Thai bid for UN rights seat fails

[whybother]

why would anybody expect the UNHRC to accept a country with a dictator at the helm that is under martial law (and all that goes with it, no freedom of speech etc)?

Have you seen some of the other countries on the committee?

I have indeed, sad to say but it just goes to show what the World thinks of Thailand at this moment in time. When countries like China sit as on of the 5 main countries, Saudi is included and Russia get voted in things are bad...

Have you seen some of the countries NOT on the committee? Are they all worse than China, Saudi Arabia and Russia too?

[Chwooly]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Indonesia, a country with a worse human rights record than Thailand (remember East Timor?), won over Thailand. What a loss of face that was!! alt=giggle.gif>

To all those that disagree with this, Just read about the new law passed about 2 weeks ago that means that the average joe can't ever be elected. Only those that are in cahoots with the entrenched power base will be elected. This is because the new pres came from no-where to win and the power base candidate lost. Indonesia may not have long as a democracy.

[aTomsLife]

"We hope the UN members did not link their decisions to the political situation in Thailand."

I should hope they did. What right does a country squashing all political dissent have on the Human Rights Council?

What about Bangladesh ???? they have less right------freedom of speech is far less than here. comment please. Or is it just a clan member rubbing salt in the wound again. Qatar ??? what rights do women have there--minorities also.

Spare me your logical fallacies.

My comment about Thailand doesn't automatically translate into support for the other countries you named.

Edited October 23, 2014 by aTomsLife

[aTomsLife]

"We hope the UN members did not link their decisions to the political situation in Thailand."

I should hope they did. What right does a country squashing all political dissent have on the Human Rights Council?

It's pretty obvious the junta are more concerned about terrorism than dissent. Give a monkey an M79, stoke him up with a bit of rhetoric (and 1,000 baht) and we've all seen the result.

The current situation is for the human rights of decent people who deserve to be able to walk the streets without fear of getting shot or blown up.

What about the people who are threatened with arrest for reading a certain book in public? Do you consider them indecent?

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." -- Benjamin Franklin

[outsider]

I'm sorry but I don't feel particularly sympathetic here. Try harder next time? With sincere and honest efforts and serious proofpoints to show?

Edited October 23, 2014 by outsider

[aTomsLife]

"We hope the UN members did not link their decisions to the political situation in Thailand."

I should hope they did. What right does a country squashing all political dissent have on the Human Rights Council?

Ask Qatar or Cuba, they'll know.

Then they didn't deserve appointment either.

Besides, last I checked this forum was for discussions about Thailand. So pardon me that, before posting, I didn't research every other country which didn't deserve to be on the Human Rights Council.

[Fatty123]

Lost to Qatar? Buwhahahahahahahaha...