We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

You can’t talk to us like that!

19 comments to You can’t talk to us like that!

  • bradley

    Hilarious how he neglects to mention Iraq (900,000 dead) and Congo (4 million dead). Why? Well, not enough opportunity to blame Arabs and Muslims. According to the framers, Darfur is a genocide, but Iraq is not, and Congo is ignored. All propaganda… since when it matters, it seems governments who condemn what’s happening in Darfur don’t really mean it:
    http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1752082006

  • Mike Davies

    I also thought not mentioning Iraq was an oversight. It would have strengthened his case as one never hears the Muslim world (or the UN) condemn Muslim killing Muslim there. The 900,000 figure is new to me though. What’s the source?

  • ” Well, not enough opportunity to blame Arabs and Muslims. ”

    I must have missed the bit where Arabs and Muslims were responsible for the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

  • I think the open and blunt threat to remove open and blunt dissent from the “records” speaks for itself.

  • lucklucky

    “Hilarious how he neglects to mention Iraq (900,000 dead)….Why? Well, not enough opportunity to blame Arabs and Muslims.”

    It’s already in 900000?! wow next month will be 1100000 i guess, faster than a battalion of Saddams Republican Guard in Kurdistan…

    Btw it is mostly arab muslims killing arab muslims in Iraq but you seem to not notice that…wonder why…

  • Pa Annoyed

    Crikey! In response to a complaint about how the only people the UN seem able to criticise is Israel, someone responds that yes, they ought to be criticising the US and UK too. Orwell was right about these people!

    I assume the 900K is some sort of hopeful inflation of the Lancet’s bogus 650K. And if he had brought Iraq up, it would be criticising Arabs and Muslims there as well, since it is mostly Arabs and Muslims doing the killing and human rights violation in Iraq.

    There are so many human rights violators one cannot mention them all. Arabs and Muslims are some of the biggest offenders, but they’re not the only ones, and the point still stands if you take other examples.

    So, if you think the Congo is a better example, let’s go with the Congo. Tell me, why has the UN human rights council criticised Israel 8 times and the situation in the Congo none at all? Could it be because you can’t put the blame for it on the Americans or the Jooos? Or can you think of another reason?

  • LarryS

    The blandly-named “UN Watch” was founded by the American Jewish Committee in 1993. The AJCs mission statement states “to safeguard the welfare and security of Jews in the United States, and in Israel”

    Their main focus of UN Watch activities seems to mirror this aim. Nothing wrong with that, but the name “UN Watch” is a bit misleading. It’s a propaganda outfit. The UN deserves more serious criticism than these theatrical performances. I notice on UN Watch website a picture of the Chinese “Tank Man” – I wonder where China will get it’s next generation of weapons to turn on it’s own citizens?

  • LarryS,

    that it is primarily Jewish in character is, I think, fairly obvious.

    However, to dismiss what they say about the UNHRC – as you appear to be doing – is an ad hominem fallacy of whopping proportions.

    In this instance, they are not just spot on, they appear to be vitally necessary. It is the corruption of the UN and its subversion to the despots that care for nothing but the demonisation of Israel that makes UN Watch necessary.

    If there was not a great deal of substance to their complaint, yours might have a bit more…

  • Pa Annoyed

    Thanks. Not just “Americans or Jooos”, it was American Jews. Most amusing.

    Having got that out of the way, what do you mean by “more serious criticism”? Presumably you mean criticism by more serious people – who were you thinking of?

    And why, given that this is supposed to be a post about the UN’s tendency to ignore everyone else and only castigate Israel, do we have yet another link to a story castigating Israel?

    I mean, I wouldn’t claim Israel are any sort of angels themselves, but when even this implicit criticism of the UN’s unwillingness to hold China to account while it persecutes Israel gets linked by some sort of Rorschacht stream of consciousness to yet another condemnation of Israel’s bad behaviour, the irony in here is thick enough to slice and spread on buttered toast.

    Are you guys here doing some sort of satirical post-modern internet street theatre? I mean really? Are you?

  • LarryS

    Cleanthes -
    Come on, don’t be silly. You wouldn’t take seriously a group called “UN Watch” if was formed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “UN Watch” care as much about Darfur as Johnnie Cochran cared whether his clients were guilty. Do people never tire of political theatre? The UN needs less political theatrics, not more.

  • lucklucky

    Since Israel is the only country criticised by this novel so called UN “Human Rights Commission” doesnt surprise me that was the main subject of the speech and the fact that UNwatch exist like it is. Strangely some are surprised. I would love to see an UNwatch with displaced Chinese, Darfurians etc.

  • Pa Annoyed

    LarryS,

    How do you know that they don’t care about Darfur? I had reason recently to have to look up the JewishWorldWatch campaign in Darfur, which is doing a heck of a lot more there for the money than the UN is. I think the Jewish people generally are quite sensitive to the idea of other people being persecuted and nobody doing anything to stop it.

    But that’s besides the point. Evidence is presented that the Jews are being systematically persecuted by the UN while real human rights violators have got off scott free. And you’re suggesting that because they’re Jewish, you think they must only care about being persecuted, and don’t really care about the other victims. We can’t believe they mean anything they say about this, because they’re Jewish.

    I don’t believe that for a second, but even if it were true, it would not make the situation at the UN any less disgusting, or the fact that nobody but Jews are prepared to stand up and tell them so. And if that’s “political theatrics” then I say we need a lot more of it, and from a far wider range of people. Never mind the displaced Chinese and Sudanese, let’s see more of it from the leaders and thinkers of Europe, India, Asia, Africa…, everywhere. For any free person not to be screaming blue murder over this travesty, Jewish or not, should be a matter of the deepest shame.

    How anyone can listen to such a speech, and think up more ways to criticise the Jews for it, is totally beyond me. :-(

  • Yes, Jews being concerned about an organisation that has within it and even promotes countries that want to “wipe them off the face of the earth” is most unreasonable of them.

    Heaven forfend! I mean its not like the UN is consistently slagging off the Israel all the time while turning a blind eye to other countries actions.

  • Paul Marks

    No doubt my comment is “not to be taken seriously” because I have a Jewish family name – and (horror!) my grandfather was a “full blood Jew”. Jews do not trace these things via the male line, but I am sure that will not stop some people.

    U.N. Watch made a series of serious points. The fact that this organization was created by Jews does not alter this fact in any way.

    One could attack what was said (for example by pointing out that one of the founders of the Human Rights Commission, Mrs Roosevelt who the speaker cited, did not show any great sign of being bothered by the many millions of people that Stalin murdered and indeed had pushed for the elimination of the antiSoviet “Russian Section” of the State Department back in the 1930′s because staff there had a habit of pointing out these many millions of murders), but the points against the Commission were valid.

    It ignores mass murder and other crimes, and is only concerned about destroying Israel and its allies.

    However, like others above, I found the reaction the most telling point.

    The threat to blank out any future such statement.

    So much for “freedom of speech”.

    The Commission on Human Rights (like the rest of the United Nations Organization) does not even respect human rights in its own chamber – even with someone who has been invited to speak.

    The United Nations Organization is evil (simple as that), and taxpayers should not be forced to fund it.

    The old bumper sticker used to say “get the U.S. out of the U.N.”, but all Western nations should leave.

    Let the various dictators have their meetings in North Korea.

  • t-o-m

    Here is more on the U.N. Human Rights Council (I’m assuming this is the same panel within the UN as what’s posted above)…

    The excerpts below are from this source:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_re_eu/un_islam;_ylt=ApoMBLfvAFUcrNrK9LK9Z510bBAF

    “GENEVA – Islamic countries pushed through a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday urging a global prohibition on the public defamation of religion — a response largely to the furor last year over caricatures published in a Danish newspaper of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. …”

    “The resolution, which was opposed by a number of other non-Muslim countries, “expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations….”

    “It makes no mention of any other religion besides Islam…”

    “There are 17 Muslim countries in the 47-nation human rights council. Their alliance with China, Cuba, Russia and most of the African members means they can almost always achieve a majority”

    I think these excerpts (from this unrelated article on the U.N. Human Rights Council) might explain some references given in the posted YouTube video (regarding Chechnya, Tibet, and lack of mention of Darfur)… I mean all those countries must be very qualified to speak about human rights (I’m being sarcastic here)… the UN is a very dysfunctional organization (and this is not even talking about their bloated bureaucracy).

    Regarding the above, I don’t think that Israel is completely free from criticism in their dealing with the Palestinians; however, there are other countries much more deserving of condemnation (as pointed out above). If UN cannot provide a functional commission on human rights, quite frankly they shouldn’t bother (and leave that to the NGOs). Yet another piece of evidence of how little credibility the various organizations within the UN have.

  • jorge

    t-o-m, the amendment was opposed by european countries, but the US raised no objections. Religious fanatics untied against europe.

  • jorge

    untied=united

  • Pa Annoyed

    jorge,

    I don’t believe it! I utterly don’t believe it! You’ve actually found a way to criticise the US for this! Presented with a horrendous example of the UN human rights council voting in resolutions to curtail free speech, you’ve actually managed to twist it round into a criticism of the US!

    Can you think of any slightly more obvious reason why the US didn’t raise any objections to this?

    I’ll give you a clue. Here’s the report on the resolution (it’s near the bottom). Take a look at how everyone voted on it, and in particular how the US voted.

    I stand in awe of your brilliant creativity and ingenuity! The American Jews one above was impressive, but this tops it by a mile!