Pages Menu
Categories Menu
  • DLS

    It’s pretty bad when even the radical Left finds them to be ridiculous!

    Change the Security Council to contain reps from the OECD nations, and put the UN firmly under the Security Council’s control, now.

  • SteveK

    There is a a ‘farce and a sham‘ being perpetrated but it’s not by the UNHRC.


    The result of the vote was as follows:

    In favour (46): Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, Czech Republic, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Uruguay, and Zambia.

    Against (1): Canada

    Here’s the link to the UNITED NATIONS Press Release… that tells what was actually voted on and why.

    “The world” IS NOT picking on Israel, as David Schraub would have you believe, they simply want everyone held to the same standards but some find that problematic… Funny world.

    DLS – Maybe Michael will tell you why his country went along with “the radical Left”.

  • I’m confused as to how the press release does anything but verify my post. I wouldn’t have any objection to Israel being held to the same standards as everyone else, but that would imply “everyone else” (or indeed, anyone else) is being held to any standard at all. Here’s Canada’s statement on the vote:

    TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said in establishing the Council, the General Assembly had set out its guiding principles. These included universality, impartiality and non-selectivity. Canada therefore regretted the inclusion in the agenda of one situation for selective treatment, that of the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory and Israel. This inclusion was due to a politicised approach. While not perfect, there were many positive elements in the proposed package, however, Canada could not agree to a package which contained an item so clearly contradictory to the principles under which the Council was founded. The text also failed to renew and subject to review only the mandates on Cuba and Belarus, both situations that clearly warranted continued scrutiny by country-specific mandates.

    And here’s Cuba:

    JUAN ANTONIO FERNÁNDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said that the agreement reached today marked the achievement of the end of the country mandate in Cuba, a tool the main enemy of international cooperation and human rights around the world had tried to use as a pretext for its policy of blockades and genocide against Cuba. However, Cuba wished to register its deep regret that mandates on other countries of the south had been maintained. On other issues, Cuba commended China for the work it undertook to enhance the Council’s methods of work. Cuba had also always given its support to the just cause of the Palestinians, suffering under an unjust occupation. However, the attention to that situation was insufficient, and it did require an item under the agenda. As for Canada, and other delegations who had shown their anti-Cuban feelings, those were the hypocrites who were in favour of the imperialistic incursions of Bush. They had carried out acts of torture and bombardment on civilian populations. Today was a day of victory for Cuba. In the words of Fidel Castro: “you will never hold Cuba back”.

    Well, that’s lovely.

  • SteveK

    The vote was 46 to 1… and your selected quotes show a lack of interest on your part in presenting the facts in this case.

    Contrary to your: “but that would imply “everyone else” (or indeed, anyone else) is being held to any standard at all.38 out of the 40 ongoing UNHRC Investigations were preserved.

    BOUDEWIJN VAN EENENNAAM (Netherlands), in an explanation after adoption of the text, said the outcome of the Council’s special sessions did not constitute a balanced approach, but the Netherlands joined in the decision to show support for the need for all States to cooperate with Council decisions.

    Statements by others (IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group; CHENG JINGYE (China); MICHAEL STEINER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union; NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom); etc.) were in the same vein… they acknowledged that, though it wasn’t a perfect, it was a necessary and proper action.

  • Simply telling me how the vast majority of countries–democratic or not, liberal or not–are willing to sell out Jews is supposed to persuade me of…what, precisely?

    The council, as you would not gather from the press release, singled-out Israel as the only permanent, open-ended country-specific mandate. It is, in other words, a standard applied to Israel and nowhere else. Not Cuba (which is mercifully freed from the prospect of genocidal human rights investigation), not Sudan, not anywhere.

  • Sam

    I wonder if China ever gets its feelings hurt. I mean, they arrest, torture and repress hundreds of thousands every year and once again they get snubbed by the UNHRC. What’s an uber-repressive communist state have to do to get a little recognition from the UN?

    And North Korea’s been swinging for the fences since the 50’s, do they get a any UNHRC love? Nope. Whose balls do you have to electrocute to get noticed over there?

  • DLS

    Far be it for me to routinely leap to leftie Schraub’s defense but — he’s 100% correct. The statement from the member from Canada says it all as does the drivel from the member from Cuba (does Cuba write what Venzezuela’s Chavez says, or vice versa?).

    The vote was 46 to 1

    Anti-Israeli votes can reach even higher vote totals in the complete cast-of-clowns UN General Assembly (man, what a disgusting circus that body routinely chooses to be).

  • DLS

    DLS – Maybe Michael will tell you why his country went along with “the radical Left”.

    Oil dependency?

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :