Sarkozy Demands UN Reform: Islamic Countries Defend Iran's Human Rights: UN Protects Islam

French President Nicolas Sarkozy told the UN it desperately needed reform, and the organization would get nowhere by requiring "consensus" on the very issues that plague it. The unspoken message is you can't demand human rights from Islamic countries, unless you accept that sharia law will be the norm, and as a consequence, there will be no human rights as recognized by any Western population. While Sarkozy was speaking out, the UN was conducting their every-4-year review of all member countries and their human rights, and there is barely a peep from the U.S.

Reject the U.N.

Of the United Nations member states, 88 countries are fully free - only 46%, out of 192 member states. Of U.N. action against Human Rights, the council has taken action against Israel 96 times. The next highest actions have gone to the Sudan with 46 actions. Iran has had fewer human rights actions than the United States of America.

The U.N.'s own "expert on torture" Manfred Nowak, an Austrian human rights attorney, says human rights are in more peril now than ever before, with the the U.N. supposedly watching over them. A report detailing secret detentions and secret prisons around the globe included 66 countries. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and African states postponed the release of the report. Nowak said the report is not being taken seriously.

The Human Rights Council is subverted though bloc voting. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) members vote in a bloc to further Islam within the U.N. In other words, they always vote with each other. With this control, there will be no such thing as real human rights championed with the United Nations.

The U.N.'s universal periodic review process, conducted every four years, is once again trying to determine which countries might be abusing the human rights of their own people. Iran submitted a 31-page report supporting their benevolence to the Iranian people. There was "interactive dialogue," with about 60 states weighing in on Iran.

Nicaragua sees Iran, along with themselves, as the victims of Western imperialism, and cautioned that the international community should not impose their own ideals, principles and cultural values of others. According to Nicaragua, we must accept that Islamic countries are obliged to respect sharia law.

Venezuela praised Iran despite the inequities imposed on the country by the West.

Cuba echoed Venezuela.

Pakistan encourage Iran to protect their citizens and said "no country in the world can claim a blemish-free human rights records."

Algeria criticized the universal review process for the  lack of objectivity and singling out Iran.

The head of the High Council for Human Rights, Mohammed Larijani, declared that no Iranians were being held for their political views (but fails to mention those dead over the last year for protesting the regime's brutality and election fraud).

A delegation member said "the implementation of certain sentences may seem unpleasant at first sight," but Iranian "social conditions" required them.

Iranian Human Rights

Three countries, Senegal, Mexico and Pakistan will now prepare a report - and 4 years from now Iran will go through the process again, and the Human Rights Commission will have done nothing to protect the Human Rights of the people of Iran.

The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee is led by Jean Ziegler, who only 4 months about Pan Am flight 103 blew-up in the skies over Lockerbee, Scotland, announced an "annual" Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize in Tripoli and declared that the United States is an "imperialistic dictatorship" committing "genocide" (and Barack Obama wasn't even in office yet).

The uniting of nations now has Libya as the U.N. General Assembly president, the Sudan, China and Russia are vice-presidents. Algeria chairs the Legal Committee and Iran serves as vice-chair.

Of Sarkozy's lament about an ineffectual U.N., Heritage Foundation writer Brett Schaefer says the French has stepped up, and the U.S. under Barack Obama has stepped down.

Discovering Kryptonite, Disabling Superman

Barack Obama's none-too-subtle globalist tendencies, and the U.N.'s enraptured enchantment with Islam will fit each other like a silken glove. How does America refuse to race down this dangerous super-highway? How do we expose the U.N.'s capitulation to Arab nations wanting Israel destroyed? How has the free world allowed this to happen? How does the corruption in the U.N. become a pressing issue to Americans? How do we get the American taxpayer to listen to, and recognize, the truth?

General Assembly Ignored Sudan, But Condemned Israel 22 Times

The countless anti-Israel resolutions and related debates consume an astonishing proportion of the UN community's precious resources. This year, during the 61th Session of the General Assembly (2006-2007), the time spent by ambassadors on enacting the 22nd anti-Israel resolution of the year was time not spent on passing a single resolution on Sudan's genocide in Darfur.

Anne Bayefsky, writing for National Review Online, looks at the future of U.S.-U.N. relations with Obama in the Oval Office, and looks back at the mistakes of George W. Bush.

 U.N. American Agenda National Review Online by Anne Bayefsky

 Nobody is happier about the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency of the United States than the folks at the United Nations. It is as if they finally discovered kryptonite, and Superman will soon be disabled.


 The U.N. is an uncomplicated place. Every sick, unsatiated tyrant, European has-been, or miserable wretch brainwashed about the Great Satan wants to take America down – unless they are able to immigrate of course. Their modus operandi? The United Nations.


The beauty of it, from the perspective of the majority, is that Americans are paying for their own demise. Americans are even convinced that the flagellation must be deserved. President Obama will take over from where what might be called “Bush III” left off. The foreign policy of Bush II was so different than that of the man currently in office, it’s hard to ascribe them to the same human being.


 Even die-hard U.N. enthusiasts admit they were pleased with many aspects of the American-UN relationship over the last few years, particularly after Bush III fed Bush II’s U.N. ambassador John Bolton to the wolves.


Ongoing genocide in Darfur was shuffled off to the ponderous International Criminal Court. The Israel-Lebanon war was “solved” with a Security Council resolution. The U.N. reform package, and any serious effort at economic oversight after Kofi Annan’s Oil-for-food scandal, was tossed out the window. The green light was given to a multi-billion dollar renovation of U.N. headquarters in midtown Manhattan, notwithstanding advice that it could have done for a fraction of the cost.


Efforts to tie reform or accountability to American U.N. contributions were abandoned, and five billion a year flows smoothly from American taxpayers to U.N. bank accounts. On November 13, 2008, Bush III will chum around with Saudi mobster King Abdullah at U.N. premises in New York. The occasion is a Saudi-initiated event on “a culture of peace” which a U.N. spokesperson describes as “religious dialogue, plus.” The spectacle completes the Bush III metamorphosis.


Think back to the image of Christian American soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia in order to protect the country from Saddam Hussein, but forced to hide the crosses around their necks because their public display is a criminal act in the Kingdom? Bush III notwithstanding, President Obama will have what his friends will call an unprecedented opportunity to tie American foreign policy to the U.N. ship of state, lance it down, and sail off into the sunset, never to be separated again. The predicament of the Saudi wife would be an apt comparison.


 The U.N. apparatus has mapped out the priorities for President Obama’s early days in office (taking it for granted he’ll be hightailing it out of Iraq), and the only question is how fast President Obama will say:
 “I do.” Here’s the plan now sitting on the President-elect’s desk: Run for election to the U.N. Human Rights Council as a vote of confidence in the U.N. “human rights” apparatus and the ability to change it from the inside. (Forget that the U.S. would have one vote, that the Western regional group of states is overwhelmingly outnumbered, and that reform of an agency serving the human rights abusers is the last:


 thing of interest to the abusers firmly in control.) Decide to participate in the Durban II “anti-racism” conference in April 2009, and send along a high-level emissary such as the Secretary of State. It would be hard to run for re-election to the Human Rights Council without attending the Council’s number-one priority, which is scheduled to take place shortly before the election. (Ignore that Durban II is a unredeemable and dangerous fraud. It adopts an anti-racism mantra to foment racism, the demonization:


 of Israel and the defeat of free speech.) Revitalize the Middle East Quartet, which drives the Arab-Israeli conflict through a multilateral prism with the U.N. as a full and equal partner. (Dismiss the fact that the U.N. partner always weighs in on just one side of the conflict, adopting the predetermined:


 position that Israel is the “root” of the problem and any Arab “peace” proposal is the solution.) Put Israel on the chopping block. “Israel first” has long been the calling card of the UN. The U.N. governing principle is this: “if only Israel did x, y, and z,” (the list to be expanded in response to successive Arab no’s), animus against the West would cease, terrorism would stop, the messiah would appear, and there would be no more war. (This might be called the “ass-backwards approach to Middle East politics,” since Israel is actually on the front line of the war against democracy and America’s way of life, not:


 bringing up the rear. Serving up an Israeli hors d’oeuvre is just that – first course.) Drive the effort to stop terrorism through the 2006 United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. (The strategy contains no definition of terrorism since U.N. members can’t agree on what counts as terrorism. It inverts priorities by focusing first and foremost on alleged “conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism,” such as “poverty” and “youth unemployment” “religious discrimination” and “socio-economic marginalization.” Plain old Jew-hatred or enmity of freedom and equality are mysteriously absent from:


 the list of causes.) Agree to some form of global taxation, giving rise to an even more powerful, wealthy, and undemocratic U.N. fiefdom (and a poorer America). All that remains is for President Obama to put a date beside each one of the items on the U.N.’s first “to do” list. And down we’ll go.


— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org

Related and Background:
The Angst of Supporting Israel - See the history of Israel's borders here.
Who and What are Palestinians?

Young Jewish Man Carries Israeli Flag in LA Muslim Street Protest - Video

Flotilla War Atmosphere before Israel Boarded: Martyrdom Sought

Israel Protects Right to Search Ships Bound for Gaza: IDF Video

Susan Rice Skips U.N. Debate: Rice Vacations - She's still "Wildly Ineffective

Rupert Murdock: U.S., European Survival Without Israel

Without Support, What Happens to Israel?
Golda Meir: War and Wisdom

The Flight from Fact: Maddening Realities
About that Two-State Solution
How the Gaza Tunnels into Egypt Work
Discovering Kryptonite, Disabling Superman
United Nations Condemns Hamas - Gotcha!
United Nations Seal Condemnation of Israel

In a class of its own:
Gaza Flotilla Terror Choir: We Con the World Video

The New Deceptive Spin at the U.N.: Re-tooling Racism

The United Nations has re-tooled the word "racism" and replaced it with the epigrammatical: "contemporary racism". Under the guise of "contemporary racism," the U.N.'s Human Rights Council is taking care of its darling, Islam, and why not, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) runs things there in The Council. Resolution 2002/9 mentions "fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion...," but it does not mention any religion by name except Islam. Within Islam, there is always distinction as to sex and other religions. Nowhere in this Resolution does it mention the rapes in Darfur, the beheadings in Iraq, Iran's chant to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, or honor killings here in the U.S. within Muslim families. Here are quotes from the Resolution:

Alarmed at the impact of the events of 11 September 2001 on Muslim minorities and communities in some non-Muslim countries and the negative projection of Islam, Muslim values and traditions by the media, as well as at the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims, Also expresses deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and with terrorism; Notes with concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities, in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; Expresses its concern at any role in which the print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means are used to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam and any other religion;

The Bush administration is fighting this effort to hush us, and they have done so before and failed. Islam dominates. The Washington Times quotes U.S. officials, "under the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic:"

...they hope to persuade moderate Muslim nations - among them Senegal, Mali, Nigeria and Indonesia - to reject the measure, which lacks the force of law but has provided diplomatic cover for regimes that repress critical speech.

Sources referred to as "religious rights groups" say that much of the language within other U.N. "measures, including statements...replicate the language of the resolution:"

Now we are seeing a clear attempt by OIC countries to mainstream the concept and insert it into just about every other topic they can," Miss Gaer said. "They are turning freedom of expression into restriction of expression.

This Resolution is renewed each year. Each year the West votes against it. Each year, the West loses.

*****

U.N. Human Rights Council Considers Religious Defamation Ban by Holger Awakens

So, what in the world does a United Nations Human Rights Council's " religious defamation resolution" mean, exactly? Let's look at how it is described here at One News Now:

The United Nations' Human Rights Council has launched a new session and will consider a controversial resolution to declare religious defamation illegal. The resolution is really designed to permit countries with a dominant religion, such as Islam, to squelch any free-speech rights of religious minorities, according to Bill Saunders of the Family Research Council (FRC). "So for instance, in some Muslim countries, it's considered blasphemy to just say what a Christian believes -- because that is inconsistent with what Islam teaches," Saunders explains. "Or, to try to switch from Islam to Christianity, that's considered apostasy, and in those situations you can be punished by death."

Got that? What this means is that if the U.N. resolution passes and then is passed by the U.N. General Assembly, it will be ILLEGAL to practice any other religion in an islamic country other than Islam. So, if you are a Christian in Saudi Arabia, you would not be able to legally practice your religion, speak about your religion, or gather to hold worship - even in a room in your house. This isn't just a matter of freedom of religion...it is that of free speech. As far as I know, this resolution is unprecedented in the arena of international government. More from the article:

The Human rights Council is dominated by Muslim countries. The resolution is also expected to be submitted to the United Nations General Assembly. "The idea that free speech should be so restricted is a very dangerous one," Saunders adds.

I have spoken here at Holger Awakens for a very long time how world domination is the goal of Islam and that in fact, Islam is simply NOT a religion. It is a violent political ideology and if you read the Qur'an, it is plain to see that world domination is as important in this ideology as is any entrace to a spiritual afterlife. The vast majority of those representatives on this farce of an international body, called the U.N. Human Rights Council, are from islamic countries. They have pushed the envelope before and this will be just another example of that. All this does is seek to legitimize, in the eyes of the world, the punishments the islamists can dole out for those who don't kneel and submit to allah. Bottom line is this...if you live in a islam-dominated country, you had better decide to worship the likes of the pedophile prophet Mohammed or you will end up in prison or hanging from the end of a rope dangling from a crane. Now, I'm sure the Human Rights Council will make some sort of exception to this resolution so a Christian-dominated America could not make the worship of islam in America illegal. It will be interesting to see how they work around that possible angle. But as is always the case, the United Nations has put up another example of how literally corrupt that organization is - with hundreds of countries in this world still violating the human rights of individuals, this Council has nothing else to do but make sure all of their islamic terrorist friends have a further weapon to persecute religious freedom in their homelands. This is the year 2008 folks, and we are seeing the highest international governing body in the entire world considering a resolution that would reflect the conditions in the Middle Ages. Unbelievable.

Islam still seeking religious domination The United Nations' Human Rights Council has launched a new session and will consider a controversial resolution to declare religious defamation illegal. The resolution is really designed to permit countries with a dominant religion, such as Islam, to squelch any free-speech rights of religious minorities, according to Bill Saunders of the Family Research Council (FRC). "So for instance, in some Muslim countries, it's considered blasphemy to just say what a Christian believes -- because that is inconsistent with what Islam teaches," Saunders explains. "Or, to try to switch from Islam to Christianity, that's considered apostasy, and in those situations you can be punished by death." It is debatable whether a voice for religious freedom will be heard. "Rightly so, the world objects to that kind of thing and says to these countries [that] we need to have religious freedom," Saunders contends. "And religious freedom includes the right to have any religion that you choose and to follow it." The Human rights Council is dominated by Muslim countries. The resolution is also expected to be submitted to the United Nations General Assembly. "The idea that free speech should be so restricted is a very dangerous one," Saunders adds.

End Article.