UN Human Rights Committee oversteps its authority

Remove all ads!

They are playing by the rules; that's why they haven't been censored.

What disruption do they cause, exactly?

 

AMaster,

Playing the game by the rules is one thing, but to use these freedoms to contradict their values is quite another thing. It was after the experience of Weimar that we in Germany recognised that this is perilous to democracy.

"He only killed this treasonous commie out of patriotic fury over his deeds!" Far fetched? That was the justification for some court giving a nazi a slap on the wrist for murdering in cold blood a communist in Germany's wild 1920s.

Considering what Anne Coulter writes, and ... to give her some credit ... while she's nuts she's probably honest and I think she writes down what she feels - reading her hateful babbling about treason and traitors, what would she do if she got away with beating up liberals IRL? Or take Mr. "Shut up" Bill O'Reilly, how about him? Or the others of their ilk?

You know what I always think when folks speak about playing the rules? How far would they go when they knew, just like a Nazi in Germanys 1920s to 1940s that they could get away with crime or violence in court, with a jury and a judge and parts of the press and a FOX commentator openly sympathetic to them?

And what disruption do they cause, exactly, I'll tell you in my reply to ...

* * *

... Gnarfflinger, I think you misunderstand what America's loud right opinion groups are there for.

They yell out their opinions and not facts because, unlike facts, opinions can't be proven wrong. They aren't at all interested in factual debate. Look at the affair about ex-administration terror expert Clarke. He wasn't attacked for being factually wrong - if he was he would have been sued and fined into bankrupty already. Because they couldn't prove him wrong anyway - his credibility was attacked. Interesting, but why?

We're flooded daily with a sea of information. Information saturation means that attention, not information, becomes a limited resource. Power flows to credible messengers. Brands matter. Reputations count. That means tha the editors and filters become more influential.

Paul Nye brings it ot the point in his book "The Paradox of American Power": "50 years ago political struggles were about the ability to control and transmit scarce information. Today, political struggles are about the creation and destruction of credibility."

The propagandists don't want to win an argument, they don't care about facts - when they manage to muddy the debate enough to achieve a draw they consider it a win because there is no success for the others. It's not about their participation but about yelling down the others. That's what they do by playing the rules.

The US right has a chieved to distract the American public sufficiently to eliminate fatcs from large parts of public dispute. It is proven beyond reasonable doubt that Saddam had no WMD. A significant percentage of Americans believes in it anway.
And this faith, this opinion, once manifested, can only be shattered by something significant, like the messenger who brought them this bit laughing at them loud "Sucker! Sucker! HA-HA-HA!" style.

It isn't only that you have the right of free speech against the state - your freedom of speech ends where it adversely affects those of the others. To use your right to deny it others is abuse as far as free speech is concerned.

And that contradicts the spirit of this freedom.

And the result are warped views in the population and a distortion of the public debate and a debate free of facts. In a democratic system debates should result in solutions and concepts, and not a tired audience switching over to baseball or football - because there you have clear results and outcomes.

That is to say, the US right has generated a toxic climate for democracy.

But admittedly, that has gone a little from the original thread.

[ December 06, 2004, 10:30: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Democracy translates literally as "People rule". If the people in 11 US states vote against granting Homosexuals the right to marry, then are they committing hate crimes according to the UN? Does this mean that Democracy is no longer sanctioned by the UN? That's a start to WW III if I ever saw one...

 

Gnarfflinger,

Sorry, there is nothing about 'hate crime' and not respecting democracy in the quote Chev delivered. Voting against gay marriage sure is not a hate crime. I and the UN comitee are talking about something different.

And then I second to Tal's statement. It is fascinating to see one of the wedge issues that decided the US election in a discussion. Totally pointless and harmless they still split a society. Amazing.

I mean, uh, Americas screws up the world, is about to screw up world's legal order, have a pointless war, are under terror threat, have a black hole of a budget, unemployment etc. and all Americans *effectively* discuss these days is homo-marriage and abortion (admitteldly not pointless, but not the issue deciding the future of the country, too) and decide an election based on it. Don't you have some more pressing issues to deal with? When Bin-Laden speaks of America as self-absorbed and narcisstic he sure has a point.

 

Gnarfflinger, as an interesting side-note, the term "democracy" was coined originally by Aristoteles in a deprecatory way. Meaning something like "rule of the mob" more than "rule of the people".

Furthermore, nowadays the connotation of the word "democracy" does include more than just the meaning you implied. As a matter of fact, the rights of minorities are valued highly - even if you don't appreciate this.

 

You're referring to 'ochlocracy' (the rule of the mob). However, democracy can lead to it if no steps are taken to prevent it from happening.

The modern definition of democracy is: "The rule of the majority with respect to minority, unless the interests of the minority contradict with what majority stands for."
So, if the majority deems something as unworthy or immoral, nobody has the right to force a democracy to change the law so it would make the majority oppressed. Furthermore, no democratic government may force a law to be passed in other democracy that would benefit the former, but would go against the rules in the latter.
Of course, a truly democratic government would not oppress people that did not fit the moral system, it would just not give them the rights that it feels are reserved for the moral majority alone. It would restrict granting citizenship, or would perhaps remove it if the person has other country's citizenship as well, but nothing aside from that.

The problem is that in some countries (like in Poland), a government chosen by 20% of people, and now supported by less than 8% is very likely to go against the moral system (Roman Catholic) that is said to be represented by 90% of the population, just for the sake of getting a per cent or two in preelection polls, to try to get the vote of a very minor minority... And people have no objections to that... :/

Oh dear, I'm ranting again...

 

Since when is it the UN's job to promote/enforce Christianity?

 

I would say that it isn't - is exactly that what's pissing them off.

 

So, it's perilous to allow people to exercise their freedoms. That's a really interesting idea. It's also really frightening.

 

@ Ragusa: The impression that I got from the quote was that any denial of gay rights or any speech implying that homosexuality was imoral would be a violation of this resolution. Since the people of the US in 11 states voted against gay marriage, then they denied a right to gays, and are therefore in violation of that policy. That is where the UN has overstepped their bounds...

 

Since when it is their job to do the opposite?

Doing so, they are going against their own set human rights. If "a person has the right to their beliefs," as stated in their bill, that would mean that if a majority of people is of one religion (or many religions, but with one mind about a certain issue), they have the right to introduce a law against what they deem immoral. And if UN is going to exercise its influence and force the state in question into going against the beliefs of the majority, this is called oppression, and that means UN had absolutely no right to protest against the US going to war in Iraq.

UN is starting to contradict itself.

 

Now that is an attempt of a counterpoint It cannot be the UN's job to promote a christian point of view. The mere thought about you imagining the UN tasked with promoting christian values, like in the islamic world, cracks me up. Priceless.

Laizism is actually the only thing that can keep the UN alive. With more than 100 countries from various cultural backgrounds - Buddism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Konfuzianism and whatever other isms are out there the UN represents the whole world, not just the percentage which is christian.
A UN understanding itself as a missionary would be doomed. It would naturally be refused, especially so by the islamic countries, as a partisan and post-colonial entity engaging in cultural imperialism and tutelage.

Would you like the UN promoting islamic values in the US? Or in Poland? Hardly.

No need to fear the UN so much: The US christian right representing the US in the moral-ethical comittees of the UN has found good allies at the UN - in some of the dreaded rogue states like Sudan, Libya, Iran and others - their islam oriented regimes hate and fear fags about as much as the US christian right. Maybe the UN isn't all that bad?

 

I am totally in agreement with Gnarfflinger on his impression and I'm also in agreement with toughluck on how the UN contradicts itself.

My reflection is quite simple: Where emotions replace reason and agendas replace judgement, contradictions will spring to attention.

The UN contradicts itself openly, between the Cairo convetion (abortion shall never be promoted as a method of family planning) and what HRC has been doing.

Also, there is no such human right as the right to abort a child, even an implicit one; and there is an express and high-ranking right to life; and there is a categorical statement of equality (whereby the mother's rights don't overrank the child's rights), whereby yet another contradiction shows: between the HRC's current agenda and its mission within the UN.

Have you noticed the recent initiative to deprive the Vatican of the observer status? But it's not so recent, at all! It's at least a five year old thing. Click here for the link to a '99 BBC news article. So, what was the official "crime" of the Vatican? They said that we can't kill some people to reduce the suffering of other people, in this case the women raped by Serbian troops. The Vatican claimed the pills were effective within 72 hours from conception and within that time the victim was in no position to make a fair and informed decision. Ever heard of the post-abortion syndrome of women who second guessed themselves after shaking off the initial shock? Not like it doesn't occur after years, sometimes. Here's a short quote:

The IPPF's goal, however, is not to help the women in question. Their goal is to assert their right to abortion. They make practically a religious dogma of that. Their "objective and accurate information" doesn't say a woman can have an abortion but that to have an abortion is her innate right and it's perfectly moral for her to obtain one. On a purely logical basis, how does it differ from the Vatican stance on a purely logical basis, except the Vatican says it's wrong and they (pro-abortionists) say it's right?

