conservative party accused of 'fundamental' failure" over islamaphobia

[icehorse]

The UNDHR guides the HRC yet members that rejected the UNDHR are council members. The UN, as always, is weak and caves instead of maintain a standard it created itself....

OHCHR | HRC Welcome to the Human Rights Council
OHCHR | CHR Background information

Oh you're talking of much more recent events. The UDHR was written back in the late 40s and the Cairo Declaration was written in 1990.

 

[Notanumber]

Tories can't possibly be racist because Sajid Javid is the Home Secretary

Is he up to the job he has been given?

DEPORT THEM: Sajid Javid Has Allowed Muslim Groomers BACK

 

[Shad]

Yes, a backward step to try to reach a compromise.

I do not see a compromise just bloc voting and the weak UN.

 

[Shad]

Oh you're talking of much more recent events. The UDHR was written back in the late 40s and the Cairo Declaration was written in 1990.

Yes. I thought we were talking about it as per post #177.

 

[Shad]

I agree. My point was to counter NAN's claim that the Tories can't possibly be racist because Sajid Javid is the Home Secretary

Sure. I was going along the same lines that election of a figure does not mean race issues are now "solved" but can be made worse due to projection and expectations. The election or figure becomes a distraction.

I agree with this also. It doesn't make any sense at all. Those members should be summarily removed from the HRC but who has the backbone to do it?

Well the problem is the structure via the quota system and bloc voting. People have called foul before but the GA is a joke.

A plan that has obviously failed as utter tyrannies now take their place on the HRC and lecture other countries on what constitutes a breach of human rights. We have governments like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia & China on the HRC. It is an obscenity. What's worse is they can use their presence on the council to bolster their international persona - "look, we're on the Human Rights Council so obviously we have a track record as a tolerant nation".

Pretty much.

 

[Notanumber]

From an impartial position, it seems the Tories are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

When a group continually take offence and play the victim at every opportunity the easy thing to do is to submit to their demands.

The more we submit, the more we will be expected to submit.

The Labour party are an example of this.

 

[Shad]

From an impartial position, it seems the Tories are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Not really. Any party which does not purge problematic members is going to get flack. GOP gets flack because it separates candidacy and membership from funding. Hence why some white supremacist ran as the GOP ticket but was denied GOP funding in a district election. Hence Trump's populism in the GOP nomination. Dems get flack for the Dixiecrats and the socialist members.

 

[Notanumber]

Any party which does not purge problematic members is going to get flack.

Is a problematic member someone that is deemed to be an Islamophobe?

 

[Altfish]

I do not see a compromise just bloc voting and the weak UN.

With so many nations involved it is a compromise; you may see it as weak. But that is necessary to keep nations talking; dictating leads to conflict and possibly war. Look at Iran now.

 

[Notanumber]

With so many nations involved it is a compromise; you may see it as weak. But that is necessary to keep nations talking; dictating leads to conflict and possibly war. Look at Iran now.

Is it possible to have a rational conversation with Iran?

 

[Shad]

With so many nations involved it is a compromise; you may see it as weak. But that is necessary to keep nations talking; dictating leads to conflict and possibly war. Look at Iran now.

Nope as the other side gave up nothing for those seats.

Iran has attacked two tankers in international waters (my opinion). That is a declaration of war.

 

[Shad]

Is a problematic member someone that is deemed to be an Islamophobe?

Not merely deemed but demonstrated so. This prevent the ad hominem use of the term and political spin like Trump's travel ban. Hence my examples which are unquestionable examples

 

[Altfish]

Nope as the other side gave up nothing for those seats.

Iran has attacked two tankers in international waters (my opinion). That is a declaration of war.

But (if it has) what stirred it up with Iran to make them attack?.

 

[Shad]

But (if it has) what stirred it up with Iran to make them attack?.

It does not like sanctions.

 

[Altfish]

It does not like sanctions.

Exactly

 

[Shad]

Exactly

Japan and Norway are not the nations creating the sanctions hence the attack is to upset global oil markets. Attacking targets that will never fight back, Norway and Japan, is easier than attacking the US. This was the same tactics used in the 80s by Iran.

 

[Altfish]

Japan and Norway are not the nations creating the sanctions hence the attack is to upset global oil markets. Attacking targets that will never fight back, Norway and Japan, is easier than attacking the US. This was the same tactics used in the 80s by Iran.

But who has most to lose? They are rocking the boat (sorry) in retaliation

 

[Shad]

But who has most to lose? They are rocking the boat (sorry) in retaliation

This is not an argument. Apply your point to Hamas. It fails.

 

[Altfish]

This is not an argument. Apply your point to Hamas. It fails.

It is just coincidence then that sanctions = Iranian attack

 

[Shad]

It is just coincidence then that sanctions = Iranian attack

Nope considering Iran threatened transit in the strait weeks ago, last year, the year before that. It is the only military tactic Iran has that can cause any real damage for a short period of time.