NP Rank:
UN President's Anti-Gay Remarks Condemned
The United Nations' new president, Ali Abdussalam Treki, a Libyan diplomat, recent anti-gay remarks at the 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly that opened for debate at the United Nations Headquarters in New York this week, were condemned by Illinois Representative Mike Quigley and Congresswoman Illeana Ros-Lehtinen.
When asked about a UN resolution that calls for the universal decriminalization of being gay, Treki called the matter “very sensitive.”
“[T]hat matter is very sensitive, very touchy,” Treki said. “As a Muslim, I am not in favor of it … it is not accepted by the majority of countries. My opinion is not in favor of this matter at all. I think it's not really acceptable by our religion, our tradition”
“It is not acceptable in the majority of the world. And there are some countries that allow that, thinking it is a kind of democracy … I think it is not,” he added.
The resolution, sponsored by France and the Netherlands, met with strong resistance from a group of Arab leaders who challenged it with a statement condemning being gay. The Arab-backed statement decried the decriminalization of being gay because it might lead to “the social normalization, and possibly the legitimization, of many deplorable acts including pedophilia.” Vatican officials also balked at the pro-gay resolution, saying it would promote gay marriage.
Congressman Quigley, a Democrat and longtime ally to the gay and lesbian community, responded on Thursday.
“I respect that there is a healthy diversity of viewpoints across our country and around the world, but to preserve that very freedom of expression, human rights need to be our common denominator,” Quigley told On Top Magazine in an email.
“With regard to the gentleman's remarks, what's 'not acceptable' is drawing geographic borders around equality,” he added.
Quigley, who won a special election in April to fill the seat vacated by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, joined Florida Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in criticizing the president's remarks.
Congresswoman Illeana Ros-Lehtinen was the first to speak out. Read her statement here.
Crowd Power
-
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States
Recommendations (72)
-
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States -
Amy Judd
Vancouver, Canada -
sara star
Halifax, NS, Canada -
albertacowpoke
Canada -
Tina Kells
Vancouver, Canada
-
Rory Cripps
New Port Richey, Florida, United States -
Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan -
QueensHart
boston, USA., United States -
Pythiian1
New York, New York, United States -
Babel-Fish
Negros Oriental, Philippines




Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (53)
at 14:15 on September 25th, 2009
Another great choice for President of the UN Assembly. I just shake my head.
at 14:27 on September 25th, 2009
I'm shaking mine too! Thanks for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation, albertacowpoke!
at 14:36 on September 25th, 2009
As a Muslim, I am not in favor of it
Treki needs to read the Preamble to the United Nations Charter. He is in breach of the precepts set forth.
"We the peoples of the United Nations determined: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, And for these ends: to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, Have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims: Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."
at 14:38 on September 25th, 2009
Descrimination has got to stop, especially at this level.
at 14:46 on September 25th, 2009
Rather misleading headline. Nothing "anti-gay" about what he said (at least as quoted).
It appears (to this rather slow individual), that he is in favor of each nation being able to choose their own laws in this matter. Evidently, self-determination is no longer PC.
at 14:53 on September 25th, 2009
Hugh Askew, thank you for reading and commenting! I'm curious, what headline you would propose?
at 15:15 on September 25th, 2009
How 'bout "UN President Opposes Meddling" ?
at 15:31 on September 25th, 2009
Hugh, if that's the case -- please read a211423's comments. Thanks:)!
at 18:17 on September 25th, 2009
Read it, thank you.
No mention of "meddling".
If we are to follow the line of thinking that says it is our right, or our obligation, to impose our mores on those others that disagree with us, then where is their freedom? Where are their rights?
What becomes of us, when in the future, another wave of thinking, or another group of nations, imposes it's values upon us?
Even a cursory reading of history reveals the rise and fall of notions, and of nations.
800 years ago, our notions of correctness would have been laughable in either the Mongol or Islamic kingdoms, who were the undisputed powers of the world. 100 years from now, given the suicidal demographic tendencies of the western world, it is almost unthinkable to imagine that our values will be predominate. Shove your values down the throat of those that disagree with those values, and your grandchildren will curse you for your foolishness.
at 04:14 on September 26th, 2009
Hugh, your points are well-taken. However, not only should 'we' know the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but we should understand The Creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well.
Too, as I have said elsewhere, the idea that most people can not apparently transcend religious, political, and cultural indoctrination in order to understand that 'we' are all human beings deserving of every right to be treated with dignity and respect, just puzzles me. I really don't understand it. What is the problem?
at 05:19 on September 26th, 2009
The "problem" lies in who is in charge. Simple enough.
If i agree with " 'we' are all human beings deserving of every right to be treated with dignity and respect", aren't i obligated to treat those human beings with "dignity and respect" for their ideas, religions, cultures, and values? Or is it that only your idea of "correct" that gets the respect?
Your ideas, your values, your mores, and your opinions differ from many/most of the earth's population. Do you want Treki's values forced upon you, and upon those that think the way you do? I don't.
Who gets to decide what line of thinking is correct? You? Me? Treki?
