Muslim States At UN Slam Gays For 'Abnormal Sexual Behaviour', Boycott Panel On Anti-Gay Violence

A Pakistani spokesman for the Muslim bloc in the UN caused a furor today by announcing to the UN’s top rights body that its 56 member states (essentially, the members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation plus 'Palestine') would ignore a scheduled UN rights panel on anti-gay violence, saying they were “disturbed” at the “attempted focus on certain persons” on the grounds of their “abnormal sexual behaviour,” which “have nothing to do with fundamental human rights.”

The site UN Watch has the statement in full posted on its site.

The letter, written by Pakistan’s envoy Zamir Akram on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation's 56 members plus the Palestinian Authority was sent, believe it or not, on Valentine’s Day to UN Human Rights Council president Laura Dupuy Lasserre and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay.

Who says Muslims don't have a sense of humor?

The OIC declared its " unequivocal opposition" to the upcoming March 7th panel discussion on a new UN report on discriminatory laws and practices and violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity...which primarily occur guess where?

The OIC said it will “will not accept its considerations and recommendations.”

The OIC letter also said the panel on anti-gay violence addresses “controversial notions” that have “no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument,” “misinterpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and would “seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework,” and “ shift the focus from the real issues that deserve the attention of the Council.”

By 'shifting the focus', they mean talking about anything but Jews and Israel, of course.

It's fascinating to me - well, perhaps sickening is a better word- the way the Left in the west makes common cause with countries that actively repress women and homosexuals while at the same time making a fetish about the 'Palestinians' and 'anti-Zionism' to demonize the small country of Israel, which does neither. It's also interesting that the so-called humanitarians at the UN don't simply kick them out no matter how many times they violate the UN Charter.

This is anecdotal, but none the less true. There are a number of homosexual Arabs in Tel Aviv and elsewhere who are essentially illegal aliens who fled to Israel from the 'Palestinian Authority' and Gaza to avoid being executed. The Shin Bet and the police have a list and know exactly whom they are but deliberately do not deport them as long as they live out their lives quietly...because they know that to do so would be the equivalent of a death sentence.

All men may be equal, but all cultures aren't.

Muslim States At UN Slam Gays For 'Abnormal Sexual Behaviour', Boycott Panel On Anti-Gay Violence

A Pakistani spokesman for the Muslim bloc in the UN caused a furor today by announcing to the UN’s top rights body that its 56 member states (essentially, the members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation plus 'Palestine') would ignore a scheduled UN rights panel on anti-gay violence, saying they were “disturbed” at the “attempted focus on certain persons” on the grounds of their “abnormal sexual behaviour,” which “have nothing to do with fundamental human rights.”

The site UN Watch has the statement in full posted on its site.

The letter, written by Pakistan’s envoy Zamir Akram on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation's 56 members plus the Palestinian Authority was sent, believe it or not, on Valentine’s Day to UN Human Rights Council president Laura Dupuy Lasserre and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay.

Who says Muslims don't have a sense of humor?

The OIC declared its " unequivocal opposition" to the upcoming March 7th panel discussion on a new UN report on discriminatory laws and practices and violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity...which primarily occur guess where?

The OIC said it will “will not accept its considerations and recommendations.”

The OIC letter also said the panel on anti-gay violence addresses “controversial notions” that have “no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument,” “misinterpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and would “seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework,” and “ shift the focus from the real issues that deserve the attention of the Council.”

By 'shifting the focus', they mean talking about anything but Jews and Israel, of course.

It's fascinating to me - well, perhaps sickening is a better word- the way the Left in the west makes common cause with countries that actively repress women and homosexuals while at the same time making a fetish about the 'Palestinians' and 'anti-Zionism' to demonize the small country of Israel, which does neither. It's also interesting that the so-called humanitarians at the UN don't simply kick them out no matter how many times they violate the UN Charter.

This is anecdotal, but none the less true. There are a number of homosexual Arabs in Tel Aviv and elsewhere who are essentially illegal aliens who fled to Israel from the 'Palestinian Authority' and Gaza to avoid being executed. The Shin Bet and the police have a list and know exactly whom they are but deliberately do not deport them as long as they live out their lives quietly...because they know that to do so would be the equivalent of a death sentence.

All men may be equal, but all cultures aren't.

9th Circuit Panel Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Exactly as I predicted, the three judge 9th Circuit panel ruled in a 2-1 decision that:

(a) Prop 8 violates the US Constitution

(B) Judge Vaughn Walker had no reason to recuse himself from hearing the case, even that he happened to be gay, had a long-time partner with whom he was not married and thus would seem to have had a personal interest in the case and

(C) that the plaintiffs have standing to continue their appeals.

The next step will undoubtedly be an appeal before the full 11-judge 9th Circuit,followed by an appeal to the Supreme Court if the 9th Circuit backs today's ruling by the 3 judge panel.

9th Circuit Panel Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Exactly as I predicted, the three judge 9th Circuit panel ruled in a 2-1 decision that:

(a) Prop 8 violates the US Constitution

(B) Judge Vaughn Walker had no reason to recuse himself from hearing the case, even that he happened to be gay, had a long-time partner with whom he was not married and thus would seem to have had a personal interest in the case and

(C) that the plaintiffs have standing to continue their appeals.

The next step will undoubtedly be an appeal before the full 11-judge 9th Circuit,followed by an appeal to the Supreme Court if the 9th Circuit backs today's ruling by the 3 judge panel.

9th Circuit Ruling On California's Prop 8 Expected Tomorrow

An important 9th Circuit Appeals Court Ruling On Perry v. Brown, which concerns California's Proposition 8 repealing same sex marriage is expected tomorrow.

There are three important points at issue: First, whether former U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from hearing the case, seeing that he happens to be gay, has a long-time partner with whom he was not married and thus would seem to have a personal interest in the case.

Second, whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to appeal Walker's decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional when none of the State of California's officials who normally defend the state's laws from legal challenges decided to do so, including then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General and now Governor Jerry Brown Attorney General declined to appeal th ejudge's decision.

And finally, if Walker did not need to recuse himself and the proponents do have the right to appeal, was Judge Walker was correct that Proposition 8 violates Californians' due process and the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution.

My guess is that the 9th Circuit will punt, especially as this is a ruling by the public information office rather than an actual judicial panel. In other words, they will rule that the plaintiffs have standing, but that Judge Walker did not need to recuse himself. And the full 9th Circuit can then go about its business of ruling Prop 8 unconstitutional and handing it off to the Supreme Court, if they decide to hear the case.

This is yet another example of same sex marriage proponents imposing their will via judicial or legislative action rather than by referendums. As a matter of fact, when it comes to direct referendums to legalize same sex marriage, the record is 31-0 against, and in several cases, California, Massachusetts, and Iowa among them, laws permitting same sex marriage were implemented in spite of the very clear wishes of substantial public majorities.

Oddly enough, the California Supreme Court admitted when it originally legalized same sex marriage back in 2008 that the state's domestic partner laws saw to it that partners in a civil union were deprived of no rights that couples in heterosexual marriages enjoyed, but decided to enact what amounted to an ipse dixit( legalese for 'because I said so') decision that went far beyond citing any existing law.

Prop 8's passage as an amendment to California's constitution by a 2 to 1 majority, the well funded and high profile legal challenge, the governor and the attorney's general's failure to abide by their sworn oaths and defend California's constitution and the questionable ruling by Judge Walker followed.

The question of whether Prop 8 violated the Constitutional is an interesting one. It's obviously a severe stretch of the Equal protection clause, easily seen by the fact that proponents of same sex marriage always need to coflate it with the Civil Rights struggle when no such equivalence exists, but that's for judges to decide.

More important is whether the concept of same sex marriage is a bad idea for society as a whole, and whether imposing these kind of institutions on people by legislative and judicial diktat is a good precedent to establish.

Those are the bigger issues no one seems to want to discuss at all.

9th Circuit Ruling On California's Prop 8 Expected Tomorrow

An important 9th Circuit Appeals Court Ruling On Perry v. Brown, which concerns California's Proposition 8 repealing same sex marriage is expected tomorrow.

There are three important points at issue: First, whether former U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from hearing the case, seeing that he happens to be gay, has a long-time partner with whom he was not married and thus would seem to have a personal interest in the case.

Second, whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to appeal Walker's decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional when none of the State of California's officials who normally defend the state's laws from legal challenges decided to do so, including then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General and now Governor Jerry Brown Attorney General declined to appeal th ejudge's decision.

And finally, if Walker did not need to recuse himself and the proponents do have the right to appeal, was Judge Walker was correct that Proposition 8 violates Californians' due process and the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution.

My guess is that the 9th Circuit will punt, especially as this is a ruling by the public information office rather than an actual judicial panel. In other words, they will rule that the plaintiffs have standing, but that Judge Walker did not need to recuse himself. And the full 9th Circuit can then go about its business of ruling Prop 8 unconstitutional and handing it off to the Supreme Court, if they decide to hear the case.

This is yet another example of same sex marriage proponents imposing their will via judicial or legislative action rather than by referendums. As a matter of fact, when it comes to direct referendums to legalize same sex marriage, the record is 31-0 against, and in several cases, California, Massachusetts, and Iowa among them, laws permitting same sex marriage were implemented in spite of the very clear wishes of substantial public majorities.

Oddly enough, the California Supreme Court admitted when it originally legalized same sex marriage back in 2008 that the state's domestic partner laws saw to it that partners in a civil union were deprived of no rights that couples in heterosexual marriages enjoyed, but decided to enact what amounted to an ipse dixit( legalese for 'because I said so') decision that went far beyond citing any existing law.

Prop 8's passage as an amendment to California's constitution by a 2 to 1 majority, the well funded and high profile legal challenge, the governor and the attorney's general's failure to abide by their sworn oaths and defend California's constitution and the questionable ruling by Judge Walker followed.

The question of whether Prop 8 violated the Constitutional is an interesting one. It's obviously a severe stretch of the Equal protection clause, easily seen by the fact that proponents of same sex marriage always need to coflate it with the Civil Rights struggle when no such equivalence exists, but that's for judges to decide.

More important is whether the concept of same sex marriage is a bad idea for society as a whole, and whether imposing these kind of institutions on people by legislative and judicial diktat is a good precedent to establish.

Those are the bigger issues no one seems to want to discuss at all.

Obama Administration To Use Gay Rights As A Condition for Foreign Aid

Yes indeed.

So, I would expect all aid to the 'Palestinian Authority' and pretty much all of the Muslim World to be suspended immediately.

And of course, the Administration will do an about face and immediately grant this man asylum.

Ri-ight.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama Administration To Use Gay Rights As A Condition for Foreign Aid

Yes indeed.

So, I would expect all aid to the 'Palestinian Authority' and pretty much all of the Muslim World to be suspended immediately.

And of course, the Administration will do an about face and immediately grant this man asylum.

Ri-ight.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama Administration Denies Asylum To Gay Saudi Diplomat

Ali Ahmad Asseri, the former first secretary of the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles,California was denied political asylum by the Obama Administration last week, reportedly to avoid disrupting US-Saudi relations.

Ths Saudi government yanked his diplomatic passport after his sexual orientation and a friendship with an Israeli woman in Los Angeles became known.

Asseri's argument was that he cannot return to Saudi Arabia because under the country's sharia law same sex relations are a capital offense and he would face execution.

Asseri claimed that the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles found out he was gay after having him followed when he went out to socialize at gay bars.

Saudi-American journalist and blogger Rasheed Abou-Alsamh who has written for the Washington Times and blogs over at Rasheed's World was the first one to break the story.

One of his sources claims that Asseri's initial interview with Homeland Security went well, but that things took a turn for the worse after the DHS found out that Asseri had been a public prosecutor in Saudi Arabia, overseeing punishments like lashing, judicial amputations and decapitations.

As a side note, homosexuals are not always executed in Saudi Arabia as they are in Iran and other Islamic sharia jurisdictions. Sometimes they are merely lashed severely and imprisoned. But the possibility of execution is a real one, especially because Asseri is a fairly high profile individual as a former member of the Saudi diplomatic corps.

Another problematic factor is that the Consulate discovered that Asseri had become friends with an Israeli Jewish woman in Los Angeles. The Kingdom does not recognize Israel, has the traditional Muslim attitude towards Jews generally, and promotes hatred for Jews in its schools,mosques and state-controlled media.

Asseri is planning to appeal the decision, so things could stretch out for a couple of years before there's an actual decision.

I hope that homosexuals planning to vote for President Obama are paying attention.


(Vielen dank an meinen guten freund Benny W., reporter extraordinaire! )

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama Administration Denies Asylum To Gay Saudi Diplomat

Ali Ahmad Asseri, the former first secretary of the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles,California was denied political asylum by the Obama Administration last week, reportedly to avoid disrupting US-Saudi relations.

Ths Saudi government yanked his diplomatic passport after his sexual orientation and a friendship with an Israeli woman in Los Angeles became known.

Asseri's argument was that he cannot return to Saudi Arabia because under the country's sharia law same sex relations are a capital offense and he would face execution.

Asseri claimed that the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles found out he was gay after having him followed when he went out to socialize at gay bars.

Saudi-American journalist and blogger Rasheed Abou-Alsamh who has written for the Washington Times and blogs over at Rasheed's World was the first one to break the story.

One of his sources claims that Asseri's initial interview with Homeland Security went well, but that things took a turn for the worse after the DHS found out that Asseri had been a public prosecutor in Saudi Arabia, overseeing punishments like lashing, judicial amputations and decapitations.

As a side note, homosexuals are not always executed in Saudi Arabia as they are in Iran and other Islamic sharia jurisdictions. Sometimes they are merely lashed severely and imprisoned. But the possibility of execution is a real one, especially because Asseri is a fairly high profile individual as a former member of the Saudi diplomatic corps.

Another problematic factor is that the Consulate discovered that Asseri had become friends with an Israeli Jewish woman in Los Angeles. The Kingdom does not recognize Israel, has the traditional Muslim attitude towards Jews generally, and promotes hatred for Jews in its schools,mosques and state-controlled media.

Asseri is planning to appeal the decision, so things could stretch out for a couple of years before there's an actual decision.

I hope that homosexuals planning to vote for President Obama are paying attention.


(Vielen dank an meinen guten freund Benny W., reporter extraordinaire! )

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!