• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Iran elected to UN commission on Women's Rights.

Virus

Philosopher
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
6,875
Remind me why the UN has credibility again?

Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest."

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/29/elects-iran-commission-womens-rights/

Other UN ironies include Libya chairing a human rights council and Zimbabwe chairing a council on sustainable development.

From Iran Solidarity Blog:

“Such a regime has no place at the table when it comes to setting global gender policy in the 21st century,” said Maria Rohaly, co-ordinator of Mission Free Iran. “By defending the practice of stoning, the Islamic Republic has itself publicly and on the global stage provided the basis upon which the world must insist that it be immediately removed from the commission.”

Maryam Namazie, spokeswoman for Iran Solidarity, said: “For Iran to be sitting on such a committee is tragic and outrageous. It’s like having a South African apartheid government sitting on the Commission for Racial Equality. How is it possible?”

Ahmad Fatemi, of the International Committee Against Executions, said it was “obscene and unacceptable that a country like Iran gets a seat on this committee. It is rewarding the Islamic Republic for its atrocities.”

Fifteen Iranians are thought to be awaiting execution by stoning, all but three of them women. In Tabriz prison, where Ms Ashtiani has been incarcerated for five years, they include Azar Bagheri, 19, who was forced into marriage at 14, convicted of adultery on her husband’s say-so and has twice been subjected to mock stonings as she is not yet old enough to be executed.

Stoning is simply the most egregious form of discrimination suffered by Iranian women. Their evidence in court is worth half that of a man; they have severely curtailed rights of inheritance, divorce and child custody; they are forbidden to travel without their husband’s permission; and must cover their heads and bodies whenever they go out. Women’s right activists are routinely harrassed, arrested and imprisoned.
 
Last edited:
Maryam Namazie, spokeswoman for Iran Solidarity, said: “For Iran to be sitting on such a committee is tragic and outrageous. It’s like having a South African apartheid government sitting on the Commission for Racial Equality. How is it possible?”


the best comparison, would be like having jews governing jeruselem.

ooops...... they ran the diamond industry in africa (the root of the aparthied)
 
the best comparison, would be like having jews governing jeruselem.

Yes, what possible connection does Jerusalem have with the Jews?

By the way, your "replace 'Jew' with 'zionist' or 'Israeli' so that people won't say your an antisemite" macro is broken.

Don't say "the evil Joooz ran the SA diamond trade". Say "Israel had deep connections with apartheid South Africa".

See? That SO much more non-antisemitic when you put it that way. Everybody will understand what you really mean anyway, without causing you any embarrassment.
 
Last edited:
the best comparison, would be like having jews governing jeruselem.

ooops...... they ran the diamond industry in africa (the root of the aparthied)

Ah, so we can add bigotry to your ignorance of physics. Good to know.
 
the best comparison, would be like having jews governing jeruselem.

ooops...... they ran the diamond industry in africa (the root of the aparthied)

Touched a nerve? Got a soft-spot for Islamist rogue states?
 
the best comparison, would be like having jews governing jeruselem.

ooops...... they ran the diamond industry in africa (the root of the aparthied)
I was going to say you forgot to use the code-word "zionists", but then you went on about running the diamond industry and thoroughly outed yourself.
 
This is like some kind of sick joke. In Iran, it is against the law to execute a virgin. Therefor, any female virgin sentenced to death is forcibly married to one of the Revolutionary Guard and raped before she is executed to make sure the whole procedure is legal.
 
Off topic : Skeptic, do you use a special font ? Color ? I always have difficulty to read your post, somehow they are not in black... I was wondering why, because quoting you show nothing as BBS tag.

On topic : I don't see any paradox. It is an occasion to show that they can "evolve" from 6th century view on women. If they do something wrong, or clearly are not working properly for what the job entail, then call upon them , publish them , point finger. Until then it is really moaning and wambulance.

ETA: anyway I tend to think on political level UN is a failure, because of the security council veto power. Some country are thus made more equal than other. That said on other domain, like technical, telecom, UN is quite clearly a success.
 
Last edited:
ETA: anyway I tend to think on political level UN is a failure, because of the security council veto power. Some country are thus made more equal than other.


You want countries like Iran, Sudan and Saudi Arabia to have equal footing at the UN as the USA or France? You want them to have veto power?

I don't.
 
You want countries like Iran, Sudan and Saudi Arabia to have equal footing at the UN as the USA or France? You want them to have veto power?

I don't.

Where the heck did you get that I wanted those to have veto power ? I say *NOBODY* should have a veto power. Not even the US, France, UK , etc...

Somewhen in the past somebody must have said the following in one democraty :

"What ? You want those lout I don't like to have a voting right ? I don't"

That said, I am not sure a fully democratic UN would have gone better. There is no way to say. It was on the political level stillborn.
 
Somewhen in the past somebody must have said the following in one democraty :

"What ? You want those lout I don't like to have a voting right ? I don't"

Who said the UN was a "democraty"? I'm sorry but the rogue states shouldn't have their say.
 
The UN became a joke the instant it decided that "inclusion" was more important than requiring its members to actually adhere to its ideals, laws, and treaties.

I've said this before and I'll say it again; the UN could be anamazing organ for good in this world but only if they make membership a privelage that must be earned (by adhereing, for starters, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and by providing some sort of benefit in being a member (such as trade incentives).

Currently the UN has very little carrot and even less stick. As a result it's becoming more of a joke every day. They're spitting on the ideals they created the UN to uphold.
 
Who said the UN was a "democraty"? I'm sorry but the rogue states shouldn't have their say.

Saying the Iran is a rogue state (assuming youa re speaking of them) , while at the same time others (Russia for example) is given a free pass is a bit misleading. Furthermore many country would like to point out that there are some country which agressed others, tortured people, broke geneva convention, incited and supported anti democratic coup against otehr country, and are given a free pass.

About the other post above, if you make it a privilege, then there is no incencitive *at all* for many country to participate. After all why let a FOREIGN body allow you to dictate anything, if you can't even express you opinion/vote in it. So what now ? Well you run into the situation where it makes it about as irrelevant as today.

Anyway even having to show white paw to enter, afetr a period of a few years, would be much much better, than the curent situation where 6 countries are more equal than otehrs. really.
 
About the other post above, if you make it a privilege, then there is no incencitive *at all* for many country to participate. After all why let a FOREIGN body allow you to dictate anything, if you can't even express you opinion/vote in it. So what now ? Well you run into the situation where it makes it about as irrelevant as today.

You could let them speak, just not vote (unless they met some kind of criteria). It might avoid situations such as a vote that 'murdering gay people is OK' being passed, or Iran being on a commission that oversees womens rights. Such an organisation would have a chance of holding decent values, unlike now.


Anyway even having to show white paw to enter, afetr a period of a few years, would be much much better, than the curent situation where 6 countries are more equal than otehrs. really.

That is just a reflection of reality (or at least, reality as it stood in 1945). Certain countries do - like it or not - have such power that they get a veto as a reflection of it. Would you rather they apply their effective veto via deploying real world firepower or by politely saying "veto" in a meeting?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom