The UN is important because...


The UN couldn't keep a group of girl scouts with waterpistols "in check."

UnderIslamic Nonsense...

The UN and Islamification

This is the sort of things you really have to see to believe. Fortunately, Eye on the UN has the photos and commentary:

"The map was prominently displayed by the UN on November 29, 2005 at a public gathering at UN Headquarters, in the presence of all top three UN officials, the Secretary General, and the Presidents of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly. It purports to be a "map of Palestine." Israel, a UN member state for 56 years, is not on the map. Even the UN General Assembly partition lines of November 29, 1947 marking a Jewish and Arab state, which pre-date this 1948 map, do not appear"


Scroll down that Eye on the UN page to see the photograph of dignitaries like Andrey Denisov (President of the UN Security Council ), Jan Eliasson (President of the UN General Assembly ), and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, (and two others) standing "at the outset of the November 29th UN meeting with these words from the Chair. "I invite everyone present to rise and observe a minute of silence in memory of all those who have given their lives for the cause of the Palestinian people and the return of peace between Israel and Palestine" in what EOUN calls 'a moment which has been crafted to include the commemoration of suicide bombers.'

Jordan, Kyrgysztan, Tekmenistan, Chad, Lebanon, Kuwait, Albania, Mauritania, Oman, Kosovo, The Gambia, Bahrain, Comoros, Qatar, Djibouti, Brunei, Maldives, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Sudan, Algeria, Afghanistan, Morocco, Iraq, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Syria, Kazakhstan, Niger, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Tunisia, Guinea, Somalia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Sierra Leone, Libya.

All the above are Muslim majority countries in the UN and who vote most often as a block when Islamic interests are in motion.

Muslim-Controlled UN Group Passes – You Guessed it – “Islamophobia” Motion

The preposterously-named (in its present form) UN Human Rights Council, which is essentially run by some of the worlds worst human rights abusers, passes possibly the most ridiculous and self-serving motion in UN history (and that’s saying something); choosing the furtherance of its own selfish interests ahead of the appalling human rights abuses of its own members:

GENEVA- The UN Human Rights Council on Thursday narrowly passed a resolution condemning Islamophobic behaviour, including Switzerland”s minaret building ban, despite some states major reservations.

The resolution, which was criticised by the United States as an instrument of division, strongly condemns… the ban on the construction of minarets of mosques and other recent discriminatory measures.

In a November referendum Swiss citizens voted to ban the construction of new minarets, a move that drew criticisms worldwide.

Such measures are manifestations of Islamophobia that stand in sharp contradiction to international human rights obligations concerning freedoms of religions, said the resolution.

Such acts would fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarisation and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences,” it charged.

Some 20 countries voted in favour of the resolution entitled combating defamation of religions, 17 voted against and eight abstained.

The resolution also expresses deep concern … that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.”

It “regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatising them and legitimising the discrimination they experience.”

Putting forward the resolution on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, Pakistan”s ambassador Zamir Akram said that the specific references to Islam, the only religion mentioned in the text, “reflect the existing regrettable situation in some parts of the world where Muslims are being targeted.”

Babacar Ba, who represents the OIC in Geneva, also told reporters that the resolution was a “way to reaffirm once again our condemnation of the decision to ban construction of minarets in Switzerland.”

“This initiative breaches religious freedom and rights of Muslims to build their places of worship as they wish to,” he added.

But while all countries agreed on the need to combat religious discrimination, debate on the resolution was intense as some were against the resolution on fears that it could be used to curb freedom of expression.

Mexico for instance said it was against the resolution as part of its orientation touches upon political and social principles which were against principles of the freedom of expression and the question of secularism.

The European Union also pointed out that the concept of defamation should not fall under the remit of human rights because it conflicted with the right to freedom of expression, while the United States said free speech could be hindered by the resolution.

“The European Union believes that reconciling the notion of defamation with discrimination is a problematic endeavour,” French ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei said on behalf of the bloc.

Eileen Donahoe, US ambassador to the UN, also slammed the resolution as an “ineffective way to address” concerns about discrimination.

“We cannot agree that prohibiting speech is the way to promote tolerance, because we continue to see the “defamation of religions” concept used to justify censorship, criminalisation, and in some cases violent assaults and deaths of political, racial, and religious minorities around the world,” she said.

“Contrary to the intentions of most member states, governments are likely to abuse the rights of individuals in the name of this resolution, and in the name of the Human Rights Council,” added the US envoy.

As reported before, the Islamic-controlled UNHRC represents a gross perversion of the original (and admirable) founding principles of the United Nations. It is an organisation that has been criticised even by the leader of the UN himself for bias against Israel.

The Council has essentially been hijacked by the OIC (Organisation of the Islamic conference, an international body representing the interests of Muslim-majority countries worldwide).

We had thought the recent (and welcome) addition of the United States – which voted against this resolution – would have provided a degree of balance. We were clearly mistaken.

The UNHRC’s main purpose under its present stewardship appears to be to create distracting ‘victimology’ initiatives such as this one, in order to deflect from the fact that a substantial proportion of the world’s most serious human rights abuses are in fact committed by its own members.

unhrc.jpg


Click
 
...it helps to keep America's global power in check.

DISCUSS.

the U.N. is practically useless

and DEFINITELY shows an anti-American bias.....


I would only endorse the u.n.'s existance if
a. it became MUCH more forceful in policing the planet
and
2. MUCH more fair to the U.S.
 
...it helps to keep America's global power in check.

DISCUSS.
It can't keep any nation's power in check, let alone the US, unless we are forgetting all the wars and genocides that have occurred since the UN's founding in 1945, that is even if you exclude (which I wouldn't) the cold war conflicts between the USSR, USA and China.
 
Is the UN better than nothing?

IMHO, it does serve one purpose: as a single location for nations to scrutinize the behaviour of their own nation and others.

In a microcosim, it is your Home Owners Association.

If my neighbor's dog is shitting on the yard, and I wanna be a cowardly bitch, I can write a letter to the HOA. Likewise, if Mexico's dog is shitting in Arizona, the USA can write a letter to the UN.
 
The UN is powerless. It is what you call a paper tiger. Its usefullness is twofold.

One is to bring spies into this country with diplomatic immunity.

The other it gives all those small countries a voice in the affairs of the world. They feel they belong if they have a voice. In reality they have no power. Look at all the boycots and stuff they pass. Everybody ignores it anyway.
 

Forum List

Back
Top