Harry's Place

PressTV (now on Sky Channel 515) also had an interesting programme today about the 60th anniversary.
Very informative,and the presenter complained about the lack of women at the original conference.

Is Chris Morris working for Iran?

Meanwhile our government is commemorating the event and showing its own commitment to human rights by watering down the HRA in order to appease the Daily Mail.

Of course we’re in good hands. The greatest evil in the world, of course, is the United States and Israel, and I don’t see them on the list.

I mean look at the great accomplishments that Saudi Arabia has had over the -past few weeks-. The Hajj went off without anyone dying this year. I hear that it may even be possible sometime in the next few millennia that women may be able to drive there too.

I don’t understand why they are on the list anyway – Saudi is a beacon of human rights. Every right that Allah gave mankind is enjoyed by mankind in Saudi Arabia.

Sorry, link here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092716/Cameron-calls-UK-Bill-Rights-Straw-reveals-plans-overhaul-Human-Rights-Act.html

Where’s Canada?

Just out of interest, has anyone ever come across any sort of defence of the inclusion of such countries on the HRC membership list? I’m just really, really, really intrigued as to what it would amount to.

It’s sort of analogous to putting Ian Huntley and Gary Glitter in charge of child protection.

I don’t think Human Rights Watch should be taken too seriously – go to the Jordan link and you’ll see that their main concern is that the police may use a little more than the comfy chair when interviewing Islamic terrorists who find themselves (hopefully) deported from the UK. Well “So what?” I ask.

Oh and the quicker the Human Rights Act is watered down, or preferably repealed, the better. A real lawyers’ and scum’s charter that has turned out to be. Biggest mistake we’ve made.

Don’t you mean Islamic terrorist suspects, Chris C?

And “a little more than the comfy chair” – care to expand on that euphemism?

Twat.

But who are we to criticize these countries with our consumer society, celebrity culture, binge drinking, etc., etc.?

If I fleshed out this out a bit, do you think I could publish it in the Guardian?

Indeed, no reason to worry at all:
UN General Assembly chief tries to block Israeli envoy’s address
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1045427.html

If I fleshed out this out a bit, do you think I could publish it in the Guardian?

If you got our self-confessed Nazi, “Hasbara Buster” to write a long condemnation of Israel taking up most of the article, I’m sure the Guardian would publish it.

If you got our self-confessed Nazi, “Hasbara Buster”

Josh, HB has said a lot of hideous things, but I don’t think he’s ever confessed to being a Nazi.

The UN should have been put down a long time ago. As useful as teats on a bull.

Am i right in thinking that israel isn’t allowed to be on the HRC? or am i mistaken? (genuine question).

our government is commemorating the event and showing its own commitment to human rights by watering down the HRA in order to appease the Daily Mail.

You know, you hear that kind of thing all the time, in Lefty analysis. That somehow a newspaper, the Daily Mail, a runner-up in the newspaper industry, holds the entire country to ransom.

It’s an utterly stupid idea, isn’t it? Patent nonsense … why does it always get a pass instead of howls of laughter?

Well I wouldn’t say they are “holding the entire country to ransom” but the Mail has been campaigning against the HRA for years and now we have the government minister responsible for the HRA saying how he “understands the concerns of Daily Mail readers”, spouting spurious bollocks about a “villains’ charter”, ie exactly parroting the Mail’s language, and promising to do exactly what the Mail wants and water the HRA down.
Yeah, I would say that’s unhealthy influence.

Alex

Who are you, you meaningless little prat?

That somehow a newspaper, the Daily Mail, a runner-up in the newspaper industry, holds the entire country to ransom.

That’d be a fatuous analysis to be sure, but I’d really like to know why so many people in Britain – especially those with instant access to all of the world’s media, online – think that they deserve anything other than derision for bandying about idiotic phrases like “scum’s charter”.

Fly with the craws and get shot with the craws, as my Gran would say.

So, is this what you mean by “a little more than the comfy chair”, Chris C?

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/jordan1008webwcover.pdf

What a scumbag.

The ‘villain’s charter’ comment makes me wonder how low Jack Staw can go: what next, calling it a ‘nonce-licence’?

What a bunch of hypocrites, you decry the presence at the HRC of human rights violators but then decry that the Israeili ambassador is being called out on human rights abuses himself.

Israel belongs on that list as well for what they do to the Palestinians, the US is on probation* too until Obama pulls out the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan (I know he is increasing the presence, but after the left wins in Iraq we will push for a free Afghanistan).

*On probation because their major crimes already occurred, now it is simply an occupation. Even Iraqis are treated better than Palestinians, heck even animals in Israel are treated better than Palestinians.

Can I ask who is ChrisC?

Also I have such a hunch that Obama is going to insert a red hot poker into bibbi’s ass.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1044706.html

Somebody email him the rape hotline in advance.

Brett,

Get with the program, Cuba has a perfect record on human rights, just ask our Chavez sycophants on here.

LOL

Josh, HB has said a lot of hideous things, but I don’t think he’s ever confessed to being a Nazi.

If you have a way to search the comment section I think you’ll find that early on he said something like:
“As a friend of mine has said ‘We’re all Nazis we just don’t have enough information’” – the meaning in context being that everyone would agree with the Nazis if only we knew just how evil Jews are.

“even animals in Israel are treated better than Palestinians”

You do know that animals in Israel do not have the right to vote, or form political parties or…oh f**k it, I’m off to bed.

Also, you’ll find that I have pointed out Hasbara Buster’s Nazi sympathies many times and he’s never denied them.

Fwanker: I don’t suppose you can back up that ridiculous statement about Israel, Palestinians, and animals. no i didn’t think so, so get lost, ya moron.

“You do know that animals in Israel do not have the right to vote, or form political parties or…oh f**k it, I’m off to bed.”

NO they don’t you fucking idiot… The ultimate zionist fear: Palestinians getting a vote in Israeli elections. That is why the one state solution is off the table because that would give them the right to vote.

Two-staters are pretty fucking racist if you ask me, but peace is more important than secular ideological purity.

Palestinian citizens of Israel vote in Israeli elections. Palestinians who do not reside in Israel and aren’t Israeli citizens vote in Palestinians elections.

In what elections can Palestinian refugees in Lebanon or Egypt vote?
What sort of elections can Cubans participate in?

Oh and the quicker the Human Rights Act is watered down, or preferably repealed, the better. A real lawyers’ and scum’s charter that has turned out to be. Biggest mistake we’ve made

It would make no significant difference, as the HRA is simply the ECHR reflected into UK law so that British courts can make decisions that previously had to be referred to Strasbourg. The HRA’s abolition would mean that British judges were no longer be allowed to hold the UK government to account on human rights cases, only foreign judges! That would be hilariously ironic!

The HRA’s abolition would mean that British judges were no longer be allowed to hold the UK government to account on human rights cases, only foreign judges! That would be hilariously ironic!

It’s quite simple to repeal the EEC Communities Act (or whatever the appropriate law is) and replace it with a solely-British mechanism.

It’s quite simple to repeal the EEC Communities Act (or whatever the appropriate law is) and replace it with a solely-British mechanism

Which has fuck all to do with the ECHR.

“Cuba has a perfect record on human rights”

China’s human rights record is second to none. The awarding of the 2008 Olympics proves this beyond doubt. With China on the Human Rights Council there’s nothing to fear. Blog on.

It would make no significant difference, as the HRA is simply the ECHR reflected into UK law so that British courts can make decisions that previously had to be referred to Strasbourg.

Sure, but in practice I think a lot of people would be put off by the time in effort involved in taking cases to Strasbourg, which I think is what Straw is banking on.

the Daily Mail, a runner-up in the newspaper industry

If you think that, then you do not understand the newspaper industry. The three markets, ex-broadsheet, middle, and redtop, are very different from one another. The Advertising Association’s statistics show a quite distinct demographic for each of the three markets, most particularly in the age at which most readers left education. There is a clear middle market and that is dominated by the Daily Mail. To try and appeal to Middle England and to ignore the Daily Mail as a ‘runner-up’ would be folly itself.

then decry that the Israeili ambassador is being called out on human rights abuses himself.

But she wasn’t; Israel was attacked for representing the group of Western European And Others, whose task fell to Israel’s ambassador. Brockmann’s attempts failed because of the actions of the countries with the best human rights records in the world.

There was a time when Marxists used to engage in self-criticism. It is hard now to find a Marxist engaged enough to be self-aware, but perhaps Mr Brockmann could start by reflecting on his own country’s treatment of human rights, particularly those of women.

Sure, but in practice I think a lot of people would be put off by the time in effort involved in taking cases to Strasbourg, which I think is what Straw is banking on

Of course. I was not attempting to justify its abolition. Removing the HRA would increase costs for appellants, the vast majority of whom are not ’scum’. The HRA is rather like the DPA in that all manner of jobsworths will cite it in defence of their half-assed decisions. But it is a pefectly sensible piece of law making that reduces costs and time for appellants.

Removing the HRA would enable the government to divert some of the taxes I pay from the pockets of ambulance chasing lawyers and into schools, hospitals etc.

There is a clear middle market and that is dominated by the Daily Mail. To try and appeal to Middle England and to ignore the Daily Mail as a ‘runner-up’ would be folly itself.

Pandering to Daily Mail readers would be greatly preferable to the last decade of pandering to Guardian readers. But it’s nonsense anyhow to pretend that ordinary people are responsible for this government’s outrageous illiberalism, which is Andrew Adam’s snooty and elitist point.

Two-staters are pretty fucking racist if you ask me, but peace is more important than secular ideological purity.

Why is it that you cannot understand that jewish people need their own state? Why can every other people in the world have their own state except the jews? I am a strong believer in the 2-state solution because it gives both sides what they want. Israelis do not want a 1-state solution and nor do palestinians. get over it.

Harry’s Place is being cheap. As if Russia and Mexico, whatever their faults, were in the same league as China or Saudi Arabia.

But yes, that is the same Saudi Arabia that funds the Bushes and the Clintons, and (with Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and APIAC) bankrolled the Clinton Presidential campaign that you ostensibly leftier neocons supported.

And yes, that list also includes the same Azerbaijan that you neocons support in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Pandering to Daily Mail readers would be greatly preferable to the last decade of pandering to Guardian readers. But it’s nonsense anyhow to pretend that ordinary people are responsible for this government’s outrageous illiberalism, which is Andrew Adam’s snooty and elitist point.

Well for a start I think most Guardian readers would be rather surprised to learn they have been pandered to for the last 10 years. I would say they are more concerned than most by what you rightly call the government’s outrageous illiberalism. And where did I blame “ordinary people”?

Flanker:

but after the left wins in Iraq we will push for a free Afghanistan

The ‘left’ (by which you presumably mean anti-Western totalitarian-sympathising scumbags like yourself, who share more in common in terms of foreign policy with David Duke than anything recognisable to me as the ‘left’), already lost Iraq. We invaded, deposed Saddam, instituted a democratic government and over the last year and a half have slowly contained the bloodthirsty ‘insurgency’ of which cunts like you were so fond. Wasn’t exactly what the ‘left’ wanted when it was marching through London in February 2003, is it?

As for Afghanistan, it is far more free than it ever was under the Taliban or ever would be if were to abandon it to its fate as you apparently advocate.

You really are a class A, unmitigated, complete fucking wanker aren’t you?

I would say they are more concerned than most by what you rightly call the government’s outrageous illiberalism.

The Guardian has been a cheerleader for most of the attacks on liberty, from banning smoking and hunting to speed cameras & CCTV to changes to the law to allow it to prosecute “haters”, date rapists etc etc.

And where did I blame “ordinary people”?

By blaming people who read the Daily Mail, of course, for the actions of the government. A paper that is not much read by the elite in Westminster and Brussels that really has power of people’s lives.

A Small Mind,

So the metropolitan elite are now even interfering in our right to rape? It’s political correctness gawn maaad.

Time to have Irving on the banner on this page?

The (Jewish) director of the More4 programme Independent Minds which celebrated UDHR 60 by having David Irving spout on the programme says:2Irving is someone who reflects the limits of freedom of expression. He epitomises repellent views which make us aware of the limits of freedom of expression. It would be derelict not to include someone who challenges how we look at that freedom.”
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/c-10754/outrage-as-irving-given-platform-in-free-speech-film/

Why does this earnestly self flagellating man need to have the obvious pointed out by this editorial:
“But should we encourage people to think twice before giving him a platform that confers a degree of legitimacy? And should we urge them to consider their audience, suggesting they may want to offer facts that dispel the myths he propogates? Absolutely.

Irving may be ‘an independent mind’, but that does not mean we have to hear his opinions independently of the truth.”
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/TJ_leader/?content_id=10744

The Guardian has been a cheerleader for most of the attacks on liberty, from banning smoking and hunting to speed cameras & CCTV to changes to the law to allow it to prosecute “haters”, date rapists etc etc.

I don’t personally see smoking in public places and killing and tormenting animals for fun as fundamental rights, and driving as fast as you like on the roads even less so. There are much more serious infringements to our liberties to be concerned about. And you think that “date” rapers shouldn’t be prosecuted? As for the “hatred” laws, I think you’ll find very mixed opinions on the left about these.

By blaming people who read the Daily Mail, of course, for the actions of the government. A paper that is not much read by the elite in Westminster and Brussels that really has power of people’s lives.

So Daily Mail readers are “ordinary people” but Guardian readers aren’t? In any case I didn’t blame the readers of the Daily Mail – I blame the editor, who is responsible for its hateful and dishonest agenda, and those in the government who are stupid and unprincipled enough to think that if they try to appease it it will start being nice to them. But hey, I’m happy to concede that Straw is cynical and unprincipled enough to water down the HRA even without any outside encouragemet.

I really don’t see where Russian and Mexico could be in the same league as Saudi Arabia.

52% of Saudi Arabia’s population are de facto, ’sub-male’ slaves.

If a women were forced to make a choice between living in Russia or Saudi Arabia, which country do you think she’d chose?

IN any case, Russia is still pretty bad.

It seems to me that the more we talk about human rights, the worse off those rights tend to become.

Many people now even consider the entire concept neo-colonialist and imperialist with HR campaigns merely attempts at exporting and imposing western values on non-western peoples.

I don’t personally see smoking in public places and killing and tormenting animals for fun as fundamental rights, and driving as fast as you like on the roads even less so.

I “personally” am not a member of a trade union and very unlikely to ever join one, so why should I care about someone else’s right to do so? It’s not “fundamental” to me. Furthermore, I don’t smoke, so why should I care that social services are preventing couples who smoke from adopting children. Or that children deemed “obese” are being removed from their parents put into care — it’s hardly a “fundamental” right to feed your children as you see fit, is it? It’s people like you who “personally” don’t give a damn about restraining the power of government and letting people live in ways you “personally” wouldn’t who this authoritarian government has been pandering to, not the Daily Mail.

There are much more serious infringements to our liberties to be concerned about.

Yes, and here is Polly Toynbee in today’s Guardian explaining that the future lies with every bigger government exercising power of a population ever closer to being serfs:

“Labour’s plans to introduce identity cards, to allow police to hold terrorist suspects without trial for 42 days and the widespread use of CCTV cameras in public places were seen by conspiracy theorists as sinister encroachments on ancient civil liberties.”

How about that for a “hateful and dishonest agenda” — the trashing of rights that ordinary people have fought for and enjoyed for centuries, with any defence of them regarded as insane. This is the language of the jackboot, as approved by the editors of the Guardian .

Gene:

“Josh, HB has said a lot of hideous things, but I don’t think he’s ever confessed to being a Nazi.”

Up to now, I was assuming that the Nazis had chucked him out, and sent him over here.

Flanker’s rants are would be quite funny as jokes.

It’s people like you who “personally” don’t give a damn about restraining the power of government and letting people live in ways you “personally” wouldn’t who this authoritarian government has been pandering to, not the Daily Mail

I doubt that there is anyone, right or left, who does not have a view about how some people should be coerced to live their lives. Though those of us who are more liberal or libertarian in our views would only support intervention where there is evidence that it would be warranted and effective. The curious thing about the Daily Mail is that although it has a ludicrous bee in its bonnet about the HRA, over the last few years it’s actually taken a more liberal line than this government on many policies. 25 years ago the Daily Mail would have been a full-on supporters of ID Cards and the surveillance state, of universal DNA databases and of just about any old bollocks that the police got up to, particularly if it was a miner being abused. There’s probably a thesis in that for somebody!