Goldstone-bias

Fra UNWatch:

U.N. Human Rights Council witnesses dramatic face-off when head of controversial UN “fact-finding” mission on Gaza unexpectedly confronted by one of his own witnesses. Dr. Mirela Siderer, an Israeli doctor brutally disfigured by a 2008 rocket attack fired from Gaza into her Ashkelon medical clinic, pointedly accused Judge Richard Goldstone of ignoring her July oral testimony in his report, and of failing to disclose material information concerning the mandate and members of the mission. Both declared Israel guilty in advance. Testimony arranged by the Geneva human rights organization UN Watch.

Transkript:

My name is Dr. Mirela Siderer. I am a gynecologist living in Ashkelon, Israel.

Judge Richard Goldstone, in July you invited me to testify. I told you my story. I am known by my patients — including many women from Gaza. For me, every human being is equal.

On May 14, 2008, my life was changed forever. I was working in my clinic. Suddenly, the building was hit by a missile, fired from Gaza. I was terribly wounded. Blood was everywhere. My patient was also wounded, and more than 100 others. Next month will be my eighth operation.

Judge Goldstone, I told you all of this, in detail. I testified in good faith. You sent me this letter, saying, “Your testimony is an essential part of the Mission’s fact-finding activities.”

But now I see your report. I have to tell you: I am shocked.

Judge Goldstone, in a 500-page report, why did you completely ignore my story? My name appears only in passing, in brackets, in a technical context. I feel humiliated.

Why are there only two pages about Israeli victims like me, who suffered thousands of rockets over eight years? Why did you choose to focus on the period of my country’s response, but not on that of the attacks that caused it? Why did you not tell me that this council judged Israel guilty in advance, in its meeting of last January? Why did you not tell me that members of your panel signed public letters judging Israel guilty in advance?

Judge Goldstone, you, too, signed such a letter, saying you were “shocked” about Gaza. But where were you when Gaza attacked my medical clinic, in violation of international human rights and humanitarian law? Where was this council? Why were you all silent?

* * *

Goldstone’s Response:

With regard to the statement made by Dr. Siderer, I’m clearly upset that she feels humiliated by the report. She was treated in the report in no way different to that of other victims who spoke to us. She was referred to in the report as one of the people who was injured as a result of a rocket attack on a shopping center in Southern Israel. The report also refers to the fact that the evidence of the people who gave evidence to us are available on the website of the OHCHR. It is there for anybody to see.

____________

UN Watch Note: Dr. Siderer posed 8 simple questions. Goldstone avoided all except one, and on this was non-responsive and misleading. Dr. Siderer never said that she wasn’t “referred to,” but rather complained that her story was ignored, and that her name was mentioned only “in passing, in brackets, in a technical context;” and that this underscored how he overlooked 8 years of suffering of the rocket victims. Here is Dr. Siderer’s original testimony; here is Goldstone’s report. Search her name — it turns up but once, in passing, in par. 1640. Goldstone’ s claim that other witnesses were given similar treatment is manifestly false: see, e.g., the report’s repeated and in-depth discussion of witness Abu Askar. What is clear is that the report gives short shrift to Israeli suffering by its selective focus on the period of Israel’s response to the rocket attacks (Dec. 2008 and Jan. 2009), instead of to the attacks themselves (2001-2009)

Konfrontation på Durban II

Læg mærke til hende den libyske kommisar med hammeren….

Story covered in French satellite TV France 24; Swiss TV; The New Republic online….

Durban II Dispatch: Libya on Trial

Geneva, Switzerland

Libya was chosen in 2007 to chair the preparatory committee for the UN Durban Review Conference–notwithstanding the irony of an egregious human-rights violator chairing a human rights conference. For the past three days, the committee has been holding sessions to finalize the conference’s draft statement, upon which many countries will base their decision whether to attend the conference this week. On Friday, the last day, NGOs were given 30 minutes to weigh in.

Amidst the anti-Israel rants from all the usual NGOs, Libyan ambassador Najjat Al-Hajjaji (who was chairing the meeting) gave the floor to UN Watch…

But sitting in their chair was not Hillel Neuer, the group’s executive director and usual mouthpiece, but Ashraf El Hagog, the Palestinian doctor who was falsely accused of and sentenced to death for infecting hundreds of Libyan children with HIV (along with five Bulgarian nurses). El Hagog and the nurses were held in Libya on death row for nine years, mistreated and tortured, until their release was negotiated by France last year.

“Madame Chairman,” El Hagog began, staring steely eyed at the Libyan ambassador. “I dont know if you recognize me. I am the Palestinian medical intern who was scapegoated by your country, Libya, in the HIV case in the Benghazi hospital, together with the five Bulgarian nurses.”

Al-Hajjaji immediately started banging her gavel. “Stop… stop…. I ask you to stop,” she yelled, first looking miffed, then exasperated. “You are, you are not addressing the agenda item… I will allow you to resume only if you address the agenda item we are discussing.” The room immediately fell silent.

El Hagog, being coached by Neuer sitting next to him, tried to introduce some amendments to the statement “based on my own suffering,” and was again interrupted by Al-Hajjaji banging her gavel. But he continued recounting the story of his torture, then said, “All of this, which lasted for nearly a decade, was for only one reason: because the Libyan government was looking to scapegoat foreigners. Madame Chair, if that is not discrimination, then what is?” After listing the amendments, he concluded: “Madame Chair, Libya told this conference that it practices no inequality or discrimination. But then how do you account for what was done to me, to my colleagues, and to my family…?”

At this point, Hajjaji recognized a point of order from … the Libyan delegation, who said that El Hagog was not speaking on the correct agenda item. Hajjaji used the objection as an excuse to move on to the next speaker.

Diktaturstater får på puklen i UNHRC

Durban II: Islam prøver at fjerne menneskehedsrettighederne

I dagene fra den 20. til 24. april 2009 frygtes et flertal af landene i FN anført af Organisationen af Islamiske Lande (OIC) at rette et så ødelæggende anslag mod Menneskerettighedsdeklarationen, at den, hvis de måtte få held til deres forehavende, reelt vil miste sin værdi, og de Forenede Nationer de facto være frataget sin eksistensberettigelse.

Konferencen i Genève næste forår skal følge op på “Verdenskonferencen mod racisme, racediskrimination, fremmedhad og relateret intolerance” i 2001 arrangeret af FN’s Menneskerettighedsråd i den sydafrikanske havneby Durban, der er en skamplet på FN’s allerede ramponerede renommé, som det endnu ikke er lykkedes at viske bort.

USA og Israel udvandrede fra konferencen, der undervejs stemplede Israel som en apartheidstat, ligestillede zionisme med racisme samt nedtonede betydningen af det nazistiske folkemord på jøderne under Anden Verdenskrig.

Læs resten på JP

UN Rights Chief Knocks West for Threatening Walk-Out of ‘Durban II Racism’ Conference, Wins Praise from Islamic States

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: media1@unwatch.org / Tel: +41-79-332-8106

Geneva, Sept. 8, 2008 — After new UN rights chief Navanethem Pillay addressed the 47-nation Human Rights Council for the first time today, independent human rights organization UN Watch praised her “inspiring life example as an anti-apartheid advocate,” yet expressed deep concern over her remarks praising the UN’s preparations for a follow-up to the troubled 2001 Durban world conference on racism. Her defense of the Durban process was immediately hailed in the plenary by Pakistan on behalf of the Islamic states, Egypt for the African bloc, Cuba for the Non-Aligned, Russia and South Africa.

Without mentioning their names, Pillay criticized the current absence in the UN deliberations of Canada, the U.S. and Israel, as well as similar threats to walk out of the already controversial April 2009 conference made by the French, U.K. and Dutch governments.

“I do not believe that ‘all or nothing’ is the right approach to affirm one’s principles or to win an argument,” said Pillay. “Should differences be allowed to become pretexts for inaction, the hopes and aspirations of the many victims of intolerance would be dashed irreparably. For these reasons, I urge those governments that have expressed an intention not to participate to reconsider their position,” she said.

