UN General Assembly: vote to defer appointment of Sodomy “Rights” Enforcer fails narrowly

ilga_world_conference_bangkok_vitit_muntarbhorn_keynote_speechThe bid to defer the appointment of a “Special Rapporteur” on “LGBT Rights” has failed narrowly by 77 to 84 votes (with 16 abstentions) in the UN General Assembly. The appointee, Prof. Vitit Muntarbhorn, whose ideological bias and poor academic standards are amply evidenced through the fact that he is the co-author of a pretentious scam called “The Yogyakarta Principles”, has already begun his task, meeting up with the radical Homo-Lobby ILGA to receive and discuss their shopping list of new “rights”.

What the lobby celebrates as a “quantum leap” could turn out as a pyrrhic victory. The narrow outcome  of the vote makes it evident that there is consensus neither with regard to the “rights” on whose implementation Mr. Muntarbhorn is supposed to report nor with regard to the meaning of the term “sexual orientation and gender identity”. More than 80 countries continue considering sexual misconduct, including sodomy, worthy of criminal sanctions – and with making de-criminalization of such misconduct his first priority, Mr. Muntarbhorn is overstepping his mandate as from day one. The likely consequence is that Member States will simply not listen to him, and they will be cautious to appoint a future Rapporteur once his mandate expires.

From a European perspective it is interesting to mote that several European governments that have voted against the deferment of Mr. Muntabhorns did so solely for formal reasons. For example, a representative of Hungary noted that:

“It is the competence of the UN Human Rights Council to appoint independent experts like the Expert on SOGI (LGBT rights). That expert has been appointed by the Human Rights Council. Hungary at that time was not member of HRC (will become on 1st January 2017), so could not vote for or against it. But at the time of the appointment of the SOGI expert by HRC Hungary, along with Poland, manifested its disapproval.

Hungary has not supported the African countries’ proposal (to defer the appointment) because of institutional reasons: if it is the competence of the HRC to appoint an expert for something, it is not appropriate for the UNGA to disapprove that provision.


Hungary is not against the elimination of discrimination/persecution of LGBT persons. Hungary is, however, against attempts of creating some sort of LGBT collective rights and of assimilating those people to other kinds of minorities (e.g. national, ethnic or religious), and will in all cases protest against such attempts.”

Three of the EU Member States that voted against the deferral, Poland, Croatia and Hungary, used the debate in the GA to express concerns regarding the appointment of an LGBT expert and the likelihood that this mandate will polarize nations further on these issues.

Croatia and Hungary even went a step further and said they will be monitoring this new expert to ensure he is not overstepping his mandate and stressed that it was their position that each country should have the right to define marriage.