Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Gatestone Institute: Who Will Speak for the Ahmadi Muslims?
From: Gatestone Institute
The Ahmadi Muslims trace their roots to the late nineteenth century, when the movement was founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, in the Punjabi village of Qadian, now modern day India.
They share many of the basic tenets of Islam, however differ in some significant respects.
Such slaughter, however, does not occur in a vacuum. It is the direct result of a pervasive state-sponsored, indoctrinated hate – with a nation using all the force of both its exchequer and communications infrastructure to incite violence. The United Nations has been totally oblivious to the plight of the Ahmadis: it has failed to pass even a single resolution at the Security Council, General Assembly or Human Rights Council.Rejected by many in the Islamic world as heretics and routinely persecuted because their more moderate beliefs do not accord with mainstream Islamic interpretations of the Quran, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community is arguably one of the most persecuted Muslim communities in the world. However, beyond some faint pleas for better treatment from the U.S. State Department and human rights groups, the Ahmadi Muslims plight has largely gone unnoticed.
The Ahmadi Muslims trace their roots to the late nineteenth century, when the movement was founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, in the Punjabi village of Qadian, now modern day India.
They share many of the basic tenets of Islam, however differ in some significant respects.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Victor Sharpe: “Never Again” is now “Again and Again”
From: Canada Free Press
When, after the end of World War Two, the extent of Nazi Germany’s systematic extermination of the 6 million Jews of Europe became horribly apparent, including the slaughter of 1.5 million babies and children, there arose the cry: “Never Again.”
It was assumed that a unique horror of such magnitude must never again occur in the world. The Holocaust resulted in one third of the world’s Jewish population being systematically murdered - perpetrated as it was by millions of Adolf Hitler’s obedient and willing executioners using all the tools of the central state and of perverted science. But the cataclysmic lesson of that genocide has been shamefully ignored.
After the war the United Nations was founded – a body designed to create world peace and primarily at first consisting of democracies along with a few autocratic regimes, which nevertheless acted in rational ways. And as delegates entered the UN building they passed by the wall on which they could read the biblical words of the Jewish prophet, Isaiah:
And so much of humanity becomes more and more inured to the present day horrors that increasingly proliferate around the globe and whose ghastly images are daily flashed on our television screens.
Civilians are routinely butchered, and genocide in South Sudan continues as it does in Somalia and, in particular, throughout the ever violent Middle East. As I write, butchery on a grand scale is taking place throughout Syria, governed as it is by Bashar Assad; a scion of the minority Alawite tribe.
According to Ammar Abdulhamid, a member of the Free Syrian Army, which is one of the rebel groups battling the regime, Bashar Assad’s strategy is to create a de facto partition of Syria. This is, he says, taking place with the ethnic cleansing of factions and populations deemed hostile to the regime.
Syria may degenerate into dozens of fiefdoms, each one at its neighbor’s throat, or an Alawite state will emerge along Syria’s coastline, incorporating other areas of the country. This state, if it emerged, would include the strategic city of Homs, which straddles all the main Syrian highways and communication routes.
Of immense concern should be Assad’s warehouses in which are stored Syria’s weapons of mass destruction consisting of thousands of missiles tipped with Sarin and Mustard gas and God knows what other hellish ingredients.
In the present internecine conflict that is tearing Syria apart, these missiles – some already in silos – may well fall into the hands of a host of Islamic terrorist groups - including Al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood - fighting inside the country. If they do, a Pandora’s Box will open and the entire world will lurch further into a nightmare scenario almost unbearable to contemplate.
And behind the ethnic cleansing, the massacres, and the butchery of thousands of civilians, lies the dread hand of Iran, with its fanatical Mullahocracy and its evil clown president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ever spinning their web of terror and fear.
Since 1979, when Americans during the failed Carter presidency were taken hostage at our embassy in Teheran, Iran has been involved in anti-American activities and crimes against humanity including complicity in the 9/11 atrocities. Iran, through its Hezbollah proxy, was also directly responsible for the deaths and maiming of hundreds of our marines in Beirut. And Iran’s bloody fingerprints were all over the killings of scores of Jewish children in the bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Argentina.
Iran produced the infamous IEDs provided to Iraqi insurgents that have killed hundreds of U.S. troops and the Iranian regime has directly supported terrorism throughout the Middle East and beyond. The United States has ample cause to target the mullahs. As Lee Smith from the Weekly Standard recently opined. “Iran is the problem.”
When, after the end of World War Two, the extent of Nazi Germany’s systematic extermination of the 6 million Jews of Europe became horribly apparent, including the slaughter of 1.5 million babies and children, there arose the cry: “Never Again.”
It was assumed that a unique horror of such magnitude must never again occur in the world. The Holocaust resulted in one third of the world’s Jewish population being systematically murdered - perpetrated as it was by millions of Adolf Hitler’s obedient and willing executioners using all the tools of the central state and of perverted science. But the cataclysmic lesson of that genocide has been shamefully ignored.
After the war the United Nations was founded – a body designed to create world peace and primarily at first consisting of democracies along with a few autocratic regimes, which nevertheless acted in rational ways. And as delegates entered the UN building they passed by the wall on which they could read the biblical words of the Jewish prophet, Isaiah:
“They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they learn war anymore.” - Isaiah 2:4.But now the UN has become a cesspool of competing blocs of nations that are not always concerned about justice and peace between nations but more interested in pushing narrow and hostile agendas. And few, if any, delegates ever bother to read that inscription on the wall of the United Nations. Instead the world body has become a veritable Temple of Hypocrisy filled with a cynical priesthood.
And so much of humanity becomes more and more inured to the present day horrors that increasingly proliferate around the globe and whose ghastly images are daily flashed on our television screens.
Civilians are routinely butchered, and genocide in South Sudan continues as it does in Somalia and, in particular, throughout the ever violent Middle East. As I write, butchery on a grand scale is taking place throughout Syria, governed as it is by Bashar Assad; a scion of the minority Alawite tribe.
According to Ammar Abdulhamid, a member of the Free Syrian Army, which is one of the rebel groups battling the regime, Bashar Assad’s strategy is to create a de facto partition of Syria. This is, he says, taking place with the ethnic cleansing of factions and populations deemed hostile to the regime.
Syria may degenerate into dozens of fiefdoms, each one at its neighbor’s throat, or an Alawite state will emerge along Syria’s coastline, incorporating other areas of the country. This state, if it emerged, would include the strategic city of Homs, which straddles all the main Syrian highways and communication routes.
Of immense concern should be Assad’s warehouses in which are stored Syria’s weapons of mass destruction consisting of thousands of missiles tipped with Sarin and Mustard gas and God knows what other hellish ingredients.
In the present internecine conflict that is tearing Syria apart, these missiles – some already in silos – may well fall into the hands of a host of Islamic terrorist groups - including Al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood - fighting inside the country. If they do, a Pandora’s Box will open and the entire world will lurch further into a nightmare scenario almost unbearable to contemplate.
And behind the ethnic cleansing, the massacres, and the butchery of thousands of civilians, lies the dread hand of Iran, with its fanatical Mullahocracy and its evil clown president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ever spinning their web of terror and fear.
Since 1979, when Americans during the failed Carter presidency were taken hostage at our embassy in Teheran, Iran has been involved in anti-American activities and crimes against humanity including complicity in the 9/11 atrocities. Iran, through its Hezbollah proxy, was also directly responsible for the deaths and maiming of hundreds of our marines in Beirut. And Iran’s bloody fingerprints were all over the killings of scores of Jewish children in the bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Argentina.
Iran produced the infamous IEDs provided to Iraqi insurgents that have killed hundreds of U.S. troops and the Iranian regime has directly supported terrorism throughout the Middle East and beyond. The United States has ample cause to target the mullahs. As Lee Smith from the Weekly Standard recently opined. “Iran is the problem.”
Friday, June 15, 2012
UN CEDAW Committee Blasts Brazil for Not Pushing Abortion
From: Life News.com
The CEDAW Committee, charged with monitoring the implementation of the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), has warned Brazil that its democratic lawmaking process is a threat to “sexual and reproductive rights,” and the Committee continues to insist that illegal abortion has a negative impact on maternal mortality.
In its Concluding Observations, at the end of the consideration of the Brazilian report in Geneva in March, the Committee said it “regrets that women who undergo illegal abortions continue to face criminal sanctions in the State party and that women’s enjoyment of sexual and reproductive health and rights is being jeopardized by a number of bills under consideration in the National Congress, such as Bill No. 478/2008 (Estatuto Nascituro).”
It is not the first time that the Committee has told delegations that their country’s culture, laws and lawmaking processes are not up to par because of restrictions on abortion. It has done so over one hundred times. What is novel is the Committee pronouncing itself on legislation that has not yet been adopted, in a country with a well-established democratic system.
The Committee is insistent that women should have access to abortion notwithstanding measures set in place by the Brazilian government to reduce maternal and child mortality. In its report, Brazil mentioned a new program called Rede Cegonha (Stork Network) that is aimed at providing maternal and neonatal care to women with low incomes.
The Committee brushed aside this effort because “it is concerned that this program might not sufficiently address all causes of maternal mortality as it merely focuses on care services for pregnant women.” The Committee is evidently referring to what abortion advocates call “unsafe abortion.” The first ever epidemiological study of the effect of illegal abortion on maternal mortality has shown there is no proof that legalizing abortion reduces overall maternal mortality.
The CEDAW Committee is following the lead of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, whose office provides logistical support to the whole UN human rights system. In a recent talk she suggested plainly that from a human rights perspective abortion and contraception are more important than maternal and neonatal health care.
“While interventions focused on the health aspects of maternal mortality may concentrate on the quality of care for pregnant women, a human rights analysis requires us to examine whether women have a choice in deciding to become pregnant in the first place, or the choice to seek the care that they require without having to obtain permission from male relatives,” Pillay said.
Other comments by the Committee during this last session included references to women and adolescents who are victims “because of conservative cultural patterns,” gaps in the legislations on issues like “genetic developments, technological advances and sexual-orientation,” and a comment on the Brazilian Judiciary describing how “it reproduces social stereotypes with a predominantly patriarchal attribution of social roles.”
In its Concluding Observations, at the end of the consideration of the Brazilian report in Geneva in March, the Committee said it “regrets that women who undergo illegal abortions continue to face criminal sanctions in the State party and that women’s enjoyment of sexual and reproductive health and rights is being jeopardized by a number of bills under consideration in the National Congress, such as Bill No. 478/2008 (Estatuto Nascituro).”
It is not the first time that the Committee has told delegations that their country’s culture, laws and lawmaking processes are not up to par because of restrictions on abortion. It has done so over one hundred times. What is novel is the Committee pronouncing itself on legislation that has not yet been adopted, in a country with a well-established democratic system.
The Committee is insistent that women should have access to abortion notwithstanding measures set in place by the Brazilian government to reduce maternal and child mortality. In its report, Brazil mentioned a new program called Rede Cegonha (Stork Network) that is aimed at providing maternal and neonatal care to women with low incomes.
The Committee brushed aside this effort because “it is concerned that this program might not sufficiently address all causes of maternal mortality as it merely focuses on care services for pregnant women.” The Committee is evidently referring to what abortion advocates call “unsafe abortion.” The first ever epidemiological study of the effect of illegal abortion on maternal mortality has shown there is no proof that legalizing abortion reduces overall maternal mortality.
The CEDAW Committee is following the lead of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, whose office provides logistical support to the whole UN human rights system. In a recent talk she suggested plainly that from a human rights perspective abortion and contraception are more important than maternal and neonatal health care.
“While interventions focused on the health aspects of maternal mortality may concentrate on the quality of care for pregnant women, a human rights analysis requires us to examine whether women have a choice in deciding to become pregnant in the first place, or the choice to seek the care that they require without having to obtain permission from male relatives,” Pillay said.
Other comments by the Committee during this last session included references to women and adolescents who are victims “because of conservative cultural patterns,” gaps in the legislations on issues like “genetic developments, technological advances and sexual-orientation,” and a comment on the Brazilian Judiciary describing how “it reproduces social stereotypes with a predominantly patriarchal attribution of social roles.”
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Internet Regulation Returns to the International Agenda
From: CNSNews.com
A long running debate over regulating the Internet is set to intensify in the coming months, culminating in a December meeting of a United Nations agency that some governments think should control what has been the most open and effective communications tool in history.
Past attempts by countries like Russia, India and China to expand international authority – through the U.N. – over the Internet have been unsuccessful, but are expected to make a reappearance at the World Conference of International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai.
The conference is being organized by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a Geneva-based U.N. specialized agency that has been carrying out a review of international telecommunications regulations.
Some of its 193 member states want to expand its authority to include an Internet regulatory role, and neither the U.S. nor any other country would have the power to veto a majority decision.
The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on communications and technology has scheduled a hearing later this week, entitled “International Proposals to Regulate the Internet.”
It will hear testimony from Federal Communications Commission commissioner Robert McDowell, former State Department coordinator on international communications and information policy David Gross, and Sally Shipman Wentworth, senior manager for public policy at the Internet Society.
Opponents of U.N. regulation say the existing state of affairs – known as the “multistakeholder model” – has been highly successful.
A key element of this model is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based not-for-profit corporation contracted to the Department of Commerce, which assigns Internet protocol addresses (such as.com and .org) and oversees Web domains.
“All of us should be concerned with a well-organized international effort to secure intergovernmental control of Internet governance,” McDowell warned during an FCC oversight hearing earlier this month.
Testifying before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, he named China, Russia, India, Iran and Saudi Arabia as some of the countries behind the drive to reverse a consensus in place since the early 1990s – that governments should be kept out of “regulating core functions of the Internet’s ecosystem.”
Among these countries’ targets, McDowell said, were:
-- ITU authority over entities like ICANN;
-- international control over cybersecurity and data privacy;
-- revenue-generating schemes allowing state-owned phone companies to charge fees for international Web traffic; and
-- regulation of international mobile roaming rates and practices.
‘The Internet cannot be under the control of a country’
The last big push led by emerging powers in the developing world to challenge what they see as U.S. “control” of the Internet took place during the ITU-organized World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), held in Tunisia in 2005.
Press freedom groups noted at the time that some of the governments spearheading the drive, China’s in particular, were notorious for efforts to censor and restrict the Internet. (The U.S. House and Senate that year passed “sense of Congress” resolutions saying that day-to-day operations of the Internet should continue to be located and maintained in the U.S.)
The developing nations’ bid at the WSIS was ultimately unsuccessful, but countries unhappy with the status quo did make some inroads. An Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established, a means for “multistakeholders” – governments, businesses, non-governmental organizations and others –– to discuss issues around Internet governance, including policy-making, privacy and cybersecurity.
The outcome document of WSIS, known as the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, included a clause stating, “We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders.”
The campaign to expand responsibility for the Internet did not end in Tunis.
“We stand for a type of governance which is not the preserve of any particular country’s government,” Brazil’s science and technology minister told an annual IGF gathering in Rio in 2007. The Internet, Brazil’s culture minister said during the same event, “cannot be under the control of a country …we need perhaps to think about extending the mandate of the United Nations on the subject.”
Two years later, the annual IGF meeting in Egypt saw the issues of Internet control and censorship spotlighted when organizers at China’s insistence removed an NGO’s poster that made reference to Beijing’s pervasive Internet censorship system.
The incident clearly illustrated the risks of giving repressive regimes a say in how the Internet is regulated. “The global governance implications should be obvious,” Prof. Milton Mueller of the Syracuse University School of Information Studies wrote at the time.
Last June Russian Prime Minister – now president – Vladimir Putin met with ITU secretary-general Hamadoun Toure of Mali, and discussed a proposal to establish “international control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capabilities of the International Telecommunication Union.”
“If we are going to talk about the democratization of international relations, I think a critical sphere is information exchange and global control over such exchange,” Putin told him, calling it a “priority on the international agenda.”
At a seminar on Internet governance three months later – again in Rio – the governments of Brazil, India and South Africa called for the creation of a new “global body” within the U.N. system that would develop international policies and “integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet.”
A long running debate over regulating the Internet is set to intensify in the coming months, culminating in a December meeting of a United Nations agency that some governments think should control what has been the most open and effective communications tool in history.
Past attempts by countries like Russia, India and China to expand international authority – through the U.N. – over the Internet have been unsuccessful, but are expected to make a reappearance at the World Conference of International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai.
The conference is being organized by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a Geneva-based U.N. specialized agency that has been carrying out a review of international telecommunications regulations.
Some of its 193 member states want to expand its authority to include an Internet regulatory role, and neither the U.S. nor any other country would have the power to veto a majority decision.
The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on communications and technology has scheduled a hearing later this week, entitled “International Proposals to Regulate the Internet.”
It will hear testimony from Federal Communications Commission commissioner Robert McDowell, former State Department coordinator on international communications and information policy David Gross, and Sally Shipman Wentworth, senior manager for public policy at the Internet Society.
Opponents of U.N. regulation say the existing state of affairs – known as the “multistakeholder model” – has been highly successful.
A key element of this model is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based not-for-profit corporation contracted to the Department of Commerce, which assigns Internet protocol addresses (such as.com and .org) and oversees Web domains.
“All of us should be concerned with a well-organized international effort to secure intergovernmental control of Internet governance,” McDowell warned during an FCC oversight hearing earlier this month.
Testifying before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, he named China, Russia, India, Iran and Saudi Arabia as some of the countries behind the drive to reverse a consensus in place since the early 1990s – that governments should be kept out of “regulating core functions of the Internet’s ecosystem.”
Among these countries’ targets, McDowell said, were:
-- ITU authority over entities like ICANN;
-- international control over cybersecurity and data privacy;
-- revenue-generating schemes allowing state-owned phone companies to charge fees for international Web traffic; and
-- regulation of international mobile roaming rates and practices.
‘The Internet cannot be under the control of a country’
The last big push led by emerging powers in the developing world to challenge what they see as U.S. “control” of the Internet took place during the ITU-organized World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), held in Tunisia in 2005.
The developing nations’ bid at the WSIS was ultimately unsuccessful, but countries unhappy with the status quo did make some inroads. An Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established, a means for “multistakeholders” – governments, businesses, non-governmental organizations and others –– to discuss issues around Internet governance, including policy-making, privacy and cybersecurity.
The outcome document of WSIS, known as the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, included a clause stating, “We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders.”
The campaign to expand responsibility for the Internet did not end in Tunis.
“We stand for a type of governance which is not the preserve of any particular country’s government,” Brazil’s science and technology minister told an annual IGF gathering in Rio in 2007. The Internet, Brazil’s culture minister said during the same event, “cannot be under the control of a country …we need perhaps to think about extending the mandate of the United Nations on the subject.”
Two years later, the annual IGF meeting in Egypt saw the issues of Internet control and censorship spotlighted when organizers at China’s insistence removed an NGO’s poster that made reference to Beijing’s pervasive Internet censorship system.
The incident clearly illustrated the risks of giving repressive regimes a say in how the Internet is regulated. “The global governance implications should be obvious,” Prof. Milton Mueller of the Syracuse University School of Information Studies wrote at the time.
Last June Russian Prime Minister – now president – Vladimir Putin met with ITU secretary-general Hamadoun Toure of Mali, and discussed a proposal to establish “international control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capabilities of the International Telecommunication Union.”
“If we are going to talk about the democratization of international relations, I think a critical sphere is information exchange and global control over such exchange,” Putin told him, calling it a “priority on the international agenda.”
At a seminar on Internet governance three months later – again in Rio – the governments of Brazil, India and South Africa called for the creation of a new “global body” within the U.N. system that would develop international policies and “integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet.”
Sunday, May 27, 2012
House to examine plan for United Nations to regulate the Internet
From: The Hill's Hillicon Valley
House lawmakers will consider an international proposal next week to give the United Nations more control over the Internet.
The proposal is backed by China, Russia, Brazil, India and other UN members, and would give the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) more control over the governance of the Internet.
It’s an unpopular idea with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress, and officials with the Obama administration have also criticized it.
“We're quite concerned,” Larry Strickling, the head of the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said in an interview with The Hill earlier this year.
He said the measure would expose the Internet to “top-down regulation where it's really the governments that are at the table, but the rest of the stakeholders aren't.”
At a hearing earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also criticized the proposal. He said China and Russia are "not exactly bastions of Internet freedom."
"Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory frameworks," he said, adding that he will keep a close eye on the process.
Yet the proposal could come up for a vote at a UN conference in Dubai in December.
Next week’s hearing is expected to bring more attention in the U.S. to the measure, which would give the UN more control over cybersecurity, data privacy, technical standards and the Web’s address system. It would also allow foreign government-owned Internet providers to charge extra for international traffic and allow for more price controls.
The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold the hearing and hear testimony from Robert McDowell, a Republican commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); David Gross, a former State Department official; and Sally Shipman Wentworth, the senior manager of public policy for the nonprofit Internet Society.
The Internet is currently governed under a “multi-stakeholder” approach that gives power to a host of nonprofits, rather than governments.
Strickling said that system brings more ideas and flexibility to Internet policymaking.
In an op-ed earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal, McDowell warned that “a top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net.”
“Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body,” McDowell wrote.
He said some governments feel excluded from Internet policymaking and want more control over the process.
“And let's face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity,” McDowell wrote.
House lawmakers will consider an international proposal next week to give the United Nations more control over the Internet.
The proposal is backed by China, Russia, Brazil, India and other UN members, and would give the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) more control over the governance of the Internet.
It’s an unpopular idea with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress, and officials with the Obama administration have also criticized it.
“We're quite concerned,” Larry Strickling, the head of the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said in an interview with The Hill earlier this year.
He said the measure would expose the Internet to “top-down regulation where it's really the governments that are at the table, but the rest of the stakeholders aren't.”
At a hearing earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also criticized the proposal. He said China and Russia are "not exactly bastions of Internet freedom."
"Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory frameworks," he said, adding that he will keep a close eye on the process.
Yet the proposal could come up for a vote at a UN conference in Dubai in December.
Next week’s hearing is expected to bring more attention in the U.S. to the measure, which would give the UN more control over cybersecurity, data privacy, technical standards and the Web’s address system. It would also allow foreign government-owned Internet providers to charge extra for international traffic and allow for more price controls.
The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold the hearing and hear testimony from Robert McDowell, a Republican commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); David Gross, a former State Department official; and Sally Shipman Wentworth, the senior manager of public policy for the nonprofit Internet Society.
The Internet is currently governed under a “multi-stakeholder” approach that gives power to a host of nonprofits, rather than governments.
Strickling said that system brings more ideas and flexibility to Internet policymaking.
In an op-ed earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal, McDowell warned that “a top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net.”
“Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body,” McDowell wrote.
He said some governments feel excluded from Internet policymaking and want more control over the process.
“And let's face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity,” McDowell wrote.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Shifting U.N. Language Threatens U.S. Free Speech
From: The IPT Blog
The body representing the world's Muslim nations, the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC), has shifted its strategy for limiting free speech about Islam before the United Nations Human Rights Council. A move away from language about limiting "defamation of religions" and toward preventing "religious hatred," has "easily duped" the West into adopting the OIC's agenda of limiting discussion about Islam, reports Ann Snyder for the Gatestone Institute.
