• 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!

U.S. offers its human rights record for U.N. review

PeteEU said:
The US is no different than any country on the planet, and should be open to any review on its human rights record. I have no doubt that 90%+ of the record is great, but no country has a perfect human rights record and especially the US.. with its history of racially motivated laws and segregation.
Click to expand...

LOL

Yes, when I think of racially motivated laws and segregation, the US is certainly the first one that comes to mind. The EU has never had any problems with race, it's all a perfect paradise.
 
any judgement from any comically comprised unhrc will naturally reflect tinpot 3rd world politics

ie, NOT justice

get real

the un is a joke

oil for food, anyone?
 
RightinNYC said:
LOL

Yes, when I think of racially motivated laws and segregation, the US is certainly the first one that comes to mind. The EU has never had any problems with race, it's all a perfect paradise.
Click to expand...

Homosexual discrimination
- Marriage
- Employment
- Military
African American discrimination (mostly before the civil rights movements, but even now some would claim discrimination exists in our laws/law enforcement/prisons)
- Slavery
- Voting
- Owning land
- Segregation
- The KKK movement
Discrimination against women (there have been big advancements in women's rights, but some will claim women are still discriminated against)
Racially profiling Hispanic people
Discriminating against Muslims including hate speech and the protesting of Mosques


Discrimination in America has existed (both in laws and in how Americans treat other Americans) and in some cases discrimination continues to this day. America isn't the first country that comes to mind when I think of human rights violations, but that doesn't mean the U.S. is not on the list at all.

Just because we have a better human rights record than many of the countries that are criticizing us now doesn't mean we should show them the middle finger and walk out of the room.

Yes, the more current issues we are dealing with are no where near as bad as stoning people to death or killing homosexuals. But lets not forget that many of these issues being brought up by members of the U.N.H.R.C. have already been brought up by Americans. Regardless of what other countries say about us, every effort should be made in identifying areas where we don't live up to our proud statement that "All men are created equal".
 
Jucon said:
Homosexual discrimination
- Marriage
- Employment
- Military
African American discrimination (mostly before the civil rights movements, but even now some would claim discrimination exists in our laws/law enforcement/prisons)
- Slavery
- Voting
- Owning land
- Segregation
- The KKK movement
Discrimination against women (there have been big advancements in women's rights, but some will claim women are still discriminated against)
Racially profiling Hispanic people
Discriminating against Muslims including hate speech and the protesting of Mosques


Discrimination in America has existed (both in laws and in how Americans treat other Americans) and in some cases discrimination continues to this day. America isn't the first country that comes to mind when I think of human rights violations, but that doesn't mean the U.S. is not on the list at all.

Just because we have a better human rights record than many of the countries that are criticizing us now doesn't mean we should show them the middle finger and walk out of the room.

Yes, the more current issues we are dealing with are no where near as bad as stoning people to death or killing homosexuals. But lets not forget that many of these issues being brought up by members of the U.N.H.R.C. have already been brought up by Americans. Regardless of what other countries say about us, every effort should be made in identifying areas where we don't live up to our proud statement that "All men are created equal".
Click to expand...

Now, I'm the first person to come out against my own country when it comes to a racist history. But are you seriously comparing Europe to the U.S.? Are we talking about the same Europe where Leopold the II comes from? The same Europe which has kept an entire continent under perpetual dependency in one form or another for over 400 years? The same Europe that won't let a Muslim woman chose whether she wants to wear a hijab or not? Are we talking about that Europe? Look Jucon, right now as I see it we have two options:

You can throw American history in the face of American posters

or

We can talk about European atrocities on an entire continent and their own.

The choice is yours really. ;)
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
A bit too late. Should have happened just as Obama took office and not now that the Republicans have retaken the House.

The US is no different than any country on the planet, and should be open to any review on its human rights record. I have no doubt that 90%+ of the record is great, but no country has a perfect human rights record and especially the US.. with its history of racially motivated laws and segregation.

But as usual, the US right with the usual suspects on these boards, have and will try to make this about the UNHRC and take all focus away from the US. That they can even float the idea that because the UNHRC council has questionable human rights countries on its membership, that it is okay not to have such a review... is typical right wing arrogance ... and it plays right into the hands of those nations... why should they do anything about their human rights when the US wont even put it self under review...
Click to expand...

Would you be okay with a judge, who had been convicted of bank robbery and served time in prison, presiding over a criminal case?

Prolly not, huh?
 
Hatuey said:
Now, I'm the first person to come out against my own country when it comes to a racist history. But are you seriously comparing Europe to the U.S.? Are we talking about the same Europe where Leopold the II comes from? The same Europe which has kept an entire continent under perpetual dependency in one form or another for over 400 years? The same Europe that won't let a Muslim woman chose whether she wants to wear a hijab or not? Are we talking about that Europe? Look Jucon, right now as I see it we have two options:

You can throw American history in the face of American posters

or

We can talk about European atrocities on an entire continent and their own.

The choice is yours really. ;)
Click to expand...

Goddamn! I just thanked one of Hatuey's posts.

Call Hell and tell everyone to get a coat, because it's going to freeze.
 
Councilman said:
I am sick to damn death of the I hate America bunch.

Lets take all of the people the U.S.A. have freed from bondage, murder, torture etc. and measure those numbers against any other number the blame America first bunch want, and see what comes out on top.

When Rwanda was under attacked Koffee Annon ordered the Canadian General on the ground not to stop the genocide, when it could be stopped with almost no killings.

That was a crime and he went on to be Secretary General.

Give me a break.

We really do need to deport all Illegals, and the blame America fisrt bunch with them.

We could then have a Nation run by the rule of law under the Constitution.

We would automatically be rid of the Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, and hundreds of others.
Click to expand...

its ok for you to criticize america? illegals are a problem in the US and its ok for you to say so, but hwen we say something (that is true) like there is a direct corellation between US government aid to foreign countires and their human rights abuses....i become part of a balme america first crowd?


why is it ok for you to criticize and not the (probably more intelligent) critics of foreign policy?
 
commy said:
its ok for you to criticize america? illegals are a problem in the US and its ok for you to say so, but hwen we say something (that is true) like there is a direct corellation between US government aid to foreign countires and their human rights abuses....i become part of a balme america first crowd?


why is it ok for you to criticize and not the (probably more intelligent) critics of foreign policy?
Click to expand...

What's the context of the criticism. You complain that American aid is funding a foreign country and that foreign country is involved in human rights abuses; but how often do you stop to consider that that country would be abusing human rights, American money, or no American money? Probably never; you simply blame it on America, first.

Just like Iraq. Whose fault is it that Muslim insurgents are suicide bombing Muslim civilians? You'll rarely hear anyone from the blame America first crowd blame the insurgents.

That's Councilman's point.
 
Councilman said:
I am sick to damn death of the I hate America bunch.

Lets take all of the people the U.S.A. have freed from bondage, murder, torture etc. and measure those numbers against any other number the blame America first bunch want, and see what comes out on top.

When Rwanda was under attacked Koffee Annon ordered the Canadian General on the ground not to stop the genocide, when it could be stopped with almost no killings.

That was a crime and he went on to be Secretary General.

Give me a break.

We really do need to deport all Illegals, and the blame America fisrt bunch with them.

We could then have a Nation run by the rule of law under the Constitution.

We would automatically be rid of the Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, and hundreds of others.
Click to expand...

Well, someone called this. I think those who believe as you do might try some national self esteem classes. Work on being able to handle legitimate criticism without going over the edge. It's OK to hear things you don't like, if you know down deep that you're still pretty damn good. Only those who don't really know how good they are see everything as being unfair. :coffeepap
 
**** the UN, it's supporters, and the despots that make up it's "human rights" council. Obama showing that he believes US sovereignty is sub servant to international dictators.
 
SE102 said:
U.S. offers its human rights record for U.N. review
Click to expand...

I have serious concerns about the U.S. allowing its human rights record to be reviewed by the UN Human Rights Council. That body has been anything but impartial. While I expect that the record has its share of issues, my larger concern is that the U.S. gesture will provide the UNHRC with a measure of credibility that it does not deserve until it addresses its own internal issues.
 
