Uploaded August 2016 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
South African-based civil society organisations together with the LGBTI
community and human rights based entities were shocked by the country's
abstention at the crucial voting that took place at the UN Human Rights
Council on 30 June 2016 on a resolution aimed at establishing an
Independent Expert on
violence and discrimination against people based on their sexual
orientation or gender identity. South Africa's abstentions on voting on the
day had far reaching consequences. SA leadership could have helped build
regional support and shape a more positive and inclusive dynamic; as it
was, States like Angola, which co-sponsored the resolution at an early
stage, was left feeling isolated, and ended up withdrawing co-sponsorship.
In addition, South Africa abstained not only on passing the resolution as a
whole, but also on hostile amendments introduced by states that are in
opposition to the human rights of LGBTI people.
For example, one suggested amendment expressed concern at the international
human rights system inclusion of SOGI issues, terming them "social" and
outside of the human rights framework. This amendment was adopted by a
single vote of 18-17, with 9 abstentions. If South Africa had opposed this
derogatory language, instead of abstaining, the vote would have been 18-18,
with 8 abstentions, and the amendment would not have passed. In the end,
the resolution as a whole passed with several hostile amendments, where our
government's choice to abstain was often as damaging as having voted
against the resolution.
Despite South Africa attending resolution negotiations, it did not speak,
engage, present concerns or make proposals. In its explanation of its
abstention, South Africa also attacked the Latin American states sponsoring
the resolution, calling their approach "polarising". In fact, numerous
delegations praised the lead sponsors for their collaborative and
respectful approach, and despite SA’s allegations of polarisation, the
margin of support for the resolution creating the Independent Expert was
actually higher than for SA’s own resolution in 2011. Ironically, South
Africa also invoked its own Constitution and the struggle against apartheid
as a history that has taught them a more collaborative approach that
would seek "maximum unity in the council", overlooking that it was in
part, international pressure from the UN that contributed to the end of
Apartheid.
South African-based civil society organisations together with the LGBTI
community and human rights based entities were shocked by the country's
abstention at the crucial voting that took place at the UN Human Rights
Council on 30 June 2016 on a resolution aimed at establishing an
Independent Expert on
violence and discrimination against people based on their sexual
orientation or gender identity. South Africa's abstentions on voting on the
day had far reaching consequences. SA leadership could have helped build
regional support and shape a more positive and inclusive dynamic; as it
was, States like Angola, which co-sponsored the resolution at an early
stage, was left feeling isolated, and ended up withdrawing co-sponsorship.
In addition, South Africa abstained not only on passing the resolution as a
whole, but also on hostile amendments introduced by states that are in
opposition to the human rights of LGBTI people.
For example, one suggested amendment expressed concern at the international
human rights system inclusion of SOGI issues, terming them "social" and
outside of the human rights framework. This amendment was adopted by a
single vote of 18-17, with 9 abstentions. If South Africa had opposed this
derogatory language, instead of abstaining, the vote would have been 18-18,
with 8 abstentions, and the amendment would not have passed. In the end,
the resolution as a whole passed with several hostile amendments, where our
government's choice to abstain was often as damaging as having voted
against the resolution.
Despite South Africa attending resolution negotiations, it did not speak,
engage, present concerns or make proposals. In its explanation of its
abstention, South Africa also attacked the Latin American states sponsoring
the resolution, calling their approach "polarising". In fact, numerous
delegations praised the lead sponsors for their collaborative and
respectful approach, and despite SA’s allegations of polarisation, the
margin of support for the resolution creating the Independent Expert was
actually higher than for SA’s own resolution in 2011. Ironically, South
Africa also invoked its own Constitution and the struggle against apartheid
as a history that has taught them a more collaborative approach that
would seek "maximum unity in the council", overlooking that it was in
part, international pressure from the UN that contributed to the end of
Apartheid.
