LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1) Index du Forum

LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1)
...

 FAQFAQ   RechercherRechercher   MembresMembres   GroupesGroupes   S’enregistrerS’enregistrer 
 ProfilProfil   Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés   ConnexionConnexion 

DURBAN ET LES DROITS DE L'HOMME (PARTIE 2) P.1
Aller à la page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  >
 
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet    LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1) Index du Forum -> CONSEIL MONDIAL DES ÉGLISES/WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES - voir les sous-groupes dans cette section -> DURBAN ET LES NOUVEAUX DROITS DE L'HOMME ISLAMIQUES / DURBAN AND THE NEW ISLAMIC HUMAN RIGHTS + GENEVE 2/GENEVE 2 TALKS (PARTIE 2) - CAIRO, etc
Sujet précédent :: Sujet suivant  
Auteur Message
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Lun 30 Avr - 23:42 (2012)    Sujet du message: DURBAN ET LES DROITS DE L'HOMME (PARTIE 2) P.1 Répondre en citant



DROITS DE L'HOMME : L'ONU RAPPELLE QUE 2011 A ÉTÉ UNE ANNÉE EXTRAORDINAIRE
Sans commentaire, ce ne serait que me répéter.... Quand le mensonge est devenu le fondement de la société, il n'y a qu'une seule personne qui peut revenir régler le problème à ces démons qui nous dirigent d'une main de fer.




Des manifestants en Iraq.
9 décembre 2011 – A l'occasion de la Journée des droits de l'homme qui sera célébrée officiellement le 10 décembre, le Secrétaire général des Nations Unies Ban Ki-moon a rappelé vendredi que chaque personne devait connaître ses droits et exiger qu'ils soient respectés.

« Si nous ne défendons pas nos droits et les droits d'autrui, ils ne seront rien d'autre que des lettres mortes dans un vieux document », a déclaré Ban Ki-moon dans un message. « C'est pourquoi nous célébrons davantage que l'adoption de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme en 1948. Nous reconnaissons sa valeur permanente pour notre propre époque. »

« L'importance des droits de l'homme a été soulignée encore et encore cette année. A travers le monde, les peuples se sont mobilisés pour réclamer la justice, la dignité, l'égalité et la participation, bref, les droits inscrits dans la Déclaration universelle », a-t-il ajouté.

Un grand nombre de ces manifestants pacifiques ont persévéré bien qu'ils aient dû faire face à la violence et à la répression. Dans certains pays la lutte continue, dans d'autres des concessions importantes ont été obtenues et des dictateurs ont été renversés alors que la volonté du peuple l'a emporté.

« Nous savons qu'il y a encore trop de répression dans le monde, trop d'impunité et trop de gens pour qui les droits de l'homme ne sont pas encore une réalité », a rappelé le Secrétaire général.

La Haut commissaire des Nations Unies aux droits de l'homme, Navi Pillay, a rappelé que l'année 2011 a été une année extraordinaire pour les droits de l'homme. Une année où un simple mot incarnant la quête déçue d'un seul et pauvre jeune homme dans une province reculée de Tunisie a touché une corde dont le son est monté crescendo. Ce mot, cette quête, c'était pour la « dignité », a-t-elle noté.

« En quelques jours, il était entendu dans la capitale, Tunis, avec une telle force qu'en seulement quatre semaines les fondations d'un régime autoritaire inébranlable et apparemment indestructible ont été renversées. Ce précédent et sa révision radicale du champ des possibles se sont rapidement propagés aux rues et places du Caire et ont été suivis par d'autres villes et villages dans l'ensemble de la région et, au bout du compte, dans le monde entier sous différentes formes », a souligné Mme Pillay.

En 2011, l'idée même du « pouvoir » a évolué. Au cours de cette année extraordinaire, elle n'a pas été uniquement maniée par des institutions puissantes siégeant dans des immeubles en marbre mais aussi, de plus en plus, par des hommes, des femmes et même des enfants ordinaires, qui se sont courageusement levés pour réclamer leurs droits.

Au Moyen Orient et en Afrique du Nord, plusieurs milliers de personnes l'ont payé de leur vie, des dizaines de milliers ont été blessées, ont vécu dans des villes assiégées, ont été torturées, emprisonnées, et menacées mais leur nouvelle détermination à exiger le respect de leurs droits a montré qu'elles n'étaient plus prêtes à accepter l'injustice.

« Bien que nous devions pleurer la perte de nombreuses vies, y compris tout récemment au cours de l'assaut impitoyable de plusieurs villes et villages de Syrie, ou à nouveau lors d'un usage excessif de la force au Caire ou encore à cause des événements venant déstabiliser les élections en République démocratique du Congo, nous avons aussi des raisons de nous réjouir », a souligné Mme Pillay.

Le message de ce réveil mondial inattendu n'a pas été porté, à ses débuts, par les satellites des principales agences de presse, ni par des conférences, ou par d'autres moyens traditionnels - bien qu'ils aient tous joué un rôle important- mais par la montée dynamique et irrépressible des médias sociaux. Et les résultats ont été saisissants.

« En somme, en 2011, les droits de l'homme sont devenus contagieux. Pour la Journée des droits de l'homme 2011, j'exhorte tout le monde, partout, à rejoindre la campagne sur les réseaux sociaux que mon bureau a lancée pour aider le plus de personnes possibles à connaître, exiger et défendre les droits de l'homme. C'est une campagne qui doit perdurer aussi longtemps que les droits de l'homme seront malmenés », a indiqué la Haut commissaire.

Le Président de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI), Sang-Hyun Song, a de son côté indiqué que « les procès d'aujourd'hui empêcheront les crimes de demain ». L'adoption du Statut de Rome de la CPI en juillet 1998 a représenté une autre étape novatrice vers un monde plus humain. Les crimes relevant de sa compétence – le génocide, les crimes contre l'humanité et les crimes de guerre – impliquent par définition des violations du droit à la vie et à la liberté, et la soumission à la torture ou à l'esclavage.

« Jusqu'à présent, ce sont 120 États souverains qui ont adhéré au Statut de Rome, et la CPI est devenue l'une des institutions internationales centrales s'occupant des violations massives des droits de l'homme. Pour des milliers de victimes, hommes, femmes et enfants, c'est le moyen de voir la justice rendue et, grâce à la possibilité qu'elles ont de participer et d'obtenir des réparations, c'est aussi un moyen de mieux vivre dès à présent », a rappelé Sang-Hyun Song.

Les Conseillers spéciaux du Secrétaire général de l'ONU pour la prévention du génocide, Francis Deng, et pour la responsabilité de protéger, Edward Luck, ont rejoint le Président de la CPI sur l'importance de rendre la justice.

« La Convention de 1948 consacrait au départ l'engagement de protéger les populations vulnérables du monde entier contre les massacres à grande échelle. Aujourd'hui, pierre angulaire du concept qu'incarne le principe de la responsabilité de protéger, cet engagement est plus accepté et plus pertinent que jamais », a déclaré M. Luck.

Selon M. Deng, il est indispensable, si l'on veut sauver des vies et édifier des sociétés fondées sur la tolérance et l'équité dans lesquelles les droits de l'homme sont respectés et tous les citoyens peuvent participer sur un pied d'égalité, de remédier aux inégalités en engageant très tôt et de manière soutenue des actions visant à empêcher toute escalade des tensions entre groupes.

« Nous demandons aux États Membres, aux organisations régionales et sous-régionales, à la société civile et aux organismes des Nations Unies d'œuvrer ensemble pour prévenir, à titre prioritaire, le génocide et les autres crimes odieux », ont plaidé les Conseillers spéciaux. « Ce faisant, nous démontrerons notre humanité commune, nos valeurs fondamentales et notre détermination collective et individuelle à ne pas répéter les erreurs du passé ».



http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=27112&Cr=droits&Cr1=


Dernière édition par maria le Jeu 20 Aoû - 11:12 (2015); édité 2 fois
Revenir en haut
Publicité






MessagePosté le: Lun 30 Avr - 23:42 (2012)    Sujet du message: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Lun 30 Avr - 23:49 (2012)    Sujet du message: DURBAN ET LES DROITS DE L'HOMME (PARTIE 2) P.1 Répondre en citant



For Immediate Release:
March 19, 2012 Contact: Anne Bayefsky
info@eyeontheun.org


HAMAS WELCOMED AT UN HEADQUARTERS IN GENEVE

Today the UN Human Rights Council and its UN staff in Geneva advertised and facilitated an event that handed a UN pass, and a UN microphone, in a UN room, to a representative of the terrorist organization Hamas.

…notwithstanding the fact that the grotesque antisemitic charter of Hamas advocates the murder of Jews and the obliteration of the Jewish state - – and the organization’s members are continuing to use unspeakable cruelty and violence to realize that horrendous goal.

Here is the UN advertisement – a Bulletin posted on the UN website – of the event organized by the UN-accredited NGO "Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development (MFPD)".

Here are photos of the Hamas speaker – Ismail al-Ashqar – a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council at the session. (He is the individual wearing a red tie.)

Hamas representative Ismail al-Ashqar addressing audience at UN Headquarters event (man sitting at the head table at the front of the room).





Name tag of Ismail al-Ashqar on UN desk in UN room at UN Headquarters Geneva event



Hamas speaker Ismail al-Ashqar at UN Geneva Headquarters event (red tie at the front of the room, sixth from right).



Hamas representative Ismail al-Ashqar and company hobnobbing at UN Headquarters event (man fourth from the right)





Here is some of the material distributed at UN Headquarters during the event. Among other things, it includes a call for genocide against the Jewish people. “We ask Almighty God to…liberate all Palestinian territories…”

Yes, an organization dedicated to genocide but handed a platform by the United Nations “human rights” apparatus.

-----

Human Rights Council
Nineteenth session
Geneva, 27 February – 23 March 2012

Bulletin of informal meetings
Held in parallel to the session

The information contained in this document was compiled and is correct as of 12 noon of the previous working day; it is reproduced as received and does not imply any opinion or endorsement by the Secretariat of the United Nations, and can be subject to possible change.

Rooms E-3005, E-3009, E-3011, E-1015, and E-1019 have been allocated for meetings of European Union, JUSCANZ, OIC, African Union and GRULAC respectively, for the entire duration of the session, and will not be reflected in this document unless specifically requested.

Monday, 19 March 2012

MEETINGS ORGANIZED BY PERMANENT MISSIONS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, SPECIALIZED AGENCIES, OHCHR, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION

Time Organized by Subject of the meeting
8.00 – 10.00 Permanent Delegation of the European Union (EU) EU human rights experts
8.00 – 10.00
Permanent Delegation of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) OIC Group meeting
8.30 – 10.00 Permanent Mission of the Republic of Cuba GRULAC meeting
10.00 – 12.00 Permanent Mission of the Arab Republic of Egypt NAM meeting
10.00 – 13.00 Permanent Missions of Morocco and Libya Informal consultations on draft resolution on assistance to Libya
12.00 – 14.00 United Kingdom National Human Rights Institutions Preparing for the Universal Periodic Review of the United Kingdom – a briefing for Permanent Missions by the UK National Human Rights Institutions
13.00 – 14.30 Organisation international de la Francophonie Meeting of La Francophonie Human Rights' Working Group
13.00 – 14.00 Permanent Delegation of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation OIC Group meeting
14.00 – 15.00 OHCHR Meeting of the High Commissioner with NGOs
14.00 – 16.00 Permanent Missions of France, Albania, Belgium, Chile, Morocco, Peru, Philippines and Senegal Action-oriented guidance for eradicating extreme poverty: the draft guiding principles
14.00 – 16.00 Permanent Mission of Portugal
Informal consultations on the draft resolution on economic, social and cultural rights
15.00 – 17.00 Permanent Missions of Poland, Chile, Republic of Korea, Australia and South Africa Informal consultations on good governance
16.00 – 18.00 Permanent Missions of Romania, Morocco, Norway, Peru, Qatar and Tunisia Informal consultations on a draft resolution on human rights, democracy and rule of law

MEETINGS ORGANIZED BY NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Time Organized by Subject of the meeting
10.00 – 12.00 Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development (MFPD) Arrest of parliamentarians
12.00 – 14.00 Al Haq Law in the service of man and BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights Human rights in Palestine
12.00 – 14.00 International Federation for Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) Human rights in Afghanistan
16.00 – 18.00 Society for Threatened Peoples International (STPI) and
Minority Rights Group Human rights in Sri Lanka

Forthcoming Meetings – Tuesday, 20 March 2012

Please note that the information on forthcoming events is indicative and may be subject to changes

MEETINGS ORGANIZED BY PERMANENT MISSIONS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, SPECIALIZED AGENCIES, OHCHR AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION

Time Organized by Subject of the meeting
8.00 – 10.00 Permanent Delegation of the European Union EU human rights experts
8.00 – 10.00
Permanent Delegation of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation OIC Group meeting
8.30 – 10.00 Permanent Mission of the Republic of Cuba GRULAC meeting
10.00 – 12.00 Permanent Delegation of the European Union Co-sponsors meeting
10.00 – 12.00 Permanent Delegation of the European Union Informal consultations on the resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar
10.00 – 12.00 Permanent Mission of the Arab Republic of Egypt
NAM meeting
10.00 – 12.00 Permanent Missions of Australia, Chile, Poland, Republic of Korea and South Africa Informal consultations on the draft resolution on the role of good governance in the promotion and protection of human rights
12.00 – 16.00 Permanent Mission of Uruguay GRULAC and EU
Informal consultations on draft resolution on the rights of the child
13.00 – 14.00 Permanent Delegation of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation OIC Group meeting
16.00 – 18.00 Permanent Mission of Haiti Draft Presidential statement on Haiti

MEETINGS ORGANIZED BY NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Time Organized by Subject of the meeting
12.00 – 14.00 Association Apprentissage Sans Frontière (ASF) Right to the education by training
12.00 – 14.00 Imam Ali Popular Student Relief Society(SOSAP) Role of NGOs in human rights achievements
12.00 – 14.00 International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations (ISMUN) Global Action Durban Programme
14.00 – 16.00 Baha'i International Community Human rights and incitement to hatred
14.00 – 16.00 Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitié entre les peuples (MRAP) and
BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights Follow-up to the Goldstone Report
14.00 – 16.00 Union of Arab Jurists (UAJ),
Arab Lawyers Union(ALU),
International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD), General Arab Women Federation and International Educational Development, Inc. Human rights under occupation
word document


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Lun 30 Avr - 23:50 (2012)    Sujet du message: COMMUNIQUÉ DU 1er MINISTRE ISRAÉLIEN BENYAMIN NETANYAHOU, SUITE À LA DÉCISION DU CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME DES NATIONS UNIES D'ENTAMER UNE ENQUÊTE INTERNATIONALE CONTRE ISRAËL Répondre en citant

COMMUNIQUÉ DU 1er MINISTRE ISRAÉLIEN BENYAMIN NETANYAHOU, SUITE À LA DÉCISION DU CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME DES NATIONS UNIES D'ENTAMER UNE ENQUÊTE INTERNATIONALE CONTRE ISRAËL

ENGLISH : Following is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response to the decision of the IUN Human Rights Council:
http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/Spokesman/2012/03/spokeadam220312.htm

Amgisrael

Il s’agit d’une décision hypocrite de la part d’un Conseil dont les membres votent automatiquement contre Israel. Ce Conseil, avec une majorité automatiquement hostile à Israël devrait avoir honte de lui-même. Jusqu’à présent et malgré le contexte actuel, le Conseil des Droits de l’Homme a pris 91 décisions : 39 relatives à Israël, mais trois seulement envers la Syrie et une seule contre l’Iran. Il suffit d’entendre le représentant syrien s’exprimer aujourd’hui sur les droits de l’Homme pour comprendre à quel point ce Conseil est éloigné des réalités. Autre preuve : le Conseil des Droits de l’homme des Nations Unies a invité à s’exprimer la semaine dernière un représentant du Hamas, une organisation dont l’idéologie est basée sur le meurtre d’innocents.

http://israel-chronique-en-ligne.over-blog.com/article-communique-du-1er-ministre-israelien-benyamin-netanyahou-suite-a-la-decision-du-conseil-des-droits-d-102252574.html


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Lun 30 Avr - 23:52 (2012)    Sujet du message: 'ISRAEL TO CUT OFF UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONTACT' Répondre en citant

'ISRAEL TO CUT OFF UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONTACT'



By HERB KEINON
03/26/2012 12:43

Senior official says Israel to try to convince other countries to follow suit; no decision punitive measures against PA.
By Reuters

The Foreign Ministry decided Monday to cut off all contacts with the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), a senior diplomatic official said.

The move came following the decision by the council last Thursday to send a fact-finding mission to the West Bank to probe the impact of the settlements on Palestinian human rights.

Related: •
PA slams US for voting against UN probe of settlements

Editorial: UN Intentions

From now on, the officials said, Israel's ambassador to the UN organizations in Geneva will not appear before the council, answer any phone calls from the council, or cooperate with them in any way. The ambassador is not going to be withdrawn from Geneva, however, because there are a lot of other organizations that Israel does fully cooperate with and will continue to do so.

The official said that Israel will make efforts to get other countries on the council to follow suit, even though he acknowledged that this will be difficult.

No decision, however, has yet been made on what sanctions to take against the Palestinian Authority, which initiated this action at the UN body. Amid speculation that Israel may once again cut off monthly tax revenues that it transfers to the PA, as it did following UNESCO's decision to accept the Palestinians into the organization in November, the source said that there are other measures that can be taken. He did not elaborate.


http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=263451


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Lun 30 Avr - 23:55 (2012)    Sujet du message: DOES OBAMA HAVE ISRAEL'S BACK OR JUST THE UN'S? Répondre en citant

DOES OBAMA HAVE ISRAEL'S BACK OR JUST THE UN'S?

By Anne Bayefsky
Published March 27, 2012
| FoxNews.com

The UN’s top human rights body ended its latest session in Geneva on Friday by dealing a body blow to one of President Obama’s signature foreign policy moves. The extreme anti-Israel extravaganza has prompted Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to cut ties with the body intimating Americans should also withdraw support, while administration officials have hit the airwaves to make the case that the demonization of Israel is troubling but tolerable. The message communicated: the President has the UN’s back, not Israel’s.

The Bush administration refused to lend the UN “Human Rights” Council the credibility offered by U.S. membership and withheld taxpayer dollars accordingly.

Related Stories Death toll in Syrian conflict rises to more than 9,000, UN coordinator says Syria, China accepts UN envoy Kofi Annan's PEACE PLAN Israel to bar UN fact-finding team from entering country for investigation into Jewish settlements.

In 2009 President Obama, signed on, paid the dues, and is currently seeking a second three-year term for the United States on the Council.

The only trouble is, in just six short years the body created in 2006 as a reform of the discredited UN Human Rights Commission, has gone from very bad to even worse.

As of this past Friday, 42% of all the resolutions and decisions critical of the human rights records of specific states ever adopted by the Council have been directed at Israel. The scorecard was 44 resolutions against Israel and 61 resolutions directed at all of the other 192 UN members combined. And Council resolutions never even mention “Hamas.” ( But they welcome HAMAS at the UN headquarters in Geneve - Maria)

The Council has a permanent agenda governing every regular session composed of ten items, one reserved for criticizing Israel and one for “human rights situations that require the Council’s attention” anywhere else.

192 of 193 UN members meet in five regional groups before the Council’s public sessions to strategize and share information – Israel is the only UN state excluded.

The Council has commissioned thirty reports condemning Israel alone. That’s compared to five specific reports on Syria’s executioners, three on Iran’s genocidal regime, and none on Council members like Saudi Arabia – which tyrannizes its entire female population, or China – which denies more than a billion people elementary freedoms.

The reports damning Israel all follow the same pattern. Israel’s actions to defend itself – combating rocket attacks from Gaza, preventing a Gaza port for Iranian arms, establishing checkpoints to deny terrorists a way in to Israel, targeting the rocket launchers and terrorist masterminds – all become violations of Palestinian rights. Like the infamous Goldstone report, Israel is the villain and Palestinians are the victims from the outset.

The reports aren’t made for dusty library shelves. They are terrorist manifestos and manuals in what can best be described as Anti-Semitism 101.

UN “expert” John Dugard’s 2008 Council report read: “a distinction must be drawn between acts of mindless terror...and acts committed in the course of a war of national liberation.” Palestinian violence, he claimed, was the second kind and analogous to “the German occupation resisted by European countries in the Second World War.”

It is in this context that on March 22, the Council commissioned yet another report on Israel, this time on settlements.

The “fact-finding” mission begins with the conclusion, namely, “the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.” Forget the “roadmap” approved even by the UN Security Council. It called for Palestinians “immediately to undertake an unconditional cessation of violence…” in Phase I, and placed a “final permanent status resolution” of the issue of settlements squarely in “Phase III.” Today’s UN just skips over demands made of Palestinians, jettisons promised negotiations on the very subject, and goes directly to an imposed solution of a "Judenrein" apartheid Palestine.

UN demonization is not idle bureaucratese. Last March Palestinian terrorists stabbed and killed members of the Fogel family, three children and their parents, including a 3-month old baby “settler.” But a year later, the only reference to “violence” in this perverse UN “human rights” resolution was trumped-up “violence by Israeli settlers.”

So where was the Obama administration? Its UN Geneva Ambassador Eileen Donahoe ducked out, and a political counselor and a first secretary were sent in to cast and explain America’s vote against the slew of new anti-Israel resolutions.

Team Obama decided to use this moment to criticize Israel – “we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity” – and to reinforce the Council’s bona fides by depicting Americans as a member of a like-minded club. “As members of the Human Rights Council, we all share a responsibility to promote and protect human rights.”

Everyone listening understood the code language. President Obama cares more about propping up the credibility of the Council than he does about protecting Israel from UN-driven harm.

In case anyone missed it, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked at a Friday briefing: “the council keeps doing these things that you say are unwise and biased and one-sided. Why are you a member?” Her response: “the Human Rights Council…generally provides a good moral bellwether
.”

Billions of real human rights victims the world over would beg to disagree, as would the Jewish minority now learning the back of the bus is an acceptable value to an American president.

To be clear, Nuland was not speaking out of turn. US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told a Congressional sub-committee on March 20: “Let me start by underscoring the importance of the United Nations to…upholding the universal values we hold dear.” She then argued for a reversal of Congressional restrictions on funding UNESCO despite the organization circumventing a negotiated solution and embracing Palestine the state.

UN documents indicate the new settlements' “Independent International Fact-finding Mission” will cost $290,000 among other things for “travel and accommodation of three commissioners and four support staff and other staff members to Geneva, Cairo and Lebanon.”

The Obama administration will insist Americans pay for that too. As Rice explained to Congress: “withholding U.S. funding only harms U.S. interests.” ( = What about the US contribution of $10 million dollars to help the poor palestinian refugees in March 2012? http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=41641&Cr=palestin&Cr1=… Maria)

What about when U.S. interests have degenerated beyond recognition?

Anne Bayefsky is director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/27/does-obama-have-israels-back-or-just-uns/


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Lun 30 Avr - 23:59 (2012)    Sujet du message: BRUCKNER DANS LIGÉ : L'INVENTION DE L'«ISLAMOPHOBIE» Répondre en citant



BRUCKNER DANS LIGÉ : L'INVENTION DE L'«ISLAMOPHOBIE»

1. Créé afin de lutter conte les féministes américaines, le terme d’«islamophobie» - fausse raison pour mettre en place l'agenda futur
2. Faire de l’islam un objet intouchable sous peine d’être accusé de racisme = idéologie religieuse qui leur donnera l'immunité pour tuer tous les infidèles.




Exemple :
Mohammed Achamlane, leader de Forsane Alizza : "nous ne cherchons pas le combat armé"
VIDÉO :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jU_RAEPaRA

On nous dit, sous le vidéo que ce leader du groupuscule fondamentaliste Forsane Alizza, Mohammed Achmalane a été arrêté ce vendredi à Nantes. Son mouvement pro-jihadiste avait été été dissout le mois dernier.



Nicolas Sarkozy tente de nous faire croire par ses nombreuses arrestations qu'il va aider à combattre cet islamite radical alors qu'il y a des milliers d'autres groupes islamistes qui sont prêts à fondre sur le peuple. Que fait-il de ceux-là? Sachant depuis combien d'années ces groupes se préparent, il aurait pu intervenir, il y a déjà bien longtemps. Il y a plusieurs quartiers, en France, où le non-musulman est bien mieux de ne pas se rendre, tant la haine est manifeste contre les non-musulmans.

Maintenant, cette soudaine "action" du président de la France dont les élections sont pour bientôt, n'a pour but que d'enflammer et de soulever les passions des fondamentalistes radicaux qui sont prêts à défendre leur "foi" et à leurrer, une fois de plus le peuple français.

Cet agenda est global et les pays, les uns après les autres sont à mettre en place ces changements radicaux, utilisants différentes stratégies pour y parvenir.


Par Melba le 26 novembre 2010



Nous assistons à la fabrication planétaire d’un nouveau délit d’opinion, analogue à ce qui se faisait jadis dans l’Union soviétique contre les ennemis du peuple.

Forgé par les intégristes iraniens à la fin des années 70 pour contrer les féministes américaines, le terme d’«islamophobie», calqué sur celui de xénophobie, a pour but de faire de l’islam un objet intouchable sous peine d’être accusé de racisme. Cette création, digne des propagandes totalitaires, entretient une confusion délibérée entre une religion, système de piété spécifique, et les fidèles de toutes origines qui y adhèrent. Or une confession n’est pas une race, pas plus que ne l’est une idéologie séculière : l’islam, comme le christianisme, est révéré par des Arabes, des Africains, des Asiatiques, des Européens, de même que des hommes de tous pays sont ou ont été marxistes, libéraux, anarchistes. Jusqu’à preuve du contraire, on a le droit, dans un régime démocratique, de juger les religions mensongères et rétrogrades et de ne pas les aimer. Se méfier de l’islam comme on a pu en d’autres temps se méfier du catholicisme, juger inquiétant son prosélytisme agressif, sa prétention à la vérité unique, son penchant sacrificiel, c’est manifester un sentiment qu’on estimera légitime ou absurde, ce n’est pas faire preuve de racisme. Faut-il parler de «libéralophobie» ou de «socialistophobie» parce qu’on est contre le règne du marché ou la redistribution des richesses ? Ou faut-il rétablir le délit de blasphème, aboli en 1791 par la Révolution, comme le réclame chaque année l’Organisation de la conférence islamique ainsi qu’en France, en 2006, un député UMP, Jean-Marc Roubaud, soucieux de punir tout ce qui bafoue ou calomnie «les sentiments religieux d’une communauté ou d’un Etat quel qu’il soit». Le pari des sociétés ouvertes, c’est de concilier la coexistence pacifique des grandes croyances avec le droit à la libre expression. La liberté de culte est garantie et la liberté de critiquer les cultes également. Les Français, échaudés par des siècles de domination cléricale, souhaitent un affichage discret des croyances. Réclamer des droits séparés pour telle ou telle communauté, imposer de strictes limites à l’examen des dogmes nous ramènerait directement à l’Ancien Régime.

