21 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
I think much of the UN’s work is not taken seriously. |
DKL, I think Washington could have used some UN troopers in the early years of his war against the redcoats. |
Maybe their next report will recommend that the UK pay the United States reparations. Can we have them pay in Pounds rather than Dollars? Or perhaps just ship us a few barrels of oil? |
Actually Bbell, wouldn’t the UN have been fighting WITH the Redcoats? |
#1, Nor should it be. I had to read a publication by a number of U.N. researchers for my Master’s- there were quite a few pages touting the success of China’s one child policy. |
I don’t know BBell – not sure those peacekeepers would have been any help – they would have had pitchforks to use as weapons and no shoes to wear. I like the idea of the Brits paying reparations. While we are at it, I think the US owes Mormons reparations for wrongs committed, owes left handed people (like me) for wrongs committed (ever tried to use right handed scissors?), and, finally, owes Democrats (like me) reparations for wrongs committed during the last 8 years :) |
Elizabeth II, armed with corgis and crumpets, vs. the Saudi religious police, in the eternal battle of Good vs. Evil. Yeah, I know who I stand with. Pass the jam. |
Ah because unilateral policies work so well… |
I blame Fawn Brodie. |
This is an unbelievable joke. I think that the UN is important both conceptually and practically but this type of thing happens over and over again. The body is so highly politicized that the members of the Human Rights Commission can have the audacity to make such a claim about the UK, one of the strongest bastions of human rights in the world. It really is a complete joke. |
Actually, the US owes Britain reparations for diverting precious resources from our effort to rid the world of Napoleon. |
For my part, I am a virulent anti-royalist, though also an Anglophile. So I sympathize (for what is likely the first and only time) with the UN Human Rights Council. If you think it is not possible to simultaneously be an Anglophile and an anti-royalist, then I would like to introduce you to Oliver Cromwell. Not that I advocate his methods! I think the Human Rights Counsel should, in the interest in truth-in-advertising, be renamed the Human Rights Codpiece. Many of the countries on there use the cover of “human rights” to hide and exaggerate their own prepubescent lack of development in that very area. |
Jeff, Is there any nation left on this planet that can rightfully be placed on a “human rights” council? Maybe New Zealand? Fiji? |
To Ardis (#7); Hear! Hear! I concur completely. To Ronan (#11); We rather liked Napoleon. He gave us an incredible deal on a piece of very useful real estate! |
Dan, if those are the only nations that uphold human rights by your definition of human rights, then you’re defining human rights such that it refers to an altogether useless definition. I realize that it can occasionally have some rhetorical impact, but you don’t really advance anything by defining important-sounding terms so that they either refer to nothing at all or refer to everything all at once. Jeff, Human Rights Codpiece: ROTFLMAO. In all seriousness, the reason why the UN has made this attack on England’s monarchy is because it’s safe to do so. The UK is so agreeable about it that they won’t even withhold their dues or support. And that’s exactly the reason why the UN would not have helped the US in the Revolutionary War. And that’s what makes the UN dangerous. Remember when an entire class of democrats was clamoring about working through the UN with Iraq, as though the UN had moral authority comparable to that of a real government? |
DKL, I merely joked about New Zealand and Fiji. I doubt their human rights record is spotless (in fact, I’d bet they have quite a few incidents that are not so nice). I’m just saying that for any nation to decry another nation for being on that human rights council is hypocritical. Every nation has a long history of violating the human rights of this or that individual/group/nation. The UN is a tool. It is not an effective tool. Frankly, DKL, you don’t want to have the UN be the effective tool it can be, because then it would mean that the United States must also abide by the councils and decisions of that body. Don’t decry it not being perfect because you yourself don’t want it to be perfect. You belong to a group of people that purposefully undermine the effectiveness of the UN and then you decry that the UN is ineffective. That’s just silly. You cannot have it both ways, DKL. |
The UN is a tool. I have a testimony of this. |
Dan: You belong to a group of people that purposefully undermine the effectiveness of the UN… You make it sound like this UN Human Rights Council report was my idea! |
Not at all. I’m making a broader point. |
[...] Elizabeth II, Queen of England: Threat to global human rights! 17th Jun 2008 @ 4 PM [...] |
I, for one, celebrate the fact that the UN is ineffective. And I would support reparations for Mormons exiled from Nauvoo, the minute that we offer reparations for the FLDS, and the slaves, and Cubs fans. |