Yesterday, on October 20th, 2024, the Human Rights Committee (HRC), -the very body commissioned to protect all people, regardless of individual origin, values, beliefs, or sexual orientation- , managed to hit a new low. Out of seemingly nowhere, a resolution drafted on the topic “Measures to Prevent Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation,” which the council had worked on for the previous three days, failed entirely after it was discovered that two clauses, which had survived all amendments, endorsed the systematic oppression of LGBTQ+ people globally. 

The two clauses in question aimed to ban any and all media representation of LGBTQ+ people and their rights, introduce propaganda about the dangers of same-sex sexual activity, and further adopt legislation prohibiting public demonstrations, parades, and any events promoting non-traditional sexual orientation. This resolution, if it hadn’t been stopped at the last minute, would have posed a grotesque assault on everything the UN stands for and the core values it was founded upon. While the failure of the working paper was a win for human rights, it marked a loss for the integrity of the HRC. 

A pressing question looms over this disastrous incident: Who is to blame, and how could such audacious clauses have passed? These are question that neither the delegates nor the chairs of the committee could answer. Upon investigation, the chairs could not recall who had voted in favor or against the amendments, and a few delegates claimed not to remember whether they themselves had voted for them. This raises serious concerns about how such radical clauses managed to get through. 

With the rejection of the resolution, two days of work went to waste. With only one day left to draft a successful resolution, the committee got to work on a new agenda for October 21st. Though the details of the embarrassing mistakes remain unclear, one must admit that the dedication to fix these mistakes was admirable, to say the least. As time was of the essence, the committee managed to write and deliver all opening speeches within the first 50 minutes of the session—productivity that was likely unmatched by any other committee on Monday. 

To rebuild team spirit and morale, the committee decided to hold a short, fun debate before lunch. The topic: Are the ties worn by Chair Emil so ugly as to be considered a human rights violation, and which present nation’s flag deserves to be represented on his ties in the future? This lighthearted debate turned into a heated discussion between France and Italy, both insisting on their national superiority.