Monday, March 31, 2008 | Reason : Political | print version

Print | Comments |

Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

by International Humanist and Ethical Union

Thanks to Jonathan Dore for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.iheu.org/node/3123

For the past eleven years the organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), representing the 57 Islamic States, has been tightening its grip on the throat of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yesterday, 28 March 2008, they finally killed it.

With the support of their allies including China, Russia and Cuba (none well-known for their defence of human rights) the Islamic States succeeded in forcing through an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression that has turned the entire concept on its head. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression will now be required to report on the "abuse" of this most cherished freedom by anyone who, for example, dares speak out against Sharia laws that require women to be stoned to death for adultery or young men to be hanged for being gay, or against the marriage of girls as young as nine, as in Iran.

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan saw the writing on the wall three years ago when he spoke of the old Commission on Human Rights having "become too selective and too political in its work". Piecemeal reform would not be enough. The old system needed to be swept away and replaced by something better. The Human Rights Council was supposed to be that new start, a Council whose members genuinely supported, and were prepared to defend, the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Yet since its inception in June 2006, the Human Rights Council has failed to condemn the most egregious examples of human rights abuse in the Sudan, Byelorussia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and elsewhere, whilst repeatedly condemning Israel and Israel alone.

Three years later Annan's dream lies shattered, and the Human Rights Council stands exposed as incapable of fulfilling its central role: the promotion and protection of human rights. The Council died yesterday in Geneva, and with it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 60th anniversary we were actually celebrating this year.

There has been a seismic shift in the balance of power in the UN system. For over a decade the Islamic States have been flexing their muscles. Yesterday they struck. There can no longer be any pretence that the Human Rights Council can defend human rights. The moral leadership of the UN system has moved from the States who created the UN in the aftermath of the Second World War, committed to the concepts of equality, individual freedom and the rule of law, to the Islamic States, whose allegiance is to a narrow, medieval worldview defined exclusively in terms of man's duties towards Allah, and to their fellow-travellers, the States who see their future economic and political interests as being best served by their alliances with the Islamic States.

Yesterday's attack by the Islamists, led by Pakistan, had the subtlety of a thin-bladed knife slipped silently under the ribs of the Human Rights Council. At first reading the amendment to the resolution to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression might seem reasonable. It requires the Special Rapporteur:

"To report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination �"

For Canada, who had fought long and hard as main sponsor of this resolution to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, this was too much. The internationally agreed limits to Freedom of Expression are detailed in article 19 of the legally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and are already referred to in the preamble to the resolution. If abuse of freedom of expression infringed anyone's freedom of religion, for example, it would fall within the scope of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion. To add it here was unnecessary duplication, and "Requesting the Special Rapporteur to report on abuses of [this right] would turn the mandate on its head. Instead of promoting freedom of expression the Special Rapporteur would be policing its exercise � If this amendment is adopted, Canada will withdraw its sponsorship from the main resolution."

Canada's position was echoed by several delegations including India, who objected to the change of focus from protecting to limiting freedom of expression. The European Union, the United Kingdom (speaking for Australia and the United States), India, Brazil, Bolivia, Guatemala and Switzerland all withdrew their sponsorship of the main resolution when the amendment was passed. In total, more than 20 of the original 53 co-sponsors of the resolution withdrew their support.

On the vote, the amendment was adopted by 27 votes to 15 against, with three abstentions.
The Sri Lankan delegate explained clearly his reasons for supporting the amendment:
".. if we regulate certain things 'minimally' we may be able to prevent them from being enacted violently on the streets of our towns and cities."

In other words: Don't exercise your right to freedom of expression because your opponents may become violent. For the first time in the 60 year history of UN Human Rights bodies, a fundamental human right has been limited simply because of the possible violent reaction by the enemies of human rights.

The violence we have seen played out in reaction to the Danish cartoons is thus excused by the Council — it was the cartoonists whose freedom of expression needed to be regulated. And Theo van Gogh can be deemed responsible for his own death.

Freedom of expression is that right which — uniquely — enables us to expose, communicate and condemn abuse of all our other rights. Without freedom of expression and freedom of the press we give the green light to tyranny and make it impossible to expose corruption, incompetence, injustice and oppression.

But however important freedom of expression may be for us who live in the West, its overwhelming importance for those who live under the tyranny of Islamic law was highlighted by a courageous group of 21 NGOs from the Islamic States who issued a statement yesterday appealing to delegations to oppose the amendment. See http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/petition-hrc.pdf

Incredibly, following the vote on the amendment, the Council descended even further into chaos. At the very last moment, Cuba introduced an oral amendment — clearly against the rules of procedure. When Canada objected they were overruled by the President. When Slovenia — on behalf of the European Union — tried to intervene on a point of order and ask for a ten-minute adjournment, they were ignored. When they tried to protest in another point of order their right to do so was challenged by Egypt, and the Egyptian objection was upheld.

The main resolution was then put to the vote and was adopted by 32 votes in favour, none against, with 15 abstentions.

The NGO community now needs to think carefully about what purpose can any longer be served by continuing our engagement with the Human Rights Council, and by fighting for values that are no longer accepted within the UN system. I have personally been involved with the Human Rights Commission and Council for the past five years and can see little benefit in continuing. Our well-argued position papers are ignored, our speeches are interrupted with repeated and irrelevant points of order, and we are not even supported in our efforts by the western delegations who, shockingly, did not even vote against today's travesty, but abstained.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights died yesterday. Who knows when, or if, it can ever be revived.

I used to wonder what States who felt it necessary to kill people because they change their religion thought they were doing in the Human Rights Council. Now I know.

The wafer-thin sham of an international consensus on the promotion and protection of human rights has finally been exposed for what it was — a sham. The fragmentation of human rights now appears inevitable. The proposed Islamic Charter on Human Rights (read "Duties towards Allah") will certainly go ahead, as will the creation of a parallel Islamic Council on Human Rights. But the OIC will nevertheless continue to attend and dominate the UN Human Rights Council, thereby ensuring its continuing emasculation and descent into total irrelevance.

Just five months before he and more than 20 of his colleagues were killed by a terrorist bomb in Baghdad, the then High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, wrote:

"Membership of the Commission on Human Rights must carry responsibilities. I therefore wonder whether the time has not come for the Commission itself to develop a code of guidelines for access to membership of the Commission and a code of conduct for members while they serve on the Commission. After all the Commission on Human Rights has a duty to humanity and the members of the Commission must themselves set the example of adherence to the international human rights norms — in practice as well as in law�"

States who are genuinely concerned with human rights should immediately withdraw from the Council until such time as all member states as well as those offering themselves for election agree to honour their pledges, and undertake to expel any member state which, having been put on notice regarding its human rights record, fails to put its house in order within a reasonable timescale. Failing this, what better tribute to Sergio de Mello could there be than to create an alternative organisation — Kofi Annan's organisation of the willing - whose members agree to adopt Sergio de Mello's guidelines and code of conduct — and are actually held to account.

Roy W Brown
Geneva, 29 March 2008

Posted: Monday, March 31, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 51 - 100 of 238 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

51. Comment #153001 by troyreynolds86 on March 31, 2008 at 8:26 pm

If irony were rain not even Noah would survive this flood. Islam does not respect any other religion, yet they demand it from every one else? Islam respects Islam and Islam alone. The rest of the world's belief systems can go to hell for all they care. When they grant what they demand, and come to understand that individual dignity and human rights are greater than collective adherence to dogma, it is then, and only then, that I shall tip my cap to them with respect. Until then I shall detest them for what they are. Hypocrits.

Other Comments by troyreynolds86

52. Comment #153003 by Goldy on March 31, 2008 at 8:30 pm

The Islamic Association of China (Chinese: 中国伊斯兰教协会) claims to represent Chinese Muslims nationwide. At its inaugural meeting on May 11, 1953 in Beijing, representatives from 10 nationalities of the People's Republic of China were in attendance. Its stated missions and duties are: To assist the people's government in its implementation of the policy of freedom of religion; to carry forward the fine tradition of Islam; to cherish the motherland; to unify Muslims in participating in the socialist construction of the motherland; to develop friendly relation with Muslims in other countries; to maintain world peace; to collect and edit historical data about Islam; and so on. Its governing body is the national congress. Its headquarters is in Beijing.

From Wikipedia. What, it seems, the western Muslims are calling for and what, if they're not too careful, they'll probably get...

Edited with emphasis

Other Comments by Goldy

53. Comment #153005 by Goldy on March 31, 2008 at 8:39 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/01/nmigrants101.xml

More evidence of some form of backlashing against this multi-culturalism which other cultures appear to reject?

Other Comments by Goldy

54. Comment #153008 by TruthByEvidence on March 31, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Sooooo...

Now what?

This has an ominous ring of evil surrounding it...

Other Comments by TruthByEvidence

55. Comment #153010 by dragonfirematrix on March 31, 2008 at 9:00 pm

I believe in being tolerant. I believe most people who mean well are tolerant. However, my tolerance ends when it comes to being tolerant of the religious, any of the religious.

If the planet does not adopt a policy of intolerance towards religion, the religious will destroy absolutely everything and they will kill every non-believer man, women, and child in the name of their god.

Why are freethinking nations letting the horrors implemented by the religious become a reality?

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

56. Comment #153011 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 9:13 pm

^There are freethinking nations?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

57. Comment #153017 by HitbLade on March 31, 2008 at 9:40 pm

UN-REAL

Other Comments by HitbLade

58. Comment #153020 by 82abhilash on March 31, 2008 at 10:14 pm

I was initially alarmed, but now, not that much, when had the UN the power to do anything? Their peace keeping missions are a joke, they have little or no mechanism to enforce their resolutions and they where not able to stop the war in Iraq. And anyway which muslim country felt compelled to treat their citizens better because of the UN Declaration on Human Rights? If a UN declaration could not stop them, it need not stop us either.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
- Thomas Jefferson

Other Comments by 82abhilash

59. Comment #153021 by Wosret on March 31, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Reading this I felt that the writer conveyed a mournful disposition, and a true lose of respect for something. I felt that was done rather sincerly, and nicely. Good writting.

