The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >   Reply to this topic

Human rights and the USA

Mnemonic
post 17.Mar.2006, 08:47 AM
Post #1
Joined: 26.Oct.2005

I heard this morning that they going to start a new human rights organisation in UN or something like that. unfortunatly it seems to be just as lame as the first one but what I reacted on was that the US was against the human rights. What do US have against human rights?
Besides the right to torture suspected terrorists. The land of the free seems to be going into the other direction pretty fast. Cut back the freedom and don't support human rights. Are the american people really standing behind this politics?
Go to the top of the page
+
Braderunner Rennuredarb
post 17.Mar.2006, 09:32 AM
Post #2
Location: Not in Sweden
Joined: 24.May.2005

This whole story reminds me of a scene out of that movie where Chris Rock was running for president. He had not not attended a rally for support for fighting cancer...so...he was automatically portrayed as "pro-cancer"

We all know its popular to portray the US as anti-human rights...

The US did not support the resolution because they felt the new resolution was as toothless as the current one. Make a REAL comission and the US will support it. BTW - who were the other 9 that opposed it. Interesting that the only one in the news in the US.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Nico aka the boy wonder*
post 17.Mar.2006, 09:56 AM
Post #3


The U.S voted agianst a new UN human rights council..

QUOTE
UNITED NATIONS - The United States announced its opposition to the proposed new U.N. Human Rights Council on Monday, putting the U.S. administration on a collision course with many U.N. members
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11595634

Ummm... yeah.. what else is new?

QUOTE
Amnesty International welcomes the overwhelming vote by the UN General Assembly today in favour of establishing a new Human Rights Council. In doing so, UN member states have taken an historic step towards strengthening the UN?s human rights machinery.

The US government?s decision to vote against the resolution was regrettable. However the result, 170 in favour, 4 opposed and 3 abstaining, demonstrates unambiguous international support for the Council.

"This is a victory for human rights protection around the world," said Yvonne Terlingen, UN representative for Amnesty International, "although the hard work is only just beginning. It is encouraging to hear that, despite voting against the resolution, the US government will cooperate with the Council and support it."
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGIOR400092006


But in all fairness for the U.S.. Alot of countries that systematecle violate human rights can become member with the current resolution.
Go to the top of the page
+
Mnemonic
post 17.Mar.2006, 10:04 AM
Post #4
Joined: 26.Oct.2005

wasn't there a discussion about that. The countries breaking the human right could be kicked out now until they are following it?
Go to the top of the page
+
*Nico aka the boy wonder*
post 17.Mar.2006, 10:07 AM
Post #5


QUOTE (Jason)
BTW - who were the other 9 that opposed it. Interesting that the only one in the news in the US.


Yeah.. agree.. its about time the world compare U.S with countries such as Sudan meaby?

Its wierd when a "civilized" country is voting agianst this kind of resolution and the only other countries also voting agaisnt is countries such as Sudan. And is it always a bad thing that "bad" countries can become members? Could it meaby be a good thing so other member can put pressure on those countries to become better? Just speculating here.
Go to the top of the page
+
Alfredo
post 17.Mar.2006, 10:08 AM
Post #6
Joined: 1.Dec.2005

I don't think the US is against human rights.

It's time certain factions of European thinkers started thinking again, instead of trotting out the same old 'anti-American' thinking of yesteryear.

I thought this was an interesting view, from Bruce Bawer :

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2006/..._bawer_ins.html

What do you think ?
Go to the top of the page
+
*Nico aka the boy wonder*
post 17.Mar.2006, 10:17 AM
Post #7


?? does it have anything to do with that U.S voted agianst a new UN human rights council?
I can pull up a bunch of articles about Anti-europeism in america if you want to. But What does this have to do with the topic? no one in this thread was using any "anti-american" rethoric. Just pointed out that the US along with the usual human rights violators voted against the council.
Go to the top of the page
+
Alfredo
post 17.Mar.2006, 10:46 AM
Post #8
Joined: 1.Dec.2005

Virtually all arguments I have seen, put forward by people on the 'left' side of the political spectrum, regardless of what the issue is, is dominated by this 'anti-American' view.

It is never balanced. Show me a 'left-winger' who writes something in praise of some of the positive attributes Bawer considers to be 'great American values',

They needn't be American values at all, but human qualities, which can be equally adopted by anyone, wherever they happen to be born in the world.

The point is, that everything becomes immediately polarised, before any real thinking is done.
Go to the top of the page
+
VikingHumpingWitch
post 17.Mar.2006, 10:55 AM
Post #9
Location: Gothenburg
Joined: 21.Dec.2005

QUOTE (Alfredo)
Show me a 'left-winger' who writes something in praise of some of the positive attributes Bawer considers to be 'great American values'


OK, well I think the values of freedom and justice were central in the founding of America as an independent state, and they're great. I think it's a shame that the current administration does so little to uphold them. (Sorry I had to get that bit in, couldn't help myself...)
Go to the top of the page
+
*Nico aka the boy wonder*
post 17.Mar.2006, 10:57 AM
Post #10


QUOTE (Alfredo)
Virtually all arguments I have seen, put forward by people on the 'left' side of the political spectrum, regardless of what the issue is, is dominated by this 'anti-American' view.

It is never balanced. Show me a 'left-winger' who writes something in praise of some of the positive attributes Bawer considers to be 'great American values',

They needn't be American values at all, but human qualities, which can be equally adopted by anyone, wherever they happen to be born in the world.

The point is, that everything becomes immediately polarised, before any real thinking is done.


But what do you mean?... someone pointed out that U.S voted agianst a new UN human rights council.. I linked to a article msnbc (a media american company) and Human rights watch.. what is it here in this thread that is "anti american" or even "left whing" views?
Go to the top of the page
+
*Nico aka the boy wonder*
post 17.Mar.2006, 11:47 AM
Post #11


QUOTE
Sustained applause greeted the announcement of the 170 to 4 vote with 3 abstentions. Joining the United States in a "no" vote were Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau. Abstaining were: Belarus, Iran and Venezuela.


QUOTE
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told the assembly the rules for the new council were not strong enough to prevent rights violators from getting a seat. But he said the United States would cooperate with the body.
http://www.political-news.org/breaking/238...objections.html


Wich is good news.. and to be fair other countries such as several EU members, Canada and some major human rights groups shared U.S doubts about the new council.
Go to the top of the page
+
Mnemonic
post 17.Mar.2006, 12:05 PM
Post #12
Joined: 26.Oct.2005

QUOTE (Nico)
QUOTE
Sustained applause greeted the announcement of the 170 to 4 vote with 3 abstentions. Joining the United States in a "no" vote were Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau. Abstaining were: Belarus, Iran and Venezuela.


QUOTE
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told the assembly the rules for the new council were not strong enough to prevent rights violators from getting a seat. But he said the United States would cooperate with the body.
http://www.political-news.org/breaking/238...objections.html


Wich is good news.. and to be fair other countries such as several EU members, Canada and some major human rights groups shared U.S doubts about the new council.


But why vote no? why not yes and try to be a part of its work and try making it better?
To refer to the article linked.. americans suppose to be creating the future and not being negative as europeens didn't it say?
The article got some flaws saying everyone got a say in america since your voting rights can be revoked if the state don't like you.
And the anti-american hate isn't because americans are qurious and want to ask things.. Its more because they try to tell others that there way is the right way. But he got it right about the 68'rs and that we got a problem with them. I think US and europe can learn alot from eachother and thats why I think its sad to see US saying no beacuse I belive even if its a bit crappy to start with I think it could form into something good if the US and Europe would listen to eachother. But the no seems in my eyes a fear from american politics that they might not get enough say since there latest violation and its to uphold the image of america they say no instead of standing being pointed out as violaters. But I don't think sweden should assume its good and they got a given place there eighter because sweden is starting to lack in human rights too.
Go to the top of the page
+
*The Teenage Diplomat*
post 17.Mar.2006, 12:52 PM
Post #13


I think that there's a simple explination why both USA and Israel voted no, I don't think that it have anything to do with it being toothless. I think that they're afraid that the UN will watch them and say that they're violating this and that, which will give them both a bad reputation.
Go to the top of the page
+
Mike
post 17.Mar.2006, 01:07 PM
Post #14
Joined: 14.Mar.2005

QUOTE (Alfredo)
Virtually all arguments I have seen, put forward by people on the 'left' side of the political spectrum, regardless of what the issue is, is dominated by this 'anti-American' view.


That's SOP for the left. They don't have any ideas of their own. The left's policy is reactionary and based soley on opposing whatever the other side supports.
Go to the top of the page
+
Mike
post 17.Mar.2006, 01:07 PM
Post #15
Joined: 14.Mar.2005

QUOTE (Stebro)
I think that there's a simple explination why both USA and Israel voted no, I don't think that it have anything to do with it being toothless. I think that they're afraid that the UN will watch them and say that they're violating this and that, which will give them both a bad reputation.


Right, because they're not already being watched :roll:
Go to the top of the page
+

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: