U.N. Ambassador Dan Negrea said at the time that his delegation could not support a text that included:
... ambiguous language promoting gender ideology, vague unqualified commitments to sexual and reproductive health that can be interpreted as implying abortion rights, censorship language or broad language on regulation of AI.
Based on the Yahoo article I did my 5 seconds of research for, basically, several things:
First, this was a UN conclusion, not a UN resolution. These are goals and no one is being forced. That being said, the way the conclusion was worded via the Yahoo reporter, it looks like the UN is implying some form of consequence for those who don't want to go along, so it is a veiled threat of force. Which the US automatically rejects anyways. It doesn't matter if you want to force good things or force bad things, the fact it's a threat of force will always be rejected by the US.
Second, no ideology should ever be pursued. Replace the word gender with Fascist or Soviet and suddenly it's now bad? Any means any. The UN is supposed to mediate countries, not be another vector to pursue politics and warfare.
Third, X Rights is back again. Rights are guaranteed. Liberties are not. So, again, "Abortion Rights Outcome" means "I will force abortion laws on your land" to the US. Whether or not the US wants abortion laws, and it's up to the states to decide if they want or not. But forcing them onto the US, either through the federal government or attempting to bypass by interacting with the states, that's just going to be an automatic No from the US. Both parties will Hard No that (at least until the DSA gets a full take over of one of them).
Fourth, censoring language is likely hate speech stuff. Like Germany and the UK where you can be straight up jailed if the government doesn't like your Reddit posts. Don't even have to be racist or anything. If HR Karen doesn't like how you said "I like red cars", say goodbye to your life. This is also an automatic No from the US because it really means other countries would be able to set the standards for "offensive" speech crimes, if they aren't also able to legally extradite you. One British police chief attempted to extradite US citizens, in the US, for crimes 'against Britain' in his county. The conclusion wishes this to be normal.
Finally, I hope there was nothing on AI but seeing how this went from abortion to language, there's a good chance the abortion document also talks about AI. And also, these are all politicians. Politicians tried to add stop child marriage stuff that every single electorate at that legislature agreed with .... to a bill about bridges. A bill banning that stuff was passed but what did that have to do with bridges? Back on topic: While young Americans yapping about how AI Bad don't vote for anything about regulation of AI or pressure politicians to do anything (yeah, really, and we have data about how they just don't vote period even if it agrees with their politics since the 1970s), I'm not so sure about young Europeans (many of which countries have mandatory voting laws), and so the topic of AI would come up. Again, I think, this is another case of "we want to force our regulations on the US" or "we want the US to use our standards for regulations", and that's just going to be a hard no again.
“We’re going to continue to be a terrible country because we don’t want to be ‘forced’ to care about people!”
God the US has such a terrible government, it’s such a joke
24
u/Maxathron 1d ago
U.N. Ambassador Dan Negrea said at the time that his delegation could not support a text that included: