|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:34 pm Post subject: Our world |
 |
|
So, the UN "Human Rights" body says "NO" to press freedom.
| Quote: |
GENEVA (Reuters) - The
United Nations top human rights body condemned "defamation" of religion on Friday and, in an apparent reference to the storm over the Prophet cartoons, said press freedom had its limits. |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070330/wl_nm/religion_rights_islam_dc_1
The UN is advocating limiting world wide press freedoms to avoid offending the religion of peace. Nope, no problem here. No reason to be concerned. Respect does not equal tyranny at all.
And the EU says:
| Quote: |
The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their statements.
Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers "non-offensive" phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.
Banned terms are said to include "jihad", "Islamic" or "fundamentalist".
advertisement
The word "jihad" is to be avoided altogether, according to some sources, because for Muslims the word can mean a personal struggle to live a moral life.
One alternative, suggested publicly last year, is for the term "Islamic terrorism" to be replaced by "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam". |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/30/wislam30.xml
As if a bunch of white leftists are best positioned to decide what is or isn't "abusively invoking" islam. This is Western arrogance and suicidal self-delusion to the logical end.
Orwell just shat his pants.
But back to the "Human Rights" council at the so-called "United Nations":
| Quote: |
GENEVA � The United Nations' top human rights body on Friday stepped up the pressure on Sudan over Darfur, but stopped short of blaming Khartoum for widespread killings and rape in its vast western region.
A resolution, passed unanimously by the 47-state Human Rights Council, expressed deep concern at the "seriousness of ongoing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Darfur." |
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=249a5b11-f998-4f70-bd7d-54a3e3aebc68&k=0
By the by, the "ongoing violations" is a MOTHER FUCKING GENOCIDE. So, we ignore a muslim on non-muslim genocide (with exceptions and reservations to that description) while enforcing shira law by asking for press freedoms to be limited when islam is in question.
But, alas, the UN did find a topic to totally censor and unequivically denouce. This:
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=3698367
| Quote: |
Mr. President,
Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, R�n� 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 against Israel 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 and moral inversion, it is being turned into a nightmare.
Thank you, Mr. President. |
Reading that gives me an erection. Finally, someone speaking truth to power.
Here, is how to slime ball thugs at the faux "human rights" council replied to this.
| Quote: |
REPLY BY U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS 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. |
So, those rat bastrads will not tolerate being talked down to, but will tolerate a focking genocide.
Somebody, please, explain to me why I should take any of this seriously. Why should anything thinking man or woman take the UN, "International Law" or the "international community" seriously. Please. What am I missing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not surprising when we recognize how the UN is a major organ
for the implementation of a global communist agenda.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
So, we ignore a muslim on non-muslim genocide (with exceptions and reservations to that description) while enforcing shira law by asking for press freedoms to be limited when islam is in question.
|
true true.......Look at the Muslim or rather Middle Eastern countries participating in the UN and then you'll see why these things take place...too bad Europe...(most of it anyway)...is too busy hating the current presidency to care about the death tolls in parts of Africa...always amazes me how 100,000 + people can turn out to protest Bush but they can't get half that number together to stop actual genocide.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The National Post again reasserts her place as the only serious daily newspaper in Canada.
| Quote: |
The UN's human rights charade
National Post
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Once again, the newly minted United Nations Human Rights Council has proven itself to be just as cynical and useless as the UN Commission on Human Rights it replaced last year.
On Friday, the Council wrapped up its forth session since its inception. Despite evidence from its own investigators that the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan is being perpetrated by that country's dictatorial Islamist government, the Council was unable even to call the mass killings a genocide, much less pin blame on Khartoum. Muslim and African representatives would permit only an expression of "deep concern" for the murder of hundreds of thousands, the displacement of two million or more, and the systematic rape of women and girls.
The point of reconstituting the old commission as the new council a year ago was to prevent such shams. But the new body has been as wilfully blind as the one it superseded. The world would probably be better off if it were disbanded.
This unwillingness to "name names" is part of a new trend at the UN. Last fall, one of the General Assembly's six standing policy committees recommended an end to "name-and-shame" human-rights reports that single out particular countries for criticism. Human-rights experts within the organization recommended, instead, working quietly with abuser nations to convince them to end the murder, torture, maiming and political imprisonment of dissident citizens. Some good that would do.
Too many UN member states already scoff at the body's rebukes. The UN has no standing army with which to protect human rights, and economic sanctions almost never work because some country or other will ignore them.
Such is the case with Sudan and its actions in Darfur.
China--itself one of the worst rights abusers in the world--has long protected Sudan from censure at the UN, and has continued to prop up the Khartoum regime with trade and aid.
Still, on a symbolic level, it is a shame the UN Human Rights Commission was not more forthright in its condemnations of Sudan. Two weeks ago, its own fact-finding mission ruled that Sudan's government "has manifestly failed to protect the population of Darfur from large-scale international crimes, and has itself orchestrated and participated in those crimes." Friday, the commission voted merely to "take note" of the report.
Many argue that there is nothing short of all-out military invasion that the West could do to stop the Darfur genocide. But since it is unlikely that any Western nation -- including Canada -- will devote a sizeable force to such an enterprise, other options should be explored.
The National Post is currently running a series of essays commissioned by STAND Canada (Students Taking Action Now: Darfur) outlining some of these options. In one instalment appearing in Thursdays's edition, for instance, former Liberal cabinet ministers Lloyd Axworthy and Allan Rock argued for increased name-and-shame diplomacy, the freezing of Khartoum's ruling generals' Western assets, as well as a protective force of at least 20,000 troops assembled in concert with the African Union. These are all ideas worth trying. And since the UN clearly isn't going to take the initiative in Sudan, the community of civilized nations should.
While we are on the subject, it is worth nothing that the UN's new prohibition on name-and-shame comes with certain notable exceptions. In the same month the commission refused to hear tales of mass rape in Sudan and Burma, the UN was accepting motions from Iran, China, Russia, Cuba and other abusers condemning the United States and Canada for their human rights records. Canada was also singled out for its official use of the term "visible minorities," which the UN declared an expression of racism.
Then there is Israel, which has been a subject of obsession at the United Nations since the Jewish State came into being six decades ago.
As Hillel Neuer, executive director of the NGO United Nations Watch, told the 4th plenary session of the UN Human Rights Council on March 23, the Council has ignored crises all over the world -- from Darfur to Zimbabwe to Central Asia to Arabon-Arab killings in Gaza -- all the while passing resolution after resolution against the Middle East's only true democracy.
It was a trenchant critique that went right to the core of the Council's failings. So how did the Council's President, Mexico's Luis Alfonso De Alba, respond? By shooting the messenger, of course.
"For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement," he huffed. "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 ? 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."
His defensive outburst is a fitting symbol of what the Human Rights Council has become. Killing thousands in Darfur -- that's not so bad. But having the guts to tell the Council what a joke it's become -- well, that's truly unforgivable. |
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorials |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
