BY SAMAH HASSAN, The Pioneer
BOSTON, Mass. (The Pioneer) — There was very much confusion in the Social Humanitarian and Cultural Committee (SOCHUM) as delegates were not too sure whether to discuss Topic A which was on Linguistic Minorities or Topic B which was Asylum for LGBTQ Individuals Fleeing Persecution, despite Topic A taking the agenda. Most delegates from different countries came to talk about Topic A but could not resist the urgency to discuss Topic B.
This led to the dais asking if anyone wanted to close the motion and go back to voting. Nigeria was the first country to go up. They were against closing the motion on Topic A. Furthermore, Angola went ahead to debate that minorities in Linguistic Minorities was a domestic issue and not an international issue, unlike the issues with the LGBTQ community.
Colombia was also against closing the motion of Topic A saying linguistic is part of culture and should not be erased instead. It is an issue that should be addressed as it affects all of us. Thus, we should come up with possible solutions.
However, some countries like China and Portugal did come up to disagree and wanted the motion on Topic A closed. Instead they debated on Topic B saying that it is important for any human to feel safe because they can get persecuted and possibly killed.
“The right to love is a human right and should not be violated,” said the delegation of Liberia. Liberia felt that the LGBTQ committee should not feel threatened and should be given their rights just like any other human. They should not feel like they need to seek asylum and should be free to do what they want.
The delegate of the Republic of the Portuguese strongly wanted the motion to discuss Topic B. They urged the international community to help LGBTQ committees and protect them from any violations. The delegation of Jordan also wanted to close Topic A and debate Topic B. This could be because of the penal code passed by Jordan not to criminalize the LGBTQ community. Jordan is one of the few Muslim countries that is regarded as an advancing state in terms of the rights given to LGBTQ individuals. They felt that LGBTQ individuals should be given rights and should not feel threatened at all. They argued that sometimes the topic is not discussed because people are conservative, but the topic can still be discussed with respect to those who are conservative.