And while the "Universal Declaration" thingy sounds really good and, um, universal, i'm skeptical. Obviously, Treki has his doubts as well. Besides, no one asked my opinion.
at 05:43 on September 26th, 2009
Hugh, I believe that everyone is obligated to work toward transcending religious, political, and cultural indoctrination in order to 'see' that 'we' are all human beings to be afforded every right to be treated with dignity and respect.
Remove, for example, sexual orientation from the equation, and each of us is a Human Being at the end of the day!:) I really don't know how to make it any clearer:)
Nevertheless, I do appreciate your opinion -- I just don't agree with it:)
at 08:24 on September 26th, 2009
Thank you. It becomes clearer now that you explain.
Quote: "I believe that everyone is obligated to work toward transcending religious, political, and cultural indoctrination in order to 'see' that 'we' are all human beings to be afforded every right to be treated with dignity and respect."
In other words, the cultural and religious values of individuals, countries, religions, and/or ethnic groups must be subjugated to the contrived secular values of the "elite". The "elite" being those that are elevated above the proles and rabble of the earth, by education, birth, status, or acclamation. The rabble must be re-indoctrinated with the values chosen by the "elite".
We -or at least the "elite" - must, in essence, become intolerant for the sake of tolerance.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
To these let us now add: Tolerance is Intolerance
at 13:11 on September 26th, 2009
Hugh, not quite:) Religious and political identities are, for the greater part, divisive. And, there is no 'elite' as you define it, as a result of transcending religious, political, and cultural indoctrination. With this said, I really have nothing further to add other than if one can not transcend these barriers to 'see' that we are all human and, therefore, equal, one should at least be able to reflect on them intelligently with the hope of transcending them.
In other words, everything for the greater good!:) Murder, rape, torture, oppression, etc. etc. under the miss-guided indoctrinated guise of religion and politics is not for the greater good. Anyone who would like to try to convince me otherwise, please feel free to do so!:)
at 14:11 on September 26th, 2009
Well, of course religion and politics are divisive. So what. Hairstyles are divisive. Football is divisive. Horseshoes is divisive (of course that has more to do with my style of play than the actual sport...but that's a subject for another day.......).
Because they are divisive, we should give them up? Then what? Some syrupy pablum of "correct" ideas? And then who gets to indoctrinate whom? i haven't seen anyone here advocating "murder, rape, torture, oppression, etc" as is implied. I re-read Treki's position, didn't see anything there, either. I'm not sure what "barriers" i'm supposed to "transcend" in order to reach this "greater good". It seems fairly obvious that i'm going to fail to fit whatever agenda i'm supposed to fit, tho i don't even know what it is - except perhaps being politically correct enough to please the thought police.
I have seen nothing in any of the arguments/comments opposing Treki's position, that give a rational reason to take away the right of a sovereign nation to self determination, simply because of our opinion of what happens to politically correct at the moment.
at 14:44 on September 26th, 2009
Hugh, thanks again for sharing your thoughts. I honestly don't have anything more to say. In fact, I am speaking here more than I probably have in the two years I have been on NP. I don't know what 'possessed' me:)! Take good care and thanks again!
at 13:20 on September 26th, 2009
Quote: "I believe that everyone is obligated to work toward transcending religious, political, and cultural indoctrination in order to 'see' that 'we' are all human beings to be afforded every right to be treated with dignity and respect."
Yes, this quote is a very loaded statement. Note the word "indoctrination", as if ALL religious, political, or cultural "beliefs" are a product of indoctrination.
"Everyone is obligated" according to who? Who obligated us to toss aside our religions, politics, and culture. I would really like to know who this is? Can you tell me?
No, the NWO wants to be the indoctrinator. No thanks.
Freedom has to do with freedom of thought, i.e., beliefs. If you take that away and mandate everyone be "tolerant" that is accept your ideas of tolerance, then you've stripped individuals and countries of the right to think for themselves. Not to think, you must accept the thought policies we establish with our transcendent values. You are not treating people with dignity when you teach them all to shut up, don't think, and obey your way of thinking.
at 13:37 on September 26th, 2009
Yeshuanation, poor choice of a word (obligated) sorry! I won't try to convince you about the nature of religious, political or cultural indoctrination. I can only ask that you acknowledge it exists, or at least think about it.
Nowhere, do I teach anyone to "shut up, don't think, and obey [my] way of thinking". And, while I am 'at it':) Freedom is a state of mind:)
Thanks so much for stopping by and sharing your thoughts!
at 14:47 on September 25th, 2009
He starts with 'very sensitive' then says he's not in favour of it, then says the majority of the world does not accept it, it just kept growing and growing. As someone from Libya he most certainly wouldn't think it's ok, but if he can't put that aside, he shouldn't have become the UN pres in my opinion.
at 15:05 on September 25th, 2009
If the Arab nations in question are not in favor of decriminalizing being gay by resolution, then they are in favor of the criminalization of a person based on sexual preference. They are putting forth a descriminatory human rights agenda that is in direct conflict with the U.N. Charter which is to preserve human rights of all people and to live in tolerance and peace.
at 15:33 on September 25th, 2009
The point is in though I think that gays should have human rights the fact is most Muslims in Libya feel that being gay is against Islamic teaching.