According to UN Watch, Pillay “is shooting in the wrong direction. Why is the high commissioner aiming her fire at the world’s most tolerant democracies, instead of at racist tyrants like Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who, under the chairmanship of Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya, have already begun to hijack the conference?,” asked UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer.

In her speech, Pillay praised the African states’ recent preparatory conference, held in Abuja, Nigeria on August 24-26, as “productive.”

“In fact,” said Neuer, “the Abuja conference utterly failed its stated mission, and was a major setback for the anti-racism cause and millions suffering around the globe. Its concluding declaration failed to say a word for the victims of Sudan’s atrocities in Darfur, or those other African governments perpetrating ethnic violence. Instead, it explicitly attacked free speech and singled out Israel — exactly what the UN’s highest officials promised Durban II wouldn’t do. The high commissioner ought to be taking on the hijackers of the anti-racism conference, instead of the few that seek to resist them.”

“We remind the high commissioner that in 2001, the most virulent and inciteful language of the Durban declaration was removed only under the pressure of European threats to walk out, as the U.S. and Israel did. So too now, the threat of Western non-participation remains the only force with the slightest chance of preventing the conference from degenerating into an out-and-out fiasco,” said Neuer.

An early draft of the April conference’s outcome document, released by a UN planning committee on Friday, reserves space to include provisions adopted by the African conference in Abuja. The Abuja text calls on states “to refrain from condoning incitement to racial and religious hatred and violence under the pretext of free speech” (par 13). It also expresses “concern about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupations” (par. 32). The rest of the document focuses on Western practices today and in the past against people of African descent.

UN Watch is a non-governmental organization whose mandate is to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter. www.unwatch.org

UN Human Rights Council støtter op om Sudan

UN Watch Takes on Sudan and its Allies

UN Human Rights Council, 7th Session
Interactive Dialogue with UN Special Rapporteur on Sudan
UN Watch Statement Delivered by Gibreil Hamid, March 17, 2008

–

Thank you, Mr. President.

I speak on behalf of UN Watch. We thank the Special Rapporteur for her excellent work for the victims of Darfur.

Mr. President, I am from Darfur, and I know the truth about what is happening there.

The truth can be found in today’s report.

The report shows how the Government of Sudan is violating human rights and international humanitarian law, with physical assaults, abductions and rape.

In October, Government forces attacked Muhajiriya. People praying in a mosque were rounded up, and forty-eight civilians were killed.

In November, Government planes dropped bombs on Habila. The attackers entered the villages, shooting, stealing animals and setting fire to houses.

On 2 December, in West Darfur, armed men attacked a group of ten women and girls. A sixteen-year-old girl from the group was gang raped, and at least three other women were whipped and beaten with axes. Police and soldiers refused to help.

Today’s report says that violence against women in Darfur is continuing. There is no improvement. There is no justice. The attackers enjoy immunity.

Mr. President, in the name of basic human rights, UN Watch urges Sudan to end these attacks against innocent civilians.

UN Watch asks this Council to please stop praising Sudan for its “cooperation.” Mr. President, attacking little girls is not “cooperation.”

We wish to ask the rapporteur: What further action is she planning to protect the victims of Darfur?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Take Action!

Stop Jean Ziegler’s nomination to the UN Human Rights Council

The Swiss government has nominated Jean Ziegler — co-founder of the “Muammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize” — to represent the Western world as an expert at the UN Human Rights Council. Mr. Ziegler has supported Castro, Mugabe, Mengistu, Chavez, and other repressive rulers. He grossly abused the mandate of a previous UN post to pursue an extremist political agenda. Take action to stop this outrage. Send a message to Switzerland’s president and foreign minister, urging them to immediately cancel the nomination of Mr. Ziegler. Act Now: The election will be on March 26, 2008.

Man kan sende en petition herfra.

