How Typically UN

The United Nations's Human Rights Council, re-named, but yet as useless to the task at hand as its predecessor was, is in the process of enacting new rules for itself. The council, long discredited by the very fact that its members represent states with poor human rights records to begin with, legislating and pointing fingers while themselves giving short shrift to human rights is outstanding as an absurd aberration.

The most villainous anti-human-rights countries have managed to inveigle themselves into positions of prominence in a UN-representative body, portraying themselves as champions of universal justice. Theirs is the duty - handily abrogated through political machinations - to make public instances of human rights abuses in member countries. While handily overlooking their own internal abuses, and quick to come to the defence of other abusers.

While there is a legitimate need for such a body to exist, and to practise what it preaches, the current council is anything but ideal. Its leading concerns are to cliquishly protect each other's reputations, while at the same time bringing censure to other UN states whom the collective body claims exemplify human-rights abusers. And that the council seeks out to condemn one country only, Israel, says much for its veracity, integrity and agenda.

Canada stands alone on the council in protesting the revised rules, which rather than advance the schedule of the council with honour and good intent, will effectively hinder its purpose. But of the 47 members on the council it remains the only opposition, causing human rights activists to fear that the 192-member General Assembly will simply give a routine stamp of approval to the new rules.

The revised rules - in keeping with the preoccupation of the council members in protecting their own, which is to say those countries who regularly abuse human rights - would effectively eliminate mandates for investigative work on the part of special investigators working in Cuba and Belarus, Sudan and North Korea. Nor, under these new rules, would it be possible to name specific violator-countries.

But the piece de resistance of the new rules would permit Islamic countries to sponsor a rule whose purpose it is to declare a permanent censure upon Israel. Any time the council meets it would be fixed on the agenda to automatically censure Israel. This would be the sole country to be singled out for censure, ostensibly as a human-rights-abuser without parallel. While other countries whose reputations for human rights abuse is truly egregious and endemic would be delicately unnamed to spare them embarrassment.

A letter of protest co-signed by 26 human rights groups from around the world have joined Geneva-based UN Watch to call upon the General Assembly to reject the proposed changes. Addressed to both UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and UN human rights commissioner Louise Arbour, the letter expresses "grave concerns" about the manner in which "Canada...was denied its right to vote" in June because of procedural stalling.

Through this kind of manipulation of the system, subverting its purpose and making a total sham of its presence, the Human Rights Council, formerly the Human Rights Commission, remains a complete failure. Yet a failure ably chaired by Louise Arbour, who evidently sees nothing amiss in Arab and Islamic council members spearheading debates whose sole purpose is to isolate and criticize Israel.

"Canada is very disappointed that the human rights commission, in the important decisions that affect its future work, did not fully respect the principles upon which it is founded", according to Peter MacKay, foreign affairs minister for Canada, at the time. He promised that Canada "would continue to insist that the council upholds its own founding principles."

Another abject failure in judgement and justice on the part of the United Nations.