Durban - The government has strongly denied discriminating against gays, despite voting last month against a move to include same-sex parent families in a UN resolution on protecting families.
The DA has written to Minister of International Relations and Co-operation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane “to demand an urgent explanation for South Africa’s endorsement of the exclusion of LGBTI (Lesbian, Gay, Transgender and Intersex) families from a resolution passed by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
“According to reports by the director of the Human Rights Watch LGBT Rights Programme, South Africa not only voted for the resolution, but also supported Russia’s proposal to shut down any discussion around an ‘inclusive family’,” the DA spokesman on International Relations and Co-operation Stevens Mokgalapa said on Wednesday.
He added that this flew in the face of South Africa’s commitment for fighting for the rights of the LGBTI community, enshrined in the constitution.
Nkoana-Mashabane seemed unaware of South Africa’s vote on the Human Rights Council when asked about the controversy at a press conference in Pretoria on Wednesday.
But she strenuously denied any discrimination by her government against LGBTI people.
“In this country, there is no discrimination against anyone in respect of colour, sexual orientation or anything else,” she said.
“That’s what we fought against. That’s why human rights remains the cornerstone of our constitution.
“We champion the diplomacy of Ubuntu. With that, we mean human rights remain the cornerstone of our foreign policy.”
Her officials explained that South Africa’s vote to keep references to LGBTI families out of the resolution on the protection of families was based on procedural grounds, to avoid opening up a messy debate on the definition of “family” at this time.
They said the resolution, which was adopted, called for a panel discussion by the UN Rights Council in September, about how states were protecting the family and its members.
The officials said the resolution had made no reference to the definition of a family. But then some Western countries led by Uruguay had proposed an amendment to the resolution, adding that “in different cultural, political and social systems, various forms of the family exist.”
This was clearly a reference to families headed by same-sex parents. This amendment had provoked Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to propose an alternative amendment, which would have added “that men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the rights to marry and to found a family, bearing in mind that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.”
The South African officials said that South Africa voted against the Uruguay-sponsored amendment because it felt the debate about the definition of a family should be left for the panel discussion in September.
They said that when the Uruguay amendment was defeated, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAR had withdrawn their amendment.
“If there had been a vote on the Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAR amendment, we would have voted against that too.”
The DA’s Mokgalapa said that South Africa had not kept to its commitment to host the African regional seminar focusing on the plight of the LGBTI community during the first half of this year. And it had been silent on Uganda’s recent adoption of harsh legislation to punish gays.
All these decisions raised doubts about how serious the government was about protecting LGBTI rights.
The Mercury