Besides that, I would say that I've seen the UN do nothing other than let me down, and turn their back on the world's problems. They sit back and watch as every human right they are suppose to be upholding gets violated and completely disregarded as one group obliterates another. Or women, children and homosexuals are left to the mercy of an evil totalitarian set of beliefs and ideas, and send water and food after all the blood has been spilled to be mostly entercepted and stolen by the culprits.

Not only do I see the UN as useless, but it's pretending to be anything but for so long has done nothing but allow atrocities to unfold all over the world, as they were the ones that were suppose to uphold human rights and freedoms.

They are a disgusting and dispicable lot. Hopefully this will bring about a new international organization that is actually willing to fight for human rights.

Other Comments by Wosret

60. Comment #153022 by Bigorra on March 31, 2008 at 10:18 pm

With Islamic Conference(OIC) having a stranglehold on the Human Rights Council, what other outcome could have been expected? The OIC naturally wants to limit any freedom of expression that hurts their feelings. Now they have the right to condemn such "abuses" as the Danish cartoons. This way they can marginalize such idiocies as the Ayatolla Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie. They can declare Sam Harris a human rights abuser for suggesting that Muslims have constituted the large majority of suicide bombers over the last 10 years, or that their beliefs just might have had something to do with it. All this so they can feel better about Sharia law, while they condone marriage of 9 year old girls, stoning for adultery, compulsory divorce, and murder of rape victims. Freedom of speech with limits is not freedom at all, unless you have a giant axe to grind and you need the freedom to behead apostates with it.

Other Comments by Bigorra

61. Comment #153029 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 31, 2008 at 10:47 pm

"War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength"

- Orwell

i made a blog on that very topic (similarities between religion and 1984)

. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;

you wanna show deep concern for people identifying islam with terrorism, you wanna stop this identification STOP BLOWING SHIT UP!

i think its time the world stood up and said "FUCK YOU" to all these overly sensitive pricks claiming they have a right not to be offended, i think its time they realized they DONT have that right, and they dont have the right to react violently against it, nor should there be legislation with the intent to prevent violence by preventing speech.

and if these people want "States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including through political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence;" then they must act against every person in the middle east dissiminating material against the jews, or against the christians, or any other religions.

the irony of the intolerant passing laws against intolerance...

i think this one is one of our bigger threats because its one no politician dare attack, its religion, if this was the communists it would be cold war al over again, but it isnt, islam is a religion, you cant attack a religion...that would just be wrong...unless you are another religion. its the big ass elephant in the room no one dares talk about "this isnt an issue of religion, its about terrorists" if you dont understand the enemy you can NEVER defeat them, and you wont defeat them through warfare, hell i dont think you can defeat them through diplomacy, but you certainly wont defeat them by ignoring them. i would say to those who are moderate muslims...they dont get to be called muslims, the fundamentalists are the ones following strict adherance to their holy book, they are the muslims...you guys are muslim lite...therefore if we insult muslims you can just ignore it. and if they wont stand up against them they may as well be with them, i hate to be so black and white on the subject or use the cliche "if you arent part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate"..er..wait...wrong cliche...
anyhow, i dont like to be so absolute on it but its true, while we are being tolerant of other religions we are tolerating other religions being intolerant of other religions, its asinine. the founding fathers got it right, the place of a governing body is NEUTRALITY!

true, honest, nutrality. so the UN's job should be to be neutral, if hate speech is going on...let it, if violence happens deal with the people involved in the violence.
and the UK, and countries of the EU need to take heed of this too, and our country as well. that the job of a govt is be neutral in all matters of religion. to make no law respecting or impeeding an individuals right to freedom of religion unless that right violates the rights of another person.
this is a good edict, do not promote nor impede, it would handle a lot of the problems in those other countries, so no law needs to be passed to allow muslims to, for instance, not have to handle alchohol. because the government wouldnt be allowed to act to allow you to express your religion, but it also couldnt act to impede it, unless its for a purely secular reason.
neutrality is the key.

