Catallaxy Files

Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog

Is this the body we spent so much to get onto its Security Council?

14 comments

News from the UN:

GENEVA, Dec. 10 – UN Watch condemned today’s election of Mauritania, a country that allows 800,000 of its citizens to live as slaves, as Vice-President of the UN Human Rights Council.

In addition, the Geneva-based group also announced the failure of its yearlong campaign, with 55 MPs and NGOs, to get UNESCO to remove Syria from its human rights committee.

Written by Steve Kates

December 11th, 2012 at 11:02 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

«
»

14 Responses to 'Is this the body we spent so much to get onto its Security Council?'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Is this the body we spent so much to get onto its Security Council?'.

  1. So the U.N., that “cabal of tyrannies”, strikes again.

    Lovers of liberty are today caught in a pincer movement between the MSM and the UN.

    What is to be done?

    Hugh

    11 Dec 12 at 11:58 pm

  2. What is to be done?

    First, leave the UN.

    Second, if you must, establish an alternative international organisation with strict rules about only admitting democratically elected governments.

    Third, do nothing, except provide co-ordinated action, including military action against the worst of the worse dictators.

    johno

    12 Dec 12 at 6:28 am

  3. What is to be done?

    Make yourself a tinfoil hat….

    1735099

    12 Dec 12 at 6:34 am

  4. Surely even you find this appalling, numbers?

    But, no, you can’t bring yourself to agree.

    Abu Chowdah

    12 Dec 12 at 7:15 am

  5. Surely even you find this appalling, numbers?

    Our friend was probably appalled by the Anti-DPRK Human Rights Racket.

    lotocoti

    12 Dec 12 at 8:00 am

  6. The UN operates like a primary school. Give the naughty child a minor responsibility – looking after the class goldfish, for example – and hope that the experience improves its behaviour.

    Dr Faustus

    12 Dec 12 at 8:17 am

  7. Surely even you find this appalling, numbers?

    What I find appalling is glib criticism of the UN because it doesn’t kowtow to the bizarre view of the world held by some right wing lunatics.
    It’s not a perfect institution, but it beats the alternative.
    Obviously these same lunatics would prefer a return to global conflict, and industrial scale genocide which was such a feature of the last century.

    1735099

    12 Dec 12 at 8:42 am

  8. OK numbers, name the potential “industrial scale genocide” prevented by the UN

    Cato the Elder

    12 Dec 12 at 9:03 am

  9. Numbers

    Look at all of the homicidal regimes that have had positions like seats on the UN HCR.

    Shameful stuff.

    Johno’s approach is correct.

    .

    12 Dec 12 at 9:05 am

  10. Numbers endorses a body that now continues to place the perpetrators of genecide and disgusting human rights abuses onto the top seats in the committess that decide the rules for intenational human rights.

    Got it!

    Token

    12 Dec 12 at 9:09 am

  11. The problem with the UN is that it runs on the theory that all cultures (except the Jewish one) are morally equivalent.

    The reality is that most cultures, countries, leaders and people on earth are, to varying degrees, uncivilised, self centred, corrupt and barbaric.

    To put it another way, the majority of people on this planet are fuckwits. Civilised countries would do well to leave the cesspit that is the UN and form their own organisation.

    And Numbers, the only genocide the UN has ever stopped was in South Korea. They are useless. How was their form in Rwanda?

    jupes

    12 Dec 12 at 9:31 am

  12. You’re fucking hopeless numbers. No, you’re worse than hopeless; you’re a positive blight; being hopeless would mean you are just defective; but your position about the UN is part of an active blight.

    The history of the UN is instructive.

    The UN was set up to formally unite the anti-Nazi and Japanese Imperialist forces in particular and fascism in general. In this respect the UN was initially a product of pro-democratic nations which had inherent pro-individual rights based legal and political systems which in turn were based on due process and egalitarianism.

    Of course a worse form of tyranny emerged which was communism with some hideous forms of tribalism in Africa and weird dystopias like Pol Pot’s wretched abomination.

    Unfortunately since then the UN has become bureacracised with all the attendant evils of bureaucracy but more insidiously the entry of new nations has been based on the initial UN value of inherent democracy rather than democracy within the new member.

    The result has been that now a majority of UN members have no connection with democracy or the nonpareil values based on the individual. Accordingly the very notion of what an individual right is has now been subverted with examples like the Bolt decision, Finkelstein and the move to censorship.

    Individual rights, true individual rights, do not depend on suppression of other rights, or the capriciousness of a self-appointed elite which assumes a moral justification, something which all tyrants do.

    Individual rights quite simply are rights which do not impugn other individuals. This basic notion has been usurped by the UN and its sympathisers throughout both the non-democratic and Western world to promote great causes such as AGW which demand the erosion of both democracy and individual rights.

    In this way the UN is now a blight and threat to the very principles which engendered it.

    Thus, its supporters like numbers are too a blight.

    cohenite

    12 Dec 12 at 2:56 pm

  13. “Surely even you find this appalling, numbers?”

    Appalling? Numbers? Why yes … yes he is.

    Mick Gold Coast QLD

    12 Dec 12 at 3:55 pm

  14. the UN is not better than any alternative. What a ridiculous thing to write. I can imagine plenty of alternative organisations that would be better than the UN. A UN without Syria and North Korea would be better than the present UN.

    As I’ve said before, 1735099 is four short of a prime.

    1735104

    12 Dec 12 at 6:12 pm

Leave a Reply