Le terme d’islamophobie remplit plusieurs fonctions : nier pour mieux la légitimer la réalité d’une offensive intégriste en Europe, attaquer la laïcité en l’assimilant à un nouveau fondamentalisme. Mais surtout faire taire les musulmans qui osent remettre le Coran en cause, en appellent à l’égalité entre les sexes, au droit à l’apostasie et aspirent à pratiquer paisiblement leur foi sans subir le diktat de doctrinaires ou de barbus. Il faut donc stigmatiser ces jeunes filles qui refusent le voile, souhaitent marcher sans honte, tête nue, dans la rue, foudroyer ces Français, ces Allemands, ces Anglais d’origine maghrébine, turque, africaine, algérienne qui réclament le droit à l’indifférence religieuse, le droit de ne pas croire en Dieu, de ne pas jeûner pendant le ramadan. Il faut les désigner, ces renégats, à la vindicte de leurs coreligionnaires, les faire taire pour bloquer tout espoir d’une mutation chez les fidèles du Prophète (en France et de façon révélatrice, c’est un «Collectif contre l’islamophobie» qui soutient juridiquement les femmes verbalisées pour port du voile intégral). Nous assistons à la fabrication planétaire d’un nouveau délit d’opinion, analogue à ce qui se faisait jadis dans l’Union soviétique contre les ennemis du peuple. Et ce avec l’onction des médias et des pouvoirs publics. Notre président lui-même, jamais en retard d’une bourde, n’a-t-il pas comparé l’islamophobie à l’antisémitisme ? L’erreur est tragique : le racisme s’attaque aux personnes en tant qu’elles sont coupables d’être ce qu’elles sont, le Noir, l’Arabe, le Juif, le Blanc. L’esprit critique, à l’inverse, porte sur les vérités révélées, les écritures toujours susceptibles d’exégèses, de transformations. Cette confusion a pour objet de déplacer la question religieuse du plan intellectuel au plan pénal, toute objection ou moquerie étant passible de poursuites.

Quant aux profanations de tombes, de lieux de culte, si elles relèvent évidemment des tribunaux, elles touchent dans leur immense majorité en France les cimetières ou églises chrétiennes (1). On s’en veut de le rappeler : de tous les monothéismes, c’est le christianisme qui est aujourd’hui le plus persécuté dans le monde, surtout dans les pays musulmans, Algérie, Irak, Egypte entre autres. Il est plus facile d’être musulman à Londres, New York ou Paris que protestant, catholique au Moyen-Orient ou en Afrique du Nord. Mais le vocable de «christianophobie» ne prend pas et c’est heureux. Imagine-t-on la Saint-Barthélemy condamnée par nos ancêtres sous l’angle de la discrimination plutôt que du fanatisme religieux ?

Il est des mots qui contribuent à infecter la langue, à en obscurcir le sens. «Islamophobie» fait partie de ces termes à bannir d’urgence du vocabulaire.

Source : Libération


http://www.bivouac-id.com/billets/bruckner-dans-libe-l%e2%80%99invention-de-l%e2%80%99%c2%abislamophobie%c2%bb/


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Mar 1 Mai - 00:09 (2012)    Sujet du message: DURBAN ET LES DROITS DE L'HOMME (PARTIE 2) P.1 Répondre en citant

Posté le 03/04/2012 01:36:50 (03/04/2012 10:36:50)





2 November 2011
General Assembly
GA/SHC/4025


Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-sixth General Assembly

Third Committee

39th & 40th Meetings (AM & PM)

FIVE YEARS AFTER CREATION, HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HAS COMPLETED APPRAISAL OF HUMAN

Rights Situation in Every Country in the World, Third Committee Told

President Says Council Has Also Demonstrated ‘Ability to Respond to Crises’;

Committee Also Hears 22 More Speakers, Concludes Discussion on Refugee Report

Five years after its creation, the Human Rights Council had successfully completed a review of its working methods and, through its Universal Periodic Review mechanism, assessed the human rights situation of the entire United Nations membership, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) was told today.

“For the first time in United Nations history, the Council has appraised the human rights situation in every country of the world,” Council President Laura Dupuy Lasserre ( Uruguay) said as she introduced the Council’s annual report to the Committee.

Now that the Review’s first cycle — which lasted four years and featured the participation of all 193 Member States, including South Sudan — had been concluded, its second cycle would, beginning in June 2012, be key to ensuring the mechanism’s ultimate success, she said. To that end, she said several changes were being introduced to the Review’s working methods, noting in particular that it would shift to a four‑and‑a‑half year cycle that reviewed 14, rather than 16, countries for three‑and‑a‑half hours each during every session.

Those changes resulted from a year‑long assessment process called for in General Assembly resolution 60/251, which originally established the Council as a replacement to the Commission on Human Rights. She noted that, among other adjustments, the Assembly changed the Council’s annual cycle, aligning it with the Assembly’s schedule. Modifications were also made to the selection process for the special procedures mandate holders.

Apart from the review outcome itself, she said momentum had been created towards a “review by doing” process, based on consensus when possible and using the toolkit already established by the Council’s institutional building package. A task force composed of Bureau members, the United Nations Office at Geneva, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) had also been established to follow up on the review.

At the same time, the Council had adopted, at its last session, a record number of 35 resolutions, decisions and President’s statements, bringing the total number of proposals adopted over the last three regular sessions in 2011 to 108, compared to 80 adopted over the same period the year before. Five new special procedures had also been established, bringing the total number of mandates to 44. At the same time, the Council continued to address specific and emerging thematic issues.

“During the past year, the Council has demonstrated its ability to be seized with and respond to human rights crises,” she said, highlighting its special sessions on Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and Syria. In response to the situations in those countries, the Council had established commissions of inquiry and fact‑finding missions to make recommendations in the face of serious human rights violations.

However, the financial implications surrounding urgent procedures – as well as the severe underfunding of the Universal Periodic Review — continued to pose challenges, and she urged States to work with their counterparts in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) to address the serious challenges confronting the Council, particularly regarding the establishment of fact‑finding missions and commissions of inquiry.

During the ensuing debate, State delegations welcomed the new practice of holding an interactive dialogue between the Committee and the Council’s president and underlined the flexibility and compromise shown during the Assembly negotiations on the Council’s review. At the same time, others called for further assessment of the special procedures mechanism, suggesting that the number of mandate holders on thematic issues was far too many, and the Council should prioritize them.

Suriname’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community, voiced concerns that special rapporteurs and experts were exceeding their mandates. “While the independence of the mandate holders is acknowledged, we are of the view that mandate holders should carry out their activities in full respect of the Code of Conduct,” he said, stressing that those who defied their mandate did not necessarily contribute to an environment for constructive dialogue.

Several delegates said the Universal Periodic Review had, during its first cycle, set an example of how States could cooperate and engage constructively with one another, avoiding the politicization of issues, as well as the unproductive naming and shaming of others. Malaysia’s delegate, however, cautioned that some countries still seemed keen to use the Council as a platform to impose their values on other parties, instead of working together to build an institution based on the principles of dialogue, cooperation, consultation and mutual respect.

Also today, the Committee concluded its consideration of the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions. Participating in that debate were the representatives of Belarus, Kenya, Pakistan, Morocco, Montenegro, Serbia, Croatia, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Malta, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Iran, Sudan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Bangladesh.

Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the International Organization for Migration also commented.

Also participating in today’s debate on the report of the Human Rights Council were the representatives of United Republic of Tanzania (on behalf of the African Group), Nigeria, Philippines, Belarus, Indonesia, Morocco, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine and Moldova.

The representatives of Latvia, Armenia, Russian Federation and Azerbaijan exercised their right of reply.

The Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. Thursday, 3 November, to hear the introduction on several draft resolutions and to take action on draft texts on policies and programmes involving youth and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to consider the report of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Before the Committee was the report of the Human Rights Council (document A/66/53 Supplement No. 53). It contains resolutions and decisions adopted by the Human Rights Council at its sixteenth and seventeenth sessions and at its fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth special sessions, and the President’s statement adopted by the Council at its sixteenth session.

The Committee also had before it the report of the Secretary‑General on the observance of the International Day for the Right to the Truth concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims (document A/66/335). The report provides a brief overview of the right to the truth, as well as an account of the extent and nature of the observance of 24 March as the International Day for the Right to the Truth concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of the Victims. The report concludes that there is a need for greater awareness about the International Day.

Introductory Statement

Human Rights Council President LAURA DUPUY LASSERRE ( Uruguay) recalled that 2011 marked the fifth year since the Council’s establishment and the outcome of the Council’s review process was adopted by the General Assembly last June. Further, the Assembly decided to change the Council’s annual cycle, aligning it with the Assembly’s schedule, meaning that she would hold the presidency until the end of 2012.

As part of the review follow‑up, she said she had established a task force composed of Bureau members, the United Nations Office at Geneva, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The task force was expected to submit recommendations to the Council at its next session in March. At the same time, the Council was implementing the review outcome in relation to the Universal Periodic Review and the selection of the special procedures mandate holders. The Council would also hold its first yearly high‑level panel on human rights mainstreaming within the United Nations system next March. The panel would provide an opportunity to assess progress, achievements and challenges.

Apart from the review outcome itself, the review process had generated awareness of the importance of cross‑regional work and the use of different tools to engage countries in cooperative work and in positively impacting the situation on the ground, she said. Momentum had been created towards a “review by doing” process, based on consensus when possible and using the toolkit already established by the Council’s institutional building package.

“During the past year, the Council has demonstrated its ability to be seized with and respond to human rights crises,” she continued, highlighting special sessions on Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and Syria, which had been addressed in two meetings. In response to the situations in those countries, the Council had established commissions of inquiry and fact‑finding missions to make recommendations in the face of serious human rights violations. The Council had also increased its interaction with the High Commissioner for Human Rights through interactive dialogues on the basis of her reports and on specific country situations in Côte d’Ivoire, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Belarus.

She said the Council’s response to the aspirations of people around the world had generated measures to address specific and emerging thematic issues, including through the establishment of a new special procedures mandate on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. In March, the Council would hold a record number of nine panels and thematic discussions on a range of issues, including: the protection of freedom of expression on the internet; discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity; and administration of justice and technical cooperation. While those panels overloaded the Council’s programme of work, they provided opportunities to debate important human rights challenges.

Zeroing in on the report, she said it contained the resolutions and decisions adopted by the Council at its sixteenth and seventeenth regular sessions and at its fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth special session. Panel discussions had been held on, among other things, the rights of victims of terrorism, the human rights aspects of terrorist hostage‑taking, children working or living on the street, the right to adequate health of older persons, the human rights of people of African descent and the realization of the right to development. At its last session, the Council adopted a record number of 35 resolutions, decisions and President’s statements, bringing the total number of proposals adopted over the last three regular sessions in 2011 to 108 compared to 80 adopted over the same period the year before. A number of cross‑regional initiatives had also been held.

She further noted that five new special procedures had been established, bringing the total number of mandates to 44, including the working group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, the Special Rapporteur on Iran and the Independent Expert on Côte d’Ivoire. Its standard‑setting role had also been furthered by drawing on the work of its subsidiary bodies. In addition, the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training and the third Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child had been submitted to the Assembly for adoption.

Outlining the annual report’s list of resolutions, she highlighted one on the situation of human rights in Côte d’Ivoire transmitting the reports of the High Commissioner and the Commission of Inquiry, along with another recommending that the Assembly transmit the Commission’s findings to all relevant bodies. The Council adopted a new resolution on the situation of human rights in Syria, deciding to dispatch a Commission of Inquiry to the country, requesting that it submit a report to the Council before the end of November, as well as its March session, and to transmit the report and update to the Assembly.

She said Council resolution 16/32 on the follow‑up to the report of the Fact‑Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict recommended, among other actions, that the Assembly promote an urgent discussion on the future legality of the use of certain munitions, reconsider the report at its current session and urge the Assembly to submit that report to the Security Council. A resolution had also been adopted recommending the Assembly proclaim 19 August as the International Day of Remembrance and Tribute to the Victims of Terrorism. Another recommended that the Assembly lift the suspension of the rights of memberships of Libya to the Council. The Assembly was, by another text, encouraged to consider further measures to promote geographical balance in the OHCHR staff.

She reported that the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review concluded the last session of its first cycle on 17 October, noting that all 193 Member States had been considered by the Working Group, including South Sudan. “For the first time in United Nations history, the Council has appraised the human rights situation in every country of the world,” she stressed, adding that the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review would be key to that mechanism’s success.

In that context, she noted that by moving from a four‑year cycle to a four‑and‑a‑half year cycle, the Working Group would review 14 countries in each session instead of 16, while the time available for each review would be extended to three‑and‑a‑half hours. Those adjustments would require some additional financial and human resources, she said. Noting that the Review had been severely underfunded by the Assembly in the past, she called on States to provide previously requested resources or, at least for the time being, the minimum number of permanent posts required to cope with the timely translation of documents. She urged States to work with their counterparts in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) to address the serious challenge confronting the Council, particularly regarding the establishment of fact‑finding missions and commissions of inquiry.

Question and Answer Session

The representative of the United States said the Council had made impressive accomplishments over the past year, but still paid disproportionate attention to Israel, undermining its credibility. She then asked what were the steps the Council could take to address human rights issues arising during the Arab Spring, and what could be done to ensure human rights during that transition period.

The observer of Palestine said she would like to address violations in Gaza, which was still reeling from affects of war three years ago and the five year blockade that violated international law. The recommendations of the fact‑finding mission on Gaza were clear and still had not been addressed. How could the situation be addressed and how could those accountable be brought to justice, given the difficulties bringing those issues to the Security Council? What practical steps should the United Nations take to ensure the recommendations of the fact‑finding mission on Gaza were implemented?

The European Union’s representative asked how the Council could follow up on its special session and how could it better follow up on universal periodic review recommendation.

Australia’s representative urged all nations to build on the dialogue of the universal periodic review, bringing civil society into discussion on all reforms. She asked what were the ways consideration of human rights could be further integrated into the United Nations system, including here in New York.

Japan’s representative said he would like to hear what results the Council had achieved so far and what its priorities would be. Also, how would she evaluate the review of the Council.

Switzerland’s representative asked how could developments under her presidency be consolidated, and what spheres of action should the Council fully bolster to pursue its activities. He called for lasting solutions to the question of funding.

Liechtenstein’s representative said it would be beneficial for Members of the Committee to share their views for the funding of Council mandates. His delegation would also be interested to know how she would continue close cooperation and sharing of information between Geneva and New York, and what would be her priorities in the coming year.

Mexico’s representative said, in the most recent sessions there had been a polarization in the stances of delegates, rather than engagement in genuine dialogue. He asked how constructive dialogue could be encouraged, so differences did not necessarily lead to confrontation. Also, what measures could be taken to tackle the growing burden of the Council’s work.

China’s representative said human rights issues should be resolved through dialogue and cooperation, and it was opposed to naming or shaming others. The Council should pay more attention to economic, social and cultural rights to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals, she said.

The Russian Federation’s representative said his country would not like to undermine the mandate of the Council — it must and had the right to respond to emergencies and challenges in the areas of human rights. However it was important to avoid any kind of misuse of the activities of the Council. It should be a forum for equitable and mutually respectful dialogue between Member States. Greater attention needed to be focused on finding mutually acceptable resolutions, avoiding politicization in its work. He asked what was the objective and content of the draft resolution on the second cycle of the universal periodic review, which would be considered by the General Assembly.

Morocco’s representative asked what was the role of national human rights institutions within the Council and how could panels contribute to the integration of human rights within the Organization.

Syria’s representative asked whether resolutions this year targeting particular countries meant the human rights situation was perfect in the rest of the world, or was that trend establishing a double standard and contradicting the way to deal with human rights. She further asked what were the mechanisms put forward by the Council to deal with human rights problems in developed countries, such as racism, discrimination, and violations to the right to development through unilateral economic sanctions.

Argentina’s representative asked what role the presidency of the Council could play to raise the profile of the body, and did her office have the necessary resources to further disseminate the work of the Council.

Chile’s representative said the president could rely on his delegation’s good will. The independence of special procedures was of crucial importance, and he hoped they would be duly maintained.

Cuba’s representative said it had submitted numerous resolutions on economic, social and cultural rights and it was important to create a position for an independent expert on a democratic, equitable world order. Cuba was concerned about double standards, but had a desire to cooperate with the Council and welcomed the opportunity to debate in the Committee today.

Costa Rica’s representative noted the importance of the Declaration on human rights training and the Optional Protocol on the rights of the child, and urged the Committee to adopt those resolutions by consensus.

Israel’s representative asked what the Council could do to stop the deadly attacks of rockets and mortars from Gaza on Israeli civilians.

Responding, Ms. LASSERRE said it was important to look at events of the Arab Spring and the transitional processes facing affected countries as an opportunity to consider the human rights situations in each country. In particular, those events provided the chance to strengthen democratic institutions and to bolster the rule of law. The Council stood ready to assist in those efforts with its special procedures, including through the recently established mandates on freedom of association and on the promotion of truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non‑recurrence. In that context, she emphasized that the special procedures could produce thematic, as well as country‑specific, recommendations.

Addressing questions on the Council’s recommendations on the Gaza conflict, she said it fell not only to the Council, but to the delegations most directly involved, to take action. In that regard, Palestine had done so in relation to the relevant agenda item. In addition, the Council had submitted recommendations to the Assembly, which would continue to consider them. She also noted other initiatives within the United Nations to deal with human rights violations, including the work of OHCHR.

She pointed out that the Council had laid down follow‑up mechanisms in relation to action taken during its special sessions. Some reports of the recent fact‑finding missions — notably those regarding Libya and Syria — were still being prepared. Yet, those reports should be seen as valid instruments to support the countries in question.

Hopefully, the impact of the first cycle of the Review would be reflected in the work of the second cycle, she said. However, the scope of the Review would not, in its second cycle, be confined merely to evaluating previous recommendations. Some might say that only some countries appeared to have human rights challenges; that was not the case. Moreover, the Review allowed a national process to be pursued. At the same time, national level consultations could unfold and civil society could present information to the High Commissioner, as well as to other State delegations. The validity and value of the exercise had been demonstrated during the first cycle and it was now time to look at the implementation phase. That would necessarily entail the participation of civil society along with national mechanisms. State delegations would be involved and informed of developments, she added.

Addressing resource questions, she noted that countries could request technical and financial support, not only from the High Commissioner’s office, but from United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Year by year the Council would set up panels, because it wanted the entire United Nations system to contribute. Pointing out that the special procedures mandate holders did not receive a salary, she noted that the Council did pay the costs of country visits. She particularly stressed that funding was needed in Haiti, further suggesting that States could choose to contribute to efforts in that country, thereby fostering the transition from platitudes to concrete action.

She said that, while there was always room for improvement, the Council had been acting expeditiously and cooperatively. When situations arose, it was hoped that action could be taken as soon as possible. In that context, items on technical cooperation and on emergency situations offered two channels for action. However, the most important element in those cases had been the commitment and involvement of the State concerned. If that commitment existed, whether it was manifested by a focused approach or a gradual one, it was important to involve national institutions, and not just point fingers.

Underlining the Council’s focus on cooperation, she said that when a State had the desire to resolve a situation, but not the means, it was important for other States to cooperate. At the same time, if countries needed help, they should come forward and ask for it. Another critical element in furthering cooperation was not countering the Council’s work. Sometimes there were efforts to intimidate those who cooperated with the Council’s work and such reprisals were not helpful to anyone — neither to the Council nor to society — and affected people who had merely exercised the human right to freedom of expression.

Continuing, she said the Secretary‑General would soon make recommendations on how to provide resources to support urgent procedures. Currently, the Council’s budget was reviewed once a year and the timing made it difficult to take funding from other previously planned activities, duly considering that emergency situations arose unexpectedly. No Council mandate or mission could be funded by extra‑budgetary funding, because this would mean it was no longer independent. That would be counter to the intentions of the High Commissioner. In addition, it had not yet been possible to establish a funding mechanism for those mandates that was fully efficient. Still, when the Council adopted a resolution, it did not wait until the end of the year to implement it. The urgent nature of a human rights emergency meant that any gap was not permissible.

She stressed that human rights was the third pillar of the United Nations. That could be seen, she suggested, in the suffering and hunger in the Horn of Africa. The root of that problem was the security situation in Somalia and work could be undertaken by different parts of the United Nations system to address the situation.

Regarding the Council’s work and agenda, she said it was critical for delegations to have the initiative, not the Council presidency. All States, not just Council members, could take the initiative. She added that there were sometimes very sensitive considerations and it was desirable to pursue a coordinated approach.

The outcomes of the review process had to be respected, she said, underlining that the review process itself was very valuable and resulted in a number of suggestions being put forward. An assessment of the level of consensus that could be achieved had subsequently been made. That was the dynamic in intergovernmental bodies, particularly those that did not want to wait for years and years to make progress. However, it was clear that to make the council’s efforts effective, practical results were needed.

She said that, among other things, there was now a more focused approach to the selection process for special procedures. She hoped that the special procedures would continue to work independently and in keeping with the Council’s yearly resolutions. There was a Code of Conduct for the mandate holders. They must respect human rights, as well as the principles of the United Nations Charter, and promote dialogue with States. When they wished to engage in certain issues, they must engage in broad‑based consultation to achieve consensus.

She said the main change in the second cycle was increasing from three to three‑and‑a‑half hours per country. In addition, one day was being added to the sessions, allowing more time for State dialogue.

As for the Council’s mechanisms, she noted that, in addition to the Universal Periodic Review, the Council could adopt resolutions. The Council would be delighted if situations in all countries were ideal and no one would have to be called on to speak before it. Ideally, all countries could deal with their own situation, but the world was not perfect and the Council had to use the mechanisms created for it. At this point, not all had been employed, but some countries had come forward to ask for a resolution or dialogue on their country. In that context, she noted requests from Somalia, Tunisia and Yemen.

Her appearance before the Committee was one way to raise the council’s profile, she said. Also, video messages were increasingly being sent. Video conferences had also been held with various regional bodies. Those helped bring the Council out into the world.

She stressed that the Council considered all human rights and she did not see a divide between developed and developing countries. Moreover, there was an obligation to maintain open consultations prior to the adoption of draft resolutions, which provided the possibility to interact.

Turning to the question on whether the Council was considering the attacks on Israel from Gaza, she said references had been made to violence from either side. Whenever country situations — such as in Libya and Côte d’Ivoire — were considered, the actions by all sides were looked at.

Asking a follow‑up question, Syria’s representative thanked the Council president for answering her delegation’s second question. She would have liked it if the president answered the question on human rights violations in developed countries, however. She said that all the lies and allegations in Israel’s comments neglected the following facts: the Council had held a number of sessions to address the violation of human rights in the occupied territories. Further, the Committee had adopted scores of resolutions that condemned Israel’s violations. Indeed, Israel’s crimes had exhausted the United Nations, as well as its budgets. However, the Israeli occupation was still a fact, as were its saddest violations. Those violations did not allow Israel to judge human rights violations anywhere else in the world.

Responding, Ms. LASSERRE noted that she had partially replied to many questions and repeated that human rights violations in developed countries were also viewed in the Council, from the thematic angle during each session. Statements frequently referred to the situation of migrants in Europe, for one example. Special procedures reports were not confined to developing countries and talked about developed countries, often very severely. No one was saying some were good and some were bad. She also noted that many developing countries got a “better grade” in providing water and sanitation.

“The Council is everybody’s Council,” she stressed. There was no Council rule that if a country failed to comply in regard to one particular human right, it could not speak on other rights. Indeed, every country could speak in the Universal Periodic Review process. It was very damaging when countries that received comments from a developed country immediately assumed they were politicized. The Review should be seen as an effective mechanism and countries must take comments in a constructive way.

Statements

OMBENI SEFUE (United Republic of Tanzania), speaking on behalf of the African Group, expressed support to the Council president and her team and reaffirmed its commitment to the Council’s work. He underscored and emphasized that continued engagement on that subject with all stakeholders was key to arriving at an understanding on the issues of divergence among Member States, and advancing those that Members agree on. Noting the efforts of Council President to lead that body towards a successful outcome in the review process, he expressed particular appreciation for the open format of the second session of the Working Group, which allowed for effective participation of both members and observers, as well as other stakeholders.

He further welcomed the consensual approach and outcome that resulted from the Assembly negotiations on the Council’s review, as well as the coordinated approach between Geneva and New York during the review process. That process should be strengthened. Moreover, everyone would benefit from the new practice of holding an interactive dialogue between the Committee and the Council’s president. The African Group was also pleased that the President could now present the Council’s report to the plenary meetings of the Assembly and the Committee. Yet, adequate resources were needed to meet extraordinary expenses arising from the Council’s resolutions and decisions, and the President should make suggestions regarding financing.

HENRY MAC‑DONALD ( Suriname), on behalf of Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said several noteworthy initiatives had been realized during the reporting period of the Human Rights Council. Also notable was the extended mandate of the independent expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti. However, having special rapporteurs or experts exceed their mandates was a matter of grave concern to CARICOM. “While the independence of the mandate holders is acknowledged, we are of the view that mandate holders should carry out their activities in full respect of the Code of Conduct. Special mandate holders in defiance of their mandate do not necessarily contribute to an environment for a constructive dialogue with States to promote and protect human rights. CARICOM expects the special mandate holders to engage in constructive dialogue with members states in the discharge of their mandate,” he said.

CARICOM was also pleased to note the adoption, without a vote, of the outcome of the mandated Review of the Council. It would continue to support the work of the Council to ensure it continued to execute its mandate, duly taking into account the principles of universality, objectivity and non‑selectivity in the consideration of human rights issues, as well as the elimination of double standards, as enshrined in the resolution establishing the body. It was also good to note that all Member States had participated in the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, and CARICOM looked forward to its second cycle.

KAYODE LARO (Nigeria), aligning with the statement of the African Group, said his country was pleased to note the Council’s substantial effort to achieve its mandate; the wide range of issues contained in the report and its sheer volume were a refection of the complexity and multiplicity of issues before the Council. The Council was a unique tool for the protection and promotion of all human rights, but a focus on economic, social and cultural rights might be its own contribution towards assisting States in attaining the Millennium Development Goals.