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

62. Comment #153036 by Edanator on March 31, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Here's the Press Freedom index from the different voting countries, according to Reporters without Borders (the lower, the better):
http://www.rsf.org

In favour (24):
Algeria 40.50, Azerbaijan 55.40, Bahrain 38.00
Bangladesh 53.17, Cameroon 36.00, China 89.00
Cuba 96.17, Djibouti 50.25, Gabon 31.50
Indonesia 30.50 , Jordan 40.21, Malaysia 41.00
Mali 16.50, Mauritius 8.50, Mexico 53.63
Morocco 33.25, Pakistan 64.83, Philippines 44.75
Russian Federation 56.90, Saudi Arabia 59.75, Senegal 25.00
South Africa 13.00, Sri Lanka 67.50, Tunisia 57.00

Against (14):
Canada 4.88, Czech Republic 4.00, Finland 1.50
France 9.75, Germany 5.75, Guatemala 33.00
Japan 11.75, Netherlands 3.50, Poland 18.50
Republic of Korea 12.13, Romania 12.75, Switzerland 3.00
Ukraine 26.75, United Kingdom 8.25

Abstentions (9):
Argentina 24.83, Brazil 25.25, Ecuador 18.50
Ghana 9.00, India 39.33, Nigeria 49.83
Peru 37.38, Uruguay 11.75, Zambia 21.50

The average Press Freedom Index for each group is:
In favor 45.93
Against 11.11
Abstained 26.37

Thus, the voting pretty well correlates with their freedom of press.

Why is even Cuba and China allowed to decide what is a human right?

I'm also disappointed to see South Africa voting in favor. Anyone has a clue why they voted as they did?

Other Comments by Edanator

63. Comment #153039 by OverUsedChewToy on March 31, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Why is this not featured??

Other Comments by OverUsedChewToy

64. Comment #153042 by nalfeshnee on March 31, 2008 at 11:41 pm

My letter to the High Commissioner's office:

"Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to express my dismay at the words of the High Commissioner concerning the film "Fitna" on the front page of your website.

While Mr. Wilders film is certainly not Oscar material, I fail to see any incitement in it to "discrimination, hostility or violence".

I have watched Wilders film and it is simply a lot of facts strung together -- somewhat inexpertly and hamfistedly. By no stretch of the imagination could it be assessed as "hate speech".

The only palpable hate in the film comes from those who wish to see Islam promoted by the sword.

These people are currently getting a nice boost from the West currently (http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/D6AAED437FC007C1C125741A0071E9CB?opendocument), which is obviously too weak to say anything in return.

Perhaps it would be preferable that Mr. Wilders be murdered like Theo van Gogh? At least that would shut him up, I guess. Maybe it would then serve to make others too frightened to say anything about the foul things done in the name of Islam. How much better that would be!

Then again, maybe it would be simpler to just enact thoughtcrime, as common in the Islamic world?

Then the undertext of your press release (http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/8019AAF8EB34C2B3C125741A00630A06?opendocument) will become easily achievable:

"It is crucial that efforts be made by Governments to stop this pattern and take urgent measures to prevent incitement to racial and religious hatred which is a major threat to peace and social cohesion."

How utterly reprehensible a statement that is.

I consider it to be a far greater abuse of Human Rights than anything Mr. Wilders has yet said or done."

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

65. Comment #153046 by Barry Pearson on April 1, 2008 at 12:33 am

This process has been underway for decades, and I have previously published stuff about it elsewhere. For a long time, many muslims have been saying that Islamic states should not have signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights, because it is not, even in theory, compatible with Islam, especially with Sharia Law. (Perhaps Saudi Arabia didn't sign it, in fact?)

In 1981, there was a first attempt to define an Islamic version: the "Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights". I have a commentary on it here:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_universal.htm

In 1990, there was a more "politically successful" attempt, endorsed by the OIC: the "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam". I have a commentary on it here:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_cairo.htm

David Littman published an article about this process in 1999:
http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/universal_islam.html

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is not binding, but it was still important. For example, it influenced the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and that IS binding, via the European Court of Human Rights, and national laws such as the UK's Human Rights Act 1998. Obviously, those laws and conventions don't change as a result of this change at the UN, but the same processes have been influential in Europe in general and the UK in particular. Many influential people want to erode our rights of free speach where religion is concerned.

In 2006, the Blair government, in an attempt to consolidate the Muslim vote, pushed through the "Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006". Both houses of Parliament rightly rebelled to some of it, and a key section was inserted by 1 vote. (I think of it as "the Rowan Atkinson section", because he was a prominant opponent of the Blair's version of the law). More at:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/#laws

At the moment, that section in UK law says:

29J - Protection of freedom of expression: "Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system".

If Blair had voted, that wouldn't be there - it was as close as that.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

66. Comment #153049 by Johnny O on April 1, 2008 at 12:57 am

In total, more than 20 of the original 53 co-sponsors of the resolution withdrew their support.

Why didn't they vote AGAINST it then? If they had it wouldn't have gone through.

Abstentions achieve nothing.

Other Comments by Johnny O

67. Comment #153054 by mmurray on April 1, 2008 at 1:34 am

I was wondering why Australia and the US didn't vote. According to wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Rights_Council

the council has a limited membership. That membership is here and doesn't presently include Australia or the US.

Clearly this is a fiasco and the UN will have to reform it again.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

68. Comment #153055 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 1:39 am

This should be a warning to all the complacent "liberals" and "Multi-Cultists" in the West.

This pattern will repeat itself domestically in Western democratic countries if there are enough unassimulated Muslims. It is suicide to keep bringing them in while making special accomodations to encourage them to segregate themselves. I put "liberals" in quotes because by appeasing the demands of Islam they make a mockery of true liberal values.

