Hodjanernes Blog

18 marts 2006

Stormoske i Århus – ja tak

TV2-nyhederne her iaften klokken 19 viderebringer denne nyhed, som dog vistnok er gammel i Århus:

Pensionister i kommunens plejecentre oplever i adskillige tilfælde at måtte ligge i sengen hele dagen uden at komme op.

De kommer i bad 2-3 gange om måneden.

De kan ligge med bleer, der ikke bliver skiftet.

Kommunen anerkender problemerne, men der bliver ikke placeret noget ansvar for de katastrofale forhold.

Man har entrepreneret med et privat firma, der skal foretage kemisk rensning af toiletterne.

Jeg troede kun, at det er i Sverige, man svigter landets pensionister på mångkulturens alter.

Det lyder som om man burde foretage en kemisk rensning i kommunens forvaltning samtidig.

Men OK. Pengene til Stormoskeen skal jo komme et eller andet sted fra – nogen skal åbenbart betale.

Hvem er det der har flertallet i Århus – Jo Socialakrobaterne med Nicolai Vammen i spidsen. Tak for kaffe.

UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS LOSES ALL CREDIBILITY Wheeling and dealing, incompetence and “non-action” Reporters Without Borders calls for drastic overhaul of how the commission works

Islamic solidarity distorts the debate

Representing nearly a quarter of the commission, the Islamic states form a sufficiently cohesive group for them to avoid any criticism on human rights. Most of them can treat women as second-class citizens, trample on the rights of minorities or maintain corporal punishments under the sharia without any sign of concern from the commission. Despite damning reports, Saudi Arabia remains untouchable, as does Algeria, where more than 200,000 persons died in an internal conflict over the past decade. Nonetheless, according to a report on the Arab world published in Cairo in July 2002 by the United Nations Development Programme, the countries of this region have the lowest level of freedom in the world and the situation of women is especially problematic.
A resolution on “combating defamation of religions” proved even more revealing. Presented by Pakistan on behalf of the member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), it was adopted by 32 to 14 with 7 abstentions. It mentions only Islam, and the special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism is asked to investigate only “the situation of the Muslim and Arab populations in various regions of the world,” although he was already asked to produce a report on this very topic for the commission’s 59th session. It is as if only Muslims are the victims of religious intolerance, and not Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews,
animists, other kinds of religious believers or atheists.
Special rapporteurs criticised

The rapporteurs are no longer safe from condemnation by commission members. The current special rapporteur on racism, Doudou Diène of Senegal, took over in 2002 from Maurice Glélé-Ahanhanzo, a member of Benin’s supreme court, who was summarily dismissed for referring in a report to a document which the OIC regards as a “blasphemy against the Koran.” Among other attacks on special rapporteurs, Algerian ambassador Mohamed Dembri distinguished himself in 2003 by questioning the independence and impartiality of the special rapporteur on torture, Théo van Boven, because of claims that he was hired by an NGO.
Dembri also accused him of taking unverified allegations as proven, and demanded his resignation. It should be pointed out that Algeria has never agreed to receive visits from the special representative about torture, executions or involuntary disappearances.

In his report, Van Boven had mentioned the amputation of limbs carried in some countries and cases of women being stoned to death for alleged adultery, especially in Sudan. Now that the mandate for Sudan has been terminated because the relevant resolution was rejected, only 10 of the UN’s 193 member states are under investigation for human rights violations (Afghanistan, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Iraq, Israel Liberia and Somalia).

A large number of the many resolutions adopted did not contain any significant undertaking and were unlikely to have any consequences. This is the case with the resolution on the “right to freedom of opinion and expression,” adopted without a vote, in which the commission “voices its continuing concern at the extensive occurrence of detention, extrajudicial killing, torture, intimidation, persecution and harassment, abuse of legal provisions on defamation and criminal libel as well as on surveillance, search and seizure, and censorship, threats and acts of violence and of discrimination, often undertaken with impunity, against persons, including professionals in the field of information, who exercise the right to freedom of
opinion and expression…” As if it was sometimes worth saying what goes without saying.
The resolution went on to urge all states “to respect freedom of expression in the media and broadcasting, and in particular, to respect the editorial independence of the media, and to encourage a diversity of ownership of media and of sources of information…” This was a fine lesson in hypocrisy as it did not require states to implement this catalogue of good intentions.

The same unanimity was obviously not reached on the death penalty, which is paradoxically a controversial issue in this body supposedly given over to ensuring respect for the basic right to life. A resolution presented by the European Union called for a moratorium in the implementation of the death penalty and invited all countries that had not yet done so to sign the second optional protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at abolishing the death penalty. Most of the 28 countries backing the resolution came from Europe and Latin America. The United States voted against the proposal along with 17
other members of the commission including Islamic countries, China, Vietnam and
Zimbabwe. Although it had just carried out three executions, Cuba preferred to abstain and did not participate in the vote.

