The human what council?
David Littman of the Association for World Education makes a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union to the UN Human Rights Council, in which they denounce the stoning to death of women accused of adultery and the marriage of girls age nine in countries where Sharia law applies. The UNHRC heartily agrees, right?
The speaker, David Littman, was interrupted by no fewer than 16 points of order and the proceedings of the Council were suspended for forty minutes when the Egyptian delegate said that “Islam will not be crucified in this Council” and attempted to force a vote on whether the speaker should be allowed to continue. On giving his ruling after the break Council President Costea said that the Council “is not prepared to discuss religious questions…Declarations must avoid judgments or evaluation about religion…I promise that next time a speaker judges a religion or a religious law or document, I will interrupt him and pass on to the next speaker”.
Oh. So any human rights abuses that have a religious element are…off limits to the UN Human Rights Council? Well. That seems rather disabling.
But read on, and it seems more than a bit disabling.
At the Islamic summit in Mecca in December 2006, the OIC decided to adopt a policy of zero tolerance against any perceived insults to Islam as part of their overall strategy of advancing the cause of Islam worldwide. The measures agreed upon included creating an “Observatory” to monitor all reports of “Islamophobia”. Muslims throughout the world were to be encouraged to report any cases of perceived Islamophobia, however trivial. Cases submitted so far, for example, have included Muslims who have received “hostile glances”.
And that Maclean’s case.
Plans were also put in place to seek changes in national and international law to provide additional “protection” for Islam. The battlegrounds were to include the European and national parliaments, and the UN, including the Human Rights Council. It was also proposed to move towards the creation of a new Charter of Human Rights in Islam, and the setting up of an Islamic Council of Human Rights to be based not on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but on Sharia law. Fast forward 16 June 2008. The Egyptian delegate to the Human Rights Council, Amr Roshdy Hassan, saw an opportunity to wrong-foot the Council by attacking the statement by AWE/IHEU. Egypt had prepared their ground carefully, breaking protocol by arranging to receive advance copies of our statements, and finding in our statement on violence against women exactly what they were looking for.
Littman begins his statement, Egypt interrupts, Pakistan joins Egypt, Slovenia says hang on – and Egypt goes into unrehearsed unscripted bullying mode.
Mr. President, through you Sir, please Sir, I would humbly and kindly ask my colleague from Slovenia to reconsider. What we are talking now about is not about the right of NGOs to speak but about the Sharia law and whether it is admissible to discuss it in this Council. I appeal to my colleague from Slovenia not to accept any discussion of the Sharia law in this Council because it will not happen. And we will not take this lightly.
The UN Human Rights Council is apparently dominated by an alliance of thugs. Sharia is protected, and women’s rights are buried under a hail of stones. Terrific.
The UNHRC should be immediately renamed the UN Islamic Rights Council. This is beyond farce and any country that takes human rights seriously should immediately withdraw, perhaps some mullahs can take their place.
It’s way beyond farce – I find it absolutely horrifying.
Does anyone have any faith left in the U.N or any of its institutions? I ask this as a serious question because I am wondering if it is just me or do others hold the U.N in contempt as well?
Interesting that, according to the report, the Cuban representative, while explicitly not commenting on the subject matter raised by IHEU, objected to its bad practice in stopping the procedures of the Council, and said the IHEU spokesman must stop his intervention.
Opportunism? Or a case of my enemy’s enemy is my friend?
Excuse interruption. Now, where were we –
Yes, Cuban role is interesting. China routinely sides with the OIC members, too. The Islamist-Communist bloc; how appealing.
ummm… regarding Cuba (and China), why is it so surprising?
Isn’t this just an obvious case of serial human rights abusers sticking together?
The fact that this time it’s ‘criticism of islam’ at stake seems fairly irrelevant – any opportunity to diminish scrutiny is ripe for the taking…
Or is this just me being over-tired and cynical again?
:-)
Interesting, not surprising. Ain’t nobody done said it was surprising.
Still – there is a certain cognitive dissonance between Communism and sharia. I’m just saying.
Yes, Richard, I do.
Some of the work the UNMRC does is exemplary.
DFG The fact that the U.N does somethings well surely cant make up for its failings? this is an organisation that withdrew its peace keeping forces whilst genocide was taking place in plain sight.
richard,
Before you ascribe blame, perhaps you need to research more on how the UN works…forces operating on its behalf can only do what they are mandated to – otherwise they become free-for-all targets and entirely useless as ‘neutral’ peacekeepers.
now, as to those who are responsible for determining the terms of the mandate in question…plenty of competing (and often unpleasant) national self-interests at play…the u.s. government is particularly prone to castigating the UN when they themselves have deliberately undermined its efforts, fer instance. And what sane person would actually choose to try to wring concensus out of the security council? :-)
OB, sorry, just thought it had happened so many times before (eg China,Iran,Libya, Cuba, etc) that it was almost a non-issue. after all, shariah doesn’t threaten the communist states, so why should they worry about the local details?
Also any folk who make the west feel (rightly) uncomfortable are usually in the market for highly profitable armaments contracts, so as long as the taliban don’t try spreading their ideology in the ‘wrong’ direction…
Richard that’s not what you asked. You asked if anyone had “any faith left in the U.N or any of its institutions.” DFG answered you. You then changed your question.
Please don’t do that. Seriously. This is why people get frustrated when arguing with you (and you then get irritated at being ganged up on). Please if you want to dispute with people, slow down, take more care, go back and look at what you asked in the first place, and don’t move the goalposts.
It’s entirely reasonable to think 1) the UN has massive problems (which is not surprising given that not all countries are well governed, to put it as mildly as possible) and 2) that many of its institutions nevertheless do valuable work. That’s what I think, for one.
By the way, Richard – for one institution of the UN it’s reasonable to have some faith in – have a look at UNIFEM. And go from there to CEDAW.
Thanks for the two links OB – I shall also read them as well.
Oops I did didnt I sorry(i need a sorry key for my laptop), I could have faith in the institution that you gave me the link to but doesnt there come a point where the good is far outwayed by the bad.
:- )
Sure. I don’t know nearly enough about the total effect of all the institutions of the UN to make that judgment though, and I would be very loath indeed to lose UNICEF and a whole slew of other institutions. I would also be very loath to give up on the basic idea. I can only hope, in a despairing sort of way, that gradually bad states and failed states will be replaced by better ones – preferably at the hands of their own people rather than those of the Cheneys and Rumsfelds – and the UN will do better.
I would go so far as “ONLY at the hands of their own people”. (Never with the likes of Cheney, Wolfie and Rummie) With international support. A good example: Sth Africa.