Group: U.N. rights council’s Haiti parley is “harmful diversion”

Published by
UN Watch
- at January 27, 2010 in Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 0 Comments

Today’s urgent meeting of the UN Human Rights Council regarding Haiti is “a harmful waste of the organization’s precious time, resources, and moral capital,” said a human rights watchdog group.”Haiti is certainly a dire emergency, but this council, which is supposed to address human rights violations, has no budget, authority or expertise on humanitarian aid, and is clearly the wrong forum,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a Geneva-based monitoring organization.

According to UN estimates, a day of conference and translation services costs up to $200,000. “Instead of being used for today’s questionable exercise, that money should have gone to Haiti’s needy victims,” said Neuer.

“Unlike other UN bodies, the Human Rights Council has neither the power of the purse nor of the sword, only the power to turn a spotlight on the worst abusers,” said Neuer.

“Tragically, however, the council has refused to hold special sessions to try and stop Iran from massacring student protesters, terrorists from killing civilians in Baghdad and Kabul, or China and Cuba from arresting bloggers, journalists and dissidents. Yet today it convenes — to do exactly what? Condemn the earth for quaking? It’s nonsensical.”

“Dominated by repressive regimes, the council is wasting its time on an issue that involves no violation or perpetrator. It’s a public relations exercise that diverts the Human Rights Council’s attention from examining genuine human rights abuses, and aids member states that want us to believe the council is nevertheless doing something.”

“The council was similarly misused last year with an urgent session on the financial crisis, and the year before that on the rise in food prices. Because it’s inherently the wrong forum, both meetings amounted to futile political exercises that produced nothing but paper.”

“I regret that the United States and the European Union have lent their names as co-sponsors to this equally futile exercise. It only takes the Council further away from its stated mission of protecting individual human rights, and sends the wrong message.”

The EU and other Western countries had previously demanded that all special sessions include a specific description of the human rights violations at issue (see par. 64 at p. 17 here). However, many co-sponsored today’s session despite the absence of any such description or violations.The UN titled the meeting a “Special Session on Support to recovery process in Haiti: A Human Rights approach.”For more information on previous special sessions, see below.

* * *

Background: Previous 12 UN Human Rights Council Special Sessions

From its inception in June 2006, the UN Human Rights Council has held 10 special sessions on countries, of which six were sponsored by Arab states and devoted to the one-sided condemnation of Israel, and four on the rest of the world combined. An additional two sessions were held on food and financial crises, both of which pointed an accusing finger at the West. Following is a summary.

12th special session (October 2009): Condemned Israel for alleged violations (but failed to condemn Hamas), and adopted report of UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (”Goldstone Report”).

11th special session (May 2009): Praised Sri Lankan government (ignored killing of 20,000 civilians).

10th special session (February 2009): Financial crisis (blamed the West).

9th special session (January 2009): Condemned Israel for Gaza war (ignored Hamas terrorism).

8th special session (November 2008) DR Congo (failed to reinstate investigator eliminated by council earlier in the year).

7th special session (May 2008) Food crisis (blamed the West).

6th special session (January 2008): Condemned Israel for actions in Gaza (ignored Hamas terrorism).

5th special session (October 2007): Myanmar.

4th special session (December 2006) Darfur (praised Sudan for its “cooperation”).

3rd special session (November 2006): Condemned Israel for errant shell in Beit Hanoun (ignored Hamas terrorism).

2nd special session (August 2006): Condemned Israel for Lebanon war (ignored Hezbollah terrorism).

1st special session (July 2006): Condemned Israel for responding to Gilad Shalit capture (ignored Hamas terrorism).

Why the U.N. Human Rights Council ignores IDF’s life-saving in Haiti

Published by
UN Watch
- at January 25, 2010 in Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 0 Comments

In the video below, the CNN reporter expresses amazement at the extraordinary contribution made by the Israel Defense Forces’ medical team in rescuing and healing Haiti’s earthquake victims. In human rights terms, we call it protecting the right to life and the right to health.

So why is all of this being ignored by the U.N. Human Rights Council and its legions of experts and advisers?

Does it threaten the Islamic-dominated Council’s worldview of Israel as absolutely evil, a nation capable of doing nothing good?

How my email to Goldstone was twisted by his report

Published by
Hillel Neuer
- at January 19, 2010 in Goldstone "Fact Finding" Mission for UNHRC. 0 Comments

Israeli public figures who say their country would have benefited by cooperating with the UN Human Rights Council’s “fact-finding” mission on the Gaza conflict are mistaken.

The raw malice that the Goldstone Report evinces toward Israel, the one party about which the panelists can say nothing good (as opposed to their exuberant, repeated praise for the “resilient” people of Gaza), demonstrates convincingly that the source of the imbalance lay in the UN committee’s mental structure. More information would have meant nothing. In the commissioners’ jaundiced view of the conflict, the Israeli leadership’s guilt for premeditated murder on a mass scale was taken as a philosophical given, a first premise not open to logical challenge. Continue reading ‘How my email to Goldstone was twisted by his report’

UN Committee on Rights of the Child Evaluates Israel

Published by
UN Watch
- at January 19, 2010 in International Humanitarian Law and Children's Rights. 0 Comments

The Committee on the Rights of the Child today evaluated Israel’s record on children’s rights.

Israel’s delegation was headed by Mr. Daniel Taub, the Senior Deputy Legal Advisor of Israel’s Foreign Ministry. It also included Mrs. Simona Halperin, Director of the International Organizations and Human Rights Department at the Foreign Ministry; Mrs. Hila Gilad Tenne, Director of the Department for International Agreements and Litigation of the Ministry of Justice; and Mr. Harel Weinberg, legal advisor of the Ministry of Defense.

The Committee questioned the panel on military recruitment policies, the situation of children in Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan, and on Operation Cast Lead. Committee member Ms. Hadeel Al-Asmar of Syria asked, “Do you actually systematically collect data on the impact on children of armed conflict?” She expressed “regret” and “deep concern” that the report “only provide[s] details on Israeli children, not on the children in the Occupied Palestinian Territories who are so deeply affected by hostilities.”

Israel said that that every day Israeli children are victimized by Hamas rocket attacks that deliberately target civilians. Taub added that the death of any child, Israeli or Palestinian is a tragedy, and that Israel “strives constantly to develop solutions to difficult humanitarian questions.” He emphasized that it is an “unfortunate fact that a large number of youngsters are involved in terrorist activities. The age of suicide-bombers has dropped, and, due to their small size, children are used to build tunnels.”

The Committee consistently interrupted the panel with questions about Israel’s treatment of Palestinian children. The Israeli delegation noted Hamas’s record of protecting child rights, including teaching terrorist ideology, enrolling children in terrorist training camps, and using children as human shields.

The Committee repeatedly questioned the delegation on conscription of minors into the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), in spite of Halperin’s assertion that “voluntary recruits under the age of eighteen cannot take part in combat duty. Only those trained in combat can take part in combat, and in no way can a person under eighteen be trained in combat.”

Furthermore, in response to the Committee’s allegations that the IDF employed human shields during Operation Cast Lead, the panel emphasized that “all IDF personnel receive training in human rights and international humanitarian law and are expressly prohibited from using civilians as human shields or directly involving them in operations in any way.”

Though the Committee members were charged only with evaluating Israel’s record of protecting and promoting children’s rights, commitee member Rosa Maria Ortiz of Paraguay asked, “If this is true, that all IDF soldiers receive human rights training, how do you explain your actions in Operation Cast Lead?”

Taub replied that Israel seeks constantly to find solutions to the toughest humanitarian questions, that it aims to protect civilian life at almost any cost, and that, most of all, it strives for peace in the region, so that children today, and in the future, no longer have to fear for their lives.

Then: Guardian Newspaper Slammed ‘Richard-Richard’ Goldstone Inquiry as ‘Rubbish Bin’

Published by
Hillel Neuer
- at January 10, 2010 in Goldstone "Fact Finding" Mission for UNHRC and Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 1 Comment

That the U.N.’s Goldstone Report on alleged war crimes in Gaza is a travesty of justice is apparent from its skewed contents, method, and conclusions, as well as its tainted political framwework, one-sided mandate, and prejudiced mission members. Continue reading ‘Then: Guardian Newspaper Slammed ‘Richard-Richard’ Goldstone Inquiry as ‘Rubbish Bin’’

UN Watch Calls on UN to Remove Richard Falk for Breaching Mandate

Published by
UN Watch
- at December 31, 2009 in Richard Falk. 1 Comment

Geneva, December 31, 2009 - UN Watch, the Geneva-based watchdog organization, today called on UN chief Ban Ki-Moon to remove Richard Falk, the UN Human Rights Council’s permanent investigator of alleged Israeli violations, for breaching his mandate when he called this week for world sanctions against Israel and compared Israelis to Nazis. The full letter follows below. Continue reading ‘UN Watch Calls on UN to Remove Richard Falk for Breaching Mandate’

UN’s 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Compares Gaza to World War II, Call for Israel Boycott

Published by
Hillel Neuer
- at December 31, 2009 in Richard Falk. 0 Comments

The UN’s permanent investigator of alleged Israeli human rights violations said this week that “desperation created in Gaza as a result of [Israel’s] blockade” is something “that no people since the end of World War II have experienced in such a severe and continuing form,” and he called for economic sanctions against Israel, a demand that is entirely beyond his UN mandate and a measure which no other UN investigator recommends for any other country.

Richard Falk’s thinly veiled comparison of the Jewish state with Nazi Germany would not be his first. In 2007, Falk accused Israel of planning a “Holocaust” against the Palestinians.  

Falk is also a major American supporter of the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job.

Islamic states reveal: “We created the Goldstone Report”

Published by
Hillel Neuer
- at December 25, 2009 in Goldstone "Fact Finding" Mission for UNHRC. 2 Comments

Soon, on January 12, 2010, we will mark the one-year anniversary of the UNHRC special session and resolution that commissioned the Goldstone Report. It’s a time to remember who orchestrated the “fact-finding” exercise.

The 57-nation Organization of the Islamic  Conference (OIC), which effectively controls the UNHRC, is being far more honest about this than Goldstone. Here’s what OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu revealed to Al Jazeera in October: Continue reading ‘Islamic states reveal: “We created the Goldstone Report”’

The Soros Connection: Leading the Goldstone Lobby

Published by
Hillel Neuer
- at December 24, 2009 in Goldstone "Fact Finding" Mission for UNHRC and Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 0 Comments

A closely intertwined network of organizations and individuals has been leading the U.S. lobby for the UN’s Goldstone Report, the poorly written and egregiously one-sided document that overtly proclaims, Goldstone’s protestations notwithstanding, that any self-defence by the Israel Defence Forces is an exercise in “futility” (see par. 1914).

The lobbyists all seem to have one thing in common: they are all funded by, or connected to, financier George Soros. Speculation by some bloggers in November can now be confirmed in greater detail. Continue reading ‘The Soros Connection: Leading the Goldstone Lobby’

Readers comment on UN Watch’s New York Times letter on Swiss minaret ban

Published by
UN Watch
- at December 22, 2009 in Swiss minaret ban, Ad Hoc Ctte on Complementary Standards and "Defamation of Religion". 6 Comments

Letter to the Editor, The New York Times, December 19, 2009:

Re “Europe’s Minaret Moment,” by Ross Douthat (column, Dec. 7): We, part of the Geneva human rights community, are particularly embarrassed by Switzerland’s vote to ban minarets and will work energetically toward its speedy repeal.

Paradoxically, the most intolerant Islamists are likely to be strengthened by this act of bigotry, not weakened. Acts of intolerance by Western countries provide justification for banning religious freedom in Muslim countries.

These efforts have found expression at the United Nations Human Rights Council, where an Algerian-headed committee is advocating changes to an international covenant on discrimination to grant Islamic governments free rein to silence dissenters in the name of a supposed human right against “defamation of religion.” But questioning or criticism of Islamic orthodoxies by individuals - religious dissenters, human rights activists or journalists - is protected speech, and an essential part of religious and political freedom.

What a pity that Switzerland’s minaret folly - which, at the least, discourages religious expression by individuals - may end up hurting non-Muslim minorities in the Mideast as well as liberal Muslims. The overt banning of Muslim structures by a government is wrongful discrimination.

Hillel C. Neuer
Executive Director, U.N. Watch
Geneva, Dec. 11, 2009

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/opinion/l19minaret.html

50 Rights Groups Urge UN to Reinstate Congo Monitor

Published by
UN Watch
- at December 22, 2009 in Congo. 0 Comments

“The UN Human Rights Council must assume its responsibilities”

Geneva, Dec. 22, 2009 - Fifty human rights groups from around the world today united in calling on UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay to reinstate the mandate for a human rights monitor in Congo, saying the position should never have been eliminated by the UN Human Rights Council in March 2008. Continue reading ‘50 Rights Groups Urge UN to Reinstate Congo Monitor’

Rights Group: New Report Shows UN Rights Council Shielding Worst Abusers, “Foxes Guarding the Chickens”

Published by
UN Watch
- at December 10, 2009 in Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 0 Comments

U.S. Urged to Reject HRC Resolutions in Today’s General Assembly Vote                          

NEW YORK, December 10 - As the UN General Assembly was set today to approve the Human Rights Council’s past year of resolutions, a Geneva-based human rights watchdog called on the U.S. and other democracies to vote in opposition, and claimed in a report that 18 of its key resolutions were contrary to basic human rights principles. Click here for 2009 UNHRC Key Actions chart.

“Paradoxically, as our report today shows, the U.N.’s main human rights body has turned into the world’s leading sponsor of impunity for gross human rights abuses worldwide,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. Continue reading ‘Rights Group: New Report Shows UN Rights Council Shielding Worst Abusers, “Foxes Guarding the Chickens”’

North Korea defiant amid harsh UN criticism

Published by
UN Watch
- at December 9, 2009 in Universal Periodic Review (UPR), North Korea (DPRK) and Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 0 Comments

On December 7, North Korea underwent the Universal Period Review (UPR), a process which involves a review of the human rights records of all 192 UN Member States once every four years.  North Korea has become a country of special interest for the UPR process because of several reports submitted to the UN concerning the country’s grave human rights violations, including torture, forced labor camps, public execution, and violence against children and women. 

During the three hour review process, North Korea denied the existence of all human rights violations, despite Western state concerns of North Korea’s current human rights situation.  North Korea claimed the concerns were the result of bias and “unfair resolutions” regarding their country, which are discussed every year at the Human Rights Council. Several delegations spoke in support of the North Korean government. Continue reading ‘North Korea defiant amid harsh UN criticism’

U.S. nominee to UN rights council pledges to eliminate anti-Israel agenda item, refocus on “real abusers”

Published by
UN Watch
- at December 2, 2009 in Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 3 Comments

GENEVA, December 2, 2009 – Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch welcomed Congressional testimony delivered yesterday (see selected portions below) by the Obama Administration’s nominee as next U.S. ambassador to the UN Human Rights Council, in which she denounced the 47-nation body for its “bias” and being “fixated on Israel,” and pledged to eliminate the council’s controversial standing agenda item on Israel, saying this would be a “priority” of the Obama Administration.

“Israel is the only country that has a standing item on the agenda at the council. That’s a problem. We will work to get rid of that,” said Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe yesterday, in testimony before a Senate hearing. She criticized the council’s general focus on Israel to the exclusion of most other countries. “It is a bias. It’s unbalanced, and that is a priority of this administration going forward to work to get rid of that bias.”

Dr. Donahoe spoke of “changing the agenda, putting the most egregious human rights violators on the agenda and changing the focus of the council to the real abusers. And that will be the number one goal.” Continue reading ‘U.S. nominee to UN rights council pledges to eliminate anti-Israel agenda item, refocus on “real abusers”’

U.N. rights chief says criticism of Israel-bashing council is ‘propaganda’

Published by
Hillel Neuer
- at November 24, 2009 in Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 0 Comments

Criticism of the U.N. human Rights Council’s problematic record — where there have been more condemnatory resolutions, special sessions and fact-finding missions against Israel than on the whole world combined — is “propaganda,” UN rights chief Navi Pillay told the Irish Times.

The decision by the Obama administration to reverse a Bush- era boycott of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), despite “propaganda which portrayed the council as biased and a venue for bashing Israel”, was, Pillay says, of great significance.

Key members of the 47-nation body include China, Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Despite their poor records on human rights, none has ever been condemned by a council resolution, scrutinized by a fact-finding inquiry, or made the object of a special country investigator.

Pillay then praised Ireland’s vote as one of the few EU states to support the Goldstone Report and its lopsided findings favoring Hamas over Israel:

Pillay praises Ireland’s support for a recent UN resolution calling for investigations into allegations that war crimes were committed during the January conflict in Gaza. “I agree with Ireland’s reasoning that the call for investigation is a legitimate call. “If someone robs you on the street, you want an investigation, an identification of the suspect and a prosecution. Where societies have taken that route - my country’s truth and reconciliation commission, for instance - you find that there has been a management of the passions that arise from victims’ calls about injustice.” Pillay stresses the importance of the Goldstone report on the Gaza conflict - which prompted the UN resolution - because it is grounded in international law. “Whatever the justification to go to war is, you cannot use disproportionate violence and you cannot target civilians,” she says.

We at UN Watch will continue to urge the United Nations and its human rights council to return to the founding principles of Eleanor Roosevelt and Rene Cassin, and to call them out when, led by Qaddafi, Castro and Co., they veer off track. People in responsible positions should consider confronting the council’s egregious bias, and getting it to address millions of currently ignored victims, instead of shooting at the messengers.

When Pakistan announced the Palestinian situation is “not a human rights issue”

Published by
Hillel Neuer
- at November 23, 2009 in Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 0 Comments

Only three years old, the wayward U.N. Human Rights Council is already the subject of a new international discussion on reform. When the 47-nation body was created by the U.N. General Assembly in March 2006, a review was called for after 5 years, in 2011.

In advance, a group convened by France and Mexico (whose former ambassador served as the inaugural council president, and famously slammed me here) has just held the first of a series of planned meetings: Continue reading ‘When Pakistan announced the Palestinian situation is “not a human rights issue”’

GA adopts outcome document of Durban Review Conference

Published by
UN Watch
- at November 23, 2009 in General Assembly, Sudan, Third Committee, Racism, Antisemitism and Durban 2009. 0 Comments

On November 23, Sudan, on behalf of the Group of 77, introduced in the General Assembly’s Third Committee a resolution on the adoption of the Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference.  The Conference was held in Geneva from April 20 - 24, 2009, and is best remembered by the dozens of democracies that walked out during Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s controversial opening address. 

The delegation of Israel called for the vote, explaining that her government refused to afford credibility to a process that was “obsessed” with the Middle East.  The text was initially adopted with 161 countries in favor, 6 against, and 12 abstaining. 

After the vote, however, the delegation of the Russian Federation raised a point of order to note that their “yes” had been recorded as an abstention; they then requested a new vote.  The United States responded that it was “highly unusual” for a new vote to be recorded, asking under what rule of procedure the Committee would be acting.  The Chair replied that although it was, indeed, unusual, the rules do not prohibit the retaking of votes.  Furthermore, in previous demands for a new vote, the requesting delegation had pressed the wrong button.  As the Russian delegation had insisted that he had pressed the correct button, the Chair deemed it acceptable to grant a re-vote.  However, the United States argued that because the delegation had not requested a reconsideration of the resolution, a second vote would be invalid. 

The Chair decided to hold another vote, and the final count was 163 in favor, 5 against, and 9 abstaining.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the Russian Federation, changed their votes from abstentions to “yes.”  The Marshall Islands, which initially voted “no” was absent during the second vote, as was Macedonia, which had voted “yes” originally.

Canada was one of five nations to refuse to vote for the Durban Outcome Document (the other four were Australia, Israel, the Netherlands, and the United States.)  The Canadian representative explained that the language in the text reaffirmed the outcome document of the first Durban Conference in 2001, and that his government would not lend its approval to such a politicized process.  Moreover, the delegation argued that references in the document to the Middle East bore no relevancy to the fight against intolerance.

The other five countries that walked out of the Conference, namely Germany, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, Poland and Italy, all abstained.  They were joined by Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, Romania and Tonga.

In a general statement on the resolution, the delegation of Israel remarked that “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.”  Israel argued that the 2001 Durban Conference “had descended in a brazen display of anti-Semitic racism,” and the promotion of racist agendas.  The representative of Israel further explained that they had initially decided to reserve judgment on the General Assembly’s decision to convene the Durban Review Conference; that they had realized the Conference’s potential to rectify the wrongs of 2001, but that these hopes had been misplaced.  Though Israel acknowledged the importance of various elements of the Review, the Conference had, nevertheless, reaffirmed the 2001 Durban Declaration.  The delegation explained that Israel was “fully committed to address, in a professional manner, the scourge of racism, xenophobia and intolerance,” but that it could not support a document that endorsed the 2001 Durban Declaration.

GA endorses HRC Report

Published by
UN Watch
- at November 23, 2009 in General Assembly, Third Committee and Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 0 Comments

On November 23, the General Assembly’s Third Committee adopted the Report of the Human Rights Council, introduced by Zambia for the African Group, and covering the period of March through May 2009.  Unlike last year’s resolution, which was approved by a vote of 117 in favor, 5 against and 55 abstaining, this year’s text was adopted by consensus. 

There was a subtle, but important, difference in wording between last year’s resolution and the current one, which enabled this year’s consensus.  Last year’s text “takes note of the report of the Human Rights Council, and endorses the recommendations contained therein.” 

The resolution just adopted, however, “Takes note of the report of the Human Rights Council and acknowledges the recommendations contained therein.”  In 2008, Australia, Canada, Israel, Palau, and the United States voted against the resolution.  An affirmative vote would have signified that their governments endorsed the recommendations contained within the report.  The abstaining nations, while not flatly rejecting the recommendations through a negative vote, also would not positively endorse them.  This year’s resolution, however, did not require active endorsement on the part of state governments.  To acknowledge the recommendations is to accept that they exist, without the obligation to support their provisions.

The representative of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the European Union, explained that the group had joined consensus on the resolution despite their belief that the wording of the resolution brought “no added value.”  Furthermore, the delegation expressed its concern that there had been no informal consultations on the draft, and that the text’s co-sponsors had not provided Member States with adequate time to consider the resolution.

Although Israel joined consensus on the draft, it expressed concern that the work of the Council, as well as its methods, is biased and prejudiced, focusing disproportionately on the Middle East.  By joining consensus, Israel hoped that the Council would improve its treatment of human rights.

GA condemns Burma, DPRK, Iran

Published by
UN Watch
- at November 20, 2009 in General Assembly, North Korea (DPRK), Third Committee, Burma (Myanmar) and Iran. 0 Comments

On Thursday, November 19, the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee adopted a resolution that “strongly condemns the ongoing systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of Myanmar,” with 92 countries voting in favor, 26 voting against, and 65 abstaining.  Sweden, representing the European Union, as the main sponsor of this resolution, explained “there are still over 2,000 prisoners of conscience in Myanmar, including Aung San Suu Kyi, who remains in house arrest.  Fundamental freedoms in Myanmar, including the freedom of assembly and expression, remain severely restricted.”

The Third Committee also approved a resolution expressing “very serious concern at the persistence of continuing reports of systematic, widespread and grave violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.”  97 nations voted in favor of the resolution, 19 voted against, and 65 abstained.  Sweden, for the European Union, was also this resolution’s main sponsor.  In its statement, it criticized the government of the DPRK for “the grave, widespread, and systematic violations of human rights” and noted that “the DPRK has made no substantial effort to meet earlier requests made by the international community.”

On Friday, November 20, a draft resolution on the human rights situation in Iran was approved by a vote of 74 in favor to 48 against, with 59 abstentions.  Before voting on the resolution, Canada, as the main sponsor, explained:

“What is routine is Iran’s consistent failure to live up to its international human rights obligations.  These failings were only made all the more evident following the June 12th presidential election when the use of force by Iranian security forces resulted in the death, injury and arrest of many individuals, when many of those who were detained were subject to torture and denied access to legal representation, when freedom of association, assembly and expression were drastically curtailed.”

Iran, however, argued that the draft text represented an example of an “unhealthy and dangerous trend” of politicization and abuse of human rights mechanisms.  After the vote, Iran considered the abstentions and absences to represent, alongside the “no” votes, support for Iran. 

Additionally, on November 19, the representative of Zambia, on behalf of the African Group, introduced a draft decision on the Report of the Human Rights Council.  The Committee will likely be taking action on this resolution within the next few days.

