New Events

International

no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

Anti-Empire

offsite link The Supreme Commander of the Ukrainian M... Sat Apr 20, 2024 01:38 | Anti-Empire

offsite link Ukraine Now Producing 10 Self-Propelled ... Fri Apr 19, 2024 06:15 | Anti-Empire

offsite link Russian Firms Rush to Buy Anti-Drone Def... Wed Apr 17, 2024 08:58 | Bloomberg

offsite link Ukraine Buys Huge Amounts of Russian Fue... Fri Jan 20, 2023 08:34 | Antonia Kotseva

offsite link Turkey Has Sent Ukraine Cluster Munition... Thu Jan 12, 2023 00:26 | Jack Detsch

Anti-Empire >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz
Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb

offsite link The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker
Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog.  We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below). 

offsite link What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker
by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are

offsite link Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader
2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of

offsite link The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker
Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by

The Saker >>

Lockdown Skeptics

The Daily Sceptic

offsite link Even Orwell?s Thought Police Didn?t go as Far as Trudeau Sat Apr 20, 2024 07:00 | Toby Young
Justin Trudeau to Humza Yousaf: "You think you can position yourself as the West?s most authoritarian 'liberal' political leader? Hold my Molson."
The post Even Orwell?s Thought Police Didn?t go as Far as Trudeau appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link News Round-Up Sat Apr 20, 2024 01:23 | Toby Young
A summary of the most interesting stories in the past 24 hours that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy about the virus and the vaccines, the ?climate emergency? and the supposed moral defects of Western civilisation.
The post News Round-Up appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Fifty Ways to Leave the European Convention on Human Rights Fri Apr 19, 2024 17:28 | Dr David McGrogan
Rishi Sunak has once again been dropping hints about leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. This is not credible, says Dr David McGrogan: such a feat would require a Government far more serious than this one.
The post Fifty Ways to Leave the European Convention on Human Rights appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Pupil Suspensions Reach Record High as Experts Blame Effect of Lockdowns on Behaviour Fri Apr 19, 2024 15:30 | Will Jones
The number of pupils suspended from school has reached a record high as experts warn that bad behaviour has increased as a result of lockdown school closures.
The post Pupil Suspensions Reach Record High as Experts Blame Effect of Lockdowns on Behaviour appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Up to Half of Excess Deaths in U.S. Nursing Homes Were Due to Lockdowns and Mitigation Measures Fri Apr 19, 2024 13:19 | Will Jones
Up to half of excess deaths in American nursing homes were due to the impact of lockdowns and mitigation measures on frail residents rather than the virus, according to new analysis.
The post Up to Half of Excess Deaths in U.S. Nursing Homes Were Due to Lockdowns and Mitigation Measures appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Lockdown Skeptics >>

Voltaire Network
Voltaire, international edition

offsite link The cost of war, by Manlio Dinucci Wed Apr 17, 2024 04:12 | en

offsite link Angela Merkel and François Hollande's crime against peace, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Apr 16, 2024 06:58 | en

offsite link Iranian response to attack on its consulate in Damascus could lead to wider warf... Fri Apr 12, 2024 13:36 | en

offsite link Is the possibility of a World War real?, by Serge Marchand , Thierry Meyssan Tue Apr 09, 2024 08:06 | en

offsite link Netanyahu's Masada syndrome and the UN report by Francesca Albanese, by Alfredo ... Sun Apr 07, 2024 07:53 | en

Voltaire Network >>

Human rights groups close ranks after Pope urges UN resist Culture of Death.

category international | rights, freedoms and repression | opinion/analysis author Wednesday June 04, 2014 07:25author by Anthony Ravlich - Human Rights Council (New Zealand) Report this post to the editors

Leadership of human rights groups lack authenticity.

Human rights group members ignore posts in which Pope urges UN to resist a 'Culture of Death' and where UN Watch reports the rise of repressive States to prominent UN positions.

Human rights groups close ranks after Pope urges UN resist Culture of Death.

Anthony Ravlich
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.
Auckland City.
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658

Faced with some ‘unsafe’ human rights truths human rights organizations on linkedin sites seemed to close ranks.

There was no response to a post on 30 May 2014 on about 42 human rights linkedin sites (only about 12 permitted its discussion) in which Pope Francis urged the United Nations (UN) to resist a Culture of Death.

Similarly, another post (by another member, see below) on 27 April, 2014, which includes a report by UN Watch on the rise of a number of repressive regimes to prominent UN positions, only elicited one brief response apart from my own.

It seems these posts, despite being of considerable human rights importance, may have been seen as ‘unsafe’ as many who are religious would be very likely concerned at the rise in global ideological power of communist countries such as China in addition to their growing economic strength.

Pope Francis’ comments can found in an article, ‘Pope urges UN leadership to resist 'culture of death', (Vatican City, May 9, 2014, CAN/EWTN News, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-urges-un-le...eath/ )”.

