U.N. Human Rights Council hypocrisy was exposed by UN Watch, but they took the speech out of the record and UN Watch was told to never repeat it.

Well, he sure put the UNHRC in its place. Too bad they couldn't care less.

The speech was not taken out of the record. The sub-header of your thread is false, UG. Maybe you should fact-check first?

http://www.un.org/Ne....asp?HighID=807

In response to a question concerning allegations that remarks made by a representative of the group UN Watch had been stricken from the records of the Human Rights Council, the Spokesperson later obtained a clarification from the Human Rights Council that the remarks had not been stricken from the record.

If you want to change the heading to simply "UN Hypocrites", feel free. That is the main point anyway.

March 2007 UNHRC speech

On 23 March 2007, UN Watch's Hillel Neuer delivered a harshly critical speech to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), stating that the Council had betrayed the dreams of its founders and become "a nightmare". Neuer charged that the Council ignores human rights abuses worldwide, opting instead to enact "one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel". He further argued that the Council's stated concern for Palestinian human rights is deceptive, and provided examples where it ignored atrocities against Palestinians "because Israel could not be blamed... The despots who run this Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights. They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people."[70]

The UNHRC President, Luis Alfonso De Alba of Mexico, responded by threatening to "remove from the record" the testimony, and said he "would not "express thanks for that statement... I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible."[71][72] The Human Rights Council later stated that the remarks were never actually stricken from the record.[73]Neuer's speech was praised in a number of editorials and op-ed's. The Wall Street Journal opined that Neuer's candor disrupted the Council's "obfuscation" and "fraudulence".[74] An op-ed writer in The National Post stated that the speech became "a major hit on YouTube".[75] In its editorial, The New York Sun called it a rare "diplomatic moment to remember", and published the full text of his remarks.[70] Alan Gold, an Australian human rights activist, opined Neuer's speech was "a non-government organisation laying bare the mendacity and prejudice of a key UN body." [76]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Watch

Wow

The speech was not taken out of the record. The sub-header of your thread is false, UG. Maybe you should fact-check first?

http://www.un.org/Ne....asp?HighID=807

To some people, facts don't matter.

Indeed, like these facts:

On 23 March 2007, UN Watch's Hillel Neuer delivered a harshly critical speech to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), stating that the Council had betrayed the dreams of its founders and become "a nightmare". Neuer charged that the Council ignores human rights abuses worldwide, opting instead to enact "one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel". He further argued that the Council's stated concern for Palestinian human rights is deceptive, and provided examples where it ignored atrocities against Palestinians "because Israel could not be blamed... The despots who run this Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights. They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people."[70]

The title is misleading, but won't be changed. The link to the video uses the word 'banned'. It sounds like the proposal was to have it banned, but in fact it wasn't.

I can produce a number of links to mainstream newspaper articles that also stated that the remarks were ruled "inadmissable". Some of them are on this page.

http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.3358623/k.7D86/Speaking_Truth_to_Power.htm

Well, he sure put the UNHRC in its place. Too bad they couldn't care less.

Could care less.

"UN Watch", the organisation of which Hillel Neuer is the chairman. He also happens to be the agitated person responsible for the diatribe in the original clip. "UN Watch" has a total staff of 6, all of which have a background as pro-Israel activists, and 4 of which are of Jewish descent. It has ties with Jewish interest organizations in the US, Canada, Oceania, Finland and Sweden (that's just a quick Google, without examining things in detail). Now, before you point it out, it is true that "UN Watch" does not ONLY focus on Zionist interests. In order to appear a little more impartial than a 100% biased lobby organization for Zionist policy, they have actually presented an opinion on other conflicts, too. That's not to say, of course, that there are not hypocrites within the UN or more specifically within UNHCR. Why would the UN be magically free of hypocrites when they are everywhere else?

Talk about attacking the messenger instead of the message. Why would one purposely ignore all the postitive things about UN Watch and the fact that Hillel Neuer has a multitude of very valid points?

UN Watch is a Geneva-based NGO whose stated mission is "to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter".[1] It is an accredited NGO in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council and an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information.[5] It is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee.

UN Watch has been active in combating perceived human rights abuses in Democratic Republic of the Congo and Darfur, perceived anti-Israel and antisemitic sentiment in the UN,[6][7] and monitoring the qualifications of candidate countries to UN Human Rights Council elections. It has been a strong critic of the United Nations Human Rights Council, asserting that many of its members have poor human rights records themselves. UN Watch has described the council as equally bad as or worse than its forerunner, the defunct[8] United Nations Commission on Human Rights.[9]

The group has been praised by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan[10][11] and the Director General of the UN Office in Geneva Sergei Ordzhonikidze has acknowledged "the valuable work of UN Watch in support of the just application of values and principles of the United Nations Charter and support for human rights for all."[12] Agence France-Presse has described UN Watch both as "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel"[13] and as a group which "champion human rights worldwide".[14]

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

Since your source checking has proven to leave a thing or two left to be desired, I just thought I would lend you a helping hand and also save others the trouble of examining the key persons and ideological and financial ties of "UN Watch". As you and I both know, any old link off the Internet does not necessarily an accurate statement make. I am happy to see that you have now back-pedaled in your assessment of the integrity of Kofi Annan, since you apparently feel that his statement on UN Watch lends increased legitimacy to their work. Given this turn of mind, perhaps you would now also agree that the corruption allegations against Annan as regards the Oil for Food program were truly unjust and unfounded?

Is there any particular reason why you keep throwing out red herrings and strenuously avoid addressing the content of the speech? Why don't you try picking that apart?

I can produce a number of links to mainstream newspaper articles that also stated that the remarks were ruled "inadmissable". Some of them are on this page.

Does a factual error become less grave because it is repeated in mainstream newspaper articles?

Still avoiding the content of the speech - which is the important part - but how am I supposed to know when the Wall Street Journal (and a bunch of other mainstream newspapers) is making a "factual error"?

Well, he sure put the UNHRC in its place. Too bad they couldn't care less.

Could care less.

Wrong. Koheesti is correct.

You have picked up the latest fashion in this expression, mainly used outside the UK, which makes no sense whatsoever.

If the interested party COULD care less, you are implying that there is a degree of care. When the interested party COULD NOT care less, then that implies that he has no thought of care at all.

Don't follow fashion from some illiterates, think about what you are saying and why you are saying it.

Well, he sure put the UNHRC in its place. Too bad they couldn't care less.

Could care less.

Wrong. Koheesti is correct.

You have picked up the latest fashion in this expression, mainly used outside the UK, which makes no sense whatsoever.

If the interested party COULD care less, you are implying that there is a degree of care. When the interested party COULD NOT care less, then that implies that he has no thought of care at all.

Don't follow fashion from some illiterates, think about what you are saying and why you are saying it.

I think I'm losing the will to live - and I went to a Grammar School...

This has nothing to do with "fashion". It depends on where one grew up. A lot of expressions in the English language do not make sense literally. Could care less. Could not care less. Both are correct.

This has nothing to do with "fashion". It depends on where one grew up. A lot of expressions in the English language do not make sense literally. Could care less. Could not care less. Both are correct.

A reprieve from standardization.

Thanks, UG.

This has nothing to do with "fashion". It depends on where one grew up. A lot of expressions in the English language do not make sense literally. Could care less. Could not care less. Both are correct.

I have only noticed "I could care less" in the past six or seven years, mainly on airhead television (one of the downside items of working in the third world). Therefore I regard it as a 'fashion'.

And if I could care less, then that means I DO care about the matter in-hand. And thus the context in which it is used is usually incorrect - because the person means that they could not care less, because they have no feeling of care for the subject.

I have heard it both ways since I was a young child - depending on where I was living - and I have no problem understanding it either way.

I care about a lot of things. I could care less about somethings and I couldn't care less about a few things.

I don't care much for the UN, but I previously worked for them, so I am wondering about the level of care others have. I am not too familiar with the UNHRC, however.

Pat Condell is very familiar with the UN HRC.

Talk about attacking the messenger instead of the message. Why would one purposely ignore all the postitive things about UN Watch and the fact that Hillel Neuer has a multitude of very valid points?

Because the "messenger" has an agenda and is not so much a messenger for global human rights as for his own suspect motives.

He does have an agenda. Fairness. It certainly looks like none of you can dispute his very valid grievances with the UN HRC.

He does have an agenda. Fairness. It certainly looks like none of you can dispute his very valid grievances with the UN HRC.

Are you saying that the Zionist cause has an agenda of fairness?????

:cheesy:

More red herrings and UN watch is not a "Zionist" organization (no matter how some folks try to twist the facts) . Why do you boys keep trying so hard to the issues that he brought up.

That should be, why do you go out of your way to AVOID the issues in the video.

Things at the UN will become much more balanced and fair towards Israel during the upcoming year's General Assembly.

The membership just elected a Qatari as President and an Iranian as one of their vice presidents.

Oops! Did I really say that?

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/06/iran-elected-vice-president-of-un.html

PS: Yeah, I know the link is Israeli and it is a biased blog but that doesn't change the fact the election took place and the events are as reported.