Thursday, June 21, 2012
Anee Bayefsky lambastes the useless UN and notes it's pandering to dictators and Israel bashing. Why are we a member of this useless organization. Western countries should cut all funding to these racists. Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, has long been familiar with this UN modus operandi. The Human Rights Council — created in 2006 as the new and improved version of the UN Human Rights Commission that once sported Libya as its President — has adopted resolutions and decisions condemning specific states for human rights violations. Forty-one percent of them have been directed at Israel alone. By contrast, there has been no resolution about Saudi Arabia, which this week again beheaded someone for sorcery, witchcraft and adultery. Nor has there been a single resolution on China, where fleeing to the American embassy during a visit of the U.S. Secretary of State is the most viable option for a human rights activist wanting to leave the country. Navi Pillay’s decision to target Canada in this go-round was, therefore, entirely in character. She is perhaps best known for having questioned the legality of the killing of Osama Bin Laden within hours of his death. She is also the lead champion of the Durban “anti-racism” declaration, and remained glued to her chair during the second Durban Conference — while diplomats from democratic states walked out en masse when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad questioned the veracity of the Holocaust. The tragedy of the contorted view of human rights applied by UN officials anxious to impress UN majorities — Pillay’s term was renewed just a few weeks ago — is that Canada is a true friend of human rights at home and abroad. Over the years, regardless of party, Canadian representatives have never argued that Canada is above reproach and cannot do better. Not only has Canada been generous with human rights-related dollars on many fronts, for decades it has taken the lead at the UN itself on central human rights issues ranging from freedom of expression to Iran. Today’s UN “human rights” system, therefore, poses a serious challenge for democracies wanting to move forward, a challenge requiring a fundamental rethinking of international priorities, institutional commitments, and new organizations fit for the 21st century.