If you leave human rights to the UN

…you might have none left

The United Nations used to have a Human Rights Committee, filled with the likes of Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and Pakistan, that proved to be such an embarrassment that it was replaced with a Human Rights Council, filled with the likes of Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and Pakistan. At the time of its inception, The Acorn had argued that it is best for India to stay out of the new farce in New York, unless it was prepared to drive an uncompromising agenda on international human rights.

Unfortunately, it did neither.

Now, the UN Human Rights Council has passed a resolution that condemns the defamation of religion, acceding to a demand made by the Organisation of Islamic Conference—and tabled by Pakistan—since the very beginning. According to the United Nations, it might now be a violation of human rights to defame any religion. Limitations on the freedom of expression, on the other hand, might not.

Proof, for those who require it, that such precious things as fundamental rights and freedoms are best protected by national constitutions rather than international resolutions. India, Japan, Germany, Britain and the few other democracies that are on the council would do well to reconsider what exactly they hope to achieve by hanging in there. Their presence gives the council an appearance of legitimacy that it does not deserve.

7 thoughts on “If you leave human rights to the UN”

  1. Pity the representatives from India et al. on this Council. Have to hang out with the mouth-pieces of nitwit Faisal, dictator Mush and strongman Fidel. Our representatives on the Council need a pumice-stone rub-down after hanging out in that ideological filth.

  2. A motion will soon be tabled condemning HR violations in J&K by the Indian army and the state sponsored pogrom in Gujarat. Stay tuned!

  3. Very worthy post, Nitin, thanks. I hope misguided people in India who seek to ‘internationalise’ issues see the UN for what it is and what it always has been – just another institution desugned to promote so called strategic interests and a whole lot of hogwash about freedom. As for the OIC, there’s no surprise there. Why are the member states of the OIC and the extremists not getting along? They seem to have a lot in common.

  4. “condemns the defamation of religion, acceding to a demand made by the Organisation of Islamic Conference—and tabled by Pakistan—since the very beginning.”

    Does this mean Hindus living in Saudi can build a temple in Mecca to practice their faith without being massacred? Somehow I doubt that.

  5. As one of the misguided people who thinks its not incorrect for the deprived/ oppressed among us to seek some level of international intervention, if they are not getting it through our mechanisms I have to tell you about Kancha Ilaiah’s article I read today on his work with a committee in UK to combat caste discrimination/ untouchability (equation with slavery).

    I felt a frisson of resentment and anger first. Maybe the idea that our old colonial masters have been approached, or that some sections of our people are willing to cede some sovereignty back to them was implicit in this. So I think I get Nanda Kishore’s POV to an extent. I can see the problems and possible non-efficacy of internationalizing domestic issues.

    But I think it should exist at least as a pressure device. Another way of looking at Mr.Ilaiah’s UK work is to think of it as “independence not yet granted” not in the fullest sense of it, to some sections of India, by the Indian ruling class.

    regards,
    Jai

Comments are closed.