RightinNYC said:
LOL

Yes, when I think of racially motivated laws and segregation, the US is certainly the first one that comes to mind. The EU has never had any problems with race, it's all a perfect paradise.
Click to expand...

So are you denying that a state in the union has not just "banned" the usage of Sharia law but not other religious laws?

So are you denying that Texas executed non nationals after denying them consular access?

So are you denying GITMO?`

So are you denying Abu Graib?

Why should the US not be put under the same scrutiny as other nations? Why should the US, as the only nation, be given a free pass when it comes to organisations looking into its human rights record? Like it or not the US history on human rights is as bad as the nations on the 47 member UNHRC and in some cases, far worse.
 
PeteEU said:
So are you denying that a state in the union has not just "banned" the usage of Sharia law but not other religious laws?
Click to expand...


Since human rights abuses are so integral to Sharia, then banning this barbarity is hardly a sign of human rights abuse, itself.

Orwell must be rolling in his grave.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I have serious concerns about the U.S. allowing its human rights record to be reviewed by the UN Human Rights Council. That body has been anything but impartial. While I expect that the record has its share of issues, my larger concern is that the U.S. gesture will provide the UNHRC with a measure of credibility that it does not deserve until it addresses its own internal issues.
Click to expand...

Why does it concern you? It's not like we're going to listen to anything they say.

Edit: Also, do people not understand that it's possible to be both critical of America and critical of terrorists at the same time? America bombs buildings, kills innocent people: bad. Terrorist bombs buildings, kills innocent people: bad.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Why does it concern you? It's not like we're going to listen to anything they say.
Click to expand...




This I can agree with, the only concern I would have is the moron in charge surrendering our sovereignty to the international house of dictators.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
This I can agree with, the only concern I would have is the moron in charge surrendering our sovereignty to the international house of dictators.
Click to expand...

How, exactly, do you predict that America will "surrender it's sovereignty?" I want to know exactly what you think is going to happen.
 
Deuce said:
How, exactly, do you predict that America will "surrender it's sovereignty?" I want to know exactly what you think is going to happen.
Click to expand...

Land of the Sea Treaty

Agenda 21

j-mac
 
Deuce said:
Why does it concern you? It's not like we're going to listen to anything they say.
Click to expand...

If the U.S. is serious about improving human rights worldwide (and I believe it is) and, if the UNHRC, is supposed to be an instrument for advocating human rights, taking measures that effectively insulate it from improving its performance are counterproductive. From its decision, the U.S. sends a signal that it believes the UNHRC is credible. In reality, it is an extremely politicized body that does little to address real human rights issues. Instead, it pursues advocacy campaigns that reflect its political objectives. Consequently, the UNHRC makes almost no constructive contribution to improving human rights. Worse, because it pursues political agendas, time and resources that could be devoted to improving human rights are wasted on political pursuits. Consequently, one could reasonably argue that this opportunity cost amounts to a negative contribution toward improving human rights.

Edit: Also, do people not understand that it's possible to be both critical of America and critical of terrorists at the same time? America bombs buildings, kills innocent people: bad. Terrorist bombs buildings, kills innocent people: bad.
Click to expand...

Of course, it is. Like any nation, the U.S. has its strong policy aspects and also policy flaws. But that's a separate issue from taking a measure that bolsters the perceived credibility of a dysfunctional UN entity.
 
The US most certainly needs to be held accountable for acts of violence. If we want to claim to be the greatest nation in the world, we need to do a much better job living up to that.

To address one of themes in this thread. People who criticize America do not hate it. People who are disappointed in the choices the US has made love it and are disappointed. Sometimes you have to hold an intervention for someone you love, even if it makes them sad. It's still good for them. Chastising America's acts of violence and making it pay for them will serve to deter future violence. And then maybe we really can be the best around, but until we stop this warmongering, racism, torture, and religious and sexual discrimination, we have no cause to claim superiority. Even if we're better than most, we still have a lot of work to do.
 
donsutherland1 said:
If the U.S. is serious about improving human rights worldwide (and I believe it is) and, if the UNHRC, is supposed to be an instrument for advocating human rights, taking measures that effectively insulate it from improving its performance are counterproductive. From its decision, the U.S. sends a signal that it believes the UNHRC is credible. In reality, it is an extremely politicized body that does little to address real human rights issues. Instead, it pursues advocacy campaigns that reflect its political objectives. Consequently, the UNHRC makes almost no constructive contribution to improving human rights. Worse, because it pursues political agendas, time and resources that could be devoted to improving human rights are wasted on political pursuits. Consequently, one could reasonably argue that this opportunity cost amounts to a negative contribution toward improving human rights.



Of course, it is. Like any nation, the U.S. has its strong policy aspects and also policy flaws. But that's a separate issue from taking a measure that bolsters the perceived credibility of a dysfunctional UN entity.
Click to expand...

Or, in just one word, "Durban".
 
donsutherland1 said:
If the U.S. is serious about improving human rights worldwide (and I believe it is) and, if the UNHRC, is supposed to be an instrument for advocating human rights, taking measures that effectively insulate it from improving its performance are counterproductive. From its decision, the U.S. sends a signal that it believes the UNHRC is credible. In reality, it is an extremely politicized body that does little to address real human rights issues. Instead, it pursues advocacy campaigns that reflect its political objectives. Consequently, the UNHRC makes almost no constructive contribution to improving human rights. Worse, because it pursues political agendas, time and resources that could be devoted to improving human rights are wasted on political pursuits. Consequently, one could reasonably argue that this opportunity cost amounts to a negative contribution toward improving human rights.



Of course, it is. Like any nation, the U.S. has its strong policy aspects and also policy flaws. But that's a separate issue from taking a measure that bolsters the perceived credibility of a dysfunctional UN entity.
Click to expand...

You could generally apply your argument to the entire UN.
 
Gardener said:
Since human rights abuses are so integral to Sharia, then banning this barbarity is hardly a sign of human rights abuse, itself.

Orwell must be rolling in his grave.
Click to expand...

The ones rolling in their graves are the founding fathers.

That the US still can make laws that targets minorities because the population is up in an irrational frenzy over said minority... is in it self a human rights violation. You cant just pick and choose you know... targeting someone based on sex, religion or ethnicity is a violation of their human rights.. pure and simple.

And for the record, no we in Europe are no better, but the difference is we dont refuse to cooperate with the UNHRC and find ourselves "above" them just because a few human rights violators are on the council... one of those being the US btw. Like it or not, we believe in human rights over here, even though certain right wingers try to bend the rules in their favour... Berloscoloony comes to mind.
 
PeteEU said:
The ones rolling in their graves are the founding fathers.

That the US still can make laws that targets minorities because the population is up in an irrational frenzy over said minority... is in it self a human rights violation. You cant just pick and choose you know... targeting someone based on sex, religion or ethnicity is a violation of their human rights.. pure and simple.

And for the record, no we in Europe are no better, but the difference is we dont refuse to cooperate with the UNHRC and find ourselves "above" them just because a few human rights violators are on the council... one of those being the US btw. Like it or not, we believe in human rights over here, even though certain right wingers try to bend the rules in their favour... Berloscoloony comes to mind.
Click to expand...

The reason you cooperate with the UN is because your governments are simply too weak to actually pull off any large scale human rights violations. You leave that to the myriad of multinational European corporations which operate within Africa. In West Africa, you won't see the French or British governments getting their hands dirty. However, Europeans are still very much in power of Africa. The difference between today and the 1930s you now leave the colonizing process to Monsanto, Elf and Shell.
 
Hatuey said:
The reason you cooperate with the UN is because your governments are simply too weak to actually pull off any large scale human rights violations. You leave that to the myriad of multinational European corporations which operate within Africa. In West Africa, you won't see the French or British governments getting their hands dirty. However, Europeans are still very much in power of Africa. The difference between today and the 1930s you now leave the colonizing process to Monsanto, Elf and Shell.
Click to expand...

The only reason that some Europeans countries still have power in Africa, is because they prop up various regimes with military assistance. *Cough* France *Cough*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom