Speaking of the Wrong Message
The United Nations Human Rights Council votes to quash one of the most basic of human rights - the right to freedom of expression. No surprise here, folks. But I don't think we should move on. I would prefer to move it out.
"The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism."[---]
"A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven nations, mostly Western, opposed the resolution, and 13 countries abstained."[---]
"Opponents of the resolution included Canada, all European Union countries, Switzerland, Ukraine and Chile."[---]
"India, which normally votes along with the council's majority of developing nations, abstained in protest at the fact that Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection." (Emphasis mine.)Damn. To my American cousins, please, please, please do something about that monstrosity occupying that building on 1st Ave. & E 44th St. in New York City. And if Obama won't do it, then put Tom Tancredo in the Oval Office next time."India's Ambassador Gopinathan Achamkulangare said the resolution "inappropriately" linked religious criticism to racism."
posted by Louise at 1:49 pm
17 Comments:
The last sentence of your prior posting:
"Let him spew his anti-Iraqi pro-Ba'athist poison somewhere else. Letting him in sends the wrong message."
The first line of your current post:
"The United Nations Human Rights Council votes to quash one of the most basic of human rights - the right to freedom of expression."
Now, for those of us who actually do believe in free speech, both the UNHRC resolution and the decision to bar Galloway from entry were wrong.
For simple ideologues and propagandists, of course, it's s different story.
Balb, he is free to speak all he wants. Ever heard of communications technology? He can broadcast all over the globe. In fact, YouTube and other utilities are full of him. He just won't be sitting in Canada when he does it. I guess some things are just too complicated for leftards to understand.
"Leftards". My goodness. I had no idea grownups were still using that phrase.
You would apply the same logic to Geert Wilders, presumably?
Weesie. We tried to put Tom Tancredo in the oval office. Found too many guilty white people.
Any foreigner who seeks entry into Canada for the purpose of attending a event at which fundraising for a terrorist group (as defined by Canada's duly elected parliament) should be denied the opportunity. So, no Geert Wilders, should not be banned, especially, as was the case in Britain, if he was invited by the House of Commons or the Senate (or House of Lords, in Britain's case).
And as far as grownups are concerned, seems you can dish it out at Right Girl's place, but you can't take it here, or anywhere else, for that matter. Your pretense is glaringly obvious. You should be more careful if you want to be taken seriously.
Hi Tom!!!! How ya' doing? I haven't been over at your place for a long time. Shame on me!!
I know there's still a long time until the next pres is elected, but don't you guys have some congressional or senate elections every two years, or something? Maybe there's away of correcting course at least a little bit. That's what I like about your system.
It's not disagreement I dislike, Louise - it's infantilism. "Leftard"? Please. That's one step up from Canadian Sentinel's "poopieheads".
As for Wilders: just for clarity, he was not invited "by" the House of Lords, a rather major exaggeration. He was invited by two individuals (Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Baroness Cox of Queensbury)to show his little powerpoint (which, for some reason, people persist in calling a "film" - I suppose it sounds more impressive that way)at a reserved room in Westminster.
He should have been allowed to show it. Fitns is not very well done, and apart from inflaming the already inflamed, it would have had no impact - certainly not the impact that his amusing protestations of martyrdom had. Just like Galloway.
In any case, it was a given you support the banning of Galloway and the admission of Wilders. Just wanted to see how you'd rationalize it. Thanks.
Save the sanctimony for people who never read you comments Balb. Otherwise, admit your capacity for "infantilism" is as well honed as anyone else's, as is illustrated by the post to which I am responding. It's your hypocritical double standard that's the most annoying and the most childish.
Balbull running amok brays...
"It's not disagreement I dislike, Louise-it's infantilism. "Leftard"?
Please. That's one step up from Canadian Sentinel's "poopieheads"."
Ya gotta love this character Balbull(shit)...you see, he loves squatting over at his BFF Canadian CynicBoy and heh hehing at douchebagc**ts and dumbf**ks and...well, you get the point but WHOA!..."leftard"...now that's infantile and one step up from "poopiehead". Hey Balbull(shit), take your sanctimonious hectoring and lecturing back to ze Bunker, Herr Stoogeleft needs your input on that jooish thing.
Double standard, Louise? Golly, I would have said a "Double standard" is defending freedom of expresssion for the people whose views you support, while banning others from the country.
To return to something a bit more substantive, though - I take it you're now a bit clearer on the difference now between "being invited to address the House of Lords", and showing a little presentation in a booked room at Westminster at the invitation of two (two) members? I ask because you, and many of your ideological soul-mates, seem to be a bit confused.
LOL!! Every time I see the word Balbulican I am reminded of the word balboolic, with is Iraqi Arabic for little birdy, but actually a euphemism for the genitalia of a small boy. Hey. It works.
Heh. That's two consecutive responses in which you haven't actually said anything on thread, Louise. That must mean it's gotta be time to do a new post I can debunk for ya. All set!
No, Balboolic, what we're a little bit clearer on is that you are grasping at straws. I say "a little bit" because that was quite obvious from the beginning.
Balboolic, you are also suffering from the self-worshiping delusion that you can control a "tread" on this blog. Get over yourself, my dear. It's my blog, not yours. You are here at my pleasure, which is wearing thin.
In fact, if you have read the entry to which this thread is attached, it is about the hypocrisy that the den of dictators club known as the United Nations has become, particularly the new human rights body, which is simply a rehash of the old one. Sorry to disappoint you, but it's not about you.
I, and I alone, can determine whether to let you hijack it. You can do your self-worshiping at your own blog, but while you are here, it's my rules that apply. Capiche?
Now, if you want to talk about the sham that is the United Nations, you may continue to have commenting privileges on this thread.
Balbull(with his patented "Heh")snorts...
"That must mean it's gotta be time to do a new post I can debunk for ya. All set!"
Heh(back at ya)say, didn't Balbull all but write you off a while back claiming here and at ze Bunker that attempting to have a reasonable debate and discussion here was all but impossible because of your hatemongeringneoconracistHarperluvin'ideology.
Balbull wants out but yet you keep pulling him back in...I think he likes you...heh heh...lucky you(not).
I know, Mahmood. I try very hard to ignore him, but once in a while I cave. Must get stronger. Must get stronger. Must get stronger. Must get stronger......
You should start a blog, Mahmood. Either that, or tell me where else you comment so I can join the fun.
Post a Comment
<< Home