward step!
I am shocked and disgusted.
Sometimes I wonder which century we are living in.
Sometimes I wonder which century we are living in.
Shocking.
Former Member
Disgraceful to say the least
I can never understand why politicians are allowed to abstain from voting. Surely they are put in that position to do a job and that is to represent the people who voted them into office.
Add Reply
Sign In To Reply
2,263 online (0 members
/
2,263 guests),
0 chatting