Obama’s decision on UN Human Rights Council his worst yet

Pop and mass media have reported President Barack Obama’s desire for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, and even wire services are running interference for what many Americans perceive as Obama’s worst decision to date. The Associated Press said (Apr. 1): “The Obama administration's announcement Tuesday that it would seek a seat reverses former President George W. Bush's policy of disengagement with the Geneva body over its criticism of Israel.” The AP did what many aforesaid media do—they used Israel and George Bush as a smokescreen. Every American who values freedom should send a letter to Washington or at the least, get on the phone. A mass protest—peaceful, of course—would be appropriate. Because the UN Human Rights Council is an absolute insult to human rights, and as an example, I offer you tidbits from Resolution 7/19 adopted March 27, 2009, starting with some troubling numbers.

I met refugees from Somalia when I covered a story for a daily newspaper. The US State Dept. said unpredictable armed conflicts among rival militias are prevalent in southern Somalia, particularly in and around Mogadishu. This has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Somali nationals and the displacement of nearly one million people.The refugees were attending World Refugee Day in Jacksonville; a social services agency worker is shown in the photo as well.
The resolution is titled ‘Combating defamation of religions.’ This document, garbed in politically correct language revolving around words like ‘racism’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘discrimination’ and that fav all-time UN word, ‘humankind,’ is nothing more than a direct attack on the US Constitution. That document indirectly limits the power of our own Congress to “abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press…” Do you suppose there is a phantom implication giving the UN the right to turn that on its ear?

This document is nothing more than a feel-good exercise for a single religion. Here’s a breakdown of some major religions and how many times each were directly and specifically referred to in this document:
•Islam, Muslim, Arab—13
•Jew or Judaism—0
•Christian—0
•Catholic—0
•Buddhism—0
•Hinduism—0
•Wicca—0

How about those numbers? The document specifically “condemned the growing trend of Islamophobia…” Another passage cites “the need, in all societies, to show sensitivity and responsibility in treating issues of special significance for the adherents of any particular faith, even by those who do not share the belief in question.” There’s another section that invites a Special Rapporteur to “report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia…” The phrase “other faiths,” presumably a nod to other religions, is sprinkled throughout the document in a few places. And who might determine the value of the word, ‘defamation’ as specified in this resolution?

This passage should make Google, Yahoo and even humble columnists like me scream. The resolution “deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion.” It’s not the violence I have a problem with; I don't condone violence under any circumstances. It’s how you define your concept of xenophobia and intolerance. Some might say intolerance is definitely illustrated by declaring a goal to exterminate Israel or by killing more than 3,000 Americans.

Among the 21 nations supporting the resolution were China, Cuba, Russian Federation, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. It stands to reason that no one involved in seeking a US seat on this council has taken a long hard look at the supporters’ own record on human rights. Like many alleged watchdog groups, this council is concerned with a political agenda, one that is anti-Israel and anti-U.S. Heinous crimes by a number of nations go completely unreported and are not even criticized.

The Obama administration has taken a number of steps that reflect disregard for the Constitution. We all remember the leftists wailing about President George W. Bush and the Constitution. With Bush gone, have lefist values changed so drastically?

Being part of this council implies acceptance of UN Resolution 7/19, a resolution that is a direct affront to any individual valuing freedom. Canada, France, Germany and the UK were among those against this document, and they should be commended for upholding Western standards of freedom. Seeking a seat on the council is one Bush decision Obama should not have reversed unless the intent is to give special consideration to Islam above all other faiths. If that was the intent, the resolution certainly succeeds.