Another UN mission

[I think not]

Geneva, 20 June (AKI) - Saiid Mortazavi, a judge who has ordered in the past six years the closure of over 200 papers and jailed about 100 journalists will attend the first session of the newly formed United Nations Human Rights Council, running until 30 June in Geneva, as the number two of the Iranian delegation. The delegation is led by Iranian justice minister Jamal Karimi Rad.

The judge is also suspected of a role in the death in July 2003 of a Canadian photoreporter of Iranian origin, Zahra Kazemi. Kazemi was taken to hospital three days after her arrest with a fractured skull. One of the doctors who treated her and signed the journalist's death certificate said she had been savagely beaten and raped.

Mortazavi was present when the journalist, who was arrested for taking pictures at a students' rally, was being questioned. Unofficial reports claim he was among those who beat her.

The presence of the magistrate in Geneva has sparked the anger of Iranian journalists and protests by international rights groups.

"The presence of Saiid Mortazavi, one of the greatest enemies of freedom of the press in the world, at an international conference on human rights is unbearable," Reza Moini, who supervises the situation in Iran on behalf of media rights group Reporter sans Frontier told Adnkronos International (AKI).

Mashaollah Shamsolvaezin, the deputy president of the union of Iranian journalists, also defined the judge's presence in Geneva as "disrespect of the Islamic Republic towards the international community."

"The presence of a magistrate suspected of involvement in the murder of a journalist is not only unacceptable but must be considered a challenge by the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the United Nations and must therefore not be underestimated nor tolerated," Shamsolvaezin told AKI.

The UN's new Human Rights Council, which aims to protect rights worldwide, is replacing a now defunct commission on human rights accused of allowing nations that consistently violated human rights to serve as members and escape scrutiny.

:roll:

I'm waiting for the "but" [insert comment about the evil empire here]

 

[Jersay]

He shouldn't be there. Iran shouldn't be there but it is better than what was before.

And how is this a mission??

 

[Colpy]

United nations?

human rights?

don't make me laugh.

 

[Jersay]

The United Nations works extremely hard at human rights and for people to get along. I would direct you to what I posted in the Off thread about three brave workers who were killed.

On the ground, the only hope for most people is if the U.N can raise the attention to other organizations and the world.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

The UN's new Human Rights Council, which aims to protect rights worldwide, is replacing a now defunct commission on human rights accused of allowing nations that consistently violated human rights to serve as members and escape scrutiny.

:roll:

And the inclusion of Iran, China, etc., in the new HRC doesn't constitute "allowing nations that consistently violated human rights to serve as members and escape scrutiny?"

What a load.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Another UN mission

United nations?

human rights?

don't make me laugh.

:lol:

 

[Jersay]

Re: RE: Another UN mission

The UN's new Human Rights Council, which aims to protect rights worldwide, is replacing a now defunct commission on human rights accused of allowing nations that consistently violated human rights to serve as members and escape scrutiny.

:roll:

And the inclusion of Iran, China, etc., in the new HRC doesn't constitute "allowing nations that consistently violated human rights to serve as members and escape scrutiny?"

What a load.

Yeah and what would you have bright-guy. Nothing. No Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No thousands of human rights workers who go around every country, who have been attacked, who have been murdered to ensure human rights occur.

People who are against the U.N should think. What would you have if the U.N wasn't here. Well at least one thing, not human rights.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Another UN mission

Yeah and what would you have bright-guy. Nothing. No Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No thousands of human rights workers who go around every country, who have been attacked, who have been murdered to ensure human rights occur.

People who are against the U.N should think. What would you have if the U.N wasn't here. Well at least one thing, not human rights.

You're out of yer mind Jersay, I would really like to know what the hell you are smoking.

The UN's Declaration of Human Rights is a joke and a half when it allows members states that are constantly violating these rights t chair the Human Rights Commission.

 

[Jersay]

Re: RE: Another UN mission

Yeah and what would you have bright-guy. Nothing. No Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No thousands of human rights workers who go around every country, who have been attacked, who have been murdered to ensure human rights occur.

People who are against the U.N should think. What would you have if the U.N wasn't here. Well at least one thing, not human rights.

You're out of yer mind Jersay, I would really like to know what the hell you are smoking.

The UN's Declaration of Human Rights is a joke and a half when it allows members states that are constantly violating these rights t chair the Human Rights Commission.

I'm out of my mind. Well ITN was the Allies working up a document to protect Human Rights after the war. Nope.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a joke. Its the most important document the world has ever come up with in its history.

 

[Jersay]

You know maybe I am out of my mind. With comments from a growing minority about the United Nations. Why should the United Nations waste its time trying to keep peace around the world, why should it try to strive to releave disasters, help children, help refugees. Good lord, the thousands of U.N workers who have lost their lives and for what. Sad.

 

[Jersay]

Well I guess trying to ask people to work as human beings and not some person from some stupid 'artifical' country is a little too hard in this day and age.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

I am not against the UN, I am against corruption and ineptitude, which the UN happens to be ripe full of. If we could come up with an organization that actually did something, that actually had teeth, that had an ounce of credibilty, I would be all for it.

Unfortunately the UN has none of those qualities. And, as such, doesn't really do any of what you want. Human rights violations go on unabated (unless they've decided to do something in Darfur that I'm unaware of). Journalists are still killed and imprisoned against their will (and will continue to be if the inclusion of this "judge" is any indication).

Its all well and good to have a Human Rights Council, but what is the point if you are going to load it up with many of the worst offenders? What do you think is going to happen? I'll tell you. Nothing. Absolultely nothing. Journalists will still be afraid to go into Iran, Gaza, N. Korea, China, etc. The situation in Darfur will continue to worsen. All the human rights violations around the world will continue because no one is willing to actually do anything about it. No one is willing to do anything other than talk at each other.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Another UN mission

Yeah and what would you have bright-guy. Nothing. No Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No thousands of human rights workers who go around every country, who have been attacked, who have been murdered to ensure human rights occur.

People who are against the U.N should think. What would you have if the U.N wasn't here. Well at least one thing, not human rights.

You're out of yer mind Jersay, I would really like to know what the hell you are smoking.

The UN's Declaration of Human Rights is a joke and a half when it allows members states that are constantly violating these rights t chair the Human Rights Commission.

Man I'd not even hear George Bush Jr say such Neo-fascist B.S.

The UN's Declaration of Human Rights is a joke

So what are you saying, if you don't folllow it, just to kick you out of the U.N. The fact of the matter is the U.N. is there to try to find common ground and fix problems like these, not to make them worse by kicking out the member state and then ignoring and pretending it's not our problem because it's not a member state.

Yeah maybe Jersay smokes something from a pipe sometimes, but at least he cares about people. I'm getting a general feeling from you that you don't care about many people at all. Just because you legislate/agree on morality doesn't mean it will be followed magically. We are all human beings and there will be rogue states. But the decleration is the first step to solving these issues. The fact we all agree with them is good enough stepping stone.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Another UN mission

Man I'd not even hear George Bush Jr say such Neo-fascist B.S.

My comment is Neo-Fascist and the fact the UN allows nations that have repeatedly undermined Human Rights to chair the Commission, isn't. Good one Finder, your argument is valid. :roll:

Yeah maybe Jersay smokes something from a pipe sometimes, but at least he cares about people. I'm getting a general feeling from you that you don't care about many people at all. Just because you legislate/agree on morality doesn't mean it will be followed magically. We are all human beings and there will be rogue states. But the decleration is the first step to solving these issues. The fact we all agree with them is good enough stepping stone.

This stepping stone has been around since 1948, what exactly is the UN waiting for to act upon its principles? The rest of your post is only meant to piss me off, so I won't respond in kind. Refute the facts I give you and refrain from personal attacks, you're beginning to get boring.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: Another UN mission

United nations?

human rights?

don't make me laugh.

United states?

Human rights?

:laughing7:

 

[Jersay]

Re: RE: Another UN mission

I am not against the UN, I am against corruption and ineptitude, which the UN happens to be ripe full of. If we could come up with an organization that actually did something, that actually had teeth, that had an ounce of credibilty, I would be all for it.

Unfortunately the UN has none of those qualities. And, as such, doesn't really do any of what you want. Human rights violations go on unabated (unless they've decided to do something in Darfur that I'm unaware of). Journalists are still killed and imprisoned against their will (and will continue to be if the inclusion of this "judge" is any indication).

Its all well and good to have a Human Rights Council, but what is the point if you are going to load it up with many of the worst offenders? What do you think is going to happen? I'll tell you. Nothing. Absolultely nothing. Journalists will still be afraid to go into Iran, Gaza, N. Korea, China, etc. The situation in Darfur will continue to worsen. All the human rights violations around the world will continue because no one is willing to actually do anything about it. No one is willing to do anything other than talk at each other.

The U.N has a bunch of workers that go around and they find out and they write their reports. And then it is up to the security Council to figure out a way to do human rights.

The U.N placed sanctions against South Africa when it was in Apartheid. It has done trials against Slobodan Milosevic, surprisingly he died in jail. So you want something like NATO, which itself is so broken to pieces between Europe and America they can't solve problems.

 

[Jersay]

Re: RE: Another UN mission

Man I'd not even hear George Bush Jr say such Neo-fascist B.S.

My comment is Neo-Fascist and the fact the UN allows nations that have repeatedly undermined Human Rights to chair the Commission, isn't. Good one Finder, your argument is valid. :roll:

Yeah maybe Jersay smokes something from a pipe sometimes, but at least he cares about people. I'm getting a general feeling from you that you don't care about many people at all. Just because you legislate/agree on morality doesn't mean it will be followed magically. We are all human beings and there will be rogue states. But the decleration is the first step to solving these issues. The fact we all agree with them is good enough stepping stone.

This stepping stone has been around since 1948, what exactly is the UN waiting for to act upon its principles? The rest of your post is only meant to piss me off, so I won't respond in kind. Refute the facts I give you and refrain from personal attacks, you're beginning to get boring.

First off its a humanitarian organization. Second its main goal is to help civilians in case of disaster, in protection from agressors and to protect its member-states from a rogue nation which it has done twice.

I would love for all the politics to go away from the U.N and it just be an organization that had nothing to deal with member-state politics, but when you have 191 nations with their own political objective, (even ones that ally to America) it would be an excellent organization.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Another UN mission

United nations?

human rights?

don't make me laugh.

United states?

Human rights?

:laughing7:

Well at least you didn't deny the UN being a joke and a half, so that's something.

 

[Jersay]

Re: RE: Another UN mission

United nations?

human rights?

don't make me laugh.

United states?

Human rights?

:laughing7:

Well at least you didn't deny the UN being a joke and a half, so that's something.

The U.N might be a joke and a half, but you can make so many jokes of the U.S it isn't funny.

 

[Finder]

Jersay, well the UN may not be the strongist orginization but in part it is due to the fact that the main super power in the world consistently attacks nations unilaterly, which under mines the authoirty of the United Nations at every turn. If the Americans respected international law and the United nations it would abid by the rule of law and the United Nations rulings.


Also ITN tends to ignore all of the humantarian and peace keeping missions done by the UN. Just because the United Nations didn't use false information to go to war with Iraq like the USA doesn't make the united nations a joke, it makes the USA a rogue nation for being a aggressor nation in a war which had little merit and was currently being resolved in the United Nations to a point.