Louise Arbour Opinion in Malaysiakini on Jul 4, 08

On June 18, the United Nations’ intergovernmental Human Rights Council took an important step toward eliminating the artificial divide between freedom from fear and freedom from want that has characterized the human rights system since its inception. By giving the green light to the Optional Protocol to the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the Council has established an important mechanism to expose abuses that are typically linked to poverty, discrimination, and neglect, and that victims frequently endure in silence and helplessness.

It will now be up to the UN General Assembly to provide final approval of the Protocol. If adopted, this instrument can make a real difference in the lives of those who are often left to languish at the margins of society, and are denied their economic, social, and cultural rights, such as access to adequate nutrition, health services, housing, and education.   

Sixty years ago, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognized that both freedom from want and freedom from fear are indispensable preconditions for a dignified life. The Declaration unequivocally linked destitution and exclusion with discrimination and unequal access to resources and opportunities. Its framers understood that social and cultural stigmatization precludes full participation in public life and the ability to influence policies and obtain justice.

Yet this unified approach was undermined by the post-World War II logic of geopolitical blocs competing over ideas, power, and influence. Human rights were also affected by such Cold War bipolarity. Countries with planned economies argued that the need for survival superseded the aspiration to freedom, so that access to basic necessities included in the basket of economic, social, and cultural rights should take priority in policy and practice.

By contrast, Western governments were wary of this perspective, which they feared would hamper free-market practices, impose overly cumbersome financial obligations, or both. Thus, they chose to prioritize those civil and political rights that they viewed as the hallmarks of democracy.

Against this background, it was impossible to agree on a single, comprehensive human rights instrument giving holistic effect to the Declaration’s principles. And, unsurprisingly, it took almost two decades before UN member states simultaneously adopted two separate treaties – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights – encompassing the two distinct baskets of rights. However, only the former treaty was endowed with a follow-up mechanism to monitor its implementation.

Government abuses 

In practice, this discrepancy created a category of “alpha” rights – civil and political – that took priority in the influential and wealthy countries’ domestic and foreign policy agendas. By contrast, economic, social, and cultural rights were often left to linger at the bottom of the national and international “to do” lists.

Addressing this imbalance between the two baskets of rights, the new Protocol establishes for the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights a vehicle to expose abuse, known as a “complaint mechanism,” similar to those created for other core human rights treaties. This procedure may seem opaque, but by lodging a complaint under the Protocol’s provisions, victims will now be able to bring to the surface abuses that their governments inflict, fail to stop, ignore, or do not redress. In sum, the Protocol provides a way for individuals, who may otherwise be isolated and powerless, to make the international community aware of their plight.

After its adoption by the General Assembly, the Protocol will enter into force when a critical mass of UN member states has ratified it. This should contribute to the development of appropriate human rights-based programs and policies enhancing freedoms and welfare for individuals and their communities.

Not all countries will embrace the Protocol. Some will prefer to avoid any strengthening of economic, social, and cultural rights and will seek to maintain the status quo. The better and fairer position, however, is to embrace the vision of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and promote unambiguously the idea that human dignity requires respect for the equally vital and mutually dependent freedoms from fear and want.

 LOUISE ARBOUR is United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

"I wonder how long it will take them to figure out that my name isn't 'Stephen Lewis'?"

You have got to be shitting me:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today became the first Canadian to receive the B’nai Brith International President’s Gold Medallion, in recognition of the Government’s efforts to fight discrimination and uphold human rights in Canada and around the world.

[...]

In presenting Prime Minister Harper with the award, B’nai Brith International President Moishe Smith, a resident of Ottawa who is the first non-American president of the organization, cited a number of actions the Prime Minister and the Government have taken to advance human rights and oppose discrimination, including:

Unequivocally supporting Canada’s role in the UN-sanctioned mission in Afghanistan;

Refusing to sign a resolution denouncing Israel’s right to self-defence at the 2006 Francophonie Summit;

Suspending relations with the then Hamas-led government in Palestine, for its refusal to renounce terrorism; and

Delivering a heartfelt apology acknowledging the overtly discriminatory Indian Residential Schools program.“Prime Minister, whether in opposition or in government, you have always portrayed a leadership style that speaks of principle and honesty,” said Mr. Smith.

Y'know why irony was unavailable for comment, Alison? Because it just committed suicide.

Related: Bob Hepburn on how certified humanitarian Stephen Harper is "snubbing" a true Canadian human rights icon, the *ahem* "disgraceful" (hey, wasn't irony's festering corpse lying face down a moment ago?) outgoing UN Human Rights Commissioner (and former Supreme Court of Canada justice) Louise Arbour.

When [Arbour] announced her resignation, diplomats from across Europe and other parts of the world sang her praises. Some presented her with flowers. Canadian diplomats, though, barely acknowledged her presence, issuing only a bland, terse statement acknowledging that Canada would continue to support human rights.

Later, then foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier tried to assuage the outrage from human rights groups over Canada's dismissive response by issuing a short statement praising Arbour for "expanding the concepts of human rights and fundamental justice."

Since then, Harper and his government have remained silent, except for Toews' ugly outburst.

Is Harper so small-minded that he cannot speak for himself about Arbour and her accomplishments?

Is such pettiness a sign that Harper is once again out of step with most Canadians, this time when it comes to recognizing the need for a progressive, courageous champion for human rights?

Yes and yes.

Simple answers to simple questions.

But hey, at least Uncle Steve has a shiny medal from B’nai Brith to ease his (non-existent) conscience.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Welcome to silly season
Has Parliament lost its mind? Or just the people running it?

Between Vic Toews' "politically charged" and "personally insulting" remarks about Louise Arbour and Stéphane Dion's "rush to Conservative rescue" with his ill-timed carbon tax plan, the Toronto Star's James Travers believes Ottawa's "mental machinery" has "slip[ped] out of gear." The Commons committee that is Canadian politics is a few members short of quorum, one might say. And while Dion's woes have been well-documented, Travers is particularly struck by Toews' illustration of "this government's view of Canada's place in the world"—we're "back on the world stage," they constantly assure us, and yet they have no interest in a seat on the UN Security Council, they backed "the Bush administration candidate" for head of the International Organization for Migration over the Canadian candidate (Sergio Marchi, that filthy Liberal), and they dismiss anyone who doesn't share their unequivocal support for Israel as a "disgrace."

The Vancouver Sun's Barbara Yaffe agrees the Tories desperately need to "get their mojo back," but she argues that none of these scandals, affairs, peccadilloes and contretemps would be so serious if the government hadn't managed to "run out of governing projects" at precisely the time "Canada is experiencing serious economic challenges." If no new "governing projects" are forthcoming, however, she suggests adding some "neglected players" to the Cabinet lineup—Diane Ablonczy, perhaps, or James Moore—to soften the focus on Harper's disastrous "deny everything and evade the media" tactics.

The government's immigration reforms are now law, the National Post's John Ivison notes, and based partially on a recent comparative study of the Canadian and Australian systems, he says "the conclusion has already been reached that Canada's 'human capital model' points system is out-dated and does not supply the type of immigrants the country needs." Australia changed gears in 1996, instituting tougher language requirements and favouring qualifications for "occupations in demand," he notes, and measures of immigrant success have since soared. So expect a "mandatory pre-migration English or French language test" to become part of the Canadian landscape, Ivison advises, "as well as a re-evaluation of the proportion of points awarded for pre-migration work experience and qualifications."

Sun Media's Greg Weston hears that John McCain will meet with Foreign Affairs Minister David Emerson in Ottawa tomorrow, and he'll certainly be warmly received both by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and "by about 130 movers and shakers in Canadian business and bureaucracy" at the Rideau Club—"apparently including Brian Mulroney." But by and large, he reports—with the NAFTA disasta fresh in Ottawa's memory and Canadians overwhelmingly favouring Barack Obama—government members have been told to steer clear of McCain. Weston describes this policy as "hyper-cautious."

The Globe and Mail's Lawrence Martin predicts McCain "will be delicate about the leaked-memo business" in his speech. "But, at the same time, he'll … get off his shots at Mr. Obama, and part of his case is what the Canadian memo, with its summary of a meeting with a senior Obama official, contained"—i.e., allegations of doublespeak on NAFTA. But assuming this is indeed "the year of the Democrats," Martin contends the damage has already been done. "The likelihood is, we'll have an Obama administration, with all its suspicions of what went on, facing off against Mr. Harper's Conservatives, with whom there are already ample differences, philosophical and otherwise.

BC's past and future mayors
As the British Columbia New Democrats prepare to mount a "well-timed assault" on Gordon Campbell's carbon tax, the Vancouver Sun's Vaughn Palmer can't help but be reminded of Campbell's past as a tub-thumping, NDP-bashing tax-cutting self-styled superhero. The tax "will bite consumers at a time when they are already squeezed on the price of gasoline, home heating oil and other fossil fuels," Palmer notes. "And there, stepping into the arena, is Opposition leader Carole James, pitching herself as a clear alternative to a government grown arrogant and out of touch." Just like Campbell did against the NDP back in the day.

The Globe's Margaret Wente speaks to Peter Ladner, "the next mayor of Vancouver," who proposes, among other things, to turn the Downtown Eastside—which Wente aptly describes as "the most concentrated scene of human degradation in North America"—into "a mixed-income community, with real businesses and middle-class condo dwellers alongside supportive housing." His belief in the "broken windows" theory of urban reclamation may "play well," Wente suggests, for Vancouverites who "feel less safe" even as crime statistics suggest they shouldn't.

Shaikh under fire
Christie Blatchford's "imaginary Muslim boyfriend" Mubin Shaikh was raked over the coals yesterday at the first of what may or may not be many trials in the so-called "Toronto 18" terrorism plot—by the prosecution, that is, for whom Shaikh, an RCMP informant, is the star witness. Seems the Crown feels Shaikh has "purposefully … emphasize[d] the clownish aspects of the [alleged terrorist training] camp and its hapless attendees … and simultaneously diminish[ed] the serious, and far more troubling side, of what went on there," Blatchford writes in the Globe. An e-mail correspondent, meanwhile, suggests to her that Shaikh may be "chikna, an Urdu word … meaning slippery."

In which case, the Star's Thomas Walkom wonders, detailing the various inconsistencies Shaikh and the prosecution hashed out yesterday, "what happens to the government's case" against the various defendants? "If the government doesn't believe its own undercover agent is telling the truth about this," he asks, "why should it believe he is telling the truth about anything?" ("Because he's gorgeous!" we can almost hear Blatchford retorting.)

Duly noted
The Star's Haroon Siddiqui speaks with "veteran" Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, who argues in a new book that Afghanistan represents a direr regional crisis than even Iraq, and that NATO's "weak … commitment" to the country won't help. "There is no military solution," says Siddiqui—"not in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan and not in Iran." Diplomacy is the key, and Rashid believes "you can't deal with Afghanistan without dealing with Pakistan," which you can't do without "dealing with India" and the Kashmir situation. And you can't do any of that "without dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue." Alrighty, then! This sounds like a job for David Emerson!

The Montreal Gazette's Don MacPherson applauds Quebec Chief Electoral Officer Marcel Blanchet for sticking to his guns on rejiggering the province's electoral map such that it's slightly less outrageously unfair to "urban and suburban voters," and risking the considerable ire of "the regions" in the process. It's certainly more than can be said about his performance on the veiled voting file, MacPherson notes.

