United Nations Geneva Summit On Human Rights & Democracy

The 22nd session of the UN Human Rights Council began last week. The council is comprised of 47 member-countries, with positions held on a rotating basis. New members elevated to the council this year include Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Gabon, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. They join, among others, Uganda, Russia, China, Nigeria, Argentina, Mauritius, Egypt and Morocco.

These countries sit in judgement on the human rights affairs of the countries of the world. How it is remotely possible that countries with the reputation of those named and their legendary abuses of human rights can portray themselves as defenders of human rights is beyond imagination. But it does more than amply demonstrate just how perverted and illogical much of what comes out of the United Nations is.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said, in opening the session: "Much progress has occurred during the past two decades. But we must recognize that the glass is half full, and the promise of respecting all human rights for all people is still a dream for too many." How anyone with half a brain representing human rights worldwide could make such a statement knowing the makeup of those sitting on the council is another baffling yet representative lunacy of the UN.

Unless the purpose is clever parody. Perversion of reality appears to be the purpose. And that purpose is achieved continually. Pakistan is named by Reporters Without Borders as the world's "deadliest country for journalists". Pakistan's record on oppressing its women and withholding basic elements of human rights for women and for religious minorities is legendary.  Its blasphemy laws are punishable by death.

Pakistan is well known to support radical Islamist terrorists. The country's military and its intelligence service are infiltrated if not completely overrun by the presence of rabid Islamists. Yet this is a nuclear-weapons-owning state. One that has been perpetually at war with its neighbour India. Its incendiary calls for violence in Kashmir, and its mounting of terror attacks in India define it as a prime human-rights abuser.

Despite the well-known and abhorrent fact of dread human rights abuses in Iran, with its arrests of gays, Christians, political dissidents, its torture and prison deaths, Iran has never been censured by the UNHRC. The European Union has, however, more latterly urged the UNHRC to act over Iran.

"We cannot remain silent in the face of violent oppression of dissent, as well as detention and execution without fair trial, severe discrimination against women and members of ethnic and religious minorities, restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly and religion or belief", insisted Ireland's Foreign Minister Eamon Gilmore. Whose country holds the rotating presidency.

UN Watch stated: "Given that the UN General Assembly's annual resolution on Iran is replete with detail on the regime's human rights violations, it is incomprehensible and unacceptable that the Human Rights Council lacks the political will to produce anything more than a procedural text that fails to name Tehran's massive abuses."

Mauritania will occupy a seat on the council for 2013, with Cheiukh Ahmed Ould Zahaf scheduled to become an UNHRC vice-president. To which initiative Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch responded: "It is revolting that the government of Mauritania, which continues to be complicit in the slavery of hundreds of thousands, is vice-president of the council."

Pakistan abstains from resolution votes supporting victims in North Korea and Burma in the UN General Assembly. Mauritania rejects resolutions on human rights violations by Iran, Burma and North Korea.

Meanwhile, the Organization of Islamic Co-operation continues to agitate for the implementation of the UN Human Rights Resolution 16/18. This is meant to establish international standards for criminalizing "Intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of ... religion and belief". The OIC's agenda to criminalize blasphemy is meant to gain international legitimacy of their domestic criminal prosecutions of anti-religious speech.

Examples abound of what could be construed as blasphemous insults to religion. The most obvious being the 2005 Danish newspaper cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad that resulted in worldwide violent protests leading to the deaths of over 100 people. As a demonstration of religious tolerance it was somewhat lacking. As a demonstration of the passions to be unleashed in the world of Islam against perceived insults, like those resulting from the proposed burning of a Koran, more than adequate.

Which is to say while the West affirms and reaffirms the right to free speech, the OIC countries moved inexorably to greater prosecution of anti-religious speech under their own laws prohibiting 'hate speech and discrimination', which only they can adequately identify. OIC member states have appropriated the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, wishing to include "the principles of the Sharia; Islamic law".

Which, in implementation would justify crackdowns on religious critics in the name of human rights law.

Going a long way to explaining just how vast the divide is between nations in their understanding of violations of human rights.