The OIC pressed for "speech-restrictive" resolutions on religion in U.N. forums for more than a decade. Ratification of these U.N. resolutions would have internationalized anti-blasphemy laws found in Muslim-majority countries.
Western nations resisted such attempts, arguing that the laws criminalized free speech. The move could also result in international prosecution of Westerners for criticizing practices by some Islamists, just as similar laws have been used against Middle East Christians.
The OIC adjusted its strategy accordingly, but not its goal. It dropped calls to criminalize the "defamation of religions" and now relies on interpreting pre-existing language in the U.N.'s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR], Article 20(2). The United States Senate ratified the ICCPR in 1992 but with an explicit reservation against the article, which would have made "any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred…prohibited by law."
The new U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 "condemns any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence" using "print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means." It "bears a striking resemblance" to new legal restrictions on "hate speech" in Europe that has been used to prosecute alleged offenders, writes Snyder, a senior fellow at the Middle East Forum's The Legal Project.
Despite the obvious similarities of language and implementation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "applauded" the compromise and described the efforts as beginning "to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression."
The body representing the world's Muslim nations, the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC), has shifted its strategy for limiting free speech about Islam before the United Nations Human Rights Council. A move away from language about limiting "defamation of religions" and toward preventing "religious hatred," has "easily duped" the West into adopting the OIC's agenda of limiting discussion about Islam, reports Ann Snyder for the Gatestone Institute.
The OIC pressed for "speech-restrictive" resolutions on religion in U.N. forums for more than a decade. Ratification of these U.N. resolutions would have internationalized anti-blasphemy laws found in Muslim-majority countries.
Western nations resisted such attempts, arguing that the laws criminalized free speech. The move could also result in international prosecution of Westerners for criticizing practices by some Islamists, just as similar laws have been used against Middle East Christians.
The OIC adjusted its strategy accordingly, but not its goal. It dropped calls to criminalize the "defamation of religions" and now relies on interpreting pre-existing language in the U.N.'s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR], Article 20(2). The United States Senate ratified the ICCPR in 1992 but with an explicit reservation against the article, which would have made "any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred…prohibited by law."
The new U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 "condemns any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence" using "print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means." It "bears a striking resemblance" to new legal restrictions on "hate speech" in Europe that has been used to prosecute alleged offenders, writes Snyder, a senior fellow at the Middle East Forum's The Legal Project.
Despite the obvious similarities of language and implementation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "applauded" the compromise and described the efforts as beginning "to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression."
Thursday, May 17, 2012
U.N. Human Rights Advocates Urge G8 to Take Up ‘Robin Hood Tax’ on Wealthy Nations
From: CNSNews.com
Ahead of the G8 summit in Camp David on Friday, a group of United Nations human rights “experts” are throwing their weight behind a longstanding campaign for a so-called “Robin Hood tax” on international financial transactions.
In a statement issued in Geneva – home to the U.N.’s human rights apparatus – the five called the financial transaction tax (FTT) a way “to offset the costs of the enduring economic, financial, fuel, climate and food crises, and to protect basic human rights.”
It would provide “a pragmatic tool for providing the means for governments to protect and fulfill the human rights of their people,” they said.
“The FTT is an opportunity for governments to move beyond rhetoric in their commitments to sustainable development, and to give flesh to their noble pronouncements of solidarity,” said one of the five, Virginia Dandan, whose title is “independent expert on human rights and international solidarity.”
The decades-old idea of levying a small charge on financial transactions – dubbed a “Robin Hood tax” since it supposedly taxes rich nations to benefit poor ones – has animated a wide range of advocacy groups, who see it as a way to help tackle everything from poverty to the cost of HIV/Aids care, to the emission of gases blamed for climate change.
High-profile proponents include Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams – and German Chancellor Angela Merkel and France’s new socialist president, Francois Hollande, both of whom will be at the G8 event and the subsequent NATO summit in Chicago. (British Prime Minister David Cameron is skeptical.)
The U.N. human rights figures urged E.U. leaders to take the lead in pushing the proposal at the G8.
The European Union’s Executive Commission has proposed the introduction of an FTT in the 27-member union with effect from January 1, 2014. At a rate of 0.1 percent for the exchange of shares and bonds and 0.01 percent for derivative contracts, it estimates the mechanism could raise 57 billion euros ($73 billion) a year.
The U.N. figures welcomed the proposals, and said “E.U. countries must take bold leadership now to pave the way towards what should eventually be a global FTT.”
Cephas Lumina, whose title is “independent expert on foreign debt and human rights,” conceded that a FTT would not be “a silver bullet.”
“But it would help relieve sovereign debt load stemming from the financial crisis, shift the burden from ordinary citizens to the private sector which caused the crisis, and significantly enlarge government fiscal space for spending on desperately needed economic and social rights programs,” he said.
The FTT concept was first raised in the 1970s by U.S. economist and Nobel laureate James Tobin, who saw it not primarily as a revenue-raising mechanism but as a way to curb excessive speculation.
Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested a type of “Tobin tax” at a G20 finance ministers’ summit in Scotland in 2009, to fund future financial bailouts. The U.S. and Canada rejected the idea, which Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said at the time had achieved “mixed” results in countries where such initiatives had been tried.
Critics say an FTT would push up interest rates, dampen investment and hamper rather than stimulate growth.
In the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) last year introduced legislation calling for a 0.005 percent tax on currency transactions, which would used for child care assistance in the U.S., global health programs directed at fighting HIV/Aids, tuberculosis and other health needs in developing countries, global “climate change adaptation and mitigation,” and U.S. deficit reduction.
The Investing in our Future Act (H.R. 5755), was referred to the Foreign Affairs and Ways and Means committees.
Ahead of the G8 summit in Camp David on Friday, a group of United Nations human rights “experts” are throwing their weight behind a longstanding campaign for a so-called “Robin Hood tax” on international financial transactions.
In a statement issued in Geneva – home to the U.N.’s human rights apparatus – the five called the financial transaction tax (FTT) a way “to offset the costs of the enduring economic, financial, fuel, climate and food crises, and to protect basic human rights.”
It would provide “a pragmatic tool for providing the means for governments to protect and fulfill the human rights of their people,” they said.
“The FTT is an opportunity for governments to move beyond rhetoric in their commitments to sustainable development, and to give flesh to their noble pronouncements of solidarity,” said one of the five, Virginia Dandan, whose title is “independent expert on human rights and international solidarity.”
The decades-old idea of levying a small charge on financial transactions – dubbed a “Robin Hood tax” since it supposedly taxes rich nations to benefit poor ones – has animated a wide range of advocacy groups, who see it as a way to help tackle everything from poverty to the cost of HIV/Aids care, to the emission of gases blamed for climate change.
High-profile proponents include Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams – and German Chancellor Angela Merkel and France’s new socialist president, Francois Hollande, both of whom will be at the G8 event and the subsequent NATO summit in Chicago. (British Prime Minister David Cameron is skeptical.)
The U.N. human rights figures urged E.U. leaders to take the lead in pushing the proposal at the G8.
The European Union’s Executive Commission has proposed the introduction of an FTT in the 27-member union with effect from January 1, 2014. At a rate of 0.1 percent for the exchange of shares and bonds and 0.01 percent for derivative contracts, it estimates the mechanism could raise 57 billion euros ($73 billion) a year.
The U.N. figures welcomed the proposals, and said “E.U. countries must take bold leadership now to pave the way towards what should eventually be a global FTT.”
Cephas Lumina, whose title is “independent expert on foreign debt and human rights,” conceded that a FTT would not be “a silver bullet.”
“But it would help relieve sovereign debt load stemming from the financial crisis, shift the burden from ordinary citizens to the private sector which caused the crisis, and significantly enlarge government fiscal space for spending on desperately needed economic and social rights programs,” he said.
The FTT concept was first raised in the 1970s by U.S. economist and Nobel laureate James Tobin, who saw it not primarily as a revenue-raising mechanism but as a way to curb excessive speculation.
Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested a type of “Tobin tax” at a G20 finance ministers’ summit in Scotland in 2009, to fund future financial bailouts. The U.S. and Canada rejected the idea, which Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said at the time had achieved “mixed” results in countries where such initiatives had been tried.
Critics say an FTT would push up interest rates, dampen investment and hamper rather than stimulate growth.
In the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) last year introduced legislation calling for a 0.005 percent tax on currency transactions, which would used for child care assistance in the U.S., global health programs directed at fighting HIV/Aids, tuberculosis and other health needs in developing countries, global “climate change adaptation and mitigation,” and U.S. deficit reduction.
The Investing in our Future Act (H.R. 5755), was referred to the Foreign Affairs and Ways and Means committees.
Friday, October 28, 2011
UN Official's Attempt to Create Intl Abortion Right Condemned
From: LifeNews.com
At UN headquarters this week, governments dismissed a high level UN bureaucrat’s claim that abortion is a human right and went so far as to scold him for overstepping his mandate.
The Special Rapporteur for Health, Anand Grover, presented his report to delegates of the UN Third Committee linking unrestricted abortion with the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. He adamantly affirmed his intention to redefine the “right to health” in UN conventions and treaties to include abortion.
The delegate from Swaziland questioned why the Special Rapporteur neglected his mandate by reporting only on reproductive health while ignoring a myriad of other health concerns such as hunger and disease. She criticized the notion that the Special Rapporteur would include a “non-existent” right to abortion within the right to health. The Holy See delegate insisted there is no right to abortion in international law, and that the Special Rapporteur failed to consider conventions that “safeguard the inherent worth and dignity of the person both born and unborn.”
The Egypt government challenged the Special Rapporteur’s “systematic attempts to reinterpret internationally agreed conventions” in order to redefine the right to health according to his own interpretations. In particular, the Egyptian spokesman was concerned by the way Mr. Grover stepped beyond his mandate in order to give “new perspectives” on the right to health in relation to child and maternal mortality.
The Chilean government emphasized that it is essential to recognize the right to life of all human beings. Its statement was of special interest given the country’s history with legalized abortion. Abortion was legal in Chile until 1989. After its criminalization, maternal mortality decreased.
Chile’s experience calls into question the very foundation of the Special Rapporteur’s report. It contradicts the claim that maternal mortality is higher in states where abortion is criminalized. In Guyana, where abortion has been legal without restriction since 1995, the maternal mortality rate is 30 times higher than in Chile.
Honduras endorsed Chile’s statement. Both countries’ constitutions protect life from the moment of conception. (The delegate from Uganda told observers after the session that she wanted to criticize the report but had lost her voice to illness.)
In response, the Special Rapporteur defiantly disagreed that legalized abortion fell anywhere outside his mandate, arguing that the death of “44,000” women a year from illegal abortions was directly linked to the right to health. This number, however, is highly contentious and, according to many experts, is unverifiable and unsubstantiated. Data from the World Health Organization, frequently cited in UN reports, shows that the majority of maternal deaths are the result of hemorrhaging, eclampsia, and infection and are easily addressed by improved health care services, not abortion.
As the final word before the session ended, Grover claimed that since international law is silent on abortion, then there is “no denial of abortion in international law.” Restricting abortion, he asserted, dehumanizes, stigmatizes and lowers the dignity of people. Countries should not only decriminalize abortion but “put services in place” to provide it.
At UN headquarters this week, governments dismissed a high level UN bureaucrat’s claim that abortion is a human right and went so far as to scold him for overstepping his mandate.
The Special Rapporteur for Health, Anand Grover, presented his report to delegates of the UN Third Committee linking unrestricted abortion with the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. He adamantly affirmed his intention to redefine the “right to health” in UN conventions and treaties to include abortion.
The delegate from Swaziland questioned why the Special Rapporteur neglected his mandate by reporting only on reproductive health while ignoring a myriad of other health concerns such as hunger and disease. She criticized the notion that the Special Rapporteur would include a “non-existent” right to abortion within the right to health. The Holy See delegate insisted there is no right to abortion in international law, and that the Special Rapporteur failed to consider conventions that “safeguard the inherent worth and dignity of the person both born and unborn.”
The Egypt government challenged the Special Rapporteur’s “systematic attempts to reinterpret internationally agreed conventions” in order to redefine the right to health according to his own interpretations. In particular, the Egyptian spokesman was concerned by the way Mr. Grover stepped beyond his mandate in order to give “new perspectives” on the right to health in relation to child and maternal mortality.
The Chilean government emphasized that it is essential to recognize the right to life of all human beings. Its statement was of special interest given the country’s history with legalized abortion. Abortion was legal in Chile until 1989. After its criminalization, maternal mortality decreased.
Chile’s experience calls into question the very foundation of the Special Rapporteur’s report. It contradicts the claim that maternal mortality is higher in states where abortion is criminalized. In Guyana, where abortion has been legal without restriction since 1995, the maternal mortality rate is 30 times higher than in Chile.
Honduras endorsed Chile’s statement. Both countries’ constitutions protect life from the moment of conception. (The delegate from Uganda told observers after the session that she wanted to criticize the report but had lost her voice to illness.)
In response, the Special Rapporteur defiantly disagreed that legalized abortion fell anywhere outside his mandate, arguing that the death of “44,000” women a year from illegal abortions was directly linked to the right to health. This number, however, is highly contentious and, according to many experts, is unverifiable and unsubstantiated. Data from the World Health Organization, frequently cited in UN reports, shows that the majority of maternal deaths are the result of hemorrhaging, eclampsia, and infection and are easily addressed by improved health care services, not abortion.
As the final word before the session ended, Grover claimed that since international law is silent on abortion, then there is “no denial of abortion in international law.” Restricting abortion, he asserted, dehumanizes, stigmatizes and lowers the dignity of people. Countries should not only decriminalize abortion but “put services in place” to provide it.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Democrats Oppose Obama-U.N. Gun Control Treaty
From: Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
Twelve Democratic senators have joined 45 Republicans in a fast growing movement to halt progress on an Obama-backed United Nations effort that could bring international gun control into the United States and slap America's gun owners with severe restrictions.
Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester's office today provided Whispers with their letter, signed by 11 other Democrats, urging the president to press for significant changes in the treaty. Their major concern: that domestic manufacture, possession, and sales of firearms and ammo will be included, thereby giving an international authority the right to regulate arms sales already protected by the Second Amendment. They also said any move for an international gun registry would be a non-starter.
A Republican letter circulated by Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran has 45 signatures.
Ratification requires two-thirds of the Senate. So far 57 senators have said they would vote against the treaty, expected to be wrapped up next year.
In his letter, Moran wrote, "Our country's sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations," Moran wrote in the letter. "Today, the Senate sends a powerful message to the Obama Administration: an Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable."
The emergence of strong Democratic resistance comes as the president is trying to deal with fallout from liberal Democrats upset that he has opened the door to major changes in Social Security and Medicare as part of the debt ceiling crisis.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which the Bush administration had opposed, would regulate with the international trade of arms. It would cover the trading of conventional firearms likes those used by collectors and sportsmen and women.
The goal of the treaty is to come up with internationally recognized rules governing the trade of guns and ammo. The United States is the world's largest exporter of arms.
Tester's letter concludes, "As members of the United States Senate, it is our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on the ratification of the United Nation's Arms Trade Treaty. Before we could support ratification, we must have assurances that our concerns are adequately addressed and that the Treaty will not in any way impede upon the Constitutional rights of American gun owners. Anything short of this commitment would be unacceptable.
Twelve Democratic senators have joined 45 Republicans in a fast growing movement to halt progress on an Obama-backed United Nations effort that could bring international gun control into the United States and slap America's gun owners with severe restrictions.
Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester's office today provided Whispers with their letter, signed by 11 other Democrats, urging the president to press for significant changes in the treaty. Their major concern: that domestic manufacture, possession, and sales of firearms and ammo will be included, thereby giving an international authority the right to regulate arms sales already protected by the Second Amendment. They also said any move for an international gun registry would be a non-starter.
A Republican letter circulated by Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran has 45 signatures.
Ratification requires two-thirds of the Senate. So far 57 senators have said they would vote against the treaty, expected to be wrapped up next year.
In his letter, Moran wrote, "Our country's sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations," Moran wrote in the letter. "Today, the Senate sends a powerful message to the Obama Administration: an Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable."
The emergence of strong Democratic resistance comes as the president is trying to deal with fallout from liberal Democrats upset that he has opened the door to major changes in Social Security and Medicare as part of the debt ceiling crisis.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which the Bush administration had opposed, would regulate with the international trade of arms. It would cover the trading of conventional firearms likes those used by collectors and sportsmen and women.
The goal of the treaty is to come up with internationally recognized rules governing the trade of guns and ammo. The United States is the world's largest exporter of arms.
Tester's letter concludes, "As members of the United States Senate, it is our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on the ratification of the United Nation's Arms Trade Treaty. Before we could support ratification, we must have assurances that our concerns are adequately addressed and that the Treaty will not in any way impede upon the Constitutional rights of American gun owners. Anything short of this commitment would be unacceptable.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
'Palestinian state declaration would hurt US funding of PA'
From: Jerusalem Post
A top congresswoman is warning that the US could reduce aid to the Palestinians if they pursue a unilateral declaration of statehood at the UN.
“That would be a very, very bad thing to do,” Rep. Kay Granger, chairwoman of the House appropriations subcommittee overseeing foreign aid, told The Jerusalem Post. (The interview will appear in Monday’s Pessah supplement.) “It will” affect US aid to the Palestinian Authority, the Texas Republican said, adding, “It would be a very serious step. It also could affect our funding at the UN.”
For the time being, however, she said that she supports aid for the Palestinians and sees the US continuing to contribute hundreds of millions in dollars for Palestinian security despite the GOP zeal for reducing spending.
“We believed that was important, and I continue to believe that’s important,” she said. “I’ve been there and seen some of the security that’s occurring that we’re helping to fund. And I think overall it’s a help – it’s a help toward reaching a peace, if we can do that.”
Granger also told the Post that she and other Republicans remained committed to aid for Israel, which totals nearly $3 billion in annual assistance.
“The friendship and assistance is solid from the Congress, both the House and Senate and both Democrats and Republicans,” she said.
When the Republican focus on making cuts – particularly to foreign aid – first surfaced during last year’s congressional campaigns, some Israel-backers, including Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, who is now the House majority leader, suggested funding for Israel might be put in the defense budget. That way, since the defense budget was less likely to face sharp cuts, Israel funding could be more secure.
A top congresswoman is warning that the US could reduce aid to the Palestinians if they pursue a unilateral declaration of statehood at the UN.
“That would be a very, very bad thing to do,” Rep. Kay Granger, chairwoman of the House appropriations subcommittee overseeing foreign aid, told The Jerusalem Post. (The interview will appear in Monday’s Pessah supplement.) “It will” affect US aid to the Palestinian Authority, the Texas Republican said, adding, “It would be a very serious step. It also could affect our funding at the UN.”
For the time being, however, she said that she supports aid for the Palestinians and sees the US continuing to contribute hundreds of millions in dollars for Palestinian security despite the GOP zeal for reducing spending.
“We believed that was important, and I continue to believe that’s important,” she said. “I’ve been there and seen some of the security that’s occurring that we’re helping to fund. And I think overall it’s a help – it’s a help toward reaching a peace, if we can do that.”
Granger also told the Post that she and other Republicans remained committed to aid for Israel, which totals nearly $3 billion in annual assistance.
“The friendship and assistance is solid from the Congress, both the House and Senate and both Democrats and Republicans,” she said.
When the Republican focus on making cuts – particularly to foreign aid – first surfaced during last year’s congressional campaigns, some Israel-backers, including Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, who is now the House majority leader, suggested funding for Israel might be put in the defense budget. That way, since the defense budget was less likely to face sharp cuts, Israel funding could be more secure.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Flashback 2005: UN Predicts 50 Million Global Warming Refugees By 2010
From: Newsbusters
To give you an idea of the kind of hysterical predictions the global warming crowd have made in recent years, the United Nations in 2005 actually forecast that by the end of the previous decade, there would be 50 million environmental refugees around the world as a result of climate change.
Britain's Guardian reported October 12, 2005:
Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse.
To give you an idea of the kind of hysterical predictions the global warming crowd have made in recent years, the United Nations in 2005 actually forecast that by the end of the previous decade, there would be 50 million environmental refugees around the world as a result of climate change.
Britain's Guardian reported October 12, 2005:
Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse."There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change," Dr Bogardi said. "This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations." [...]
Hans van Ginkel, UN under-secretary-general and rector of the university, said: "This is a highly complex issue, with global organisations already overwhelmed by the demands of conventionally recognised refugees. However, we should prepare now to define, accept and accommodate this new breed of refugee."
UN document would give 'Mother Earth' same rights as humans
A "Ministry of Mother Earth" in Bolivia. Now the United Nations? It strikes me that if the Earth is our mother someone may want to call child services because she's one abusive mom. I mean hurricanes? Tornadoes? Earthquakes? Tsunamis? Liberals? Worst of all? SNOW! All because we moved out of the cave and mined for the means to heat ourselves. Call the cops, please.
From: Canada.com
Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving "Mother Earth" the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.
The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to "dominate and exploit" — to the point that the "well-being and existence of many beings" is now threatened.
The wording may yet evolve, but the general structure is meant to mirror Bolivia's Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, which Bolivian President Evo Morales enacted in January.
That document speaks of the country's natural resources as "blessings," and grants the Earth a series of specific rights that include rights to life, water and clean air; the right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities; and the right to be free from pollution.
It also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth, and provides the planet with an ombudsman whose job is to hear nature's complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state.
"If you want to have balance, and you think that the only (entities) who have rights are humans or companies, then how can you reach balance?" Pablo Salon, Bolivia's ambassador to the UN, told Postmedia News. "But if you recognize that nature too has rights, and (if you provide) legal forms to protect and preserve those rights, then you can achieve balance."
The application of the law appears destined to pose new challenges for companies operating in the country, which is rich in natural resources, including natural gas and lithium, but remains one of the poorest in Latin America.
But while Salon said his country just seeks to achieve "harmony" with nature, he signalled that mining and other companies may come under greater scrutiny.
From: Canada.com
Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving "Mother Earth" the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.
The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to "dominate and exploit" — to the point that the "well-being and existence of many beings" is now threatened.
The wording may yet evolve, but the general structure is meant to mirror Bolivia's Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, which Bolivian President Evo Morales enacted in January.
That document speaks of the country's natural resources as "blessings," and grants the Earth a series of specific rights that include rights to life, water and clean air; the right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities; and the right to be free from pollution.
It also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth, and provides the planet with an ombudsman whose job is to hear nature's complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state.
"If you want to have balance, and you think that the only (entities) who have rights are humans or companies, then how can you reach balance?" Pablo Salon, Bolivia's ambassador to the UN, told Postmedia News. "But if you recognize that nature too has rights, and (if you provide) legal forms to protect and preserve those rights, then you can achieve balance."
The application of the law appears destined to pose new challenges for companies operating in the country, which is rich in natural resources, including natural gas and lithium, but remains one of the poorest in Latin America.
But while Salon said his country just seeks to achieve "harmony" with nature, he signalled that mining and other companies may come under greater scrutiny.
Monday, April 04, 2011
'US firmly opposed to PA seeking UN statehood declaration'
From: Jerusalem Post
The US is firmly opposed to Palestinians pursuing a unilateral declaration of statehood through the UN, the top White House Middle East advisor said Monday.