Colby Cosh, writing in the Post, sees no way to interpret calls for restrictions or outright bans on NFL football in Canada except as evidence that "given the choice, Canadians would inevitably abandon the CFL for the NFL"—"a classic example of the mystifying pro-sports habit of anti-marketing," he suggests. It doesn't even need to be a choice, he notes. "It doesn't seem to hurt the Seattle Seahawks that many of its supporters might be equally partial to the Washington State Cougars and the Skyline High School Spartans," for example, and Canadians already watch the NFL product on television in huge numbers. "Any harm the NFL can do to the prestige of the CFL," he concludes, "has already been done."

[Reuters] United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour voiced concern on Wednesday over "taboos" on discussion in a key U.N. forum of subjects that Islamic countries see as offending their religion.

Her comments followed a row at the forum, the 47-nation Human Rights Council, after Islamic countries intervened this week to stop mention of their system of sharia, or Islamic law, and the body's Romanian president appeared to back their stance.

"It is very concerning in a Council which should be... the guardian of freedom of expression, to see constraints or taboos, or subjects that become taboo for discussion," the former Canadian High Court judge told a news conference.

The rest.

Vic Toews, President of the Treasury Board, yelling across the aisle during Question Period today in reference to Ms. Arbour. "She's a disgrace to Canada. She's a disgrace."

The great, the wonderful Louise Arbour, one of my teachers and, obviously, one of my heroines, has left her position as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.  It was expected that Arbour would continue in this position.  Officially, her four year term was up, but it is generally acknowledged that she was pushed out (sorry Louise, but I don't believe you gave up a position as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada for a four-year stint at the UN and then ended your career because you wanted to "come home").  You can see why no one pressed her to continue.  For starters, here's a report on Arbour's speech upon leaving office:

GENEVA (Reuters) - Outgoing United Nations human rights chief Louise Arbour hit out on Monday against mistreatment of women and gays in many countries and called for equal condemnation of rights violations wherever they happen.

In a farewell speech to the U.N. Human Rights Council, she also urged it to condemn anti-Semitism as well as Islamophobia, and to speak out against abuse of minorities, immigrants and people from perceived lower castes.

"A key aspect of women's legal disenfranchisement in many countries is the limitation placed on their ability to own or manage property, including through unjust divorce or inheritance laws," she told the 47-nation body, where Islamic countries have a strong hold on the agenda.

The "perpetuation of prejudices continues to deny equal rights and dignity to millions worldwide on the basis of nothing more innocuous than their sexual identity or orientation, or their ancestry in the case of caste discrimination," she said.

Some Islamic and African countries in the Council, which have a majority when backed by their frequent allies Russia, China and Cuba, have frequently been angered by Arbour's views, although she has also often spoken out against Israeli policies.

Many countries in the majority group have made little secret of their wish to bring the high commissioner's office under the control of the Council. The post is currently responsible to the U.N. Secretary-General, who nominates its occupant.

Arbour, who on Monday also criticised prejudice and actions against illegal immigrants in Europe, especially in Italy, recognised that there was still scepticism about the Council, set up two years ago to replace a discredited predecessor.

Independent human rights groups complain that major abuses -- especially in developing nations -- are ignored because groups of states in the Council block discussion or action on complaints that might embarrass their members.

Arbour herself warned that "regional or communal positions" or "narrow parochial political agendas" in the body could prevent it from ever becoming effective.

Western diplomats say that countries that in the past benefited from U.N. pressure on their governments over rights -- like South Africa -- are now among the first to reject what they regard as interference in internal affairs.

In her farewell address, Arbour suggested that the failure to bring the Yangon regime to book over long-term rights violations had encouraged it to refuse to allow in most outside help after last month's devastating hurricane.

Myanmar's government has since responded to international outrage by saying it will admit all "legitimate" foreign aid workers, but several aid workers are still complaining that red tape is hampering their efforts.

And a bit of an interview with Amy Goodman:

AMY GOODMAN: It's very good to have you with us. The state of human rights in the world today, can you talk about it?

LOUISE ARBOUR: You know, we will begin the celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We'll start celebrating it towards the end of this year. 2008 is the target date. And the Universal Declaration, by definition, is meant to express universal ideals, and I think this concept is very much under attack.

There are claims all over the world that the human rights agenda is a carrier of Western values. It's manipulated in the pursuit of Western-read US-interest. That's one discourse. The discourse we hear, on the other hand, in America is that the human rights agenda has been hijacked by the bad guys, by those who don't believe in human rights and who are trying, for instance, to hijack the Human Rights Council to totally undermine the human rights values. So we see this very, very severe, profound attack on the very concept of universality of rights.

AMY GOODMAN: You came into office soon after the US invaded Iraq. Do you see the world as a more or less dangerous place today? This is more than, what, close to five years later.

LOUISE ARBOUR: I think it is a very unstable world. I think we see the emergence and the recurrence of conflict everywhere. We know, for instance, that the best predictor of whether conflict will erupt is whether there was conflict in the previous five years. So we've been extremely poor, I think, at managing post-military intervention in Iraq. We're not even in that phase yet. But I think everywhere else we have an enormous challenge in managing stability, which I think is because we're never addressing the very profound root causes of conflict.

AMY GOODMAN: Which are?

LOUISE ARBOUR: I think, not to over simplify the issue, it's clearly linked to the very severe inequalities in access to wealth or wealth distribution between states and within states. And I think this exacerbates-and that's easily manipulated then by political agenda that prey on people's faith or religious beliefs, values. But at the end of the day we have a very unjust, very unfair world and very few institutions that permit a peaceful forum to address these issues.

Arbour never did pull her punches.  Canadians can be proud of this straight talking woman who said things that UN officials really do need to say, but usually don't.  Stephen Lewis too.  It's well known that the Canadian delegation at the UN did not honour Ms Arbour upon her resignation, as is traditional.  Thanks again Steve.

Given her work as chief prosecutor of war crimes for the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, during which time she indicted Slobodan Milosevic for genocide and crimes against humanity, as well as her more recent work, I think that Louise Arbour should get a Nobel Peace Prize.  But then I'm biased.

Here's a video of CBC's interview with Ms Arbour on As it Happens with Carol Off.

BTW, Arbour also submitted an amicus brief to the SCOTUS on the Boumediene case. Here's what she had to say about that:

June 12, 2008 - GENEVA - The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, welcomed Thursday's decision by the United States Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush that the U.S. Constitution extends to foreign detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and that they have the right to challenge their detention by habeas corpus in the civilian courts.

"The Supreme Court has sent a vitally important message that the protections afforded by fundamental human rights guarantees extend to these individuals and that effective remedies must be available to them. After up to six years in detention in Guantanamo Bay without satisfactory review of the reasons for their detention, these detainees have the right to prompt review in the civilian courts," Arbour said.

"I welcome the Court's recognition that security and liberty are not trade-offs, but can be reconciled through the framework of the law, and that it is the courts that apply that law," she said. "This has long been the hallmark of American constitutionalism." 

The High Commissioner expressed the hope that, now that these legal issues have been clearly and definitively settled, the civilian courts will be able to move promptly to assess the situation of individual detainees. 

The High Commissioner submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court. In it, she argued, as a matter of international law, for the same conclusion the Court reached today.  

Here's a bunch more stuff on Louise, Arbour if you're not impressed yet. 

[Toronto Star, June 11, 2008] Wanted: candidate with strong voice and stomach for high-profile job. Must be ready for attack from all sides.

When Louise Arbour steps down as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in July, she leaves large shoes to fill.

vs.

[National Review, September 28, 2007] This brings the total of anti-Israel resolutions and decisions adopted by the “Human Rights” Council — in only the first 15 months of its operation — to 14. Another four very weak decisions and resolutions have been applied to Sudan. And the Council finally decided to hold a special session of the Council on Myanmar. So adding up the highly selective concerns of the U.N.’s lead human-rights agency: 74 percent of the Council’s moves against individual states have been directed at Israel, 21 percent at Sudan, 5 percent at Myanmar, and the rest of the world has been given a free pass.

In questa Italia, sempre pronta a manifestare contro le democrazie americana e israeliana, a bruciare le loro bandiere e a tirar sassi contro le loro ambasciate, è una notizia, davvero una buona notizia, che ci sia chi si è mobilitato per protestare pacificamente contro le violazioni dei diritti umani in Iran, le deliranti affermazioni del suo presidente, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad «Israele sarà presto cancellato dalle carte geografiche» e i suoi programmi nucleari. In questa Roma ancora turbata dalle ultime vicende della sua maggiore Università dove il corpo accademico, in nome dell'antifascismo (?), ha espresso la sua solidarietà al preside della Facoltà di Lettere sequestrato dai collettivi studenteschi di sinistra - ciò che, infatti, resterà della visita del presidente iraniano in occasione del vertice della Fao (l'Agenzia dell'Onu per l'agricoltura e l'alimentazione), sarà la manifestazione di ieri sera organizzata dal Riformista e dalla comunità ebraica.

Non ha tutti i torti, allora, la stampa iraniana che se la prende anche con il direttore del Riformista, Antonio Polito, per il clamoroso insuccesso della visita di Ahmadinejad, che né papa Benedetto XVI né il presidente della Repubblica, Giorgio Napolitano, né quello del Consiglio, Silvio Berlusconi, hanno ricevuto. Questa è la forza dell'informazione indipendente e della libera opinione pubblica in un Paese di democrazia liberale. Si è trattato di un evento nell'evento che ha fatto onore al nostro Paese. Ma la singolare eccezionailtà dei due eventi romani e della loro concomitanza la riunione della Fao e le manifestazioni di ieri presso il Campidoglio e a pochi metri dalla sede della stessa Fao non si arresta qui. Va oltre.

La presenza a Roma, oltre che di Ahmadinejad, del dittatore dello Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, ha coinciso, infatti, con la presa di posizione delle Nazioni Unite contro il decreto del nostro governo che sancisce, a meno di ripensamenti preannunciati dallo stesso nostro presidente del Consiglio, il reato di immigrazione clandestina. Ha detto l'alto commissario dell'Onu per i diritti umani, Louise Arbour: «Le politiche repressive e gli atteggiamenti xenofobi sono una seria preoccupazione. Ne sono esempi la decisione del governo italiano di rendere reato l'immigrazione illegale e gli attacchi ai rom».

Ora, che a una riunione sull'Alimentazione abbia partecipato Robert Mugabe un despota che affama il suo popolo sarebbe già un curioso paradosso. Che, poi, l'alto commissario dell'Onu abbia accusato l'Italia di razzismo, mentre l'antisemita Ahmadinejad partecipava anch'egli alla riunione, indetta dalla stessa agenzia dell'Onu, è qualcosa di più di un paradosso. E' - quale che sia il giudizio sull'operato del governo Berlusconi in tema di immigrazione - un tragico esempio di quel «mondo alla rovescia» che sono ormai diventate da tempo le Nazioni Unite. Un dato di fatto sul quale la nostra diplomazia dovrebbe, forse, riflettere.

Piero Ostellino - Corriere della Sera - 4 giugno 2008

[Reuters] Some Islamic and African countries in the Council, which have a majority when backed by their frequent allies Russia, China and Cuba, have frequently been angered by [UN human rights chief] Arbour's views, although she has also often spoken out against Israeli policies.

The rest.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

New York (PTI): The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, has asked Myanmar government to "unconditionally" release pro-democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, two days after the junta extended her house arrest.

"Her unconditional release will be critical in facilitating national reconciliation and democratic transition, to which the Myanmar leadership has committed itself," Arbour said on Wednesday.

The detention of Suu Kyi, who is the General Secretary of the National League for Democracy (NLD) in Myanmar and a Nobel laureate, was extended on May 27. She has been under house arrest for 12 of the last 18 years and her current period of detention began in 2003.

"These continued severe restrictions on the freedom of expression and movement against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi contravene basic human rights," the High Commissioner noted.

"They come at a time when the people of Myanmar are suffering hard and their suffering should not be compounded by more restrictive measures," she said in a statement.

Arbour also expressed concern at the arrest on Tuesday of at least 15 members of the NLD who were marching towards Suu Kyi's house.

General Assembly President Srgjan Kerim, in his statement, also urged the release of "all political detainees" in Myanmar and expressed his "disappointment" over the decision to extend Suu Kyi's house arrest.

"It is important to have serious engagement and strong commitment from all parties to continue process of national reconciliation that needs to be credible and inclusive and must lead to concrete results as envisaged by the relevant General Assembly resolutions," his spokesman said.

I thought this was an April Fools Joke.

Canada's Louise Arbour stepped down from her roll as the High Commissioner for Human Rights one day before this vote. Gee I wonder why ...

"GENEVA: Islamic countries pushed through a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday urging a global prohibition on the public defamation of religion — a response largely to the furor last year over caricatures published in a Danish newspaper of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. The statement proposed by the Organization of Islamic Conference addressed what it called a "campaign" against Muslim minorities and the Islamic religion around the world since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.

The resolution, which was opposed by European and a number of other non-Muslim countries, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."

It makes no mention of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism or any other religion besides Islam, but urges countries "to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence."

Iran, whose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," belongs to the 57-member Islamic conference.

The resolution was adopted by a 24-14 vote with nine abstentions. Canada, Japan and South Korea joined European countries in opposition, primarily citing its excessive focus on Islam and incompatibility with fundamental rights such as the freedoms of speech and thought.

"The problem of religious intolerance is worldwide and not limited to certain religions," said Brigitta Maria Siefker-Eberle of Germany," speaking on behalf of the 27-nation European Union.

Ghana, India, Nigeria, Zambia and some of the council's Latin American countries abstained.

There are 17 Muslim countries in the 47-nation human rights council. Their alliance with China, Cuba, Russia and most of the African members means they can almost always achieve a majority.

Human Rights Watch said the resolution could endanger the basic rights of individuals.

The document "focuses on protection of religions themselves, particularly Islam, rather than the rights of individuals, including members of religious minorities," the New York-based rights group said in a statement.

The resolution says freedom of expression "may ... be subject to limitations as provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others ... or morals and respect for religions and beliefs."

The council, which last year replaced the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission, has no power beyond drawing international attention to rights issues and scrutiny of abuses in certain countries.

The move at the council was initiated last year after protests across the Islamic world drew attention to caricatures of Muhammad first printed in Danish paper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005.

One of the drawings showed Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban. Islamic law is often interpreted to forbid any depiction of the prophet for fear it could lead to idolatry."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/30/news/UN-GEN-UN-Islam.php

A good rep gone bad.

By Rob Annandale
Published: October 22, 2007
TheTyee.ca

Canada’s treasured self-image as a land of wealth and justice took a hit on Monday when two UN officials separately blasted the country’s recent social and human rights record.

UN Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour said Canada’s decision last month not to support a declaration on indigenous rights suggested her compatriots had an “unduly romantic” view of their country. And UN housing envoy Miloon Kothari wrapped up a two-week Canadian tour by releasing a highly critical preliminary report.

But the international organization has not soured entirely on the country that used to top its lists of the world’s best places to live. On the heels of last week’s survey suggesting the majority of Afghans approve of a continued foreign presence on their territory, UN humanitarian chief John Holmes praised Canada’s role in Afghanistan and expressed hope its troops would stay as long as necessary.

A new study puts Canada’s military budget at around $18 billion annually, its highest since World War II and more than 100 times higher than federal spending to combat homelessness. And while two out of three UN officials may disapprove, it doesn’t take a political scientist to know which of these issues – Afghanistan, aboriginal rights or homelessness – is most likely to be a major election issue next time around. No wonder Arbour aimed her barbs not at Stephen Harper, but at all Canadians.