An interesting point of view on certain UN organisations' machinations in promoting abortion is here. This includes the use of bogus "Catholic" organisations such as Catholics for a Free Choice, who claim to be a Catholic organisation and also claim that there are different legitimate Catholic positions on abortion. All this to undermine the Vatican's worldwide success in promoting human rights and the dignity of human life. The level of anti-Vatican bigotry among libertines never ceases to astonish me.

You can also check out the See Change initiative homepage. A religious organisation that attacks its own church. Whatever.

And here is the link to news post regarding the Vatican's stance on sexual crimes during and related to war, if anyone's interested. Also, the Vatican challenges the sexual abuse that takes place in refugee camps.

I think we should also investigate the way in which UN personnel treats refugees and recipients of humanitarian aid. There have been complaints about accepting or even requesting sexual services in exchange for preferential treatment in the administration of humanitarian aid goods.

[ December 08, 2004, 15:14: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

The UN has no troops itself but just that what the countries give her. When Ugandan UN troops, well, behave like Uganan troops, and not like the ideal the UN wants or represents - is it Khofi Annan's fault or that of the commanders of the units? When the UN hires staff they have of course a code of ethics but please don't tell me you really believe that their actions are exemplary for the UN.
And unlike in a certain country Khofi Annan or one of his officials have not written memos telling that such treatment is ... uh ... *technically* all right.

Or when the US/ UK controlled sanctions office oversees sanctions and oil for food and there is corruption - is it solely the UN that failed - or maybe the two permanent members who were able to veto *any* deal and oversaw *any* deal - for the UN? Of course, the campaign rolls on: Corruption at the UN! Pathetic.

When talking about the UN and it's flaws, please don't overlook the permanent members and their oversight and vetos. It isn't only about the UN officials. Just a point.

And please gimme a break over the evil UN. The current campaign against the UN isn't the first one, but just the tenth or twelvth so. And besides, the UN isn't the only organisation to contradict itself.

Chev, in your argument you completely ignore the blatantly obvious point that it simply isn't the UN's job to promote christian values because she isn't a christian organisation but a world body - still you blame her for just that. You as a lawyer should know better.

Your "Where emotions replace reason and agendas replace judgement" springs to my eyes as irony in this context. I'm a catholic myself and I dislike abortion but IMO you're overacting here.

 

Wow! that's a great point! I hadn't thought of that.

I mean, since hey, Hindu's think that eating cow is a very very bad thing right?

So according to that leap of amazing logic... the UN should make it their mission to forbid the world from eating beef!

Because, since when, is it NOT the UNs job to enforce Hinduism...

or wait... does that only apply to Christianity?

Please clarify.

[ December 08, 2004, 15:47: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]

 

The UN's job is to promote human rights, and that's about enough. Please note that I'm not pulling papal encyclicals on people but supporting myself with clearly UN-based documents such as the Cairo convention or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The HRC goes against those, whereby it violates international law, as I have shown.

Perhaps my reaction is harsh, but that is a strong opposition, not hystery. Let's be blunt on this one: I've seen much more genuine bigotry on the part of pro-abortionists than anti-abortionists. Those activists typically get shakes and shivers when you question their logic and if you pin them to the wall, they admit to emotional foundations, they hate bigotry, they feel deep inside that abortion is OK, or some such. You won't get any sensible logic from them, they'll just keep telling you what is "objective and accurate".

I want proof, evidence, real logic. If I am to trust anyone else's conscience and moral authority and take his word on something, I'll sooner rely on the moral authority of the leaders of a religion intense on morality than self-assumed authority of abortion advocates, many of whom are abortion doctors, women who want abortion etc etc, therefore people hardly suited to be impartial in the matter.

I hate double standards and, yeah, I am biased and prejudiced against bald assertions and umerited assumption of moral authority.

@ArtEChoke: You forgot about pork for Muslims and Orthodox Jews. And alcohol for the former. And surely a couple of other things.

But I'm going to show you a nice argument to the contrary of your position:

According to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the faithful (except children, old people and the sick) should abstain from eating meat on each and every Friday or they contract quite a serious sin. Have you ever seen any Catholic lawmaker trying to impose a nation-wide ban on the consumption of meat on Fridays? Or in the lent... or whatever? Not even in the countries where Catholics make 90% of the population.

But there's a difference between eating something you shouldn't eat (and it's very, very hard to justify the holding of religious dietary restrictions against non-believers) and killing someone or even something you shouldn't kill. Also, there's a difference between even an unborn human child and a cow or a pig.

 

If we acknowledge that Poland is (at least in statistics) a country with a 90% Catholic majority, what right does the UN have to impose laws that would go against the Catholic moral system?

If they actually promote "religious freedom," they should also understand that if a majority is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or otherwise, they will promote laws that are based on their moral system, since Christianity dictates that if you are in power, you will do everything in your capacity to protect life, including banning abortion, assuming of course that the majority of people is of the same religion. What right does the UN have to go against the right of every person to their beliefs?

 

Noooo… he canna take any more captain.

The UN document does not state that, or even imply it.

More simply put, the UN wants to know how many, if any, of the medical practitioners actually will carry out abortions, and (I think it’s a given that there isn’t very many) therefore how many women are forced to go through illegal abortions and how they suffer for it. I’m sure the UN is not about to insist that doctors have to carry out abortions, but they might be able to provide centre where doctors do not have the same objections.

I’m sorry, but the UN is NOT promoting abortion as a method of family planning. The UN actually wants:

Which you seem to object to as well, something which may prevent abortion in the first place. OK, I accept that “Accurate” and “Objective” are woolly clauses, but the basic idea is to educate people so they don’t ever get in the position where they might need an abortion. Doesn’t that make sense to you? Granted you can preach the abstinence thing, but the lowest teenage pregnancies (which is where we can assume the pregnancy is a “mistake”) occur in Switzerland, the Netherlands and Sweden, all of which have thorough sex education programs.

So being no treaty or convention means that some people shouldn’t be granted the same rights as other groups that might be discriminated against because of a minority status. What nonsense, the same rights should belong to everyone to be allowed to live their lives without fear of discrimination. OK, “attitude” was a bad turn of phrase, but you are nit-picking. The reason the UN have seen fit to comment on it is, presumably, because there is a lot of homophobic behaviour occuring.

This made me laugh. Literally taken, you are saying that the UN will be oppressing Poland, and therefore they shouldn’t be able to protest against the US going to war in order to end oppression. Er… if I was an “oppressor”, I could reason for complaining about other people ending oppression. Or maybe you are saying the US are actually there in “oppressor” category, and therefore the UN shouldn’t complain as they are too? Methinks not.
Oppression is to govern or treat harshly or with cruel injustice. Please explain how allowing people to have abortions is, in fact, treating other non-effected people harshly.

Skip a bit…

So, rather than remove the possible clusters of a few cells within 72 hours that even the women concerned can not be sure exists, the preference is to wait until you can be sure that someone is fully in charge of their faculties and then tell them, no it’s too late now, you can’t have an abortion, you’re going to have to have this child of one of the men who gang-raped you.

By giving the pill, you are not affecting the ability of the women (or girl) to have children in the future. The women doesn’t even know if she was pregnant. This goes down in the same category of Catholic Trollocks as proclaiming condoms help the spread of AIDS.


Oh toughluck, where have you been for the last decade or so. When has the UN ever been able to "impose" laws on anyone?

 

Yes, you are. WHO has reports on that available on their website (I don't have it bookmarked, if I find it, I'll post the link). Furthermore, basically EVERY kind of pill that introduces hormonal shock to the body presents risk of deregulating. The female menstrual cycle is a very complicated series of interlinking events happening throughout the entire body, most of it in the brain (thalamus and hypothalamus mostly). The fact that the pill doesn't alter the sexual organs, they just react how they would to natural changes in the hormone levels, doesn't lower the risk of deregulating processes in the brain. And that could have much more serious consequences than mere infertility (grave as it is!).

Have you even researched this manner further, or did you just go by "these are "Catholic Trollocks," they cannot be right?"
Scientific research shows that condoms do not protect against AIDS. After two years, the risk level of being infected after the same number of sexual intercourses is precisely the same regardless of whether a condom has been used (always) or never, and is equal to 100% in a sample group.
How condoms help spread AIDS? Very simple. They create a feeling of false security, and people have no qualms about having sex with AIDS infected partners. Furthermore, widespread availability of condoms creates a feeling of sexual freedom in which everyone can have sex without consequences.

And yet in these countries, AIDS rate is very high, not to mention other venereal diseases. How has that 'education' and availability of contraceptives help reduce the number of such diseases??? You contradict yourself. Besides that, it is very easy in those states for a teenage girl to go and have an abortion. Are you considering the number of pregnancies, or of conceptions?

Besides, no pregnancy is a "mistake." It is official for thousands of years - sexual intercourse causes pregnancies. If the educational system is "accurate" and "objective," why doesn't it prevent pregnancies. It is as simple as "if you don't want to get pregnant, do not have sex." It is something that even a three-year old can understand: "if you don't want to get burned, do not touch the kettle." No matter how many gloves you wear - it can still burn you even through the best and 100% effective protections.

Fortunately, this isn't happening. UN has a lot of prestige, though, and in many countries, public opininon can be easily swayed by UN's statements.