UN Human Rights Council votes 30-1 to condemn Israel for “grave violations”

An emergency session today of the UN’s 47-nation Human Rights Council condemned Israel for “grave violations of the human and humanitarian rights of Palestinian civilians,” for “undermining” the peace process, “incessant and repeated Israeli military attacks,” and causing “loss of life and injuries among Palestinian civilians, including women and children.” The resolution, which made no mention of Hamas rocket attacks or their Israeli victims, was adopted by 30 votes to 1 (Canada), with 15 abstentions from European Union and other countries. UN Watch thanks the many hundreds who urged world leaders not to support the biased and counter-productive text.

Video of UN Watch’s testimony — and Cuba’s bullying reply:

Interessant, at det er Syrien, Libya, Iran og Cuba, som har taget initiativet til denne session. Hykleriet kender ingen grænser.

Opfordring fra UN Watch

Hermed videregivet:

Action Alert: Say No to UN Resolution Condoning Hamas Rockets January 21, 2008

Reject Moral Inversion

The world must not strengthen those who claim credit for deliberately targeting innocent civilians.

As Israel struggles to defend its civilians from deadly Hamas rocket attacks—200 in the past few days alone, averaging nearly one per hour—the Arab and Islamic states, represented by Syria and Pakistan, have called an emergency “Special Session” of the UN Human Rights Council for this Wednesday, January 23, 2008.

The proposed resolution would condemn Israel yet say nothing about the Hamas attacks. This inverts the simple reality whereby Hamas and its terrorist allies are deliberately targeting civilians, while Israel in its defensive measures takes pains to avoid harming civilians.

Morally, Canada and the European Union countries are among the most important members of the 47-nation council, and it is vital that they register their opposition.

Take Action: Urge world leaders to oppose the UN’s denial of Israel’s inherent right to self-defense.

Thank you for your support.

Yours truly,
Hillel C. Neuer
Executive Director

USA stemmer i UN mod bevilling på 7 millioner dollars til konferencer

Jamen det er sandelig flot, at Libyen, Iran og Cuba slår sig sammen for at lave globale konferencer om “racisme”. Går den, så går den. Jeg ved godt, hvad disse slyngelstater har tænkt sig at opnå med deres konferencer – nemlig at standse vores ytrings- og handlefrihed i Vesten. Det er jo det rene galehus!

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and her UN envoy, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, won plaudits for casting the sole opposing vote on a UN budget that will allocate some $7 million to hold a series of global conferences on racism organized by Libya, Iran, Cuba, and other countries often criticized for their poor human rights records. Forty other countries, including members of the European Union and Canada, objected to the Durban Review Conference in a separate vote, but only the U.S. voted against the general budget, the first time in twenty years that it did not pass by consensus.The Wall Street Journal hailed the U.S. stance as a rare moral victory at the UN. For details on the country positions as summarized by the UN, for the final vote click here, and for the lower committee votes click here. See also play-by-play coverage of the all-night negotiations by the intrepid Matt Lee here.

Darfour og UN

Ubeskåret meddelelse fra UN Watch

“We do not need more reports. We need action.”

Geneva, Dec. 12, 2007 — UN experts reported yesterday to the Human Rights Council that Sudan has failed to live up to its commitments to improve the human rights situation in Darfur. However, Sudan insisted that “the situation is improving,” and complained about “double standards and selectivity.” Supporting Sudan were Pakistan for the Islamic group, and Egypt for the African group, which said that “the international community has failed to truly assist Sudan regarding Darfur.” Malaysia praised Sudan’s “positive engagement” and said Sudan faced “many difficulties” and needed to be “given the time and resources it requires” to implement its obligations.

UN Watch reponded in a speech delivered by Gibreil Hamid, a survivor from Darfur. See full text below.

---

UN Human Rights Council
Geneva, Switzerland, Dec. 11, 2007
UN Watch Speech on Darfur

Thank you, Mr. President.

My name is Gibreil Hamid, I am from Darfur, and I am delivering this statement on behalf of UN Watch.

