Her Excellency Louise Arbour
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Dear Madame High Commissioner,
We commend you for your statement of January 27, 2008, recognizing the current dangers of racism and anti-Semitism. We are concerned, however, by your statement of a few days earlier, dated January 24, 2008, welcoming the entry into force of the Arab Charter on Human Rights. We trust that you were not aware of the blatantly anti-Semitic statements contained in that charter, as described below. We urge you to issue a clarification on this matter. We also urge you to hold accountable any members of your Office who were or should have been aware of, but failed to call your attention to, these racist provisions.
“Rejecting all forms of racism and Zionism, which constitute a violation of human rights and a threat to international peace and security,” forms part of the opening preamble of the Arab Charter of Human Rights. Article 2 goes further and calls for the outright elimination of Zionism: “All forms of racism, Zionism and foreign occupation and domination constitute an impediment to human dignity and a major barrier to the exercise of the fundamental rights of peoples; all such practices must be condemned and efforts must be deployed for their elimination.”
As you know, Zionism is the movement for Jewish self-determination and asserts the inherent and internationally-acknowledged right of Israel to exist. A text that equates Zionism with racism, describes it as a threat to world peace, as an enemy of human rights and human dignity, and then urges its elimination, is blatantly anti-Semitic.
Louise Arbour…the postergirl for that disease known as liberalism.
The Arab Charter of Human Rights, that’s insane. The Arab Nations have an abysmal and lengthy record of “Human Rights'” violations. If in doubt ask the Africans who managed to survive genocide vis vie the Arabs in the Sudan.
How absolutely stupid do they think we are in the west, Jewish society has advanced light years ahead of the Arabs. LOL the Arabs have a charter of rights, I don’t think so. To the best of my knowledge Islamic Countries don’t even reconize “Childrens’ Rights”. Almost all Arabs countries consider women and children the PROPERTY OF MEN. We are worth nothing, less than nothing. Both can be sold off at the whim of the male dominated society. Why are these countries even allowed to sign “Human Rights Documents” For barking mad sakes they stone women, hang homosexuals, pedophila isn’t even a crime.
I find it so insulting that Israel would be smeared with yet more anti-Semitic nonsense while the worst Human Rights Abusers on the globe gets petted on the head for being good dogs. How absolutely innane.
I would like to nominate Ms Arbour for a clitoridectomy. She will likely not miss it. It will also provide her for a more heartfelt view of a woman’s life in the Muslim world.
all this may or not be true, but it still will make you think. judge for your self. pete
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/
Arbour is an anti-Semitic, piece-of-sh*t vermin leftard of the very worst sort. The only good thing that happened is the scum sucking creep quit our supreme court for the UN where she won’t have any real power but to make a mockery of the UN and herself.
When Jonah wrote his book “liberal fascists” this bitch was the covergirl.
I won’t go as far as call for her death but I will wish her an incurable, excruciatingly painful disease which can’t be mitigated by drugs or painkillers.
My she rot alive.
…and yes, I am in a bad mood. I have the flu. I hate being sick.
Louise Arbour, the Arabs just declared war on Israel right under your nose.
Let’s say, though I’d not express it with the same words, Warwick’s view of Ms Arbour closely parallels my own.
She’s a feminist harpy, “hypocrite” being embedded in the definition. Women like Arbour have done untold damage to the West and now have the audacity to think they have what it takes to improve the hell holes of our world. (She’s doing very well, thank you, which is all such deluded people really care about. A pox on her and her entitled, deluded, dangerous ilk.)
Heh – read the whole Arab Human Rights. Google it. It was apparently adopted in 1994! But, it’s pure rhetoric. Read the preamble:
“Given the Arab nation’s belief in human dignity since God honoured it by making the Arab World the cradle of religions and the birthplace of civilizations which confirmed its right to a life of dignity based on freedom, justice and peace,
Pursuant to the eternal principles of brotherhood and equality among all human beings which were firmly established by the Islamic Shari’a and the other divinely-revealed religions,
Being proud of the humanitarian values and principles which it firmly established in the course of its long history and which played a major role in disseminating centres of learning between the East and the West, thereby making it an international focal point for seekers of knowledge, culture and wisdom,
Conscious of the fact that the entire Arab World has always worked together to preserve its faith, believing in its unity, struggling to protect its freedom, defending the right of nations to self-determination and to safeguard their resources, believing in the rule of law and that every individual’s enjoyment of freedom, justice and equality of opportunity is the yardstick by which the merits of any society are gauged,”…
then directly on to the zionism. But, be careful.
First, zionism is a POLITICAL movement, and, contrary to the UN WATCH writer, Israel doesn’t have an ‘inherent right’ to exist. It has a political right to exist. No country, as political constructs, have an ‘inherent’ right to exist. Once they’ve been established and recognized internationally, they have that ‘political right’ to exist.
So, these Arab authors are against the political movement of zionism. Fine- that’s their right, just as many of us are against their political agenda of imposing an Islamic caliphate over the world.
As to whether zionism can be equated with racism, that’s debatable. Is the definition of the identity of a political construct, a nation, as having a majority of its population belonging to one religion (or even ethnic group or whatever) is that ‘racist’? After all, one should remind these same Arab Nations that they have the same criteria of population requirements. But, doesn’t this Arab Human Rights reject..racism?
And, note their basic premises about the Arab world being the origin of all civilization. More ‘heh’. They have obviously never heard of the Greeks and Romans. Strange, for it was the Arabs who COPIED the works of those same Greeks and Romans, when Europe went into its phase of braindeath during its early medieval era.
I wonder if they could provide for us, examples of the ‘humanitarian principles and values’..
Well, it’s a trivial and completely empty document. Makes me think of the various ‘Red Books’ of our more effusive politicians.
What I’m curious about, is why is this document, written and adopted in 1994/97, only being discussed now?
I support the Jewish right of return to the Arabian penninsula, with full apology and financial compensation for the Jews beheaded or sold into slavery by old Mo.
Then I want an end of Islamic occupation of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and all points around the world to which Islam has spread.
Will we see this on CBC or CTV news tonight? Will they cover it ad nauseum? Will there be polls on it? Will Canada AM do a segment on it? How about the Fifth Estate? Should I pick up a Toronto Star to find out their take? Will Michael Enright examine this and grille some local Muslim lackey over it? Not bloody likely.
Anyone have an email address for Dear Louise?
Arab Charter of Human Rights = UN sponsored apartheid.
UN: Mein Kempf, Das Kapital and Mao’s Little Red all book put into a stage production in New York.
[deleted. That was a little over the line. ED]
Arab Charter of Human Rights
Isn’t that an oxymoron?
Like “Islamic pacifist”?
Sorry Kate.
Like I said – I’m grumpy.
It’s a fascinating document. Apparently it was written in 1994 but never adopted by the Arab States. But, what is fascinating about it is its internal ambiguities, contradictions and, well, sophistry. It reads like an empty political tract.
For example:
Article I:
a. All peoples have the right of self-determination and control over their natural wealth and resources and, accordingly, have the right to freely determine the form of their political structure and to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Consider the above. Doesn’t this mean that you CAN oppose your own government? But, in the Arab States, it’s very risky to do that. Doesn’t the reference to ‘all peoples’ also suggest that other peoples in the world, have the right to develop their own society, and therefore, Islamic fascism, which rejects such rights..ought to be condemned? How does Iran’s president operate within this axiom?
(b) Racism, zionism, occupation and foreign domination pose a challenge to human dignity and constitute a fundamental obstacle to the realization of the basic rights of peoples. There is a need to condemn and endeavour to eliminate all such practices.
And what about the above? What does ‘occupation’ mean? Does it refer to Syria moving into Lebanon? What does ‘foreign domination’ mean? After all, the stated goal of Islamic fascism is to extend ‘the Caliphate’ to the world. As for ‘racism’, there’s the denial of religious rights to minorities…
Article 26. Everyone has a guaranteed right to freedom of belief, thought and opinion
Sure. That’s absolutely untrue.
Article 27: Adherents of every religion have the right to practise their religious observances and to manifest their views through expression. practice or teaching, without prejudice to the rights of others. No restrictions shall be imposed on the exercise of freedom of belief, thought and opinion except as provided by law.
Of course, this isn’t followed. Note the ‘restrictions’ which are, of course, completely decided – by the Law. Which is made by the State.
Article 28: All citizens have the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of this right unless so required by the exigencies of national security, public safety or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
Note again, the ‘exceptions’…public safety, the need to protect..others.
These rights were, as far as I can see, never adopted. A major problem with them, apart from their internal contradictions, is that they contradict Sharia axioms.
Arab nations talking about human rights are like whores talking about family values.
Arab nations talking about human rights are like whores talking about family values.
Quick call the CHRC to complain!!!
“Will we see this on CBC or CTV news tonight? Will they cover it ad nauseum?” … grok
Were there any Arab missiles fired or the like?, into, ah, Israel maybe, so defensive retaliation was in order by firing back? If so, the CBC will cover the ‘hate crimes’ of Israel in trying to defend itself.
Oops! not that kind of story. Never mind.
I look at a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan and I am proud to be Canadian.
I look at Louise Arbour and I am ashamed she is a Canadian like me.
ET
There is a precedent of sorts: http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10
Cheers
Posted by: ET at January 29, 2008 3:36 PM
“First, zionism is a POLITICAL movement….
So, these Arab authors are against the political movement of zionism…. As to whether zionism can be equated with racism, that’s debatable.”
ET, you might be right technically, but the hatred of Jews that lies behind such statements runs deep, and the average Arab would understand “anti-zionism” to mean the annihilation of Israel — and the Jews living in it.
How can we get through to our Canadian government to disassociate us from Louise Arbor, in effect let the world know she does not speak for Canada or Canadians.
What a huge waste of skin.
Richard Ball, my comment about zionism was a criticism of the words written in the LETTER to Louise Arbour, not to the Arab Human Rights document.
The author of the letter wrote:
“As you know, Zionism is the movement for Jewish self-determination and asserts the inherent and internationally-acknowledged right of Israel to exist..”
My comment is that Zionism, as a political movement for a land base for Jews, isn’t about ‘Jewish self-determination’ (a completely ambiguous statement) and does not and cannot ‘assert the inherent …right of Israel to exist”.
I think that the Arab Human Rights Act can be criticized on far more basic – and valid – issues than the above paragraph.
No time to read the posts but, this “Arab Charter” sounds alot like the Liberal constitution. The anti-semitic movement in the Liberal party is outragous, and I hope the PM brings this to light in the Fed election because we all know that the MSM has not intrest in this story.
Louise Arbour is a “dangerous” idiot and a plague on Canada’s good name. Where did this beast come from?
“We recall that in June 2004, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan described the UN General Assembly’s 1975 “Zionism is racism” resolution—which was repealed in 1991—as a low-point of the UN’s record on anti-Semitism.”
Low.
It’s like challenge, some can’t resist.
How low-(eese Arbour), can you go?
Forgive me for posting this again, I posted and commented on the same on topics concerning the hypocrisy of the CIC, et al, complaints against Steyn, Levant and in fact, all of us.
If you notice, the last two articles abrogate any supposed good will stated before:
The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam
Adopted and Issued at the Nineteenth Islamic Conference
of Foreign Ministers in Cairo
on 5 August 1990.
Article 24
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.
Article 25
The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.
———————-
Ignorance is not a defence. Arbour is a racist, soon to be proven war criminal.
It’s a fascinating document. Apparently it was written in 1994 but never adopted by the Arab States.
True: in the same way as Arafat sorta mentioned in passing — in English — that they might kinda recognize Israel’s right to exist but didn’t actually amend the the PLO/Fatah charter to this effect.
Which is to say that earlier comments about Arafat’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist were patently false and disingenuous.
Zionism as racism being debatable? A vile remark.
Finkelstein, the jew-hating son of Holocuast survivors, who in a recent Oxford Union debate supported the resolution that Israel had a right to exist, and then voted against it — would be proud!
Debatable by antisemites maybe!
Was the formation of a homeland for Muslims in Pakistan racism?
Zionism is a profoundly just and moral response to millennia of murderous persecution.
Anti-Zionism = anti-semitism, I’ve finally concluded after many years of considering this matter.
It’s all in the double-standard. One for Jews, another for everybody else on the planet.
Pete @ 3:13 PM. Why may-or-may-not be true? That video, which I have seen before, is completely factual and, in fact, very restrained. Yes, the Israelis are the agrieved party here.
Louise Arbour is one of those international jet-setting UN parasites. She makes me ashamed because she flaunts her “Canadianess”. If a Canadian supports this particular abomination,. then we all must. Ughh :/P
Mississauga Matt @ 3:59. I support the Christian right of return to the middle east and Asia Minor. I also support the Zoroastran right of return to Persia, and the Assyrian right of return. I also support the Arab right of return to Arabia.
Exactly MND,
Anti-Zionism between Liberal fascists and Islamofascists is the new agreed upon and acceptable ‘PC’ code for anti-Semetic racist hatred. It’s extra disgusting because even self-loathing Jews are going along with it.
The Islamic (Arab) Charter is less accepted than the ‘The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,’ some of which I posted above.
Anybody who ignorantly or otherwise supports the Islamic ideology as very clearly stated in their trilogy, with precepts enforced by shariah law – and suffered by human history – is a criminal by any applied code of Universal Human Rights.
The best piece I’ve ever read on this subject: Victor Davis Hanson How to solve the double standard – the UN need only take 5 simple steps.
Perhaps there could be five U.N. sessions: disputed capitals; the right of return for refugees; land under occupation; the creation of artificial post-World War II states; and the use of inordinate force against suspected Islamic terrorists..
He gives us lots and lots of historical examples that are on a much bigger scale — suggests these be solved and Israel be then instructed on how to apply these solutions to the relatively small areas of Judea and Samaria (West Bank).
Here’s some racism for ya: The moronic Condi Rice wants Judea and Samaria to be judenrien. No Jews Allowed!
Say what you want about Louise Arbour, at least she’s not on the Canadian Supreme Court any more. Some would say she’s branched out and started in screwing up countries on a world-wide scale, I’m just thankful she isn’t still here screwing up THIS one.
We are well shut of her. Three cheers for Louise, may she never darken the Canadian bench again!
Now if we can find similar sinecures for the rest of the Liberal sons of beeeatches who remain, we’ll be set. Anybody who decides I have no right to private property belongs at the UN, for sure.
I think you can contact her here.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/ContactUs.aspx
Obviously there are no jewish people, posting here. To equate Zionism with Jewishness is brainless, so the ignorance of the posters here says much about their new found interest in jews, it’s a political movement, based on race.
Alot of jews, in fact most worldwide, including my grandfather do not and would not consider themselves Zionists, but all Zionist are jewish because no one else is allowed.