UN Human Rights Committee oversteps its authority

Remove all ads!

Yeah, I see where you're going with that, but its still open to interpretation. The Hindu objection to eating a cow isn't just a dietary issue, they believe the stupid things are sacred and shouldn't be harmed, etc. So going by the above logic, killing a cow would be, "something you shouldn't kill."


@ Toughluck - so if the UN's duty is to support the religious majority of a given nation (are you serious?), should they have stepped in, in Sudan and aided the Mulsims in purging the Christians (or everybody for that matter)?

No. Of course not, because their job is not to support the beliefs or actions of religious institutions.

 

artechoke - whose beliefs are they advocating, then? What moral system do they go with?

They ARE NOT following what they have agreed upon (like Chev mentioned, they are going against their own conventions). If these conventions have been agreed upon by the majority on given congresses, then going against them means that they are supporting a minority, no matter what religion.

As for Sudan - these Muslims went against their own religion (have you even read any concise summary of beliefs included in the Quran?), they were not Muslim. If the religious majority of Sudan is Muslim, they should move in there and terminate the non-Muslim oppressors who not only terrorise the Christians, but Muslims as well - they are in power, so nobody will say that what they are doing is wrong.

 

Is the World Health Organisation a good enough source? http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/

The following article may go some way to explaining where your other thoughts on condoms come from.

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/example_condoms.htm

The Postcoital Pill
WHO site on the side effects, no mention of future problems with pregnancy:

[ December 08, 2004, 16:56: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

So you're saying that the UN, in addition to enforcing the religious majority, should be interpreting it and dictating proper practice of it as well?

 

@Carcaroth - there are laboratory tests and there are laboratory tests. Some research points to one conclusion, other research to different conclusions. I would ask of you - is it logical to believe that a "correctly used condom" will prevent HIV from passing if Pearl Index for condoms is somewhere between 5 and 20? HIV virus is by orders of magnitude smaller than a single sperm cell, and whilst quite a lot of sperm (plus the alkaline liquid) must pass through for conception to be possible, only a handful of HIViri is enough to cause AIDS.
And HIV is neither the most dangerous, nor the most virulent virus to be concerned about. HPV (look it up on WHO) is more dangerous (it is the unique cause of cervical cancer and studies show that cervical cancer develops in 40% of infected women), and much more virulent, spreading not only by direct contact of sexual organs, but also by contact of pubic areas. It is about ten times more proliferated than HIV. We can go for lengthy discussions about it, and I believe neither of us will be convinced.

ArtEChoke - I believe it would be enough if they went by what is true in various countries. If Jordan is in fact ruled by armed law enforcers, and an average person has no right to express their opinions, and is in fact oppressed by the sole fact that they are unable to live normal lives tell me, why doesn't HRC intervene, but at the same time has the audacity to instruct Poland (and it seems also Malta and Cyprus received that criticism) what is correct and what is not.

 

You only refer to lab tests, the WHO also talks about actual levels of infection.

The UN have also criticised Jordan,
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN016032.pdf

They haven't intervened in Jordan, but then they haven't intervened in Poland, Malta or Cypress either.

 

It is also a fact that some women HAVER to be on the pill due to medical conditions that might otherwise cause infertility.

Just wanted to point that one out even if I am here...

 

I must point out, as toughluck has already done, that a low pregnancy rate doesn't necessarily say anything about education. It only means contraceptives are available and people know where to get them. Unless they abstain, of course.

The document objects to the right of doctors to object to performing abortion even in those cases where it's legal.

Stop here! No woman is ever forced to have an abortion. Unless we're talking China where they can put a woman on anaesthetics and abort the foetus against the mother's will.

In the case you mention, i.e. in Poland, the woman is not forced to through an illegal abortion. She chooses to abort the foetus (or, as most Polish people would put it: to murder the child in her womb) of her own free will and in order to avoid the inconvenience of pregnancy, birth or child raising. She makes the decision that her convenience and comfort holds more value than the foetus's life and terminates that life against the law of the country.

I'm sorry, but the HRC mentions abortion amongst the methods of family planning and promotes its legalisation. This is against the regulation of the Cairo Conference (I called it convention once or twice, my bad).

What is here to fear? The legal ban on child adoption. Would that make you fear? Or refusal to acknowledge a gay union as a marriage, is that something that causes fear?

With national minorities, things are different. It's a matter of fact that a certain group is of a different nationality from the rest of the state's inhabitants. Same with religious minorities, although religions are a more difficult matter, with moral codes that aren't always matching (and don't always get along well with the state's law) and certain special regulations. Let alone all those new sects we have.

However, when it comes to "sexual minorities", most people on the earth are convinced that those are not valid alternative options, but deviations and even mental conditions. Also, most of the planet's inhabitants consider associated sexual behaviour immoral - while it isn't considered immoral to be German in France or Christian in Israel. The whole idea of special protections for minorities is to protect minority groups from harassment by extremist, to allow them freedom of cult, teaching of the native language and so on. Not to allow them to engage in behaviour that most of the people consider immoral. Or to challenge and undermine such millennia old social institutions as marriage of a man and a woman.

I am nit-picking, all the time. But they're actually pretty serious about it. I don't believe it was just bad wording. They want to root out anti-gay-movement attitudes.

See? You follow the same route, though probably unwittingly. There's a difference between "homophobic behaviour" and actual crimes committed out of hatred against homosexuals.

If "bigots" engage in "homophobic" behaviour and gay rights activists engage in, let's call it bigotophobic behaviour, then who is worse?

If, let's say, a Christian speaks against the gay movement, he is considered homophobic and even threatened with "hate speech" lawsuits. But what when the said gay rights activists go on ranting about "bigots", "homophobes", "bigotry", let alone things they say about Christians, especially Catholic, of those especially the hierarchy and the Vatican?

Does freedom of speech work one way only?

I find the term homophobic very offensive.

If you legalise something that 90% of the society (probably less than that, but still much above 50%) considers murder, isn't that oppression? I will feel oppressed if I have to pass by an abortion clinic knowing that children are being killed inside and that the law endorses it and that I cannot possibly help them. And would get punished myself if I tried.

What if it exists? Will it have been killed any less than if you were certain of its existence?

If I can't talk about fags and queers, why can you talk about Catholic Trollocks?

Plus, as toughluck has pointed out, condoms don't stop the spread of AIDS and wearing them gives a false sense of security leading especially young people to believe they are protected while they aren't really. This increases promiscuity, which helps the spread of AIDS. Ergo: condoms help the spread of AIDS.

But I am a Catholic Trollock, so what do I know. I can't make any sense because I'm Catholic. I would be making sense if I were gay or at least a pro-choicer.

Sanctions, embargoes, diplomatic obstruction. You bet it. Sure there won't be a military intervention in Poland, but you know... it's not like they can't exert any pressure.

 

No because it doesn't force you to do an abortion if you don't want to.

So you say that you will feel oppresed because the law would not allow you to enforce YOUR will and YOUR moral values to other people's lives and bodies and because you cannot prevent an action that doesn't have a single effect on you?

 

A murder of an adult happening on my eyes doesn't have a single effect on me, either.

I can't agree with your argument. Following your logic, we could legalise everything, including murder and theft, because legalising them doesn't force you to steal or kill.

 

OK. To put it another way - would you feel oppressed if you saw people being murdered on the street by order of somebody who had 'legal right' to do so? I will explain in more detail below.

No, I would feel oppressed because killing innocent people would be sanctioned by the law and the government would enforce it as lawful.
Let's say the woman has right to murder a defenceless human being*. How does that differ from holding, gagging and apprehensing, and finally tearing† a man apart on the street because:
- he happened to go by‡
- he was inconvenient**
- his father has commited a crime††
- somebody decided he is to live no longer‡‡

How would you feel having to live with the knowledge of such actions on the streets, though perhaps not the street you live in, or not at the time you are passing through that particular street***.

* Geneticians, and along with them, the majority of physicians, agree that human life begins with the conception. At that precise moment, all genetic material that this individual human will possess, along with every genetic trait, is created, and it doesn't change throughout the course of their entire lifetime, aside from pathological situations.
† Abortion is just that - assuming we agree on the fact that the foetus is a human being, the described situation does not differ at all from abortion. The child has no possibility to defend itself. The typical method, following saline injection, is very painful to the child, and consists of paralysing him with the saline solution, and then literally tearing the child limb from limb.
‡ He happened to go by - "the child happened to me." "this child is by accident." The analogy should be striking. So, what is the fault of the child?
** He was inconvenient - "we are too poor to have a child," "we have a career to think about, not a child." So, why did you have sex?
†† His father commited a crime - "the child is the result of rape." Again - what is the child's fault? Are children responsible for sins of fathers? If the state keeps criminals locked in prisons, and citizens have to take care of them, that is NOT injust, and exercising capital punishment is, but killing a child IS just???
‡‡ Somebody decided that he is to live no longer - how does that differ from abortion by wish (or rather, by whim)?
*** Let's say you never go into such a clinic, or you never pass it. Does it bother you any less? Would it bother you less if the killings (executions) were not held in your vicinity, but somewhere else?

Think about it.

 

The earlier question about the UN is a good one. Is it their mandate to denounce and ban Christainity? Are they to try to tell the Christian people that if their beliefs don't mesh with certain principles they are wrong? Doesn't that contradict some other part of their charter or policy on human rights?

 

Just as it contradicts the muslim stance on female rights.

 

As for condoms not working to preventing AIDS, just marrying (or not) and having normal, unprotected sex and giving birth to children, is actually what has contributed to the actual AIDS pandemy around the globe. Just a point.

@ Gnarfflinger, not really. The UN is not in the religion business. Plain an simple. It's job is to ensure that everyone can live as he wants - be he christian or jewish or islamic, be he gay or straight. As a little reminder: The UN charter was written in response to Germany killing people for their religion and putting gays into concentration camps and killing them for being gay.
Primarily their job is to promote human rights and peace. They would likely oppose christial zealots clashing with islamic zealots in nigeria, just like their opponents. Religion doesn't matter for peace because a bloodbath is always wrong. It's pointless if one side claims to have The Lord on their side, and the others Allah.

Insofar they aren't goint to tell anyone what to believe. Their organs like the Ecosoc may make up statements regarding social issues, and as everyone is present there their decisions represent a pragmatic aproach and not a christian or islamic point of view.

If the UN was in the religion business they'd have to - with the same right - go and promote islamic values as well. And as I have lined out before and what you refuse to grasp - it cannot and mustn't be the UN's job: The UN is not in the religion business. Plain an simple.

@ toughluck

It's job is to ensure that everyone gets to enjoy their human rights - be he christian or jewish or islamic, as I said toughluck already. They speak out against religious prosecution, they don't boss around Poland and the US alone - as you would find out if you cared to check. But you're not interested, are you?

@ Chev, somewhere in this thread you iirc stated that abortion mustn't be alowed as a tool for birth control, what the UN stressed (as a result of a iirc US sponsored resolution aimed on discrediting China). I agree with you and find that grotesque, but unfortunately, the UN has a firm stance against it.

You went on to point out that the UN instead called for Poland to become more liberal in their abortion legislation. That isn't a contradiction. Abortion in Poland is not about birth control, but about dealing with teenage pregnancy, pregnency after rape and such. To me every abortion is a pity, but how about girls hanging themselves in desparation over an unwanted child? Or getting slain by their families in an honor killing?

You still brought up the first good argument in defenese of being against abortion, that it affects the right of the child to live. But that has nothing to do with the UN.

The right to live is the fundamental right of every human being, that is alo the core argument against death penalty. It is somewhat ironic that that is lost on the pro-death penalty & anti-abortionists in the US.
The point you unavoidably run into is when life starts to exists - when a sperm meets an egg cell? After 2, 3, 4 weeks? When does a heap of cells become life?
When you argument that killing in self-defense is allowed, what about a prengancy that would or could kill the mother? Now that are important questions on this issue.

 

But then, you could always construct a special case just to meet the requirements of the anti-abortionist fraction. This isn't the point, however. The point is to stay with your conviction of pro-abortion on the whole without adding "... granted, but what if she was raped..." or "... agreed, but what if the child would starve within its first year anyway."

In this light:

True.

Apart from that: on you go! I feared we had to bridge the December without having to discuss homosexuality or abortion. I wish I could muster the same amount of energy. Dedication really is enviable.

 

Precisely. Thus my question - what moral system do they stand for if it is not the system they have proposed? Could they please present it in order for member states to browse through it and choose to reject it as they see fit?

 

Hohoho! (Since it's christmas time...) This argument blows me away. Actually, come to think of it, I reckon the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il is locking away his subjects because he wants to protect them, not to limit their rights, sure enough. Thinking about what harm may come to them in freedom is really intimidating. Twisted!

That's his point, man! You don't ****, hence you don't have AIDS. You're disagreeing that sex is the primary mechanism for spreading AIDS? Think again!

You are limited. Obviously, you are not aware of the fact that there are moral standards not related to any religion.

 

@Chev

Wrong, it can effect psychologically or you could be the next victim.

Wrong again. My logic is based on that I don't consider abortion a murder and on that I believe that abortion is a strictly personal matter, which concerns only the couple and nobody else, not even their closest relatives. Also, murder and theft are considered crimes by everybody and can effect everybody (since you can be the next victim), while there are many people who don't believe that abortion is a crime and there is no way that abortion can effect anybody else but the couple.

@ toughluck

As I have already said, I don't consider abortion a murder, so your argument is flawed, as far as it concerns me, since it is based on the assuption that I accept that the featus is a human being.

 

@Darkthrone - if a woman wears a quef, this shows everyone that she will be defended by her guardian. A man may not approach her directly, may not attack her in any way, or he faces very serious consequences.

Oh, but we will **** after our wedding, and we will not use contraceptives (condoms included). Could you finally please explain how will we contribute to AIDS pandemy? It's not like HIV creates itself spontaneously.

Present me a moral system which is not based on a religion and which doesn't contradict itself in any way. I can tell you that the "enlightenment" moral system is contradictory in many ways, particularly how it presents every person's right to live and how it limits the right to live to the privileged ones.

@BOC - assuming a foetus is not a human being, you are right and we are wrong. Could you explain what the foetus is, then, so that we might improve our outlook? It is not a plant, it is not some sprout, it is not a wart, it is not a part of female body, it is not a heap of cells (at least not when it can already be said that a woman is pregnant), so what is it?
And if it has a brain, a heart, all internal organs, all genetic information, then how can it be considered to not be a human being. Would you care to explain it, BOC, or are you just repeating what someone has said to you once and which you never bothered to check?
Oh, and if you can say that a foetus is not entirely a human being, I can tell you that by the virtue of precisely the same arguments, a 10-year old child is not fully a human being. It is not yet fully developed, neither physically nor mentally nor psychologically, so it is not a human being (entirely). We should have right to kill it if we want abortions. Oh, and if the 10-year old child is fully a human being, pedophiles should be recognised as a sexual minority, because they have sex with human beings which do not differ at all from adults.

[ December 09, 2004, 19:11: Message edited by: toughluck ]

 

Present to me a moral system which is based on a religion and which doesn't contradict itself in any way.