In the following I describe what I see as the most likely reasons for the Pope’s ‘Culture of Death’ comment. My post is as follows:

“UN urged to resist Culture of Death. Saw no mention on linkedin sites of comments by Pope Francis who urged UN leadership to resist Culture of Death, Economics of Exclusion, and Throw Away Society”.

“In my view, Pope Francis was most likely referring to the UN's creation of Neoliberal Absolutism i.e. the whole UDHR having to conform to the IMF's elitist policies, on the 10 December 2008.
It involves a 'near absolute' control of all behavior under the UDHR (see my article, 'Profound Arrogance at UN).
Also, I consider the consequences of Neoliberal Absolutism, which, in my experience, the leadership of global human rights establishment has gone to fantastic lengths to conceal from the mainstream, was the Global Financial Crisis 2008/9 and a rebalancing of global power away from the West to other regions which has seen the rise of repressive States.
In addition, I think Pope Francis may well have been referring to the involvement of the UN i.e. UNDP, in increasing police/security so far in 100 countries which I see is to ensure compliance with 'near absolute' control required for a One World Government which involves world domination by a secular, left-Western class i.e. liberal collectivists. Our council promotes a universal approach i.e. ethical human rights, development and globalization to replace Neoliberal Absolutism (see end of article, 'Comments on Helen Clark's refusal to discuss global ethical human rights', on internet)”.

A more full description of Pope Francis’ comments can be found in the above link but the following gives a brief description:

Briefly, the article states: “Pope Francis met with the secretary general and other leaders of the United Nations today, urging them to challenge both a “culture of death” and the “economy of exclusion.”
“In a meeting on May 9 with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and other executives at the U.N., Pope Francis said that the institution should work towards goals which include providing “appropriate protection for the family, which is an essential element in sustainable human and social development.”
“Specifically, this involves challenging all forms of injustice and resisting the ‘economy of exclusion,’ the ‘throw-away culture’ and the ‘culture of death’ which nowadays sadly risk becoming passively accepted,” he continued.
Ban Ki-Moon is in Rome for a yearly meeting of all the heads of the U.N. agencies. Although the Secretary General met the pontiff last year, today’s meeting was unique in its inclusion of about 50 senior UN officials”.

The following post on 12 May 2014 refers to a recently released book, ‘The Optional Protocol (OP) to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: A Commentary’, Edited by Malcolm Langford, Bruce Porter, Rebecca Brown and Julieta Rossi, Pretoria University Law Press (2014), http://www.jus.uio.no/smr/english/about/programmes/serp....html ).

The book describes the adoption of the OP on 10 December 2008 as ‘widely seen as an historic recognition by the UN of the equal status of economic, social and cultural rights with civil and political rights’.
The authors state the latter ‘holds out the promise of developing international jurisprudence on economic, social and cultural rights that will have widespread influence in domestic and regional systems..’.

My post states: “[The above recently published book is] for your interest, remembering that both sets of rights are made compatible with IMF elitist policies meaning human rights when implemented are elitist, a neoliberal absolutism - a near absolute 'top-down' control”.

Although I have yet to read the book the content (see above link) reveals little of what I see as the major global effects of the OP’s adoption – to my knowledge not yet made public in the mainstream – which would not be surprising because both sets of rights were at the centre of an ideological war between East and West during the Cold War.

The West promoted civil and political rights e.g. ‘freedom and democracy’, while the communists of Eastern Europe championed economic, social and cultural rights e.g. social justice.

In addition, another reason why it is so exceedingly surprising the OP’s adoption attracted virtually no controversy was that America, with some support from others in the American camp, opposed the OP throughout the four years of discussions (America has often seen economic, social and cultural rights as socialist although they were included in Rooselvelt’s proposed Second Bill of Rights. America is also one of the few countries not yet to have ratified the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights).

I give some of the major global effects of the OP’s adoption in the first post in this article as reasons for Pope Francis’ ‘Culture of Death’ comment.

However, I could have added another major global effect of the adoption of the OP.
While economic, social and cultural rights will require greater social responsibility on the part of the Corporations (e.g. to address climate change) the OP failed to protect against exploitation as the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights is meant to do (this is more fully explained in my article, ‘A Great World can be achieved by Great States which ensure a global ethical human rights, Aotearoa Indymedia, 9 Jan 2014, http://www.indymedia.org.nz/articles/1848 ).

Consequently, in my view, whereas before uncertainty surrounding how the covenant was to be interpreted prevented Corporations from relocating to countries where they are better able to exploit labour but now that exploitation is permitted the door is now wide open to them to relocate.

The failure to protect against exploitation in international human rights law means, in my view, the creation of a ‘global slave economy’ – an added dimension to the ‘Culture of Death’.

The following post on 9 May 2014 on the Amnesty International (AI) site is by Jack Sigman, MA International Relations, American Military University. He asks:

Why is AI silent on these appointments?
Iran appointed to humanitarian councils.

He provides a link to an article by UN Watch on 15 April 2014 entitled: “Iran sweeps coveted UN rights posts. Also elected: Russia, China, genocidal Sudan, Cuba, Pakistan, Turkey, slave-holding Mauritania…..NGOs protest “Black Day for Human Rights” (UN Watch, http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=...66335

My response (there was only one other brief comment despite AI having 1,694 members) was as follows:

anthony ravlich Essentially, I followed the discussion on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights from 2004 to 2008. America was very much against it - wanted I think to retain status quo i.e. neoliberalism. My book was the only public dissent to the OP at the time [to my knowledge] because I did not think the poor would benefit.
[Virtually] all the human rights organizations including Amnesty supported the OP which got barely any publicity despite its enormous consequences and it dealt with economic, social and cultural rights which were at the center of major ideological struggle at UN during Cold War between East and West.
The OP established the equal status of the two sets of rights - however it meant that the whole UDHR would have to be compatible the IMF globalization policies which are elitist (i.e. focus on elites and Corporations) consequently in their application human rights were elitist – [thereby] ignoring the lessons of history and amounted to an act of profound arrogance.
Adoption of the OP on 10 Dec 2008 resulted in a rebalance of global power from the West to other regions which would mean the rise of authoritarian regimes. It also resulted in the GFC 2008/9 which, in my view, affected the West far worse and has been on-going (see European Union).
I consider the UN and the human rights establishment and the mainstream media have been taken over by a left-tribal middle class elite only, in my view, interested in furthering their class interests and use human rights for that purpose i.e. one world government (world domination no less). In my view, human rights have been hijacked. That is why, in my view, Edward Snowden reported that the US NSA were spying on human rights organizations - of course the US government was likely interested in the leadership of such organizations wanting to see greater influence by authoritarian regimes.
There would be many worthy activists, more independent thinkers within these organizations aware that unless something is done we could well be facing what seems to be part of human history - a battle between good versus evil. But I think these worthy activists (and I would say much more intelligent and greater character) have been sidelined - I see it as necessary to have them take over these organizations (and the UN) for the good of the UDHR and humanity.
I have promoted an ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization which would return the UDHR to its universal roots and very importantly emphasize individual rights i.e. people are not numbers. In my view these left-classes in leadership positions fear what they cannot control and America (and Israel) have often fallen into this category.
So not surprisingly the adoption of the OP meant that neoliberalism morphed into a neoliberal absolutism - a 'near absolute' control over all behavior covered under the UDHR. But the ethical approach provides a choice - promoted for 5 yrs - so it is unlikely that many will now be able to claim they had no choice re promoting human rights in class interests rather than humanity as a whole - so the future is in your hands”.

Avoidance of such ‘unsafe’ human rights truths indicates a lack of authenticity. I have been promoting global ethical human rights on the linkedin sites for about three years now and while a number have been supportive only one academic, an Islamic assistant professor of law has been prepared to discuss it and she now appears to agree with global ethical human rights (see my article, ‘Profound Arrogance at UN’, Scoop NZ, 30 March 2014, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1403/S00405/profound-a...n.htm ).

But if human rights organizations and its members are not prepared to discuss hard human rights truths how can they expect others to?

Related Link: http://www.hrc2001.org.nz
author by Sampublication date Mon Jun 09, 2014 13:19author address author phone Report this post to the editors


In my view, Pope Francis was most likely referring to the UN's creation of Neoliberal Absolutism i.e. the whole UDHR having to conform to the IMF's elitist policies, on the 10 December 2008.

It involves a 'near absolute' control of all behavior under the UDHR (see my article, 'Profound Arrogance at UN).
Also, I consider the consequences of Neoliberal Absolutism, which, in my experience, the leadership of global human rights establishment has gone to fantastic lengths to conceal from the mainstream, was the Global Financial Crisis 2008/9 and a rebalancing of global power away from the West to other regions which has seen the rise of repressive States.
In addition, I think Pope Francis may well have been referring to the involvement of the UN i.e. UNDP, in increasing police/security so far in 100 countries which I see is to ensure compliance with 'near absolute' control required for a One World Government which involves world domination by a secular, left-Western class i.e. liberal collectivists. Our council promotes a universal approach i.e. ethical human rights, development and globalization to replace Neoliberal Absolutism (see end of article, 'Comments on Helen Clark's refusal to discuss global ethical human rights', on internet)”.
- Emphasis added.

That is opinion, not news.

author by Taxpayerpublication date Mon Jun 09, 2014 15:43author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The posted article is jargon ridden. Two terms require clarification IMHO. They are Neo-Liberal Absolutism, and Culture of death. By neo-liberal I understand market-led laissez faire capitalism. The addition of absolutism bewilders me somewhat. I can understand the term Culture of Death coming from a Pope to mean abortion on demand and euthanasia. I can understand the term in a nonreligious international context to mean mass deaths, injuries and destruction of livelihoods through aggressive wars and civil wars supported by outside powers supplying weapons, money and military advice. Syria, Libya, the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88 and the Vietnam War that ended in 1977 are just some examples of a culture of death endorsed by governments of varied political hues.

Without clarification of key terms I don't quite know what the article writer is hitting at.

 
© 2001-2024 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy