Jihadister fra Gaza angriber Israel

Den her har I ikke læst om i aviserne eller hørt omtalt i de elektroniske medier:

Jihadists try to enter Israel from Gaza, firefight lasts several hours

But it’s the Israelis who must show that they want peace, according to the post-American President.

(ANSAmed) – JERUSALEM, MARCH 22 – A firefight lasting several hours took place today on the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip following an apparent attempt by armed Palestinians to infiltrate into Israel near the Kissufim border crossing. According to initial reports from Israel TV station, three Palestinians were captured, according to other sources, three were killed. According to an Arab TV station, an Israeli soldier was killed, news that has not yet been confirmed officially in Israel. (ANSAmed).

Biskoppens religioner

En bog, Biskoppen ikke kender - eller i det mindste ringeagter

Den islamistiske hykler-biskop fra Århus har følgende indlæg i KrDb – han gør os her bekendt med den ene af sine religioner, politisk korrekthed:

Når vi i tænder julelysene på træet i stuen på selve juleaften, tænker jeg også lidt på en anden fødselsdag, men det er jeg nok stort set ene om. Den aften er der jo så meget andet at tænke på og fornøje sig over.

Har du hørt om Jesus Kristus, for eksempel? ved – ham, du er ansat til at styrke, og være hyrde for hans får – Eller fylder materialisme, griskhed, Muhammad og Al Gore mere i din bevidsthed?

Ikke desto mindre kunne vi godt sige til hinanden, at det i aften er fjorten dage siden, vi kunne fejre noget andet end vor hygge, vore gaver og sikkert også vor selvtilstrækkelighed. Nemlig FN’s deklaration om menneskerettighederne, der den 10. december fyldte 61 år.

Jo, men hvorfor tænke på det – igen? Det har da i hvert fald ikke noget med julen at gøre! Men det er netop, hvad det har! Det vil sige, julens budskab begribeligvis (snip)

Menneskerettighedserklæringen i lyset af julen
Det er en tankegang, der ofte er gået i glemmebogen, også i kirken. Men uden at kunne udforske til bunds den historie, der førte frem til, at man nedskrev for 61 år siden, at et menneske var af enestående betydning blot i kraft af sin menneskelighed, og uden at skulle psykologisere de personer, der skrev erklæringerne ned, så var det altså, som om de skrev på baggrund af julens fortælling og dens erfaring.

Det er nok fra min side en uhyre naiv tankegang. Men jeg bliver ved mit. Menneskerettighederne var den sene, altfor sene, virkning af julens budskab. Et stykke praktisk virkningshistorie.

Menneskerettighederne har intet – IN-TET med kristendom at gøre. Det har næstekærlighedsbegrebet derimod. Desuden er UNHRC besat af islamistiske diktatorer og obscure diktatorer, som gør, hvad de kan for at stikke en kæp i hjulet for den vestlige verden, lige i biskoppens ånd.

Katastrofealarm!

Klimadirektør (omtalt af al-Ritzau som “klimaekspert”) Per Meilstrup:

Mindst opnåeligt resultat

Huset Mandag Morgen kalder København-erklæringen for det mindst opnåelige resultat. Det kan betyde en katastrofe for klimaet.

Tænk – jeg tror søreme, at klimaet er 100% ligeglad med, hvad vi bakterier render rundt og holder møder om.

Per Meilstrups blog – læs, og døm selv.

H.M. Dronningens gæster

UN’s regler gør det muligt for massemordere og diktatorer ikke alene at komme ind i landet uden at blive fængslet – man hi-jacker endogså H.M. Dronning Margrethe til at sidde repræsentativt til bords med dette kryb.

Fra Jihad Watch (Robert Spencer, mine emfaseringer):

The joke's on you, Infidels

The joke's on you, Infidels

That true image of Islam is apparently one of supremacism and conquest, since Ahmadinejad himself has said: “Have no doubt… Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world.”

“Iran – President asks Muslims to introduce true image of Islam to world people,” from ISRIA, December 19:

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the spirit of seeking God and justice has been revived in today world, stressing that Muslims worldwide are duty bound to correctly introduce Islam to the world nations.In a meeting with members of Islamic groups residing in Denmark on Friday, the Iranian top diplomat said Islam was the hard core of all sciences and human values, stressing that the holy religion of Islam was capable of offering all the truth and facts needed to attain a sublime life.


To a question by one of the participants in the meeting about the US military attack against Iran, the president said: “This is in fact our question from Americans: Why you are so eager to attack Iran or the region and why do you impose the Zionist regime on the region which is at the very heart of the Islamic world?…”

Projection Alert:

He said this was because the Americans were after sowing discord among Muslims, noting that all the stories they revealed merely aimed at labeling certain groups of people as victims of the oppressive acts in an attempt to pave the way for occupation of Palestine, all of which being certainly a colonial and hegemonic objective.Ahmadinejad said all those programs were worked out to ultimately gain dominance over the Middle East.

He also noted that after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran under the leadership of the Late Imam Khomeini there came an overwhelming spirit of Islamic revival in the Islamic world which invoked people to fight oppressors.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that wrath of the hegemonic powers was due to Islam’s revival….

Still waiting for those who Understand Islam Correctly, such as Honest Ibe Hooper, Brave Ahmed Rehab, etc. etc. etc., to explain how exactly this avowedly devout Muslim Ahmadinejad is Misunderstanding Islam.

“Bare” “klimalømler” eller….?

Anne Knudsen i Weekendavisen:

Sikkerhedsrisikoen i København i disse dage er enormt høj. Der kommer mere end 100 statsledere fra hele verden til stede, så risikoen for attentater er ganske betydelig; der er næsten ingen af denne verdens statsledere, som ikke har en pris på sit hoved i én eller anden væbnet gruppering. Det kan ikke være oprigtigt ment, når politiet kritiseres for at kontrollere adgangen til topmødet stramt. Hvad ville forhindre en attentatmand i at bryde igennem hegnet sammen med de forvildede unge med »Klimalømmel« smukt trykt på designerjakkerne?

København eller Teheran?

Mikael Jalving i dagens JP (mine emfaseringer):

De lømler, som politiet har haft travlt med og talent til at kontrollere under topmødet, er luksusdyr ligesom alle vi andre. De går klædt i modetøj, spraglet, hættetrøjer, vindjakker, sådan white trash-agtigt på den fede måde; deres mode er blot en anden end f.eks. min, dvs. de sørger for at passe ind i deres segment, gør brug af deres sociale kapital og mangler hverken tid eller penge.

Da de fleste af dem formentlig er på offentlig forsorg, kan de lege professionelle revolutionære, mens vi andre går på arbejde, så vi kan betale vores skat, der bl.a. går til disse luksuslømlers underhold. Alt i alt en snedig omfordeling af penge og tid til udelt fordel for lømlerne.

Det er derfor, disse luksuslømler har tid og råd til at rejse Europa tyndt efter den næste store begivenhed, hvor de kan propagandere for deres sag, som altid er noget med, at de Gode skal have retfærdighed, mens de Onde skal smage den.

Retfærdigheden skal ske fyldest NU, sådan lød det ligeledes under G8-topmødet i Genova og under EU’s topmøde i Gøteborg i 2001; ved den første lejlighed blev 500 betjente og aktivister alvorligt såret og en aktivist skudt, i Gøteborg røg 53 betjente og 90 aktivister på hospitalet efter voldelige sammenstød. I København fik nogle hundreder aktivister kolde balder. Det er den eneste forskel på dengang og nu. Klima, finanskrise, arbejdsløshed, ulandsgæld, Ungdomshus, Christiania, asylpolitik, nynazister, you name it, det kommer ud på ét, det er alt sammen den samme kamp.

Således fik en talskvinde udtalt, at politiets adfærd ude på Amager mindede om politiet i Teherans gader. Se, den er sjov. Amager er ligesom Teheran. Teheran: Hvor demonstranter risikerer deres og deres familiers liv ved at demonstrere mod landets tyran, præsident Ahmadinejad.

I virkeligheden var den eneste lighed mellem Teheran og Amager, at den iranske præsident i samme sekund blev modtaget med kyshånd på talerstolen i Bella Center og af Danmarks Radio forinden blev servilt interviewet af nyhedsvært Kim Bildsøe Lassen, som bl.a. ville vide, hvor præsidenten dog finder sin inspiration og energi?

Han har nok været i færd med at høste brownie-points hos ayatollah’erne og cheferne i dDR, mon ikke?

Man tror, det er løgn, men det er det ikke. Danmarks Radio kan dagligt overgå sig selv i nye dumheder.

Men det er til gengæld ikke nogen nyhed…

Heya, Switzerland!

Fra Politiken:

Politikerne kan forsøge at skræmme, hetze og fordømme deres egne befolkninger, men i et demokrati er det altså flertallet, som bestemmer.

Selv om EU om-afholder folkeafstemninger, indtil de giver det ønskede resultat.

Stå fast, Schweitzere!

Schweizerne ønsker ikke at se minareter på toppen af landets moskeer.

De foreløbige opgørelser fra dagens folkeafstemning peger tydeligt på, at et nyt lovforslag om minaret-forbud vil blive vedtaget, skriver den schweiziske netavis nzz.online.

Det stærkt omdiskuterede forslag stammer fra det højreradikale parti SVP, Schweizisk Folkeparti.

Ja’et en stor overraskelse
»Initiativet ser ud til at blive accepteret. Det er en enorm overraskelse«, lyder det fra det fransksprogede schweiziske tv-selskab en halv time efter at afstemningsstederne var lukket ved frokosttid.

SVP er det største parti i Schweiz. Men alligevel har det op til folkeafstemningen ikke skortet på advarsler mod at sige ja til SVP’s forslag.

Advarsler mod et ja
Både den schweiziske regering og parlamentet har forkastet forslaget. Man mener, at det strider imod landets forfatning, religionsfriheden og landets højt skattede tradition for tolerance.

De har endnu ikke fattet, hvad de har lukket ind.

Også fra FNs organisation til overvågning af menneskerettigheder har der lydt bekymring.

Ja, fra den samling islamiske og kommunistiske despoter, som sidder i OIC/UNHCR, SKAL der jo komme klynk og offer-flæb.

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.

A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

Læs hele Bookers artikel her

Mere Goldstone

Tonight’s debate: Did Goldstone admit UN colleague Chinkin was biased?

By Hillel Neuer

In tonight’s Brandeis University debate with former Israeli ambassador Dore Gold, Judge Richard Goldstone, author of the UN report on Gaza that bears his name, conceded that, had his UN inquiry been considered “judicial,” the prior statement of his colleague Christine Chinkin concerning Israel would have been sufficiently problematic as to disqualify her.

Recall that in a joint statement published on January 11, 2009 in the Letters section of London’s Sunday Times, entitled “Israel’s Bombardment of Gaza is Not Self-Defense — It’s a War Crime,” Chinkin declared that Israel was guilty of committing acts during Operation Cast Lead that were “contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law,” and of committing “prima facie war crimes.”

Goldstone’s concession on this point echoes what he told South Africa’s Business Day in an August 2nd interview: “If it had been a judicial inquiry, that letter she’d signed would have been a ground for disqualification.”

However, in the same breath as he effectively admitted the obvious—that her impartiality was irreparably compromised—Goldstone contradicted himself by defending Chinkin’s letter as being entirely irrelevant.

First, argued Goldstone, her letter was signed also by a number of eminent international law scholars.

Second, as he argued to Congress in his failed attempt to block this week’s House denunciation of the Goldstone Report, he said that Chinkin’s letter only dealt with the “technical” issue of whether Israel enjoyed the right to self-defense under international law, and not with the specific issues bearing on the inquiry.

Third, argued Goldstone tonight, Chinkin also condemned Hamas.

All of these arguments he has made before, several of which are documented in our legal brief. (See more at www.unwatch.org/goldstone.) Yet each is specious, misleading and without any basis in law. I believe that the jurist Goldstone knows this full well, but apparently believes that the ends (his desire to save Israel from itself) justify the means (accepting a biased colleague on his inquiry panel, just as he accepted to work under the UN Human Rights Council’s biased S/9-1 mandate that was never changed as a matter of law).

Læs resten

FN’s legitimitet

Venstres udenrigsordfører, Søren Pind, afskriver nu FN som en organisation med nogen brugbarhed, fortæller Jyllands-Posten.

“FN er ikke en organisation, der har gjort særlig meget godt her på jorden. Som regel er det kun blevet værre, når man har haft en aktivistisk generalsekretær, og derfor er jeg kun glad for, at vi har fået en mindre aktivistisk af slagsen,” siger Søren Pind til avisen.

Pinds kommentar falder midt i en international diskussion om FN-generalsekretær Ban Ki-moon, som nogle mener er for passiv. Søren Pind ser sig i stedet om efter alternativer til FN.

“Alle FN-medlemmer har underskrevet FN-pagten, men ethvert diktatur overtræder den dagligt,” siger Søren Pind, der i stedet foreslår en demokratiernes sammenslutning.

De Konservatives udenrigsminister, Per Stig Møller, er dog ikke enig med Pind:

“Der er ikke noget alternativ til FN. FN er den eneste globale organisation med fuld legitimitet og et bredt mandat. Det er derfor naturligt, at FN står centralt i dansk udenrigspolitik. Også som ramme omkring en dialog med de lande, som man ikke er enige med,” siger Per Stig Møller til Jyllands-Posten, selvom han dog medgiver, at “FN i en række situationer ikke har kunnet levere tilfredsstillende løsninger”.

Nå, Per Stig Møller. Så du mener, at organisationen har “fuld legitimitet” og et “bredt mandat”?

I beg to differ. Dagsordenen sættes jo efterhånden af OIC (det er måske det “brede mandat” PSM ævler om) i UN, og man sætter de værste slyngler til at lede UNHCR, hvis konferencer er én stor omgang Israel-bashing, som totalt ignorerer islamiske forbrydelser som f. eks. massakrerne i Darfour.

Jo før vi forlader dette cirkus og laver en organisation af DEMOKRATISKE LANDE, des bedre.

Nyt fra De forenede Nationer

Ingen kommentarer…

U.N. Denies Status to Christian Charity After China Objects

GENEVA, July 27, 2009 — UN Watch, the Geneva-based human rights monitoring group, condemned the U.N.’s decision today to reject an international Christian charity as a non-governmental organization (NGO), a form of observer status, after it refused Beijing demands to disclose the addresses of its Chinese members, and “concerns” by Russia, Egypt, Cuba, Pakistan, and Sudan about its “ability to contribute” to the world body.

Despite a U.S. initiative to keep the application open, the Dynamic Christian World Mission Foundation—a group registered in Korea and California that promotes Christianity through educational projects in Russia, Japan and Kyrgyzstan—lost today by a vote of 23 to 22 at the Economic and Social Coucil (ECOSOC), the U.N. organ that oversees NGO participation at the UN Human Rights Council, in the last week of a month-long session in Geneva.

Today’s vote is a setback for religious freedom, and could set a dangerous precedent at the U.N. for repressive regimes to launch frivolous objections, or demand sensitive information, in order to subvert and obstruct the important work of civil society organizations in the areas of religion, education, and human rights.

Earlier in the year, the Christian group particularly angered China when it cited the lack of religious freedom in that country as the reason it would not divulge names and addresses of its Chinese members.

Læs resten

Durban II’s slutdokument blev formelt godkendt i dag

Fra UN Watch:

The final outcome document (PDF) of the Durban Review Conference was formally adopted at the U.N. today.

In general debate at the close of the conference, countries took the floor to congratulate one another for reaching Tuesday’s “consensus” on the text. A few states, though, had clarifications regarding their acceptance of it.

The United Kingdom said it could affirm the document only because it is “generic and does not single out any country.” Referring to paragraphs relating to freedom of speech and incitement to hatred, it said, “we have a long tradition of free speech and offensive opinions may be expressed,” as long as they are non-violent. The UK also stated that discrimination based on sexual orientation is no less important than discrimination on racial grounds.

Pakistan called on U.N. officials to “maintain balance” and “not judge any heads of state.” It also decried Islamophobia as a new form of racism. In closing, it chastised those who boycotted the conference or only participated at a low level.

South Africa expressed its concern about “the manner in which some expressed their opposition to a head of state.” Referring implicitly to the students in clown wigs who yelled at Iranian President Ahmadinejad, it decried the endangering of the “security of high dignitaries.”

Russia specifically thanked the Palestinian delegation, implicitly for its “flexibility” in permitting the text to exclude the singling out of the Palestinian cause, as did the 2001 Durban text.

Switzerland commended the text for mentioning freedom of expression, democracy, the Holocaust, the slave trade, women’s rights, and various forms of discrimination. (It neglected to mention that freedom of expression, the Holocaust and women’s rights were downplayed throughout the negotiation process and in the final text, as well as the document’s failure to mention discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.)

Nyt fra Fredens og Tolerancens Religion, Per Stig Møller!

Iranske kristne i kirke

Iranske kristne i kirke

Tre iranske konvertitter beordres til at ophøre med deres ‘kristne aktiviteter’
Af Compass Direct, via Åbne Døre

De iranske kristne har en hverdag, hvor det i stigende grad bliver gjort vanskeligt at praktisere deres kristne tro. De iranske myndigheder barsler med en lov, ifølge hvilken alle muslimer, der bliver kristne, vil blive tildelt dødsstraf. Men allerede nu mærker de iranske kristne, at de bliver presset af myndighederne. Nu er fx tre kristne blevet fængslet, alene fordi de praktiserer deres kristne tro.

Resumé:
LOS ANGELES, 31. marts (Compass Direct News) – En domstol i Shiraz erklærede den 10. marts tre iranske kristne skyldige i at samarbejde med “anti-statslige bevægelser”. Domstolen beordrede konvertitterne til at ophøre med deres kristne aktiviteter, herunder at udbrede deres tro.

Du skal ikke komme her og være kristen, så skal vi nok lære dig alt om Islam!

Du skal ikke komme her og være kristen, så skal vi nok lære dig alt om Islam!

En dommer fra den Islamiske Revolutions-domstol dømte Seyed Allaedin Hussein, Homayoon Shokouhi og Seyed Amir Hussein Bob-Annari til otte måneders betinget fængsel med en femårig prøvetid. Dommeren sagde, at hvis de overtrådte betingelserne for deres prøvetid – herunder et forbud mod at kontakte hinanden – ville han håndhæve fængselsstraffen og sigte dem for at være “frafaldne”, som personer, der forlader islam.

En ny straffelov, som er under behandling i det iranske parlament, omfatter et lovforslag, som kræver dødsstraf for at forlade islam. “Den advarsel, at de vil blive ‘arresteret og dømt som frafaldne’, hvis de fortsætter deres kristne aktiviteter, er ganske skræmmende,” sagde en regional analytiker, som har anmodet om at forblive anonym.

Og dagens abe ligger jo lige til trekanten…

Det ærede medlem af UNHCR, Abeamedjinn,  fremtræder her på forsiden af et seriøst videnskabeligt magasin.

Det ærede medlem af UNHCR, Ahmamonkeyjad, fremtræder her på forsiden af et populær-videnskabeligt magasin.

Diktaturstater får på puklen i UNHRC

Kvalme, politikerlede og blogging

Jeg holder en kortere eller længere pause fra bloggen. Tiden vil jeg vie til at se min samling af “Yes, Minister!” og “Yes, Prime Minister!” igennem.  Jeg vil dog hver dag logge på og moderere kommentarer. Jeg kan ikke finde ud af at lave en undtagelse i WordPress for moderering af denne post, men alle er velkomne til at skrive.

US might join UNHCR / Eleanor’s Dream

From UNWatch by mail (my emphasis  & links):

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced today that Washington will seek membershp in the U.N. Human Rights Council, reversing the Bush Administration’s decision to steer clear of the deeply troubled body, created in 2006 ostensibly to reform its discredited predecessor.

Elections for rotating membership on the 47-nation council will take place at the General Assembly in May, with all 192 U.N. member states casting a ballot. The U.S. under the popular President Obama is virtually assured of election to the one of only 7 seats reserved for Western states. African and Asian states exercise a controlling majority with 26 seats.

Pathologically obsessed with scapegoating Israel — in more than 80 percent of all country resolutions (26 out of 33) — the council’s sessions routinely legitimize perpetrators, while turning a blind eye to millions of human rights victims around the world.

Whether we like it or not, however, the council is a permanent forum whose resolutions, translated into every language, exercise global influence on hearts and minds. As the successor to the Commission on Human Rights, it has noble origins: the commission was founded by Eleanor Roosevelt with the purpose of defending human dignity, but in later years found itself increasingly hijacked by the new U.N. majorities.

This stands in contrast to the fleeting Durban II conference, a one-week exercise that should be avoided, and whose original purpose — like Durban I and the proto-Durbans before it — was precisely to attack the West, Israel, and free speech; and was never, as the U.N. spin-machine would have us believe, “to provide concrete measures that will help millions.”

That’s why U.N. enthusiast Jimmy Carter himself was the first U.S. president to withdraw from such an event, back in 1978, a bit of history many would prefer not to recall. It was the U.N.’s first “World Conference to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination,” also held in Geneva, which Carter skipped because the definition of racism had been “perverted for political ends.” President Ronald Reagan likewise avoided the second Geneva gathering in 1983, and President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell famously pulled out from the third, and worst one, at Durban in 2001. Durban-fests have their own particular and pernicious provenance, and American governments have always been right to stay away.

The Human Rights Council, despite its pathologies, has a different history, weight and impact. Its mixed baggage still includes many bedrock principles embedded in positive institutions built up over time, which affirm and protect universal liberties like free speech and freedom of religion, and which need to be protected. With its proceedings now webcast, and with meetings held year-round instead of once a year, it’s a forum that grabs the world’s attention.

UN Watch therefore welcomes the U.S. decision to join the council, but only if it’s to vigorously push back against the world’s worst abusers, whose Orwellian agenda, in only three years, has begun to do away with every principle and institution of independent scrutiny, dismantling the post-war edifice of international human rights law piece by piece.

Repressive regimes now have the council in a stranglehold, eroding free speech protections in the name of Islamic sensitivities, and steadily eliminating country investigations in places like Belarus, Congo, Cuba, Liberia and Sudan. The few remaining ones, including on Sudan, are on the chopping block. (The investigation of Israel, however, which examines only Israeli actions and presumes guilt in advance, is exempt from review; fittingly, it’s headed by Richard Falk, whose fruitcake writings include the repeated suggestion that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job by the U.S. government.)

Make no mistake: given the fixed regional seating, the U.S. will only replace the principled vote of outgoing Canada — a courageous government that last week voted alone several times to oppose anti-Israel resolutions — and not that of a Saudi Arabia or Cuba. No immediate victory is in sight, then.

Still, we may see some turning of the tide. Leading council hardliners like Egypt and Pakistan may back off somewhat with their chief funder sitting at the table. And the automatic majority for the anti-freedom and anti-Israel agenda could moderately diminish.

With high-level advocacy by Washington, some wavering states could lean toward principle instead of politics. (Mexico and other Latin American countries last week refused to join the West in opposing an Islamic resolution that encouraged censorship, and merely abstained.)