I was reading some muslim forum. This Muslim guy was complaining that the U.K. was not good to Muslims because it didn't go far enough to accomodate their religion. I say enough is enough, it is about time to take a firm stand on liberal values. At least the gent (an American convert who is otherwise quite liberal) had the good sense to move to Saudi Arabia. I think more should do the same if they think their religion is the most important thing in their lives.

Other Comments by Bonzai

69. Comment #153056 by DamnDirtyApe on April 1, 2008 at 1:40 am

All I can think is, this will get a lot worse before it will start to get better.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

70. Comment #153064 by Ian on April 1, 2008 at 1:56 am

We, boys and girls, have been outflanked, so this should be taken as a warning of an ongoing process. We've been naive to fight this war on only one front.

Our representatives seem not to deem the rights of individual people as important enough to protect. Where were the US and Australian representatives? Where were the passionate defenses of principle of the freedom of expression?

It's time to realise that allowing corruption doesn't just allow parasites to weigh us down, but it creates a weak spot through which our enimies can attack.

Modern politics has become bean counting - merely a matter of running an economy - and it should come as no surprise that people fixated on money should be for sale and willing to bargin something of which they see no value for themselves.

It's time to get political, before the religious outlaw honesty.

Other Comments by Ian

71. Comment #153069 by mmurray on April 1, 2008 at 2:02 am

Ian: Not everone is on the UN HRC - 47 of the 190 members of the General Assembly. According to wikipedia the structure of the council works like this

The 47-seat Human Rights Council replaced the former 53-member Commission on Human Rights. The Commission was an independent body, but the Council has been elevated to the status of a subsidiary body of the General Assembly. The 47 seats in the Council are distributed among the UN's regional groups as follows: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, 6 for Eastern Europe, 8 for Latin America and the Caribbean, and 7 for the Western European and Others Group.
In an attempt to remedy problems of the former Commission, which was criticised among other actions for the election of Libya to its chairmanship in 2003, the resolution establishing the Council specified that "members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights" and will be subject to periodic review. Each member nation of the Council must be approved individually and directly by a majority (96 of 191) of the members of the General Assembly, in a secret ballot (in contrast to the former Commission, voting for which took place within ECOSOC). Council membership is limited to two consecutive terms, and any Council member may be suspended by a two-thirds vote of the Assembly. The Commission concluded its work on 16 June 2006, making way for the first meeting of the Council which was held on 19 to 30 June 2006.

This bit is kind of funny

"The resolution establishing the Council specified that "members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights" "

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

72. Comment #153083 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 2:38 am

65. Comment #153036 by Edanator on March 31, 2008 at 11:12 pm

I'm also disappointed to see South Africa voting in favor. Anyone has a clue why they voted as they did?

Is that a serious question?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

73. Comment #153090 by Ygern on April 1, 2008 at 2:52 am

I don't think anything has saddened me more in quite a while, reading this news this morning.

I feel like humankind has taken a giant leap backwards by about 500 years.

It makes Christopher Hitchens' comments here all the more poignant & chilling.
(Link to his Free Speech debate)
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/03/free_speech_6.html

Other Comments by Ygern

74. Comment #153092 by Geoff on April 1, 2008 at 2:54 am

I'm with Bonzai, Mitchell and others who have pointed out that the UN is a joke, and has been for some time.

Other Comments by Geoff

75. Comment #153094 by Monosilabbiq on April 1, 2008 at 3:04 am

Presumably I am now able to go on the Hajj and offer to sell FSM material (and TGD, since it represents my religious views)to my fellow humans getting dizzy walking round a black stone. And British Airways no longer needs to insist that their staff don't wear crosses when they fly in and out of Saudi Arabia.

Other Comments by Monosilabbiq

76. Comment #153105 by HitbLade on April 1, 2008 at 3:38 am

I have 2.5 words for this. April the first.

Other Comments by HitbLade

77. Comment #153113 by mmurray on April 1, 2008 at 4:06 am

I have 2.5 words for this. April the first.

It's on the UN web site.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

78. Comment #153114 by Steve Zara on April 1, 2008 at 4:07 am

Comment #153092 by Geoff

I'm with Bonzai, Mitchell and others who have pointed out that the UN is a joke, and has been for some time.

So you don't support the World Heath Organisation or UNICEF, or the International Court of Justice, or the UN Peace-Keeping forces?

There have been major failures, but I don't think it is reasonable to describe those activities as a "joke".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

79. Comment #153116 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 4:23 am

So you don't support the World Heath Organisation or UNICEF, or the International Court of Justice, or the UN Peace-Keeping forces?

There have been major failures, but I don't think it is reasonable to describe those activities as a "joke".

I second that - absolutely. While the US and China tend to ignore and belittle the UN - thus 'creating the reality' they supposedly describe - the UN has been a force for good in the past. UNICEF, the International Court of Justice, the Blue-Helmets and especially (IMO) UNESCO have contributed positively.

