UN Human Rights Committee oversteps its authority

Remove all ads!

Just to put the record straight, as my language has been taken out of the concept intended, and quoted rather a lot of times.

The use of "Catholic trollocks" was actually used in my text in reference to concepts, not to people. (although the idea does brings a wry smile to my face now you come to mention it)
It was the use of a rhyming slang, for a word which is fairly obvious when you think of it, and synonymous with rhetoric ("Designed to persuade or impress with implication of insincerity or exaggeration")

This is, admittedly, not a very widespread slang word, being limited to about a dozen people that I'm aware of.

Anyway, just thought I'd comment on this bit:

I'd be interested to know how many of them were in the higher echelons of the church.
And of course, apart from where the church are the authorities. I'm thing of particular instances of the genocide of the Cathars/Albigensians in the fourteenth century (Destroyed a larger percentage of the worlds population of the time than the genocide perpetrated by the Nazi's), and of Pope Leo X who obliterated a town in order to scare Florence into surrendering (OK he wasn't pope at the time, but became pope the same year). Interestingly Leo X gave rise to the term Machiavellian - elaborately cunning, deceiptful, perfidious. It comes from a book written by Machiavelli, (the man charged with defending Florence) who wrote it to try and get into the new Popes favour by praising the methods he (the pope) had used (Basically the ends justifies the means). Additionally, Michael Angelo's "David" was a political statement symbolising the city of Florence throwing off the tyranism of the Medici family (Leo and his cousin, who suddenly became a high level cardinal shortly after Leo bacame pope). Martin Luther also became known only because of his critism of Leo X "indulgences". Oh yes, and of course the Crusades.

Actually, I admit that this proves very little, other than religious institutions can be just as prone to the whims of it's leadership. Therefore I don't believe any religion can claim the moral high ground based on history.

 

What about Hugonots who were murdered in Paris? Why did you leave them out? Quite a great genocide it was...

 

Well as the others too have stated the church has been quite force in killing people too. I'm sure Chev is aware of such names as Cardinal Richelieu, High Inquisitor Torquemada and Savonarola.

 

But isn't the mandate of the UN simply to keep the nations of the world from destroying one another? If so then where does their human rights even come in? And can't they impose sanctions on a country that doesn't do what they want? (unless that country has a veto of course...)

 

Morgoroth - what about Richelieu, Torquemada and Savonarola? Care to quote the figures and state for how many deaths are they responsible? I'm waiting. If you do not cough up something, delete their names from your posts.

 

Does the word "Crusade" mean anything to you?

 

To me it does

gnarff

Recognising that wealth, health and social standards for most of world help to ensure peace the UN was tasked by all member countries in these areas. So the UN cares about humanitarian issues, and that is for example where human rights come in. After the holocaust human rights became a key issue for the UN, with moderate success, as the major violators held either a veto or had veto wielding allies.

They are also a major player in standardisation of international law and on regulation of international affairs, starting with flights, post, telecommunication and so on. I feel you're not familiar with the broad area of activities of the UN.
And generally the UN deals with global issues to eventually achieve a global standard - human rights, development, environment, resources, issues like child labor, demining etc.

For more on that, read:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart.html
http://www.un.org/News/facts/
http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/factsheets/factsheets2.htm

What you surf your abortion trip on would probably be their organ United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations main organization for population and reproductive health issues.

and just have a look here, I found you the UN stance on abortion:

... evidently, overstepping authority, heh? The alleged UN claimed "right of abortion", so suggested by chev point blank in his first post, is nothing but a polemic bag of hot air.

Unsurprisingly, this single and simple UNFPA statement refutes all points chev made in his initial post.
It is amazing how fact free a discussion can float on and how distorted a discussion can become once it is reported and then commented based on secondary sources, or worse, editorials in major newspapers.

As I said earlier, the UN was merely stating the bloody obvious. So my tip to you all

 

No I will not quote the figures and state how many deaths they are responsible of since anyone who has heard any of these names know their their deeds, and no I will most certainly not delete their names from my posts unless you of course have proof that they have not caused any deaths. You are no moderator so stop pretending one, you have no right to decide what I delete from my posts and what I keep in them. If you have any questions about them then please send a PM and ask, but don't bother demanding me to edit my post unless it violates AoDA rules (which it according to my knowledge does not).

 

Oh come on now. His references are clearly regarding the Spanish Inquisition, and to a lesser extent the Crusades. There was no CNN, or MSNBC at the time, so getting hard, calculated data about this time is impossible. The Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades resulted likely in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Even if you want to low-ball the number because accurate figures are impossible to come by, they were still responsible for tens of thousands of deaths.

 

Yes, most abortions can be prevented by Quality family planning, but that doesn't mean that abortion must be legalized for where contraceptives fail. I am a Mormon and we do permit abortions only in cases of Incest, Rape or where the mother's life is threatened. There are many couples that want children but can't have them. Why, then, couldn't an unwanted baby be given a loving home instead of arbitrarily killed? If an unwanted pregnancy were to occur, the baby could be placed where they ARE wanted. Isn't that a better solution? I have no sympathy to someone who would murder...

My objections all along is where these directives try to change religeous teachings key to certain faiths. Why are we bound to be forced to say things that we don't believe in order to satisfy one specific group?

 

Oh dear, why do so many of these threads always gravitate towards those two pillars of debate: homosexuality and abortion? :sigh:

 

I thought that those were the two issues mentioned in the initial post...

 

Savonarola, Torquemada and Richelieu weren't born until 5 centuries after. And what about the Crusades? There was fear and actual threat of Saracen invasion of Europe. And don't you tell me there wasn't. Crusades were predominantly of military reasons. Papal "sic Deus vult" was voice of consent that needed to be heard just in case someone would have moral qualms.
Damn, there were Muslim invasions repeating themselves throughout European history, most notably in the 17th century by Ottoman Turks.

@morgoroth - you won't quote the numbers, yet mindlessly you repeat the insults hurled at various people from previous centuries. Saying "anyone who has heard any of these names know their their deeds" is demagogy, and you know that perfectly well. What will the people know? Tidbits? Accusations? Outright lies? All without knowing the actual picture. Torquemada actually quelled inquisition's bloodlust in Barcelona and has specifically spoken against conversion by sword. The Spanish Inquisition (which was the largest - ie. best organised) was responsible for ca. 3,000-4,000 deaths - both directly and indirectly. But I would remind you that Inquisition had no power in legal action and could not legally put anyone to death, so they relegated every person found guilty to the correct authorities. Remember that because Christianity was the predominant faith in Europe, it had also been the warrant of political stability across all levels of society. 'Heretics' were, more often than not, charismatic ambitious politicians who would have gathered followers with heretic speeches - if people agreed with what they said, it put them at odds with the Church, so it automatically meant they would no longer stay in that particular part of the society, and conversely, that would make the group prone to go against the status quo. Savonarola was responsible for many less deaths. Richelieu was just a politician acting at the court of France. I am sure you'd find many weasels today and hold them in reverence.

Sorry, you're still not making the point.

 

Yeah, I guess Attilla, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and good ole Saddam Hussein got a bad rep too. They were nice people deep inside, really.

 

What are you talking about, joacquin?
Attila? He had a disorganised, but huge and very effective army. Romans hated him for that he was able to conquer so much and win battles with an organised force Rome had. Aside from that, I've got nothing on the guy. Heck, Huns are probably my ancestors.
Genghis Khan? Why not? The Mongols had an unconventional approach to war (by unconventional I mean they were cruel and unforgiving), that is why they earned their reputation. Besides, they were out to conquer and pillage and that doesn't necessarily come under the definition of justice in any moral system.
Hitler? An unsatiable man obsessed with moral superiority of himself. He thought other people were so low that he had no problem doing atrocities. He acted according to his own conscience. That doesn't mean what he was doing was good, even in given circumstances, as nobody approved his methods, and then became condemned.
Stalin? A paranoid man with obsession over himself. Too bad he reached power, he might have turned out a nice person if he would be seeing a psychiatrist. Since he usurped power he acted disregarding any natural law and any laid law, so another reason to condemn him.
Pol Pot, Mao and Saddam - see Hitler and Stalin, they are more or less the same.

Now let's look at the already mentioned Torquemada, Savonarola and Richelieu. They acted within the power they have been vested with by legal government, both by Vatican and Spanish or French courts. They acted according to what was right and within what was acceptable in the society. Was death penalty approved during their times? Yes, no problems. During Hitler or Stalin periods? Questioned. Today? No. Do up to 5,000 deaths (counting between all three) compare to tens or hundreds of millions caused by Hitler or Stalin? By what scale? And comparing the times?

Besides, Inquisition was not able to sentence anyone to death. They had to relegate the matter to the lay court in order for the person to receive fitting punishment. High treason is still punished by death. Nobody has a problem with that. So why attack rightful courts four centuries before?

As for crusades - I already stated why they were waged. Don't tell me that Salah'ad'din did not have plans to conquer Europe. It's the same as saying that Stalin was a lawful ally to Germany and did not intend to attack them, but gathered the 20 million plus regular army consisting of parachuters, assault tanks fitted with tracks to detach by motorways to defend their homeland.

A request to the mods: Could you please move all the discussion regarding Church History to another topic? This is getting interesting, but I don't want to hijack this thread. Thanks.

*** Edit:

Wrong. UN wanted to legalise abortion in most cases, basically dependent on a woman's wish to have it. We already have a health system to take care of women suffering because of abortion - whether physically or mentally. In this case, UN's point is moot because they are telling us that we should paint the wall yellow while it is yellow already. Besides, Poland has a very good (regardless of everything said) adoption system, which enables any woman to carry her child and leave it for adoption at birth, and all that for free. In this case, UN's point is even less founded.

Wrong. HRC went against what UNFPA said. Which puts them in contradiction to the agenda.

 

So it is OK to kill lots and lots of people if you claim you do it in the name of god?.

Do not answer, I dont want to read anymore posts from you. Perhaps I should congratulate you for managin to rise my ire on a foolish internet message board where no one has managed to before. The post chev took such offence in a now closed thread was mostly aimed at you. The reason I am saying this is so you wont have the misguided thought that any of your non-arguments have actually swayed me, it is just I wont be able to comply with the rules if I will reply to more of your posts as non of your posts deserve serious discussion.

 

My point was to respond to this. To show that Church has been also an excellent excuse for violence in history. I will not go for the crusades and I never mentioned them, we had a discussion with Chev about crusades earlier this year and I did not want to repeat myself.

These are the official catholic claims yes, but other sources claim about 8800 burnt at stake just under Torquamada. And let's just say that I do not trust the catholic church enough to believe their numbers.

True enough, but my point is not really to illustrate the responsiblity of the papacy or the church as an entity. My point was to show high ranked (okay well Savonarola was not very high ranked) officials of the catholic church who have used their "holy" to persecute others for religious or political reasons.

Also true but I'm not trying to show evidence of genocide here. A few hundred deaths is quite enough to make the man a sick bastard and criminal abusing his religion.

And just for the record. I do not consider Catholic Church to be (at least not much) worse than other religions at the time these things happened.

 

Toughluck,
The history of the Catholic church only arose as Chev was painting it as, historically, a force for opposing oppresion. The truth is that in past times they have also been the oppresors, it might have been part of the legal government of the time, but in much the same way as Sadam Hussain was the legal goverment in Iraq, Hitler was the legal government in Germany. We are comparing their deeds with our standards today, not those relative to a particular time or place. In that respect, the three names mentioned were oppressors. We are not trying to paint the Catholic church as a fundamentally evil institution, merely pointing out that it is not a holier than thou one either and refuting Chevs statement.

The UNFPA does not state the abortion should not be used fullstop. It states it should not be promoted for use as family planning (See Chev's orriginal post). The HRC does not state it wants to promote it as family planning. Realistically, when abortion is the option it is already too late for any planning anyway. However, the UN does wish abortion to be available should it be requested. Having something available is not actually promoting it's use and therefore it is not actually in contradiction.

I am happy that Poland has a good adoption system, being adopted myself. I have no problems whatsoever with that system being actively promoted. However, I do not believe that someone should be forced to go through something they do not want to go through. The HRC document specifically mentions pregnancy caused by rape and abortion not being unavailable although it is legal. It is also concerned with how many illegal abortions might be carried out, (because they are not available legally) which I'm sure we agree is actually a worthwhile concern. I can understand that a woman may not want to carry that child to term no matter what arguments are used to try and change her mind. I also believe that you have a right to try and change her mind, but not to enforce your will on her.

 

Gnarff,

That is not the point. The UN doesn't say that.

It isn't about legalising abortion; they state, that - as abortion is an undesirable reality of life - it happens, and that therefor legalised abortions by doctors are less likely to harm weman than backyard abortions by wiseweman or failed medics - and that it is preferrable for the health of the weman - as risks to their life, from poor hygiene to incompetence, are avoided. Like it or not. They do have a good point.

The UN has no "eternal damnation department", that's somewhere else, and so they pragmatically focus on how they could tackle the health risks to weman related to abortions: They demand nothing more than that weman, after an abortion, be it legal or not, get proper medical care. Nothing more, nothing less.