In the age of
digital information, people benefit from vast quantity of knowledge and
information presented each day through different medium, and yet also fall prey
to misinformation or knowledge formed on subjective point of views. Sometimes,
looking through arguments posited in debates concerning a wide range of topics,
I wonder if they have all made their points while refuting these points at the
same time. Sometimes, I also wonder if polemics or discussions among a series
of issues are worthwhile. Human beings, as I've observed through experience and
seen from past scientific studies, tend to see only what they already believe
and reject those that are contrary to their current beliefs. Theories in regard
to this are priming, self-serving bias, self-fulfilling
prophecy, naive realism, self-referential thinking, just to
name a few. Rejections to current personal belief system may occur normally and
only when the subject involved perceives a greater or nobler advantage of
his/her personal well-being in acceptance of the new or opposing value. As you
read, you may also see that I am, myself, falling prey to the same problem: the
rationale that I act, think, and express in an objective manner.
Am I?
The mere thinking
of me as a creation under time, events, thoughts, beliefs, behaviors, and
others all formed within subjective social communities makes me shudder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I happened to
see a discussion of you and your friend. Before writing these words up here, I
have prayed and asked God what I should do as I see the things that you might
not see. The easiest way is to just make a post on my page, but I wondered if
the action was out of love for you or for me. I also wondered if you would ever
see it. I dislike fighting, to the core, I suppose. But more depressed am I
when being deceived and confused. Somehow, your response to your friend's post
confuses me and again cuts through my heart when I think of the discussion we
had a week earlier. I just need to accept again the fact that I am only and
merely a passersby in your life.
But still I
wish to at least write things down here, perhaps as a remembrance or a
reflection for the future I.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the
following press release, Intense Debate,
Close Voting as Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, Digital-age Privacy
Take Centre Stage in Third Committee, reported tensioned debates
between delegates over the amendment of draft resolution A/C.3/71/L.46.
In this draft resolution, Botswana proposed to delay the "consideration of
and action on Human Rights Council resolution 32/2 of" A/71/53
"on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual
orientation and gender identity." After 5 days of the proposal, it was
agreed that operative clause 2 of draft resolution A/C.3/71/L.46
be eliminated, and therefore results in the amendment resolution, A/C.3/71/L.52.
According to
the news coverage, the disagreement "at issue was the Human Rights
Council’s decision 32/2" operative clause 3 of A/71/53
"to appoint an Independent Expert on protection against violence and
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity." As the
delegate of Singapore has pointed out, the GA Assembly certainly has the
mandate to implement such initiatives. Yet, since it is not very often for a
committee within GA Assembly to directly impose actions among State members, as
this is normally the mandate and privilege for the Security Council and the 6th
Committee of General Assembly, refusals to such "strong" decision in
the Human Rights Council of the GA3 may then seem normal.
One of the
argument stated by the representative of Botswana is that "'sexual
orientation' and 'gender identity' were not enshrined in international
law," which is rather unwarranted if we check the international law
established under the UN Charter
and shall find in Clause 3, Article 1, Chapter 1 that State governments are to "respect
for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to
race, sex, language, or religion." Similar and even more detailed
statements may be found in Article 2 of A
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These clauses and others have
pointed out that the international law is written in general and not specific
terms. The international law, if read, never seeks to define human beings in
terms of a particular race, color, social origin, sex, religion, language,
political opinion, and etc.
Perhaps the
reason for their concern is in Article 16 under A
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "men and
women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or
religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." Indeed, only
three kinds of limitations have been recorded in this article, but does Article
2 not show twelve and more possibilities of limitations to human rights? Besides,
marriage is only a fraction among human life, the choice to be in marriage or
in celibacy does not in any way make someone into whom they are not, and most fundamentally,
change their nature as humans.
Also, if we
look closely at the voting results for decision 32/2, we see that reasons to
such objection may likely reach far beyond the issue itself, and that State
representatives are more concerned with the political structure of its country.
Similar cases may be observed in GA4's initiatives to dispatch and establish
assessment peacekeeping personnel and groups in some war-ridden places of the
world, or consider the case of G20. Member States are usually found vowing and
signing general resolutions with painless decisions concerning themselves and
painful ones for others. That is the reality.
As for the
dissension over Comprehensive Sexual Education (CSE), by reading through the
document, IPPF
Framework for Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), and the Guidelines for Comprehensive
Sexuality Education, you may find that the summary, Comprehensive
Sexuality Education (CSE): Sexual Rights vs. Sexual Health, posted
by Family Watch International is a compilation of misinformation and a misinterpretation out of the original context.
The reason for
CSE is to help children and adolescents acquire accurate information to
"issues relating to both the physical and biological aspects of sexuality,
and the emotional and social aspects" (IPPF). It is clearly written
that sexuality education is implemented in different stages. Children in
different age gaps learn of different scopes and topics of the issue, and also
of the value of abstinence before maturity or marriage and responsibilities
behind sexual intercourse. Also, it is clearly pointed out in the Guideline
that it is normal for people to form erotic fantasies but do not need to act on
them. It also asserts that children, despite acquiring such understandings, should
not engage in sexual activities, and calls for in-education individuals to consult
their parents, guardians, or teachers on such issues.
As for the
talks about sexual pleasure, if you truly understand the meaning of sexual
pleasure mentioned within the Framework, you will know how misinterpreted
of the publication and ignorant of the world people may be. This term, sexual
pleasure, is used to discuss about cases of non-consensual or forced sex,
and the Council is working on raising such awareness of the public, as is
normally the case, in developing countries. Take a look at this news of a
60-year-old Afghan cleric forcing a 6-year-old into marriage (Man,
60, Who Married Girl, 6, Says ‘She Was a Gift’). The Council is not
teaching kids to enjoy the engagement of sexual activities, but to let abused
children know that they have a right to refuse any activity regarding it. What
the Council means by "enjoying sexuality" is not about the activity,
but about young individuals of different sexes from different backgrounds given
the right to live without pressure, persecution, abuse, violence, and
etc.
We should not
let our biased thought of the world hinder us from seeing the real sight of the
world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confusion,
confusion, and yet confusion.