Ironically, U.S. “engagement” in this case will necessarily lead America into more confrontation, especially vis-a-vis such major violators and council spoilers like Egypt, Pakistan, China, Russia, and Cuba.

Unlike the Security Council and the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council has neither the power of the sword nor the power of the purse. At its best, it has only the power of shame: to shine a spotlight on the crimes of the worst abusers.

This, tragically, it has failed to do. But it is precisely what American public opinion will demand of the U.S. to do — to introduce resolutions condemning serial violators like Sudan, Zimbabwe, and China, even if they are bound to fail.

The Europeans, by contrast, choose “consensus” as often as possible, which means granting a veto to the worst of the worst. For too many E.U. diplomats at the council, their real objective is to achieve the impression that the council is working, even when the opposite is true.

Since almost every resolution worth its salt will be automatically defeated by the repressive majority, the E.U. never introduced a single text for victims of major abusers like China, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Syria, Russia, Cuba, and so forth. That would only lead to a headline that the council failed in something — and that headline, above all, must be avoided.

Instead, the best we got on countries like Sudan were occasional, milquetoast resolutions, of the kind that praised the Al-Bashir regime for its “cooperation,” all adopted by consensus — we all are getting along fine, you see — so that the good citizens of London, Paris and Berlin could rest assured that “the council works,” and think their diplomats to be taking part in a noble body.

By contrast, Americans — Democrat or Republican — cannot stomach compromises that look like appeasement. Consensus as a virtue is big in Brussels, but it doesn’t play in Peoria. U.S. membership, therefore, will necessarily affect the culture among the Western group, strengthening some of the more principled E.U. states on the council, like the Netherlands.

To be sure, the U.S. must justify its council engagement by showing change in the Geneva atmosphere. This should start with the democracies. The U.S. must demand that the European Union withdraw its groundless opposition to Israel joining the council’s Western group — which the E.U. already allows in the New York-based U.N. bodies — thus putting an end to the injustice whereby Israel is the only country barred from joining any of the council’s five regional groups.

That small gesture would send an important signal that change is possible, and on an issue that more than any other has discredited the council.

For more on the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, click here.

For general statistics on the UN Human Rights Council, see below.

Læs resten

Menneskerettigheder iflg. UNHRC

180Grader

UNHCR – menneskerettigheds-organisationen, som for længst er blevet kuppet af OIC og Broderskabet, har nu – helt uden om Durban II – “afgjort”, at:

Ærekrænkelse af religion er et brud på menneskerettighederne, mener et flertal af landene i FN’s Menneskerettighedsråd (UNHRC).

FN’s Menneskerettighedsråd vedtog i går en resolution, der fordømmer ærekrænkelse af religion som et brud på menneskerettighederne, skriver tv2.dk. Resolutionen har ført til yderligere bekymring for, at FN-systemet er ved at blive kapret af lande, som vil retfærdiggøre censur og begrænsninger af ytringsfriheden i muslimske lande. I næste måned skal den såkaldte Durban II-konference, der også arrangeres af FN, således drøfte om religionskritik skal sidestilles med racisme.

Menneskerettighedsrådet vedtog den ikke-bindende resolution, som var foreslået af Pakistan på vegne af muslimske stater, med opbakning fra 23 lande, mens 11 stemte imod. 13 undlod at stemme. Vestlige regeringer og en bred alliance af aktivistgrupper har ud trykt skepsis over for initiativet.
Tidligere på ugen opfordrede 180 sekulære og religiøse grupper samt medieorganisationer fra hele verden til en forkastelse af resolutionen, som de mener vil blive misbrugt i nogle lande til at kvæle uafhængige stemmer, religiøse dissidenter og menneskerettighedsaktivister.

Joint NGO Statement on Danger of U.N. “Defamation of Religions” Campaign

We, the undersigned non-governmental organizations,

Deeply concerned by the pervasive and mounting campaign by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to produce U.N. resolutions, declarations, and world conferences that propagate the concept of “defamation of religions,” a concept having no basis in domestic or international law, and which would alter the very meaning of human rights, which protect individuals from harm, but not beliefs from critical inquiry;

Deeply concerned by the attempt to misuse the U.N. to legitimize blasphemy laws, thereby restricting freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press;

Deeply concerned that “defamation of religions” resolutions may be used in certain countries to silence and intimidate human rights activists, religious dissenters, and other independent voices;
Alarmed by the resolution on “defamation of religions” recently tabled at the current 10th session of the UN Human Rights Council;

Alarmed by the draft resolution on freedom of expression circulated by Egypt, whose amendments seek to restrict, not promote, protections for free speech;

Alarmed by the recently-announced initiative of the U.N. “Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards” to amend the International Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) by adding a protocol on “defamation of religions”;

Alarmed by provisions in the latest draft outcome document of the Durban Review Conference that, through coded language and veiled references, endorse and encourage these anti-democratic initiatives;

1. Call upon all governments to oppose the “defamation of religions” resolution currently tabled at the UN Human Rights Council, and the objectionable provisions of the freedom of expression resolution;

2. Call upon all governments to resist the efforts of the “Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards” to alter the ICERD;

3. Call upon all governments not to accept or legitimize a Durban Review Conference outcome that directly or indirectly supports the “defamation of religions” campaign at the expense of basic freedoms and individual human rights.

Læs resten

COIN om U-landshjælp

Lidt mere debunking (fra 2006!) omkring den såkaldte U-landshjælp, som mere er en hæmsko – man kunne endda sige, at det mere har karakter af adfærdsregulering – end en inspiration for modtagerne, som reduceres til stakler uden selvværd, som alligevel langt fra i alle tilfælde modtager den ydede “hjælp”. Jeg giver ordet til Christian Bjørnskov, lektor, Ph.D. på COIN:

Vi kan uden at skabe problemer for de fattige afskaffe ulandsbistanden over en årrække.

I dette års finanslovsforhandlinger er de centrale parter – regeringen og Socialdemokraterne – enige om, at det er tid til at udvide ulandshjælpen igen, selvom ’ambitionsniveauet’ er forskelligt hos de to parter. VK-regeringen vil bruge 615 millioner kroner ekstra næste år, mens S ønsker at bruge 1,5 milliarder mere på en ulandshjælp, der derved når op omkring 14 milliarder. I det hele taget er opbakningen til støtten i den danske befolkning så stor, at disse forslag kun har meget få modstandere. Mens situationen på et vist plan sender et smukt signal om danskernes fornemmelse for solidaritet med den tredje verden, er den på et andet plan aldeles absurd for en nationaløkonom med interesse i udviklingsforskning.

Problemet er nemlig, at mens politikere og befolkning tydeligvis tror, at ulandshjælpen er et vigtigt bidrag til fattige landes sociale og økonomiske udvikling, viser 40 års international forskning i emnet noget helt andet. Litteraturen har naturligvis primært fokuseret på, om større mængder hjælp fører til hurtigere økonomisk udvikling, men har i de senere år også ledt efter andre problemområder, som hjælpen muligvis kunne afhjælpe. Mens enkelte forskerhold på særlig vis formår at finde en positiv effekt af ulandshjælp på den økonomiske vækstrate og andre på lignende vis dokumenterer, at hjælpen holder lande tilbage i deres udvikling, er den typiske erfaring helt enkel: Ulandshjælp har ingen som helst forbindelse med hvor hurtigt modtagerlande udvikler sig.

Læs resten

Ytringsfriheden er ukrænkelig

Dejlige Pat Condell:

Per Stig Møller og DurbanII

I går sagde en af mine venner glædesstrålende: “Har du læst det seneste om DurbanII? Danmark og EU vil boykotte mødet”. (Han havde læst MSM for et par dage siden).

Han tog fejl.

Per Stig Møller fortsætter uforfærdet hen imod Durban II-konferencens forsøg på at bringe menneskerettighederne til diskussion til fordel for diverse “religioner”.

Besøg links’ene i indlægget.

Fra 180Grader

Udenrigsminister Per Stig Møller modtog i går over 1.000 underskrifter fra en række kendisser, som alle ønsker, at Danmark boykotter FN’s racismekonference Durban II. Men udenrigsministeren står fast på sin holdning om at deltage.

1.106 underskrifter fra blandt andet Mikael Jalving, Kai Sørlander, Bent Blüdnikow, Jørgen Leth, Peter Øvig Knudsen, Manu Sareen, Kurt Westergaard, Farshad Kholghi, Ralf Pittelkow, Claes Kasthold Hansen og Ole Birk Olesen blev i går afleveret til udenrigsminister Per Stig Møller. Det fortæller Berlingske Tidende.

De mange underskrifter indsamlet på initiativ af gruppen Beskyt Menneskerettighederne fik dog ikke udenrigsministeren til ændre sin holdning til Durban II.

“Kan man nå i mål via forhandlinger, så er det min opfattelse, at det er bedre end at løbe væk og svigte ytringsfriheden. Hvis der er mulighed for at vinde slaget om ytringsfriheden, så skal man blive og kæmpe, dem der går i utide, kan i hvert fald ikke slå nogen,” sagde Per Stig Møller ifølge Berlingske Tidende.

Nej, Per Stig, men ved at udeblive sender man et kraftigt signal omkring konferencens legitimitet, hvilket man iøvrigt også gør ved at deltage (blot med diametralt modsat værdiladning).

