Canada's hypocrisy at the United Nations

The ridiculously named United Nations’ “Human Rights Council” is in the news again trying to push through a several times re-written resolution criminalizing any criticism of religion. It is sponsored by Pakistan and, although it is couched in the feel good language of pluralism and understanding, its real intent is to the open the door to a worldwide purge of cartoonists who make fun of Mohammed and to students, like Afghani, Pervez Kambaksh, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for questioning why Islam treated men differently than women.

Canada has taken a correct and principled stance.

"Canada rejects the basic premise that religions have rights; human rights belong to human beings," said a Foreign Affairs spokesperson.

Hmmm.

I wonder how that spokesperson would explain section 296 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada to the U.N:

(1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years.

(2) It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is
published is a blasphemous libel.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section
for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or
attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and
conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious
subject

This provision has been present in every amended version of the Code since 1892. The last prosecution for blasphemous libel occurred in 1935, but sometimes seemingly moribund laws have a phoenix-like way of reviving themselves in peculiar cases.

And what exactly does this defense mean – “decent language”? What was considered decent language at the height of the Victorian Age is a far cry for what passes for normal speech today. In fact, it is probably true that decency in language in the 21st century had been relegated to just another interesting artifact of history.

Canada would do well to try to lead by example, rather than just mouthing liberal platitudes on the international stage, and abolish section 296 (1).

Then it can tell the Muslim world to “screw off”.

In decent language, of course.

What happens when trolls get to vote

These are the little piggies who feast at the trough of the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The British media were in a flutter because the United Nations’ Human Rights Council issued a report suggesting that the United Kingdom should ditch the Queen and go the Republican route. It was the Sri Lankan delegate who brought this up. But the report was endorsed by other members of the HRC, like Saudi Arabia, which has a pretend monarchy.

There has been a monarch in England for more than a thousand years. The so-called kings in Arabia have been enthroned for about 70 years. The British monarchy will still be viable long after Saudi Arabia has had its revolution and the Saudi royal family is replaced by a theocracy.

Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how the British system of government relates to human rights, other than to show the rest of the world how it is done properly.

The Human Rights regimes in Canada that have been so much in the news lately are paragons of virtue compared to the hypocrisy of the U.N.H.R.C.

Just take a look at the members.

Consider that Sri Lanka has been in a state of civil war for 30 years with plenty of atrocities laid at its government’s door. Saudi Arabia has abysmal civil and human rights. Cuba, an island prison for the last half century and a member of this soap opera company, also piled on the U.K. Ditto Syria, whose leaders suppressed a rebellion by slaying 25,000 of its citizens; and, Algeria, whose army overthrew a legitimately elected government and prompted a civil war with 100,000 casualties.

Then there are a couple of other choice ones, like, Sudan, that thinks the U.K. discriminates against Muslims, conveniently overlooking the government sponsored slaughter of 200,000 of its black Muslims by its Arab Muslims; and, rounding out the hypocrites is Iran, a country operated under the Sharia that complained that Britain should do more to emancipate women.

How does the British representative on this useless and farcical council keep a straight face during these discussions? It is hard to make somebody like Barbara Hall look good, but if anybody can do it, trust the U.N.

The scary United Nations

Here's a column by Paul Schneidereit appearing in the Nova Scotia Chronicle Herald, April 15, 2008:

"THE war on free speech in the West goes on, from both outside and within, unabated. That’s not to say that we’re losing. But it’s not clear we’re winning, either.

There are, at the heart of this matter, two very different ideas of what free speech is all about. One, the traditional Western concept, holds that, short of libel, slander or the direct incitement to violence, people should be free to pretty much say what they think. The other, now being pushed by a group of Islamic nations in the UN – and aided by naïve, appeasing bureaucrats in our own nation – believes that certain topics, like sharp criticism of religion, should be taboo.

In the last month, the UN’s Human Rights Council has passed several resolutions that in essence seek to criminalize criticism of Islam around the world. Now, the council spends very little if any time on real human rights abuses in the many countries where they occur, as its days are almost exclusively spent on the task of painting Israel as a monster. That, of course, is related to the fact that a majority on the world’s so-called human rights council are either Islamic nations hostile to Israel or regimes run by brutal autocrats who want to ensure there is no criticism of their own flagrant human rights abuses. But I digress.

In late March, the Orwellian-named council passed a motion condemning the "defamation" of religions, especially Islam, and calling on all member states to move to make such criticism of religion illegal in their countries. The motion passed, 24 to 10.

Can you defame a religion? If so, wouldn’t criticism of the Vatican’s nonsensical rules on birth control be out of line, too? Watch your footing; we’re on the slipperiest of slopes here.

Early this month, the UN human rights body passed another resolution – this time by a 32 to 0 vote – directing the UN’s own special rapporteur on free speech to report on individuals or media outlets that publicly make negative comments about Islam.

As other observers have noted, this seeks to turn a supposed promoter of free speech into a censor."

To read the full column, go to this site. Thanks to SteynOnLine for the link.

The slippery slope of human rights

There is a flap going on in Canada at the moment over the fact that this country scuttled a German-Spanish U.N. initiative to have access to water become a human right. This has brought out the barking boy-scout one-worlders who have a large presence in Canada. These folks seem to think that anything that runs its course through the great and glorious United Nations somehow acquires by that fact alone a moral authority that exceeds any other force on Earth. We even had a Prime Minister who ceded Canadian sovereignty to the United Nations to decide whether Canada should go to war.

“Well, you know, if the U.N. is fer it, by gum, then we’re fer it too! I reckon.”

However, even Maude Barlow, a well-known Canadian nationalist-socialist, who has challenged water exports to the United States, favoured this resolution. She has some idea that this will prevent the commercialization of water, which, of course, is a big thing with Barlow because the most important human right to her is the one that prevents anybody making EVIL PROFITS.

I would argue the opposite. If you make it a human right, then how can Canada, which has so much water, prevent its water from draining south from the Great Lakes to feed the drought stricken areas of the United States. All the U.S. has to do is refer to Canada’s agreement at the U.N. that water is a basic human right and it has no moral authority to dispute the U.S. right to protect American human rights. This is a very slippery slope, although Barlow calls that notion “fantastical”.

The Americans have been very careless about water use, building cities and communities in deserts, draining aquifers and rivers, and irrigating huge desert areas for crops. In many places they are beginning to run short. Last year there was a drought in Georgia and Florida. Atlanta was reduced at one point to a 90 day reserve of water. Three states entered into negotiations to share water, but those negotiations broke down. There is a great deal of pressure being applied by the politicians from southwest states to their counterparts in Great Lakes states to divert the lake water south.

Human rights traditionally have been circumscribed by the relationship of individuals to their society. We understand the right to liberty, free speech, freedom to practice religion or not, freedom of assembly and association, and freedom to vote in elections and to hold public office. From these we derive other rights; such as, freedom of the press (media), freedom from incarceration without due process of law, equality between men and women.

Once you start to stray from these basic understandings, odd things happen. For example, we have a problem in Canada at the present time because Article 13 in the Canada Human Rights Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada, in a closely divided decision, has legally enshrined the human right of “not being offended.” This has now opened the door to frivolous complaints that are threatening the basic human right of free speech. Such is the uproar this has caused that Parliament must now consider either scrapping Article 13, or scrapping human rights commissions.

This U.N. proposal now wants to extend human rights, not to relationships between individuals and society, but to natural resources. If that were done, you would see the law of unintended consequences flourish in all its grandeur.

For example, why would it not be open to suggest that access to fossil fuels is a human right? After all, the entire planet’s economy is married to energy provided by fossil fuels, and without them there would be an international collapse the likes of which the world has never seen. So if Venezuela’s Mr. Chavez wanted to withhold that country’s petroleum from the world market, or, more specifically the U.S. market, would the United States suffer moral condemnation if it invaded Venezuela as a matter of enforcing “human rights”?

Far fetched, you think? Third world countries have already raised a derivation of this argument in resisting efforts by first world countries to get them to agree to not develop on the back of fossil fuels. Economic development is seen by these countries as a “human right” and we have no business dictating to them how it should be undertaken. One African commentator said, “Do you expect us to run our railroads with solar panels and windmills (when you take full advantage of fossil fuels to run yours)?”

The United Nations won't defend its agents

This an editorial from today's Toronto Star with which I am in complete agreement. There are so many wishy-washy, western civilization-loathing Canadians who cannot see the importance of taking strong stands on issues like these and who forget which team they should rooting for. It's nice to see a newspaper that I believe normally caters to these useful idiots (thank you, Vladimir Lenin, for the phrase) taking such a stance. I wonder if the head editorial writer was on vacation when this found its way into print.

Regardless of how the Persian Gulf standoff between Iran and Britain plays out, the United Nations has emerged looking bad. Simply put, the Security Council failed to forcefully stand up for British troops serving the UN, when they were treated outrageously by a scofflaw regime.

Like Canada's military in Afghanistan, the 15 British sailors and marines from HMS Cornwall who were seized by Iran's Revolutionary Guards on March 23 were on lawful UN-sanctioned duty. They were assisting Iraq's elected government by monitoring merchant shipping along the Iraq-Iran maritime frontier to thwart smuggling and security threats. They should never have been arrested, much less held this long.

Recognizing that, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government last Wednesday demanded Iran "immediately release" the captives, noting they were engaged in "legitimate and routine boarding operations." In Washington this weekend, U.S. President George Bush went further, calling the sailors "hostages" and slamming Iran's "inexcusable behaviour."

The European Union has also voiced "unconditional support" for the British side, chided the Iranians for "a clear breach of international law," and demanded the troops' "immediate and unconditional release."

Given this barrage of international condemnation, the UN Security Council should have been emboldened to forcefully condemn Iran's outrageous action and to threaten stiff sanctions, if only to deter future attacks of this sort on forces deployed on its behalf.

But the council managed to issue only a feeble statement last Thursday voicing "grave concern" and urging an "early resolution of this problem."

It was a pitiful show of weakness that hurt the UN's credibility and betrayed British troops serving the organization. Far from undercutting Iranian hard-liners such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it will boost their stature and sap UN efforts to get Tehran to renounce nuclear weaponry. It also won't help the United Nations the next time it appeals for countries to provide troops for some peacekeeping mission.

By yesterday, as pressure continued to build on Tehran, senior Iranians announced they want to resolve the crisis through talks with Britain on how to avert future disputes. At the same time, both sides continued to dispute whether the British sailors were operating a kilometre or so on one side of the unclear Iraq-Iran border or on the other.

But even if the British craft did stray into Iranian waters, something Prime Minister Tony Blair denies, Iran's better-armed Revolutionary Guard vessels could easily have warned them off and escorted them back into Iraqi waters. A technical violation of Iran's sovereignty by a UN-approved force would pose no great threat to Iranian security.

Even so, Iran's forces arrested the sailors at gunpoint and took them to Iran. They refused British diplomats access, threatened to put the captives on trial and paraded them shamelessly for propaganda, mouthing statements praising their captors and "confessing" they had trespassed.

It was a shameful, lawless spectacle.

The Security Council should have said as much.