Resources updated between Monday, June 24, 2013 and Sunday, June 30, 2013
June 30, 2013
Pakistan 'blasphemy' girl Rimsha Masih moves to Canada Human Rights Voices
June 27, 2013
The UN Secretary-General has appointed
as his top counter-terrorism official a man who says Hamas is not a terrorist organization. Frenchmen Jean-Paul Laborde will become the Executive Director of the UN's Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate.
His official job description is to "carry out the policies of the [Security Council Counter-terrorism] Committee, conduct expert assessments of each Member State and facilitate counter-terrorism technical assistance to countries." His unofficial job description will be to undermine Israel and America's abilities to act in self-defense and to stymie the war against Islamic extremists.
Here is Laborde in his own words as reported by the Philippine news agency, April 14, 2010: "Hamas is not a terrorist organization in the United Nations...we should talk to Hamas..." Laborde also said that terrorism is rooted in the failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In his words: "once the Israeli-Palestinian issue is resolved, the threat of terrorism will diminish."
So Laborde is on board with the familiar UN narrative that goes like this: 'if it weren't for Israeli actions allegedly taken in self-defense, Palestinian terror would disappear. All the nations of the world are best-served by isolating, demonizing and neutering Israel, because Israel is at the heart of the terrorist phenomenon everywhere. Shackle Israel and terrorism around the world will dissipate.'
In fact, Islamic terrorism is driven by a hatred of freedom, of democracy and of tolerance - whether in Jerusalem, New York, London or Mumbai.
Nevertheless, on one count a UN counter-terrorism chief who has no understanding of the unmitigated hatred motivating a terrorist organization like Hamas makes sense. The UN still has no definition of terrorism because the 56 Islamic member states of the UN continue to insist on an exemption clause for killing Israelis and Americans who get in the way of "liberation" and "self-determination." The moral ignorance of Laborde will fit right in.
June 26, 2013
June 25, 2013
When speaking at the UN Human Rights Council earlier this month, UN human rights authority Richard Falk was publicly accused directly in an "interactive dialogue" with being an antisemite. In response, Falk has now written: "I reject this broad conception of anti-Semitism, and limit this term of extreme opprobrium to hatred of Jews as an ethnicity and religion, expressed by opinions and hostile behavior." In fact, as recently as June 7, 2013 Falk used the familiar antisemitic trope that Israel "control[s] the world media." His own website has included obvious antisemitic images (which he has also claimed not to recognize as antisemitic.) This behavior is on top of his pathological hatred and hostility towards Israel, that extends to disapproval of a two-state solution which leaves the Jewish state still standing. Richard Falk - who the UN human rights system continues to tolerate as one of its own - is the poster-boy for modern antisemitism.
Blog Ethics and Politics Article
The UN "human rights" system has another credibility problem - so-called "independent experts" aren't really so independent after all. The "independent experts" on the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child have now issued inflammatory and factually false "conclusions" on Israel's treatment of children. So just who are these folks? Three of the four Vice-Chairpersons are the following human rights paragons: Aseil Al-shehail from Saudi Arabia, Hiranthi Wijemanne from Sri Lanka, Benyam Dawit Mezmur from Ethiopia. And then there are the human rights gurus Amal Aldoseri from Bahrain, Hatem Kotrane from Tunisia, Gehad Madi from Egypt, Yasmeen Muhamad Shariff from Malaysia, Olga Khazova from Russia. Got the picture? The next time someone claims to be a human rights pro on a UN-associated committee, ask the next question.
Brotherly Muslims lynch each other and are "proud" of it, in Muslim Brotherhood's Egypt.
Egypt villagers 'proud' of killing Shiites Human Rights Voices
Iran's month-long stint as President of the UN Disarmament Conference has come to an end with - surprise - total failure to make any progress on nuclear disarmament. In fact, the Conference could not even decide on its "programme of work." The inability to decide on what to talk about didn't prevent Iran's outgoing president from declaring "Iran attached great importance to the credibility of the Conference" and Russia from opining "the President was acting wisely." Pakistan said Iranian ideas made during the fiasco of a presidency "would enable the Conference to start substantive work even without starting negotiations" - new UN-eze for how do-nothing miraculously becomes doing something. But that's not all. Iran's stint as chief of the UN Disarmament Conference legitimized the world's number one threat to nuclear proliferation. Under UN guidance, the subject of a disarmament pow-wow was not the acquisition of the world's most lethal weapon by the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, but the diplomatic skills of that very regime. The UN press release on Iran's last day highlights "Several speakers praised the Iranian Presidency for all efforts to find consensus...Russia expressed its appreciation to the Iranian President...Syria thanked Iran for its efforts and transparent consultations...Pakistan expressed its deep appreciation and admiration for the Iranian President...Algeria expressed its appreciation to the President for his tireless efforts through his presidency...Cuba was grateful for the work that the President had done...and the way in which he had guided the Conference..." And then there was ignominious Germany - whose diplomat felt it appropriate to declare: "Germany thanked the President for his work and efforts in trying to get the Conference back to work...Germany expressed its appreciation for the President as he had held extensive debates...He believed that the President acted in the best interest of the Conference." The best interests of the Disarmament Conference would have been never to have had an Iranian President in the first place.