“Der er allerede sket et ryk i forhandlingerne. FN er kommet med et udkast, hvor forslaget om at forbyde kritik af religion er væk, og punktet angående Israel er fjernet,” fortsatte han med henvisning til det reviderede udkast til et slutdokument som FN’s menneskerettighedsråd præsenterede tidligere i går.

Idéhistoriker Malene Busk, der var blandt de fire repræsentanter for Beskyt Menneskerettighederne, som afleverede underskrifterne, mener ikke, at Per Stig Møller forstår alvoren i at begynde at forhandle om menneskerettighederne.

“Processen har mangel på legitimitet. Der er flertal for en fuldstændig ureglementeret kapring af, hvad der skulle have været menneskerettigheder, men nu er blevet særrettigheder til religioner. Man må vise, at det er en fuldstændig illegitim proces ved at nægte at deltage,” sagde hun ifølge Berlingske Tidende.

Indtil videre har Canada, USA, Israel og Italien boykottet konferencen, mens EU har truet med boykot, hvis konferencen kommer til at handle om at gøre religionskritik ulovligt og køre hetz mod Israel.

De islamiske landes samarbejdsorganisation, OIC, har endnu ikke kommenteret det reviderede udkast til slutdokumentet til Durban II.


Tibet

tibetflag

Tibets flag

Dalai Lama warns Tibetans are ‘near extinction’ at 50th anniversary of exile
The Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader, has marked 50 years of his flight from China and exile in India with a defiant speech praising the sacrifices of those killed during last year’s uprising, but warning that Tibetan identity was “nearing extinction.”

By Dean Nelson in New Delhi
Last Updated: 7:12PM GMT 10 Mar 2009

Despite 50 years of international campaigning and fruitless negotiations with Chinese leaders, Tibetans were still treated like criminals in their own country, he said.

“These 50 years have brought untold suffering and destruction to the land and people of Tibet. Even today, Tibetans in Tibet live in constant fear and the Chinese authorities remain constantly suspicious of them,” he told followers in Dharamsala, the Indian home of his government in exile.

“Today, the religion, culture, language and identity, which successive generations of Tibetans have considered more precious than their lives, are nearing extinction; in short, the Tibetan people are regarded like criminals deserving to be put to death,” he said.

He charted his exiled government’s successive attempts to negotiate a settlement with Beijing which would allow Tibetans to preserve their unique culture and to live in autonomy within the People’s Republic of China, but said repeated promises from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping, had come to nothing.

Negotiations continue to break down because Chinese officials insist Tibetans accept their country has always been a part of China, which he said was not only “inaccurate but also unreasonable. We cannot change the past no matter whether it was good or bad,” he said.

The Communist government in China had imposed the Cultural Revolution, commune experiments and violent and repressive campaigns on the Tibetans, and more recently, following the brutal suppression of last year’s uprising, had forced them to endure “patriotic re-education.” These measures had “thrust Tibetans into such depths of suffering and hardship that they literally experienced hell on earth. The immediate result of these campaigns was the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Tibetans,” he said.

Though now semi-retired, he pledged to continue campaigning for Tibetan freedom, and urged his exiled followers to “hope for the best but prepare for the worst.”

Ikke et pip om den kinesiske besættelse af Tibet høres i UNHRC. Kina har for mange penge og ressourcer. Så er det lettere at fordømme Israel…

mahakala_2

Bernagchen, beskytter af den buddhistiske lære

Sudan grilles af UNWatch

UN Human Rights Council, March 13, 2008. In reply to speech by UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer on atrocities in Darfur, Sudan says that UN Watch “lives in a world of media exaggeration on the subject of Darfur.

Krise i Darfour - rødt er nedbrændte landsbyer

Krise i Darfour - rødt er nedbrændte landsbyer

Hvilke medier overreagerer? Google Earth?

Jean Ziegler

Må jeg præsentere en af de nominerede kandidater til UNHRC (UN Human Rights Council), Jean Ziegler.

denne adresse kan man sende en protest mod nomineringen til de schweitziske ambassader.

A propos U-landshjælpens distribution (UNRWA)

På denne video kan man tydeligt se en UN-ambulance brugt til transport af bevæbnet mandskab (jeg havde en debat med en krakiler, som nægtede at tro på det – her er syn for sagn), hvilket er forbudt ifølge Geneve-konventionen. Men i dette tilfælde gør UNRWA måske en undtagelse fra GK?

Desuden viser det sig, at UNRWA, som for 60 år siden blev oprettet på et ét-årigt mandat, nu er vokset til 22.000 ansatte.

Videoen giver også en forklaring på, hvorfor “palæstinenserne” stadig, efter 60 år, bor i “flygtningelejre” bygget i sten og mørtel, og hvordan man bevidst bruger “palæstinenserne” som “flygtninge”.