17 members refuse to link human rights to democracy

Seventeen of the commission’s 53 members showed their true colours by abstaining in the vote on a resolution about “the interdependence between democracy and human rights,” one that should have gone without saying. Just reaffirming the principles of the Universal Declaration and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the resolution declared that: “the essential elements of democracy include respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, inter alia freedom of association, freedom of expression and opinion,
and also include access to power and its exercise in accordance with the rule of law, the holding of periodic free and fair elections by universal suffrage and by secret ballot as the expression of the will of the people, a pluralistic system of political parties and organizations, the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, transparency and accountability in public administration, and free, independent and pluralistic media.” It was clearly too much for the 17 countries that abstained: Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Burkina Faso, China, Cuba, Gabon, Libya, Malaysia, Uganda, Syria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Vietnam.
Osv osv osv osv

Der er kun et svar på Hr Dienes udtalelser: REND og HOP


Dobbeltmoral: Simon Wiesenthal Centeret beskylder Doudou Diene for anti-zionisme

Simon Wiesenthal Center Pressemeddelse:

January 6, 2005

In a letter to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Director for International Liaison, Dr. Shimon Samuels, expressed grave concern that “the Rapporteur on Racism, Mr. Doudou Diène, presided over an Experts’ Seminar on Defamation of Religions and the Global Struggle Against Discrimination, Antisemitism, Christianophobia and Islamophobia in Barcelona on 11-14 November, which degenerated into a defense of anti-Zionism as a legitimate movement unrelated to antisemitism.”

The letter added, “According to the organizers, the UNESCO Center of Catalunya, this event – incorrectly presented as under the auspices of UNESCO itself – aimed to provide the guiding principles for the Rapporteur’s report to the March-April 2005 session of the Commission.”

Samuels explained, “Anti-Zionism argues for the denial of sovereignty only to the Jewish people, which is, ipso facto, an act of racism. It is also a violation of the UN Charter in its singling out of one member-state for extinction,” suggesting “Mr. Doudou Diène should thus include ‘anti-Zionism’ among the forms of racism listed in his report.”

The Center called on the High Commissioner “to urge your Rapporteur to disassociate himself from the Barcelona statements which endorse anti-Zionism and to exclude them from his forthcoming report.”

Samuels noted that “on 30 August 2004, the 55-state Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), in Berlin, acknowledged anti-Zionism as a key element in contemporary antisemitism by rejecting its use as a pretext for Jew-hatred anywhere.”

The letter concluded: “While the Barcelona seminar initiated an attempt to undo the OSCE recognition of the perniciousness of anti-Zionism, it would be unconscionable for the Human Rights Commission to provide a backdoor for the reincarnation of the infamous 1975 UN Resolution equating Zionism with Racism. This would be a warrant for worldwide antisemitism.”


Skarp FN-kritik af Danmark

Filed under: Islam, Muhammed Cartoons, Politik — Hodja @ 11:59

En FN-rapportør mener, at Muhammedsagen er det alvorligste udtryk for had mod islam og banalisering af ærekrænkelser over for religioner siden 2001 Den danske regering levede ikke op til sine internationale forpligtelser, da den med henvisning til ytringsfriheden afviste at tage stilling til Morgenavisen Jyllands-Postens Muhammed-tegninger og at mødes med ambassadører fra muslimske lande.

Det konkluderer FN’s særlige rapportør i spørgsmål om moderne former for racisme, racediskrimination, fremmedhad og intolerance, senegaleseren Doudou Diène, i en rapport til FN’s Menneskeretskommission. Det skriver Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten lørdag.


Ved lidt søgning på Google kan man f.eks finde følgende:

UN: “Please don’t mention any crucial issues of the international agenda of today by the name of the country”

Free speech is under fire everywhere these days, and not surprisingly, that goes for the UN as well. At the UN in Geneva, at a meeting of an Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, David G. Littman, a representative of the Association for World Education, was prevented by the Chairman, Ambassador Juan Martabit of Chile, from mentioning Sudan and Iran in connection with human rights abuses. Said Martabit: “I’m going to be very blunt with you, and with everyone -– if we’re going to get into a country situation debate here at this Working Group, we will not make any progress.”

What kind of progress Martabit hopes to make by covering up for these countries is unclear.

From the verbatim transcript, courtesy the International Humanist and Ethical Union:


Mr. Littman, I think again your points are related specifically to countries where you may [incoherent words by interpretor], that you have every right to consider that there are problems of human rights, but please do not cite those countries in this room. I’m going to be as frank as possible because we’re not going to get anywhere. The delegate of Iran is making a ‘point of order.’ She is right because she is going to respond, then you are going to respond and we’re not going to get anywhere. Mr. Littman, listen to me, and all delegates. I’m here to contribute in my humble way, with my time and my competence, to build bridges, to deal with extremely complex issues. I don’t think that anyone…everyone has the right to deal with problems, but please do not cite specific countries. You have mentioned Professor Doudou Diène and I will ask Doudou Diène to respond to the questions you have raised. Your problems with Sudan and Iran please raise them in a different meeting, not here. I’m going to be very blunt with you, and with everyone – if we’re going to get into a country situation debate here at this Working Group, we will not make any progress. This doesn’t mean that I am excluding or turning a blind eye to the problems that exist in different countries. If you have any positive examples to cite, you could mention those, but please do not create an atmosphere that would create tension and which will send us into a deadlock. I hope that you’ve finished Mr. Littman. Thank you very much. I will like to ask Prof. Doudou Diène…


Nogle lande må åbenbart gerne kritiseres åbent i FN, mens hånden holdes over andre. Men der er selvfølgelig også forskel – tegninger er jo meget værre end tortur og undertrykkelse af egne befolkninger.