UN Human Rights Committee oversteps its authority

Remove all ads!

The HRC report says that Poland "should liberalize its legislation and practice on abortion".

According to WorldNetDaily:

Observation: Apparently, something is wrong with conscientous objection to what someone who has sworn to protect life (i.e. every doctor) considers murder (like most religious people).

Observation 2: Where the hell is a human right to abortion iterated?

Not only do they want Poland to increase the scope of abortion allowance, but they also go as far as trying to dictate changes in education curricula:

Observation: What does "accurate" and "objective" mean? I am sick of the attitude of people who use those terms as falsely neutral descriptives for policies in accordance with their views. Clearly, "accurate" and "objective" sexual education is not even defined here! It goes without saying that what HRC experts believe is an absolute standard for what is right and proper, by nature accurate and objective.

Recognise the pattern? Non-discrimination isn't enough. Now we talk punishment of the opposition.

Let us not miss a word here: "attitudes [...] are not adequately investigated and punished".

Where should I report to have my attitude investigated? And punished, of course.

And what the hell is a sexual minority? Aren't we going a bit too far here? Please someone show me a treaty or convention granting the same status to groups engaging in non-standard sexual behaviour as is granted to national, ethnic or religious minorities.

The left in the government apparently had a reason for celebration:

However, the current government's support is probably below 10% right now and here's what a parliament member had to say in the matter:

In the resulting moral conflict, the "experts" assume the authority to judge between right and wrong, good and evil, regardlessly of the scope of authority they have been given, which includes neither legislative, nor judiciary competence. But who cares about the legal foundation of their self-assumed authority (a board of experts is hardly a governing authority, in the first place) if they are being trendy?

Here is the WorldNetDaily link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41376
Here you have a more supportive (of HRC's position) view: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=16242
Or a less supportive view: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1274596/posts

Here is the HRC document: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/Symbol/CCPR.CO.82.POL.Rev.%201.En?Opendocument

Here's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Hint: see ## 3, 5, 7. Says life, protection from degrading or unhuman treatment, equality. There's nothing about the right to abortion or I'm blind.

Cairo Conference: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu5/popdev94.htm

See Paragraph 63: In no case
should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning

Yes, the site footer mentions the very same Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Any comments?

 

So the UN wants to Ban Christianity? The Bible has passages that forbid Homosexuality. Does this mean that a minister or priest is guilty of a hate crime? What ever happened to the right to worship? The problem with human rights is that sooner or later, they will conflict with themselves...

 

Huh? How did you get that from Chev's post?

 

Sort of fftopic: ing a bit, but i would say that having to carry a rapist's child might be classified as "unhuman" treatment...

 

Ah, I miss the goold old days when Poland may have been repressed but it at least was enlightened and Swedish women went to Poland when they wanted flick out that clump of cells in their womb.

What have happened tot he Poles? They used to be so groovy.

 

Unhuman treatment on the part of the rapist who, if the investigation identifies him, is tried before a court and punished. The child would face no fair trial but be put to death by the decision of a fellow citizen. That's against life, fair trial and equality. On the part of the state, expressly allowing that to happen is unhuman treatment.

Is it also unhuman treatment to have to bear a child when raising it would mean no money for such basic needs as partying, clothes and cosmetics or would simply make you fat? I've heard such voices already...

Still, what power does the HRC have to interpret international law against the literal meaning? Or to forsake equality and decide who deserves more protection regardlessly of the rank of allegedly conflicting rights?

 

The question of abortion and wether to ban it or not is a classical one. The idea has always been the choice between a ban and a the backyard doc making illegal abortions, putting the weman at risk. That approach always makes woman travel to other countries to get it done there - conveniently solving the moral problem for Poland and criminalising the women who do it.

One alternative is to allow abortion under narrow circumstances and to call for mandatory consultations that try to persuade the woman to keep her child if she wants to abort in the specified tome of iirc 6 weeks. After that it is illegal.
That is how it is in Germany and I think we found a workable compromise between the protection of life and the unavoidable.

I think the "my body is mine" movement is very much mislead and that life has to be protected.

But the point is that woman don't let abortions be done because it is so great, to the very contrary. They are in a situation where they are forced or felt forced to abort - be it that they can't afford a child, risk their relationship or be it that the child is from a rapist. It is in almost every case a very tough decision that isn't made lightly and it is sure easier to preach about it rather than to be in the actual situation. The consequence of an outright ban would be to hand the woman the disadvantage under the pretext of morality. That is dishonest.

I don't see the UN is overstepping it's authority by pointing out the bloddy obvious.

 

chevalier,

As I have said before, I respect your adherance to the Catholic faith. However, in this case I don't see anything that would mandate any woman getting an abortion - it just gives her the opportunity to have one if she so chose. While I have no probelm with you being morally opposed to the practice, I don't understand your apparent outrage about this. No one is going to make you or your wife (if you eventually marry) have an abortion. Your soul is yours to remain clean.

AAdditionally I don't really see a problem with:

I admit that the term "accurate and objective" is in itself vague, but I don't see any problem with the point of the statement - namely that people have access to contraceptives and family planning and that sex education is taught in schools. Plus, I think teaching the basics would be objective and accurate no matter how you taught them. Describe the parts and tell what they do - even Catholics shouldn't have a problem with that.

 

It's not so much about adherence or lack thereof to a faith, Catholic in my case. The idea is that if something is murder to me, I am opposed to it being legalised just as any other kind of murder. I don't believe that ends justify means, so there's no way to convince me murder should be allowed for specific reasons or goals.

 

From Chev's post:

Addressing the issue of "sexual orientation," the human rights panel stated, "The Committee is concerned that the right of sexual minorities not to be discriminated against is not fully recognised, and that discriminatory acts and attitudes against persons on the ground of sexual orientation are not adequately investigated and punished."

Since Christianity teaches that Homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, it would be a violation of this directive, and thus should be punished. This sounds like trying to change Christianity from what it is now...

 

Teaching that homosexuality is immoral isn't discrimination.

Discrimination would be denying someone a job because they're homosexual.

That whole freedom of speech thing--though I grant that some places have the rather idiotic idea that "hate speech" should be illegal.

 

Interesting. Like: You go to a jews shop with a shield around your nack saying "Boycott Jews!" and insult and defame him constantly and teach his children in school that they are in inferior race and unworthy of education - that would be NOT discrimination, just hate speech.

It seems you're serious about that only kicking the kid out of school and closing the shop would be discrimination? Ever thought about the climate hate speech creates in a population? Nevermind.

As a German I don't think that banning "hate speech" is idiotic, not at all. And as I don't think that Americans are that much better than we are, I see a point in pondering about the sense of such a ban.

 

There's a difference between teaching that something is immoral and hate speach.

Do I consider homosexuality immoral? Depends what we address as homosexuality. So long as there's a moral choice here and that choice leads to homosexuality then yes, I consider that immoral.

Do I hate homosexuals, endorse or at least condone hatred towards them? No, not at all. But they will never hear "What you do is right. I have no problem with it." from me.

Still, some people, some groups, even some laws and courts consider it hate speech to say that homosexuality is immoral, offends nature and shouldn't be legal. There have been parliament bill proposals outlawing public opposition to homosexuality.

With gay movements, it's like this:

First, they ask you to remove criminal penalties. Next, they tell you what they do isn't illegal, so it shouldn't be a reason to treat them any worse. So you ban discrimination. If discrimination is banned, they consider themselves perfectly normal and a perfectly valid alternative, so they want you to punish those who oppose them violently. After all, discrimination is illegal etc etc. If that is granted, they stretch the limits inch by inch and demand you to punish any and all opposition.

If it continues like that, they're going to be privileged. Going to get fired? Tell your employer you're gay and make out with a guy (or woman if you're one) in front of the office. See if they fire you now.

Homosexualism is destructive, but at least it isn't violent. In abortion, violence is the essence. If someone agrees that foetus is human and he still condones abortion, then that person openly condones homicide if not murder. If someone doesn't consider foetus a human being and a person, then I can understand lack of willingness to protect it, but still, there are people who believe animals are things and the owner can treat them as he will. Do we say, "You don't have to torture your animals but it's wrong for you to oppose it when others do."? No. We don't allow animal torturers to torture animals even though they consider animals mere items and possessions.

Note: Many people still connect animal rights with pro-abortion propaganda. Talk about logical consistency.

 

More or less correct, yes.

And, yes, I've thought about the environment hate speech creates.

Calling it idiotic was needlessly inflammatory of me; I apologize for that. I understand why, for instance, Germany would ban hate speech given it's, ah...history. I just don't happen to agree with the reasoning.

 

I know that Hate speech is a dangerous thing, but trying to ban it could be just as explosive. The only way to have a ban on hate speech without an explosion is to take away rights to a very loud and very vocal special interest group. I don't think that a Homosexual should be refused for a job *except* ministry in a religion that forbids the practice. I don't think that a Homosexual should be beaten, abused or harrassed for his choice. I just don't want their choice rammed down my throat.

 

So what benefit is gained in having a very loud interest group anyway? When it is about issues discussion should be about arguments, not the volume of yelling.

I don't see stuff like Anne Coulter's "Liberals are traitors for whom hanging is too good", Volumes 1 - 13, contributing to a healthy political climate.

 

It is my policy to address issues at the root level. I always log in as superuser when it's time to look for a cure and not a fix.

The answer is to make the default no-baby, and make a woman have to actively persue a child. Such that she and a spouse have to go down to a clinic and have her ovaries (and his testes, if the spouse is a man) turned ON.

After that, I would institute, through Natural (or UnNatural) Selection, the genetic cleansing of rapists. I believe the rapists extrude through the genes, moreso than the environment. Does this mean limiting "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"? No. It means they won't be having children or raising children in their likeness. If that's crucial to their "happiness", oh well; they should have chosen not to be pimpin' hoes and dealing out the bling-bling when the time came. After a few generations, that kind of filth will dwindle and die; it will be much more harsh in the more aggressive cultures than it would in places like france, but c'est la vie.

This also means that men will have to deal with their "alpha" personality in a distinctly seperate manner than they now do...

 

@ Ragusa: I don't see how any loud special interest group really serves the whole. Sure some positive changes have come, but sooner or later they holler so loud that the politicians cave and give them too much. The US elections showed that the majority really don't want the nation's moral fabric scrapped to satisfy a particular special interest group...

 

So what benefit is gained in having very loud interest groups censored, anyway?

 

@ AMaster: Censoring them will give us some peace and quiet for once. Okay that's a joke, but maybe it will force them to play by the rules, where we can react to their point, not the disruption they cause.