Brazil has withdrawn its proposed United Nations resolution to include sexual orientation into definitions of global human rights.
Gay activists have blamed pressure from the Vatican, Egypt and Pakistan for the withdrawal of the resolution.
In an official statement from Brazil to the UN, the postponement of the resolution was attributed to an inability to reach a necessary consensus.
Brazil considers that the treatment of any issue in the Commission should not lend itself to exploitation of a political nature nor should it generate controversies with communities and countries with which we hold deep links of friendship, the statement read.
Australia’s newly formed Equal Rights Network (a coalition of national LGBT human rights organisations) expressed disappointment at the withdrawal of the resolution, which had been supported by the Australian government in principle.
Spokesperson for the ERN Rodney Croome told Sydney Star Observer the withdrawal was a serious setback for global LGBT rights.
This resolution would condemn gross abuses of human rights against LGBT people: harassment, jailing, torture, execution, Croome said.
I know of no other example of an important step forward on minority human rights that has been so vigorously opposed and delayed for so long. Certainly I know of no other example where resistance to change has succeeded in the way that it has here.
The withdrawal was also condemned by UK Labour MEP and gay activist Michael Cashman, who blamed an unholy alliance between the Vatican and the 56 member nations of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, UK gay.com reported.
Howard Glenn, longtime gay activist and national director of human rights organisation A Just Australia told the Star by phone from Geneva that more consistent lobbying was necessary to ensure the resolution’s success.
The Vatican and various fundamentalist nations have put a lot of pressure against this initiative on nations, and there hasn’t been consistent lobbying by gay activists on the other side, Glenn said.
Glenn said it was unlikely the motion would be put forward at this session.