Is this real. What is happening. I don’t even
Countries vote to accept execution of gays
Tris Reid-Smith | 18 November 2010
The United Nations has removed a plea for lesbians, gays and bisexuals not to be executed in a narrow vote.
For the last 10 years sexual orientation has been included in a list of discriminatory grounds for executions – gay rights activists say the vote to remove that listing is “dangerous and disturbing.”
The UN resolution urges countries to protect the right to life of all people, calling on them to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. Sexual orientation was previously listed as one of these forms of discrimination, alongside ethnicity, religious belief and linguistic minorities.
Others protected by the resolution were human rights defenders (like journalists, lawyers and demonstrators), street children and members of indigenous communities.
But now sexual orientation has been taken out of the list. The amendment was supported by Benin in Africa on behalf of the African Group in the UN General Assembly. It passed on a narrow vote of 79 for, 70 against , 17 abstentions and 26 absent.
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.
Cary Alan Johnson, Executive Director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, said: “This vote is a dangerous and disturbing development. 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 criminalise homosexuality, five consider it a capital crime and countries like Uganda are considering adding the death penalty to their laws criminalising homosexuality.”
[Picture: Background: 8 piece pie style color split with red and teal alternating. Foreground: White, cisgender guy with glasses and light shadow wearing a sweat shirt over a button down and short black hair. Has a smug, arrogant facial expression and crossed arms. Top text: “You’re gay?” Bottom text: “I’ll pray for you.”]
Jessie J won the BBC’s “Sound of 2011” poll and her first single is a girls-can-f*ck girls anthem with a gender-bending music video. Is Jessie a subversive queer superstar or another cultural…
Rep. Jim Jordan R-OH, the chair of the Republican Study Committee, told a congressional newspaper that he will push for a vote to repeal the freedom to marry in D.C.
Tell Rep. Jordan to focus on rebuilding the American economy instead of launching attacks against gay and lesbian families.
How about you go fuck off, Rep. Jordan? And also, where are the fucking jobs? Maybe you asshats should focus on that?
CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY STAR TREK MAGAZINE THINKS THERE WAS A GAY COUPLE ON DS9 AND ALSO WHY NOBODY HAS TOLD ME ABOUT THIS
SERIOUSLY THERE IS A WHOLE ARTICLE ABOUT THEIR LOVE RELATIONSHIP THAT ONLY BRINGS UP THE WORD BROMANCE TO SAY THAT IT’S EXACTLY WHAT THIS ISN’T
I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHO THE HELL THESE PEOPLE ARE AND I’M ALREADY SHIPPING THEM LIKE BURNING
THE EVEN BIGGER QUESTION IS IF THIS IS HERE WHY ISN’T KIRK/SPOCK IT’S ONLY LOGICAL
Well… There’s a mention about Kirk/Spock in a little article lost in one page. I personally loved the article, because I’d like to see in DS9 something more than a friendship between them. Of course, it’s a matter of tastes about that. They weren’t a gay couple exactly, but there’s a subtext in their friendship. 90’s were more open minded that 60’s, but not enough. A pity, I’d like to see an like the others article about Kirk & Spock also.
There was never an explicitly gay character in any of the Star Treks in spite of multiple attempts to bring one to the screen. This article on Picard/Q by Atara Stein talks about how John de Lancie added strong homosexual subtext to the relationship and quotes Patrick Stewart saying he thought that Q was gay (as well as quotes guidelines for tie-in novels explicitly saying they have no interest in gay characters).
And in this really fascinating Salon.com article called “Gay Trek” from 2001 is the following anecdote about the producers nixing an attempt to put a gay couple as extras in the background:
One anecdote Arnold told me about the filming of a third-season “Next Generation” episode, “The Offspring,” stands out. In that story, the android character Data decides to build an android daughter, whom he calls Lal. Data educates her as best he can, but Lal becomes confused when she sees two people kissing. In a typically “Star Trek-ky” “What is this ‘love’ you speak of?” scene that takes place in the Enterprise D’s lounge, Whoopi Goldberg, playing Guinan, teaches Lal about the birds and the bees.
“According to the script, Guinan was supposed to start telling Lal, ‘When a man and a woman are in love …’ and in the background, there would be men and women sitting at tables, holding hands,” Arnold says. “But Whoopi refused to say that. She said, ‘This show is beyond that. It should be “When two people are in love.”’ And so it was decided on set that one of the tables in the background should have two men holding hands — or two women, or whatever. But someone ran to a phone and made a call to the production office and that was nixed. [Producer] David Livingston came down and made sure that didn’t happen.”There were people who felt very strongly that we should be showing casually, you know, just two guys together in the background in Ten Forward. At the time the decision was made not to do that and I think those same people would make a different decision now because I think, you know, that was 1989, well yeah about 89, 90, 91. I have no doubt that those same creative players wouldn’t feel so hesitant to have, you know, have been squeamish about a decision like that.
Very interesting Article about the elationship between Q and Picard. But I can’t understand why a typical girls kissing scene (Jadzia and her old mate of a previous host) but NOTHING ABOUT TWO MEN INVOLVED!!!! The 90’s, yeah… I always think how would be a Star Trek TV Show in 2011.
Ah, it’s a pity that all (or most of them) Star Trek Novels are non canon =/
Well, exactly. That scene was no more “gay” than Katy Perry’s “I Kissed A Girl”, since the gayness of it was undermined in several ways.
- Dax is shown in a number of relationships with men and none with women throughout canon. A kiss doesn’t hold a lot of weight against those; it may represent what could be interpreted by the viewer as real desire, but it’s not much of a representation of the lives of (or existence of) gay people.
- Because the Dax entity isn’t exclusively female and has actually been male in the past; Sisko even calls her “Old Man”.
Showing a bit of lesbian kissing or innuendo as a deviation from an established heterosexual pattern doesn’t count as representing gay people. There’s even a term for these deviations which, shockingly, tend to overwhelmingly occur during sweeps week, where it’s important to generate as much controversy=interest as possible to drive up ratings: Sweeps Lesbians.
This bit of girl-on-girl kissing was allowed through in spite of the Gayness Ban because everyone knows that it’s presented for male titillation. (Hence Madonna kissing Britney and Christina onstage at the VMAs barely raised any eyebrows, but Adam Lambert kissing a male band member at the AMAs got him disinvited from Good Morning America and nearly banned from ABC.)
The Star Trek tie-in novels may have a more liberal policy nowadays than when the article was written, but they are still quite strictly policed by Paramount for content. I doubt we’ll be seeing central gay relationships in them anytime soon.