Bad dhimmi! Chiding us on human rights. We wrote the book on human rights! Err, um, never mind that last part. Turn of phrase, you know. "Islamic states urge U.N. boss be quiet on rights body," from Reuters:
GENEVA (Reuters) - Islamic states said on Wednesday that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon should avoid criticising the world body's Human Rights Council where they and their allies hold a majority.
They said there was an apparent "disconnect" between Ban and the 47-nation Council and also hinted they would like to see a more "predictable relationship" between the body and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, who has made clear she does not approve of all its actions.
The message, described by Western diplomats as clear if low-keyed, was delivered by Pakistan in a statement to an informal Council session on behalf of the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
"It looks as though on rights at least they are trying to say they should set the line for the whole of the U.N.," said one European envoy, who declined to be identified.
On June 20 Ban voiced regret the Council -- created last year to replace the Human Rights Commission -- had picked on Israel and its role in the occupied Palestinian territories alone for continued special investigation.
A comment from the U.N. chief said he was disappointed at the Council's decision "to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."
The written comment did not mention Israel or the Palestinian territories by name, but it was seen as aligning Ban -- a former South Korean foreign minister in the first year of his mandate -- with Western criticism of the Council.
[...]
The OIC statement, delivered to an informal Council meeting by Pakistan's ambassador Masood Khan, said the Ban comment had "raised the question whether there is a disconnect between the Secretary-General and the Council."
It added: "We need to remove this anomaly through dialogue."
On Arbour, a former Canadian Supreme Court judge and U.N. war crimes prosecutor who has been critical of African, Asian and Middle Eastern countries over their rights records, the OIC said interaction between her and the Council was "excellent."
But it added: "However, we need to define institutional checks and balances to turn this cooperation into a predictable relationship."
In other words, something more like dhimmitude, the acme of "predictable relationships."
Ban ki-moon makes the very reasonable statement that he's disappointed the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference decided
The OIC had focused solely on Israel, of course, and Ban ki-moon had the courage to point to that as a problem.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference knows something about how to employ language in an Orwellian way.
This is double-talk. A real intention to dialogue doesn't start with the goal of "removing" the other's viewpoint. Dialogue is not some temporary expedient to be used to establish unanimity so that dialogue can be discontinued. Dialogue is of the essence of being human. Unless you have a totalitarian mindset, as the OIC evidently does.
I think there are 47 or 48 members on the council of which 16 are muslim. The muslims vote as a block out of I assume brotherly solidarity. All they need then to get over their point of veiw is 9 more votes out of the remaining 32 members. Some will vote the same way as the muslim block anyway, so perhaps a minimum of 6 countries need to be bribed or at least persuaded. The whole thing is a farce anyway. The universal declaration of Human Rights of 1948, one size fits all, was not good enough the . They had to have their own, we can't have an infidel our equal, which is what it says. Its in the the Koran, that muslims are superior the the rest of the world and that must be right. The muslim declaration of human rights signed in Ciro in 1990 solved that problem. It is a nasty example of that saying Bullshit baffles brains. Basically it states that all men are equal except muslims are more equal than other because everything gets refers back Shari law, when it comes to arbitration. If any of you are interested you can down load a copy of both declarations of human right off the internet. Read them side by side they make interesting reading.
The 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference said:
What cleverly Orwellian euphemism. The word "predictable" sounds so civilized, so rational, and "checks and balances" so enlightened and democratic, but underneath those surface sounds is the clear meaning intended here by "predictable": don't rock the boat, don't make trouble.
Put that way, one begins to see the underlying thuggishness of the message. The thuggishness must be cloaked in polite terminology of civilization, but it shines through. Using deceptive euphemism to cover domineering intent can be one good strategy for making that domineering intent successful, since the deception misleads some of those who are to be dominated and thus makes it more difficult for resistance to organize itself.
