all 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 21 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Sauce

The Assembly also adopted a text concerning “Safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of United Nations personnel” (document A/80/L.18) by a recorded vote of 153 in favour to 1 against (United States) with 6 abstentions (Burundi, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Fiji, Israel, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation).

Also relevant,

However, those amendments were not withdrawn. The representative of the United States proposed four amendments “to protect the original purpose of this resolution from ideological agendas”. Rejecting terminology around sexual and reproductive healthcare, she said this language carries “highly controversial meanings conflating this term with notions of abortion, LGBTQ and other sexual rights”. Further, the UN has gone “wildly off-track exaggerating climate change into the world's greatest threat”, she said, adding that her delegation is proposing amendments to preambular paragraphs 4 and 15 to address the inappropriate references to climate change.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    So the US 'no' vote is not only anti-LGBTQ, it's also pro-climate destruction..

    Climate change is the world's greatest threat, and it's insane that the world's most powerful country is still in denial in 2025.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 27 points 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Even Israel, in the humanitarian aid worker killing hot seat, didn't vote no.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    what's the difference between "abstained" and "did not vote"?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I think it’s the difference between a country publicly declaring that they did not vote, and a country just not voting and saying nothing about not having voted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    That's usually how that goes yes. Abstaining is usually it's own specific vote option. Depending on the system it will also usually be counted for like a vote total to see if something gets a majority too for example. So like if something needs 2/3s voting majority to pass you'd count all three of Yeas, Nays, and Abstains to get the total for that 2/3s majority.

    Whereas "Did not vote" is usually just that whoever it was did not or could not cast a vote. In this case the chart pairs "Did not" and "Could not" under the same color so that's how they seem to have done it here too. The important distinction is that these members are usually not counted for majority determination for passage of motions for example. idk specifically how the UN works here though.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I'm not saying this isn't true, but source?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago

    Trans Derangement Syndrome. They’re obsessed.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    clownshow fascism in progress

  • source