Wall Street Journal: UN Watch takes on Islamist U.N. assault on free speech

Published by
UN Watch
- at November 19, 2009 in Ad Hoc Ctte on Complementary Standards, Anti-Semitism and "Defamation of Religion". 0 Comments

Yesterday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal Asia (page 18) published the following two letters to the editor, by U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley and by UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer. Both were in response to a Nov. 5th editorial entitled “Hillary vs. State,” which critiqued the U.S. co-sponsorship with Egypt of a UN resolution concerning freedom of speech. For an excellent in-depth summary of the issue, see The Dangerous Idea of Protecting Religions from “Defamation”  by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. *** Continue reading ‘Wall Street Journal: UN Watch takes on Islamist U.N. assault on free speech’

OIC defends “defamation of religion” proposal in letter to UN

Published by
UN Watch
- at November 12, 2009 in Ad Hoc Ctte on Complementary Standards and "Defamation of Religion". 0 Comments

After suffering heavy public criticism, the Organization of the Islamic Conference defended its proposal to ban criticism of Islam in a letter addressed to a UN committee charged with defining the norms of anti-racism. It also resorted to attacking Western countries, mentioning only Denmark, the Netherlands, and the UK as human rights violators, ignoring the suppression and oppression of religious minorities in Muslim countries. Continue reading ‘OIC defends “defamation of religion” proposal in letter to UN’

GA approves resolution aimed at combating ‘defamation of religions’

Published by
UN Watch
- at November 12, 2009 in General Assembly, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, Third Committee and "Defamation of Religion". 0 Comments

On November 12, the representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Belarus, and Venezeula, introduced in the General Assembly’s Third Committee a resolution on combating the “defamation of religions.”  The text was approved by a vote of 81 in favor to 55 against, with 43 abstentions.

The draft introduced by the OIC noted with deep concern “the serious instances of intolerance, discrimination, acts of violence based on religion or belief… particularly [against] Muslim minorities… that threaten to impede their full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”  In that respect, it expressed concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations.

Among the 55 countries voting against the resolution were the United States, Canada, Australia, Israel, all the EU states, and other democracies.  Sweden, on behalf of the EU, said they shared the OIC’s concern that people were “routinely victimized on the grounds of religion or belief,” but they could not agree with the concept of “defamation of religion” as a response to such discrimination, because it would “limit freedom of expression and might endanger the atmosphere of tolerance that would enable people of different religions or beliefs to coexist without fear.” 

The United States representative lamented that the “increasingly splintered view on this text” did not adequately reflect the views of every state.  He went on to say that “freedom of religion was enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights… [F]reedom could not be universally achieved by imposing governmental laws regarding who could say what, when.  The United Nations must remain faithful to the central tenet of human rights law, which said that human rights were held by individuals not nations or religions.”  The representative finished his statement saying that the U.S. opposed the resolution because it would not agree that prohibiting speech was the way to promote tolerance.

Amongst the 43 countries who abstained, the representatives of Brazil and Jamaica spoke in explanation of their votes.  The representative of Brazil stated that his delegation could not support the text as tabled because it believed the concept of the “defamation of religion” needed to be addressed in such a way that was “not detrimental to other rights.”  Jamaica’s representative said the draft “should have been more balanced and not confined itself to the concerns of one religion.  It had failed to account for the violations of rights of persons of other faiths or religions.”

A coaltion of 100 human rights groups from 20 countries warned that the move would “punish the peaceful expression of disfavored political or religious beliefs and ideas.”

Brandeis debate: Did Goldstone admit UN colleague Chinkin was biased?

Published by
Hillel Neuer
- at November 6, 2009 in Goldstone "Fact Finding" Mission for UNHRC. 0 Comments

In his debate this evening with Dore Gold at Brandeis University, Judge Richard Goldstone, author of the UN report on Gaza that bears his name, conceded that the prior statement of his colleague Christine Chinkin criticizing Israel would have been sufficiently problematic as to disqualify her, but only if their UN inquiry had been considered “judicial.” Continue reading ‘Brandeis debate: Did Goldstone admit UN colleague Chinkin was biased?’

Must-See Video: Disfigured Israeli Terror Victim Confronts Goldstone in Dramatic UN Debate

Published by
UN Watch
- at November 5, 2009 in Goldstone "Fact Finding" Mission for UNHRC. 0 Comments

Gazans embroider keffiyehs with name ‘Goldstone’ and Jerusalem mosque

Published by
UN Watch
- at November 4, 2009 in Goldstone "Fact Finding" Mission for UNHRC. 0 Comments

A reflection, no doubt, of Goldstone’s balanced and fair report:

Gaza gift shop markets ‘Goldstone’ headscarves

(AFP) - Nov. 4, 2009.  JERUSALEM - South African Judge Richard Goldstone’s name may be infamous in Israel, but in the Gaza Strip it is sewn onto souvenir Palestinian headscarves in honour of his controversial war inquiry. Continue reading ‘Gazans embroider keffiyehs with name ‘Goldstone’ and Jerusalem mosque’

US Congress condemns UN Goldstone Report, 344 to 36; full text & voting breakdown

Published by
Hillel Neuer
- at November 4, 2009 in Goldstone "Fact Finding" Mission for UNHRC and Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 0 Comments

Click here for the final text of House Resolution 867, as adopted today by the U.S. Congress by a vote of 344 to 36, slamming the ignominious Goldstone Report. The roll call is below. Continue reading ‘US Congress condemns UN Goldstone Report, 344 to 36; full text & voting breakdown’

US Congress Slams Goldstone Report, Quoting 2 UN Watch Speeches

Published by
UN Watch
- at November 4, 2009 in Goldstone "Fact Finding" Mission for UNHRC. 0 Comments

Following is a press release from U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, featuring her Congressional remarks quoting the September 29 UN Watch speech to Judge Goldstone, delivered by rocket attack victim Dr. Mirela Siderer, as well as the October 16 UN Watch speech delivered by British hero Col. Richard Kemp.

(WASHINGTON) - U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, commented today on the House’s passage of H. Res. 867, a measure she authored which expresses Congressional support for Israel and opposition to any consideration or endorsement of the “Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict,” commonly referred to as the “Goldstone Report.”  (Full remarks from the floor debate follow the press statement).  Statement by Ros-Lehtinen: Continue reading ‘US Congress Slams Goldstone Report, Quoting 2 UN Watch Speeches’

US Congressman Berman stifles Goldstone by citing UN Watch report

Published by
UN Watch
- at November 3, 2009 in Goldstone "Fact Finding" Mission for UNHRC. 0 Comments

The U.S. Congress today cited a UN Watch report when it stifled Judge Richard Goldstone’s objections to a draft resolution that slams his report for bias. US Rep. Howard Berman, Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Gary Ackerman, Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, today sent their Congress colleagues this point-by-point rejoinder of a vehement letter recently sent to Congress by Goldstone (but which had the name of “Morton Halperin,” Geroge Soros’ key adviser, listed as author on the electronic file).

The relevant section:

[Goldstone:] “3. Paragraph 5: The member concerned, Professor Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics, in the same letter, together with other leading international lawyers, also condemned as war crimes the Hamas rockets fired into Israel.”

Response: The letter Professor Chinkin signed, which was published in the British press in mid-January, did indeed accuse Hamas of war crimes. But it also accused Israel of war crimes, months before the investigation began, clearly prejudging the outcome of the investigation regarding both parties. In my view, Professor Chinkin should have been disqualified from serving on the commission, based on her having signed the letter. The UN watchdog UN Watch notes that Justice Goldstone himself admitted in an August interview that the signature “would have been grounds for disqualification” if the commission had constituted a formal judicial inquiry.

Goldstone misleads US Congress on Chinkin, contradicts previous admission

Published by
Hillel Neuer
- at November 2, 2009 in Goldstone "Fact Finding" Mission for UNHRC and Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 0 Comments

So now Judge Richard Goldstone is accusing the US Congress of being “misleading” in its draft resolution concerning his ignominious mission and report. (Turns out the letter was at least typed on the computer of George Soros spokesman Morton Halperin.) Let’s see who’s really being misleading.

Goldstone defends the colleague of his who had declared Israel guilty in advance: Continue reading ‘Goldstone misleads US Congress on Chinkin, contradicts previous admission’

President Clinton salutes UN Watch chair

Published by
UN Watch
- at November 2, 2009 in Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 0 Comments

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton sent this special video salute to UN Watch chair Alfred H. Moses on the recent occasion of his 80th birthday:

I’d like to congratulate Al Moses on his 80th birthday, and thank him again for his valuable public service both in Romania and in Cyprus when I was president. Al, I’ll never forget the crowd that greeted us in University Square in Bucharest during my visit there in 1997. And you impressed me again in 1999 when, thanks to your all-night negotiating skills and a month of shuttle diplomacy, you helped persuade the Greek and Turk Cypriots to resume talks after a two year hiatus…