For first time ever, US facing scrutiny of UN Human Rights Council

[tpsbmam]

Source: Raw Story

<snip>

The United States will come under the spotlight at the UN's top human rights assembly's for the first time over the coming week along with other countries that face scrutiny by the Human Rights Council.

<snip>

Several dozen non governmental organisation are expected to lobby the debate on the US human rights record, while Washington will also defend its record.

Some 300 US civil liberties and community groups in the US Human Rights Network on Monday called on the Obama administration to bring "substandard human rights practices" in the United States into line with international standards.

<snip>

Several dozen non governmental organisation are expected to lobby the debate on the US human rights record, while Washington will also defend its record.

Some 300 US civil liberties and community groups in the US Human Rights Network on Monday called on the Obama administration to bring "substandard human rights practices" in the United States into line with international standards.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/face-scrutiny-human-rights-council/

---

Read the whole article -- I hope something actually comes of all of this. Like prosecutions after an international uproar? Okay, I can dream can't I?

[davidinalameda]

1. it's only going to add to anti-UN sentiment

while we might not have the best record, there are countries on the council that are much much worse

here's the current list

Angola
Argentina
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Brazil
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Chile
China
Cuba
Djibouti
Ecuador
France
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Hungary
Japan
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Malaysia
Maldives
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Poland
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Republic of Moldova
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Slovakia
Spain
Switzerland
Thailand
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
United States of America
Uruguay
Zambia


do we really think that countries like Saudi Arabia have the moral authority to judge the US on its human right record?

[katandmoon]

2. When Bush was president, yes. Now Obama is president, no.

[Posteritatis]

22. Not convinced of that, really

There's a strong "only the US may criticise the US" mindset, and that's before going into those morons in Congress. If the UN said anything bad about the US on its human rights record Congress would just resort to those breathholding funding-cutting tantrums that they did all through the nineties, and that's before getting into the outrage among people in general.

[tpsbmam]

3. I think it's about time the U.S. faced some kind of formal scrutiny. It's not a matter

of which country is worse than others. THIS country has engaged in serious violations of human rights. This supposed beacon of freedom, liberty, justice & all of the other wonderful qualities America likes to ascribe to itself has been and continues to be led by leaders who are guilty of rendition, torture, murder, waging illegal wars, and more. I for one would like (at the very least) spotlights shone on all of it.

Your idea of countries that are "much much worse" is a ridiculous list IMO. Yup, I think Saudi Arabia is worse. Do I think most of Europe is "much much worse." In recent history, nope. I think of THAT list, we take the cake.

[depakid]

4. Belgium?

:rofl:

[Doctor_J]

7. Switzerland and Norway are wose than Rumsfeld and Cheney?

:wtf:

[dipsydoodle]

10. That's alphabetical order

.

[Doctor_J]

15. You said, "Here are countries who have worse human rights violations

than the US

[dipsydoodle]

17. No I didn't

:rofl:

First comment I made was in response to your own post apart from which the list of all countries has now disappeared.

:hi:

[ronnie624]

20. The U.S. government has obliterated entire cities,

killing millions and bringing unmeasurable destruction and chaos to people throughout the world. The U.S. has engaged in military actions in a number of instances, with rationalizations concocted through conspiracy and lies. Surely the secret bombings of Laos and Cambodia, the organization of proxy wars in Afghanistan and Central America, and the invasion and destruction of Iraq, would be considered by anyone with any sense to be massive human rights violations.

When have ANY of the countries on your list, committed such crimes?

[Posteritatis]

21. Yeah, when did Japan or Russia ever do such things? (nt)

(Ed. Me grammar am big good)

[barb162]

24. Add China and several others to that list, along with Russia and Japan

[ronnie624]

28. Russia and Japan have killed millions of people in other countries?

Recently? Can you give some examples?

Of course it's irrelevant, anyway. The claim was, "there are countries on the council that are much much worse".

[No Elephants]

5. Now? Not after release of the Abu Ghraib photos? Something is fishy.

I'm not saying the U.S. is above scrutiny, only that the timing of this news seems odd, to say the least.

[Doctor_J]

6. I hope I live to see Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush face the

business end of a noose.

[billlll]

8. Food Shelter and a Job. Those are listed in the Convention.

as Human Rights... Articles 25, 23.

We never hear about that.

- the Convention is law higher than any other law in signatory nations... We are one.

We have
12 million in hunger,
1 million homeless and a
22 million Job Shortage (J S counting the "given up on looking").

We have 35 million total

counts of violation of Human Rights.
------------------------------
----UN conventions that we have signed onto, take priority over any contradicting US law.

In 1948, we signed the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

MORE RIGHTS and some detail---

You have a right to food, shelter and medical care...Article 25.

You have a right to a job (that means flat ZERO unemployment... jobs for ALL)...Article 23.

Also unemployment compensation (for 10 years in Germany last I heard) (Art. 25) and "just remuneration" (= a living wage) (Art. 23).

This is the Law of Humankind.... for the many nations which have signed on. We just have to make our government once again live up to the law which covers much of the globe, including our own area.

Don't let the RW get away with claiming "You don't have a right to X, Y or Z".

Jobs....2 Nobelists advise this serious website---

www.njfac.org

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. No, it doesn't say "the right to a job"

It says:

Article 23.

* (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
* (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
* (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
* (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.


http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

"The right to work" is not the same as "the right to a job"; it means people should not be prevented from working (eg because of discrimination). And "protection against unemployment" does not mean "no-one must ever be unemployed" - it means they must be helped in that situation. After all, the "the right to security in the event of unemployment" in Article 25 would contradict Article 23 if 23 meant "zero unenployment".

[billlll]

14. does not say compete for a few jobs, without discrimination

Says "to work" which means "to a job"

Unemployment---Protection would be only partial in your interpretation. Which is against the tone of the entire Convention.

Later mention is just a backup net in case the protection fails.

What is wrong? You usually agree with such ideas. Hope all is well with you.

[boppers]

16. You do *NOT* have a right to a job, you have a right to work... or not.

Here's Article 23:
1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 25:
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

[ProudDad]

26. Very good reasons to investigate

the USAmerikan Empire has NEVER adhered to those principles...

[bemildred]

9. Good. nt

[dipsydoodle]

11. Strange that they missed out The Vatican

which is also a state.

Surely little boys have got human rights.

[lib2DaBone]

12. What about Blackwater Mercenaries that assassinate people while working for the U.S. ?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solly Mack]

19. K&R

[defendandprotect]

23. knr

[ProudDad]

25. Further proof that the Empire is dying -- Thank Dog!!! (n/t)

[Vidar]

27. Good.

[burrowowl]

29. ABOUT TIME!

We don't have any Human Rights Laws just Civil Rights the only democracy in the top ones not to!

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

30. k&r

[peace frog]

31. US for first time submits human rights record to world scrutiny

Source: Associated Press

GENEVA (AP) — The United States is submitting its human rights record to the scrutiny of other nations — both allies and adversaries — for the first time, as the Obama administration opens itself up to a committee shunned by his predecessor.

The three-hour U.N. review Friday will have more than a few uncomfortable moments for the high-level U.S. delegation, which is sure to face questions over the use of torture in the war on terror, not dismantling the prison at Guantanamo Bay, the death penalty, immigration policy, the treatment of racial minorities and questions of religious freedom.

The 30-strong delegation, headed by three top State Department officials and including representatives from many departments, including Justice, Defense and Homeland Security, arrives in Geneva with a 20-page report compiled with the input of civic and social organizations.

For most observers, the high level of U.S. engagement alone is a milestone. The Bush administration shunned the U.N. Human Rights Council, which runs the so-called Universal Public Reviews, because of the participation of repressive states and its constant criticism of Israel.



Read more: http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-un-us-human-rights,0,1618230.story?track=rss

[iandhr]

32. Yes Yes yes

Lets allow China and saudi arabia lecture us on this topic :sarcasm:

[notesdev]

33. I can't wait to hear the opinions

I'm dying to know what countries like Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Uruguay (among others on the council) think of our human rights practices.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. 2 out of 3 ain't bad: Yes, Uruguay can easily lecture the US on human rights

While Libya and Saudi Arabia are very dodgy countries, Uruguay is in the top league for respect for human rights:

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/#/2010/REHR

Uruguay gets the top mark of '1', along with countries like Australia, Germany, Netherlands and so on. The US is down at '3', slightly below half way (there are about twice as many countries at 2.5 or better than there are at 3.5 or worse).

[Demeter]

34. Why don't we just behave the way we agreed in treaty?

This shouldn't even have come up.

[dipsydoodle]

35. 20 pages ?

Presumably that's just the index.

[Turborama]

37. LOL

I was thinking the same sort of thing.

How was your trip?

:hi:

[dipsydoodle]

39. Thanks for asking

Simply wonderful and hugely memorable. Everyone there , without exception , smiles and says hello.

I'd already mentioned to Judi that it was only on reflection that I realised how safe I felt there compared with the US, all European countries I've visited and even the UK.

:hi:

[Turborama]

38. Any chance of joining the International Criminal Court next? n/t

[dipsydoodle]

40. They're clever with that one.

No chance - too much at risk.

[Bragi]

41. Just in time to condemn Denmark for Mohammad cartoons

I see the U.S has joined this human rights council just in time to condemn Denmark for failing to criminalize the publication of cartoons in 2005 depicting Mohammad.

According to a report submitted just today with this Council, the failure of the Danish government to criminally charge those responsible for publishing the cartoons has caused "the Danish government and the West to be perceived as supportive of the publication and republication of the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad and Islam which has fed and will likely continue to feed violent protests around the world leading to more deaths, bodily injury, and property destruction."

See http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/ngos/danish_cartoons.doc

Note that the blame here is placed squarely and exclusively on the Danish government for not using criminal sanctions to restrict press freedom. This negligence, were are to presume, forced a few helplessly-provoked and enraged devotees of Islam to explode in a global retaliatory campaign of ongoing death and destruction. (Death toll so far: about 100 persons, according to the report.)

So does this seem like a balanced assessment of what happened to you?

As a strong supporter of the UN and the work of most of its agencies, it sure doesn't seem balanced to me. I think Obama's decision to join this Council was unwise. It is a huge gift to the right wingers who want the U.S to leave the UN.

[Jefferson23]

42. How I would love to believe this is a sign of Obama opening up the

possibility to go after the Bush regime. The Republicans have had a pass for so long, the subject of torture
is not discussed at all by the MSM any longer.

[Javaman]

43. Will it include all the redacted material? nt

[ronnie624]

44. I see nothing about about aggressive war.

It isn't possible to take any of this seriously, when the most egregious violations are not even broached. State violence against other nations accounts for the worst violations against human rights, by far, yet the established narrative bestows some sort of bizarro world legitimacy on it (if it's committed by the U.S.).

Really, really weird.