The IBGMUN Human Rights Council 2024

Establishing International Standards for the Protection of LGBTQ+ Rights

Is freedom of sexuality a human right? Are members of the LGBTQ+ community still at risk today? These and other questions were answered in the IBGMUN Human Rights Council from the perspective of various nations. Since its inception, the Human Rights Council has been concerned with the universal protection of human rights and thus embodies the values of the United Nations.

The debate began with powerful opening speeches and quickly led to the first resolution, which was presented by the main submitter France and the United Kingdom, Australia and Denmark as co-submitters.

France: “The criminalization of individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity violates fundamental human rights.“

After France had called for an international legal framework that ensures full equality and protection for LGBTQ+ members, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Australia made strong speeches in favour of the resolution. Each delegation argued that members of the LGBTQ+ community must be considered equal and should therefore enjoy the same rights with regards to marriage, family foundation and enhanced protections guaranteed by law. However, the resolution was not only met with approval: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the representative of the Catholic Church and Morocco sharply criticized the proposed solution.

Egypt: “Religious laws and the set of beliefs that shape many national identities show us that there is no need for such a framework.“

While the committee was in time against the resolution as a whole, the discussion became heated. Poland, the representative of the Catholic Church and Egypt disagreed with many of the statements made by the submitters of the proposed resolution. The delegations argued that the proposed framework for the protection and equality of LGBTQ+ people was not in line with the religious beliefs and morals of the respective countries. Several amendments were tabled, and initially it looked as if both sides would not be able to agree on a compromise. After some amendments had been passed, they were withdrawn again by second-degree amendments.

Due to the ambivalent positions of some countries, the debate remained fruitful and tense until the end. As the debate drew to a close, the original French resolution was officially adopted. Even though not all sides came to an agreement, the majority decided for the resolution. After the resolution had been debated in the General Assembly on the last day, all proposers were happy when the resolution was also adopted by a simple majority in the General Assembly. The conference thus gave us hope that change is possible even in a world in which there is no common agreement about the words “freedom”, “tolerance” and “human rights”.

Sophie & Mieke, Year 12 (Press Team)