Iranian lawmakers slam UN human rights resolution

[News_Editor]

Iranian lawmakers slam UN human rights resolution

2011-03-28 01:58:10 GMT+7 (ICT)

TEHRAN (BNO NEWS) -- A number of Iranian lawmakers criticized the United Nations Human Rights Council for adopting an anti-Iran resolution, Press TV reported Sunday.

The Islamic Republic had denounced the act as a political move meant to divert attention from human rights abuses committed by the United States.

A member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Iranian Parliament, Fatemeh Alia, said the so-called defenders of human rights are "in the front line" of anti-democracy moves.

"In the 21st century, the modern barbarism has made a gesture of defending human rights, but is committing the most heinous acts of human rights violation," she said.

Sa'dollah Nassiri Qeidari, another lawmaker, decried the anti-Iran UN resolution, dismissing it as a "sinister" Western plot.

"Given the situation in the region and the awakening of the people of Islamic countries, hegemonic powers such as the US, Britain and France are trying to use such political and biased resolutions to tarnish the image of the Islamic Republic of Iran and deflect public opinion from the Islamic Revolution," he added.

The United Nations Human Rights Council on Thursday approved a resolution for the appointment of a special human rights rapporteur for Iran. The motion received 22 votes in favor, seven against, and 14 abstentions.

The human rights resolution, which was introduced by the U.S. and Sweden, was adopted in order to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-03-28

[bangkokeddy]

The United Nations Human Rights Council on Thursday approved a resolution for the appointment of a special human rights rapporteur for Iran. The motion received 22 votes in favor, seven against, and 14 abstentions.

fun facts

The United Nations Human Rights office is a central of the anti-Semites.

At least according to some sources:

"The worst example of how the UN is used by the anti-Semites rather than standing against them, is the Human Rights Council."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/israel_un.html

[Ulysses G.]

Thanks for sharing.

Starting in the mid-1970s, an Arab-Soviet-Third World bloc joined to form what amounted to a pro-

In 1974, for example, the General Assembly invited

U.S. Ambassador Daniel Moynihan called the resolution an “obscene act.” Israeli Ambassador

[Steely Dan]

Nice try to turn the topic on Israel and still failing to make any mud stick. As for Iran, well they would complain wouldn't they seeing as Universal human rights is explicitly incompatible with Sharia law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

Islamist criticismIslamist countries such as Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into the account the cultural and religious context of Islamist countries.[citation needed] In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.[20] On 30 June 2000, Muslim nations that are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference[21] officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,[22] an alternative document that says people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah".[23] However, this document doesn't recognize the freedom to change religion, equate women as equals to men, or maintain neutrality when comparing religions.

Put simply if you are a woman forget it, if you are a gay live your life in secret or be killed, try to leave Islam and you're dead. Discrimination against infidels is also written into Sharia law.

[hammered]

I have nothing against human rights things aimed at Iran. I would hope similar ones are passed aimed at Libya, Bahrain which invited foreign troops in to put its own people down, Yemen, Oman, Syria etc etc and of course Saudi Arabia for using its army to put down the people of another state.

[Steely Dan]

The Iranian tantrum over human rights is also incredibly hypocritical. There are now around 90 Sharia courts in the UK the rulings they give are deemed binding under UK law (<deleted>). So if you are female and Muslim you are again a second class citizen, so much for the suffrogette who got skittled by the King's horse. They could opt not to go through Sharia courts but would no doubt end up in a bin liner under some railway embankment if they dared try. Currently, (thank God) these Sharia courts are only allowed to practice civil law, but the instant they are granted leave to try criminal cases expect Soho to be abandoned over night and a white flag to be flying over Buckingham Palace. So the race is on imho, shove Universal human rights down the throats of insane theocracies before our liberal PC brigade succeed in getting Sharia law shoved down ours.

[bangkokeddy]

This topic is not about Britain and the law over there.

[Steely Dan]

This topic is not about Britain and the law over there.

Not that you ever stray one inch from the topic in question, unless of course your case is taking a beating.

I was merely underlining they hypocrisy of the Iranian objection to the UN human rights resolution in light of politically correct appeasement monkeys in western Countries bending over backwards to accomodate demands from certain Muslims. For instance, that they should be allowed to be treated as special cases with Sharia taking precedence over existing UK law to the clear detrement of universal human rights such as equality for women.

[Ulysses G.]

The Iranian tantrum over human rights is also incredibly hypocritical. There are now around 90 Sharia courts in the UK the rulings they give are deemed binding under UK law (<deleted>). So if you are female and Muslim you are again a second class citizen, so much for the suffrogette who got skittled by the King's horse. They could opt not to go through Sharia courts but would no doubt end up in a bin liner under some railway embankment if they dared try. Currently, (thank God) these Sharia courts are only allowed to practice civil law, but the instant they are granted leave to try criminal cases expect Soho to be abandoned over night and a white flag to be flying over Buckingham Palace. So the race is on imho, shove Universal human rights down the throats of insane theocracies before our liberal PC brigade succeed in getting Sharia law shoved down ours.

Iranian hypocrisy indeed!

[Orac]

The Iranian tantrum over human rights is also incredibly hypocritical. There are now around 90 Sharia courts in the UK the rulings they give are deemed binding under UK law (<deleted>). So if you are female and Muslim you are again a second class citizen, so much for the suffrogette who got skittled by the King's horse. They could opt not to go through Sharia courts but would no doubt end up in a bin liner under some railway embankment if they dared try. Currently, (thank God) these Sharia courts are only allowed to practice civil law, but the instant they are granted leave to try criminal cases expect Soho to be abandoned over night and a white flag to be flying over Buckingham Palace. So the race is on imho, shove Universal human rights down the throats of insane theocracies before our liberal PC brigade succeed in getting Sharia law shoved down ours.

Iranian hypocrisy indeed!

What has this to do with Iran????

As I understand it these 'courts' in the Uk are little more than a version of arbitration in civil matters that also manifest themselves in many other different formats both in the UK and throughout the world - nobody is being forced to use it and it is purely a decision between two parties that that is the way they wish a disagreement to be resolved. Personally I would not have anything to do with such an entity but, there again, I would not submit to a trial by TV in one of the many forms it takes such as Judge Judy or Judge Joe Brown.

[bangkokeddy]

Iranian hypocrisy indeed!

What has this to do with Iran????

As I understand it these 'courts' in the Uk are little more than a version of arbitration in civil matters that also manifest themselves in many other different formats both in the UK and throughout the world - nobody is being forced to use it and it is purely a decision between two parties that that is the way they wish a disagreement to be resolved. Personally I would not have anything to do with such an entity but, there again, I would not submit to a trial by TV in one of the many forms it takes such as Judge Judy or Judge Joe Brown.

Exactly.

[Ulysses G.]

What has this to do with Iran????

Iranian lawmakers slam UN human rights resolution

That is what the thread is about.

[bangkokeddy]

So why post videos "Stop sharia law in Britain' then?

You know where Britain is and where the Iran? And that it are different countries?

[Ulysses G.]

They practice Sharia law in Iran and it ties into the thread.

[bangkokeddy]

They practice Sharia law in Iran and it ties into the thread.

Ohh ... really?

What says the UN about this? And the HRC? And the BNP? The KKK? Dick Turpin? Gets the UK Libyanised next week?

Is the Liberation BLITZ coming?

[Steely Dan]

Ok, Is this close enough for the obtuse?

It's the document (20) attached to the wiki Universal rights entry referencing Islamic objections.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060501234759/http://mypage.bluewin.ch/ameland/Islam.html

It's a great read and shows the lengths some Islamic nations will go to to avoid censure over UDHR breaches by using the 56 nation Islamic block vote to threaten blasphemy charges against any UN raporteur who criticises the law in an Islamic Country as such law is based on the literal word of Allah

There was an Islamic human rights declaration from a meeting in Cairo, that bastion of tolerance and beacon of equal rights for women. Anyway I'll quote a little to show the reservations the UNHRC had concerning the Cairo declaration.

The controversial Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) was adopted in Cairo on 5 August 1990 by the 19th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (session of Peace, Interdependence and Development) of the 45 Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), subsequent to the Report of the Meeting of the Committee of Legal Experts held in Teheran from 26-28 December 1989. The CDHRI establishes the shari'a law as "the only source of reference" for the protection of human rights in Islamic countries, thus giving it supremacy over the UDHR. The CDHRI was presented for approval at the OIC Summit Meeting of Heads of State and Government, held in Dakar, Senegal on 9 December 1991. This was averted following a press release from their Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). The dangers of the CDHRI were enumerated in the press release and again spelled out in a joint statement to the UN Commission on Human Rights by Adama Dieng, its Muslim secretary-general, a prominent Senegalese jurist, who alerted the international community to the grave negative implications that would result. Speaking for the ICJ and the Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights at the Commission on Human Rights in February 1992 (10), he declared, inter alia, that:

1. It gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based;

2. It introduces, in the name of the defence of human rights an intolerable discrimination against both non-Muslims and women;

3. It reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a number of Muslim countries;

4. It confirms, under cover of the "Islamic Shari'a (Law)", the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.

So you see when we talk of Western Civilisation, that is exactly what we mean - Civilised as oppose to backwards and theocratic. :jap:

[bangkokeddy]

What is "Western Civilisation"?

Pat Condell?

The hypocrites who get hissy fits when an UNHRC resolutions on a certain country have the approval of 45 members, with only the US voting against them?

btw. this topic here is about a certain UN Human Rights Council resolution on Iran and not about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Do you know how the UNHCR works?

And don't equal the your "Western Civilisation" with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its called Universal for a reason.

If you don't like the immigrants to the UK, just say it. but it will be off topic like your other comments here.

Edited March 29, 2011 by bangkokeddy

[Steely Dan]

What is "Western Civilisation"?

Pat Condell?

The hypocrites who get hissy fits when an UNHRC resolutions on a certain country have the approval of 45 members, with only the US voting against them?

btw. this topic here is about a certain UN Human Rights Council resolution on Iran and not about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Do you know how the UNHCR works?

And don't equal the your "Western Civilisation" with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its called Universal for a reason.

If you don't like the immigrants to the UK, just say it. but it will be off topic like your other comments here.

It's like trying to catch an eel in a barrel of oil debating with you. Did you read my last post? Yes exactly universal is called universal for a reason, which is exactly why Adama Dieng the Muslim secretary of the ICJ pointed out how Iran and other Muslim Countries preference to their own human rights declaration threatened the universal nature of the Universal human rights declaration, get it?

As for suggesting I'm against immigrants to the UK that's yet another of your slanderous misrepresentations.

[bangkokeddy]

The United Nations Human Rights Council on Thursday approved a resolution for the appointment of a special human rights rapporteur for Iran. The motion received 22 votes in favor, seven against, and 14 abstentions.

Tehran called it an anti-Iran resolution. As expected.

Now hum your song about the superiority of the Western world and post more youtube videos with rants of hate by Pat Condell (whoever this old man is).

[kuffki]

The United Nations Human Rights Council on Thursday approved a resolution for the appointment of a special human rights rapporteur for Iran. The motion received 22 votes in favor, seven against, and 14 abstentions.

Tehran called it an anti-Iran resolution. As expected.

Now hum your song about the superiority of the Western world and post more youtube videos with rants of hate by Pat Condell (whoever this old man is).

Why do you now have a problem with Youtube? Is it because you can not deny video evidence?

[Steely Dan]

The United Nations Human Rights Council on Thursday approved a resolution for the appointment of a special human rights rapporteur for Iran. The motion received 22 votes in favor, seven against, and 14 abstentions.

Tehran called it an anti-Iran resolution. As expected.

Now hum your song about the superiority of the Western world and post more youtube videos with rants of hate by Pat Condell (whoever this old man is).

Ok if you insist seeing as he is actually talking of human rights and the UN here, enjoy as I sure as hell did. :jap:

Edited March 29, 2011 by Steely Dan

[bangkokeddy]

The United Nations Human Rights Council on Thursday approved a resolution for the appointment of a special human rights rapporteur for Iran. The motion received 22 votes in favor, seven against, and 14 abstentions.

Tehran called it an anti-Iran resolution. As expected.

Now hum your song about the superiority of the Western world and post more youtube videos with rants of hate by Pat Condell (whoever this old man is).

Why do you now have a problem with Youtube? Is it because you can not deny video evidence?

Video EVIDENCE?

Some dude with the name Pat Condell rants about Immigrants in the UK in a hate speech . where is that evidence for something in the topic: "Iranian lawmakers slam UN human rights resolution".

Thats not really evidence, maybe mild entertainment on a BNP meeting, Storm- and National Front web boards, but mot more.

Pat Condell's fascist friends

Condell branded racist, Comic in US 'hate speech' row

[geriatrickid]

The United Nations Human Rights Council on Thursday approved a resolution for the appointment of a special human rights rapporteur for Iran. The motion received 22 votes in favor, seven against, and 14 abstentions.

Tehran called it an anti-Iran resolution. As expected.

Now hum your song about the superiority of the Western world and post more youtube videos with rants of hate by Pat Condell (whoever this old man is).

Why do you now have a problem with Youtube? Is it because you can not deny video evidence?

Video EVIDENCE?

Some dude with the name Pat Condell rants about Immigrants in the UK in a hate speech . where is that evidence for something in the topic: "Iranian lawmakers slam UN human rights resolution".

Thats not really evidence, maybe mild entertainment on a BNP meeting, Storm- and National Front web boards, but mot more.

Pat Condell's fascist friends

Condell branded racist, Comic in US 'hate speech' row

maybe he's watching Iranian and Hamas controlled television stations?

Speaking of human right, they still stone people to death in Iran don't they?

[bangkokeddy]

maybe he's watching Iranian and Hamas controlled television stations?

Speaking of human right, they still stone people to death in Iran don't they?

Do they?

[Ulysses G.]

The United Nations Human Rights Council on Thursday approved a resolution for the appointment of a special human rights rapporteur for Iran. The motion received 22 votes in favor, seven against, and 14 abstentions.

Tehran called it an anti-Iran resolution. As expected.

Now hum your song about the superiority of the Western world and post more youtube videos with rants of hate by Pat Condell (whoever this old man is).

Why do you now have a problem with Youtube? Is it because you can not deny video evidence?

Video EVIDENCE?

He would be talking of things like video evidence of children forced to become suicide bombers and millions of Iranians marching against their repressive, fascist government.

[geriatrickid]

maybe he's watching Iranian and Hamas controlled television stations?

Speaking of human right, they still stone people to death in Iran don't they?

Do they?

So barbaric: Azar Baghery, 19, is one of NINE women to be stoned to death in Iran

By Kate Mansey 25/07/2010

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.../#ixzz1I2SHg2Gm

[Steely Dan]

Condell branded racist, Comic in US 'hate speech' row

Thanks for the second link, I recommend it to everyone it contains a link to the video which so upset the liberals at Berkeley who demonstrate that there is a strong corollation beteen the need to cow tow to fanatics and having no sense of humour whatsoever. Enjoy

[Wallaby]

maybe he's watching Iranian and Hamas controlled television stations?

Speaking of human right, they still stone people to death in Iran don't they?

Do they?

So barbaric: Azar Baghery, 19, is one of NINE women to be stoned to death in Iran

By Kate Mansey 25/07/2010

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.../#ixzz1I2SHg2Gm

Executions in the US as well, and the methods used are contentious. We, in countries that do not have the death penalty consider ourselves a little more 'enlightened'.

[Steely Dan]

The United Nations Human Rights Council on Thursday approved a resolution for the appointment of a special human rights rapporteur for Iran. The motion received 22 votes in favor, seven against, and 14 abstentions.

fun facts

The United Nations Human Rights office is a central of the anti-Semites.

At least according to some sources:

"The worst example of how the UN is used by the anti-Semites rather than standing against them, is the Human Rights Council."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/israel_un.html

Thanks for sharing, I wonder how they got that idea? Sorry it's youtube again wouldn't you love it to be banned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMNO9Ke7Uac&feature=related

[Ulysses G.]

Executions in the US as well, and the methods used are contentious.

For murder. Not for blasphemy or adultery. "Enlightened"? What utter nonsense!

Edited March 30, 2011 by Ulysses G.