Saturday, March 31, 2007

The UN - Biased against Israel and free speech.

Hello there, this is my first post at this site and have been waiting for something worthy of posting on here. I came across this at UN Watch a site I recomend that everyone has a look at as it shows how badly the UN is run.

The UN founded from the worthless League of Nations had noble ideals and fine principles at that time, now read this and weep for the sake of our planet:

Links:UN Watch

Delivered by Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch

Mr. President,
Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their noble dream?

In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has it decided? Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal. One might say, in Harry Truman’s words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council.

But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something. It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world—millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries—continue to go ignored.
So yes, this Council is doing something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights. So too, the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims. But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?

Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights—Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard—they say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh’s troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?
Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights. They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights. You ask: What has become of the founders’ dream? With terrible lies, it is being turned into a nightmare. Thank you, Mr. President.

Now read the reply from the Council president, Luis Alfonso de Alba:
For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch, if you’d kindly listen to me. I am sorry that I’m not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible. In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records.
Free speech gagged.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

The U.N. Is No More Than a PR Firm

If you have ever wondered about what it is that the United Nations does you are not alone. There are plenty of reasons to be, at the very least, disenchanted with this organizations performance. Rather than review their charter, history or reason for being, it may be helpful to let their own news items describe some typical operating characteristics.

Commonly used headline phrases can tell you much about the United Nations. A casual glance at some recent headlines from the UN exposes the main theme of the organization. Do not annoy or anger anyone while you try to find words to express some sort of concern as if any of your members really cared. Here's a great phrase for an example; 'call for universal support.' What is the point, other than public relations and a pathetic attempt to convince anyone foolish enough to believe the UN is anything more than a political smoke screen? Rather than call for universal support, why not prove your worth and have all members discipline offending nations? Can't do that.

'Civil institutions can help' is another UN headline phrase. The UN announces these institutions are the best hope in reducing the disappearances of people all over the world. That is because the UN is helpless to do anything about crimes against citizens anywhere in the world. Representatives of nearly every country on the planet are at the UN. If they are not members, those who are can, if they wanted to, apply international pressure to rein in countries displaying bad behavior. The kind of bad behavior that virtually no one would describe as anything other than criminal. Governments who are responsible for the disappearance of individuals employ that tactic for one reason. The government disapproves of these individuals and has the power to make them disappear. It is not magic, it is simply criminal. And the UN admits they are not able to successfully intervene.

How about an entire UN News headline to examine? 'Human rights problems in Liberia require national, international response.' Well no kidding. Imagine that, the UN produced a report to enlighten the world on the need for intervention where violence toward women and children is not being resolved. At least 3 security council temporary members are from Africa. And all the UN can do is issue a report to tell people what they already know. And still they do nothing. If you think this is unfair, have someone from the UN challenge these statements.

'Citing flawed process' a claimed UN expert suggests the tribunal that ultimately hanged the former Vice President of Iraq had 'violated international standards of due process' in this matter. It is not hard to believe that this man would have died one way or another with a new sheriff in town. And you will notice his appeal was ignored with little or no attention paid. Personally, it does not bother me that the man was executed. But for those who may have, the UN again was impotent. They don't make enough Viagara to cure that for the UN.

I'll play UN here for a moment. If you believe the case presented by Colin Powell at the UN for beginning military operations of coalition forces in Iraq was flawed you make a compelling point. If you believe that the case presented was only verified after the fact and as such is a moot point because Iraq needed military intervention anyhow, you also make a compelling point. Therefore, as the UN we will allow you to vote accordingly and nothing else matters. Funny how the countries voting against the resolution for the United States to intervene in Iraq had their own reasons like money Iraq owed them or business they were conducting that would be interrupted as the premise for their votes. Funny too, that when North Korea poses a big enough nuisance, the all get together and work a deal that does not penalize North Korea for bad behavior. And the current sanctions against Iran were calculated for the expected response from a crazed dictator. You make the call. Is this wrong?

There is really no need to cite more headlines. If you cannot see by this brief examination that the UN is nothing more than a PR firm sponsored by most of the world's governments, you will need more convincing than this writer is willing to provide today. If it at least makes you curious that should be enough to encourage you to take it upon yourself to get informed. Reading posts at this site as well as others plus the near unlimited resources available for such study, you should be able to get up to speed and express your opinions with your government. It falls under the category of civic responsibility. Something of a foreign concept to those at the United Nations.

And I almost forgot, we haven't even touched on all the corruption involved.

Stanford Matthews

( source: UN News Centre )

Monday, March 26, 2007

crossposted at Conservative Thoughts


Human Rights Nightmare

Speech before UN Human Rights Council 4th Session
23 March 2007

Delivered by Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch

Transcript of Speech:
Mr. President,

Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their noble dream?

Read more »

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Women’s Rights at the UN

Crossposted at Conservative Thoughts.

From Eye on the UN
Last Friday, March 9, 2007 the UN wrapped up its annual session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Guess where they found a violation of women's rights? Among the hundreds of thousands of women who are dead, dying, mutilated, displaced or raped in Sudan? Among the million female migrant workers cowering in the basements of Saudi Arabian villas from the taskmasters who stole their passports the minute they got off the plane? Among the women stoned and hanged for "adultery" in Iran? The millions of women forcibly aborted in China? The thousands murdered or forced to commit suicide for the crime of "dishonoring" their fathers and brothers across the Arab and Muslim world?If you guessed "none of the above," then you'll enjoy coming on down to the UN. The UN's lead body charged with promoting and protecting women's rights identifies only one state as violating the rights of women in the world today – Israel.(Violating the rights of Palestinian women.) The vote was 40 for and 2 against (the United States and Canada).

Read more »

Sunday, March 18, 2007

UN Mandate for Women's Rights No More than a Sovereignty Grab

Another harmless UN initiative (hack hack) is the United Nations Treaty on the Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (AKA as CEDAW for those of us who hate to type mile long titles). In light of some barbaric forms of misogny such as female circumcision, there are people who would welcome this with open arms. A breath of fresh air, the end has come to the long history of mistreatment of women in some cultures, etc etc etc. It sounds wonderful, on the face of it, until you get down to what it actually says and does...

First of all, this is not social enlightenment. The cultures which condone female circumcision did not wake up one day from their collective funk and say, HEY, you know, as a nation we've been seriously mistreating our women, and we need to stop now. Geez we're really sorry guys, but it ain't happening again... No, that didnt happen. Same thing goes for the power hungry people who insist upon suppressing another ethnic group by hacking off women's breasts. They didn't have a conversion experience and do any form of penance or come forward with pleas for forgiveness. No, nothing even close has happened.

What did happen was a treaty. In other words, people didn't change...OTHER PEOPLE have taken it upon themselves to make them behave more humanely against their will. And they have done so by creating a treaty, which usurps the law of the land in any nation which signs on to it.

Nations which believe they aren't mistreating their women would be hard pressed to explain why they didnt sign on, as it would not have any affect on them would it? Think again. Women's rights, according to the UN, touch many many areas, not just the protection of breasts and other tender parts or the cessation of female slavery or the arrival of the right to vote. Women's rights are part and parcel to family law, parental rights, religious practice, abortion regulation, quotas for various things such as education or hiring...some of the most heatedly discussed social issues of our time.

If a soveriegn nation state signed on to this treaty, it would hand over the right to decide the way to handle these issues within the existing framework of a nation's heritage, societal structure, beliefs or religion. These issues, if not consistent with U N beliefs, would be decided by the New World Order.

While most treaties tend not to interfere with the internal workings of the nations which sign it, CEDAW interferes in a big way. CEDAW forbids us to recognize - or celebrate - that men and women are fundamentally different. The treaty defines "discrimination" as:

Any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex … in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.

This goes far beyond protecting women from rape, abuse, torture and the like. It dictates how families, individuals, religions and subcultures behave. Believing that a Christian nation would protect it's citisens is not enough, because a traditionally Christian framework goes completely against CEDAW. The preamble states:

A change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between men and women.

CEDAW, in Article 5a, requires countries to:

Modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices … based on … stereotyped roles for men and women.

This goes beyond equal pay for equal work, this goes into the ridiculous. While the people on the comittee for enforcement include China which aborts more baby girls than any nation on earth and other countries which traffic underaged females in the sex trade, nations which revere women as homemakers and mothers seem to be under the gun with CEDAW.

Here are examples of the way CEDAW has been applied. The committee rulings have...

Told China to decriminalize prostitution (an act which makes women sex objects and victims of sexual violence...and inherently demeans women)

Criticized Mexico for a "lack of access … to easy and swift abortion (which of course kills as many baby girls as it does baby boys)

Criticized Ireland for the Catholic Church's influence of attitudes and state policy (which is the right of the sovereign nation of Ireland to decide)

Told Libya to re-interpret the Koran in the light of CEDAW (Um since when does the state tell the people of faith how to interpret their holy materials?)

Derided Slovenia for having only 30 percent of children under age three in formal daycare (which must mean that children are better off raised by strangers so they can be brainwashed rather than lovingly taught by dedicated stay at home parents)

Reprimanded Belarus for celebrating Mother's Day (One would think a day honouring the most important job a woman could ever hold would be a good thing)

Told Armenia to "combat the traditional stereotype of women in the noble role of mother" (which is probably the most blatant attempt to marginalise women and usurp the social order and culture of a sovereign nation all in one fell swoop I've seen this week)

Criticized Croatia for "the refusal, by some hospitals, to provide abortions on the basis of conscientious objection of doctors. The Committee considers this to be an infringement of women's reproductive rights. (and I suppose the right to free exercise of religion by the doctors, some of them most likely female, do not count)

Told Mexico it "would welcome a more equitable redistribution of wealth among the population."(Yeah, tyrannies tend to like that, and end the end the government ends up with all the wealth, which in this cause would be the UN)

Told Italy to " sensitize judges, lawyers and law enforcement personnel … to Italy's international obligations, in particular those outlined in the Convention." (Telling a sovereign state how to conduct it's business, even in light of a treaty, is a power grab pure and simple. If Italy wants to belong to this treaty, it's for Italy to decide how to comply)

Urged Belarus to reduce "protective standards which often have a discriminatory effect on women in general and pregnant women in particular. " (Yeah, it really protects the rights of women to force the governments to force women to lift and work more than they are able when they are pregnant. And the sky is below my feet too.)

Told Kyrgyzstan "that lesbianism be reconceptualized as a sexual orientation." (And heterosexuality and motherhood and pregnancy obviously don't need protection, right? I see)

Based on the above, I see nothing protecting women, only the UN attempting to create a new world order based on an outmoded communist ideal through the use of a treaty which plays on our sensitivities because we've seen endless news reports of breastless, circumcised women who have been raped and brutalised in horrendous ways and "there really outta be a law" to prevent such things. Our global sense of outrage has been used to dupe the Nations of the world to sign onto this treaty so that global and social planners can rid the world of the beautiful diversity of some of our oldest cultures. I'm sorry that just doesn't fly with this girl.

Lady Raven

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

World Powers Agree on New Iran Sanctions

Crossposted from Conservative Thoughts.

From Breitbart/AP:
U.N. ambassadors from six world powers agreed in principle Wednesday on a proposed new package of sanctions against Iran and were expected to introduce a resolution to the Security Council on Thursday if their governments approve it, the U.S. ambassador said.

The package still needs to be considered by the 10 non-permanent members of the U.N. Security Council before it is approved. However, an agreement by the five veto-wielding permanent members of the council and Germany would be a strong signal that the key nations on the U.N.'s most powerful body want to send a united message to Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.
Read more »


Thursday, March 08, 2007

US refuses to run for UN Human Rights council seat; Again

Crossposted from Conservative Thoughts

The United States has announced that it will not, once again, run for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. This is the second year in the row the U.S. has decided not to seek a seat on the Council.

From a press conference from the U.S. Department of State Spokesman Sean McCormack;

The United States will not run for a United Nations Human Rights Council seat in the Council’s first election, scheduled for May 9, 2006. There are strong candidates in our regional group, with long records of support for human rights, that voted in favor of the resolution creating the Council. They should have the opportunity to run.

Since the credibility of the Council depends on its membership, the United States will actively campaign on behalf of candidates genuinely committed to the promotion and protection of human rights, and which will act as responsible members of this new body. We will also actively campaign against states that systematically abuse human rights.

AP is also reporting details on the US' reluctance to run for a seat on the UN council;

Spokesman Sean McCormack said the council has had a "singular focus" on Israel, while countries such as Cuba, Myanmar and North Korea have been spared scrutiny. He said that though the United States will have only an observer role, it will continue to shine a spotlight on human rights issues.

Tom Lantos (D), the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs called the decision an act of unparalleled defeatism. (source)

“This is the worst possible time for a U.S. retreat from its rightful role as the world’s champion of human rights. At a time when we are attempting to marshal the civilized world to stand up to extremism and terror, a retreat from Geneva sends exactly the wrong signal to those who are trying to defeat us. It is particularly appalling that the Administration would select the day it is releasing the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices to announce this decision. Eleanor Roosevelt surely must be turning over in her grave today.”

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R); most senior Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, responds to the Adminstrations decision;

"Rather than standing as a strong defender of fundamental human rights, the Human Rights Council has faltered as a weak voice subject to gross political manipulation," she said.

Remember the UN Human Rights Commission under Kofi's watch? The one with Sudan, the country committing genocide in Darfur on it? Now the new 47-member commission is STILL made up of countries that are not free and fair democracies including; Gabon, China, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia and Russia.

The council is the successor to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which was dismantled last year as part of a reform program. The United States felt the reform did not go far enough, and declined to compete for a seat when the council was formed in 2006.

Do you really believe with the current member list that this "council" will behave any differently than its predecessor?

The council will hold its annual meeting in Geneva starting next week and will take up a report commissioned by the panel that compares Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to apartheid in South Africa.

Not likely.