You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
UN Assembly denounces abuses in Iran
2004-12-21
UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. General Assembly criticised Iran on Monday for public executions, torture, arbitrary sentencing, flogging, stoning and systematic discrimination against women. Sponsored by Canada, the human rights resolution was adopted by a vote of 71 in favor, 54 against with 55 abstentions in the 191-member assembly.

The measure also rebuked Iran, a Shi'ite Muslim country, for discrimination against minorities, including Christians, Jews, Sunnis and especially the Bahais, who are subject to arbitrary arrest and detention. The resolution also said there was a "worsening situation with regard to freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of the media and noted the the "targeted disqualification" of reformists in Iran's parliamentary elections.

But the resolution welcomed Iran's invitation to human rights monitors and hoped it would carry out recent legislation against torture.
'cause legislation is so important in an islamic democracy.
"We brought forward this resolution because we believe that concerted international attention was necessary to send the message to Iran that change is necessary and that it must meet its human rights obligations." Canadian Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew said in a statement from Ottawa.

Photojournalist Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian citizen of Iranian descent, was murdered died in custody in Iran in June 2003, from a blow to the head, seriously damaging relations between Ottawa and Teheran.

Iran made no comment on Monday. But in November when an assembly committee passed the draft resolution, Iranian envoy Paimaneh Hasteh called the charges baseless. She accused Canada of introducing the measure in response to a domestic outcry over the death of Kazemi.
Murder does tend to upset people.
The Geneva-based U.N. Commission on Human Rights has adopted annual resolutions on Iran's human rights record from 1984 to 2001, and the assembly followed suit. But in 2002, the draft was narrowly defeated in Geneva and not revived by the assembly until last year when Canada insisted on a measure. Nevertheless, the vote showed a majority of nations either abstained or opposed the resolution, a trend on rights measures targeted at individual nations.
Posted by:Steve White

#19  Oh come *on* LH! - this is *not* a good thing, 71 nations voted for the motion (knowing *full* well they wouldn't be called upon to do anything), and 109 couldn't even be bothered to do that.

LH, you talk some fine stuff here, under sometimes extreme provocation, and I respect that and read your words with not a little consideration, but honestly, this time, there's nothing good about this denunciation.

It is no wonder that the reputation of the UN is so poor at the moment.

For myself, I think its served its time, which was really a pressure valve during the cold war. There is simply no need for it anymore.
Posted by: Tony (UK)   2004-12-21 7:53:24 PM  

#18  Move along, Rantburgers. Nothing to see here. Move on. Don't even think about it.

I did think about it, Mister Slywester. In fact, I think little of it.
Posted by: Pappy   2004-12-21 6:34:00 PM  

#17  I'm sorry LH, I usually agree with you. But dude, 71 out of 191 is NOT a good thing. That means the MAJORITY of the UN is opposed to even making a meaningless gesture at rebuking Iran. Like you said the UNGA is only a talk shop, so 109 member states won't even talk mean to Iran about human rights violations! Sad. And this is the organization the Mikey champions. Speaks volumes of his character, or lack there of.
Posted by: AllahHateMe   2004-12-21 2:35:17 PM  

#16  So 71 nations for and 109 nations not for denouncing Iran. Some "victory" for human rights
Posted by: lex   2004-12-21 12:35:08 PM  

#15  The 55 abstentions thing fry's my arse. To prove how ineffective, corrupt, foolish and utterly idiotic the UN really is. To think that Bushy has to go to these pinheads for their approval for military action against Iraq (to provide backbone to their own useless Mandates) when a majority of the members of this discussion group have the same rights issues as Iran. Why do we even put what the UN does in the paper. Oh ya it gives the liberal peace pots something to attack the US with. Puke, Puke, Gag. Hey Iran bite me hard you ragheaded wife beaters and by the way save some for the Saudi's.
Posted by: Rightwing   2004-12-21 12:31:44 PM  

#14  Mike-As noted yesterday and everyday-the problem hasn't been in supporting the ideals of the UN (although the fact that 61% of the body is not willing to vote for the most basic rights, as in the case above, SHOULD have us questioning some members' ideals), it's in the execution. Talk is cheap-do you do what you say.
Posted by: Jules 187   2004-12-21 10:02:26 AM  

#13  The UNGA is only a talk shop. Its up to the UNSC to take action. But lets recall that its not standard practice for the UNSC to take action for domestic human rights abuses. As its not generally the practice of states to do to each other.

Are the majority of states in the world screwed up, that they wouldnt vote for this. Sure, so what else is new.

That Canada did get 71 votes for, and so many abstained, is a GOOD thing. Though I do hope they didnt have to expend a lot of "capital" to get the 71 votes.

Give credit where credit is do. The action, ultimately, will be by the people of Iran. Keeping attention focused on them is good.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-12-21 9:37:42 AM  

#12  I give Mikey an LOL.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-12-21 9:05:13 AM  

#11  Ah..mikey. So predictable. Look away, mikey, look away. It's so unpleasant to look directly at all those abused women and children...just shake those shiny UN keys and look away.
Posted by: 2b   2004-12-21 8:48:19 AM  

#10  Seventeen years of "resolutions" and nothing's been accomplished. Is that supposed to impress us, Mikey?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-12-21 8:20:06 AM  

#9  ^^^^^^^^^

ok that URL above is old ..

Maybe it should read something like this

Article #1 - All countries must act as impotently as possible
Article #2 - All brains and intelligence should be left outside the UN building
Article #2 - All members to the UN should be over paid , under worked , and ineffective as possible
Article #4 - Keep head firmly embeded in the sand whilst letting its members apply a serious amount of lube .
Posted by: MacNails   2004-12-21 7:20:59 AM  

#8  aaah the good old UN , 71 in favor, 54 against with 55 abstentions in the 191-member assembly.

hehe 55 abstentions ! classic . If u abstain against denouncing public executions, torture, arbitrary sentencing, flogging, stoning , systematic discrimination against women , and discrimination against minorities, including Christians, Jews, Sunnis and especially the Bahais, who are subject to arbitrary arrest and detention , then you aint worth shit yourselves .. scum ..can anybody find a list of how the votes were cast please ? I expect a few suprises in there really

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Posted by: MacNails   2004-12-21 7:12:24 AM  

#7  I really hope it's Idi. The stink when they roll him into the room would be enough to make even the UN-weenies run out holding their noses.

As an aside, when I found out that turd had kicked the bucket - I raised a glass to his foul shade as he took the long walk down to Hell!

EoZ? I totally agree about the EU commissioners - wankers all of them.
Posted by: Tony (UK)   2004-12-21 4:28:15 AM  

#6  But, but , but
don't they know it's all the falt of the Joooos ?
After all Abraham begot Ishmael who founded the Ummah(TM), who brought forth Muhammad (PBUHA), who invented the Sharia, and the rest is history....
It'a all a plot by the Joooos, we need a new UN resolution denouncing the Jooooos and Israel for
criminally and negligently failing to kill Ishmael when he was young.
I also suggest a new UN commitee to investigate the treachery of the Joooos in allowing this situation to develop... of course there will be more appointed high salaried officials (payed for by US taxmoney), a lot of meetings and conferences in high-class hotels, as well as a special allocation of funds for paying for whores for the
EU commisioners (after all they get tired of wanking all the time, and their wives are ugly).

P.S. is Libia still heading of the UN human rights comission, or is it Idi Amin ??
Posted by: Elder of Zion   2004-12-21 3:40:49 AM  

#5  The Canadian FM better keep quiet. Iran will have nukes soon. What then, Mr. Pettigrew? Still opposed to the US missile defense shield? No? Good.
Posted by: Rafael   2004-12-21 3:30:46 AM  

#4  What on earth is a rebuke from a toothess multi-national talking shop going to do to dissuade the Mullahs from doing whatever the Hell they like?

Poor Canada, a nation that fought so valiantly in WWII, is now reduced to this - relying on the UN to seek justice for its citizens. And what political capital did they have to piss away to get those 71 in favour? (with 54 against - the usual kleptocracies, thugocracies and beneficiaries of aid no doubt)

Very sad indeed.
Posted by: Tony (UK)   2004-12-21 3:17:48 AM  

#3  from 1984 to 2001

WOW, that's impressive. I didn't know they cared. It was so effective, too.
Posted by: Spereger Omerong2849   2004-12-21 2:30:50 AM  

#2  
The Geneva-based U.N. Commission on Human Rights has adopted annual resolutions on Iran’s human rights record from 1984 to 2001, and the assembly followed suit.

Move along, Rantburgers. Nothing to see here. Move on. Don't even think about it.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2004-12-21 2:28:36 AM  

#1  Hmmm. These abuses are Shari'a being applied as per usual in Islam - this shit happens wherever Shari'a is enforced - definitely standard fare in much of PakiWakiLand, all of Saudi, undoubtedly Yemen, etc. - wherever the fever holds the state.

Look at the vote... Love all those "abstentions" - that's phriggin' priceless, or, rather, those "nations" abstaining are prolly hoping it won't cost 'em, since the oil-tick states include some of the more egregious Shari'a practitioners, advocates, and active manure spreaders supporters of Islam.

So we apply a little band-aid to the gaping wound, assuage a few fevered brows and inflamed consciences, and pretend we've tweaked the nose of one of the monsters within Islam. This is a "show trial" form of PR - obviously a joke. Shari'a has been around for a millenium. So it has been in practice for the entire existence of the UN. And they just noticed, huh? Happy Days are here again. Knob polishing. Right-e-o.

On a less visible or slightly less visceral level, perhaps only 20 yrs in prison instead of stoning the woman who was raped, Shari'a will continue with minor grumbling from the unbelievably decadent and vicious old men who are empowered in Islam to apply it. Yup. This fixed it. All hail the "effective" UN and the Global Conscience Game of the Human Rights Orgs... Excellent work, boys & girls. Nothing to see there now, we slew the dragon. Move along. Pfeh.
Posted by: .com   2004-12-21 12:38:30 AM  

00:00