Ah, The UN's Human Rights Council

What an honour. Surely a recognition that the appointed state represents an exemplary example of protection of human rights. To enable it to stand with honour among its peer nations' representatives to stand in judgement of those countries of the world whose human rights record is damning. Not, of course, to cause undue embarrassment to a fellow member country of the United Nations, but to gently prod, to parse, to recommend, to suggest some change might be in order.

It seems quite sensible. Peer pressure is always a useful tool in aiding others to see the error of their ways. The theory is there and impeccable, the reality is also there and quite contrary and impeccably atrocious. The simple fact of the matter being that if there is a representative human rights-abusing nation that has not been elevated to sit on the UN's Human Rights Council, it represents an oversight soon to be rectified.

The latest ascension to the group overseeing the work of this inestimable council is the appointment of Mauritania to next year's vice-presidency. Another African country elevated to a proud position of authority. Sharing pride with the ilk of Libya, Syria and Sri Lanka. As well, Alfred De Zayas has been appointed a lead advisory post. Mr. De Zayas, the pride and confidante of state Holocaust deniers.

His gentle words of wisdom appear on many Holocaust-denying Internet websites; a highly respected source of quotable legends. He has called in that noble chamber of the world's finest for Israel to be expelled from the United Nations.  And he is known to have defended the Iranian regime of the Ayatollahs fond of defying the UN's other body the International Atomic Energy Agency on the Republic's nuclear file.

In Mauritania, 20% of its citizens - 800,000 people, including children, live as slaves. It is assuredly a harsh word and a harsh reality, but this is customary, and with all due respect - which the United Nations proffers almost without exception to all its members in good standing, even those who have been judged guilty of genocide by the International Criminal Court - heritage and culture and religion do pull the weight of relativity - no?

Mauritania is a proud Islamic republic. In Mauritania, imams interpret Sharia law to give credence to forcing dark-skinned black African Haratine people into slavery to the Arabic Moor population. Remember Sudan? There are elements of comparison. "The situation is every bit as bad as it was in apartheid South Africa, and in many ways it is worse", said Abidine Merzough, European coordinator for anti-slavery NGO Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement in Mauritania.

"Officially, the Mauritanian authorities have abolished slavery on five separate occasions. But in reality, it exists exactly as before, backed up by imams and other clergy who write laws and issue fatwas justifying slavery" said Mr. Merzough, born to slaves in Mauritania, now living as an escapee in Germany.

But it is the good intentions of the Mauritanian government in abolishing slavery that really accounts for something in the considered opinion of the United Nations. Unfortunate, of course, that the conditions to prolong those conditions of slavery remain, but cultures related to religious convictions are difficult to turn around; people are notoriously unwilling to surrender their prerogatives.