07/27/2007
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon Hit with Gay Protest
Gay activists demonstrated at an appearance by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon yesterday at San Francisco's Fairmont Hotel, hoping to draw attention to the violence and discrimination committed against gays and lesbians around the world.
The activists interrupted Ban's address with shouts of "Break the silence! Talk about about gays!" to which Ban replied, "That is most unusual welcome for me . . . As Secretary General, I'm supposed to answer all questions . . . The gay rights issue is very sensitive."
The protest was a preface to the upcoming Global Days of Gay Solidarity on August 3rd and 4th according to activist Michael Petrelis, who organized and participated in last night's action against the Secretary General and can be seen in the video above. The Global Days of Gay Solidarity are meant to raise awareness of anti-gay violence and will reportedly consist of demonstrations "across the globe."
UN Secretary General Zapped in SF [the petrelis files]
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 1:33 PM EST by Andy in Gay Rights, News, San Francisco, United Nations | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
What an asshole. And what assholes people are. Trivializing the protests turning them into a joke is simply...inhumanely disrespectful, and so are those clapping- the Ann Coulter episode inevitably came to my mind, same insensitive audience. Heartbreaking in a way.
Posted by: Daniel | Jul 27, 2007 1:56:02 PM
So, is Ban Ki-Moon notoriously homophobic or something? Because, if not, this "protest" seems a bit out of place and, dare I say it, disrespectful. And it certainly doesn't put the gay rights movement in a positive light - rudely interrupting the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Posted by: Jordan | Jul 27, 2007 2:31:44 PM
I agree Jordan. I don't know anything about Ki-Moon, so maybe someone else can help us here.
I respect the intentions of the activists, but maybe just asking him a question since it seemed this was an opportunity for the audience to do so would have been more productive.
I'm curious to see more comments on this as I don't have any info on his past.
Posted by: gabriel | Jul 27, 2007 2:45:17 PM
I agree. This is the wrong way to get the message out. If we want our rights to be respected, we have to be willing to show respect to those that are likely to be respectful of us. It'd be different if this is was Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson, etc. Ban has proven hmself time and again as someone that is willing to listen and be thoughtful. This "protest" only serves to diminsh the standing of gay rights with him and other leaders within the UN.
P.S. to Gabriel, Ki-Moon is his given name, not his surname. Like the Chinese, proper Korean names begin with the family/surname and then the first/given name, so he's Secretary Ban, not Secretary Ki-Moon. Saying the later is like saying President George, Prime Minister Gordon or Chancellor Angela for Bush, Brown and Merkel.
Posted by: Craig | Jul 27, 2007 3:35:09 PM
This "prostest" is not only direspectful, it's embarrassing. Once again Michael Petrelis screamed a lot, got his name in the media, and achieved nothing. Daniel, I don't understand how the clapping is heartbreaking, because we don't even know what Ban Ki-Moon is saying. The audience certainly wasn't clapping because Petrelis was removed from the building; at that point they couldn't even see him, and were probably just baffled at his timing and "message."
The reality is that the head of the UN is a diplomat answering to 190+ countries. Attitudes toward homosexuality in those countries range from tolerant to virulently, violently opposed. Since its creation the UN has passed a series of charters (on human rights, the rights of children, women, refugees, etc.). To have any effect at all (and they usually have little even in the best cases), those charters have to be ratified by a large number of countries. Some activists are pushing for the UN to pass a charter on the rights of "sexual minorities." I'm sorry to say it, but it's a lost cause. The European Union requires its members to protect gay rights, and at this point that's about as much progress as you can expect on the issue worldwide. The US wouldn't even sign such a charter.
Posted by: Paul | Jul 27, 2007 3:41:07 PM
Secretary Ban has a responsibility to address the plight of LGBT people, who are subject to some of the most brutal human rights abuses around the world. Talk about a lack of respect - it's absolutely reprehensible that he turned gay rights into a joke about San Francisco's "unusual welcome," and it's even more upsetting that the crowd laughed.
Posted by: James | Jul 27, 2007 3:43:59 PM
Moslem countries and other dictatorships have nearly all the voting power at the UN.
Basically...as long as they are the majority there will never be UN-sanctioned gay rights. Protest all you want...it's not going to change until the UN General Assembly changes.
Posted by: Myackie | Jul 27, 2007 4:42:27 PM
Thanks Craig for pointing that out =)
Posted by: gabriel | Jul 27, 2007 5:11:14 PM
"Moslem countries and other dictatorships have nearly all the voting power at the UN."
This is because all those annoying little Muslim emirates, sultanates, and shiekdoms carry the same weight as a large nation-state. The African states are also anti-gay (with the single exception of South Africa). And the Asian states are mostly indifferent to homosexuality. Japan, the Phillippines, South Korea, and the like routinely abstain on such issues.
Although, to be fair, we're hardly in a position of moral superiority in the 'land of the free.' The United States also has a penchant for voting with the Muslims and Africans when it comes to gay issues. In fact, being anti-gay is the only thing that unites Iran and America at the UN.
It's quite disgusting, really.
Posted by: John | Jul 27, 2007 5:31:19 PM
The protest was extremely rude. And this happened in the very beginning of the speech, so they didn't even give him a chance to speak. Not to mention, they could have filled out the question cards and waited to see if it would be asked. No, all they wanted to do was get on TV and interrupt a man who has to answer to countries that don't even have basic human rights, let alone female or gay rights. Shame on these guys.
Posted by: sunshine | Jul 27, 2007 5:46:39 PM
The protest was extremely rude. And this happened in the very beginning of the speech, so they didn't even give him a chance to speak. Not to mention, they could have filled out the question cards and waited to see if it would be asked. No, all they wanted to do was get on TV and interrupt a man who has to answer to countries that don't even have basic human rights, let alone female or gay rights. Shame on these guys.
Posted by: sunshine | Jul 27, 2007 5:46:46 PM
The protest was extremely rude. And this happened in the very beginning of the speech, so they didn't even give him a chance to speak. Not to mention, they could have filled out the question cards and waited to see if it would be asked. No, all they wanted to do was get on TV and interrupt a man who has to answer to countries that don't even have basic human rights, let alone female or gay rights. Shame on these guys.
Posted by: sunshine | Jul 27, 2007 5:46:50 PM
No, what is heartbreaking is the insensitivity. And also what the applauses and laughs imply: the laugh is on us. And we're the only ones not laughing, yet again. And I don't know how some can question the irruption- please google this: "Mahmoud and Ayaz hung" and tell me if you're not enraged. Don't lose that capacity guys!
Posted by: Daniel | Jul 27, 2007 6:10:30 PM
Daniel, it's not a matter of being enraged, it's a matter of directly it effectively. The secretary-general of the UN has no more capacity to control the barbaric acts of countries like Iran than does the United States or anyone else. Not to mention, plenty of countries think the US is barbaric because we also perform executions---including of mentally disabled people.
As for another comment, to say "annoying little Muslim emirates, sultanates, and shiekdoms carry the same weight as a large nation-state" is both insulting and incorrect. In the general voting body, yes---but the general votes do nothing. The UN Security Council is the organization's most important arm, and is basically controlled by the US and other rich countries.
Posted by: Paul | Jul 27, 2007 6:50:03 PM
If you think the UN is only the Security Council, you're a moron.
There's more to the United Nations than imposing sanctions and authorizing wars.
And to say that Russia and China are "basically controlled by the US" and/or "rich" is a rather generous assessment of the situation. The US rarely gets what it wants in the Security Council. And Russia and China's mighty GDP doesn't really translate into wealth on the ground. The average "poor" American is still far better off than a farmer in Hunan province.
The Economic and Social Council, the World Health Organization, the Human Rights Commission, and so forth... have no power to force a state to do something. But they're symbolically important. And it does matter who is appointed to those committees and which organizations are allowed to lobby them.
The recent hardline stances by Muslim states and others against gay NGOs does in fact "do something." It silences those voices from the discussion at a critical time. When gay groups were allowed to participate in the 1990s, there was an affect.
After the WHO removed homosexuality from it's list of mental diseases (1993), many reluctant member states in South America and Asia followed suit. When the Australian state of Tasmania went to the HRC to justify keeping their sodomy law (1997), they were rebuked by other western nations. This shamed them into repealing the law. Antonhy Kennedy later cited this precedent in the Lawrence v Texas decision.
Posted by: John | Jul 28, 2007 1:09:44 AM
I agree with Paul. The average farmer in Hunan Province, or Anhui or even 'wealthy' Jiangsu have much more difficult living conditions than the gay couple living in San Francisco.
And the protesters at the Fairmont were not fair at all to Mr. Ban. As the secretary general, he does have a responsibility, as he said, to answer all the questions. But the way they interrupted his speech, not once but twice, was certainly not professional. The audience was there not to listen to a couple of protesters, but rather to an important world figure. At least that's why I went.
The audience was not homophobic, Coulterish, or anything else. get your facts straight!
Posted by: JOY | Jul 28, 2007 3:32:24 AM
I agree with Paul. The average farmer in Hunan Province, or Anhui or even 'wealthy' Jiangsu have much more difficult living conditions than the gay couple living in San Francisco.
And the protesters at the Fairmont were not fair at all to Mr. Ban. As the secretary general, he does have a responsibility, as he said, to answer all the questions. But the way they interrupted his speech, not once but twice, was certainly not professional. The audience was there not to listen to a couple of protesters, but rather to an important world figure. At least that's why I went.
The audience was not homophobic, Coulterish, or anything else. get your facts straight!
Posted by: JOY | Jul 28, 2007 3:32:35 AM
Michael Petrelis is a shrill attention whore.
Posted by: thin mint | Jul 28, 2007 2:57:41 PM