To him of course it is very sensitive but can we blame him or do we blame the real problem and that of his and his country religion. As for the democratic reference unfortunately if the issues of rights for gays was put to referendum in most Arab states the nays would have the democratic vote.
As for him being the United Nation president concerning the UN Charter.
Muslims would in fact say that both men and women do have rights that are equal to women and equal to men as Allah has commanded.
However yes any Muslim nation within UN could be in reality in breach of the Charter, the problem being is the UN was created for every nation to have a seat and a say. There is many nations that would be considered in breach of the original charter. I would suggest the charter is a guideline to what the UN,s was created to achieve, it would be however bad politics to enforce the charter to be fully obeyed before a nation obtained a seat.
But perhaps the president of the UN should only go to a nation that agreed completely to the charter. Therefore no Muslim should hold the presidential seat.
Treki is on this issue stuck between a rock and a hard place, he does not in fact have any other option than follow a religious path on the issues of gay freedom as the representative of a Muslim nation and remembering what the obvious outcome would be to an referendum .
This then makes me question if gay rights was put to a referendum vote would such democratic event take away the right of gays? In my opinion is the gays would lose in USA but in UK and lest religious countries of Europe they would win hands down. They certainly would have my vote.
I feel that Treki is right to question that gay rights have not been a procees of a democratic decision its been one of lobbying.
at 18:13 on September 25th, 2009
If a Democratic vote would be at issue here, chances are that this would also be voted down in a lot of Western Country. Luckily, in most western democracies we have a human rights legislation that protects minorities. Why do you think it so hard to get gay marriage legalized in most of U.S. states? This has been a long hard struggle and it.s not democracy that is at stake here, but human rights of minorities.
Canada's wimpy politicians that wanted to legalize gay marriage, gave it to the Supreme Court to decide to avoid political backlash. When the Supreme Court decided in favour of gays the world didn't start tumbling down.
Here is the 2c worth from an Alberta redneck, as they say.
at 04:56 on September 26th, 2009
And your '2c worth' is always deeply appreciated, albertacowpoke! Thanks for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation!:)
at 04:20 on September 26th, 2009
Babel-Fish, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this matter. However, I do not agree that:
"...he does not in fact have any other option than follow a religious path on the issues of gay freedom..."
He has an option, he just doesn't see it! And this is what puzzles me:)! He can not transcend 'his' religious, political, and cultural indoctrination in order to understand that 'we' are all human beings entitled to every right to be treated equally and with dignity and respect.
at 15:39 on September 25th, 2009
The problem is not the Arabs. It is the Muslims. Arabic culture was accepting of homosexuality; Islam is not.
We have only changed our attitude very recently in the West. In fact, in New York City orthodox rabbis were against some civil rights legislation that would have helped homosexuals in the late 1970s.
While we should disagee with this man's position, I would not be too hard on him, partly because who are we to protest loudly what we so recently supported. Beyond that, it will take time to bring about the changes because they are very big changes in attitude and character.
And, while we are at the task of lambasting UN Charter signatories that violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, let us remember all the dissidents in Cuba, the radio stations shut down in Venezuela, the people literally starved to death in North Korea, the journalists assassinated in Russia, and all the others under the thumb of persecution as a religious or ethnic minority in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere.
at 16:08 on September 25th, 2009
Roy,
No doubt there are many charter violations as you state; however: my comments were specific to his statements as the president of the U.N., in which he should maintain some semblance of neutrality, in my opinion.
at 16:56 on September 25th, 2009
a211423, I agree that as president of the United Nations he should maintain a semblance of neutrality. It seems however that there are only a handful of individuals who can overcome religious, political, and cultural indoctrination in order to realize that WE ARE ALL HUMAN and HOLD EVERY RIGHT to be TREATED with DIGNITY and RESPECT.
It really puzzles me:)!
at 17:01 on September 25th, 2009
Roy, let's not forget "The Umbrella of U.S. Power":)
at 16:02 on September 25th, 2009
Babel
I would not consider gay rights to be any different that considering rights for women, and this could be contentious as well. You say, "the U.N. was created for every nation to have a seat and a say." Arabs in question are free to vote their individual conscience, but for Treki to use the position as president to profess his agenda is wrong, and he claims to be speaking for "the majority of the world" which is speciously presumptive and offensive.
Additionally with an anti-gay agenda by some Arabs, the advocacy for confronting the world wide epidemic of AIDS might be in question, which includes women and children. The criminalization of gays can have far reaching effects than what we are discussing here.
at 16:23 on September 25th, 2009
Quote: "....but for Treki to use the position as president to profess his agenda is wrong, and he claims to be speaking for "the majority of the world" which is speciously presumptive and offensive."
Wowser!!! Try using the president of the US of A in place of Treki. Not much traction there, i'm afraid.