Many think that the tragedy in Darfur began in 2003. From personal experience, I can testify that this is not the case.

I was born in a small village called Taradona, near Zalinge, in West Darfur. The people were living peacefully until the genocidal regime now in Khartoum seized power in a military coup. It was a black day for the whole country.

In 1989, gunmen attacked my village in the early morning, killing over fifty people from my family. For me, it was the beginning of a nightmare that has lasted eighteen years. Until today, no one knows who committed this atrocity, or why. I can forgive, but I will never forget.

Since 2003, Darfur is known as the worst humanitarian catastrophe on earth. Diplomatic efforts have failed to stop the crimes of the Sudanese government.

We, the victims of Darfur, were hoping so much that this new Human Rights Council would give us a voice, and make a difference in our lives. Yet the genocide continues, and it seems that all this Council does is ask for more reports.

Mr. President, we, the victims of Darfur, come before this council today with a simple message. We do not need more reports. Time is running out. We need action. Our humanitarian situation is critical. Our security situation worsens every day. The Janjaweed are killing and raping us. The innocent civilians of Darfur are in desperate need of protection. We need action, and we need it now.

On behalf of UN Watch and all of the victims of Darfur, I plead before the Council today: please stop adopting resolutions that praise Sudan for its so-called “cooperation.” Please do not eliminate the independent expert on Sudan. Please take action to end the terrible crimes of war.

To all those who are willing to speak out against genocide: May God bless you and give us peace.

Thank you, Mr. President.

---

To support the vital work of UN Watch, please contribute here.
tel: (41-22) 734-1472 fax: (41-22) 734-1613
www.unwatch.org

Cuba og Hviderusland er OK, men Israel…

UN Ends Scrutiny of Cuba and Belarus, Indicts Israel

By a vote of 165 to 7, a UN General Assembly committee last Friday approved “institution-building” changes to the Human Rights Council that actually weaken or eliminate several of its key institutions. The package scraps the independent investigators of abuses in Cuba and Belarus, makes it harder to criticize specific countries for violations, and institutes the permanent censure of Israel as a fixed agenda item, an initiative pushed by the group of Islamic states.

The U.S., Canada, Australia, Israel and three Pacific Island states voted in opposition. The European Union countries supported the package, arguing it was the best possible compromise to preserve a functioning council.

Nå, så DET gjorde vi. Der er ingen der har spurgt EU’s befolkninger, eller husker jeg forkert??? Min tillid til UN kan efterhånden ligge på spidsen af en knappenål. Pampervælde uden sidestykke – George Orwell presser sig på…

The changes were first adopted on June 19, 2007 by the Human Rights Council in Geneva under dubious circumstances. As documented by a UN Watch photo timeline, “How the Human Rights Council Was Born” (OBS: MSWord-dokument) — an eye-opener into the dark side of international law and diplomacy—the package was rammed through in middle of the night, with Canada denied its right to vote. The council then proclaimed that it was unanimously approved, with vice-president Dayan Jayathilake of Sri Lanka saying, “there is a consensus that there was a consensus.” As shown in the timeline, UN documents were then doctored to hide the irregularities. Although the U.S., Canada, and Poland filed official objections in July, the outright revision of history was ignored by UN officials.

During last week’s debate, Canadian officials recalled how the chair in June had used “procedural manoeuvring” to sideline Canadian delegates as they sought to call a vote at that time on the package. “We categorically reject the manner in which the … package was pushed through at the council,” said Henri-Paul Normandin, Canada’s deputy representative at the UN. “Canada was denied its sovereign right to call a vote … (and) in using the ends to justify the means, the human rights council set a very dubious precedent.” Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, said a national election conducted in the same way the council sidelined Canada would be declared “unfree and unfair.”

In a campaign led by UN Watch, some 30 NGOs from around the globe urged General Assembly members to excise the regressive measures. However, Western states claimed that opening the package would jeopardize the mechanisms of the council that work.

