US UN Ambassador Implies African States Condone Mass Murder of Homosexuals

By | December 22, 2016

NEW YORK, December 23 (C-Fam) In what can only be considered well outside the bounds of customarily polite diplomatic discourse at UN headquarters, a visibly agitated US Ambassador Samantha Power accused African delegations of being complicit in the murder of homosexuals who are thrown off rooftops in ISIS-held cities.

Power’s overcharged statement stood in contrast to an unusually hushed UN chamber that underlined the uncertainty of the outcome of a vote challenging the establishment of a UN monitor on homosexual rights by the Human Rights Council in June.

A very close vote failed to halt the UN’s newly appointed global ombudsman for homosexual rights, the first ever UN mandate based on the notion of “sexual orientation and gender identity.” Eighty-four member states voted to keep the mandate while 77 voted to suspend the mandate pending further review.

The Africans gained 2 more votes than the 7 they needed to suspend the mandate after a first General Assembly vote on their proposal to suspend the mandate failed last month. But they also improbably lost 9 votes, 7 of which, coming from countries with sodomy laws, should have been certain.

It was something of final and unforeseeable gift to the Obama administration that for eight years has prioritized homosexual rights at the United Nations and around the world.

Invoking the Orlando massacre, Samantha Power asked, “Why would any member state stand in the way of preventing that kind of violence?” suggesting Africans were also complicit in the islamic terrorist-inspired slaughter of homosexuals at the gay nightclub earlier this year.

Other delegations who support homosexual rights at the United Nations were equally dramatic.

France said the African proposal “undermined the balance of the entire human rights edifice.” Brazil, speaking on behalf of some Latin American states, said that if the African proposal went through it would have “far reaching implications” and that it would vote to “protect the integrity of the human rights system.” New Zealand speaking on behalf of Canada and a handful of Nordic and European countries said the proposal “undermined the mandate we gave the Council.”

The African Group, who proposed the challenge to the mandate, rebutted these accusations as unfair and over the top saying they condemned “any violence and discrimination on any group of people” and that they were not seeking to undermine the Human Rights Council.

The ambassador of Burkina Faso, speaking on behalf of the African Group, underlined how the newly appointed expert was already causing consternation, and that is why it was necessary for the General Assembly to define clearly the mandate of the expert.

“The expert has defined his own mandate,” the ambassador said, referring to a controversial speech two weeks ago where the expert promised to push decriminalizing sodomy, banning therapy for those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction, transgender identity rights, curtailing religious freedom, and homosexual propaganda in schools.

“The mandate has already been violated to promote new rights without legal basis”, the ambassador explained.

Even conservative governments of the European Union refused to break the common position led by the far more liberal France, Germany and the United Kingdom. The ambassador of Slovakia speaking on behalf of the Group said that a General Assembly review of a decision of the Human Rights Council would “undermine” the Council.

But the European Union statement also included a caveat to try to prevent the independent expert from promoting homosexual marriage and homosexual civil unions. “The mandate is only about equal protection from violence and discrimination,” the ambassador of Slovakia stated, although no one familiar with the UN human rights system believes the independent expert will stay within those bounds, as he has already indicated.

The ambassadors of Poland, Croatia, and Hungary each took the floor to reiterate more explicitly that marriage and family were outside the confines of the mandate, and said they would remain vigilant on the expert. These governments ultimately refused to break the EU consensus and allowed the mandate to pass.

At the end of the day, a change of only four votes would have halted the new office that critics fear will impose the radical gay agenda on reluctant countries.

The independent expert has a 3-year mandate. At which time the Human Rights Council must decide to retain the post or not.