• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN rights experts criticize Arizona law

ludahai

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,116
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
link


GENEVA – Arizona's new law on illegal immigration could violate international standards that are binding in the United States, six U.N. human rights experts said Tuesday.

The basic human rights regulations, signed by the U.S. and many other nations, regard issues such as discrimination and the terms under which a person can be detained, the experts said.
Click to expand...

Once again, the hypocritical United Nations butts in where it is not wanted. There are so many places where rights are REALLY violated and they say little or nothing about them, yet they want to complain about somethign that is non-existant in the United States...
 
Ugh! Morons...

Like we give a damn what that bastion of incompetence and corruption thinks.

The law is "discriminatory"? Yea, against people who break the law...
 
Considering the same law is on the FEDERAL books, and has been for 70 years, what a maroon.

Fed's do it, it's A-OK,m state does it? ZOMG WTF BBQSAUCE!!
 
ludahai said:
link




Once again, the hypocritical United Nations butts in where it is not wanted. There are so many places where rights are REALLY violated and they say little or nothing about them, yet they want to complain about somethign that is non-existant in the United States...
Click to expand...

UN rights experts?

Are these the same experts that allowed Iran to be the head of their human rights group, right after Iran said they would arrest any woman that got a sunburn or suntan?

Why am I not surprised?
 
TheHat said:
UN rights experts?

Are these the same experts that allowed Iran to be the head of their human rights group, right after Iran said they would arrest any woman that got a sunburn or suntan?

Why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...



LOL! You beat me to it......Had to go back and erase and stuff....:rofl


j-mac
 
TheHat said:
UN rights experts?

Are these the same experts that allowed Iran to be the head of their human rights group, right after Iran said they would arrest any woman that got a sunburn or suntan?

Why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...

Membership of the Human Rights Council 2006-2012

I don't know what human rights group you are talking about, but despite its hypocrisy, the Human Rights Council that was formed in 2006 has NEVER counted Iran among its members. However, there are enough Member States that are on that list to give one cause for serious concern.
 
ludahai said:
Membership of the Human Rights Council 2006-2012

I don't know what human rights group you are talking about, but despite its hypocrisy, the Human Rights Council that was formed in 2006 has NEVER counted Iran among its members. However, there are enough Member States that are on that list to give one cause for serious concern.
Click to expand...

I was refering to this one:

FNC Highlights 'Another Outrage' from U.N., Iran on Women's Rights Commission | NewsBusters.org

And here is that wonderful idea of arresting women who get suntans:

Suntanned women to be arrested under Islamic dress code - Telegraph

As you said above, the women's rights group I am talking about, is different then the one you stated in the OP.
 
Last edited:
1984 said:
The law is "discriminatory"? Yea, against people who break the law...
Click to expand...

I found this very ironic given your screen name. Irony is very dangerous before people can have their first cup of coffee.

As to the OT, the UN can piss off. Arizona is our problem and we'll deal with it.
 
ludahai said:
link




Once again, the hypocritical United Nations butts in where it is not wanted. There are so many places where rights are REALLY violated and they say little or nothing about them, yet they want to complain about somethign that is non-existant in the United States...
Click to expand...

The UN is a joke. Where is the UN on Mexico...its refusal to control its illegal immigration problem...or for that matter the way MEXICO treats illegals passing through their country on the way to the US?

The US should monitor and protect its southern border with the same humanity and care that Mexico does.
 
And what nation is the primary contributer of funds for this useless organization? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you... :rolleyes:
 
MyOwnDrum said:
And what nation is the primary contributer of funds for this useless organization? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure it is Japan actually...
 
ludahai said:
link




Once again, the hypocritical United Nations butts in where it is not wanted. There are so many places where rights are REALLY violated and they say little or nothing about them, yet they want to complain about somethign that is non-existant in the United States...
Click to expand...

Another reason to go tell the U.N. to go **** itself.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
EU 35%
US 22%
Japan 19.5%
Canada 2.8%
Australia 1.6%
NZ 0.2%
Click to expand...

Why does the EU get lumped into one? It's not a single country. Break it up proper.
 
Top 10 donators to the UN budget, 2009[44]
Member state Contribution
(% of UN budget)
United States 22.00%
Japan 16.624%
Germany 8.577%
United Kingdom 6.642%
France 6.301%
Italy 5.079%
Canada 2.977%
Spain 2.968%
China 2.667%
Mexico 2.257%
Other member states 23.908%

United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I'd love to see the United States withdraw all funding for the UN. And, make all diplomats liable for all parking and moving violations they incur while on our soil.
 
Ikari said:
As to the OT, the UN can piss off. Arizona is our problem and we'll deal with it.
Click to expand...

Agree with the UN can piss off.
Arizona is not a problem. The Feds doing nothing to improve the situation is the problem.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I'd love to see the United States withdraw all funding for the UN. And, make all diplomats liable for all parking and moving violations they incur while on our soil.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the numbers, I thought Japan gave a bit more than the US, but it is the other way around.. good to know.

Outside of that, withdrawing from the UN would be a mistake. It is a mistake to think that the sole purpose of the UN is conflict resolution, or even to push for human rights.. the UN has done a lot of good in the fields of disease eradication etc..

Also, we cannot make diplomats liable unless we want our diplomats abroad to be subject to the same kind of scrutiny, which we do not want.

In terms of Arizona, the UN can say whatever it wants, that is what it does, but it is not going to actually do anything, and the only part of it that really matters, the Security Council, will never comment on what is going on, since we hold veto power.
 
ludahai said:
link




Once again, the hypocritical United Nations butts in where it is not wanted. There are so many places where rights are REALLY violated and they say little or nothing about them, yet they want to complain about somethign that is non-existant in the United States...
Click to expand...

Which countries in particular do you feel the UN is silent on?
 
The UN is wrong to do this, I mean they're an impotent beauracratic mess. Partly due to every countries fault, that isn't willing to do ****all about the worlds problems. It's failure to act on so many occasions, especially the Rwandan Genocide, should disallow it from making any criticism against anyone.
 
Ikari said:
I found this very ironic given your screen name. Irony is very dangerous before people can have their first cup of coffee.

As to the OT, the UN can piss off. Arizona is our problem and we'll deal with it.
Click to expand...

Why is it ironic? Feel free to discuss the law with me, and not the dumb-ass talking points the mainstream media has perpetuated about racial profiling and arbitrary detainment.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I'd love to see the United States withdraw all funding for the UN. And, make all diplomats liable for all parking and moving violations they incur while on our soil.
Click to expand...

First one sounds great -- get out of the UN until it becomes an organization that truly supports democracy, democratic ideals, and human rights.

The second isn't practical due to treaties and conventions the US is party to...
 
This is just as laughable as Mexico criticizing the law as being too harsh and discriminatory while they have heavier punishments for illegal immigration and heavily police their southern border :doh The UN and many nations are hypocritically biased towards the US and it's sickening.
 
1984 said:
Why is it ironic? Feel free to discuss the law with me, and not the dumb-ass talking points the mainstream media has perpetuated about racial profiling and arbitrary detainment.
Click to expand...

1984 was a book about oppressive, draconian government. Your comment falls into that as all laws are discriminatory against those who break the law by nature of what the law is. It doesn't speak to any justice of law or lawful ability of government to implement the law. It is, in essence, the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" excuse which is generally reserved for laws which are unconstitutional or involve unjustified expansion of government. That doesn't mean this particular law falls into it, I'm saying in general. For one with the screen name 1984, it seemed a bit ironic to say that the law discriminates against those who break the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom