The essential truth is that a voice vote from the UN General Assembly approved Iran's appeal for membership to that committee.
From a news article of the day:
"Buried 2,000 words deep in a U.N. press release distributed Wednesday on the filling of "vacancies in subsidiary bodies," was the stark announcement: Iran, along with representatives from 10 other nations, was 'elected by acclamation, [to the UN's Commission on the Status of Women]' meaning that no open vote was requested or required by any member states — including the United States."
Do you seriously have no problem with this fact, or do you perhaps think that a later reversal makes the original vote just fine?
The vote took place. The vote was disgusting, but is typical of the UN's members; American leftists have never had a problem with it. Prager told the truth.
I needed to revise my reply so I deleted it. It was not all addressed specifically to you, just the opening paragraph:
So if Libya had been removed from the HR council, as you asserted in your opening reply, why are they meeting today (Tues, 2011 March 1) to discuss the idea of removing them from the council?
It looks to me as if you got that statement from some wild-eyed blog of nutty lefties, and accepted it as truth without ever checking it. Please learn this about your side: tops on their list of debate is "destroy the opponent," which they do through SIXHIRB as well as destroying the enemy's background, workplace, source of income, maturity or youth, appearance, past activity or lack thereof, whatever they can come up with. Always the attacks are to demonize so that liberals and moderates will gaze upon said opponent with a glassy stare that says, "This is a demon, do not listen to anything they say."
I'm glad to say you haven't done that yourself, yet. Thank you.
A wise man once said, "first tell the truth, then give your opinion." The truth is that Iran was rejected for this women's rights board.
ReplyDeleteNow that you bring up that UN agency for women's rights, why not take a look at some of the things they are working on right now?
Here's the "News" section from their website. It looks like something the left and right could both get behind:
http://www.unwomen.org/news-events/news/
The essential truth is that a voice vote from the UN General Assembly approved Iran's appeal for membership to that committee.
ReplyDeleteFrom a news article of the day:
"Buried 2,000 words deep in a U.N. press release distributed Wednesday on the filling of "vacancies in subsidiary bodies," was the stark announcement: Iran, along with representatives from 10 other nations, was 'elected by acclamation, [to the UN's Commission on the Status of Women]' meaning that no open vote was requested or required by any member states — including the United States."
Do you seriously have no problem with this fact, or do you perhaps think that a later reversal makes the original vote just fine?
The vote took place. The vote was disgusting, but is typical of the UN's members; American leftists have never had a problem with it. Prager told the truth.
If you are interested in women's rights, or human rights in general, you might check out Amy Goodman's excellent program "Democracy Now".
ReplyDeleteThere are people on the left and the right who are committed to these issues. Sam Brownback comes to mind as someone from the right.
On the other hand, there are people on both the left and right for whom human rights are just something to bash the other side with.
I needed to revise my reply so I deleted it. It was not all addressed specifically to you, just the opening paragraph:
ReplyDeleteSo if Libya had been removed from the HR council, as you asserted in your opening reply, why are they meeting today (Tues, 2011 March 1) to discuss the idea of removing them from the council?
It looks to me as if you got that statement from some wild-eyed blog of nutty lefties, and accepted it as truth without ever checking it. Please learn this about your side: tops on their list of debate is "destroy the opponent," which they do through SIXHIRB as well as destroying the enemy's background, workplace, source of income, maturity or youth, appearance,
past activity or lack thereof, whatever they can come up with. Always the attacks are to demonize so that liberals and moderates will gaze upon said opponent with a glassy stare that says, "This is a demon, do not listen to anything they say."
I'm glad to say you haven't done that yourself, yet. Thank you.