from the fantastic patterns of dreams to the surrealistic behaving of reality
written in Dinglish (that's Germanic English)
Nürnberg, Mittelfranken, 2007-04-02 - 5:51 a.m.
copycat with slight add-on
Usually I don’t add youtube clips to my diary anymore, because in most cases within short time they stop to exist in youtube, & then if the video is missing I’m commentin on – the whole entry seems somehow useless. – But I have a better method this time – I have the whole text of the blog written down at the end of this entry – so if the video-clip is gone – just go down there & read it.
I found this clip in Lilas blog “Letters from Rungholt” & later also in Lizas world – both blogs in German language – but the clip is in English & Liza even translated the speech in his side into German –
It’s a debate at the UN Humane Rights Council of March 23, 2007 . where there is shown a small sample of the daily invective and truly offensive statements that are routinely welcomed by the UN Human Rights Council. Insults against ambassadors and mocking of human rights experts; justification of violence against women and gays; glorification of terrorism; Holocaust denial; demonization of Israel—the video shows how all of that and more was allowed by the Council. However, as shown at the end of the video, only one statement was rejected as "inadmissible" and banned from ever being delivered again: UN Watch's lifting of a mirror to the Council and exposing its shortcomings.
Of course it’s biased because you see only that small fragments of those participants who talk that shit – but on the other hand this Human Rights Council has a majority of states that are very biased against Israel, have low or none democracy at all & try in groups of similar interest to supress critics to their own countries – forget about human rights in China, in Myanmar, in Belarus, in North Corea, Sudan a lot of Arabian countries etc. – there’s always too many country representatives with the same goal – we don’t vote against you- then you don’t vote against us – fine agreements – but the majority of these countries are deeply biased against Israel – because Israel is the scapegoat for any Arab country anyway & a lot of countres in that wake too –
See which countries are in this Council:
Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay and Zambia., Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.
But typical results in the resolutions are typical like this:
In favour (34): Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay and Zambia.
Against (13): Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.
It’s a chism of the culture clash –maybe the west against the east, but maybe also those countries with some slightly higher human rights standards against thoseliving in no democracy at alll & it’s always the same relation in these votings of the UN Human Rights Council - & I don’t believe that human rights have something to do how much countries vote for or against, because the majority of countries has very low Human Rights standard – so building a council of representatives of all these countries means making the foxes the guardians of chickens.
Well just look at this video clip & may you see what I mean – or may also not – depends on how biased you are:
Here is Hillel’s speech as text & later on the statements of the represants
Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their noble dream?
In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has it decided?
Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.
One might say, in Harry Truman’s words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council.
But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something.
It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world—millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries—continue to go ignored.
So yes, this Council is doing something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights.
So too, the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.
But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?
Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions against Israel in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights—Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard—they say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh’s troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?
Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.
They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights.
You ask: What has become of the founders’ dream? With terrible lies and moral inversion, it is being turned into a nightmare.
Thank you, Mr. President.
REPLY BY HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA:
For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch, if you'd kindly listen to me. I am sorry that I'm not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible. In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records.
Below is the new prequel to the "No. 1 Top Rated" YouTube.com video of the March 23, 2007 debate at the UN Human Rights Council. This new 3-minute compilation reveals a small sample of the daily invective and truly offensive statements that are routinely welcomed by the UN Human Rights Council. Insults against ambassadors and mocking of human rights experts; justification of violence against women and gays; glorification of terrorism; Holocaust denial; demonization of Israel—the video shows how all of that and more was allowed by the Council. However, as shown at the end of the video, only one statement was rejected as "inadmissible" and banned from ever being delivered again: UN Watch's lifting of a mirror to the Council and exposing its shortcomings.
The following quotes, many of which are on the video above, are a small sample of the invective and truly offensive statements that are welcome at the newly created U.N. Human Rights Council:
Insulting Council Members
“The distinguished delegate is ignorant...” — Zimbabwe delegate, speaking of his counterpart from Finland, and accusing him of “astonishing and astounding hypocrisy,” Sept. 20, 2006.
Insulting UN Experts
“This libelous report does not deserve any respect or credibility. We will send it to the same place that we have sent all previous reports: the paper-recycling bin... There is, however, Madame, a significant contribution that you might make—and that would be by quitting...” — Cuban Ambassador Juan Antonio Fernández Palacios, Sept. 26, 2006, insulting UN expert Christine Chanet after she documented abuses by Cuba. The chair’s defense of the expert was limited to noting “the importance of not personifying or personalizing comments that will only exacerbate difficulties before us,” and followed his “Thank you to the delegate of Cuba for his statement.” “The one who has monopoly on the violation of human rights is Israel... the darling of the High Commissioner.” — Palestinian Ambassador Mohammad Abu-Koash, Dec. 1, 2006, mocking Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who dared to cite Palestinian obligations to stop terrorism in addition to her regular criticisms of Israel.
Violence Against Women
“Incidents of violence against women have been exaggerated.” — Sudan’s Farah Mustafa, Deputy Governor of the state of South Darfur, Dec. 12, 2006, after the Council heard reports of mass rape of Darfur women by the Sudanese-sponsored Janjaweed militia.
“Death penalty by stoning under Sharia law for unnatural sexual acts... should not be equated with extrajudicial killings and indeed should not have been featured in the report...” — Nigeria Ambassador Joseph Ayalogu, Sept. 19, 2006, challenging criticism by UN expert Philip Alston on Nigeria’s use of stoning to death as a punishment for homosexuality. Glorifying Terrorism
“Hezbollah is everyday simple people resisting, resisting an occupation...” — Cuban Ambassador Juan Antonio Fernández Palacios, Oct. 4, 2006.
“The Tehran Conference is not about denial of the Holocaust, it is rather an academic one that examines all aspects of the issue.” — Iranian delegate Forouza Ndeh Vadiati, Dec. 12, 2006.
The Holocaust is a “historical claim”, “the number of perished” is a particularly “legitimate question,” and there are “serious opposing ideas over the issue.” — Iranian Ambassador Alireza Moayeri, in letter circulated Jan. 11, 2007 by Secretariat of the Human Rights Council (under standard UN practice) “at the request of the President of the Human Rights Council,” which “has the honour to forward attached herewith a letter addressed to him by the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The President expressed no objections in carrying out this duty. Iran’s Holocaust denial conference of December 2006, “Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision,” was “an academic event,” and Zionism is an ideology “charged with hegemonic racial desires.” — Moayeri letter, ibid.
“Israel has not quenched its thirst for the blood of the Lebanese and has now directed it against unarmed civilians in Beit Hanoun.” Lebanese representative, Nov. 15, 2006, referring to Israel’s response to the Palestinian firing of Kassam rockets at the city of Sderot. “The Holocaust is going on, and it is an Israeli holocaust against the Palestinian people.” Palestine Ambassador Mohammad Abu-Koash, Dec. 12, 2006.
“Furthermore, as the distinguished Ambassador of Palestine reminds us, there is an Israeli holocaust against Palestinian people on a daily basis for more than sixty years, which was already noted by three special sessions.” — Iranian delegate Forouza Ndeh Vadiati, Dec. 12, 2006. “[Israeli] massacres against the displaced people, women and children, those were deliberate acts...” — Nord-Sud XXI, Libyan-funded organization that manages the “Moammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize,” Sept. 29, 2006. “A certain number of deliberate massacres of civilian populations” were committed by Israel.” — Jean Ziegler, UN special rapporteur on the right to food (and 1989 co-founder and 2002 co-winner of the “Moammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize”), Oct. 4, 2006. “. . . civilian people were killed, massacred, by the invading forces who have come from the planet Mars which they now call the Israeli occupier.” — Syrian delegate, June 23, 2006.