Friday, October 15, 2004
Add this to the WTF list...
(Oct. 14, 2004, AP) The United States has refused to join 85 heads of state and government in signing a statement that endorsed a 10-year-old U.N. plan to ensure every woman's right to education, healthcare and choice about having children.
I am shocked, shocked, to hear this. America spitting in the face of world opinion. One would almost think that the current administration thinks the USA exists in a vacuum, and…oh, yeah. That’s right.
The Bush administration said it withheld its signature because the statement included a reference to "sexual rights."
Which, of course, would mean the right to control one's own body. Can’t have that.
Kelly Ryan, deputy assistant secretary of State, wrote to backers of the plan that the United States was committed "to the empowerment of women and the need to promote women's fullest enjoyment of universal human rights."
As long as that “fullest enjoyment of universal human rights” doesn’t include the right to control one’s own body, apparently. Would that be half-full, then? Not quite empty?
"The United States is unable, however, to endorse the world leaders' statement," Ryan said, because it "includes the concept of 'sexual rights,' a term that has no agreed definition in the international community."
Not the United States, asshole. The Bush administration. The two are not the same. You are not speaking for me. I don’t have any problem defining the term. It means "sexual rights." You know, like "voting rights." Oh, you never heard of that one, either?
Ryan did not elaborate. At previous U.N. meetings, U.S. representatives have spoken out against abortion, gay rights and what they see as the promotion of promiscuity by distributing condoms to prevent AIDS.
So they have their own definition of sexual rights. Probably something like this: face to face monogamous heterosexual copulation, for the purposes of procreation only. Unless you’re a GOPer. Then, of course, whatever you get caught doing falls under IOKIYAR.
The statement was signed by leaders of 85 nations, including those in the European Union, China, Japan, Indonesia, Pakistan and more than a dozen African countries, as well as 22 former world leaders.
Sorry, guys…the Bushies just aren’t as enlightened as you folks in Pakistan... WTF? I mean, even Pakistan can sign this, but it’s too liberal for the USA? Really What The Fuck? Wait’ll 2005.
UPDATE: From alert reader Lis Riba in comments: "But there IS an agreed upon international definition. From the World Health Organization: 'Sexual rights embrace human rights that are already recognized in national laws, international human rights documents and other consensus documents. These include the right of all persons, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, to: the highest attainable standard of health in relation to sexuality, including access to sexual and reproductive health care services; seek, receive and impart information in relation to sexuality; sexuality education; respect for bodily integrity; choice of partner; decide to be sexually active or not; consensual sexual relations; consensual marriage; decide whether or not, and when to have children; and pursue a satisfying, safe and pleasurable sexual life'. Yeah, I can see why the GOP opposes that list."
Yeah, me too. Thanks.
I am shocked, shocked, to hear this. America spitting in the face of world opinion. One would almost think that the current administration thinks the USA exists in a vacuum, and…oh, yeah. That’s right.
The Bush administration said it withheld its signature because the statement included a reference to "sexual rights."
Which, of course, would mean the right to control one's own body. Can’t have that.
Kelly Ryan, deputy assistant secretary of State, wrote to backers of the plan that the United States was committed "to the empowerment of women and the need to promote women's fullest enjoyment of universal human rights."
As long as that “fullest enjoyment of universal human rights” doesn’t include the right to control one’s own body, apparently. Would that be half-full, then? Not quite empty?
"The United States is unable, however, to endorse the world leaders' statement," Ryan said, because it "includes the concept of 'sexual rights,' a term that has no agreed definition in the international community."
Not the United States, asshole. The Bush administration. The two are not the same. You are not speaking for me. I don’t have any problem defining the term. It means "sexual rights." You know, like "voting rights." Oh, you never heard of that one, either?
Ryan did not elaborate. At previous U.N. meetings, U.S. representatives have spoken out against abortion, gay rights and what they see as the promotion of promiscuity by distributing condoms to prevent AIDS.
So they have their own definition of sexual rights. Probably something like this: face to face monogamous heterosexual copulation, for the purposes of procreation only. Unless you’re a GOPer. Then, of course, whatever you get caught doing falls under IOKIYAR.
The statement was signed by leaders of 85 nations, including those in the European Union, China, Japan, Indonesia, Pakistan and more than a dozen African countries, as well as 22 former world leaders.
Sorry, guys…the Bushies just aren’t as enlightened as you folks in Pakistan... WTF? I mean, even Pakistan can sign this, but it’s too liberal for the USA? Really What The Fuck? Wait’ll 2005.
UPDATE: From alert reader Lis Riba in comments: "But there IS an agreed upon international definition. From the World Health Organization: 'Sexual rights embrace human rights that are already recognized in national laws, international human rights documents and other consensus documents. These include the right of all persons, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, to: the highest attainable standard of health in relation to sexuality, including access to sexual and reproductive health care services; seek, receive and impart information in relation to sexuality; sexuality education; respect for bodily integrity; choice of partner; decide to be sexually active or not; consensual sexual relations; consensual marriage; decide whether or not, and when to have children; and pursue a satisfying, safe and pleasurable sexual life'. Yeah, I can see why the GOP opposes that list."
Yeah, me too. Thanks.
