Skip to content

DomPost on the UN Inhuman Rights Council

06/04/2009

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

The Dominion Post editorial today deals with the appalling resolution passed by the UN (In)Human Rights Council. This resolution promoted by a primarily Islamic bloc seeks to restrict individual human rights by pressuring states to pass laws forbidding the criticism of religion. Notionally this is to protect the religion, in reality it is about seeking to stop people being critical of Islam. Islam being the only religion named in the resolution.

It is a shame that there has not been much high profile NZ media coverage for example on the broadcast media. But this would not rank with our trivia obsessed TV media. Full marks to the Dominion Post for the editorial. In addition, a commendation for supporting Murray McCully’s move to withdraw NZ ‘s candidacy for a position on the governing body in favour of the US. Politically sound and a recognition that the US will have more diplomatic heft than NZ. Given the way this UN entity is going the US will have more impact than NZ, especially as a number of the countries concerned are recipients of significant US aid and other support.

It is cruelly ironic that this UN body set up to replace it’s appalling predecessor, the infamous UN Human Rights Commission of which Mugabe’s Zimbabwe was a leading light, is yet again rapidly becoming an oppressor of the individual and a proponent of the tyrannical state.

On a day when we read about John Key protesting an obscene law proposed in Afghanistan, it is pertinent to note from Peter Glover’s article at Real Clear Politics:-

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 belief.

Such is the domination of the UN HRC by Islamic states, backed by non-democratic members including Russia and Cuba, that the human rights agency UN Watch believes the “adoption of the regressive resolution is a foregone conclusion”. Last December, Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch told Radio Free Europe that Islamic states were pursuing “the diplomatic battle with a vengeance” because of the post 9/11 war on terror and the issue of the Danish depictions of the prophet Mohammed. As Neuer pointed out, “The resolutions pose a major threat to the premises and principles of international human rights laws and harm Muslims as much as non-Muslims.” Neuer went on to cite the failure of the Islamic states to address human rights violations in Muslim countries. He also pointed out that the latest resolution is “not really trying to protect individuals from harm” but is attempting “to shield a set of beliefs from question or debate.”

The resolution was passed as this report from the Seattle Times makes clear.

Again from Glover’s article:-

UN Watch’s Neuer describes the resolution’s text as “Orwellian” and warns that it distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech and religious freedom. He also points out that a binding resolution would first target “moderate Muslims” and that: “Next to suffer from the UN-sanctioned McCarthyism will be writers and journalists in the democratic West.” The text singles out the freedom of the Western media which allows for ‘deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons.’

Of course it would, these people seek only to oppress in the name of a religion which appears concerned only with violent subjugation.

To conclude this post Adam will again note this quote:-

“It is individuals who have rights and not religions,” Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier said.

Let us all make a point of remembering that.

N.B. In passing Adam would note that he first posted on this issue on March 28 –UN body abuses human rights, with a follow-up satirical post a couple of days later.Nice to see the Dominion Post catching up with the blogosphere.

One Comment
  1. Serum permalink
    06/04/2009 23:07

    An informative article by Roy W. Brown, “The Slow Death of Freedom of Expression” and found at http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/10450.html is a must read covering the background and widespread implications of this HRC’s threat to freedom of speech which has been pursued by a united OIC front striving not for the promotion and protection of human rights, but the prevention of the exposure of their own human rights abuses. A hint to the methodology by which the OIC can both abuse others and protect their own interests is covered by Brown’s explanation:

    “The mandates of the Special Rapporteurs (special investigators) charged with exposing and documenting human rights abuses have been rewritten to reduce their scope for action, while a new ‘code of conduct’ gives the states under investigation the right to challenge all and any of the investigator’s findings before they are published. Investigators who used to have an inviolate period of tenure can now be dismissed after one year if they upset the target of their investigations. The very concept of ‘country-specific’ mandates is under threat. Within the past year the mandates of several special investigators have been abruptly terminated.”

    Like

Comments are closed.