« ASEAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION | HomePage | Singapore - No to Rape! »
04/07/2009
British Foreign Office to back gay communities around the world
Listen to this article
From The Guardian
The Foreign Office is to risk the wrath of homophobic regimes worldwide by encouraging British ambassadors to do more to support gay communities.
Chris Bryant, the new Foreign Office minister, who is gay, has started writing personal letters of congratulations to British diplomats who show public support for gay rights. He is praising them for such support even if it draws anger from national governments or local homophobic groups.
On the eve of today's Gay Pride March in London, Bryant sent handwritten letters of personal congratulations to three British ambassadors in eastern Europe after they were angrily accused by national governments of promoting gay rights.
He has also decided to ask British high commissioners in the Commonwealth to promote the rights of gay people, even though this will run contrary to the teachings of some local churches and governments.
Bryant would like to see gay rights addressed at the Commonwealth summit in November in Trinidad, due to be attended by the Queen and Gordon Brown.
In a letter to the British ambassador in Poland, Ric Todd, Bryant wrote: "I wanted to congratulate you on your flying of the Rainbow flag next to the Union flag last year, and your guide to lesbian gay and bisexual and transgender rights translated in Polish this year. I know you had some flak, but frankly more power to your elbow. Britain is not just a tolerant country. We fully respect the rights of everyone, regardless of their sexuality."
Todd was criticised for exceeding his authority by Janusz Kochanowski, the Polish civil rights ombudsman.
Bryant also wrote to the British ambassador in Bulgaria, Stuart Williams, who sent a message of support to the Rainbow friendship rally in Sofia earlier this year. Bryant wrote: "I fully support what you have done. I am sure that your coverage will have given confidence to many."
He is also to write to the British ambassador to Bucharest, Robin Barnett, to thank him for attending the gay rights march in the Romanian capital last month.
The purpose of the Bryant letters is to spell out that the British Foreign Office policy of support for gay and lesbian rights is not just a formality, but instead a central part of the government's drive for human rights that diplomats are to champion as part of British foreign policy.
Bryant's determination to take this campaign within the Commonwealth will be hugely controversial if he pushes the message and diplomatic pressure hard. Many Commonwealth states maintain laws criminalising homosexuality—including most of the countries of the Caribbean and more than two-thirds of African nations. In four African countries, including Nigeria, consensual homosexual acts are still punishable by death.
18:13 Posted by soci | Permalink | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this | Tags: gay rights, human rights
Trackbacks
The URL to Trackback this post is: http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/trackback/1636625
Comments
The main "homophobic" regimes and groups are mainly rooted in fundamentalist Islam and Christianity. However Britannia — a proud nation which once "ruled the waves" — chooses to capitulate to those who spit on Britain; her values and heritage and seek to implement homophobic, tyrannical, anti-democratic and anti-women Sharia Law.
As the line from the song by The Kinks "Living on a Thin Line" — "But there's no England now".
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 06/07/2009
Why should gays deserve special rights?
Homosexuals are already entitled to the same rights as any other citizen in a large number of countries - there's no institutionalized discrimination against them. They should be no special rights for any group.
Why should homosexuals demand exclusive right to redefine what "marriage" means?
The most democratic way to go about this is via referendum - let the people collectively decide on what the word means. And words are important. In most countries, gay unions are already entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual couple.
Let's be consistent - people who do not approve of homosexuality (for whatever reason) are as entitled to tolerance as homosexuals. People who dislike gays deserve the same rights - including freedom of thought, and freedom of expression - as those who embrace gays in a free society.
However, it seems that there's a non-trivial minority prepared to hijack the political process - to impose pro-gay views upon others. This is anti-freedom - it's tyranny and discrimination, just of a different form.
Posted by: anonymousaurus | 15/07/2009
Adding to anonymousaurus:
> Why should homosexuals demand exclusive right to redefine what "marriage" means? <
Extend that to every other "special interest" group. Any notion of "rights" comes with the idea of "responsibility". Therefore if I have the "right" to be left alone — if I'm minding my own business and not harming anyone — then you have a responsibility to leave me alone.
However, if I have the "right" to a job or to welfare, then you (through the state or political action) have the responsibility of providing me with my "right".
Hence if homosexuals want special "rights", those people who couldn't care less (because they're minding their own business) or harbour some personal abhorrence of homosexuality now have the "responsibility" of adjusting their minds and attitudes to accommodate the "needs" of this special group. If this happens the fact is that now it becomes a crime to "dislike" certain ideas — in this case the idea that homosexuality is personally abhorrent.
Bingo! The government and the special interest group has now commanded your brain by making it mandatory for you to think (think, not act) in a certain way. If you don't, you could be a criminal.
Homosexuals have the same UNIVERSAL right as everyone else on the planet: the right to be left alone to do as they please as long as they don't physically interfere with anyone else.
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 15/07/2009
This is my major gripe against the so-called "progressive liberals" - they are neither progressive nor liberal, but enemies of a free society.
If you were to define "homophobia" as "persecuting homosexuals" / "interfering with the rights of homosexuals to be left alone" - then homophobia is definitely not prevalent.
However, these activists - who have the arrogance to believe that they are somehow more "enlightened", and that they ought to decide what people should think and say - choose to redefine "homophobia" as "against homosexual marriage".
As if love and relationships require legal validation.
But this also exposes a deeper question - that is, what constitutes the moral foundation for human society? Man however has always been good at justifying whatever they want to do - "dont' tell me what to do, tell me what i already want to do".
Posted by: anonymousaurus | 16/07/2009