For centuries, members of the LGBTQ+ community have been subjected to discrimination, violence and even criminalisation across the globe. While significant progress has been made in recent decades, the situation remains alarming in other parts of the world, where homosexuality can still be punishable by death. While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims the equality of all individuals without distinction, it is clear that this equality is far from a reality for millions of LGBTQ+ people. The delegates of the committee on LGBTQ+ rights have therefore set themselves the task of finding common ground in order to identify global solutions to this discrimination.
A first progressive resolution
Backed by South Africa, Argentina, Brazil and Canada, Germany introduced a resolution calling for stronger international action to protect LGBTQ+ people from discrimination and criminalisation. The coalition argues that the rights of LGBTQ+ people are universal human rights and that the United Nations has a responsibility to ensure that these rights are respected worldwide. The resolution aims to strengthen the UN’s monitoring of violence and abuse against LGBTQ+ people, to encourage countries to adopt anti-discrimination laws, and to guarantee equal access to employment, healthcare and housing. It also supports the granting of asylum to people persecuted on the grounds of their sexual orientation or gender identity, the promotion of inclusive educational programmes, the creation of safe spaces for young people in the LGBTQ+ community, and the repeal of laws that discriminate against these communities. Overall, the resolution presents a proactive, human rights-based approach, emphasising equality, inclusion and international cooperation to combat discrimination.
An ethical battle lost by Germany
Debates began despite the limited number of amendments. The issue of freedom of expression on social media and its influence on teenagers was briefly touched upon, with the Indian delegation arguing that the removal of certain discriminatory comments from posts could undermine individuals’ right to freedom of expression. Shortly afterwards, the Ugandan delegation engaged in a significant debate with the German delegation over a clause encouraging the strengthening of international monitoring of acts of violence and discrimination against members of the LGBTQ+ community: its main argument was that this measure might not respect certain cultures and might not be suited to the level of development of certain countries. The German delegation considered this amendment irrelevant as it was irrelevant and ran counter to the resolution’s main objective, which was to protect the LGBTQ+ community from discrimination, even though many cultures do not accept it. The amendment was adopted, with most of the delegations present siding with the Ugandan delegation.
Generally speaking, most of the countries in favour of this resolution clearly defended it, but the countries opposed to it tipped the vote, and the resolution was not adopted.
Renata Eva Skaburskas, Ludivine Hemakwa et Melissa Maina