The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

UN Human Rights Council Bans Testimony Critical of Itself

Posted by iusbvision on March 31, 2007

Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, gave the speech below to the UN Human Rights Council on March 23. The result was having his comments stricken from the record and an announcement that future criticism will also be stricken. Since traditional Americans hate the idea of censorship of political viewpoint I am publishing the text of Mr Neuer’s speech below and the response of the President of the Human Rights Council. It is a stark reminder that there are a great many around us that believe that the idea of freedom of political speech holds no value. The video of the exchange can be scene here: http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=3698367 .

Mr. President,

Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity.  They created the Commission on Human Rights.  Today, we ask:  What has become of their noble dream?

In this session we see the answer.  Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has it decided? Nothing!  Its response has been silence.  Its response has been indifference.  Its response has been criminal.

One might say, in Harry Truman’s words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council. But that would be inaccurate.  This Council has, after all, done something. It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state:  Israel.  In eight pronouncements, and there will be three more this session, Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity.  The entire rest of the world, millions upon millions of victims in 191 countries continue to go ignored.

So yes, this Council is doing something.  And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights. So too, the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.

But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?

Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces.  This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions in July and November.  Yet the champions of Palestinian rights—Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard—they say nothing.  Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh’s troops.  Why has this Council chosen silence?

Because Israel could not be blamed.  Because, in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights; they seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people.  They also seek something else:  to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights.

You ask:  What has become of the founders’ dream?  With terrible lies and moral inversion, it is being turned into a nightmare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Response by U.N. Human Rights Council President Luis Alfonso De Alba:

For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement.  I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch, if you’d kindly listen to me.  I am sorry that I’m not in a position to thank you for your statement.  I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council.  The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible. In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records.

Chuck Norton

17 Responses to “UN Human Rights Council Bans Testimony Critical of Itself”

  1. Chuck Norton said

    Where is the condemnation from the far left to Iran for taking 15 British hostages, and violating the Geneva convention with them?

    Where are the protests??

    Where are the protests against Iran for the honor killings, for flogging or killing rape victims for “seducing men who are not their husbands”…where is the condemnation for the female genital mutilation?

    Where are Answer and United for Peace and Justice to get 20,000 people to march against Iran for their behavior?

    The UN on the other hand, would only pass a watered down resolution against Iran…. no surprise there.

  2. Craig Chamberlin said

    Good point…

  3. Jack Flash said

    Chuck,

    I dont think that the United States is in any position to lecture any other nation on human rights violations when we have such a dismal history in that area. We are the ones who have had slavery for over 200 years, we are the ones who supported right wing dictators during the cold war who were friendly with us, but killed thousands of their own people, we are the ones who denied certain classes of citizens the right to vote, and we are the ones who have occupied other people’s lands (Think Hawaii) since the 1900. Are we really in a position to lecture anyone.

    Jack

  4. Chuck Norton said

    Ok all lets take jacks argument to its logical extension: That no one who has made any mistakes or had to take the path of the lesser of two evils has no right to, and in fact shouldn’t complain about human rights abuses or make any attempt to do anything about it.

    So if everyone went by jack’s logic what kind of world would we live in if everyone just turned a blind eye?

    The problem with Jack’s argument is that it contains a logical flaw, and that is that he is making the perfect the enemy of the good. EG that if you do not have a past that is perfect and with no compromises whatsoever than you can do no good whatsoever, or should not be allowed to.

    This is really indicative to Jacks commitment to human rights, or more accurately I should say, his total lack of commitment to it judging by the fruits of what he wants as policy.

    So why did the USA chose to side with some dictators during the cold war? It was the lesser of two evils, either help keep the dictators from being overthrown by the USSR, or let Stalinism take those countries over and their resources. Stalinism resulted in the deaths of 100 MILLION people over the years, much worse than world war two or the petty dictators who we helped resist Soviet tyranny.

    The Soviets were dead serious about taking freedom from the world. The Cold War was a matter of pure survival of life and freedom. I know, I was there, I served in the military during the Cold War.

    And of course let us not forget, if we took Jack’s way, the Jews would be doomed.

    I think that jack and his friends should have a nice sit down with some Iraqi’s that were dissidents under the Saddam regime, as it would serve a much needed reality check.

    …………………………

    You complained that America supported some dictators during the cold war to stop communism and how wrong it was, and now that we have removed one of the very worst of these, you are completely against it. So no matter what side of the coin you are on you are always against what America does…. that is very indicative of your true intentions.

    The end result would have been that you have worked to guarantee that the Saddam’s in the world stayed in power….so forgive me if your so called commitment to “human rights” rings pretty hollow.

  5. Chuck Norton said

    Attention!

    Where are all of the Vision’s and my own detractors on this matter? This weblog gets 3000 hits a month so I know that the usual suspects and readers have read my column. Isn’t there any common ground on human rights? I post an article about the shameful job that the UN is doing on human rights, that factually cannot be honestly disputed and so far all I have gotten is attacked for it.

    Where is the commitment to to human rights? Are the far left ideologues who post the hate here at me so mired in that hate that they not dare agree with me on an issue that involves fundamental human rights such as this? Do the roots of that hatred run so deep, that all else that is really important obscured?

  6. Chuck U. said

    You didn’t even write a column. Why would anyone reply?

  7. Chuck Norton said

    U.

    The point is that this says exactly what people who believe as I do have been saying for many years…. and of course the UN has been defended by the far left even through the UN oil for food scandal, multiple sex slave and pedophilia scandals, and the human rights scandal like the one above. It seems obvious that the far left will not criticize anyone who they percieve to be in their camp, even in so far as to turn a blind eye to the above.

    The far left and the internationalist types that try to empower the UN want people to think that the UN is something like the United Federation of Planets…. when it is just not. More and more the UN has become the enablers or defenders of evil.

  8. Ivan said

    I think you are operating under an assumption about the left, Chuck. Many who follow human rights do not look to the UN to guide us on these issues. We look to organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Cresent Societies. I expect we can find considerable common ground on these issues. From my observations though, Chuck, I think that your communication style leads to more divisiveness. Perhaps you should rethink that if you want to find common ground with people. Love you, buddy.

    -Ivan

    [Chuck Norton responds:

    This is coming form the man who said:

    “I won’t provide my personal information to somebody that seems angry, paranoid, and delusional.”

    Nope thats not divisive is it.

    Or how about when you said that I am not “Christian” enough for you because I didn’t love you enough.

    Pot meet kettle.]

  9. Chuck Norton said

    Ivan,

    The left does not look to those organizations, they pervert them.

    The International Red Cross is one of the most bigoted and anti-semitic organizations on the Earth. I am not talking about the American Red Cross, but rather the International Red Cross which is its own animal. The IRC has been caught letting Palestinian gunman use their ambulances as personal carriers. The IRC has a long history against Israel that I think I will write an article about ii the fall.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center is likely one of the wealthiest hate groups in the country. The SPLC takes anyone who is right of their perceived center and smear them by trying to associate them with skinheads or other nasty crazy groups. Morris Dees, who runs the outfit, is a repeat domestic violence perpetrator whose own stepdaughter accused him of various forms of abuse.

    The far left looks to Human Rights Watch…. except when they criticize Hugo Chavez. Human Rights Watch is all over Chavez and the shootings and jailings and the removal of human rights, but the far left continues to pretend that this isn’t happening and acts as an apologist for Chavez. That includes leftists on this very campus both student and professor.

    As far as your half hearted denial that the left serves as an apologist for the UN…well that is all it is, a half hearted denial in the face of overwhelming evidence.

    You say that I should rethink my positions if I want to find common ground with you. I would rather keep looking for the facts no matter where they fall, because that is something that separates me from haters like you Ivan. You are not fooling anyone. Your rhetoric indicates that you do not have any sincere interest in human rights at all, it is merely used a tool for the far left to exploit to get their agenda. The apologetics for Castro and Chavez and Che are typical examples.

  10. Nice blog!

  11. Chuck Norton said

    Thanks for demonstrating what I said in my first comment above.

  12. Ivan said

    Chuck,

    Nope, I didn’t say that you should rethink your positions. I said you should rethink how you communicate with people.

    Cheers.

    -Ivan

  13. Chuck Norton said

    Ivan,

    My communications style seperates me from those who act as apologists for Stalinistic and otherwise brutal or highly objectionable behavior. That is a good thing.

    Now how about you show a little courage and address the substantive points I have addressed to you or will you do as the far left usually does, and act as an apologist for brutal behavior?

  14. Ivan said

    Argumentum ad hominem

    -Ivan

    P.S. Nice name calling

    [Chuck Norton Responds –

    Like When you said this Ivan:

    “I won’t provide my personal information to somebody that seems angry, paranoid, and delusional.”

    This is what the far left does folks, They will not discuss the facts and arguments in the article, they attack the man because what they want is for their opponent to just shut-up.

    Shut-uppery is not an argument, it is a distraction.]

  15. Ivan said

    I never said I disagreed with the article you wrote about the censorship, Chuck. I simply pointed out that those who follow human rights more closely may pay attention to other organizations more than the UN Human Rights Council. You launched into the tirade about the organizations I mentioned. I don’t follow human rights as I did when I was younger. My replies are general and terse, because I’ve disengaged from study in this area. If you would like me to brush up for the sake of debate I will do so.

    I’ve self-identified as somebody that has some left leanings (at least to the left of you, Chuck), so you’ve decided it is expedient to lump me in as what – a Stalinist? Or, maybe because I mentioned the SPLC you wanted to identify me with Morris Dees who you lambasted as a child abuser. Who am I? Maybe I am Castro or Chavez or Che?

    You know, Chuck, I do admire you for your efforts, if I don’t always agree with your opinion. You bring up good subjects that should be discussed. I particularly liked your article discussing the teaching of civics in higher education. I do feel you missed out on an excellent opportunity by contextualizing your argument then with your own agenda.

    I sincerely feel bad that you have difficulty engaging people in meaningful conversation without acting superior because you have particular content knowledge that your retractors don’t in many instances. You might be able to pursuade some people if you didn’t try so hard to always be correct.

    I deal with a lot of numbers, so 248 can mean a lot of things. I did a quick Google search on “248 human rights” and it looks like it could be any number of things there too. I am certain you will educate me.

    I’ll pray for you to walk in love, my friend.

    -Ivan

  16. Chuck Norton said

    Ivan,

    You are trying to paint yourself as something that you are not. Instead of coming here to argue the points of my argument, you come in here and try to make it about me and I called you on it.

    Instead of engaging me on the meat of my argument you started off posting statements to me such as:

    “angry, paranoid, and delusional”

    “Perhaps you should try to make decisions for yourself instead of allowing others to make decisions for you though”

    You avoid the substance of my arguments, go right to attacking me, artfully lie about where you are from when I challenge you to put your real name by your statements.

    Then you associate yourself with anti-Semitic orgs like the IRC and then pull the Jesus line on me and wonder why I doubt your sincerity. With all due respect, such tactics remind me of the used car salesman who says he would not rip me off because he is a Christian.

    So let me be clear, I don’t like bigots, especially anti-semites because they are the worst. When you associate yourself with such groups, combined with the fact that anti-semitism is a real and growing problem with the academic left, you should not be surprised that I am going to be tough on you.

    Here is something that you should know about me. If you start out with a real argument or facts, you will get treated very nicely. If you try to discredit so that debate isn’t necessary than I am going to be tough on you.

    Keep it real, keep it substantive, and I can be the nicest guy you could ever know. Start out with attacks and avoid a substantive argument, try to make it about me and not about the problem at hand and I will get tough.

    And don’t worry about me and love, there are many on campus who have a love of the truth and the relentless pursuit of it.

  17. Thanks, always good posts on your blog!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: