Freedom Line Blog

Yesterday, the UN General Assembly announced the results of the election for the open seats on the Human Rights Council.  There were 14 seats available and 14 member-states seeking election, automatically demonstrating how much of a sham this institution is.  A report by Freedom House indicated that of those 14 nations, an incredible nine have human rights records that are questionable or simply not qualified.

The UN Resolution establishing the Council states among other things that:

…the Council shall be responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner…

…the Council should address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon…

…Make recommendations to the General Assembly for the further development of international law in the field of human rights…

This organization will now be guided by the enlightened leadership of Libya, Angola, Mauritania, Qatar and Malaysia, the five new members with human rights records of “Not Qualified”.  What makes one unqualified to be a leader in the field of human rights you ask?  According to Freedom House, here’s just a taste:

Angola: “Lengthy pretrial detention is common, and prisoners are subject to torture, severe overcrowding, sexual abuse, extortion, and a lack of basic services”

Libya: “Political parties have been illegal for more than 35 years and organizing or joining anything akin to a political party is punishable by long prison terms and even the death sentence”

Malaysia: “Religious freedom is restricted in Malaysia, as practicing a version of Islam other than Sunni Islam is prohibited”

Hypocrisy of this magnitude has always been rampant on the international scene.  This is but a reminder of the level of compromise required for everyone to get along.  Read the Freedom House report and remember why America is exceptional.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that the Organization of the Islamic Council (OIC) is pushing members of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to approve of a proposed treaty to limit religiously offensive language or speech. Since the United States is now a member of the UNHRC, the proposal offers President Barack Obama yet another chance to see if engagement will lead to better results than confrontation.

The United States under Barack Obama recently joined the UNHRC, maligned for years as the mouthpiece for countries that are themselves flagrant human rights abusers. A “new” council formed in 2006. President Obama’s hope is that as an engaged member, the US can further reform – and its own interests. This case will test his theory.

Consider the wording put forth by Pakistan, written on behalf of the OIC. It proposes “legal prohibition of publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults or uses offensive language” on matters regarded by religious followers as “sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings.”

This gives broad latitude to governments to decide what’s offensive. Countries such as Pakistan already have national blasphemy laws, but a global treaty would give them international cover to suppress minority religious groups with the excuse that these groups offend mainstream beliefs.”