Such euphemisms become the language by which the dictator's cohorts extend his cognitive domination down to the capillary level of society, so to speak. Cognitive domination -- control of what is to be considered "real" and "unreal" -- is so often essential to the dictator's arsenal of social control. The extent to which this is true shows that human beings are fundamentally inseparable from the truth: even the most evil among us are forced to orient themselves continually in relation to truth, if only to know precisely how to deflect the attention of others from it. It is paradoxical but true that even to know how to go about deceiving oneself, one must on some level know the reality.
Euphemism from dictators can even pacify those among the dominated who fully realize all the lies that are involved. Euphemism provides a shred of false honor to the dominated, since it provides them with a false tale by which they can justify their own state of affairs as nothing to rebel against, nothing to be ashamed about, nothing to feel dishonored about. Or at least that storyline can serve to tranquillize slightly the awareness that the dictator and his order are essentially abusive, insulting, and brutal.
Euphemism, in a dictator's hands at any rate, is an instinctive and probably ancient form of psychological warfare against those who are being dominated or are to be dominated. The need for euphemism shows the extent to which dictators are not ultimately in control. Dictators' use of euphemism shows that truth is the stronger power, at least in the sense that the dictator must continually hide and distort truth in order to survive.
Anyone know where the best place online is for sources relating to Jihad and the development world (UN, development banks etc)? Is anyone aware of any studies conducted into Islam and the so-called humanitarian community?
"...and also hinted they would like to see a more "predictable relationship" between the body and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights..."
Unless I'm reading this wrong, this is about equal to "Your gonna take what I give you and I want to see a smile on your face."
It's 5:30 A.M. in Texas. Good morning all.
Interesting comments Traeh.
It must be nice to be a muslim. Right up until the point where people have had enough of your &$%#.
Islamic states said on Wednesday that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon should avoid criticising the world body's Human Rights Council where they and their allies hold a majority.
What's wrong with this picture ?
What a joke, muslims trying to dictate policies on human rights.
You have the right to convert TO but not FROM the religion of peace.
You have the right to pay jizya.
You have the right to be killed.
You have the right to be enslaved.
You have the right to wear a burkha.
See, Islamania's creator has bestowed upon infidels wonderful inalienable human rights such as these-that's why the peaceful ones get to dominate the Human Rights section of the UN. They are Illah's representatives after all, so we should be grateful for all this. What more can an infidel want?
Human rights are just a Western plot to undermine Islam. Don't you people pay attention to the mufti?
"Anyone know where the best place online is for sources relating to Jihad and the development world (UN, development banks etc)?"
One (excellent) website that is critical of the United Nations is "UN Watch.org" or www.unwatch.org -- it features a number of articles, updates, and so on.
There have been several critiques of Human Rights Watch (that joke/farce of an organization), and Amnesty International...(that's Amnesty International for the Preservation of Arab Supremacist Rights). (I'd have to do a search to find the articles again).
The entire Human Rights Commission, almost everything it does, almost every meeting it has held, almost all of its speeches and its resolutions, and what it chooses to maniacally focus on (tiny Israel, a state that behaves with a scrupulosity and decency on the subject of human rights that entitles no other state, and least of all the Arab and Muslim states, to lecture or hector or vilify it), and the things it choses to ignore or give passing or dismissive attention to (the Sudan, for example; the murders of non-Muslims in Indonesia and Bangladesh and Iraq and Algeria, for example), entitle us in turn to dismiss it, and all its works and well-paid days, in tout-confort, trop-confort, Geneve, by the shores of Lac Leman. Surely even the Western diplomats who may attempt to turn away their gaze from the farce, or who even begin to persuade themselves -- as they must in every international gathering or deliberation -- that perhaps the Muslims and Arabs have a point, because otherwise why would they be so ferocious in their behavior? Well, they don't have a point. They are conducting a Lesser Jihad, against a state they have cleverly managed to demonize, cleverly managed to enroll in their effort all those who exhibit the pathognomonic symptoms of antisemitism and anti-Americanism (which, not surprisingly, often overlap), and to harness as well such human qualities as cupidity (the Arab gifts, the money, the favors are spread around, have been spread around, at so many fora, and in so many Western capitals).
The intolerable deliberations and conclusions of such a grou must be ignored, or if not, then held up for every sort of ridicule.
"Islamic states urge U.N. chief to be quiet on rights body"
...in fact, the Islamic states just wish all Non Muslims would go away...
Nations not meeting basic objective measures of the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights need to have their memberships suspended until they come into compliance with the standards of that document. Membership in the UN should be a privilege. The UN should be an exclusive club that discriminates against tyrannies and third rate thugs who control pieces of real estate.
Chiding, scolding, nagging, reminding doesn't work with children nor will it work with bad actors in power unless the words are backed up consistently and firmly. Actions, not words, guide behavior. Anti-social people and regimes are controlled by the threat of force and real examples of that force applied. Nothing else.
The thing that stopped Charles Manson from rising to the level of Mohammed is the righteous application of society's force on him and his crew. Mohammed succeeded through the timing of history, he was nothing special in terms of message or delivery if you look at other charismatic sociopaths throughout history. The reason he succeeded stems from a lack of any cohesive societal force to stop the spread of his disease. Rome was gone. If they'd been around Mohammed would not be known today.
"Islamic states said on Wednesday that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon should avoid criticising the world body's Human Rights Council where they and their allies hold a majority."
What's to be quiet about? Did something change among the 30 articles (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or does a majority have a right to possibly re-define those articles?
Traeh posted:
"Ban ki-moon makes the very reasonable statement that he's disappointed the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference decided
to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world.
The OIC had focused solely on Israel, of course, and Ban ki-moon had the courage to point to that as a problem."
Actually, it's worse than that. It's the 47 nation Human Rights Council that Ban Ki-Moon has the "disconnect" with. THEY singled out Israel (and voted to ignore abuses in Cuba and Belarus)
The Human Rights Council has member states that are also in the OIC, but there are also some non-islamic members of the Human Rights Council that routinely vote along with the Islamic bloc. (Namely, some African states, Cuba, Belarus, Russia and China. see the linked article)
The only predictability Arbour needs is to predictably uphold a set of principles (like the Universal Declaration) and predictably lead according to those principles when the Islamic bloc and their predictable friends make predictable rulings according to their predictable (anti-US) interests.
Re: Traeh's post on euphemism... Right on!
Update: Kaddafi's hostage extortion price disclosed... Fwance offers nuclear jizya;
And if we don't submit willingly now, how will we avoid jihad later?fjordman could not have been more prescient;
/dhimmitude on stiltsTerp Mole-
So Sarkozy is lost, too?
Why would you transfer any infidel-created power to those backward imbeciles who want to use it to behead you and annihilate your Civilization?
As looney as saying that we must feed the tigers in our backyard or they will become angry with us.
Instead of driving them away because they are dangerous predators.
Sarkozy is for transplanting better claws onto the now limping tigers.
Are all leaders in the West demented?
Bugger the UN !
The Chinese Show the way.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/china/article2116123.ece
The U.N. Human Rights Body may be telling the Secretary-General Moon to keep his mouth shut about the execution of the South Korean Christian Hostage and abductions.
Moon has made no comment about his fellow citizens from South Korea.
The silence and the release of the critisism of Moon are very interesting.
And you will hear nothing from the Human Rights Body about these South Koreans.
Oh, comm'on Moon tell us what you really think about Islam killing South Koreans.
"Are all leaders in the West demented?"
I believe they are. So now it's Sarkozy -- I didn't put much trust in him to begin with. He's Fwench. But it is incredible that Sarkozy is so desperate to out-do the Left in Islam appeasement...I thought Chirac had that spot sewn up...guess there's a new contender now for sycophantic bootlicker.