I'm also with Russell Blackford who said that we do need supernational organisations. I think they should have an entrenched constitution (unchangeable, not even by 3/4 or totally unanimous vote) based on the orginal Charta of Human Rights and a revised organisational structure (rethinking the power and constitution of the granting of veto-powers and permanent seats in the security council) and with more power for binding statements and powers. For example, the US shouldn't be able to not recognise the Den Haag court (Kissinger should be brought to trial, among others).

Anyway - UNICEF, Den Haag, UNESCO, UNDP (United Nations Development Programme - overseeing elections etc) and the WFP (World Food Programme) alone make the UN something better than a mere "joke".

Some links:

http://www.undp.org/about/

http://www.unicef.org/whatwedo/index.html

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=3328&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

http://www.wfp.org/operations/introduction/index.asp?section=5&sub_section=1

http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6

Other Comments by MPhil

80. Comment #153120 by utelme on April 1, 2008 at 4:47 am

To me the UN is analagous to a lamborghini with a vw engine, 4 flat tyres, broken drive train and Forrest Gump as the driver. Looks great from a distance and may have performed well once but now needs to either be extensively overhauled or sent to the scrap yard.

Other Comments by utelme

81. Comment #153122 by Steve Zara on April 1, 2008 at 4:59 am

This is not good news, but my view is that we need some historical perspective. There have been clear indications that certain UK systems were not working as well as they should. In 2003 Libya managed to get elected as the chair of the UN Human Rights Commision. That was a warning sign. This isn't the end of the world, and perhaps new organisations need to be established to maintain pressure for reform and rights.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

82. Comment #153125 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 5:05 am

It's still performing well in some areas, such as UNESCO, the WFP and UNICEF... it's not doing as much as it SHOULD be able to, but still there is a lot of good being done here.

Other Comments by MPhil

83. Comment #153126 by corruptmemory on April 1, 2008 at 5:06 am

I do not know what the laws are in other countries, but I think that it might be desirable, here in the US, to take some action. Namely, Islam should be classified as a cult, legally. It is clear that Islamic nations and Islamic leaders are "gaming" the western political systems. One very effective way to game most western nations is through numbers. After all, it was one of the acutely frightening points of the Fitna short film.

Since freedom is not a valuable commodity in the Islamic world (in fact, based on the "courage" of the signatories to a plea to reject the steps the UN was taking, it is clearly a mortal liability in those parts of the world), Islamic leaders can be perfectly comfortable in the slow, methodical projection of Islam on the rest of the world, eventually eroding western institutions from within, because they can, and feel that they must.

Classifying Islam as a cult would provide the necessary legal tools to strictly regulate the actions of muslims, hopefully, the results would be one of two things: 1. some number leaving Islam (granted, this is likely to be a small number) 2. simply leaving the countries they have chosen to take residence in.

Now, I'm aware of the troubles this approach can take, but not reacting to this latest offense to freedom and human rights is appeasement. Surely classifying Islam as a cult will result in strife, it will increase tensions, it is likely to incite violence, but would all of this be less than the war which seems inevitable in coming? Islam has time, huge numbers, implicit "on-the-books" recognition and "respect", and patience, furthermore they have the drive and an apparent mandate to push Islam to the four-corners of the Earth. They seemingly have little scruples as to how they go about this. They are perfectly aware that "we" do have scruples that hinder our ability to do anything to stop them. We need to develop the scruples to stop them.

Other Comments by corruptmemory

84. Comment #153129 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 5:13 am

81. Comment #153114 by Steve Zara on April 1, 2008 at 4:07 am

Nor would I, but only because I don't see the funny side.

So far as I can see, the UN manages to make a dog's breakfast of everything it does. Even things that are supposed to be non-controversial, like providing water supply systems to parts of the world that don't have them. It is well known by the people who supply these things that they should double their normal price and then add a little bit more on. Some is siphoned off in bribes to local officials, sometimes the UN people take a bit more (though that's usually restricted to programs like Oil For ~~Fraud~~ Food), and the rest goes in increased profit margin for the first-world supplier. Because that will address global poverty.

As for the UN peacekeeping forces, they sound like a great idea until the shooting starts. If you want something done, better to send in actual fighters. That we should have learnt in Bosnia, Sierra Leone, and for those who think Israel's response to Hizbollah rockets was "disproportionate", Lebanon.

I'm not suggesting that this is a situation beyond reform, but as things stand I don't really see how the world would be worse off without the UN.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

85. Comment #153130 by mmurray on April 1, 2008 at 5:13 am

This is not good news, but my view is that we need some historical perspective. There have been clear indications that certain UK systems were not working as well as they should. In 2003 Libya managed to get elected as the chair of the UN Human Rights Commision. That was a warning sign. This isn't the end of the world, and perhaps new organisations need to be established to maintain pressure for reform and rights.

According to wikipedia Steve it was the Libya incident and others of a similar nature which lead the UN to replace the Commission on Human Rights in 2006 with the present Human Rights Council and put into the resolution establishing it that "members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights". Unfortunately I think there are not enough of the 191 General Assembly members who have any idea what human rights are. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

86. Comment #153131 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 5:14 am

Not only do I see the UN as useless, but it's pretending to be anything but for so long has done nothing but allow atrocities to unfold all over the world, as they were the ones that were suppose to uphold human rights and freedoms.

You have no control group. You don't know what the world would look like without the UN.

The organization was created to support diplomacy and avoid world wars. Good stuff.

Srsly, stop hatin' on the UN unless you've got a better proposal. Y'all bringin' me down.

For example, the US shouldn't be able to not recognise the Den Haag court

Don't cut the nuts off the biggest bully on the block until you're confident bullies #2, 3, 4, etc. are more to your liking.

I think we can work toward an international court but we're not there yet. The US, for all it's problems, is in a unique position by virtue of its geography, size, wealth, military power, scientific establishment, and long democratic tradition. In comparison to other global powers, it's the least likely to regress toward totalitarianism.

I've got a lot more faith in the US than any present international body.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

87. Comment #153132 by FightingFalcon on April 1, 2008 at 5:17 am

I second that - absolutely. While the US and China tend to ignore and belittle the UN - thus 'creating the reality' they supposedly describe - the UN has been a force for good in the past.

Right - the US ignores and belittles the UN while providing 22% of its budget....

For example, the US shouldn't be able to not recognise the Den Haag court (Kissinger should be brought to trial, among others).

When will Europeans drop this delusion about the US joining any sort of international court? Get this through your head - the United States will never participate in an international court. Our Constitution is the ultimate law of the land for our citizens and we're not going to let them be tried in a court where it doesn't apply. That would be complete madness.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

88. Comment #153133 by mmurray on April 1, 2008 at 5:20 am

As for the UN peacekeeping forces, they sound like a great idea until the shooting starts. If you want something done, better to send in actual fighters. That we should have learnt in Bosnia, Sierra Leone, and for those who think Israel's response to Hizbollah rockets was "disproportionate", Lebanon.

I'm not suggesting that this is a situation beyond reform, but as things stand I don't really see how the world would be worse off without the UN.

I agree the UN should have an army. Ultimately someone is going to have to police nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

But at present you have to work really hard to get agreement amongst UN members to send actual fighting forces. I don't see how you could even begin to do that without the UN ?

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

89. Comment #153134 by Edanator on April 1, 2008 at 5:23 am

I'm also disappointed to see South Africa voting in favor. Anyone has a clue why they voted as they did?
Is that a serious question?

Most certainly is. I don't know much about SA, but judging from RSF their press is very free and they definitely stand out in this crowd of mostly dictatorships and pseudo-democracies. Mauritius and Mali are two other countries that seem odd here, given their relatively free press. Therefore I ask again:

Why is South Africa, Mali and Mauritius voting in favor of this amendment? (Mali has a 90% muslim population, though, which may explain their support.)

Other Comments by Edanator

90. Comment #153137 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 5:27 am

Namely, Islam should be classified as a cult, legally.

I've never heard of such laws. Reference?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

91. Comment #153140 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 5:36 am

Fighting Falcon,

that first comment is beside the point. This is about keeping to UN resolutions and politicians actively discouraging compliance with international law and refusal to play by the rules of the UN which they helped to establish. That is called hypocrisy and arrogance.

The seconds comment reeks of nationalism. Dear me, it would be madness for an american citizen to be tried for war-crimes! After all, Kissinger is AMERICAN - the orchid of the human race! Having a US citizen tried for crimes he committed as an official against other countries and their populations - according to the rules of the UN declaration of human rights and general Charta. Utter madness - oh the injustice!
EDIT: In that case, I guess the Nuremberg Trials should never have taken place either, as these people weren't tried by their own laws (according to which their conduct would have been lawful). Also, it was at these Nuremberg Trials that the US upheld some of the standards which later became international law, and according to which, Kissinger would be guilty as well. Hypocrisy again.
Honestly, what you wrote sounds very much like what Milosevic said.

Other Comments by MPhil

92. Comment #153141 by Fanusi Khiyal on April 1, 2008 at 5:37 am

I don't want to say "I told you so", but I did. I got howled down a while back for pointing out that the UN is a pro-Islamic organisation, and was castigated for 'scaremongering'.

Well, here you can see the result. As one internet wag put it, "The death of Zarqawi is just a dangerous distraction from the fact that we still need to find and capture Kofi Annan".

I don't know much about SA, but judging from RSF their press is very free and they definitely stand out in this crowd of mostly dictatorships and pseudo-democracies

Ha. ha. ha. Excuse me. SA worked exactly as long as Nelson Mandela was running the show. (Literally as long; he went on a trip to the US, leaving Buthelezi in charge, and the next thing you know, Lesotho got invaded). SA has murder rates on a par with Iraq, and worse rape rates. The current government is a collection of dimwit gangsters.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

93. Comment #153143 by FightingFalcon on April 1, 2008 at 5:42 am

The seconds comment reeks of nationalism. Dear me, it would be madness for an american citizen to be tried for war-crimes! After all, Kissinger is AMERICAN - the orchid of the human race! Having a US citizen tried for crimes he committed as an official against other countries and their populations - according to the rules of the UN declaration of human rights and general Charta. Utter madness - oh the injustice!
Honestly, what you wrote sounds very much like what Milosevic said.

The Constitution is a document that I've pledged my life to defend. Forbid me if I consider it the most important document in the history of mankind and something that I'll never allow Europeans in the Hague to subvert.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

94. Comment #153145 by chezzyd on April 1, 2008 at 5:49 am

When I read about things like this, I always think of the saying my Nan used to repeat when us kids were arguing.... "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me". I think of that even when I feel disgusted and offended by homophobes, neo-Nazis, Mullahs, politicians et al. As long as what they are saying is their opinion, people should be free to say what they like - and if they are telling lies then we already have laws about that: libel and slander. As soon as someone reacts to words with violence then they have lost the argument.
Muslims have the right to be offended at the things some people say - but they don't have the right to gag us or assault us. And vice versa. I am not saying it would be a good idea to go into Harlem and shout the 'N' word - but if that led to an attack that would still make the attacker the one guilty of a crime. You can ignore what people say, you can say something back and you can choose to NOT say something simply out of common courtesy and manners. To me it is a very simple concept. As humans we have to learn that we have to be able to take it as well as dish it out. I think freedom of speech is truly the definition of civilisation and the grandest idea ever to be dreamt up by human beings. And though it might sound hypocritical after what I've just said, it is the one thing I WOULD fight for. How do we make our voices heard (while we are still allowed to)??? Is it time to stop being cats that can't be herded, swallow our pride and actually align ourselves to some kind of ideology, like humanism???

Other Comments by chezzyd

95. Comment #153146 by Steve Zara on April 1, 2008 at 5:53 am

Comment #153143 by FightingFalcon

I am going to back MPhil here. The idea of one nation that believes it has found "The Truth" is disturbing.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

96. Comment #153147 by fretmeister on April 1, 2008 at 5:58 am

I think it was The Hitch that said the best defence against extremism was an air force.

I never thought he might be right.

Sad day indeed.

Other Comments by fretmeister

97. Comment #153148 by Frankus1122 on April 1, 2008 at 5:58 am

The UN is a broken bureaucratically bloated bastion of (something that begins with the letter 'b').
But it is all we have.
It is broken and in need of repair. If we can't at least try to come together as a species then we are without hope.

Srsly, stop hatin' on the UN unless you've got a better proposal.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

98. Comment #153151 by Peacebeuponme on April 1, 2008 at 6:00 am

When will Europeans drop this delusion about the US joining any sort of international court? Get this through your head - the United States will never participate in an international court. Our Constitution is the ultimate law of the land for our citizens and we're not going to let them be tried in a court where it doesn't apply. That would be complete madness.

Its this misrepresentative attitude that gives the US a bad reputation abroad. I'm happy to say most Americans I've met (and who post here) have made me realise that its not a general case.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

99. Comment #153153 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 6:02 am

most important document in the history of mankind

Magna Carta, anyone? The writings of the European Enlightenment, anyone? These were the inspirations and historic precursors of the US constitution.

Subvert the consitution? The constitution doesn't cover international law - what you write there can be interpreted as equivalent to "the US uber alles". I hope I'm wrong.

Honestly, you talk of "subversion" of the constitution when what this is about is persecution of war-criminals? About laws and regulations that hold between nations? Or are you really such a nationalist that you think international laws do not apply to the US? That there should be no international law becasue the US "can do no wrong"?

I think the US constitution is great, really! But it is extremely arrogant to think that the US should not be bound by international law, allowing for persecution of war criminals.

Either there are standards to which every country, and every countries leaders ought to be held - then Hussein, Khomenei, Milosevic, Hitler would be guilty - but also Kissinger and Bush... or you think that the national constitution should be the highest level and that there shouldn't be international laws and regulations - in which case the Nuremberg trials should never have taken place, nor the trial of Milosevic - and there would be no basis for condemning the invasions by Iraq against other sovereign nations under Hussein and many many other things.

Recognizing that international regulations (such as the Genever convention, the Declaration of Human Rights etc) are binding for nations and that you cannot trust a country who violates them to persecute its own offenders - and that thus an international court needs to be established and recognized. - This is not subversion of the constitution. This is recognizing that the US can do wrong as well and should not be exempt from having perpetrators of war-crimes persecuted.

I hope I am misinterpreting you - but it does sound an aweful lot like "the US uber alles".

Other Comments by MPhil

100. Comment #153155 by mikejswalker on April 1, 2008 at 6:16 am

Freedoms seem to blur depending on whose interests are at stake.
Pledging one's life, no matter the cost or the lack of justification, is a sad and thoughtless thing indeed. All that hate. Protected by laws. All those profits.

Other Comments by mikejswalker

Reload Comments | Back to Top