UN Human Rights Committee oversteps its authority

Remove all ads!

As far as I understood, Ragusa could in no way have meant you and your girl. But I'll leave that one open for him.

As for your other points: please do provide some links with specific insights into the information you're spreading here.

I'll do the same:

from: http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/rtis/MTCT/index.htm

In reference to the effectiveness of condoms debate:

from: http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/rtis/male_condom.html

Read the concise report here: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf

Please note the cunning way in which the results combine the words "impermeability", "condom", and "including the smallest viruses"!

Yes, there's need for more to add. Thanks.

 

We are going horribly off topic here and a new thread will be probably needed to handle this but here goes anyway. Well there are facts from Uganda. They use a modern educational program there which teaches the use of condom and darn in a few years they have managed to get their AIDS situation under control unlike all other African nations, but it's probably just a coincindence no?

 

That's what you get when you use the same condom for two years.

 

@ ArtEChoke: They are trying to state that certain passages in christian Cannon violate it's policy on human rights. These are passages that expressly claim that homosexual behaviour is a grevious sin.

 

IIRC, similar passages state that slave ownership is allowed...

 

@Gnarlfinger: I realize that, but since when does a non-religious organization have to check with the bible before making a statement, suggestion or proposed policy?

If everyone was that goofy (reiterate my earlier point) it would be against the law everywhere to eat pork (Judaism) and beef (Hinduism) for the sheer virtue that it, "violates" their scripture. That's about the same rationale you're giving for saying that the UN being tolerant toward homosexuals means that they hate Christianity.

Its simply absurd.

 

Why is it absurd? Why is it absurd to consider that a Christian majority in a given country would be opposed to abortion or homosexuality? They would and there's nothing UN can do about it. If it is the majority, tough luck for the 'minorities' who would like to impose their own 'moral code' upon the general populace.
If that is the will of the majority, and the minorities are not physically harmed and the state guarantees it, there is no problem. If the majority sees that a certain type of 'sexual education' is preferred, then nobody has the right to interfere.
Otherwise, not only does UN HRC stand above the principles of democracy which it advocates, but it also criticises a certain religion. I grieve for the Chrisitians in Nigeria and I hope they haven't done anything to provoke the Muslim attacks (and yes, I do know it continues for decades). However, what can be done? If the government is unable to contain it, they can appeal to the UN for help. Has Poland appealed to UN for issuing such a report?
No.
This way, does HRC have the right to present such a report to Poland?
No.
Has there been a discussion on the entire UN's member board to present this report? Has there been a vote cast in favour or against Poland in this matter?
No and no, as far as I am aware of.
That way, have they overstepped their authority when they have issued the report?
Yes.

In whose interest has this report been issued? Certainly not:
1. Poland's (there has been no appeal for such)
2. UN's (there has been no official discussion)
3. HRC's (they have went against their own regulations concerning the topics)

Whose then? Is there anyone who can explain that?

ArtEChoke - you have made an invalid statement by including elements of two different categories in this sentence:

You have included an element "homosexuals" which is of category "group of people" and "Christianity" which is of category "religion." This is illogical, and I would ask you to correct the sentence.

 

Uh. no.

 

@ ArtEChoke: I'm not trying to get the UN to enforce Christianity, just trying to get them to back off before they stick their noses into where they can really do damage. If they want to make it a violation of international law to speak out against the practice of Homosexuality, then that renders passages in the Bible illegal under this international law. I don't want Religeous cannon tinkered with to suit a minority.

 

The U.N. does not have the power to tinker with religious canon.

Hell, the U.N. does not have power, period.

Though, I'm right there with you on the "don't make it illegal to speak out against homosexuality (or race, religion, and so on). Let people say what they will. So long as they're not directly inciting violence, good for them.

 

UN may freely announce condemnations, embargoes, even send peacekeeping troops. That does give them a certain (limited, true) power.
As for your last paragraph, AMaster, this is correct. If something is a good value, it will defend itself. If it is not, it will fall regardless of all regulations and censorship*. This way, even without censorship, people feel it is offensive to insult people because of their race and beliefs. If you use a word which is considered offensive to them, but in a joking manner, it is usually taken all in good humour and usually noone is offended. This is from a person that has at least once said "I see it in dark colours" when a black friend came into the room. He immediately caught on and replied "I think it will be all pinky." Everyone laughed, and there were no problems. But try to even chance a slightest remark that someone is a fag, and you'll get extreme reactions. Absurd.

*) Yes, censorship. It isn't different in any way to censoring articles condemning the government in communist, fascist or otherwise autocratic states. Besides, it is oppression - even if passive - one group receives more rights than another if they may not be insulted because of their "orientation," but have the audacity and are free to insult those that speak out against them (or just homosexuality). And not only insult, but take them to court. And that is where the border between passive and active oppression is crossed. They are allowed to take legal action, but their opponents are not.

(this lengthy rant in answer to both this thread and "Anti-Discrimination, Oppression and Over-Legalism" alike.

 

And you're the one to decide where the UN has to stop sticking their noses? Or is it the Pope? Nope. It's George Walker. Fancy that. This is from a person that has at least once said "Hey ****ing Muslim" when an Arab friend came into the room. He immediately caught on and replied "**** yourself, bitch!" Everyone laughed, and there were no problems. But try to even chance a slightest remark that someone is a catholic trollock, and you'll get extreme reactions. Absurd.

*love* and *kisses*

 

Darkthrone - it's not that, and you know that perfectly well. For one thing, you've seen that Arab and that situation - everyone laughed, and it's okay. However, when a homosexual enters a room, and you'd shout across it: "Hey, you fricking faggot," he'd take it as a personal insult, and start off the lines "how dare you?" But as liberals pound their "you catholic trollocks" (and it's not the worst, I have heard the "you dark age troglodyte," "you bigot," and "you hating murderer" much too often), we are expected to take it with a heartbeat. There is a difference between forgiving (and forgetting) and showing that someone has been forgiven.

Oh, and if UN is allowed to stick their noses, why isn't the Pope allowed to? Does UN have any sort of superiority or authority over the Pope? And when UN plans to oust Vatican from its 'permanent observatory' status, who is there to stop them?

 

You see two people. One Black. One Gay. You insult both of them. The Black one laughs. The Gay screams. Who is wrong, the Black or the Gay?

Let me tell you something: none of them is wrong. You are. Insulting people is not rightened nor wronged by their response. It's wrong independently .

Your last point lays open the central misunderstanding between your approach to the UN and the reality. First of all: the difference between the UN and the Vatican is like the difference between democracy and tyranny. None of those is inherently good or bad. You may go with tyranny, but don't expect anyone else to do so. But if you (or rather your country) has chosen to be part of democracy (in this case: UN), this means that there's no more room for tyranny. Not Christian, not Muslim, not Jewish, not Hindhu tyranny.

The second point is that no one is neglecting the Pope the right to speak his mind concerning the issues of the world. You must have noticed that the Pope advances his opinion quite often these days. Did you hear anyone screaming "Shut up, who do you think you are, the UN?" when he spoke out during the war in Iraq?

This all is done, however, on a completely different level. You value the voice of a Church higher than the voice of synthesis of the world's countries. This is... impractical, to say the least. You may do so, of course. The Polish government, on the other hand, may not. I'm positive that things will change in the years to come.

Apart from that, we could discuss the usefullness and the foundation (and hence the authorization) of the UN in a new thread. I thought, only the USA thought the UN to be superfluous, but you never know...

 

I find that inconsistent with reality. You're American, aren't you? Ever read Jefferson? Then the name of Cardinal Bellarmine should tell you something... Throughout ages, the Church has been the force mitigating the violence of authorities. Think of those many clergymen who were put to sword for opposing oppressive rulers.

It's always impractical to be restrained by a morality. Religious or otherwise. Unless a morality that dictates you everything is good and right so long as you want it hard and you think it benefits you, screw the other people.

A very good point and well illustrutating the lack of logic characteristic of the pro gay rights movement.

Sorry, but you're confusing things. My absurd reaction to "Catholic Trollock" and "homophobe" and all is related to the fact that using that word "fag" can get you in trouble, while people are allowed to call you the names I mentioned.

No, they are referring to slaves in a world where everyone had slaves, and enforce with the power of the religious canon the humane treatment of said slaves. BTW, did you know that in ancient Israel, slaves had the option to become free every seven years? Heck, there are records of a slave uprising in the ancient Egypt once. You know for what reason? Because they wanted to make them free. There were worse alternatives in those ancient societies. Slaves at least had food, drink and some roof. But we're diggressing.

 

But is the UN allowed to criticize a nation for fulfilling the will of it's people? And does the UN have the right to tell the people what beliefs they cannot have? That was where the UN was out of line.

 

The thing I'm not understanding here is why people care what the UN says about morality or anything else. What impact does it have on you? It isn't as though the UN is going to impose its views (As though it were a homogenous body with a single world view) on you. It isn't as though it could, even if it wanted to do so.

So who cares?

 

What kind of problem could develop if they try it?

 

But they don't, so the point is moot and just ... paranoia?

For your information: The only thing binding the UN can do is (a) to persuade a country to sign a treaty to which it is (oh yes) then obliged to and (b) to have the security council make a decision on a subject with direct effect against a country (like: declaring sanctions against, of course, a non-veto wielding power) - and that point (b) is a result of (a) a country signing the charter and entering the UN.

The UN adresses governments, and governments only. Actually the idea that individuals might be a subject of international law is pretty new and radical, human rights are perhaps an expression of it (I, still, am unpersuaded). So when a UN comitee makes a decision it is a guideline ro appeal to governments, it isn't even binding, much less to a veto wielding power, and especially not to you personally.