Especially if you are a five year old Honduran sleeping on a gym mat, under a thermal blanket, and scared to death.
18 Likes
That’s right. The UN is an organization that does whatever its members what it to do. They could set up a Committee of the Virtuous, and the worst gov’ts in the world could be on that committee. There is no mechanism for any authority to step in and say, now wait a minute, because there is no authority above nation-states. That’s why “international law” is so problematic. It is essentially rules agreed upon by the strong and fully enforced on the weak; sometimes the rules make sense, sometimes they don’t. But that’s why the US and (as of recently) Russia have pulled out of the International Criminal Court. The US doesn’t want to see, for instance, Henry Kissinger or Dick Cheney in the same dock as Nicolae Ceaușescu.
8 Likes
Wow, that’s really, really bad. In playground terms, one bully and another bully have gone to opposite sides of the playground to scheme about kicking the other in the balls.
But just like the cold war, are they really enemies, given what actually happened? (profitable proxy wars, political capital all around for “hard line” types etc etc)
2 Likes
“Give me your hungry, your tired your poor I’ll piss on 'em
that’s what the Statue of Bigotry says
Your poor huddled masses, let’s club 'em to death
and get it over with and just dump 'em on the boulevard”
6 Likes
Eh - I am not so sure this is bad move. I mean… look at the countries on there. It is like going to an AA meeting and its full of liquor store owners saying how bad booze is while sipping out of a flask the whole meeting.
Now, as I understand it, the idea when joining was to promote change within - but was that actually happening? If it was basically a jerk off fest, even though it sounds bad to not be part of it, is there actually any harm in not being part of it?
2 Likes
Considering the timing it sure sends one hell of a message.
8 Likes
True… perhaps by itself it wouldn’t be as big of a deal. But let’s also be honest, being a member of that council - or the UN, really, has ZERO effect on what goes on in the US. Even if say every single country made a statement of condemnation for something, they have no authority to do anything about it. So given one can only focus on so many things, I’d focus on more pressing matters.
Like the new Space Force! “Would you like to know more?”
4 Likes
The usual “you and what army?” provision that keeps much of what the UN does theoretical keeps them out of trouble; but I’d characterize their enthusiasm for endorsing blasphemy laws(oh, sorry, deploring ‘defamation of religion’, which is a totally different thing with no practical similarities) as very much a dysfunction for an entity supposed to be dedicated to advancing human rights.
3 Likes
The thing is, we’re not on the Human Rights Council so that the UN can dictate terms to us (although, on the subject of human rights, the US is literally the only country on Earth that hasn’t ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child… can’t imagine that being relevant right now…). We are (or at least, were) on the HRC as a means of expressing our support for the institution and promoting what it stands for. If liberty and justice for all is something you believe in, you show up for it. Backing out because the UN is rightly condemning the human rights abuses being inflicted on the Palestinian people by Israel while simultaneously and dramatically stepping up our own human rights abuses along the southern border is not the kind of message that reflects positively on the US’s long-held attitude that We Are The Best At Human Rights And Have A Moral High Ground To Speak From When Condemning Others For Their Atrocities.
It’s yet another example of the intentional erosion of our country’s diplomatic soft power, which dick-swingers like Trump and Bush before him fail to appreciate. Actions like these isolate us from our allies, and play into perceptions that our government – and Trump in particular – is more interested in buttering up dictators and other brutal regimes than standing up for the ideals of humanity and dignity that we supposedly believe in. The US can be a force for good in the world, but not if we insist on walling ourselves off from it.
12 Likes
Anyone paying attention over the last seventy-five years could tell that behind the mask of Ronald McDonald lies the vicious face of Stephen King’s It. Thing is, now the mask is slipping for all to see.
2 Likes
The constituents of a lot of representative leaders are really terrible people. Trump in particular.
1 Like
I’m sure this isn’t really news to most people here but it’s not as if the rest of the world looks to the US either as a beacon of or for leadership on human rights. It’s just another country with a pretty patchy record.
This isn’t because of the US’s blanket approval of any and all actions of the Israeli state no matter how much it violates human rights but really because of how it treats its own citizens. I think that most people when they saw Guantanamo bay saw people of colour chained and in cages. This is not normal. Chaining black men however does look like normal justice as usual within the US.
Obviously on top of that outside its own borders the US is a brutal imperial army of occupation,raping, murdering, and pillaging its way around the planet like so many others have done before and are doing now.
So the US won’t be missed from any human rights group any more than Saudi Arabia would be.
2 Likes
It’s categorically false that the organization has a anti-blasphemy stance. Some of the countries with Islamic populations tried to get something like that implemented but failed, so the system seems to be working like it’s suppose to, so what exactly is the problem here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_United_Nations
The title of this one says it all:
http://religiondispatches.org/united-nations-affirms-the-human-right-to-blaspheme/
Here’s the actual language of the UN regarding this matter: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/GC34.pdf
6 Likes
The US administration is rescinding the centuries-old benefits of a renaissance world.
It is pulling out because (1) hypcocrisy, (2) Israel.
The disgusting and appalling demonstration of child separation and internment backs my view up.
The current US administration’s behaviours are massive human rights abuses, totally contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, totally contrary to any faith (all men are equal, anyone?), and revolting.
As awareness of this all grows, including the abuses committed here in the UK, hopefully we can get the boat back on an even keel.
Until then, may fire and fury rain down on the foul people involved in perpetrating this all.
4 Likes
You mean ‘for criticizing Israeli murder’. Because it simply has no shits to give for terrorism murder against Israelis. None. Not surprising since it is dominated by Arab interests.
I despise the Trump administration and their supporters. But, the U.N. Human Rights Council has been a farce for decades. On this one single issue, they have a point.
2 Likes
I think the next move will be for Trump’s government to create its own human rights council. They could call it… let me think… the Gestapo!
1 Like
Ah, the old victim-blaming defense, fun.
Yes, there’s “murder” on both sides. But Trump’s team is staunchly pro-Israel; any criticism of their favorite militant country is unacceptable. The UN Human Rights Council may be a farce in your eyes due to allowing Arab nations to participate, but you have to admit that a country currently under worldwide criticism for horrible human rights abuses could not have picked a worse time to make a show of quitting the Human Rights Council.
3 Likes
The UNHRC is not a farce for allowing Arab nations to participate. It is a farce because of the extreme imbalance of its resolutions. As for timing - the Trump administration is so horrible on so many issues their timing will always be awful.
Even the military junta that basically ruled the human empire in that film had some common sense, even a little decency.
1 Like
So, can we say that the second renaissance is ending, now?
