UN body abuses human rights
Now that Super Helen is off to the UN, to a role which Adam wishes her every success in; though readers would do well to read Colin James column in the Dominion Post today, especially the summation, it is time to think more about the UN. As yet Colin James column does not appear to be online.
Let us for example consider this post, entitled Theocracy, from the Lexington blog at The Economist
THE freedom to discuss religion critically was at the root of modern intellectual freedom. It is therefore both depressing and worrying to learn that the United Nations may be in the process of turning the “defamation” of religion into an offence. This would not only make a mockery of the United Nation’s charter on human rights; it would mark a serious attempt to reverse the Enlightenment and everything that flowed from it. It would be good to have another Voltaire to summon up the appropriate outrage at this development. But Peter Glover does a good job of describing what is going on:
A powerful bloc of 57 Islamic states is again pushing for the UN to make it a criminal offense to criticise or ‘defame’ Islam. In a new resolution circulated at a session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on March 11, a paper entitled “Combating Defamation of Religions” was circulated ahead of the Council’s next meeting on March 26-27, when the resolution will be voted on.
Though the 57 nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc which also dominates the UN’s Human Rights Council, have been lobbying for the move since 1999, the signs this time are that the resolution could well be made binding. While the resolution calls for protection against “defamation” of all religions, it only mentions Islam by name.
The resolution deems offending Islamic sensitivities a “serious affront to human dignity” which could lead to “social disharmony”, “violations of human rights” and “incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam in particular”. If passed, the resulting binding resolution would find its way into various UN documents all of which would require that UN member states at “local, national and international levels” start restricting the free speech of citizens to prevent public criticism of religious beliefs, particularly Islamic.
There are some extremely interesting comments in the comments thread which are well worth reading.
The U.N.’s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism.
The proposal put forward by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic countries – with the backing of Belarus and Venezuela – had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.
The UN Human Rights Council is a disgrace. It seems to be more about doing away with rights than promoting them.
This comment by a Canadian diplomat is highly relevant:-
“It is individuals who have rights and not religions,” Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier said.
Adam looks forward to the NZ government condemning this latest travesty by the UN Inhuman Rights Council, but he will not hold his breath because apparently it is one of our foreign policy goals to be elected to this appalling body.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
The Inquiring Mind 
Hello, you left a comment at my old blog (Blogging for a Free World) regarding this issue. Well, for me, the main issue here is that democracies are not defending their own values, and mainly HR. Just consider that ALL demands on HR issues come from countries which are not democratic against countries which are democratic: GITMO (as if there aren’t despicable prisons in other parts of the world), torture, war, etc.
The moment you consider equal in terms of HR any democracy to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba or China, you’re lost.
Sorry for not commenting before, but I have discovered your comment only today.
LikeLike
Adam- if you have not already found that article by Fran O’Sullivan, it can be located at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10406898
With your note that NZ is seeking a place on the UNHRC: in my opinion this is an idealistic pursuit saturated with foolhardiness since NZ as one member of the diminutive group within the HRC and voting – one would expect – for rights that include freedom to hold opinions without interference could not sway the inevitable outcome from a council that is dominated by votes that act in a way that suppresses free thought and action . NZ invariably would be tarred by the broad brush of imposed suppression and gain a reputation of belonging to a club that acts to pull down the curtain on freedom. Best bet is to stay well clear of this body and lobby for reformation.
LikeLike
Serum
Enjoyed the comment. Will have to look up the Fran O’Sullivan article.
I wish HC well as if she fails it will be bad for NZ. Yet like you I am concerned, as HC of course instigated the EFA, not exactly a beacon of Humna Rights and freedom. Further her support of Arafat gives me additional cause for conern.
LikeLike
As perceived by the progressive western mind, the UN Human Rights Council should act as the custodian of human rights, those rights that include freedom to hold opinions without interference. But this UN Human Rights Council having now voted into existence the UN resolution, “Combating defamation of religions”, a resolution which is littered with Orwellian text effectively restricting freedom of expression and undermining the foundation of human freedom provides proof that this UN Human Rights Council’s name is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, and would be better named the UN Human Wrongs Council.
What a calamity! Dominated by Islamic states under the wing of the “Organisation of the Islamic Conference” this UN council’s first instinct in the defence of human rights is to criminalise free speech and suppress truth in support of tyranny while at the same time being in breach of the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of that UNDHR document states explicitly – “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Wishing H.C. well in the UN role may turn out to be a death wish for free speech. Having control of the United Nations Development Programme’s purse strings, having a propensity for providing a sympathetic ear to FIANZ in their pursuit to restrict the NZ press with respect to the Mohammed cartoon fiasco, having – as reported by Fran O’Sullivan in her 2006 article “Prime Minister, what have you let yourself become?” – been enthused by the measures the British Labour Government has imposed to curb press freedoms, H.C. would not measure up as the ideal candidate to uphold freedom of expression.
LikeLike