The UN backs your rights...as long as it doesn't interfere with the UN agenda

Remove all ads!

I refer you to first read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as published by the UN. If you don't want to read the whole thing, skip down to article 29, item 3.

Source for quote above

Your undeniable rights, as long as they don't cross the purposes of the UN.

And people wonder why the US refuses to subject its citizens to an international court that is run by the UN.

Just think, those of you that live in countries that support this. You could be just exercising one of your rights as declared by the UN, and the UN could come in and grab you out of your home to be judged by individuals that are hostile to your nation.

Hope you sleep well tonight!

 

What agenda might that be? No one seemed to complain when the UN and US stances were the same.

 

Doesn't matter what agenda, when your rights are made invalid by the purpose of a group that would choose to govern you, there is a problem.

 

Purposes AND principles.

If you act contrary to the consitution of the USA leaning on of the consitutional rights, you will be persecuted and eventually punished, am I right?
Its the same with the UNO. If someone acts against the charta but (in his eyes) with the human rights, the charta wins. Its as simple as this.

Its an juristical term which you can find in every democratic constitution or basic law all over the world.

 

Just got done reading the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights...didn't see such verbage anywhere.

The purposes and principles, sorry but when you add the purposes in there it becomes subject to interpretation. Is it the current purposes of the UN or the overriding general purpose? They are not the same thing.

What is the purpose of the UN anyway? I thought ultimately it was to prevent another world war. I also remember something about the UN having no jurisdiction within the confines of a sovereign nation. So by creating this Declaration of Rights they have already crossed the stated purpose of the UN.

[ March 17, 2003, 20:22: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

As the UN is an organisation of countries the interest of the UN is the combined interest of those states, one which is the US who also happens to be the most influential UN member by far. Thus the interest of the UN is very often the interest of the US, it is only in the instances when the rest of the UN countries do not agree with the US that the US gripe about the UN is intruding on their sovreignity. Not to mention that if you have joined the UN you ahve signed the treaties where that paragraph is, and in the case of the US was one of the main authors of the whole UN charter.

 

For once, I'm going to sound Anti-American, but what I see here is a clause that allows the US (under the UN umbrella) to ally itself with evil, sick, and otherwise distasteful regimes -- regimes like Pakistan, where the human rights record stinks to high heaven, or Saudi Arabia, or the former government of Cuba, or even China. As long as a regime plays by US rules, the US doesn't really give a hoot about their human rights policies.

But realistically, how could they? Much as we may like, we don't have the resources to instantaneously right every wrong on the planet, no matter how strongly worded we make our charters.

 

joacqin,

I thought people would have understood my point right away. Thank you for explaining my post.

 

@Darkwolf: I think you should search harder. I believe there are not just these 10 amendments? There has to be an similar passus, otherwise it would be an serious mistake.
In germany, you must not say or act against the basic law. If you do, you will be persecuted even if you relie on Article 5 of the basic law which grants the right of free speech.

For the purposes of the UN you should read the whole charta, not just pick an article out of its context.
I'm quite sure that 'your' article means the general purposes and principles of the UN, as written in the charta. Otherwise, it would only speak of purposes.

The general purpose of the UN is IMHO to regulate(I don't know if there's a better term) the relations between the member states.

" also remember something about the UN having no jurisdiction within the confines of a sovereign nation. So by creating this Declaration of Rights they have already crossed the stated purpose of the UN."
The Declaration of Human Rights is just that: a declaration. No nation state has to follow it.

 

It is very helpful to read the preamble to understand Darkwolf's random quote properly. I lined out these mysterious basic principles in bold and italics.

The UN is an institution of international security, mainly aiming on peace ensurance and conflict prevention - founded (and founded the way it is) as a result of the experience from WW-I and II. Peace ensurance and war prevention is the UN's primary purpose.
One very actual example of people and UN granted rights violated by the UN because of their principles is the people of iraq under the sanctions - war prevention was the reason for the discontinued* disarmamment of iraq.
War and the devastation related with it necessarily damages some of the (human) rights promoted by the UN charter, like the equality of man and weman and economic and social advancement. You will soon be able to watch that on CNN - live.

The charter mentioning the human rights, and the dignity of the human beeing, are a direct result of the atrocities comitted by the nazis and imperial japan during WW-II.
To prevent that is the second most important concern of the UN. If war or lower level use of force like sanctions is necessary to ensure human rights it shall be so. That can be seen on the example of Zimbabwe which is under sanctions because of Mugabe's reign of terror.

After all I cannot see that the line of thought, as expressed Darkwolfs first post, is very convincing.

*after that little faux pas when US spies hid under UN cover and effectively gave Saddam the long desired reason to kick out the inspectors - congrats for that brilliant intelligence coup ...

 

Idgit. Scott Ritter and company were ex-CIA. Big deal. They were SUPPOSED to be spying. That's what the INSPECTIONS were.

 

hmm ... how weird ....
Ex-cia?

Most amusingly we all don't know nothing, me included, but I think the whole story is pretty plausible after all that. But that's just my opinion
When Ritter was ex-CIA and a serious spy under cover he would probably deny to be exactly that, just like the people who sent him there.
It would be foolish anyway to trust in the most unreliable information medium ever, the internet, nevertheless I'll post a few links On the other hand the general lack of intel, resulting in reports mainly stressing possibilities and doubt and strongly relying on aerial and satellite imagery as well as intercepts, in the recent iraq risk assessment suggests that the inspectors indeed might have been a major intelligence source for the US ... and probably other services as well. But then again, that's just my opinion.

That reply is usually the very thing they say when a US spy is caught.

Eventually a more neutral, very interesting and informative article by the washington post.
Whatever the truth is, "that's all bull" is certainly an insufficient and unsatisfying answer. But anyway, we're shifting (yes, I started it ...)

[ March 19, 2003, 13:22: Message edited by: Ragusa ]