Who are they, what do they do, what don't they do ?


Quote:

.......Of the HRC’s 47 member states, only 23 live up to Freedom House’s definition of “free” countries. Fourteen qualify as “partly free” and ten are “not free,” with three of these—China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia—earning a spot in Freedom House’s special report The Worst of the Worst: The World’s Most Repressive Societies. China, Cuba, and Pakistan haven’t even ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the primary legally binding human rights instrument in international law. The HRC has no legal authority. It passes nonbinding resolutions on what it decides are human rights abuses and can only make recommendations to the General Assembly. Nevertheless, its resolutions enjoy the UN imprimatur, and it can legitimize barbarities simply by ignoring them. If a dictator can claim in the international media that the HRC has passed no resolutions against him, his job of maintaining the status quo and lobbying against intervention in his country’s affairs becomes that much easier. Delegates to the General Assembly elect states to the HRC by secret ballot. But since regional “groups,” like African states and Asian states, automatically get a set number of seats on the HRC, the upshot is that Islamic countries, together with non-Islamic members of the Non-Aligned Movement, always control about two-thirds of the seats. As Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union puts it: “Voting, when it does occur, invariably results in a two-to-one defeat for the Western liberal democracies.”..........

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_UN-human-rights-council.html

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 14^th, 2009 at 2:03pm:

Who are they, what do they do, what don't they do ?

They are the monster regimes of the worlds, shake-down artists, cut-throats, desperados.
They hide behind post-colonial new-speak.
They don't do freedom and openness and reason because, as everyone knows, these are whitey constructs for the oppression of monsters, cut-throats and desperadoes, er, I mean post-colonial 'victim' societies.

Human "rights" are a social fiction and a destructive one at that.  For that reason alone the council should be disbanded, though its absurd levels of hypocrisy certainly contribute to the case for abolition.

Soren wrote on Aug 14^th, 2009 at 10:23pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 14th, 2009 at 2:03pm: Who are they, what do they do, what don't they do ? They are the monster regimes of the worlds, shake-down artists, cut-throats, desperados. They hide behind post-colonial new-speak. They don't do freedom and openness and reason because, as everyone knows, these are whitey constructs for the oppression of monsters, cut-throats and desperadoes, er, I mean post-colonial 'victim' societies.

Human Rights Council is a UN body.

Google,
UN "Human Rights Council"
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=UN+%22Human+Rights+Council%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

We [tax payers, in Western nations, including Australians] are funding these CRIMINALS.



The UN itself, has devolved into nothing but a gang of criminals.

The UN is an evil 'monster' which is adept at only one thing, enlarging itself, by devouring anything which is good in the world.

Why is Australia a member of this criminal and corrupt body?

Why is it, that Australian politicians would NEVER criticise the criminals activities of many UN bodies?



Google,
"UN corruption"
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22UN+corruption%22&btnG=Search&meta=






"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
Thomas Mann
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Mann

Coral Sea wrote on Aug 18^th, 2009 at 12:25am:

Human "rights" are a social fiction and a destructive one at that.  For that reason alone the council should be disbanded, though its absurd levels of hypocrisy certainly contribute to the case for abolition.

How is it destructive?

How is the HRC hypocritical?