How much actually works in this new era—with a council almost entirely dominated by the agenda of repressive regimes—is questionable. The backsliding of the past year has no precedent. The democracies are outnumbered, on the defensive, and losing badly.

The new changes of the package include the following:

The experts who reported on human rights violations in Cuba and Belarus were eliminated. This came even as the General Assembly a few days later adopted a resolution condemning Belarus for silencing political opposition, arbitrary detention, harassing journalists—and for its non-cooperation with the human rights council expert on Belarus that the UN itself had just fired.

Placing the remaining 10 country monitors—who report on atrocities in places like Sudan and North Korea—on the chopping block, in what it euphemistically calls a “review” process.

A new rule—deceptively crafted as a mere guideline—that will make it harder than ever before to pass any resolution criticizing a human rights abusing country by name.

A so-called “code of conduct” which was designed by China, Algeria, and the council’s other authoritarian regimes in order to cow independent human rights monitors into silence.

The permanent indictment of Israel under a special agenda item, reviving what the UN Department of Public Information described last year as “the agenda item targeting Israel.” This was publicly criticized by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on June 20, 2007, as a breach of the council’s own principles.

There was, however, a rare glimmer of light this week, when a General Assembly committee—the same one that approved the above package—managed to rebuke some of the world’s worst human rights abusers. A resolution on North Korean violations passed by 97-23, with 60 abstentions. Another resolution strongly condemned violence against peaceful demonstrators in Burma, now known as Myanmar, with a vote of 88-24, with 66 abstentions. A third vote expressing deep concern at rights violations in Iran passed by 72-50, with 55 abstentions. (Abstentions ≈ blanke stemmer)

What this means, ironically, is that while support for meaningful human rights action can still be found in some UN bodies, the 47-nation Human Rights Council is not one of them.

Package rammed through, Canada denied right to vote

June 19, 4:21 pm — Canadian representative Terry Cormier: “By denying Canada its right to call for a vote, this Council threatens to undermine not only its own rules of procedure and those of the General Assembly, but more than sixty years of established practice of the UN, which is based on the fundamental principle of equality of all of its members states… such a precedent stands to affect more than the interests debated today.” (Click to see full timeline)

Express your opinion: visit the UN Watch Blog.

Selektiv antisemitisme

Mixed Grades for UN on Anti-Semitism

While the United Nations has taken several “unprecedented” steps in recent years to recognize and reject anti-Semitism, the world body has yet to “to fully live up to its promise,” according to a report released today by UN Watch.

Based on an examination of key actions by leading UN agencies and officials, the 64-page study, “The UN and Anti-Semitism, 2004-2007 Report Card,” marks the first time that the UN’s record on fighting anti-Semitism has been measured since Mr. Annan issued a call to action in June 2004, urging non-governmental organizations to “keep us to the mark.”

The report gave the UN high marks for new Holocaust commemoration activities, and for condemnations of Iran’s Holocaust denial issued by the Security Council, the General Assembly, and several senior officials. Mr. Annan won special praise for his “key role in these efforts,” while “early indicators show that his successor, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, is similarly willing to speak out against anti-Semitism.”

Click for Full Report (PDF)

Others received mixed grades. UN investigator on racism Doudou Diène “on more than one occasion confronted the government of Iran for its anti-Semitic statements,” while religious intolerance investigator Asma Jahangir addressed rising anti-Semitism during a mission to France. However, despite numerous appeals, both experts have “insufficiently addressed the incitement to hatred against Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims, that have been documented in children’s textbooks distributed by the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Inaction by High Commissioner Louise Arbour

The report also revealed “inaction” by certain UN officials. Despite numerous appeals made by NGOs to High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, the report failed to find any “noteworthy action on her part against Holocaust denial or any other form of anti-Semitism.” Because Ms. Arbour is charged with overseeing the UN effort to protect human rights and fight racism, said the report, “this lapse is disappointing and cause for concern.”

The report describes how the UN’s Islamic bloc of fifty-six states is waging a campaign in key UN bodies “to gut anti-Semitism of its meaning, by making the absurd argument that the term also refers to hatred against Arabs and Muslims.” In September, Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan, speaking for the Islamic group, said that Islamophobia was “a cruel form of anti-Semitism.”

The report examines the annual plethora of resolutions by the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council “that contribute—whether by intent or in their effect—to an atmosphere that demonizes the Jewish state and promotes hostility toward Jews as a whole.” In its first year, the Human Rights Council “passed one hundred percent of its condemnatory resolutions against Israel, ignoring the other 191 UN member states, including the world’s worst abusers.”

The report analyzes speeches and articles showing how Iran, Syria, and other Middle Eastern extremists “make direct use of these resolutions to justify their cause and to delegitimize Israel.”

For the Full Text of the Report, Click Here.

UN Watch condemns election of Qaddafi’s Libya to UN Security Council

Geneva Oct. 16 – UN Watch condemned the election of Libya today to the UN Security Council. “Electing Colonel Muammar Qaddafi to maintain international peace and security is like naming Jack the Ripper to fight sexual harassment,” said Hillel C. Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based monitoring organization. “We’re also concerned with the election of Vietnam, a country that continues to deny its citizens fundamental political and religious liberties.”

Neuer expressed concern that “the West is silent as Libya is quickly acquiring a series of new and important UN posts — including its unanimous August election as head of the UN’s “Durban II” anti-racism process through 2009 – even as its record on human rights remains appalling.” The UN and African Union will meet in Libya at the end of the month for Darfur peace talks.

… og Zimbabwe sidder i UN’s Human Rights Commission, ikke at forglemme – ikke underligt at UN ikke laver meget andet end at hetze mod Israel. 

Pakistan Accuses Holocaust Survivors of “Campaigning Against Muslim Symbols”, Says Muslims are Victims of Antisemitism

Geneva, Oct. 1, 2007 — An international coalition of non-governmental organizations today published a protest against a U.N. speech by Pakistan that accused Holocaust survivors of “campaigning against Muslim symbols in the Western world” and that called hatred of Muslims “a cruel form of Anti-Semitism.” The letter was sent to Masood Khan, Pakistan’s UN envoy in Geneva, who made the comments on Tuesday before the UN Human Rights Council, speaking on behalf of the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference. (Watch video at http://blog.unwatch.org/ – eller her)

 

The letter was signed by a coalition of ten human rights and non-governmental organizations from Switzerland, the U.S., Russia, and Pakistan itself, including diverse groups such as UN Watch, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the World Union of Progressive Judaism and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung foundation’s German Forum Human Rights.

 

The U.N. human rights commission was founded in 1946 upon the ashes of the Nazi atrocities, and so it is tragic that some are now perverting its principles and denying its history.

 

The Islamic group holds signficant influence at the UN’s highest human rights body, which last week continued its practice of debating reports on the alleged “defamation of Islam” in Western countries. The council has adopted 13 Islamic-sponsored resolutions against Israel since its inauguration in June 2006, but none against any other state. Darfur has been addressed, but only with soft, non-condemnatory resolutions, some of which have actually praised the Sudanese government for “cooperation” or expressed concerns for its particular “needs.”

 

On Friday, the council wrapped up a three-week session that failed to take action against any of the world’s worst abuses. UN Watch board member Anne Bayefsky offers a round-up of the disappointing session here. However, in a rare but welcome move, Western states on the council have convened an emergency session for this Tuesday to address the crisis in Burma.

 

Det er hårdt for en som mig, som er opvokset i 50’erne og 60’erne at se, hvad FN efterhånden er degenereret til – en samling af forbryderstater og bananrepublikker anført af “gode mennesker” som ignorerer folkedrab, dyb social uretfærdighed, terrorisme og kvindeundertrykkelse. Da Trygve Lie var formand for FN, var det en organisation, man kunne se op til, men i dag ser jeg det helst forsvinde hen hvor kaffen gror.

Taler som accepteres i UN

Statement to the UN Human Rights Council on Item 4: Human Rights Situations that Require the Council’s Attention