“We have consistently made it clear that the way to produce a Palestinian state is through negotiations, not through unilateral declarations, not through going to the UN,” Dennis Ross told the Anti-Defamation League’s annual leadership conference. “Our position on that has been consistent in opposition.”
As expectations increase that the Palestinians will seek a UN resolution on the issue this September, Ross disparaged the idea as unhelpful not only to the overall diplomatic environment, but to advancing the Palestinians’ own goals.
“This doesn’t make it more likely that there’ll be a Palestinian state,” he said.
Instead Ross reiterated the need for Palestinians and Israelis to engage directly, particularly given the regime-toppling occurring in the region. He said that young and emerging leaderships need to see that Israel can make peace with the Palestinians and that negotiations were a course for achieving results.
The US is firmly opposed to Palestinians pursuing a unilateral declaration of statehood through the UN, the top White House Middle East advisor said Monday.
“We have consistently made it clear that the way to produce a Palestinian state is through negotiations, not through unilateral declarations, not through going to the UN,” Dennis Ross told the Anti-Defamation League’s annual leadership conference. “Our position on that has been consistent in opposition.”
As expectations increase that the Palestinians will seek a UN resolution on the issue this September, Ross disparaged the idea as unhelpful not only to the overall diplomatic environment, but to advancing the Palestinians’ own goals.
“This doesn’t make it more likely that there’ll be a Palestinian state,” he said.
Instead Ross reiterated the need for Palestinians and Israelis to engage directly, particularly given the regime-toppling occurring in the region. He said that young and emerging leaderships need to see that Israel can make peace with the Palestinians and that negotiations were a course for achieving results.
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Yes It Does, Staffan de Mistura
You can read the article HERE. Staffan de Mistura is the top United Nations envoy in Afghanistan and a witness to the murder of some of his companions. It was this quote at the end of the article I found revealing.
Free speech does not extend to offending culture or religion and its traditions? Well, sir if a culture finds it desirable to kill defending printed type as sacred, then we need to offend more often because it seems they neglected to move forward with the rest of us. This is the 21st century, just because we no longer have gates doesn't mean the world lacks for barbarians, so stop making excuses.
"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of offending culture, religion or traditions," de Mistura said. "Those who entered our building were actually furiously angry about the issue about the Quran. There was nothing political there."Clearly, he does not understand the principles of a free society. Culture,Religion and their traditions have ritually been subject to ridicule and outright persecution. It has as a matter of history often been justified. Every culture has established rigid class structures in one form or another. It is with free speech confronting the injustice of many traditions that have moved humanity forward.
Free speech does not extend to offending culture or religion and its traditions? Well, sir if a culture finds it desirable to kill defending printed type as sacred, then we need to offend more often because it seems they neglected to move forward with the rest of us. This is the 21st century, just because we no longer have gates doesn't mean the world lacks for barbarians, so stop making excuses.
UN Ignores Its Own Data to Promote Gun Ban
From: Pajamas Media
Recently, the United Nations took the next step in negotiating an international arms trade treaty that has the full support of the Obama administration. The goal of this treaty is to impose “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms” and ammunition, ostensibly because “too many arms still end up in the wrong hands.”
This high-sounding rhetoric demands further examination, especially since the UN group behind this meeting is called the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.
Since the mid-1990s, the United Nations has proclaimed that global civilian disarmament will ensure worldwide peace and prosperity. But to comprehend their attitude towards civilian gun ownership, know that the United Nations believes you have no civil right of self-defense:
Recently, the United Nations took the next step in negotiating an international arms trade treaty that has the full support of the Obama administration. The goal of this treaty is to impose “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms” and ammunition, ostensibly because “too many arms still end up in the wrong hands.”
This high-sounding rhetoric demands further examination, especially since the UN group behind this meeting is called the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.
Since the mid-1990s, the United Nations has proclaimed that global civilian disarmament will ensure worldwide peace and prosperity. But to comprehend their attitude towards civilian gun ownership, know that the United Nations believes you have no civil right of self-defense:
Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right.” There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.
Peres: Goldstone owes the State of Israel an apology
From: Jerusalem Post
Addressing a recent op-ed by Richard Goldstone, President Shimon Peres said that the retired South African jurist should apologize to the State of Israel for accusing it of war crimes during Operation Cast Lead, Israel Radio reported.
"Goldstone ignored the central reason for the IDF operation in Gaza," Peres said, "the firing of thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens."
He added that the IDF acted in self defense, investigated its own actions and will continue to be one of the most moral armies in the world.
Addressing a recent op-ed by Richard Goldstone, President Shimon Peres said that the retired South African jurist should apologize to the State of Israel for accusing it of war crimes during Operation Cast Lead, Israel Radio reported.
"Goldstone ignored the central reason for the IDF operation in Gaza," Peres said, "the firing of thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens."
He added that the IDF acted in self defense, investigated its own actions and will continue to be one of the most moral armies in the world.
Goldstone Recants! Will the Left Follow His Example?
From: Commentary Magazine:
In what must be considered as shocking a turnaround as any we have seen in recent years, Richard Goldstone, the chair of the United Nations Human Rights Council’s fact-finding commission about the conflict in Gaza, has retracted his claim that Israel deliberately sought to target and kill Palestinian civilians.
A product of the Human Rights Council, an organization that is singularly dedicated to besmirching and attacking Israel while ignoring serious crimes elsewhere (including those committed by the nations that makes up its membership), the Goldstone Report was widely criticized for its one-sided nature and the inaccuracy of its claims. But with Goldstone, who is a prominent South African Jew, as its front man, the report became the centerpiece of a new round of efforts aimed at both delegitimizing the Jewish state and its right of self-defense. His claims were taken up by anti-Zionists across the globe and in particular by those American left-wingers such as the J Street lobby and Michael Lerner’s Tikkun, which have both sought to establish themselves as Jewish critics of Israel and its defenders in this country.
A product of the Human Rights Council, an organization that is singularly dedicated to besmirching and attacking Israel while ignoring serious crimes elsewhere (including those committed by the nations that makes up its membership), the Goldstone Report was widely criticized for its one-sided nature and the inaccuracy of its claims. But with Goldstone, who is a prominent South African Jew, as its front man, the report became the centerpiece of a new round of efforts aimed at both delegitimizing the Jewish state and its right of self-defense. His claims were taken up by anti-Zionists across the globe and in particular by those American left-wingers such as the J Street lobby and Michael Lerner’s Tikkun, which have both sought to establish themselves as Jewish critics of Israel and its defenders in this country.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Murder In the Name of God/Defending American Values
So, Terry Jones burns a Koran in Florida. A willful,deliberate act designed to be provocative and inflame passions. But, Mr. Jones, like his buddies at Westboro Baptist lives not only in a free country, but in a nation that holds firm that his freedom is natural to his humanity as endowed by our creator. A free man may reject and ridicule those with whom he disagrees or finds disagreeable. Our Republic has effectively codified the oft cited but often ignored precept by Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
We have for quite a while now been libeled "Islamophobic" if we dare to point out the professed faith of those who have murdered and maimed in praise or defense of "Allah". The Fort Hood shooter yells "Allah Akbar", the gunman in Germany does the same. It is virtually ignored and of course it's never labeled terrorism. It's never pointed out in mainstream outlets that they took lives in the name of God. Denial is a bitch if you're afraid to be labeled "intolerant", or a "bigot" or an "Islamophobe". So we treat it as random violence, rather than an altogether demonic act of terror.
At this moment the numbers are all over the place, but at least twelve people have died and two beheaded in Afghanistan in a demonstration protesting Mr. Jones's Koran burning. It has been roundly condemned. What about bringing the perpetrators to justice? This is the same country we liberated where missionaries were killed just for possessing a "Holy Bible". It sure is comforting to know that one will be killed for either defacing a Koran and possessing a Bible. It need not be uttered, but to shed blood in the name of God is an act of barbarism.
The matter at hand as regarding the burning of the Koran does not rise to the attention of the President and does not for diplomatic purposes warrant an official response. Mr. Jones actions are reprehensible as an act of provocation, but is an action grounded in the deepest roots of American life and values. His actions did not necessitate a murderous rampage. But it did, or at least it was the pretext to justify murder.
I'm tired of placating thugs by ignoring their actions as a defense of faith. I'm tired of moral relativism as an excuse to coddle and appease savage theocratic ideologues. I'm tired of our most shameful chapters in history as a justification for moral relativity. As a nation we have struggled with our demons, but those spirits were confronted by a good people compelled to fight injustice in furtherance of American ideals. What made this nation great is not that we are free of sin or shame, but that we had the courage of greater convictions. Those who murder in the name of God do not identify their actions as sin or shame for they in their mind's eye are the servant of God, avenging his honor. That is the fundamental distinction between those who burn books and those who would kill innocent people in mourning the fate of printed type.
It's time that we proudly asserted our values, for those principles in our Constitution are not merely the province of Americans, but the natural human order. It is the clearest expression of human dignity and our inherent,natural rights. Free speech can be abrasive and hateful, but we don't kill for being offended. We protect it. As we should. If God gave us free will, then we are free to reject him and the faithful certainly have no fear for the future because one chooses to bite the apple.
As Americans we must reject calls to sanction or incarcerate Mr. Jones for his behavior. We must defend his right as disruptive as it is. To abandon a noble defense of our inalienable rights as an individual free man or woman sends a clear message that we may be intimidated into abandoning our most cherished principles. The United Nations has at the behest of Muslim member nations sought to pass a resolution or reach an agreement called "blasphemy laws". This is an attempt to define criticism of faith or religion as a human rights violation. It is an effort to deny our most precious right of free speech. It is an attitude that tries to kill Danish cartoonists, an effort that justifies killing Dutch film makers and driving a young American woman into hiding for suggesting "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day".
Are we failing our republican principles out of fear for losing Saudi oil that finances wahabist madrases? Are we so fearful of attack that we would rather live obediently than stand at the watchtower of democracy? Are we too timid to do as Voltaire and die defending the right to speak freely? Are we so offended by others that we fail to recognize an effort at the erosion of our natural rights?
There are many things that are antithetical to a free society and people. In a free country we reject the very notion, the concept of heresy,apostasy,blasphemy and sacrilege. In a free society nothing and no one is sacred,not even God. If he had meant anyone to avenge his name he would've given them wings. In the meantime, we must publicly reinforce our dedication to defend our core principles. The founders in the Declaration of Independence pledged their lives,their fortunes and their most sacred honor. We are obligated to perpetuate their sacrifice. It may leave a bad taste in our mouths but we must defend Terry Jones. It's the right thing to do. It's the American Way. We'll leave his final judgement on the matter to a higher authority, but we must stand guard against those who imagine they have wings and do the will of God.
We have for quite a while now been libeled "Islamophobic" if we dare to point out the professed faith of those who have murdered and maimed in praise or defense of "Allah". The Fort Hood shooter yells "Allah Akbar", the gunman in Germany does the same. It is virtually ignored and of course it's never labeled terrorism. It's never pointed out in mainstream outlets that they took lives in the name of God. Denial is a bitch if you're afraid to be labeled "intolerant", or a "bigot" or an "Islamophobe". So we treat it as random violence, rather than an altogether demonic act of terror.
At this moment the numbers are all over the place, but at least twelve people have died and two beheaded in Afghanistan in a demonstration protesting Mr. Jones's Koran burning. It has been roundly condemned. What about bringing the perpetrators to justice? This is the same country we liberated where missionaries were killed just for possessing a "Holy Bible". It sure is comforting to know that one will be killed for either defacing a Koran and possessing a Bible. It need not be uttered, but to shed blood in the name of God is an act of barbarism.
The matter at hand as regarding the burning of the Koran does not rise to the attention of the President and does not for diplomatic purposes warrant an official response. Mr. Jones actions are reprehensible as an act of provocation, but is an action grounded in the deepest roots of American life and values. His actions did not necessitate a murderous rampage. But it did, or at least it was the pretext to justify murder.
I'm tired of placating thugs by ignoring their actions as a defense of faith. I'm tired of moral relativism as an excuse to coddle and appease savage theocratic ideologues. I'm tired of our most shameful chapters in history as a justification for moral relativity. As a nation we have struggled with our demons, but those spirits were confronted by a good people compelled to fight injustice in furtherance of American ideals. What made this nation great is not that we are free of sin or shame, but that we had the courage of greater convictions. Those who murder in the name of God do not identify their actions as sin or shame for they in their mind's eye are the servant of God, avenging his honor. That is the fundamental distinction between those who burn books and those who would kill innocent people in mourning the fate of printed type.
It's time that we proudly asserted our values, for those principles in our Constitution are not merely the province of Americans, but the natural human order. It is the clearest expression of human dignity and our inherent,natural rights. Free speech can be abrasive and hateful, but we don't kill for being offended. We protect it. As we should. If God gave us free will, then we are free to reject him and the faithful certainly have no fear for the future because one chooses to bite the apple.
As Americans we must reject calls to sanction or incarcerate Mr. Jones for his behavior. We must defend his right as disruptive as it is. To abandon a noble defense of our inalienable rights as an individual free man or woman sends a clear message that we may be intimidated into abandoning our most cherished principles. The United Nations has at the behest of Muslim member nations sought to pass a resolution or reach an agreement called "blasphemy laws". This is an attempt to define criticism of faith or religion as a human rights violation. It is an effort to deny our most precious right of free speech. It is an attitude that tries to kill Danish cartoonists, an effort that justifies killing Dutch film makers and driving a young American woman into hiding for suggesting "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day".
Are we failing our republican principles out of fear for losing Saudi oil that finances wahabist madrases? Are we so fearful of attack that we would rather live obediently than stand at the watchtower of democracy? Are we too timid to do as Voltaire and die defending the right to speak freely? Are we so offended by others that we fail to recognize an effort at the erosion of our natural rights?
There are many things that are antithetical to a free society and people. In a free country we reject the very notion, the concept of heresy,apostasy,blasphemy and sacrilege. In a free society nothing and no one is sacred,not even God. If he had meant anyone to avenge his name he would've given them wings. In the meantime, we must publicly reinforce our dedication to defend our core principles. The founders in the Declaration of Independence pledged their lives,their fortunes and their most sacred honor. We are obligated to perpetuate their sacrifice. It may leave a bad taste in our mouths but we must defend Terry Jones. It's the right thing to do. It's the American Way. We'll leave his final judgement on the matter to a higher authority, but we must stand guard against those who imagine they have wings and do the will of God.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
UN chief: Israel's occupation is 'morally, politically unsustainable' - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
The fact that the "occupation" occured after defeating their Arab neighbors in an unprovoked war is ignored
From: Israel News
From: Israel News
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called on Israel Wednesday to halt settlement building in the West Bank and put a stop to all forms of violence and incitement, the UN News Center reported.
Speaking in Uruguay at the UN Latin American and Caribbean Meeting in support of Middle East peace Ban said it was a "crucial time" for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
“Time is of the essence in realizing the two-State solution, " Ban said, "the occupation that started in 1967 is morally and politically unsustainable, and must end. The Palestinians have a legitimate right to the establishment of an independent and viable State of their own."
Speaking in Uruguay at the UN Latin American and Caribbean Meeting in support of Middle East peace Ban said it was a "crucial time" for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
“Time is of the essence in realizing the two-State solution, " Ban said, "the occupation that started in 1967 is morally and politically unsustainable, and must end. The Palestinians have a legitimate right to the establishment of an independent and viable State of their own."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