His delegation would like to commend the Council for completing the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, and the conclusion of the review process for the work and functioning of the Council. “It is quite remarkable that since the first session of the UPR Working Group in February 2008, this mechanism has attracted 100 per cent participation by States,” he said. Nigeria looked forward to the second cycle of the review and expected it to reinforce the importance of the mechanism as a means of promoting and protecting human rights across the world. People across the world expected the United Nations to protect their human rights and fundamental freedoms, and it was important for States to cooperate to advance the work of the Council.

ANA MARIE HERNANDO ( Philippines), speaking on behalf of the Platform on Human Rights Education and Training, welcomed the adoption by the Human Rights Council last March of resolution 16/1 entitled United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training, as it constituted an important step in many respects. Various aspects of human rights education and training had been developed and adopted throughout the years, such as through the Vienna and Durban declarations, which reiterated the importance of human rights education and training. Such training would promote respect for human rights with regard to all individuals without distinction of any kind, such as race, sex, language or religion. The declarations also promoted the role that human rights education and training could play in changing attitudes and behaviour, in order to create tolerant societies.

However, she said that no single document was available that contained all the necessary principles and elements for stakeholders engaged in such work, or those looking to receive training. Nor did they take stock of the more practical lessons learned. That gap was meant to be filled by the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training. Although non‑binding in a legal sense, the Declaration compiled and structured essential principles in that regard. The new Declaration provided a clear and precise definition, and paved the way for follow‑up initiatives at the national, regional and international level, including through international cooperation. He reiterated the hope that the procedural resolution to be introduced by the Platform under agenda item 64 recommending adoption of the Declaration of the Assembly would receive broad support, not only through its adoption by consensus, but also with an increasing number of co‑sponsors.

IRINA VELICHKO ( Belarus) welcomed the results of the review of the Council, even though not all worthy country proposals, including Belarus’, were taken into account. Belarus was against attempts to introduce new criteria for the Council, which had been attempts to control it. The fact that over the past few years all countries had undergone review spoke for itself. But, a paradoxical situation had arisen in which recommendations were ignored, and instead there were politically motivated reports on countries. There had been unjustified recent attempts by certain countries to give human rights in Belarus an unfavourable review.

The European Union tried to push through an anti‑ Belarus resolution at the 17th session of the Council, but the agenda to push that unsubstantiated assessment had not been supported. Belarus intended to continue living up to its obligations for human rights and cooperating with United Nations bodies. Given the lack of financial resources to implement resolutions and decisions of the Council, rational use of resources of the body should be the guide. Resources should be used to protect the most vulnerable sections of society — and the Council must once and for all end double standards and avoid manipulation of human rights issues by special interest groups.

FARISHA SALMAN ( Malaysia) commended the Council on the success of its review process. Countries had shown great flexibility and compromise in achieving a fruitful outcome. However, despite the understanding reached during the review process, some countries seemed keen to use the Council as a platform to impose their values on other parties, instead of working together to build an institution based on the principles of dialogue, cooperation, consultation and mutual respect. The current trend of politicization of human rights by some had not served the cause of human rights. Some countries continued to emphasize political and civil rights to the virtual exclusion of economic, social and cultural rights. Her Government, however, considered that the former could not be separated from the latter.

Malaysia was heartened to know that the majority of countries were cooperating in the Universal Periodic Review process and it looked forward to the Review’s second cycle, she said. The gap between the last session and the next would give States ample time to take stock of the recommendations received and focus on implementation and development in their countries. The Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance should be strengthened and operationalized to ensure the full participation of all countries in the Review and the implementation of resulting recommendations. Her delegation believed that the Council should be adequately resourced and that further assessment of the special procedures mechanism was needed. The number of mandate holders on thematic issues was far too many, and the Council must prioritize issues. Some could be considered biennially, or more. States should focus on reinforcing the Council’s strengths and not reconstruct, reframe or unravel existing arrangements.

Mr. SIAHAAN (Indonesia), thanking the Member States for supporting the election of his country to the Human Rights Council, stated that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism had made the Council “a unique and more prominent body”. The dialogue concerning each country’s Review had set an example of how States could cooperate and engage constructively with one another, avoiding the politicization of issues, as well as the unproductive naming and shaming of others. Indonesia, as one of the first 14 countries to be reviewed in the second cycle next year, was preparing its national Universal Periodic Review report, highlighting the progress and challenges of the last four years, based on the Universal Periodic Review recommendations and the national human rights agenda.

Special procedure mandate holders, he stated, should maintain their professionalism in fulfilling their mandates, by complying with the code of conduct and by building mutual trust with the States. It was time for the Council to comprehensively study the current overall picture of special procedure mandate holders, including their mandates and fundings, in order to avoid potential duplication of work. He added that Indonesia was also concerned about the continuing violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

SOUMIA BOUHAMIDI ( Morocco) said the Council played an important role in contributing to a new culture of active, universal awareness to protect human rights, favouring cooperation over antagonism. Morocco was resolutely committed to continuing constructive dialogue with rights bodies and spared no efforts in strengthening the Council’s effectiveness. Its commitment was apparent during the Council’s review, in which it played a small role. The review was an ongoing process, and Morocco was convinced the Council would continue to improve its functioning over the years.

The Council had already shown great capacity to help protect human rights and respond to emergency situations when they required attention, she said. Today was an opportunity to send a strong signal of support to the Council, and Morocco attached particular importance to the Universal Periodic Review as an innovative and democratic mechanism to improve human rights situations on the ground. Morocco was one of the first countries to submit to the Review and would be one of the first to submit to the second round of the Review, when it began next year.

MONIA ALSALEH ( Syria) underscored her country’s willingness to work with the Council president in an equitable and fair manner. Double standards and politicization must be avoided. Her Government had carefully examined the Council’s report, since it dealt with important issues such as human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories and the occupied Syrian Golan. It also dealt with the Gaza conflict and the aid flotilla. Despite the fact that the Council had asked Israeli authorities to implement its recommendations and not to place obstacles before the inquiry, Israel continued to do so. Meanwhile, as war criminals and perpetrators of crimes against humanity continued to flagrantly commit crimes, the entire world was wondering why there was an exception for those people and why they were not brought to justice.

She underscored that there had been an absence of any effort to address human rights violations in developed countries, including racism, inhumane treatment of migrants and refugees, and attempts to prevent developing countries from developing through sanctions. It was unfortunate that the Council ignored the actions of developed countries, since that undermined the Council’s credibility. She stressed that Council resolutions S-16/1 and S-17/1 concerning Syria were based on false information. Moreover, their title and tone were hateful and unprecedented. What was happening in Syria was a series of criminal acts committed by armed groups against Syria and the Syrian people. Yet, a campaign was being undertaken to weaken Syria and to change its political position on the challenges facing the region. There were also attempts to interfere in Syria’s internal affairs and to destroy its political and military structures. In keeping with its obligations, the Syrian Government had submitted to the Universal Periodic Review. It had accepted 98 recommendations and was studying 36.

OSAMA ABDELKHALEK MAHMOUD ( Egypt) stated that this year the General Assembly had concluded the first review process of the Human Rights Council and adopted the Geneva outcome document on its works and functioning. The results of the review process reinforced important principles and reaffirmed the council’s subsidiary status to the General Assembly, but they were adopted in a voted resolution which undermined a primary objective of the process, which aimed at supporting the Council as a General Assembly tool to promote respect for all human rights. The international community had the responsibility to ensure that the Council carried out its functions within a transparent and cooperative framework and was obliged to prevent the Council from becoming a political tool.

All Member States had made the commitment, he stated, to ensure the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review on all States, on an equal footing and with the participation of civil society, and to deal positively with the special procedures. In return, the mandate holders must perform their duties in accordance with the Code of Conduct and the tasks mandated to them by the Human Rights Council, to be objective in their reporting, and to establish a dialogue, based on transparency and cooperation, with the governments of the States concerned. Mentioning the historic transition Egypt was currently witnessing, he stated that his country believed that human dignity was the cornerstone for ensuring respect for all human rights and international unity was important when dealing objectively with human rights issues.

YANA BOIKO ( Ukraine) said the Council had proved its ability to adequately respond to gross violations of human rights, speak with one voice and send out resounding messages to the international community. The report of the Council showed the increased number of resolutions adopted by consensus; that was positive, but at the same time there were still some issues hindering the constructive work of the Council. Appropriate attention should be paid to the development of mechanisms, including on a conceptual level, to prevent human rights violations and abuses. In that regard, she was pleased to mention the resolution on “the role of prevention in the promotion and protection of human rights”, initiated by Ukraine and co‑sponsored by more than 40 countries, which was adopted by consensus last September.

Her delegation commended the Council’s closer cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. But, she noted the Office, by virtue of its mandate by the General Assembly should remain independent of the Council and not be commissioned by it. Ukraine also welcomed further enhancement of transparency in the selection and appointment process of special mandate holders as an outcome of the Council’s review. To further implement the results of the Council’s review of activities, she urged countries to closely cooperate with the special procedures, honouring issued standing invitations and committing to voluntary reporting on implementation of received Universal Periodic Review mechanisms. “Our delegation believes that we are entering a new time of higher shared responsibility among the members of the international community, in which our collective action in the field of human rights is founded on the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity, non‑selectivity, constructive international dialogue and cooperation,” she said.

CAROLINA POPOVICI ( Moldova) said the current year had been very important for the future work of the Council. But, important issues remained that required attention, including the lack of needed finances for resolutions, which could jeopardize the effectiveness of the Council, as well as the High Commissioner for Human Rights. For its part, Moldova had extended a standing invitation to the special procedures mandate holders and was looking forward to active cooperation with them. The report of the Council reflected the complexity of its agenda; Moldova underwent the Universal Periodic Review mechanism last month in Geneva, and consistently followed a wide participatory approach during the process.

Moldova’s Government had accepted the recommendations of the final report — a clear indication it believed it was a valuable process aimed at improving human rights. The delegation would like to express appreciation to delegations that participated in its Review. Moldova was enhancing domestic legislation on human rights, minority rights, and the social inclusion of minorities and vulnerable groups, among other areas. She also emphasized that ample progress had been launched in the national human rights action plan. Moldova was closely cooperating with European Union member States, and was a state party to all human rights treaties, which would surely lead to an even broader approach to human rights in the country.

Statements on the report of the High Commissioner for Refugees

ZOYA KOLONTAI ( Belarus) noted the increasing role of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in protecting refugees and migrants in emergency situations. To fulfil its mandate, that Office’s capacities and funding must be increased. Her Government hoped UNHCR would further advance its work in the context of the Global Plan of Action on Combating Human Trafficking. Strategies could be elaborated and implemented to protect refugees from being trafficked.

Noting that cooperation with UNHCR was being implemented at the country level, she said the country agreement had entered into force this year and everything possible had been done to improve the effectiveness of common efforts, she said. The focus should now be on broadening UNHCR’s activities in Belarus, including identifying people who were asylum‑seekers and looking for resources to address local refugees. The training centre in Minsk was being used to develop an international course on statelessness, refugees and migration. Regional courses were also being held. Belarus was pleased with the High Commissioner’s visit to Belarus and the Government looked forward to further efforts in advancing practical efforts on the ground.

MACHARIA KAMAU (Kenya), aligning with the statement of the African Group, said his country for over twenty years had hosted refugees from neighbouring countries in two camps. The Dadaab refugee camp in north‑eastern Kenya, created to host refugees from Somalia, currently hosted over 600,000 refugees, making it the third most populous town in Kenya. “The famine, drought and insecurity in Somalia have influenced this influx by Somalis into Dadaab camp. Almost unbelievably, the camp was originally designed to host 90,000 refugees. This influx of refugee population has not only overwhelmed the services and facilities in the camps, but also destroyed the environment and its scarce resources, and bled Kenya’s capacity as a host state,” he said. The deterioration of security was also a worrying trend both inside and outside the refugee camps, with armed groups taking advantage of the lawless situation in Somalia.

“For some reason, we seem to be unable to get the international community, the United Nations and the international and non‑governmental entities that operate in Kenya, to appreciate its full extent, the magnitude of the sacrifice and the burden that Kenya carries. For them, it would appear to be business as usual. The status quo cannot be allowed to continue,” he said, calling for new options to build a more equitable, efficient and effective international refugee burden sharing regime. Kenya was committed to its international responsibilities to protect refugees, but continued instability in Somalia increased the challenge to deliver on its obligations. He called on the international community to support the work being done with the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and the Somalia Transitional Federal Government to create safe zones within Somalia for refugees, to alleviate camp conditions.

Kenya also urged the international community to support the strategy for a long‑term solution to the crisis found in the outcome document from the humanitarian crisis summit on the Horn of Africa in Nairobi, 8 to 9 September.. Challenges relating to refugees in Kenya could not be effectively tackled in absence of political stability and security in Somalia. “The root causes of the conflict in Somalia must, therefore, be addressed”, he said. Regional peace and security must be promoted as a preventive measure to avoid a new influx of refugees and ensure voluntary repatriation of refugees back to their countries of origin, or relocation to other countries.

HUZEFA KHANUM ( Pakistan) said her country had hosted the largest refugee population in the world since the 1980s. “We have exhibited extraordinary generosity and hospitality as hosts to Afghan refugees for over three decades. We are still host to over 3 million Afghan refugees. This, however, has had a negative impact on the economic, sociocultural and security sectors. It has also affected the job market and brought public infrastructure under stress. Last year’s floods and the impact of global financial and food crises has further added to the challenges,” she said.

Pakistan had introduced several programmes, including the Afghan Management and Repatriation Strategy for 2010‑12; Population Profiling, Verification and Response, to improve response based on gender and age; and the Refugees Affected and Housing Areas Development Initiative to help address challenges of security, socio‑economic and environmental impact due to the presence of large‑scale refugees on host societies. But, those programmes required international commitment and financial support — most importantly, success would depend mostly on creating pull factors in Afghanistan. “The donor community and the UNHCR should aim at accelerating reintegration, reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts in Afghanistan for the Afghan refugees to return to their homeland. Until their repatriation, the international community must share the responsibility for the Afghan refugees through increased funding for programmes to sustain them and to cope with the challenges of hosting them, and by offering third country resettlements,” she said.

SOUMIA BOUHAMIDI ( Morocco) welcomed the efforts of the High Commissioner in budgeting, as well as in seeking out new and diversified partnerships and initiatives aimed at specific categories of refugees. New mass displacements had been seen in the last year, with many reaching unprecedented scope, particularly in Africa. These issues were compounded by other phenomena and justified the High Commissioner’s constant commitment. Indeed, at the end of 2010, the number of persons falling under the UNHCR mandate had reached 33.9 million. Morocco was concerned about the influx of new refugees in the region and believed it was imperative that UNHCR remain vigilant, preserve the humanitarian space and ensure the protection of human rights.

According to the High Commissioner’s report, at the end of 2010, 7.2 million refugees found themselves in long‑term situations, she said. Specific solutions had been tried in many countries, and Morocco welcomed the fact that many refugees were choosing to return to their countries of origin thanks to voluntary repatriation efforts. Yet, many countries in Africa had fallen outside those efforts. In particular, no progress had been made in the Tindouf camps. In that context, she stressed that the gathering of information on individuals and their families was indispensable in finding solutions, particularly in terms of voluntary repatriation. It was the responsibility of host countries to hold a census to assess and quantify the food needs of refugees. Morocco believed UNHCR must act in line with its mandate, its humanitarian and social mission, and the provision of decisions by the Executive Board, such as the integration and return of refugees. She welcomed the progress made earlier this year in resuming family visits and implementing the confidence‑building measures.

MILORAD ŠĆEPANOVIĆ ( Montenegro) said resolving the status of refugees and displaced persons was a key priority for his country’s progress on its European path. A strategy covering the period 2012‑2015 had been adopted in July 2011. The adjacent action plan made special reference to the refugee camp Konik, which was mentioned in the European Commission opinion as the most pressing refugee‑related issue. Drafted in collaboration with the UNHCR and the European Union delegation in Podgorica, the strategy entailed a possible solution: full integration into society and voluntary repatriation to countries of origin. It provided measures to enable access to rights, including social protection and health care. Special attention was placed on Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian populations, who were most in need of preferential treatment. The strategy aimed to provide jobs and housing. The voluntary repatriation of refugees and displaced persons would be assisted by Montenegro’s Government and was expected to contribute to bilateral agreements with Kosovo. A Coordination Committee for monitoring the implementation of the strategy and action plan had been set up. The deadline for application by displaced and internally displaced persons for appropriate civil status had been extended until the end of 2012.

He went on to note that Montenegro was now home to roughly 9,800 displaced persons from Kosovo and another 3,900 from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. A series of regulations safeguarding the fundamental rights of displaced persons and refugees, including the settlement of their legal status and social integration, had been introduced. Displaced persons had also been granted the status of foreign nationals with permanent residency. Montenegro was also engaged in regional programmes for permanently solving the issue of refugees and internally displaced persons in the region. A joint declaration was to be signed at a ministerial conference on 7 November 2011 in Belgrade. A regional multi‑year programme had also been agreed on to address the needs of the most vulnerable refugees. He underlined the need for a regional approach and the support from the international and donor community.

FEODOR STARČEVIĆ ( Serbia), aligning with the statement of the European Union, said his country had been experiencing the problem of displacement for almost two decades now. It understood the need for concerted efforts between countries of origin and receiving countries, but it was also aware that sustainable solutions could not be found without the inclusion of all relevant international actors and the donor community. For its part, Serbia had undertaken a number of initiatives with its neighbours and international organizations to tackle the refugee problem in its region. Among them, the Joint Regional Multi‑Year Programme could serve as a good example for the solution of protracted refugee crises in other parts of the world. “We also believe that success in this joint endeavour will give new impetus to cooperation and reconciliation in the region,” he said.

“The encouraging positive developments in the region, however, are overshadowed by the long‑lasting problem of 250,000 internally displaced persons, mainly Serbs and other non‑Albanians, who were forced to leave the Province of Kosovo and Metohija in 1999 and look for shelter elsewhere in Serbia. This is an issue of great concern to us,” he said. These internally displaced persons from Kosovo were kept from returning to their properties by security concerns, as well as numerous legal and administrative obstacles — it could hardly be said they had ever been given an opportunity to freely opt either for return or local integration. The international community should increase efforts to ensure the safe voluntary return of those internally displaced persons; for that, an important role was played by the UNHCR and, although it was fully aware of current and emerging challenges throughout the world, the decision to reduce the UNHCR budget for operations in Serbia was regrettable.

NEVEN MIKEC ( Croatia) said his country decisively implemented a housing programme for former tenancy rights holders, with a view to assuring a sustainable return of refugees and displaced persons. Reconstruction of property damaged in war, as well as repossession of property, had also continued at a vigorous pace. The process of repossession had almost been completed, with only 11 housing units pending repossession, out of over 19,200. “Having achieved significant progress in the implementation of the housing care programmes for all categories of refugees and displaced persons, Croatia expects that other countries in the region will follow this positive practice and develop similar effective projects at their national level,” he said.

The delegation also welcomed that four countries in its region — Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Croatia — had agreed upon the Regional Programme on Durable Solutions for Refugees and Displaced Persons, the so‑called Sarajevo Process, which focused on adequate housing solutions for the remaining vulnerable refugees and displaced persons in need. As a new member of the UNHCR Executive Committee this year, Croatia was fully aware of its responsibilities and stood ready to vigorously support global efforts at refugee protection. It fully shared the view that full respect for international principles related to the protection of refugees, in particular non‑refoulement guarantees and ensuring durable solutions, was crucial for providing solutions to challenges worldwide.

XOLELA NOFUKUKA ( South Africa) said his delegation was happy to notice savings were made through efficiency and internal reforms, improving protection and emergency response capacities. “ South Africa remains the highest destination country for asylum seekers in the world. According to our information, a large proportion of those applying for asylum are fleeing political persecution, but many come seeking better economic prospects. Within this context and in an effort to manage immigration more efficiently and effectively in the national interest, we have introduced amendments to immigration legislation and the Refugee Act, to better secure the rights of asylum seekers and refugees,” he said.

Those changes included a policy to separate economic migrants from genuine asylum seekers, he said. There was also a need for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to adopt a regional approach to issues of migration. Mixed migration posed an unprecedented challenge to all States and it required an effective and efficient response to protect their needs and sensitivities. Stronger national, bilateral and regional cooperation was needed, as were improved national policies and legal frameworks. Further, accurate refugee and migration data and analysis would be needed to ensure evidence‑based policies.

KIM SOO GWON ( Republic of Korea) said his delegation was pleased that the efficiency gained through the UNHCR’s internal reform process since 2006 had given it a window of opportunity for launching key initiatives to improve protection and emergency response capacities and to ensure greater accountability to the populations under its care. The Korean Government supported and encouraged constant and unflagging pursuit of comprehensive reform initiatives. As the High Commissioner’s report noted, the failure to respect the universal principle of non‑refoulement had become one of the biggest protection challen



Posté le 03/04/2012 01:36:50 (03/04/2012 10:36:50)





2 November 2011
General Assembly
GA/SHC/4025


Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-sixth General Assembly

Third Committee

39th & 40th Meetings (AM & PM)

FIVE YEARS AFTER CREATION, HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HAS COMPLETED APPRAISAL OF HUMAN

Rights Situation in Every Country in the World, Third Committee Told

President Says Council Has Also Demonstrated ‘Ability to Respond to Crises’;

Committee Also Hears 22 More Speakers, Concludes Discussion on Refugee Report

Five years after its creation, the Human Rights Council had successfully completed a review of its working methods and, through its Universal Periodic Review mechanism, assessed the human rights situation of the entire United Nations membership, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) was told today.

“For the first time in United Nations history, the Council has appraised the human rights situation in every country of the world,” Council President Laura Dupuy Lasserre ( Uruguay) said as she introduced the Council’s annual report to the Committee.

Now that the Review’s first cycle — which lasted four years and featured the participation of all 193 Member States, including South Sudan — had been concluded, its second cycle would, beginning in June 2012, be key to ensuring the mechanism’s ultimate success, she said. To that end, she said several changes were being introduced to the Review’s working methods, noting in particular that it would shift to a four‑and‑a‑half year cycle that reviewed 14, rather than 16, countries for three‑and‑a‑half hours each during every session.

Those changes resulted from a year‑long assessment process called for in General Assembly resolution 60/251, which originally established the Council as a replacement to the Commission on Human Rights. She noted that, among other adjustments, the Assembly changed the Council’s annual cycle, aligning it with the Assembly’s schedule. Modifications were also made to the selection process for the special procedures mandate holders.

Apart from the review outcome itself, she said momentum had been created towards a “review by doing” process, based on consensus when possible and using the toolkit already established by the Council’s institutional building package. A task force composed of Bureau members, the United Nations Office at Geneva, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) had also been established to follow up on the review.

At the same time, the Council had adopted, at its last session, a record number of 35 resolutions, decisions and President’s statements, bringing the total number of proposals adopted over the last three regular sessions in 2011 to 108, compared to 80 adopted over the same period the year before. Five new special procedures had also been established, bringing the total number of mandates to 44. At the same time, the Council continued to address specific and emerging thematic issues.

“During the past year, the Council has demonstrated its ability to be seized with and respond to human rights crises,” she said, highlighting its special sessions on Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and Syria. In response to the situations in those countries, the Council had established commissions of inquiry and fact‑finding missions to make recommendations in the face of serious human rights violations.

However, the financial implications surrounding urgent procedures – as well as the severe underfunding of the Universal Periodic Review — continued to pose challenges, and she urged States to work with their counterparts in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) to address the serious challenges confronting the Council, particularly regarding the establishment of fact‑finding missions and commissions of inquiry.

During the ensuing debate, State delegations welcomed the new practice of holding an interactive dialogue between the Committee and the Council’s president and underlined the flexibility and compromise shown during the Assembly negotiations on the Council’s review. At the same time, others called for further assessment of the special procedures mechanism, suggesting that the number of mandate holders on thematic issues was far too many, and the Council should prioritize them.

Suriname’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community, voiced concerns that special rapporteurs and experts were exceeding their mandates. “While the independence of the mandate holders is acknowledged, we are of the view that mandate holders should carry out their activities in full respect of the Code of Conduct,” he said, stressing that those who defied their mandate did not necessarily contribute to an environment for constructive dialogue.

Several delegates said the Universal Periodic Review had, during its first cycle, set an example of how States could cooperate and engage constructively with one another, avoiding the politicization of issues, as well as the unproductive naming and shaming of others. Malaysia’s delegate, however, cautioned that some countries still seemed keen to use the Council as a platform to impose their values on other parties, instead of working together to build an institution based on the principles of dialogue, cooperation, consultation and mutual respect.

Also today, the Committee concluded its consideration of the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions. Participating in that debate were the representatives of Belarus, Kenya, Pakistan, Morocco, Montenegro, Serbia, Croatia, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Malta, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Iran, Sudan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Bangladesh.

Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the International Organization for Migration also commented.

Also participating in today’s debate on the report of the Human Rights Council were the representatives of United Republic of Tanzania (on behalf of the African Group), Nigeria, Philippines, Belarus, Indonesia, Morocco, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine and Moldova.

The representatives of Latvia, Armenia, Russian Federation and Azerbaijan exercised their right of reply.

The Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. Thursday, 3 November, to hear the introduction on several draft resolutions and to take action on draft texts on policies and programmes involving youth and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to consider the report of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Before the Committee was the report of the Human Rights Council (document A/66/53 Supplement No. 53). It contains resolutions and decisions adopted by the Human Rights Council at its sixteenth and seventeenth sessions and at its fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth special sessions, and the President’s statement adopted by the Council at its sixteenth session.

The Committee also had before it the report of the Secretary‑General on the observance of the International Day for the Right to the Truth concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims (document A/66/335). The report provides a brief overview of the right to the truth, as well as an account of the extent and nature of the observance of 24 March as the International Day for the Right to the Truth concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of the Victims. The report concludes that there is a need for greater awareness about the International Day.

Introductory Statement

Human Rights Council President LAURA DUPUY LASSERRE ( Uruguay) recalled that 2011 marked the fifth year since the Council’s establishment and the outcome of the Council’s review process was adopted by the General Assembly last June. Further, the Assembly decided to change the Council’s annual cycle, aligning it with the Assembly’s schedule, meaning that she would hold the presidency until the end of 2012.

As part of the review follow‑up, she said she had established a task force composed of Bureau members, the United Nations Office at Geneva, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The task force was expected to submit recommendations to the Council at its next session in March. At the same time, the Council was implementing the review outcome in relation to the Universal Periodic Review and the selection of the special procedures mandate holders. The Council would also hold its first yearly high‑level panel on human rights mainstreaming within the United Nations system next March. The panel would provide an opportunity to assess progress, achievements and challenges.

Apart from the review outcome itself, the review process had generated awareness of the importance of cross‑regional work and the use of different tools to engage countries in cooperative work and in positively impacting the situation on the ground, she said. Momentum had been created towards a “review by doing” process, based on consensus when possible and using the toolkit already established by the Council’s institutional building package.

“During the past year, the Council has demonstrated its ability to be seized with and respond to human rights crises,” she continued, highlighting special sessions on Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and Syria, which had been addressed in two meetings. In response to the situations in those countries, the Council had established commissions of inquiry and fact‑finding missions to make recommendations in the face of serious human rights violations. The Council had also increased its interaction with the High Commissioner for Human Rights through interactive dialogues on the basis of her reports and on specific country situations in Côte d’Ivoire, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Belarus.

She said the Council’s response to the aspirations of people around the world had generated measures to address specific and emerging thematic issues, including through the establishment of a new special procedures mandate on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. In March, the Council would hold a record number of nine panels and thematic discussions on a range of issues, including: the protection of freedom of expression on the internet; discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity; and administration of justice and technical cooperation. While those panels overloaded the Council’s programme of work, they provided opportunities to debate important human rights challenges.

Zeroing in on the report, she said it contained the resolutions and decisions adopted by the Council at its sixteenth and seventeenth regular sessions and at its fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth special session. Panel discussions had been held on, among other things, the rights of victims of terrorism, the human rights aspects of terrorist hostage‑taking, children working or living on the street, the right to adequate health of older persons, the human rights of people of African descent and the realization of the right to development. At its last session, the Council adopted a record number of 35 resolutions, decisions and President’s statements, bringing the total number of proposals adopted over the last three regular sessions in 2011 to 108 compared to 80 adopted over the same period the year before. A number of cross‑regional initiatives had also been held.

She further noted that five new special procedures had been established, bringing the total number of mandates to 44, including the working group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, the Special Rapporteur on Iran and the Independent Expert on Côte d’Ivoire. Its standard‑setting role had also been furthered by drawing on the work of its subsidiary bodies. In addition, the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training and the third Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child had been submitted to the Assembly for adoption.

Outlining the annual report’s list of resolutions, she highlighted one on the situation of human rights in Côte d’Ivoire transmitting the reports of the High Commissioner and the Commission of Inquiry, along with another recommending that the Assembly transmit the Commission’s findings to all relevant bodies. The Council adopted a new resolution on the situation of human rights in Syria, deciding to dispatch a Commission of Inquiry to the country, requesting that it submit a report to the Council before the end of November, as well as its March session, and to transmit the report and update to the Assembly.

She said Council resolution 16/32 on the follow‑up to the report of the Fact‑Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict recommended, among other actions, that the Assembly promote an urgent discussion on the future legality of the use of certain munitions, reconsider the report at its current session and urge the Assembly to submit that report to the Security Council. A resolution had also been adopted recommending the Assembly proclaim 19 August as the International Day of Remembrance and Tribute to the Victims of Terrorism. Another recommended that the Assembly lift the suspension of the rights of memberships of Libya to the Council. The Assembly was, by another text, encouraged to consider further measures to promote geographical balance in the OHCHR staff.

She reported that the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review concluded the last session of its first cycle on 17 October, noting that all 193 Member States had been considered by the Working Group, including South Sudan. “For the first time in United Nations history, the Council has appraised the human rights situation in every country of the world,” she stressed, adding that the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review would be key to that mechanism’s success.

In that context, she noted that by moving from a four‑year cycle to a four‑and‑a‑half year cycle, the Working Group would review 14 countries in each session instead of 16, while the time available for each review would be extended to three‑and‑a‑half hours. Those adjustments would require some additional financial and human resources, she said. Noting that the Review had been severely underfunded by the Assembly in the past, she called on States to provide previously requested resources or, at least for the time being, the minimum number of permanent posts required to cope with the timely translation of documents. She urged States to work with their counterparts in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) to address the serious challenge confronting the Council, particularly regarding the establishment of fact‑finding missions and commissions of inquiry.

Question and Answer Session

The representative of the United States said the Council had made impressive accomplishments over the past year, but still paid disproportionate attention to Israel, undermining its credibility. She then asked what were the steps the Council could take to address human rights issues arising during the Arab Spring, and what could be done to ensure human rights during that transition period.

The observer of Palestine said she would like to address violations in Gaza, which was still reeling from affects of war three years ago and the five year blockade that violated international law. The recommendations of the fact‑finding mission on Gaza were clear and still had not been addressed. How could the situation be addressed and how could those accountable be brought to justice, given the difficulties bringing those issues to the Security Council? What practical steps should the United Nations take to ensure the recommendations of the fact‑finding mission on Gaza were implemented?

The European Union’s representative asked how the Council could follow up on its special session and how could it better follow up on universal periodic review recommendation.

Australia’s representative urged all nations to build on the dialogue of the universal periodic review, bringing civil society into discussion on all reforms. She asked what were the ways consideration of human rights could be further integrated into the United Nations system, including here in New York.

Japan’s representative said he would like to hear what results the Council had achieved so far and what its priorities would be. Also, how would she evaluate the review of the Council.

Switzerland’s representative asked how could developments under her presidency be consolidated, and what spheres of action should the Council fully bolster to pursue its activities. He called for lasting solutions to the question of funding.

Liechtenstein’s representative said it would be beneficial for Members of the Committee to share their views for the funding of Council mandates. His delegation would also be interested to know how she would continue close cooperation and sharing of information between Geneva and New York, and what would be her priorities in the coming year.

Mexico’s representative said, in the most recent sessions there had been a polarization in the stances of delegates, rather than engagement in genuine dialogue. He asked how constructive dialogue could be encouraged, so differences did not necessarily lead to confrontation. Also, what measures could be taken to tackle the growing burden of the Council’s work.

China’s representative said human rights issues should be resolved through dialogue and cooperation, and it was opposed to naming or shaming others. The Council should pay more attention to economic, social and cultural rights to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals, she said.

The Russian Federation’s representative said his country would not like to undermine the mandate of the Council — it must and had the right to respond to emergencies and challenges in the areas of human rights. However it was important to avoid any kind of misuse of the activities of the Council. It should be a forum for equitable and mutually respectful dialogue between Member States. Greater attention needed to be focused on finding mutually acceptable resolutions, avoiding politicization in its work. He asked what was the objective and content of the draft resolution on the second cycle of the universal periodic review, which would be considered by the General Assembly.

Morocco’s representative asked what was the role of national human rights institutions within the Council and how could panels contribute to the integration of human rights within the Organization.

Syria’s representative asked whether resolutions this year targeting particular countries meant the human rights situation was perfect in the rest of the world, or was that trend establishing a double standard and contradicting the way to deal with human rights. She further asked what were the mechanisms put forward by the Council to deal with human rights problems in developed countries, such as racism, discrimination, and violations to the right to development through unilateral economic sanctions.

Argentina’s representative asked what role the presidency of the Council could play to raise the profile of the body, and did her office have the necessary resources to further disseminate the work of the Council.

Chile’s representative said the president could rely on his delegation’s good will. The independence of special procedures was of crucial importance, and he hoped they would be duly maintained.

Cuba’s representative said it had submitted numerous resolutions on economic, social and cultural rights and it was important to create a position for an independent expert on a democratic, equitable world order. Cuba was concerned about double standards, but had a desire to cooperate with the Council and welcomed the opportunity to debate in the Committee today.

Costa Rica’s representative noted the importance of the Declaration on human rights training and the Optional Protocol on the rights of the child, and urged the Committee to adopt those resolutions by consensus.

Israel’s representative asked what the Council could do to stop the deadly attacks of rockets and mortars from Gaza on Israeli civilians.

Responding, Ms. LASSERRE said it was important to look at events of the Arab Spring and the transitional processes facing affected countries as an opportunity to consider the human rights situations in each country. In particular, those events provided the chance to strengthen democratic institutions and to bolster the rule of law. The Council stood ready to assist in those efforts with its special procedures, including through the recently established mandates on freedom of association and on the promotion of truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non‑recurrence. In that context, she emphasized that the special procedures could produce thematic, as well as country‑specific, recommendations.

Addressing questions on the Council’s recommendations on the Gaza conflict, she said it fell not only to the Council, but to the delegations most directly involved, to take action. In that regard, Palestine had done so in relation to the relevant agenda item. In addition, the Council had submitted recommendations to the Assembly, which would continue to consider them. She also noted other initiatives within the United Nations to deal with human rights violations, including the work of OHCHR.

She pointed out that the Council had laid down follow‑up mechanisms in relation to action taken during its special sessions. Some reports of the recent fact‑finding missions — notably those regarding Libya and Syria — were still being prepared. Yet, those reports should be seen as valid instruments to support the countries in question.

Hopefully, the impact of the first cycle of the Review would be reflected in the work of the second cycle, she said. However, the scope of the Review would not, in its second cycle, be confined merely to evaluating previous recommendations. Some might say that only some countries appeared to have human rights challenges; that was not the case. Moreover, the Review allowed a national process to be pursued. At the same time, national level consultations could unfold and civil society could present information to the High Commissioner, as well as to other State delegations. The validity and value of the exercise had been demonstrated during the first cycle and it was now time to look at the implementation phase. That would necessarily entail the participation of civil society along with national mechanisms. State delegations would be involved and informed of developments, she added.

Addressing resource questions, she noted that countries could request technical and financial support, not only from the High Commissioner’s office, but from United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Year by year the Council would set up panels, because it wanted the entire United Nations system to contribute. Pointing out that the special procedures mandate holders did not receive a salary, she noted that the Council did pay the costs of country visits. She particularly stressed that funding was needed in Haiti, further suggesting that States could choose to contribute to efforts in that country, thereby fostering the transition from platitudes to concrete action.

She said that, while there was always room for improvement, the Council had been acting expeditiously and cooperatively. When situations arose, it was hoped that action could be taken as soon as possible. In that context, items on technical cooperation and on emergency situations offered two channels for action. However, the most important element in those cases had been the commitment and involvement of the State concerned. If that commitment existed, whether it was manifested by a focused approach or a gradual one, it was important to involve national institutions, and not just point fingers.

Underlining the Council’s focus on cooperation, she said that when a State had the desire to resolve a situation, but not the means, it was important for other States to cooperate. At the same time, if countries needed help, they should come forward and ask for it. Another critical element in furthering cooperation was not countering the Council’s work. Sometimes there were efforts to intimidate those who cooperated with the Council’s work and such reprisals were not helpful to anyone — neither to the Council nor to society — and affected people who had merely exercised the human right to freedom of expression.

Continuing, she said the Secretary‑General would soon make recommendations on how to provide resources to support urgent procedures. Currently, the Council’s budget was reviewed once a year and the timing made it difficult to take funding from other previously planned activities, duly considering that emergency situations arose unexpectedly. No Council mandate or mission could be funded by extra‑budgetary funding, because this would mean it was no longer independent. That would be counter to the intentions of the High Commissioner. In addition, it had not yet been possible to establish a funding mechanism for those mandates that was fully efficient. Still, when the Council adopted a resolution, it did not wait until the end of the year to implement it. The urgent nature of a human rights emergency meant that any gap was not permissible.

She stressed that human rights was the third pillar of the United Nations. That could be seen, she suggested, in the suffering and hunger in the Horn of Africa. The root of that problem was the security situation in Somalia and work could be undertaken by different parts of the United Nations system to address the situation.

Regarding the Council’s work and agenda, she said it was critical for delegations to have the initiative, not the Council presidency. All States, not just Council members, could take the initiative. She added that there were sometimes very sensitive considerations and it was desirable to pursue a coordinated approach.

The outcomes of the review process had to be respected, she said, underlining that the review process itself was very valuable and resulted in a number of suggestions being put forward. An assessment of the level of consensus that could be achieved had subsequently been made. That was the dynamic in intergovernmental bodies, particularly those that did not want to wait for years and years to make progress. However, it was clear that to make the council’s efforts effective, practical results were needed.

She said that, among other things, there was now a more focused approach to the selection process for special procedures. She hoped that the special procedures would continue to work independently and in keeping with the Council’s yearly resolutions. There was a Code of Conduct for the mandate holders. They must respect human rights, as well as the principles of the United Nations Charter, and promote dialogue with States. When they wished to engage in certain issues, they must engage in broad‑based consultation to achieve consensus.

She said the main change in the second cycle was increasing from three to three‑and‑a‑half hours per country. In addition, one day was being added to the sessions, allowing more time for State dialogue.

As for the Council’s mechanisms, she noted that, in addition to the Universal Periodic Review, the Council could adopt resolutions. The Council would be delighted if situations in all countries were ideal and no one would have to be called on to speak before it. Ideally, all countries could deal with their own situation, but the world was not perfect and the Council had to use the mechanisms created for it. At this point, not all had been employed, but some countries had come forward to ask for a resolution or dialogue on their country. In that context, she noted requests from Somalia, Tunisia and Yemen.

Her appearance before the Committee was one way to raise the council’s profile, she said. Also, video messages were increasingly being sent. Video conferences had also been held with various regional bodies. Those helped bring the Council out into the world.

She stressed that the Council considered all human rights and she did not see a divide between developed and developing countries. Moreover, there was an obligation to maintain open consultations prior to the adoption of draft resolutions, which provided the possibility to interact.

Turning to the question on whether the Council was considering the attacks on Israel from Gaza, she said references had been made to violence from either side. Whenever country situations — such as in Libya and Côte d’Ivoire — were considered, the actions by all sides were looked at.

Asking a follow‑up question, Syria’s representative thanked the Council president for answering her delegation’s second question. She would have liked it if the president answered the question on human rights violations in developed countries, however. She said that all the lies and allegations in Israel’s comments neglected the following facts: the Council had held a number of sessions to address the violation of human rights in the occupied territories. Further, the Committee had adopted scores of resolutions that condemned Israel’s violations. Indeed, Israel’s crimes had exhausted the United Nations, as well as its budgets. However, the Israeli occupation was still a fact, as were its saddest violations. Those violations did not allow Israel to judge human rights violations anywhere else in the world.

Responding, Ms. LASSERRE noted that she had partially replied to many questions and repeated that human rights violations in developed countries were also viewed in the Council, from the thematic angle during each session. Statements frequently referred to the situation of migrants in Europe, for one example. Special procedures reports were not confined to developing countries and talked about developed countries, often very severely. No one was saying some were good and some were bad. She also noted that many developing countries got a “better grade” in providing water and sanitation.

“The Council is everybody’s Council,” she stressed. There was no Council rule that if a country failed to comply in regard to one particular human right, it could not speak on other rights. Indeed, every country could speak in the Universal Periodic Review process. It was very damaging when countries that received comments from a developed country immediately assumed they were politicized. The Review should be seen as an effective mechanism and countries must take comments in a constructive way.

Statements

OMBENI SEFUE (United Republic of Tanzania), speaking on behalf of the African Group, expressed support to the Council president and her team and reaffirmed its commitment to the Council’s work. He underscored and emphasized that continued engagement on that subject with all stakeholders was key to arriving at an understanding on the issues of divergence among Member States, and advancing those that Members agree on. Noting the efforts of Council President to lead that body towards a successful outcome in the review process, he expressed particular appreciation for the open format of the second session of the Working Group, which allowed for effective participation of both members and observers, as well as other stakeholders.

He further welcomed the consensual approach and outcome that resulted from the Assembly negotiations on the Council’s review, as well as the coordinated approach between Geneva and New York during the review process. That process should be strengthened. Moreover, everyone would benefit from the new practice of holding an interactive dialogue between the Committee and the Council’s president. The African Group was also pleased that the President could now present the Council’s report to the plenary meetings of the Assembly and the Committee. Yet, adequate resources were needed to meet extraordinary expenses arising from the Council’s resolutions and decisions, and the President should make suggestions regarding financing.

HENRY MAC‑DONALD ( Suriname), on behalf of Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said several noteworthy initiatives had been realized during the reporting period of the Human Rights Council. Also notable was the extended mandate of the independent expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti. However, having special rapporteurs or experts exceed their mandates was a matter of grave concern to CARICOM. “While the independence of the mandate holders is acknowledged, we are of the view that mandate holders should carry out their activities in full respect of the Code of Conduct. Special mandate holders in defiance of their mandate do not necessarily contribute to an environment for a constructive dialogue with States to promote and protect human rights. CARICOM expects the special mandate holders to engage in constructive dialogue with members states in the discharge of their mandate,” he said.

CARICOM was also pleased to note the adoption, without a vote, of the outcome of the mandated Review of the Council. It would continue to support the work of the Council to ensure it continued to execute its mandate, duly taking into account the principles of universality, objectivity and non‑selectivity in the consideration of human rights issues, as well as the elimination of double standards, as enshrined in the resolution establishing the body. It was also good to note that all Member States had participated in the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, and CARICOM looked forward to its second cycle.

KAYODE LARO (Nigeria), aligning with the statement of the African Group, said his country was pleased to note the Council’s substantial effort to achieve its mandate; the wide range of issues contained in the report and its sheer volume were a refection of the complexity and multiplicity of issues before the Council. The Council was a unique tool for the protection and promotion of all human rights, but a focus on economic, social and cultural rights might be its own contribution towards assisting States in attaining the Millennium Development Goals.

His delegation would like to commend the Council for completing the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, and the conclusion of the review process for the work and functioning of the Council. “It is quite remarkable that since the first session of the UPR Working Group in February 2008, this mechanism has attracted 100 per cent participation by States,” he said. Nigeria looked forward to the second cycle of the review and expected it to reinforce the importance of the mechanism as a means of promoting and protecting human rights across the world. People across the world expected the United Nations to protect their human rights and fundamental freedoms, and it was important for States to cooperate to advance the work of the Council.

ANA MARIE HERNANDO ( Philippines), speaking on behalf of the Platform on Human Rights Education and Training, welcomed the adoption by the Human Rights Council last March of resolution 16/1 entitled United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training, as it constituted an important step in many respects. Various aspects of human rights education and training had been developed and adopted throughout the years, such as through the Vienna and Durban declarations, which reiterated the importance of human rights education and training. Such training would promote respect for human rights with regard to all individuals without distinction of any kind, such as race, sex, language or religion. The declarations also promoted the role that human rights education and training could play in changing attitudes and behaviour, in order to create tolerant societies.

However, she said that no single document was available that contained all the necessary principles and elements for stakeholders engaged in such work, or those looking to receive training. Nor did they take stock of the more practical lessons learned. That gap was meant to be filled by the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training. Although non‑binding in a legal sense, the Declaration compiled and structured essential principles in that regard. The new Declaration provided a clear and precise definition, and paved the way for follow‑up initiatives at the national, regional and international level, including through international cooperation. He reiterated the hope that the procedural resolution to be introduced by the Platform under agenda item 64 recommending adoption of the Declaration of the Assembly would receive broad support, not only through its adoption by consensus, but also with an increasing number of co‑sponsors.

IRINA VELICHKO ( Belarus) welcomed the results of the review of the Council, even though not all worthy country proposals, including Belarus’, were taken into account. Belarus was against attempts to introduce new criteria for the Council, which had been attempts to control it. The fact that over the past few years all countries had undergone review spoke for itself. But, a paradoxical situation had arisen in which recommendations were ignored, and instead there were politically motivated reports on countries. There had been unjustified recent attempts by certain countries to give human rights in Belarus an unfavourable review.

The European Union tried to push through an anti‑ Belarus resolution at the 17th session of the Council, but the agenda to push that unsubstantiated assessment had not been supported. Belarus intended to continue living up to its obligations for human rights and cooperating with United Nations bodies. Given the lack of financial resources to implement resolutions and decisions of the Council, rational use of resources of the body should be the guide. Resources should be used to protect the most vulnerable sections of society — and the Council must once and for all end double standards and avoid manipulation of human rights issues by special interest groups.

FARISHA SALMAN ( Malaysia) commended the Council on the success of its review process. Countries had shown great flexibility and compromise in achieving a fruitful outcome. However, despite the understanding reached during the review process, some countries seemed keen to use the Council as a platform to impose their values on other parties, instead of working together to build an institution based on the principles of dialogue, cooperation, consultation and mutual respect. The current trend of politicization of human rights by some had not served the cause of human rights. Some countries continued to emphasize political and civil rights to the virtual exclusion of economic, social and cultural rights. Her Government, however, considered that the former could not be separated from the latter.

Malaysia was heartened to know that the majority of countries were cooperating in the Universal Periodic Review process and it looked forward to the Review’s second cycle, she said. The gap between the last session and the next would give States ample time to take stock of the recommendations received and focus on implementation and development in their countries. The Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance should be strengthened and operationalized to ensure the full participation of all countries in the Review and the implementation of resulting recommendations. Her delegation believed that the Council should be adequately resourced and that further assessment of the special procedures mechanism was needed. The number of mandate holders on thematic issues was far too many, and the Council must prioritize issues. Some could be considered biennially, or more. States should focus on reinforcing the Council’s strengths and not reconstruct, reframe or unravel existing arrangements.

Mr. SIAHAAN (Indonesia), thanking the Member States for supporting the election of his country to the Human Rights Council, stated that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism had made the Council “a unique and more prominent body”. The dialogue concerning each country’s Review had set an example of how States could cooperate and engage constructively with one another, avoiding the politicization of issues, as well as the unproductive naming and shaming of others. Indonesia, as one of the first 14 countries to be reviewed in the second cycle next year, was preparing its national Universal Periodic Review report, highlighting the progress and challenges of the last four years, based on the Universal Periodic Review recommendations and the national human rights agenda.

Special procedure mandate holders, he stated, should maintain their professionalism in fulfilling their mandates, by complying with the code of conduct and by building mutual trust with the States. It was time for the Council to comprehensively study the current overall picture of special procedure mandate holders, including their mandates and fundings, in order to avoid potential duplication of work. He added that Indonesia was also concerned about the continuing violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

SOUMIA BOUHAMIDI ( Morocco) said the Council played an important role in contributing to a new culture of active, universal awareness to protect human rights, favouring cooperation over antagonism. Morocco was resolutely committed to continuing constructive dialogue with rights bodies and spared no efforts in strengthening the Council’s effectiveness. Its commitment was apparent during the Council’s review, in which it played a small role. The review was an ongoing process, and Morocco was convinced the Council would continue to improve its functioning over the years.

The Council had already shown great capacity to help protect human rights and respond to emergency situations when they required attention, she said. Today was an opportunity to send a strong signal of support to the Council, and Morocco attached particular importance to the Universal Periodic Review as an innovative and democratic mechanism to improve human rights situations on the ground. Morocco was one of the first countries to submit to the Review and would be one of the first to submit to the second round of the Review, when it began next year.

MONIA ALSALEH ( Syria) underscored her country’s willingness to work with the Council president in an equitable and fair manner. Double standards and politicization must be avoided. Her Government had carefully examined the Council’s report, since it dealt with important issues such as human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories and the occupied Syrian Golan. It also dealt with the Gaza conflict and the aid flotilla. Despite the fact that the Council had asked Israeli authorities to implement its recommendations and not to place obstacles before the inquiry, Israel continued to do so. Meanwhile, as war criminals and perpetrators of crimes against humanity continued to flagrantly commit crimes, the entire world was wondering why there was an exception for those people and why they were not brought to justice.

She underscored that there had been an absence of any effort to address human rights violations in developed countries, including racism, inhumane treatment of migrants and refugees, and attempts to prevent developing countries from developing through sanctions. It was unfortunate that the Council ignored the actions of developed countries, since that undermined the Council’s credibility. She stressed that Council resolutions S-16/1 and S-17/1 concerning Syria were based on false information. Moreover, their title and tone were hateful and unprecedented. What was happening in Syria was a series of criminal acts committed by armed groups against Syria and the Syrian people. Yet, a campaign was being undertaken to weaken Syria and to change its political position on the challenges facing the region. There were also attempts to interfere in Syria’s internal affairs and to destroy its political and military structures. In keeping with its obligations, the Syrian Government had submitted to the Universal Periodic Review. It had accepted 98 recommendations and was studying 36.

OSAMA ABDELKHALEK MAHMOUD ( Egypt) stated that this year the General Assembly had concluded the first review process of the Human Rights Council and adopted the Geneva outcome document on its works and functioning. The results of the review process reinforced important principles and reaffirmed the council’s subsidiary status to the General Assembly, but they were adopted in a voted resolution which undermined a primary objective of the process, which aimed at supporting the Council as a General Assembly tool to promote respect for all human rights. The international community had the responsibility to ensure that the Council carried out its functions within a transparent and cooperative framework and was obliged to prevent the Council from becoming a political tool.

All Member States had made the commitment, he stated, to ensure the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review on all States, on an equal footing and with the participation of civil society, and to deal positively with the special procedures. In return, the mandate holders must perform their duties in accordance with the Code of Conduct and the tasks mandated to them by the Human Rights Council, to be objective in their reporting, and to establish a dialogue, based on transparency and cooperation, with the governments of the States concerned. Mentioning the historic transition Egypt was currently witnessing, he stated that his country believed that human dignity was the cornerstone for ensuring respect for all human rights and international unity was important when dealing objectively with human rights issues.

YANA BOIKO ( Ukraine) said the Council had proved its ability to adequately respond to gross violations of human rights, speak with one voice and send out resounding messages to the international community. The report of the Council showed the increased number of resolutions adopted by consensus; that was positive, but at the same time there were still some issues hindering the constructive work of the Council. Appropriate attention should be paid to the development of mechanisms, including on a conceptual level, to prevent human rights violations and abuses. In that regard, she was pleased to mention the resolution on “the role of prevention in the promotion and protection of human rights”, initiated by Ukraine and co‑sponsored by more than 40 countries, which was adopted by consensus last September.

Her delegation commended the Council’s closer cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. But, she noted the Office, by virtue of its mandate by the General Assembly should remain independent of the Council and not be commissioned by it. Ukraine also welcomed further enhancement of transparency in the selection and appointment process of special mandate holders as an outcome of the Council’s review. To further implement the results of the Council’s review of activities, she urged countries to closely cooperate with the special procedures, honouring issued standing invitations and committing to voluntary reporting on implementation of received Universal Periodic Review mechanisms. “Our delegation believes that we are entering a new time of higher shared responsibility among the members of the international community, in which our collective action in the field of human rights is founded on the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity, non‑selectivity, constructive international dialogue and cooperation,” she said.

CAROLINA POPOVICI ( Moldova) said the current year had been very important for the future work of the Council. But, important issues remained that required attention, including the lack of needed finances for resolutions, which could jeopardize the effectiveness of the Council, as well as the High Commissioner for Human Rights. For its part, Moldova had extended a standing invitation to the special procedures mandate holders and was looking forward to active cooperation with them. The report of the Council reflected the complexity of its agenda; Moldova underwent the Universal Periodic Review mechanism last month in Geneva, and consistently followed a wide participatory approach during the process.

Moldova’s Government had accepted the recommendations of the final report — a clear indication it believed it was a valuable process aimed at improving human rights. The delegation would like to express appreciation to delegations that participated in its Review. Moldova was enhancing domestic legislation on human rights, minority rights, and the social inclusion of minorities and vulnerable groups, among other areas. She also emphasized that ample progress had been launched in the national human rights action plan. Moldova was closely cooperating with European Union member States, and was a state party to all human rights treaties, which would surely lead to an even broader approach to human rights in the country.

Statements on the report of the High Commissioner for Refugees

ZOYA KOLONTAI ( Belarus) noted the increasing role of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in protecting refugees and migrants in emergency situations. To fulfil its mandate, that Office’s capacities and funding must be increased. Her Government hoped UNHCR would further advance its work in the context of the Global Plan of Action on Combating Human Trafficking. Strategies could be elaborated and implemented to protect refugees from being trafficked.

Noting that cooperation with UNHCR was being implemented at the country level, she said the country agreement had entered into force this year and everything possible had been done to improve the effectiveness of common efforts, she said. The focus should now be on broadening UNHCR’s activities in Belarus, including identifying people who were asylum‑seekers and looking for resources to address local refugees. The training centre in Minsk was being used to develop an international course on statelessness, refugees and migration. Regional courses were also being held. Belarus was pleased with the High Commissioner’s visit to Belarus and the Government looked forward to further efforts in advancing practical efforts on the ground.

MACHARIA KAMAU (Kenya), aligning with the statement of the African Group, said his country for over twenty years had hosted refugees from neighbouring countries in two camps. The Dadaab refugee camp in north‑eastern Kenya, created to host refugees from Somalia, currently hosted over 600,000 refugees, making it the third most populous town in Kenya. “The famine, drought and insecurity in Somalia have influenced this influx by Somalis into Dadaab camp. Almost unbelievably, the camp was originally designed to host 90,000 refugees. This influx of refugee population has not only overwhelmed the services and facilities in the camps, but also destroyed the environment and its scarce resources, and bled Kenya’s capacity as a host state,” he said. The deterioration of security was also a worrying trend both inside and outside the refugee camps, with armed groups taking advantage of the lawless situation in Somalia.

“For some reason, we seem to be unable to get the international community, the United Nations and the international and non‑governmental entities that operate in Kenya, to appreciate its full extent, the magnitude of the sacrifice and the burden that Kenya carries. For them, it would appear to be business as usual. The status quo cannot be allowed to continue,” he said, calling for new options to build a more equitable, efficient and effective international refugee burden sharing regime. Kenya was committed to its international responsibilities to protect refugees, but continued instability in Somalia increased the challenge to deliver on its obligations. He called on the international community to support the work being done with the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and the Somalia Transitional Federal Government to create safe zones within Somalia for refugees, to alleviate camp conditions.

Kenya also urged the international community to support the strategy for a long‑term solution to the crisis found in the outcome document from the humanitarian crisis summit on the Horn of Africa in Nairobi, 8 to 9 September.. Challenges relating to refugees in Kenya could not be effectively tackled in absence of political stability and security in Somalia. “The root causes of the conflict in Somalia must, therefore, be addressed”, he said. Regional peace and security must be promoted as a preventive measure to avoid a new influx of refugees and ensure voluntary repatriation of refugees back to their countries of origin, or relocation to other countries.

HUZEFA KHANUM ( Pakistan) said her country had hosted the largest refugee population in the world since the 1980s. “We have exhibited extraordinary generosity and hospitality as hosts to Afghan refugees for over three decades. We are still host to over 3 million Afghan refugees. This, however, has had a negative impact on the economic, sociocultural and security sectors. It has also affected the job market and brought public infrastructure under stress. Last year’s floods and the impact of global financial and food crises has further added to the challenges,” she said.

Pakistan had introduced several programmes, including the Afghan Management and Repatriation Strategy for 2010‑12; Population Profiling, Verification and Response, to improve response based on gender and age; and the Refugees Affected and Housing Areas Development Initiative to help address challenges of security, socio‑economic and environmental impact due to the presence of large‑scale refugees on host societies. But, those programmes required international commitment and financial support — most importantly, success would depend mostly on creating pull factors in Afghanistan. “The donor community and the UNHCR should aim at accelerating reintegration, reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts in Afghanistan for the Afghan refugees to return to their homeland. Until their repatriation, the international community must share the responsibility for the Afghan refugees through increased funding for programmes to sustain them and to cope with the challenges of hosting them, and by offering third country resettlements,” she said.

SOUMIA BOUHAMIDI ( Morocco) welcomed the efforts of the High Commissioner in budgeting, as well as in seeking out new and diversified partnerships and initiatives aimed at specific categories of refugees. New mass displacements had been seen in the last year, with many reaching unprecedented scope, particularly in Africa. These issues were compounded by other phenomena and justified the High Commissioner’s constant commitment. Indeed, at the end of 2010, the number of persons falling under the UNHCR mandate had reached 33.9 million. Morocco was concerned about the influx of new refugees in the region and believed it was imperative that UNHCR remain vigilant, preserve the humanitarian space and ensure the protection of human rights.

According to the High Commissioner’s report, at the end of 2010, 7.2 million refugees found themselves in long‑term situations, she said. Specific solutions had been tried in many countries, and Morocco welcomed the fact that many refugees were choosing to return to their countries of origin thanks to voluntary repatriation efforts. Yet, many countries in Africa had fallen outside those efforts. In particular, no progress had been made in the Tindouf camps. In that context, she stressed that the gathering of information on individuals and their families was indispensable in finding solutions, particularly in terms of voluntary repatriation. It was the responsibility of host countries to hold a census to assess and quantify the food needs of refugees. Morocco believed UNHCR must act in line with its mandate, its humanitarian and social mission, and the provision of decisions by the Executive Board, such as the integration and return of refugees. She welcomed the progress made earlier this year in resuming family visits and implementing the confidence‑building measures.

MILORAD ŠĆEPANOVIĆ ( Montenegro) said resolving the status of refugees and displaced persons was a key priority for his country’s progress on its European path. A strategy covering the period 2012‑2015 had been adopted in July 2011. The adjacent action plan made special reference to the refugee camp Konik, which was mentioned in the European Commission opinion as the most pressing refugee‑related issue. Drafted in collaboration with the UNHCR and the European Union delegation in Podgorica, the strategy entailed a possible solution: full integration into society and voluntary repatriation to countries of origin. It provided measures to enable access to rights, including social protection and health care. Special attention was placed on Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian populations, who were most in need of preferential treatment. The strategy aimed to provide jobs and housing. The voluntary repatriation of refugees and displaced persons would be assisted by Montenegro’s Government and was expected to contribute to bilateral agreements with Kosovo. A Coordination Committee for monitoring the implementation of the strategy and action plan had been set up. The deadline for application by displaced and internally displaced persons for appropriate civil status had been extended until the end of 2012.

He went on to note that Montenegro was now home to roughly 9,800 displaced persons from Kosovo and another 3,900 from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. A series of regulations safeguarding the fundamental rights of displaced persons and refugees, including the settlement of their legal status and social integration, had been introduced. Displaced persons had also been granted the status of foreign nationals with permanent residency. Montenegro was also engaged in regional programmes for permanently solving the issue of refugees and internally displaced persons in the region. A joint declaration was to be signed at a ministerial conference on 7 November 2011 in Belgrade. A regional multi‑year programme had also been agreed on to address the needs of the most vulnerable refugees. He underlined the need for a regional approach and the support from the international and donor community.

FEODOR STARČEVIĆ ( Serbia), aligning with the statement of the European Union, said his country had been experiencing the problem of displacement for almost two decades now. It understood the need for concerted efforts between countries of origin and receiving countries, but it was also aware that sustainable solutions could not be found without the inclusion of all relevant international actors and the donor community. For its part, Serbia had undertaken a number of initiatives with its neighbours and international organizations to tackle the refugee problem in its region. Among them, the Joint Regional Multi‑Year Programme could serve as a good example for the solution of protracted refugee crises in other parts of the world. “We also believe that success in this joint endeavour will give new impetus to cooperation and reconciliation in the region,” he said.

“The encouraging positive developments in the region, however, are overshadowed by the long‑lasting problem of 250,000 internally displaced persons, mainly Serbs and other non‑Albanians, who were forced to leave the Province of Kosovo and Metohija in 1999 and look for shelter elsewhere in Serbia. This is an issue of great concern to us,” he said. These internally displaced persons from Kosovo were kept from returning to their properties by security concerns, as well as numerous legal and administrative obstacles — it could hardly be said they had ever been given an opportunity to freely opt either for return or local integration. The international community should increase efforts to ensure the safe voluntary return of those internally displaced persons; for that, an important role was played by the UNHCR and, although it was fully aware of current and emerging challenges throughout the world, the decision to reduce the UNHCR budget for operations in Serbia was regrettable.

NEVEN MIKEC ( Croatia) said his country decisively implemented a housing programme for former tenancy rights holders, with a view to assuring a sustainable return of refugees and displaced persons. Reconstruction of property damaged in war, as well as repossession of property, had also continued at a vigorous pace. The process of repossession had almost been completed, with only 11 housing units pending repossession, out of over 19,200. “Having achieved significant progress in the implementation of the housing care programmes for all categories of refugees and displaced persons, Croatia expects that other countries in the region will follow this positive practice and develop similar effective projects at their national level,” he said.

The delegation also welcomed that four countries in its region — Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Croatia — had agreed upon the Regional Programme on Durable Solutions for Refugees and Displaced Persons, the so‑called Sarajevo Process, which focused on adequate housing solutions for the remaining vulnerable refugees and displaced persons in need. As a new member of the UNHCR Executive Committee this year, Croatia was fully aware of its responsibilities and stood ready to vigorously support global efforts at refugee protection. It fully shared the view that full respect for international principles related to the protection of refugees, in particular non‑refoulement guarantees and ensuring durable solutions, was crucial for providing solutions to challenges worldwide.

XOLELA NOFUKUKA ( South Africa) said his delegation was happy to notice savings were made through efficiency and internal reforms, improving protection and emergency response capacities. “ South Africa remains the highest destination country for asylum seekers in the world. According to our information, a large proportion of those applying for asylum are fleeing political persecution, but many come seeking better economic prospects. Within this context and in an effort to manage immigration more efficiently and effectively in the national interest, we have introduced amendments to immigration legislation and the Refugee Act, to better secure the rights of asylum seekers and refugees,” he said.

Those changes included a policy to separate economic migrants from genuine asylum seekers, he said. There was also a need for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to adopt a regional approach to issues of migration. Mixed migration posed an unprecedented challenge to all States and it required an effective and efficient response to protect their needs and sensitivities. Stronger national, bilateral and regional cooperation was needed, as were improved national policies and legal frameworks. Further, accurate refugee and migration data and analysis would be needed to ensure evidence‑based policies.

KIM SOO GWON ( Republic of Korea) said his delegation was pleased that the efficiency gained through the UNHCR’s internal reform process since 2006 had given it a window of opportunity for launching key initiatives to improve protection and emergency response capacities and to ensure greater accountability to the populations under its care. The Korean Government supported and encouraged constant and unflagging pursuit of comprehensive reform initiatives. As the High Commissioner’s report noted, the failure to respect the universal principle of non‑refoulement had become one of the biggest protection challen


2 November 2011
General Assembly
GA/SHC/4025


Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-sixth General Assembly

Third Committee

39th & 40th Meetings (AM & PM)

FIVE YEARS AFTER CREATION, HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HAS COMPLETED APPRAISAL OF HUMAN

Rights Situation in Every Country in the World, Third Committee Told

President Says Council Has Also Demonstrated ‘Ability to Respond to Crises’;

Committee Also Hears 22 More Speakers, Concludes Discussion on Refugee Report

Five years after its creation, the Human Rights Council had successfully completed a review of its working methods and, through its Universal Periodic Review mechanism, assessed the human rights situation of the entire United Nations membership, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) was told today.

“For the first time in United Nations history, the Council has appraised the human rights situation in every country of the world,” Council President Laura Dupuy Lasserre ( Uruguay) said as she introduced the Council’s annual report to the Committee.

Now that the Review’s first cycle — which lasted four years and featured the participation of all 193 Member States, including South Sudan — had been concluded, its second cycle would, beginning in June 2012, be key to ensuring the mechanism’s ultimate success, she said. To that end, she said several changes were being introduced to the Review’s working methods, noting in particular that it would shift to a four‑and‑a‑half year cycle that reviewed 14, rather than 16, countries for three‑and‑a‑half hours each during every session.

Those changes resulted from a year‑long assessment process called for in General Assembly resolution 60/251, which originally established the Council as a replacement to the Commission on Human Rights. She noted that, among other adjustments, the Assembly changed the Council’s annual cycle, aligning it with the Assembly’s schedule. Modifications were also made to the selection process for the special procedures mandate holders.

Apart from the review outcome itself, she said momentum had been created towards a “review by doing” process, based on consensus when possible and using the toolkit already established by the Council’s institutional building package. A task force composed of Bureau members, the United Nations Office at Geneva, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) had also been established to follow up on the review.

At the same time, the Council had adopted, at its last session, a record number of 35 resolutions, decisions and President’s statements, bringing the total number of proposals adopted over the last three regular sessions in 2011 to 108, compared to 80 adopted over the same period the year before. Five new special procedures had also been established, bringing the total number of mandates to 44. At the same time, the Council continued to address specific and emerging thematic issues.

“During the past year, the Council has demonstrated its ability to be seized with and respond to human rights crises,” she said, highlighting its special sessions on Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and Syria. In response to the situations in those countries, the Council had established commissions of inquiry and fact‑finding missions to make recommendations in the face of serious human rights violations.


However, the financial implications surrounding urgent procedures – as well as the severe underfunding of the Universal Periodic Review — continued to pose challenges, and she urged States to work with their counterparts in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) to address the serious challenges confronting the Council, particularly regarding the establishment of fact‑finding missions and commissions of inquiry.

During the ensuing debate, State delegations welcomed the new practice of holding an interactive dialogue between the Committee and the Council’s president and underlined the flexibility and compromise shown during the Assembly negotiations on the Council’s review. At the same time, others called for further assessment of the special procedures mechanism, suggesting that the number of mandate holders on thematic issues was far too many, and the Council should prioritize them.

Suriname’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community, voiced concerns that special rapporteurs and experts were exceeding their mandates. “While the independence of the mandate holders is acknowledged, we are of the view that mandate holders should carry out their activities in full respect of the Code of Conduct,” he said, stressing that those who defied their mandate did not necessarily contribute to an environment for constructive dialogue.

Several delegates said the Universal Periodic Review had, during its first cycle, set an example of how States could cooperate and engage constructively with one another, avoiding the politicization of issues, as well as the unproductive naming and shaming of others. Malaysia’s delegate, however, cautioned that some countries still seemed keen to use the Council as a platform to impose their values on other parties, instead of working together to build an institution based on the principles of dialogue, cooperation, consultation and mutual respect.

Also today, the Committee concluded its consideration of the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions. Participating in that debate were the representatives of Belarus, Kenya, Pakistan, Morocco, Montenegro, Serbia, Croatia, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Malta, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Iran, Sudan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Bangladesh.

Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the International Organization for Migration also commented.

Also participating in today’s debate on the report of the Human Rights Council were the representatives of United Republic of Tanzania (on behalf of the African Group), Nigeria, Philippines, Belarus, Indonesia, Morocco, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine and Moldova.

The representatives of Latvia, Armenia, Russian Federation and Azerbaijan exercised their right of reply.

The Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. Thursday, 3 November, to hear the introduction on several draft resolutions and to take action on draft texts on policies and programmes involving youth and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to consider the report of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Before the Committee was the report of the Human Rights Council (document A/66/53 Supplement No. 53). It contains resolutions and decisions adopted by the Human Rights Council at its sixteenth and seventeenth sessions and at its fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth special sessions, and the President’s statement adopted by the Council at its sixteenth session.

The Committee also had before it the report of the Secretary‑General on the observance of the International Day for the Right to the Truth concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims (document A/66/335). The report provides a brief overview of the right to the truth, as well as an account of the extent and nature of the observance of 24 March as the International Day for the Right to the Truth concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of the Victims. The report concludes that there is a need for greater awareness about the International Day.

Introductory Statement

Human Rights Council President LAURA DUPUY LASSERRE ( Uruguay) recalled that 2011 marked the fifth year since the Council’s establishment and the outcome of the Council’s review process was adopted by the General Assembly last June. Further, the Assembly decided to change the Council’s annual cycle, aligning it with the Assembly’s schedule, meaning that she would hold the presidency until the end of 2012.

As part of the review follow‑up, she said she had established a task force composed of Bureau members, the United Nations Office at Geneva, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The task force was expected to submit recommendations to the Council at its next session in March. At the same time, the Council was implementing the review outcome in relation to the Universal Periodic Review and the selection of the special procedures mandate holders. The Council would also hold its first yearly high‑level panel on human rights mainstreaming within the United Nations system next March. The panel would provide an opportunity to assess progress, achievements and challenges.

Apart from the review outcome itself, the review process had generated awareness of the importance of cross‑regional work and the use of different tools to engage countries in cooperative work and in positively impacting the situation on the ground, she said. Momentum had been created towards a “review by doing” process, based on consensus when possible and using the toolkit already established by the Council’s institutional building package.

“During the past year, the Council has demonstrated its ability to be seized with and respond to human rights crises,” she continued, highlighting special sessions on Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and Syria, which had been addressed in two meetings. In response to the situations in those countries, the Council had established commissions of inquiry and fact‑finding missions to make recommendations in the face of serious human rights violations. The Council had also increased its interaction with the High Commissioner for Human Rights through interactive dialogues on the basis of her reports and on specific country situations in Côte d’Ivoire, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Belarus.

She said the Council’s response to the aspirations of people around the world had generated measures to address specific and emerging thematic issues, including through the establishment of a new special procedures mandate on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. In March, the Council would hold a record number of nine panels and thematic discussions on a range of issues, including: the protection of freedom of expression on the internet; discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity; and administration of justice and technical cooperation. While those panels overloaded the Council’s programme of work, they provided opportunities to debate important human rights challenges.

Zeroing in on the report, she said it contained the resolutions and decisions adopted by the Council at its sixteenth and seventeenth regular sessions and at its fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth special session. Panel discussions had been held on, among other things, the rights of victims of terrorism, the human rights aspects of terrorist hostage‑taking, children working or living on the street, the right to adequate health of older persons, the human rights of people of African descent and the realization of the right to development. At its last session, the Council adopted a record number of 35 resolutions, decisions and President’s statements, bringing the total number of proposals adopted over the last three regular sessions in 2011 to 108 compared to 80 adopted over the same period the year before. A number of cross‑regional initiatives had also been held.

She further noted that five new special procedures had been established, bringing the total number of mandates to 44, including the working group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, the Special Rapporteur on Iran and the Independent Expert on Côte d’Ivoire. Its standard‑setting role had also been furthered by drawing on the work of its subsidiary bodies. In addition, the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training and the third Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child had been submitted to the Assembly for adoption.

Outlining the annual report’s list of resolutions, she highlighted one on the situation of human rights in Côte d’Ivoire transmitting the reports of the High Commissioner and the Commission of Inquiry, along with another recommending that the Assembly transmit the Commission’s findings to all relevant bodies. The Council adopted a new resolution on the situation of human rights in Syria, deciding to dispatch a Commission of Inquiry to the country, requesting that it submit a report to the Council before the end of November, as well as its March session, and to transmit the report and update to the Assembly.

She said Council resolution 16/32 on the follow‑up to the report of the Fact‑Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict recommended, among other actions, that the Assembly promote an urgent discussion on the future legality of the use of certain munitions, reconsider the report at its current session and urge the Assembly to submit that report to the Security Council. A resolution had also been adopted recommending the Assembly proclaim 19 August as the International Day of Remembrance and Tribute to the Victims of Terrorism. Another recommended that the Assembly lift the suspension of the rights of memberships of Libya to the Council. The Assembly was, by another text, encouraged to consider further measures to promote geographical balance in the OHCHR staff.

She reported that the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review concluded the last session of its first cycle on 17 October, noting that all 193 Member States had been considered by the Working Group, including South Sudan. “For the first time in United Nations history, the Council has appraised the human rights situation in every country of the world,” she stressed, adding that the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review would be key to that mechanism’s success.

In that context, she noted that by moving from a four‑year cycle to a four‑and‑a‑half year cycle, the Working Group would review 14 countries in each session instead of 16, while the time available for each review would be extended to three‑and‑a‑half hours. Those adjustments would require some additional financial and human resources, she said. Noting that the Review had been severely underfunded by the Assembly in the past, she called on States to provide previously requested resources or, at least for the time being, the minimum number of permanent posts required to cope with the timely translation of documents. She urged States to work with their counterparts in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) to address the serious challenge confronting the Council, particularly regarding the establishment of fact‑finding missions and commissions of inquiry.

Question and Answer Session


The representative of the United States said the Council had made impressive accomplishments over the past year, but still paid disproportionate attention to Israel, undermining its credibility. She then asked what were the steps the Council could take to address human rights issues arising during the Arab Spring, and what could be done to ensure human rights during that transition period.

The observer of Palestine said she would like to address violations in Gaza, which was still reeling from affects of war three years ago and the five year blockade that violated international law. The recommendations of the fact‑finding mission on Gaza were clear and still had not been addressed. How could the situation be addressed and how could those accountable be brought to justice, given the difficulties bringing those issues to the Security Council? What practical steps should the United Nations take to ensure the recommendations of the fact‑finding mission on Gaza were implemented?

The European Union’s representative asked how the Council could follow up on its special session and how could it better follow up on universal periodic review recommendation.

Australia’s representative urged all nations to build on the dialogue of the universal periodic review, bringing civil society into discussion on all reforms. She asked what were the ways consideration of human rights could be further integrated into the United Nations system, including here in New York.

Japan’s representative said he would like to hear what results the Council had achieved so far and what its priorities would be. Also, how would she evaluate the review of the Council.

Switzerland’s representative asked how could developments under her presidency be consolidated, and what spheres of action should the Council fully bolster to pursue its activities. He called for lasting solutions to the question of funding.

Liechtenstein’s representative said it would be beneficial for Members of the Committee to share their views for the funding of Council mandates. His delegation would also be interested to know how she would continue close cooperation and sharing of information between Geneva and New York, and what would be her priorities in the coming year.

Mexico’s representative said, in the most recent sessions there had been a polarization in the stances of delegates, rather than engagement in genuine dialogue. He asked how constructive dialogue could be encouraged, so differences did not necessarily lead to confrontation. Also, what measures could be taken to tackle the growing burden of the Council’s work.

China’s representative said human rights issues should be resolved through dialogue and cooperation, and it was opposed to naming or shaming others. The Council should pay more attention to economic, social and cultural rights to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals, she said.

The Russian Federation’s representative said his country would not like to undermine the mandate of the Council — it must and had the right to respond to emergencies and challenges in the areas of human rights. However it was important to avoid any kind of misuse of the activities of the Council. It should be a forum for equitable and mutually respectful dialogue between Member States. Greater attention needed to be focused on finding mutually acceptable resolutions, avoiding politicization in its work. He asked what was the objective and content of the draft resolution on the second cycle of the universal periodic review, which would be considered by the General Assembly.

Morocco’s representative asked what was the role of national human rights institutions within the Council and how could panels contribute to the integration of human rights within the Organization.

Syria’s representative asked whether resolutions this year targeting particular countries meant the human rights situation was perfect in the rest of the world, or was that trend establishing a double standard and contradicting the way to deal with human rights. She further asked what were the mechanisms put forward by the Council to deal with human rights problems in developed countries, such as racism, discrimination, and violations to the right to development through unilateral economic sanctions.

Argentina’s representative asked what role the presidency of the Council could play to raise the profile of the body, and did her office have the necessary resources to further disseminate the work of the Council.

Chile’s representative said the president could rely on his delegation’s good will. The independence of special procedures was of crucial importance, and he hoped they would be duly maintained.

Cuba’s representative said it had submitted numerous resolutions on economic, social and cultural rights and it was important to create a position for an independent expert on a democratic, equitable world order. Cuba was concerned about double standards, but had a desire to cooperate with the Council and welcomed the opportunity to debate in the Committee today.

Costa Rica’s representative noted the importance of the Declaration on human rights training and the Optional Protocol on the rights of the child, and urged the Committee to adopt those resolutions by consensus.

Israel’s representative asked what the Council could do to stop the deadly attacks of rockets and mortars from Gaza on Israeli civilians.

Responding, Ms. LASSERRE said it was important to look at events of the Arab Spring and the transitional processes facing affected countries as an opportunity to consider the human rights situations in each country. In particular, those events provided the chance to strengthen democratic institutions and to bolster the rule of law. The Council stood ready to assist in those efforts with its special procedures, including through the recently established mandates on freedom of association and on the promotion of truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non‑recurrence. In that context, she emphasized that the special procedures could produce thematic, as well as country‑specific, recommendations.

Addressing questions on the Council’s recommendations on the Gaza conflict, she said it fell not only to the Council, but to the delegations most directly involved, to take action. In that regard, Palestine had done so in relation to the relevant agenda item. In addition, the Council had submitted recommendations to the Assembly, which would continue to consider them. She also noted other initiatives within the United Nations to deal with human rights violations, including the work of OHCHR.

She pointed out that the Council had laid down follow‑up mechanisms in relation to action taken during its special sessions. Some reports of the recent fact‑finding missions — notably those regarding Libya and Syria — were still being prepared. Yet, those reports should be seen as valid instruments to support the countries in question.

Hopefully, the impact of the first cycle of the Review would be reflected in the work of the second cycle, she said. However, the scope of the Review would not, in its second cycle, be confined merely to evaluating previous recommendations. Some might say that only some countries appeared to have human rights challenges; that was not the case. Moreover, the Review allowed a national process to be pursued. At the same time, national level consultations could unfold and civil society could present information to the High Commissioner, as well as to other State delegations. The validity and value of the exercise had been demonstrated during the first cycle and it was now time to look at the implementation phase. That would necessarily entail the participation of civil society along with national mechanisms. State delegations would be involved and informed of developments, she added.

Addressing resource questions, she noted that countries could request technical and financial support, not only from the High Commissioner’s office, but from United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Year by year the Council would set up panels, because it wanted the entire United Nations system to contribute. Pointing out that the special procedures mandate holders did not receive a salary, she noted that the Council did pay the costs of country visits. She particularly stressed that funding was needed in Haiti, further suggesting that States could choose to contribute to efforts in that country, thereby fostering the transition from platitudes to concrete action.

She said that, while there was always room for improvement, the Council had been acting expeditiously and cooperatively. When situations arose, it was hoped that action could be taken as soon as possible. In that context, items on technical cooperation and on emergency situations offered two channels for action. However, the most important element in those cases had been the commitment and involvement of the State concerned. If that commitment existed, whether it was manifested by a focused approach or a gradual one, it was important to involve national institutions, and not just point fingers.

Underlining the Council’s focus on cooperation, she said that when a State had the desire to resolve a situation, but not the means, it was important for other States to cooperate. At the same time, if countries needed help, they should come forward and ask for it. Another critical element in furthering cooperation was not countering the Council’s work. Sometimes there were efforts to intimidate those who cooperated with the Council’s work and such reprisals were not helpful to anyone — neither to the Council nor to society — and affected people who had merely exercised the human right to freedom of expression.

Continuing, she said the Secretary‑General would soon make recommendations on how to provide resources to support urgent procedures. Currently, the Council’s budget was reviewed once a year and the timing made it difficult to take funding from other previously planned activities, duly considering that emergency situations arose unexpectedly. No Council mandate or mission could be funded by extra‑budgetary funding, because this would mean it was no longer independent. That would be counter to the intentions of the High Commissioner. In addition, it had not yet been possible to establish a funding mechanism for those mandates that was fully efficient. Still, when the Council adopted a resolution, it did not wait until the end of the year to implement it. The urgent nature of a human rights emergency meant that any gap was not permissible.

She stressed that human rights was the third pillar of the United Nations. That could be seen, she suggested, in the suffering and hunger in the Horn of Africa. The root of that problem was the security situation in Somalia and work could be undertaken by different parts of the United Nations system to address the situation.

Regarding the Council’s work and agenda, she said it was critical for delegations to have the initiative, not the Council presidency. All States, not just Council members, could take the initiative. She added that there were sometimes very sensitive considerations and it was desirable to pursue a coordinated approach.

The outcomes of the review process had to be respected, she said, underlining that the review process itself was very valuable and resulted in a number of suggestions being put forward. An assessment of the level of consensus that could be achieved had subsequently been made. That was the dynamic in intergovernmental bodies, particularly those that did not want to wait for years and years to make progress. However, it was clear that to make the council’s efforts effective, practical results were needed.

She said that, among other things, there was now a more focused approach to the selection process for special procedures. She hoped that the special procedures would continue to work independently and in keeping with the Council’s yearly resolutions. There was a Code of Conduct for the mandate holders. They must respect human rights, as well as the principles of the United Nations Charter, and promote dialogue with States. When they wished to engage in certain issues, they must engage in broad‑based consultation to achieve consensus.

She said the main change in the second cycle was increasing from three to three‑and‑a‑half hours per country. In addition, one day was being added to the sessions, allowing more time for State dialogue.

As for the Council’s mechanisms, she noted that, in addition to the Universal Periodic Review, the Council could adopt resolutions. The Council would be delighted if situations in all countries were ideal and no one would have to be called on to speak before it. Ideally, all countries could deal with their own situation, but the world was not perfect and the Council had to use the mechanisms created for it. At this point, not all had been employed, but some countries had come forward to ask for a resolution or dialogue on their country. In that context, she noted requests from Somalia, Tunisia and Yemen.

Her appearance before the Committee was one way to raise the council’s profile, she said. Also, video messages were increasingly being sent. Video conferences had also been held with various regional bodies. Those helped bring the Council out into the world.

She stressed that the Council considered all human rights and she did not see a divide between developed and developing countries. Moreover, there was an obligation to maintain open consultations prior to the adoption of draft resolutions, which provided the possibility to interact.

Turning to the question on whether the Council was considering the attacks on Israel from Gaza, she said references had been made to violence from either side. Whenever country situations — such as in Libya and Côte d’Ivoire — were considered, the actions by all sides were looked at.

Asking a follow‑up question, Syria’s representative thanked the Council president for answering her delegation’s second question. She would have liked it if the president answered the question on human rights violations in developed countries, however. She said that all the lies and allegations in Israel’s comments neglected the following facts: the Council had held a number of sessions to address the violation of human rights in the occupied territories. Further, the Committee had adopted scores of resolutions that condemned Israel’s violations. Indeed, Israel’s crimes had exhausted the United Nations, as well as its budgets. However, the Israeli occupation was still a fact, as were its saddest violations. Those violations did not allow Israel to judge human rights violations anywhere else in the world.

Responding, Ms. LASSERRE noted that she had partially replied to many questions and repeated that human rights violations in developed countries were also viewed in the Council, from the thematic angle during each session. Statements frequently referred to the situation of migrants in Europe, for one example. Special procedures reports were not confined to developing countries and talked about developed countries, often very severely. No one was saying some were good and some were bad. She also noted that many developing countries got a “better grade” in providing water and sanitation.

“The Council is everybody’s Council,” she stressed. There was no Council rule that if a country failed to comply in regard to one particular human right, it could not speak on other rights. Indeed, every country could speak in the Universal Periodic Review process. It was very damaging when countries that received comments from a developed country immediately assumed they were politicized. The Review should be seen as an effective mechanism and countries must take comments in a constructive way.

Statements

OMBENI SEFUE (United Republic of Tanzania), speaking on behalf of the African Group, expressed support to the Council president and her team and reaffirmed its commitment to the Council’s work. He underscored and emphasized that continued engagement on that subject with all stakeholders was key to arriving at an understanding on the issues of divergence among Member States, and advancing those that Members agree on. Noting the efforts of Council President to lead that body towards a successful outcome in the review process, he expressed particular appreciation for the open format of the second session of the Working Group, which allowed for effective participation of both members and observers, as well as other stakeholders.

He further welcomed the consensual approach and outcome that resulted from the Assembly negotiations on the Council’s review, as well as the coordinated approach between Geneva and New York during the review process. That process should be strengthened. Moreover, everyone would benefit from the new practice of holding an interactive dialogue between the Committee and the Council’s president. The African Group was also pleased that the President could now present the Council’s report to the plenary meetings of the Assembly and the Committee. Yet, adequate resources were needed to meet extraordinary expenses arising from the Council’s resolutions and decisions, and the President should make suggestions regarding financing.

HENRY MAC‑DONALD ( Suriname), on behalf of Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said several noteworthy initiatives had been realized during the reporting period of the Human Rights Council. Also notable was the extended mandate of the independent expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti. However, having special rapporteurs or experts exceed their mandates was a matter of grave concern to CARICOM. “While the independence of the mandate holders is acknowledged, we are of the view that mandate holders should carry out their activities in full respect of the Code of Conduct. Special mandate holders in defiance of their mandate do not necessarily contribute to an environment for a constructive dialogue with States to promote and protect human rights. CARICOM expects the special mandate holders to engage in constructive dialogue with members states in the discharge of their mandate,” he said.

CARICOM was also pleased to note the adoption, without a vote, of the outcome of the mandated Review of the Council. It would continue to support the work of the Council to ensure it continued to execute its mandate, duly taking into account the principles of universality, objectivity and non‑selectivity in the consideration of human rights issues, as well as the elimination of double standards, as enshrined in the resolution establishing the body. It was also good to note that all Member States had participated in the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, and CARICOM looked forward to its second cycle.

KAYODE LARO (Nigeria), aligning with the statement of the African Group, said his country was pleased to note the Council’s substantial effort to achieve its mandate; the wide range of issues contained in the report and its sheer volume were a refection of the complexity and multiplicity of issues before the Council. The Council was a unique tool for the protection and promotion of all human rights, but a focus on economic, social and cultural rights might be its own contribution towards assisting States in attaining the Millennium Development Goals.

His delegation would like to commend the Council for completing the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, and the conclusion of the review process for the work and functioning of the Council. “It is quite remarkable that since the first session of the UPR Working Group in February 2008, this mechanism has attracted 100 per cent participation by States,” he said. Nigeria looked forward to the second cycle of the review and expected it to reinforce the importance of the mechanism as a means of promoting and protecting human rights across the world. People across the world expected the United Nations to protect their human rights and fundamental freedoms, and it was important for States to cooperate to advance the work of the Council.

ANA MARIE HERNANDO ( Philippines), speaking on behalf of the Platform on Human Rights Education and Training, welcomed the adoption by the Human Rights Council last March of resolution 16/1 entitled United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training, as it constituted an important step in many respects. Various aspects of human rights education and training had been developed and adopted throughout the years, such as through the Vienna and Durban declarations, which reiterated the importance of human rights education and training. Such training would promote respect for human rights with regard to all individuals without distinction of any kind, such as race, sex, language or religion. The declarations also promoted the role that human rights education and training could play in changing attitudes and behaviour, in order to create tolerant societies.

However, she said that no single document was available that contained all the necessary principles and elements for stakeholders engaged in such work, or those looking to receive training. Nor did they take stock of the more practical lessons learned. That gap was meant to be filled by the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training. Although non‑binding in a legal sense, the Declaration compiled and structured essential principles in that regard. The new Declaration provided a clear and precise definition, and paved the way for follow‑up initiatives at the national, regional and international level, including through international cooperation. He reiterated the hope that the procedural resolution to be introduced by the Platform under agenda item 64 recommending adoption of the Declaration of the Assembly would receive broad support, not only through its adoption by consensus, but also with an increasing number of co‑sponsors.

IRINA VELICHKO ( Belarus) welcomed the results of the review of the Council, even though not all worthy country proposals, including Belarus’, were taken into account. Belarus was against attempts to introduce new criteria for the Council, which had been attempts to control it. The fact that over the past few years all countries had undergone review spoke for itself. But, a paradoxical situation had arisen in which recommendations were ignored, and instead there were politically motivated reports on countries. There had been unjustified recent attempts by certain countries to give human rights in Belarus an unfavourable review.

The European Union tried to push through an anti‑ Belarus resolution at the 17th session of the Council, but the agenda to push that unsubstantiated assessment had not been supported. Belarus intended to continue living up to its obligations for human rights and cooperating with United Nations bodies. Given the lack of financial resources to implement resolutions and decisions of the Council, rational use of resources of the body should be the guide. Resources should be used to protect the most vulnerable sections of society — and the Council must once and for all end double standards and avoid manipulation of human rights issues by special interest groups.

FARISHA SALMAN ( Malaysia) commended the Council on the success of its review process. Countries had shown great flexibility and compromise in achieving a fruitful outcome. However, despite the understanding reached during the review process, some countries seemed keen to use the Council as a platform to impose their values on other parties, instead of working together to build an institution based on the principles of dialogue, cooperation, consultation and mutual respect. The current trend of politicization of human rights by some had not served the cause of human rights. Some countries continued to emphasize political and civil rights to the virtual exclusion of economic, social and cultural rights. Her Government, however, considered that the former could not be separated from the latter.

Malaysia was heartened to know that the majority of countries were cooperating in the Universal Periodic Review process and it looked forward to the Review’s second cycle, she said. The gap between the last session and the next would give States ample time to take stock of the recommendations received and focus on implementation and development in their countries. The Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance should be strengthened and operationalized to ensure the full participation of all countries in the Review and the implementation of resulting recommendations. Her delegation believed that the Council should be adequately resourced and that further assessment of the special procedures mechanism was needed. The number of mandate holders on thematic issues was far too many, and the Council must prioritize issues. Some could be considered biennially, or more. States should focus on reinforcing the Council’s strengths and not reconstruct, reframe or unravel existing arrangements.

Mr. SIAHAAN (Indonesia), thanking the Member States for supporting the election of his country to the Human Rights Council, stated that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism had made the Council “a unique and more prominent body”. The dialogue concerning each country’s Review had set an example of how States could cooperate and engage constructively with one another, avoiding the politicization of issues, as well as the unproductive naming and shaming of others. Indonesia, as one of the first 14 countries to be reviewed in the second cycle next year, was preparing its national Universal Periodic Review report, highlighting the progress and challenges of the last four years, based on the Universal Periodic Review recommendations and the national human rights agenda.

Special procedure mandate holders, he stated, should maintain their professionalism in fulfilling their mandates, by complying with the code of conduct and by building mutual trust with the States. It was time for the Council to comprehensively study the current overall picture of special procedure mandate holders, including their mandates and fundings, in order to avoid potential duplication of work. He added that Indonesia was also concerned about the continuing violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

SOUMIA BOUHAMIDI ( Morocco) said the Council played an important role in contributing to a new culture of active, universal awareness to protect human rights, favouring cooperation over antagonism. Morocco was resolutely committed to continuing constructive dialogue with rights bodies and spared no efforts in strengthening the Council’s effectiveness. Its commitment was apparent during the Council’s review, in which it played a small role. The review was an ongoing process, and Morocco was convinced the Council would continue to improve its functioning over the years.

The Council had already shown great capacity to help protect human rights and respond to emergency situations when they required attention, she said. Today was an opportunity to send a strong signal of support to the Council, and Morocco attached particular importance to the Universal Periodic Review as an innovative and democratic mechanism to improve human rights situations on the ground. Morocco was one of the first countries to submit to the Review and would be one of the first to submit to the second round of the Review, when it began next year.

MONIA ALSALEH ( Syria) underscored her country’s willingness to work with the Council president in an equitable and fair manner. Double standards and politicization must be avoided. Her Government had carefully examined the Council’s report, since it dealt with important issues such as human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories and the occupied Syrian Golan. It also dealt with the Gaza conflict and the aid flotilla. Despite the fact that the Council had asked Israeli authorities to implement its recommendations and not to place obstacles before the inquiry, Israel continued to do so. Meanwhile, as war criminals and perpetrators of crimes against humanity continued to flagrantly commit crimes, the entire world was wondering why there was an exception for those people and why they were not brought to justice.

She underscored that there had been an absence of any effort to address human rights violations in developed countries, including racism, inhumane treatment of migrants and refugees, and attempts to prevent developing countries from developing through sanctions. It was unfortunate that the Council ignored the actions of developed countries, since that undermined the Council’s credibility. She stressed that Council resolutions S-16/1 and S-17/1 concerning Syria were based on false information. Moreover, their title and tone were hateful and unprecedented. What was happening in Syria was a series of criminal acts committed by armed groups against Syria and the Syrian people. Yet, a campaign was being undertaken to weaken Syria and to change its political position on the challenges facing the region. There were also attempts to interfere in Syria’s internal affairs and to destroy its political and military structures. In keeping with its obligations, the Syrian Government had submitted to the Universal Periodic Review. It had accepted 98 recommendations and was studying 36.

OSAMA ABDELKHALEK MAHMOUD ( Egypt) stated that this year the General Assembly had concluded the first review process of the Human Rights Council and adopted the Geneva outcome document on its works and functioning. The results of the review process reinforced important principles and reaffirmed the council’s subsidiary status to the General Assembly, but they were adopted in a voted resolution which undermined a primary objective of the process, which aimed at supporting the Council as a General Assembly tool to promote respect for all human rights. The international community had the responsibility to ensure that the Council carried out its functions within a transparent and cooperative framework and was obliged to prevent the Council from becoming a political tool.

All Member States had made the commitment, he stated, to ensure the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review on all States, on an equal footing and with the participation of civil society, and to deal positively with the special procedures. In return, the mandate holders must perform their duties in accordance with the Code of Conduct and the tasks mandated to them by the Human Rights Council, to be objective in their reporting, and to establish a dialogue, based on transparency and cooperation, with the governments of the States concerned. Mentioning the historic transition Egypt was currently witnessing, he stated that his country believed that human dignity was the cornerstone for ensuring respect for all human rights and international unity was important when dealing objectively with human rights issues.

YANA BOIKO ( Ukraine) said the Council had proved its ability to adequately respond to gross violations of human rights, speak with one voice and send out resounding messages to the international community. The report of the Council showed the increased number of resolutions adopted by consensus; that was positive, but at the same time there were still some issues hindering the constructive work of the Council. Appropriate attention should be paid to the development of mechanisms, including on a conceptual level, to prevent human rights violations and abuses. In that regard, she was pleased to mention the resolution on “the role of prevention in the promotion and protection of human rights”, initiated by Ukraine and co‑sponsored by more than 40 countries, which was adopted by consensus last September.

Her delegation commended the Council’s closer cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. But, she noted the Office, by virtue of its mandate by the General Assembly should remain independent of the Council and not be commissioned by it. Ukraine also welcomed further enhancement of transparency in the selection and appointment process of special mandate holders as an outcome of the Council’s review. To further implement the results of the Council’s review of activities, she urged countries to closely cooperate with the special procedures, honouring issued standing invitations and committing to voluntary reporting on implementation of received Universal Periodic Review mechanisms. “Our delegation believes that we are entering a new time of higher shared responsibility among the members of the international community, in which our collective action in the field of human rights is founded on the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity, non‑selectivity, constructive international dialogue and cooperation,” she said.

CAROLINA POPOVICI ( Moldova) said the current year had been very important for the future work of the Council. But, important issues remained that required attention, including the lack of needed finances for resolutions, which could jeopardize the effectiveness of the Council, as well as the High Commissioner for Human Rights. For its part, Moldova had extended a standing invitation to the special procedures mandate holders and was looking forward to active cooperation with them. The report of the Council reflected the complexity of its agenda; Moldova underwent the Universal Periodic Review mechanism last month in Geneva, and consistently followed a wide participatory approach during the process.


Moldova’s Government had accepted the recommendations of the final report — a clear indication it believed it was a valuable process aimed at improving human rights. The delegation would like to express appreciation to delegations that participated in its Review. Moldova was enhancing domestic legislation on human rights, minority rights, and the social inclusion of minorities and vulnerable groups, among other areas. She also emphasized that ample progress had been launched in the national human rights action plan. Moldova was closely cooperating with European Union member States, and was a state party to all human rights treaties, which would surely lead to an even broader approach to human rights in the country.

Statements on the report of the High Commissioner for Refugees

ZOYA KOLONTAI ( Belarus) noted the increasing role of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in protecting refugees and migrants in emergency situations. To fulfil its mandate, that Office’s capacities and funding must be increased. Her Government hoped UNHCR would further advance its work in the context of the Global Plan of Action on Combating Human Trafficking. Strategies could be elaborated and implemented to protect refugees from being trafficked.

Noting that cooperation with UNHCR was being implemented at the country level, she said the country agreement had entered into force this year and everything possible had been done to improve the effectiveness of common efforts, she said. The focus should now be on broadening UNHCR’s activities in Belarus, including identifying people who were asylum‑seekers and looking for resources to address local refugees. The training centre in Minsk was being used to develop an international course on statelessness, refugees and migration. Regional courses were also being held. Belarus was pleased with the High Commissioner’s visit to Belarus and the Government looked forward to further efforts in advancing practical efforts on the ground.

MACHARIA KAMAU (Kenya), aligning with the statement of the African Group, said his country for over twenty years had hosted refugees from neighbouring countries in two camps. The Dadaab refugee camp in north‑eastern Kenya, created to host refugees from Somalia, currently hosted over 600,000 refugees, making it the third most populous town in Kenya. “The famine, drought and insecurity in Somalia have influenced this influx by Somalis into Dadaab camp. Almost unbelievably, the camp was originally designed to host 90,000 refugees. This influx of refugee population has not only overwhelmed the services and facilities in the camps, but also destroyed the environment and its scarce resources, and bled Kenya’s capacity as a host state,” he said. The deterioration of security was also a worrying trend both inside and outside the refugee camps, with armed groups taking advantage of the lawless situation in Somalia.

“For some reason, we seem to be unable to get the international community, the United Nations and the international and non‑governmental entities that operate in Kenya, to appreciate its full extent, the magnitude of the sacrifice and the burden that Kenya carries. For them, it would appear to be business as usual. The status quo cannot be allowed to continue,” he said, calling for new options to build a more equitable, efficient and effective international refugee burden sharing regime. Kenya was committed to its international responsibilities to protect refugees, but continued instability in Somalia increased the challenge to deliver on its obligations. He called on the international community to support the work being done with the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and the Somalia Transitional Federal Government to create safe zones within Somalia for refugees, to alleviate camp conditions.

Kenya also urged the international community to support the strategy for a long‑term solution to the crisis found in the outcome document from the humanitarian crisis summit on the Horn of Africa in Nairobi, 8 to 9 September.. Challenges relating to refugees in Kenya could not be effectively tackled in absence of political stability and security in Somalia. “The root causes of the conflict in Somalia must, therefore, be addressed”, he said. Regional peace and security must be promoted as a preventive measure to avoid a new influx of refugees and ensure voluntary repatriation of refugees back to their countries of origin, or relocation to other countries.

HUZEFA KHANUM ( Pakistan) said her country had hosted the largest refugee population in the world since the 1980s. “We have exhibited extraordinary generosity and hospitality as hosts to Afghan refugees for over three decades. We are still host to over 3 million Afghan refugees. This, however, has had a negative impact on the economic, sociocultural and security sectors. It has also affected the job market and brought public infrastructure under stress. Last year’s floods and the impact of global financial and food crises has further added to the challenges,” she said.

Pakistan had introduced several programmes, including the Afghan Management and Repatriation Strategy for 2010‑12; Population Profiling, Verification and Response, to improve response based on gender and age; and the Refugees Affected and Housing Areas Development Initiative to help address challenges of security, socio‑economic and environmental impact due to the presence of large‑scale refugees on host societies. But, those programmes required international commitment and financial support — most importantly, success would depend mostly on creating pull factors in Afghanistan. “The donor community and the UNHCR should aim at accelerating reintegration, reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts in Afghanistan for the Afghan refugees to return to their homeland. Until their repatriation, the international community must share the responsibility for the Afghan refugees through increased funding for programmes to sustain them and to cope with the challenges of hosting them, and by offering third country resettlements,” she said.

SOUMIA BOUHAMIDI ( Morocco) welcomed the efforts of the High Commissioner in budgeting, as well as in seeking out new and diversified partnerships and initiatives aimed at specific categories of refugees. New mass displacements had been seen in the last year, with many reaching unprecedented scope, particularly in Africa. These issues were compounded by other phenomena and justified the High Commissioner’s constant commitment. Indeed, at the end of 2010, the number of persons falling under the UNHCR mandate had reached 33.9 million. Morocco was concerned about the influx of new refugees in the region and believed it was imperative that UNHCR remain vigilant, preserve the humanitarian space and ensure the protection of human rights.

According to the High Commissioner’s report, at the end of 2010, 7.2 million refugees found themselves in long‑term situations, she said. Specific solutions had been tried in many countries, and Morocco welcomed the fact that many refugees were choosing to return to their countries of origin thanks to voluntary repatriation efforts. Yet, many countries in Africa had fallen outside those efforts. In particular, no progress had been made in the Tindouf camps. In that context, she stressed that the gathering of information on individuals and their families was indispensable in finding solutions, particularly in terms of voluntary repatriation. It was the responsibility of host countries to hold a census to assess and quantify the food needs of refugees. Morocco believed UNHCR must act in line with its mandate, its humanitarian and social mission, and the provision of decisions by the Executive Board, such as the integration and return of refugees. She welcomed the progress made earlier this year in resuming family visits and implementing the confidence‑building measures.

MILORAD ŠĆEPANOVIĆ ( Montenegro) said resolving the status of refugees and displaced persons was a key priority for his country’s progress on its European path. A strategy covering the period 2012‑2015 had been adopted in July 2011. The adjacent action plan made special reference to the refugee camp Konik, which was mentioned in the European Commission opinion as the most pressing refugee‑related issue. Drafted in collaboration with the UNHCR and the European Union delegation in Podgorica, the strategy entailed a possible solution: full integration into society and voluntary repatriation to countries of origin. It provided measures to enable access to rights, including social protection and health care. Special attention was placed on Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian populations, who were most in need of preferential treatment. The strategy aimed to provide jobs and housing. The voluntary repatriation of refugees and displaced persons would be assisted by Montenegro’s Government and was expected to contribute to bilateral agreements with Kosovo. A Coordination Committee for monitoring the implementation of the strategy and action plan had been set up. The deadline for application by displaced and internally displaced persons for appropriate civil status had been extended until the end of 2012.

He went on to note that Montenegro was now home to roughly 9,800 displaced persons from Kosovo and another 3,900 from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. A series of regulations safeguarding the fundamental rights of displaced persons and refugees, including the settlement of their legal status and social integration, had been introduced. Displaced persons had also been granted the status of foreign nationals with permanent residency. Montenegro was also engaged in regional programmes for permanently solving the issue of refugees and internally displaced persons in the region. A joint declaration was to be signed at a ministerial conference on 7 November 2011 in Belgrade. A regional multi‑year programme had also been agreed on to address the needs of the most vulnerable refugees. He underlined the need for a regional approach and the support from the international and donor community.

FEODOR STARČEVIĆ ( Serbia), aligning with the statement of the European Union, said his country had been experiencing the problem of displacement for almost two decades now. It understood the need for concerted efforts between countries of origin and receiving countries, but it was also aware that sustainable solutions could not be found without the inclusion of all relevant international actors and the donor community. For its part, Serbia had undertaken a number of initiatives with its neighbours and international organizations to tackle the refugee problem in its region. Among them, the Joint Regional Multi‑Year Programme could serve as a good example for the solution of protracted refugee crises in other parts of the world. “We also believe that success in this joint endeavour will give new impetus to cooperation and reconciliation in the region,” he said.

“The encouraging positive developments in the region, however, are overshadowed by the long‑lasting problem of 250,000 internally displaced persons, mainly Serbs and other non‑Albanians, who were forced to leave the Province of Kosovo and Metohija in 1999 and look for shelter elsewhere in Serbia. This is an issue of great concern to us,” he said. These internally displaced persons from Kosovo were kept from returning to their properties by security concerns, as well as numerous legal and administrative obstacles — it could hardly be said they had ever been given an opportunity to freely opt either for return or local integration. The international community should increase efforts to ensure the safe voluntary return of those internally displaced persons; for that, an important role was played by the UNHCR and, although it was fully aware of current and emerging challenges throughout the world, the decision to reduce the UNHCR budget for operations in Serbia was regrettable.

NEVEN MIKEC ( Croatia) said his country decisively implemented a housing programme for former tenancy rights holders, with a view to assuring a sustainable return of refugees and displaced persons. Reconstruction of property damaged in war, as well as repossession of property, had also continued at a vigorous pace. The process of repossession had almost been completed, with only 11 housing units pending repossession, out of over 19,200. “Having achieved significant progress in the implementation of the housing care programmes for all categories of refugees and displaced persons, Croatia expects that other countries in the region will follow this positive practice and develop similar effective projects at their national level,” he said.

The delegation also welcomed that four countries in its region — Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Croatia — had agreed upon the Regional Programme on Durable Solutions for Refugees and Displaced Persons, the so‑called Sarajevo Process, which focused on adequate housing solutions for the remaining vulnerable refugees and displaced persons in need. As a new member of the UNHCR Executive Committee this year, Croatia was fully aware of its responsibilities and stood ready to vigorously support global efforts at refugee protection. It fully shared the view that full respect for international principles related to the protection of refugees, in particular non‑refoulement guarantees and ensuring durable solutions, was crucial for providing solutions to challenges worldwide.

XOLELA NOFUKUKA ( South Africa) said his delegation was happy to notice savings were made through efficiency and internal reforms, improving protection and emergency response capacities. “ South Africa remains the highest destination country for asylum seekers in the world. According to our information, a large proportion of those applying for asylum are fleeing political persecution, but many come seeking better economic prospects. Within this context and in an effort to manage immigration more efficiently and effectively in the national interest, we have introduced amendments to immigration legislation and the Refugee Act, to better secure the rights of asylum seekers and refugees,” he said.

Those changes included a policy to separate economic migrants from genuine asylum seekers, he said. There was also a need for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to adopt a regional approach to issues of migration. Mixed migration posed an unprecedented challenge to all States and it required an effective and efficient response to protect their needs and sensitivities. Stronger national, bilateral and regional cooperation was needed, as were improved national policies and legal frameworks. Further, accurate refugee and migration data and analysis would be needed to ensure evidence‑based policies.

KIM SOO GWON ( Republic of Korea) said his delegation was pleased that the efficiency gained through the UNHCR’s internal reform process since 2006 had given it a window of opportunity for launching key initiatives to improve protection and emergency response capacities and to ensure greater accountability to the populations under its care. The Korean Government supported and encouraged constant and unflagging pursuit of comprehensive reform initiatives. As the High Commissioner’s report noted, the failure to respect the universal principle of non‑refoulement had become one of the biggest protection challen...



Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Mar 1 Mai - 00:12 (2012)    Sujet du message: CONFÉRENCE DE PRESSE DU SECRÉTAIRE GÉNÉRAL DE L’ORGANISATION DE LA COOPÉRATION ISLAMIQUE (OCI) SUR LA COOPÉRATION ENTRE L’OCI ET L’ONU Répondre en citant

CONFÉRENCE DE PRESSE DU SECRÉTAIRE GÉNÉRAL DE L’ORGANISATION DE LA COOPÉRATION ISLAMIQUE (OCI) SUR LA COOPÉRATION ENTRE L’OCI ET L’ONU

À l’issue d’une visite de trois jours à Washington et New York, M. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secrétaire général de l’Organisation de la coopération islamique (OCI) a présenté, ce matin, au Siège de l’Organisation des Nations Unies à New York les initiatives prises par l’OCI, en coopération avec les Nations Unies, relatives à la PAIX, à la SÉCURITÉ et à des questions d’ordre humanitaire.

Intervenant dans le cadre d’une conférence de presse organisée à l’auditorium de la Bibliothèque Dag Hammarskjöld du Siège de l’ONU, le Secrétaire général de l’OCI a longuement parlé des situations en Syrie, en Somalie et à Jérusalem-Est après avoir évoqué la « nouvelle phase » que constitue la création, il y a trois semaines, de la première Commission des droits de l’homme permanente indépendante de l’OCI. Cette Commission des droits de l’homme permanente indépendante est composée de 18 experts dont quatre femmes, a indiqué M. İhsanoğlu. Il a d’autre part annoncé la tenue, ce soir au « Metropolitan Museum » de New York, d’un événement organisé par la Mission d’observation permanente de l’Organisation de la coopération islamique auprès de l’ONU, en collaboration avec la société Coca-Cola et le Département des arts islamiques qui vient d’être créé au sein de ce musée.

M. Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu s’est félicité de la rencontre qu’il a récemment eue à Washington avec la Secrétaire d’État des États-Unis, Mme Hillary Clinton, qui a été suivie par la signature d’un Mémorandum d’accord entre l’OCI et l’Agence de développement international des États-Unis (USAID) dans le bureau « Eisenhower » de la Maison Blanche. La signature de cet accord va notamment permettre aux parties de faire face aux besoins des victimes des combats, de la famine et de la sécheresse en Somalie. Le Secrétaire général de la Conférence de la coopération islamique a également évoqué sa rencontre avec M. MarcGrossman, Envoyéspécial du Gouvernement des États-Unis pourl’Afghanistan, et il a annoncé qu’il rencontrerait cet après-midi le Secrétaire général de l’ONU, M. Ban Ki-moon, pour discuter des domaines d’action commune entre l’OCI et l’ONU en matière humanitaire et de maintien de la paix.

Répondant à plusieurs questions sur la situation en Syrie, M. İhsanoğlu a répondu: « nous n’avons pas d’autres options que de croire en une solution politique ». Il a indiqué qu’une mission d’évaluation de l’OCI, dont l’envoi avait été décidé en novembre 2011, a finalement pu se rendre à Damas hier, en collaboration avec le Bureau de la coordination des affaires humanitaires (OCHA) du système de l’ONU. Précisant que l’OCI est liée à OCHA par un Mémorandum d’accord conclu la semaine dernière, il s’est dit soucieux de privilégier les canaux diplomatiques pour la recherche d’une solution à la question syrienne. Il a, à cet égard, préconisé qu’il fallait faire un distinguo entre les aspects politique et humanitaire de la crise syrienne, indiquant que la question humanitaire ne devait pas être politisée. Le Secrétaire général de l’OCI a ajouté qu’il est urgent de répondre au problème humanitaire qui se pose en Syrie en mettant tout en œuvre pour stopper les effusions de sang et les combats. « Nous appuyons la mission confiée à M. Kofi Annan en espérant qu’avec sa médiation nous parviendrons à une solution acceptable par tous », a indiqué M. İhsanoğlu.

Il s’est dit persuadé que l’arrêt des combats permettrait de créer un climat favorable à une résolution politique et favoriserait un accord entre les cinq membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité pour l’élaboration et l’adoption d’une résolution sur la Syrie prenant en compte les attentes et les sensibilités de toutes les parties. Il a insisté sur le fait que tous ces acteurs sont opposés à toute intervention militaire en Syrie.

S’agissant de la réunion inaugurale, il y a trois semaines, à Djakarta, en Indonésie, de la première Commission des droits de l’homme permanente indépendante de l’OCI, M. İhsanoğlu s’est réjoui de l’ouverture de cette « nouvelle phase » qui permet à l’OCI de disposer d’une institution qui promeuve et surveille le respect des droits de l’homme dans les 57 États membres de l’OCI. Il s’est dit particulièrement touché que cette Commission ait décidé, lors de sa première réunion, de porter une femme à sa présidence.

S’agissant de la question israélo-palestinienne, le Secrétaire général de l’OCI a indiqué que l’Organisation de la coopération islamique est engagée en faveur de la sauvegarde de tous les lieux saints des trois grandes religions monothéistes –les juifs, les chrétiens et les musulmans- à Jérusalem. Il a insisté qu’à l’instar des États-Unis, l’OCI jugeait illégale toute activité de colonisation à Jérusalem-Est et était soucieuse de faire respecter les droits de la population qui habite ces quartiers depuis 14 siècles.

M. İhsanoğlu s’est en outre particulièrement inquiété des conséquences des actes commis récemment par des soldats américains en Afghanistan en prévenant que « jeter de l’huile sur le feu, ne fera qu’alimenter un foyer qui risquera de nous consumer tous ».

L’Organisation de la coopération islamique (OCI), dont le siège est à Djeddah, en Arabie saoudite, est une organisation intergouvernementale créée le 25 septembre 1969 sous le nom d’« Organisation de la conférence islamique » et qui regroupe 57 États membres. L’OCI a changé de nom et d’emblème le 28 juin 2011 –passant d’« Organisation de la conférence islamique » à « Organisation de la coopération islamique »-, et elle est la seule organisation de niveau supra-étatique et international qui soit à caractère religieux.

* *** *

http://www.un.org/News/fr-press/docs//2012/Conf120316-OCI.doc.htm


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Mar 1 Mai - 00:16 (2012)    Sujet du message: U.N.- SPONSORED MEETING EQUATES ISRAELIS WITH NAZIS: PALESTINIAN MINISTER ACCUSES ISRAELI LEADERS OF ADVOCATING ‘EXTERMINATION CAMPS’ Répondre en citant

U.N.- SPONSORED MEETING EQUATES ISRAELIS WITH NAZIS: PALESTINIAN MINISTER ACCUSES ISRAELI LEADERS OF ADVOCATING ‘EXTERMINATION CAMPS’

By Anne Bayefsky
April 5, 2012 10:12 A.M.

Every year at this time, on the occasion of Passover, Jews around the world relive the exodus from Egypt and their people’s journey from slavery to freedom. This year the endeavor to remember never to take freedom for granted got a gratuitous boost from the United Nations. On April 3 and April 4, 2012, at the behest of modern Arab nations, the U.N. convened a meeting in Geneva committed to turning back the hands of time and keeping alive those ancient prejudices.

Over the past two days, the U.N. Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People has sponsored a two-day conference on the topic of Palestinian “political” prisoners held in Israeli prisons. The Committee was created by the U.N. General Assembly back in 1975 to implement the infamous Zionism-is-racism resolution. While the resolution was rescinded 16 years later, the committee marches on, boasting 49 U.N. states and observers as members and unending funds courtesy of the General Assembly.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon sent Maxwell Gaylard, U.N. Deputy Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, to open the meeting on his behalf. Gaylard fawned: “I am pleased to send greetings to all participants at this International Meeting on the Question of Palestine.” He proceeded to “thank the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People for organizing this important discussion.”

With a room full of European diplomats, professional Israel-bashers from “civil society,” Arab and Muslim state representatives, and avowed anti-Semites — not mutually exclusive categories — the “important discussion” took the following form.

The “keynote” address was delivered by Issa Qaraqe, the Minister for Prisoners’ Affairs of the Palestinian Authority. He blithely asserted that “there was a call at the highest level of the Israeli state for concentration camps to be set up for the rounding up and extermination of Palestinian people.” To ensure his message was widely available the U.N. posted on their website his speech claiming that “the Chief Rabbi of Israel” has called “for the establishment of extermination camps for Palestinians,” that Israelis advocate “prisoners should be gassed and exterminated,” and that “Israel is waging a war of ethnic cleansing against all humanity.” As to why there are any Palestinian prisoners, “the prisoners only crime is to struggle for freedom and independence,” said Qaraqe.

John Dugard, who served as U.N. “Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” from 2001 to 2008, openly embraced the destruction of the Jewish state by force, using the one-state-solution lexicon of “Palestine/Israel.” He referred to “Palestinian resistance fighters” as “freedom fighters.” He railed against Israel for using the term “terrorists” — which he put in quotation marks — to describe “those who engage in resistance activities as combatants” or who “take up arms in pursuance of the right of self-determination.”

The ambassador of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to the U.N. in Geneva, Slimane Chikh, claimed that “we see ethnic cleansing. . . . Jewish people have primacy and are being favored in all parts of life,” while he fumed about “Judaized holy sites.”

Civil-society representative Shawqi Al Issa, director of the Ensan Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Bethlehem, lectured: “The League [of Nations] decided to give Palestine to European Jewish migrants instead of developing it for its people who lived on this land. In 1947 . . . more of the country was given to European Jewish migrants. . . . There are confessions by Israel that there are medical experiments done on prisoners. . . . Many are killed after leaving prisons as a result of torture, diseases and experiments done on them.”

When the combination of U.N. experts and officials, diplomats and non-governmental participants, had finished analogizing Israelis to Nazis and Palestinians to Holocaust victims, claiming Jews have no historical ties to the land of Israel, and declaring open season on Israeli men, women, and children in the name of self-determination, Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian’s lead U.N. representative, was given a final word: “We thank the U.N. for organizing this very important conference in this very important location of the U.N. . . . the capital and center of human rights.”

In a world where human wrongs are called human rights, Mansour’s declaration makes perfect sense. Fortunately, the message of Passover offers us a way out of the U.N.’s moral morass: Teach your children that the threat of servitude continues, that freedom is an imperative for every human soul, and that good can triumph over evil.

— Anne Bayefsky is Director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.

Editor’s Note: This post has been amended since its initial posting.


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295353/un-committee-accuses-israel-ethnic-cleansing-anne-bayefsky


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Mar 1 Mai - 00:18 (2012)    Sujet du message: IRANIANS EMPLOY THUGGISH TACTICS AT U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL Répondre en citant

IRANIANS EMPLOY THUGGISH TACTICS AT U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

PH

Among them is one Gholam Hossein Esmaeili, “Head of the prisons organization and rehabilitation and preventive programs.”

Prison authorities deny use of torture

http://www.radiozamaneh.com/english/content/prison-authorities-deny-use-torture

By Anne Bayefsky

March 19, 2012 4:58 P.M.

The credibility of President Obama’s “speak softly and carry a wet U.N. noodle” foreign policy took a major hit on Friday when it was discovered that Iranian thugs have been given carte blanche to participate in and wander around the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva intimidating Iranian dissidents.

The president’s decision to join the U.N.’s top human-rights body in 2009, and more recently to seek a second three-year term on the Council, is one of the centerpieces of his “engagement” strategy. Neither the membership of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, and Cuba on this human-rights agency, nor three years of incessant Israel-bashing, has deterred the administration from attempting to legitimize the Council. It is not surprising, therefore, that Iran is evidently not feeling the heat.

In early March the Iranian mission to the U.N. in Geneva informed the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in writing that 21 officials would be “participating in the 19th session of the Human Rights Council,” now underway.


Among them is one Gholam Hossein Esmaeili, “Head of the prisons organization and rehabilitation and preventive programs.”

Esmaeili has another claim to fame — he is on an EU sanctions list and subject to a travel ban and assets freeze as a person “responsible for grave human rights violations.” The EU decision of April 12, 2011, imposing the restrictions specifies that Esmaeili was “complicit in the massive detention of political prisoners and covering up abuses performed in the jailing system.” The Iranian government apparently believed he would be quite comfortable participating in the U.N.’s idea of a human-rights body.

It turns out Iran also thought that by participating in the human-rights body it could import some of the tactics acceptable back home. On March 12, 2012, the U.N. was considering a report on human rights in Iran produced by a special rapporteur/investigator. Iranian dissidents were in attendance as observers. Just prior to the commencement of the so-called “INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE” between states and the investigator, U.N. security guards approached two dissidents and asked them to step outside for questioning.

Iranian diplomats, the guards explained, had complained that the two had been taking photographs of Iranian representatives.

After their laptop was examined, the two NGO members were allowed to return to the Council session but shortly thereafter were approached by Iranian diplomats directly. A loud exchange occurred in the back of the Council chamber itself, with Iranian representatives insisting on examining the computer files of the Iranian NGOs. Ultimately, the diplomatic goons took out their cameras and photographed the NGO members inside the Council room. Despite the fact that multiple complaints over the harassment were lodged with U.N. officials, no U.N. action was taken.

Iranian strong-arm tactics also appear to be having an effect on U.N. member states. This week the Council is expected to adopt a shamefully weak resolution on human rights in Iran. The operative part of the draft is three measly sentences long and fails to mention a single word about human-rights violations in Iran. It puts off doing anything by simply mandating more reports in the future.

The resolution also contains a pitiful plea for Iran “to cooperate” with the U.N. special investigator and “to permit access to visit the country” — notwithstanding the fact that Iran has not admitted a U.N. special rapporteur on human-rights violations in Iran since 1996. As the head of the Iranian delegation Mohammad Javad Ardeshir Larijani, “Secretary of the High Council for Human Rights,” explained to the Council on March 12, 2012, the problem was the “Zionist mafia,” since “we are . . . a democracy system, a polity based on Islamic rationality . . . peaceful and respectful coexistence . . . truth, dignity, and justice
.”

The Iranian offensive within the U.N. human-rights framework had one more front last week. Back in 2007, with then–U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour in attendance, the 117 countries of the non-aligned movement (NAM) met in Tehran and adopted the “Tehran Declaration and Programme of Action on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity.” The Declaration established a “NAM Center for Human Rights and Cultural Diversity” to be headquartered in Tehran. On Friday, March 16, 2012, “the Permanent Mission of Iran” organized a meeting of this center on U.N. premises in Geneva; the invitation to the public was issued in a U.N. document entitled “Bulletin of informal meetings held in parallel to the [Human Rights Council] session.”

The title of the Iranian meeting that was facilitated by the U.N. was “Emerging New International Human Rights Institutions/Mechanisms in the NAM Region,” and the moderator was the Iranian center’s director. Oddly enough, the emergence of Holocaust denial as government policy, the advocacy of genocide, the sponsorship of state terrorism, and the provision of arms to a neighboring government engaged in the commission of crimes against humanity were not discussed.

Under the Obama administration, American taxpayers are paying 22 percent of the costs of the U.N. “Human Rights” Council: the bulletins, the documents, the voting machines, the microphones, the global webcasts, the translations, the facilities, the salaries of U.N. officials, and on and on. Iran isn’t perverting human rights and freedoms all by itself.

— Anne Bayefsky is Director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/293871/iranians-employ-thuggish-tactics-un-human-rights-council-anne-bayefsky


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Dim 17 Juin - 17:02 (2012)    Sujet du message: NOUVEAU SCANDALE À l’UNESCO QUI FAIT UN PAS DE PLUS VERS LA NÉGATION DE L'HISTOIRE DU JUDAÏSME À JÉRUSALEM ! VENEZ MANIFESTER LE 24 JUIN Répondre en citant

NOUVEAU SCANDALE À l’UNESCO QUI FAIT UN PAS DE PLUS VERS LA NÉGATION DE L'HISTOIRE DU JUDAÏSME À JÉRUSALEM ! VENEZ MANIFESTER LE 24 JUIN


16 juin 2012 à 19 h 02 min - Commentaire que j'ai mis en réponse sur leur site.

Ce n’est pas de pétition ni de petite marche que nous avons besoin. C’est de voir le peuple se jeter au pied de Jésus et de se repentir.

Vous nous arriver avec ce « scandale ». Cela fait au moins 4 ans que je sonne la trompette aux frères et soeurs et aux nations et personne n’écoute ou ne me croit.

Toute la réforme de Durban pour islamiser le monde entier et criminaliser les chrétiens et les juifs (sous le couvert de combattre l’intolérance et l’islamophobie) est autant un piège que ne l’ont été les droits humains onusiens qui ont jeté par terre les lois divines données à Moïse.

Croyez-vous que les Nations Unies vont vous écouter et se repentir? Vous demandez à votre ennemi qui n’espère qu’à vous exterminer pour effacer toute trace du vrai Dieu de vous écouter? Franchement, vous égarez le peuple. REPENTANCE, REPENTANCE ET ENCORE REPENTANCE.

« Si mon peuple sur qui est invoqué mon nom, s’humilie, prie et cherche ma face, ET S’IL SE DÉTOURNE DE SES MAUVAISES VOIES, Je l’exaucerai des cieux, je lui pardonnerai son PÉCHÉ et je guérirai son pays.
2 Chroniques 7:14.


Si votre message est autre que celui que Dieu nous appelle à mettre en pratique, alors vous égarez le peuple et alors seule la ruine viendra. Plus, elle est déjà là!

juin 16th, 2012
Daniele - Europe-Israel.org




Europe Israël vous appelle à une grande manifestation le dimanche 24 juin à 15 H devant le siège de l’UNESCO ! Mobilisez vous !

SIGNEZ LA PETITION A l’UNESCO en cliquant ici !

L’UNESCO efface méthodiquement le judaïsme de Jérusalem :

Voici la description de la ville Sainte « revisitée » par l’UNESCO:
« Ville sainte du judaïsme, du christianisme et de l’islam, Jérusalem a toujours eu une forte valeur symbolique. Parmi ses 220 monuments historiques se détache le formidable dôme du Rocher, construit au VIIe siècle et décoré de magnifiques motifs géométriques et floraux. Il est reconnu par les trois religions comme le lieu du sacrifice d’Abraham. Le Mur des Lamentations délimite les quartiers des différentes communautés religieuses, tandis que la Rotonde de la Résurrection abrite le tombeau du Christ. »

Voir notre article précédent sur « The World project«

Où est la mention de l’Esplanade du Temple, où est-il dit que le mur « des lamentations », le Kotel, est le vestige du mur d’enceinte du Temple, lieu le plus sacré du Judaïsme, détruit par les Romains en l’an 70 de l’ère commune ?

Après la déjudaïsation du Tombeau de Rachel, du Tombeau des Patriarches, c’est encore une fois déposséder les Juifs de leur patrimoine historique et spirituel et nier le lien du Peuple Juif à Jérusalem et à Israël.

Ces diverses réécriture de l’histoire de la Terre d’Israël pour en « nettoyer » de façon historique et culturelle tout son passé juif est un scandale mondial qu’il nous faut dénoncer avec force !

Si les peuples du monde laissent faire cette opération concertée de l’Organisation pour la Conférence Islamique (OCI) avec la complicité active de l’UNESCO dans quelques années Israël aura perdu tout caractère Juif et les Palestiniens pourront délégitimer Israël et la présence des juifs sur la Terre Sainte du judaïsme !

Réagissons ! Juifs, Chrétiens, Musulmans, athées, laïcs, ne laissons pas Jérusalem et la Terre Sainte déjudaïsée par l’UNESCO (sous pressions de l’OCI) car c’est l’histoire de l’humanité qui est en cause et demain nous assisterons de la même façon à la déchristianisation !

Tous ensemble Juifs, Chrétiens, Musulmans attachés à la vérité historique, devons réagir et empêcher ce négationnisme historique !

Mobilisez vous !
Tous devant le siège de l’UNESCO
7 place Fontenoy 75007 Paris
le dimanche 24 juin à 15 H.



http://www.europe-israel.org/2012/06/nouveau-scandale-a-l%e2%80%99unesco-qui-fait-un-pas-de-plus-vers-la-negation-de-l%e2%80%99histoire-du-judaisme-a-jerusalem-venez-manifester-le-24-juin/comment-page-1/#comment-16089


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Dim 17 Juin - 17:12 (2012)    Sujet du message: DÉJUDAISATION DE JÉRUSALEM - SUITE... Répondre en citant



Suite à mon premier commentaire, un dénommé Moshé007 m'a répondu ceci :

Moshé007 dit :

16 juin 2012 à 20 h 46 min

Maria, vous semblez vous en faire pour les chrétiens, les chrétiens revendiquent être 2 milliards sur terre, 2 milliards alors que les juifs ne représentent à 15 millions, ce qui veut dire 1’300 fois moins et vous déclarez « les chrétiens et juifs » !

Maria, si nous nous batons et nous sommes battus avec les musulmans, cela regarde les juifs et les musulmans, en ce qui vous concerne vis-à-vis des musulmans, cela ne nous concerne pas !

Ce blog traite de cette ville que les musulmans, juifs et chrétiens partagent depuis peu, car il n’y a pas un siècle, le père du mufti actuel et mufti nazi lui même, al husseini a massacré des juifs de Jérusalem, des centaines et des milliers ont dû fuir, à cete époque, les chrétiens ont soutenus le mufti devenu plus tard l’ami personel d’hitler.

Depuis et jusqu’à il y a peu, les communautés chrétiennes arabes aisnis que leurs leaders religieux de Judée-Samarie tenaient un discours rès virulent envers Israël, pareil au Liban, en Syrie et ailleurs dans le monde arabe, alors de deux choses l’une, ou les chrétiens sont des amis du peuple juif, ou des ennemis, mais pas juste des amis quand ça les arranges !

Car il ne faut pas oublier que derrière cette facheuse résolution du l’unesco, se cache le vote d’un état, le vatican et sa clique de mafieux pédophiles !!!
Ma réponse :


17 juin 2012 à 7 h 35 min

Réponse à Moshé007. Tout le problème vient que vous rejetez encore le message du Messie et Libérateur venu, il y a 2000 ans et que sous la nouvelle Alliance, tous sont appelés à marcher en nouveauté de vie tout en obéissant aux lois hébraiques. Il n’y a de salut en aucun autre, que le Seigneur Jésus nous dit.

Cela n’a rien à voir avec le nombre de chrétiens ou de juifs mais plutôt de la conversion du coeur. Ce qui se passe présentement est qu’un reste seulement marche avec le Messie d’Israël. Les juifs non-messianiques attendent encore ce messie et très bientôt, ils comprendront combien ils ont été égarés.

Ceci dit, je répète que les Nations Unies et l’UNESCO n’écouteront pas vos revendications car la réforme des droits de l’homme est complètement islamisée – et sous les lois de la Sharia. Lorsque cette réforme a pris place, les nations auraient dû voir qu’un grand jugement venait sur ce monde, mais comme toujours nos gouvernements et nos leaders religieux ont gardé le silence s’étants eux-même associés à ce gouvernement mondial sous le couvert du dialogue interreligieux qui, il y a quelques mois, un évêque a déclaré que Rome serait là pour aider à lutter contre l’islamophobie. Que croyez-vous que cela veut dire? Qu’ils endossent les droits de l’homme qui sont sous le contrôle de l’OIC et de l’Empire Ottoman. Rome va se servir des milliers de musulmans brainwashés pour lancer son grand calife mondial contre tous les peuples et installer l’Antichrist à Jérusalem qui sera sous contrôle total de l’Islam. Voyez tous les accords passés, ces dernières années entre Israël, les Palestiniens et le Vatican. Cela est assez évident ce qui se met en place. Dans cet article, on nous dit que : La Terre Sainte étant une propriété du Saint-Siège http://www.zenit.org/article-31037?l=french . Cet article vient du site même du Vatican.

Le gouvernement d’Israël (complètement contrôlé par les Rotschilds) fut un des premiers pays à s’unir aux Nations Unies dont le dieu est Zeus et non pas l’Éternel. Il marche donc main dans la main avec le camp ennemi pour mettre en place la destruction du peuple juif, tout comme il l’a fait durant la deuxième guerre mondiale où ils ont travaillé dans le secret avec Hitler, toute comme l’Empire Ottoman et qu’ils ont fait des milliers de dollars de profits de cette guerre. Mais ça il ne vous le diront jamais. Israël et les Rotchilds continuent de faire de même de nos jours avec tous leurs armements militaires et sécuritaires qu’ils vendent à travers le monde à des pays qui se préparent à détruire Israël.

On nous dit constamment dans différents articles qu’Israël est le seul pays démocratique dans le monde. Permettez-moi d’en douter. Edmond Rotschild a dit un jour aux juifs qui voulaient décider ce qui était bon ou non dans la manière de cultiver et de contrôler leur terre : J’ai créé le Yishuv, moi seulement. Par conséquent, pas un homme, ni même des colonistes ou des organisations n’ont le droit d’interférer dans mes plans. Ce gouvernement zioniste, qui pratique la kabbale et qui sont des satanistes sont en train de préparer la destruction du peuple d’Israël avec tous leurs partenaires internationaux.

Israël, comme aux temps anciens s’est laissé séduire et toutes les choses interdites par le Très-Haut ont corrompu l’âme de plusieurs. Quand, dans le secret, on pratique des rituels sataniques en l’honneur des démons, que l’on fait la promotion de l’homosexualité et que l’on met en place les lois internationales pour PAIX et SÉCURITÉ, eh bien, c’est clair que ce gouvernement ne marche pas selon le coeur de Dieu mais avec le camp ennemi.

Voyez comment Dieu a jugé Son Peuple qui s’était laissé corrompre dans les siècles passés à cause de ce même problème. Ce même jugement vient aujourd’hui sur toutes les nations car elles se sont laissées séduire et corrompre par tout ce système babylonien. Lisez Ésaïe 9:10 et Ézéchiel 39:23-24 où il est dit : « Et les nations sauront que c’est à cause de ses iniquités, que la maison d’Israël a été conduite en captivité. À cause de ses infidélités envers moi ; Et le les ai livrés entre les mains leurs ennemis, Afin qu’ils périssent tous par l’épée. Je les ai traités selon leurs souillures et leurs trangressions, Et je leur ai caché ma face.

Là est le coeur du problème pour Israël et pour tous les peuples. La nouvelle alliance appelle à une repentance totale, c’est-à dire, de se repentir d’avoir écouté et marché selon le camp ennemi, et de marcher maintenant seulement selon les ordonnances du Seigneur.

En 1948, les Nations Unies ont rejeté les droits INALIÉABLES donnés au peuple juif et aux nations. Ils les ont remplacé par les droits de l’homme, considéré par les NU comme étants INALIÉABLES. Et 63 plus tard, on remplace ces droits par les lois de la Sharia, comme base de la nouvelle société glogale (Nouvel Ordre Mondial), et considérés comme des droits INALIÉABLES. Rejetant donc les lois divines, ils ont fait croire aux hommes que sous les droits de l’homme, les nations seraient en PAIX et en SÉCURITÉ. Nous n’avons qu’à regarder toutes les guerres, la famine, l’esclavage depuis 1948 pour nous rendre compte qu’ils n’ont jamais respecté ces droits qu’ils avaient mis en force. Et maintenant, on les a remplacé par de nouveaux droits, plus tyranniques et plus cruels et qui met fin à tous les droits humains. Voilà ce qui arrive lorsque l’on marche avec l’ennemi juré de Dieu. On se laisse séduire pour ensuite être piégé et détruit.

Venez au Messie d’Israël, qui est le seul à vous avoir dit la Vérité. Arrêtez de contester Son Autorité divine et marchez en dignité de Vie. Tout s’accélère et les derniers pions de cet échiquier mondial se mettent en place.

Alors, une petite mobilisation devant ces grands satanistes ne fera pas bouger les choses puisqu’ils aspirent tous à nous disparaître de cette terre.

http://www.europe-israel.org/2012/06/nouveau-scandale-a-l%e2%80%99unesco-qui-fait-un-pas-de-plus-vers-la-negation-de-l%e2%80%99histoire-du-judaisme-a-jerusalem-venez-manifester-le-24-juin/comment-page-1/#comment-16089


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Dim 24 Juin - 15:35 (2012)    Sujet du message: UN HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY BODY SYSTEM IN URGENT NEED OF HELP, SAYS NEW REPORT Répondre en citant

UN HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY BODY SYSTEM IN URGENT NEED OF HELP, SAYS NEW REPORT





High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay. UN/Jean-Marc Ferré


22 June 2012 –

The United Nations human rights treaty body system is in crisis and in need of urgent help, according to a new UN report, which offers a set of proposals to strengthen and improve the system and enhance its accessibility to those who need it the most.

Released today, Strengthening the United Nations human rights treaty body was produced by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

In a news release, the High Commissioner, Navi Pillay, stated that the establishment of the treaty bodies and the evolution of the treaty body system is one of the greatest achievements in the efforts of the international community to promote and protect human rights – but requires better resourcing, as well as a more streamlined and efficient approach.

The 10 human rights treaty bodies which make up the system are committees of independent experts that periodically examine the implementation of all treaties that State parties have ratified under international law.

The High Commissioner’s report focuses on strengthening the system – which has doubled in size since 2000 – rather than reforming it, and Ms. Pillay provides recommendations to enhance its visibility and its accessibility to individuals and communities who need it the most.

“The ultimate objective of this process was to take stock of the challenges and improve the impact of treaty bodies on States parties and individuals or groups of individuals at the national level by strengthening their work while fully respecting their independence,” she said.

The report, which has been almost three years in the making, noted that the increase in the number of international human rights treaties, and of the number of States that have ratified each treaty, has not been matched by an increase in resources to allow the committees monitoring implementation of the treaties to keep pace.

In doubling the size of the human rights treaty body system under these new instruments, there has been chronically insufficient attention given to properly resource this fundamental human rights mechanism,” said Ms. Pillay.

To create a more efficient and streamlined approach to the treaty body system, the High Commissioner proposed the use of a reporting calendar, so that every report is reviewed on time, with the hope that this will result in equal treatment of all States.

She also recommends the utilization of new technologies, including webcasting and videoconferencing to increase visibility and accessibility to these treaty bodies.

In the introduction to the report, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that the treaty body system “provides authoritative guidance on human rights standards, advises on how treaties apply in specific cases, and informs States parties on what they must do to ensure that all people enjoy their human rights.” = HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOW UNDER SHARIA LAWS.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42306&Cr=Human


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Mar 26 Juin - 01:50 (2012)    Sujet du message: A HAMAS-AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION AND ITS SUPPORTERS HELD AN “INFORMAL PARALLEL MEETING” PROMOTING THE DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWISH STATE. Répondre en citant

A Hamas victory at the UN Human Rights Council

A HAMAS-AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION AND ITS SUPPORTERS HELD AN “INFORMAL PARALLEL MEETING” PROMOTING THE DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWISH STATE.

By ANNE BAYEFSKY
06/25/2012 22:01




Photo: Brendan McDermid / Reuters

The Obama administration’s political and financial backing of the UN Human Rights Council resulted in another win for Hamas on Friday, June 22 in Geneva. A Hamas-affiliated organization and its supporters held an “informal parallel meeting PROMOTING THE DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWISH STATE AT THE UN’S PALAIS DES NATIONS.

The event was advertised on the UN website and listed on an official UN document headlined “Human Rights Council, twentieth session, 18 June – 06 July 2012.”

Opening week of the Council’s latest session, therefore, featured both friends of Hamas sporting UN passes and championing an end to a Jewish state, and Obama’s Ambassador (and former California fundraiser) Eileen Donahoe painting the Council as the place to be to promote and protect human rights.

In recent months, top Israeli officials have pleaded with their US counterparts to end American legitimization of the Council in light of its virulently anti-Israel record. In fact, this is the first Council session in which Israel’s observer seat is empty. Instead, the Obama administration has doubled-down on its support for the UN body and continues to trumpet its decision to seek a second term on the Council at elections this fall.

Hamas and company have now calibrated team Obama’s evident priorities to their advantage.

One of Friday’s three speakers was Sameh Habeeb, head of the media department of the “Palestinian Return Centre.” The event flyer, which clearly identified the Center as a “coorganizer” and named its representative as a speaker, was authorized to be posted at the UN conference room and distributed on UN NGO-reserved tables. And yet, as the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center has documented, the Palestinian Return Centre is one of the central institutions through which Hamas operates in Britain.

Here is some of what Habeeb had to say while speaking in a UN room, at a UN-provided microphone, at a UN-advertised event associated with the UN’s top human rights body: “In 1947, 1948 and 1949 the Palestinian refugees were ethnically cleansed by the Israeli gangs.... Some Arab armies came to Palestine to fight the Zionist project, which came from all over Europe to take over Palestine and to make it as a national home for the Jews, although it was always the national home for the Palestinians for thousands and thousands of years.”

Habeeb, a well-known radical and “one state solution” campaigner, didn’t come alone. Various publications of his Palestinian Return Center were made readily available on UN premises.

There was the pamphlet with this bigoted diatribe: “a racist ideology is inherent in political Zionism and... is being implemented as a political project by the state of Israel.

Political Zionism idealizes and advances a racist and chauvinistic... religion and nationalism.”

And there was the map with the word “Palestine” splashed across the entirety of what is now Israel. Advocating the elimination of a UN member state, the most elementary violation of the UN Charter, is evidently acceptable literature in the belly of the UN human rights beast.

A third handout, entitled “Apartheid against Palestinians,” analogized Israelis to Nazis: “The Israeli regime is based on... race and religious supremacy... Modern nation states formed through these corrosive ideals scarred the 20th century, including in Germany and the South African apartheid regime.”

This is the second time in two consecutive sessions of the Human Rights Council that Hamas and its messengers have been allowed into the UN fold. At the last session of the Council in March, a Hamas member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Ismail al- Ashqar, was given a UN pass, seated in a UN room at the invitation of a UN-accredited NGO, and permitted to speak at another Council “side-event.” Though UN organizers issued the standard disclaimer about what is said during such events, applications to hold any such meeting are first vetted and approved by UN staff.

The raft of anti-Israel informal meetings during Human Rights Council sessions which have been approved, and the nonstop Israel-bashing emanating from the Council itself, are not mere ships passing in the night. Forty-one percent of all the resolutions and decisions of the Council condemning a specific state have been directed at just one country among all 193 UN members, namely, Israel.

Nevertheless, today the UN Human Rights Council’s lead promoter is President Obama.

As November’s election fast approaches, UN Ambassador Susan Rice has been commissioned to explain the troubling disconnect with American values to disaffected voters.

At a synagogue in Boca Raton, Florida last month, Rice lectured: the administration had made “meaningful progress... at the Human Rights Council.” That is, some are more equal than others. She also tried this contortion: “there’s an important distinction to understand. Israel gets singled out at the UN, not by the UN. When Israel gets marginalized and maligned, it’s not usually because of the UN Secretariat.... It’s usually because of decisions by individual member states.”

Actually, the decisions to facilitate public speeches and the distribution of documents by Hamas and its cohorts alongside the Human Rights Council were made by the UN Secretariat. And the point is, UN bodies empower and magnify the pernicious decisions of their members.

In what is bound to become standard Democrat fare in the coming months, Rice summed up her UN pep talk this way: “Efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy have been met with the unflinching opposition of the United States.”

Except with Obama’s representative settled comfortably into her Council digs while the Israeli chair lies vacant, it is obvious to all that this White House has blinked.

The writer is the director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=275195


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Mar 3 Juil - 16:35 (2012)    Sujet du message: OBAMA TURNS HIS BACK ON ISRAEL AT THE U.N. Répondre en citant

OBAMA TURNS HIS BACK ON ISRAEL AT THE U.N.

By Anne Bayefsky
July 2, 2012 9:39 A.M.



Today, at the United Nations, the Obama administration is turning its back on Israel. For the very first time, the U.N. Security Council has invited the U.N. high commissioner for human rights to “brief” the Council specifically on the subject of Israel and the commissioner’s list of trumped-up sins. Though the U.S. is a veto-holding power, the extraordinary move has full American approval, despite the fact that the global soapbox will be handed to Navi Pillay, a notorious anti-Israel partisan.

Moreover, the American-backed action exposes President Obama’s profound weakness on the international stage. It turns out that the deal to sponsor an Israel-bashing session at the highest levels was a trade-off for having the high commissioner brief the Council on the subject of Syria.

The Security Council has not acted on Syria since an April 21, 2012, resolution, which sent unarmed observers over to watch the bloodshed. France wanted a high commissioner briefing on Syria to generate more noise. Council member Pakistan said no, unless Israel was on the chopping block, too. The Russians also said no, unless Libya was on the table. Russia seeks to use the mess in that country to obstruct stronger measures on Syria.

At this point in the diplomatic game, the Obama administration could have insisted that Israel not be sacrificed as the quid pro quo for paying due attention to the Syrian carnage. Instead, they caved, agreeing to a spectacle which casts Syria and Israel as moral equals.

Team Obama’s only caveat? The Syrian briefing should be in the morning and the Israel briefing should be in the afternoon so that the briefings — by the same person — can be labeled “two” meetings and the trade-off will be less visible. Obama’s U.N. ambassador Susan Rice can then run to the cameras before the afternoon session and claim the Council’s consideration of Syria was a “success.”

The betrayal of Israel is especially outrageous in light of what the administration knows about Navi Pillay. She’s the U.N. official who questioned the legality of the killing of Osama bin Laden within hours of his death. She’s the lead champion of the Durban “anti-racism” declaration and conferences. She’s the human-rights aficionado who sat glued to her conference chair — while democracies walked out en masse — when speaker Iranian president Ahmadinejad questioned the veracity of the Holocaust.

Only last month, when Pillay sought a renewal of her term as high commissioner, the administration lobbied (ineffectively) against it, in part precisely because of her anti-Israel bias. But a month later, Obama officials are welcoming her into the U.N.’s inner sanctum as a supposed expert on Israel’s inequities and legitimizing her message.

Pillay’s lecture is eminently predictable. Back in July 2010 when she was asked to address the Security Council on the general subject of the “protection of civilians” anywhere in the world, she managed only two pleas, and both were directed at Israel. She “urged” the Council to force Israel to lift the blockade of Gaza — notwithstanding the obvious anti-human-rights consequences of creating an Iranian arms depot on the Mediterranean. And she “urged” the Council to support the infamous Goldstone report.

Last November, when she was asked to brief the Council on “the protection of civilians in armed conflict,” she placed alleged “violence perpetrated by Israeli settlers” alongside ending impunity for “summary executions, rape and torture” in Cote d’Ivoire, “brutal violence” affecting “tens of thousands” in Syria, and “systematic torture” in Afghanistan.

As for the burning necessity of more briefings by Pillay, the last time the Security Council was briefed in detail on “the Palestinian question” was all of 13 days ago on June 19, 2012. In fact, detailed briefings of the Council on the issue, including ritualistic condemnation of Israel by U.N. “experts” and a series of non-democracies, are already held monthly.

Furnishing Pillay with a Security Council podium to attack Israel, therefore, must be set side by side with President Obama’s reelection campaign verbiage. Voters are rightly concerned by the president’s full frontal embrace of the United Nations. So administration officials are being dispatched to address Jewish voters in key states like Florida quite specifically on the subject of the Obama response to the demonization of Israel at the U.N.

Here’s Esther Brimmer, assistant secretary at the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, speaking to a Jewish group in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, Florida on April 24, 2012: “Our diplomatic engagement . . . at the U.N., is rooted in an ironclad commitment by President Obama to support Israel across the U.N. system. . . . Our commitment to defend Israel throughout the U.N. system, both in countering biased anti-Israeli actions and in opposing those who seek platforms to expand anti-Israel efforts at the U.N., remains strong.”

And here’s U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice at a synagogue in Boca Raton, Fla., on May 10, 2012: “Not a day goes by — not one — when my colleagues and I don’t work hard to defend Israel’s security and legitimacy at the United Nations. . . . President Obama has insisted that the United States be clear: The treatment Israel receives across the U.N. system is unacceptable. Efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy have been met with the unflinching opposition of the United States.”

It ain’t so.

Anne Bayefsky is Director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304559/obama-turns-his-back-israel-un-anne-bayefsky


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 6 Juil - 14:10 (2012)    Sujet du message: UN EXPERT DE L'ONU RAPPELLE LA RESPONSABILITÉ DES ÉTATS DANS LA LUTTE CONTRE LE RACISME Répondre en citant

UN EXPERT DE L'ONU RAPPELLE LA RESPONSABILITÉ DES ÉTATS DANS LA LUTTE CONTRE LE RACISME

Comme toujours, ce beau discours de cet "expert" ne sert que les intérêts des islamistes radicaux tout en condamnant tous ceux qui défendent la PAIX et la vraie JUSTICE sociale. Ce sont ceux-là qui sont considérés par cet "expert" comme étant un danger réel, les accusant de discrimination raciale, de xénophobie et d'intolérance et de partis politique extrémistes, comme celui de Ron Paul, qui pourtant marche main dans la main avec leur agenda pour justement amener cette criminalisation des groupes de résistants.

Cet "expert" appelle maintenant les États à ouvrir immédiatement des enquêtes indépendantes sur de tels CRIMES. Autrement dit, si nous ne sommes pas d'accord avec les principes internationaux des nouveaux droits de l'homme, eh bien, nous commettons tous un crime très grave. Nous voyons donc qu'en plus d'appeler la condamnation des insoumis, la liberté de pensée, sous cet Empire est grandement compromis. Tout cela se passe dans le même temps où Ban Ki-Moon appelle à l'abolition de la peine de mort, partout dans le monde http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=28499&Cr=éxecutions&amp… .

Nous savons tous que sous ce totalitarisme islamique qui s'impose dans tous les pays, cela fera un nombre incalculable de morts, mais ça, ça ne semble pas affecter les neurones du secrétaire général des Nations Unies. Voilà comment on endort les peuples, alors que la destruction de milliers de personnes, qui ne pensent pas comme eux, ceux-là pourront être arrêtés, jugés et condamnés par ce nouveau système islamique qui prend place dans chacun de nos pays. Et c'est sans compter sur tous les groupes jihadistes, qui eux, envahissent les villes et villages et qui détruisent tout sur leur passage. Ceux-là n'ont pas trop de problème avec la loi. Des peines minimales, là où s'est appliqué, mais la majorité du temps, l'impunité de leurs crimes est validé par leur propre gouvernement et les forces de l'ordre.

Nous voyons donc par cet article, que cet "expert" lance un appel à l'unité de toutes les nations pour lutter efficacement contre tous ces méchants extrémistes. Que vous dire de plus. Si vous n'avez pas encore compris que depuis des mois, se met en place un grand calife mondial pour amener la ruine sur les nations, je ne sais pas ce que je peux vous dire de plus. Leurs documents sont tous là sous vos yeux et pourtant... personne ne bouge. Tout continue comme si tout allait bien, comme au temps de Noé. Ils n'ont pas vu venir la ruine sur eux car ils n'ont pas veillé.

UN EXPERT DE L'ONU RAPPELLE LA RESPONSABILITÉ DES ÉTATS DANS LA LUTTE CONTRE LE RACISME

Mutuma Ruteere, Rapporteur spécial sur les formes contemporaines de racisme de discrimination raciale, de xénophobie et de l'intolérance qui y est associée.


3 juillet 2012 –

Lors d'un dialogue interactif mardi au Conseil des droits de l'homme des Nations Unies, le Rapporteur spécial sur les formes contemporaines de racisme de discrimination raciale, de xénophobie et de l'intolérance qui y est associée, Mutama Ruteere, a déclaré que la lutte contre le racisme impose la remise en question d'attitudes et de stéréotypes racistes, en particulier par l'adoption de mesures de prévention.

La prévention et la lutte contre le racisme est d'abord une responsabilité des États, a insisté le Rapporteur spécial, et la participation des groupes marginalisés dans la vie publique et politique est cruciale. Le Rapporteur spécial a par ailleurs présenté une étude sur les menaces que font peser les partis politiques extrémistes sur les droits de l'homme et la démocratie, ainsi que sur l'utilisation d'Internet et des médias sociaux par les partis et groupes extrémistes.

« Les partis politiques et mouvements extrémistes restent un défi considérable, notamment dans le contexte de la crise économique et financière actuelle. Des groupes vulnérables ont été accusés d'être responsables de la hausse du chômage et de l'endettement des États et de menacer la qualité de vie de la majorité de la population par les partis politiques extrémistes », a expliqué M. Ruteere au Conseil des droits de l'homme à Genève.

« Je suis particulièrement préoccupé par l'adoption d'un discours ouvertement raciste, xénophobe et nationaliste par des partis politiques traditionnels. À cause de leur autorité morale aux yeux d'une grande partie de la population, les dirigeants des partis politiques devraient s'abstenir de tels discours et condamner plutôt fermement les messages qui propagent la haine et incitent à la discrimination raciale et la xénophobie », a-t-il ajouté.

Le Rapporteur spécial a mis en garde contre le fait que l'impunité pour des crimes racistes et xénophobes encourage la multiplication de tels crimes. Il a appelé les États à ouvrir immédiatement des enquêtes indépendantes sur de tels crimes afin d'assurer que les responsables soient sanctionnés et que les victimes aient accès à une réparation.

http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=28498&Cr=racisme&Cr1=


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Lun 9 Juil - 16:00 (2012)    Sujet du message: UNESCO : COMBATTRE « L'ENTITÉ SIONISTE » ET PROMOUVOIR LE JIHAD EST CULTUREL – FESTIVAL DE HAINE ANTISÉMITE À BEYROUTH Répondre en citant

UNESCO : COMBATTRE « L'ENTITÉ SIONISTE » ET PROMOUVOIR LE JIHAD EST CULTUREL – FESTIVAL DE HAINE ANTISÉMITE À BEYROUTH


juillet 8th, 2012
Europe-Israel.org



D’aberration en aberration - l’Unesco : entité onusienne au service des destructeurs et des voleurs de patrimoine. L’UNESCO reçoit à Beyrouth un Festival iranien de culture et de haine anti-sioniste.

Par Hélène Keller-Lind

Évènement culturel à la Maison de l’UNESCO à Beyrouth. UNESCO dont la devise est « construire la paix dans l’esprit des hommes et des femmes ». C’est la République islamique d’Iran qui y tient actuellement une semaine culturelle. Lors de l’inauguration le ministre libanais de la Culture a souligné l’importance pour le Liban de collaborer dans le domaine culturel avec un Iran qui a soutenu le Liban dans son combat contre le régime sioniste. Tapis persans, musique islamiquement correcte et calligraphie persane étaient également au rendez-vous.

Ce que devient l’UNESCO qui va d’aberration en aberration…

Rien d’étonnant à cela, finalement…mais quand même. L’UNESCO est en passe de devenir un « machin » onusien de plus. Ou l’est déjà devenu. Avec cette entrée aberrante d’un non État appelé « Palestine » en son sein. État qui consacre un budget considérable à l’éducation à la haine d’Israël et des Juifs par tous les moyens possibles et imaginables alors que le credo et la raison d’être affichés de l’UNESCO sont à l’opposé puisqu’il sont de « construire la paix dans l’esprit des hommes et des femmes »….

Dans un éditorial au sujet de cette admission Richard Prasquier, Président du CRIF, écrivait : « C’est le symbole qui est recherché. L’accueil sous applaudissements aux diverses instances internationales a un seul but : celui d’imposer comme une évidence que quoi qu’en disent ses ennemis (Usa et Israël), l’Etat palestinien existe déjà et les restrictions à son sujet vont, non pas contre l’histoire (nous ne sommes plus au temps du marxisme triomphant) mais contre la géographie du nombre »

Et puis il y a eu cette seconde aberration, dans le droit fil de la première : une inscription en urgence de la Basilique de la Nativité à Bethléem au Patrimoine mondial de l’Humanité de cette même UNESCO. Urgence motivée par…des fuites d’eau dans la toiture – que l’Autorité palestinienne est incapable de faire réparer, donc, en dépit des millions qui lui sont versés –nous apprend l’agence onusienne elle-même… Mais au-delà de la farce il y a, bien entendu l’aspect politique étant donné que l’UNESCO situait cette toiture et ce panier percés en « Palestine »…

Manifestation du grignotage en marche pour contourner toute négociation avec Israël, pourtant nécessaire pour établir un État palestinien…D’autres étapes sont d’ores et déjà prévues, d’ailleurs. Et seront sans doute mises en œuvre quand les choses se seront calmées…

Combattre l’entité sioniste et jihad serait-ce culturel ?

Aujourd’hui on découvre que pour l’UNESCO louer l’alliance irano-libanaise contre l’entité sioniste fait partie de la culture. Culture censée construire la paix dans l’esprit des hommes et des femmes, rappelons-le. Et cela se passe à Beyrouth où la milice terroriste du Hezbollah, bras armé de l’Iran au Pays du Cèdre, fait désormais la pluie et le beau temps. Ce qui, entre nous soit dit, est en violation flagrante de la Résolution onusienne 1701 qui après moultes résolutions semblables et tout aussi vaines interdisait la présence de milices armées sur le sol libanais. Et après on viendra nous parler de la nécessaire « sécurité d’Israël »….

A Beyrouth donc, à la Maison de l’UNESCO, se tient actuellement la Semaine Culturelle de l’Iran. Si on ne trouve pas cet événement culturel sur son site, son inauguration le 2 juillet à 18 h est bien mentionnée dans l’agenda du ministre libanais de l’Information.

Le 3 juillet l’agence de presse iranienne IRNA en rendait d’ailleurs compte dans une dépêche datée de Beyrouth avec ce chapeau : « En visite, le ministre de la Culture et de l’Orientation islamique, a adressé ses félicitations à l’occasion de l’anniversaire la grande victoire de la Guerre de 33 Jours, disant que, d’une part elle a mené à l’unité des diverses factions libanaises et d’autre part aux louanges adressées par la nation iranienne ». Point n’est besoin d’explication de texte… « Guerre de 33 Jours » se référant à la guerre initiée par le Hezbollah contre Israël en été 2006.

On apprend que le ministre iranien, Seyyed Mohammad Hosseini, a « fait ces remarques lors d’une rencontre avec le ministre de l’Information libanais Walid al-Daouq » en évoquant cette Semaine Culturelle et une Exposition économique iranienne dans la capitale libanaise. Il a été question de coopération entre les deux pays dans le domaine cinématographique avec les films « 33 Jours » – voir plus haut – et « Une corde plus proche que la veine du cou » – dont les qualités artistiques semblent évidentes, d’après son titre-. Sujet de ces films : « les efforts des combattants musulmans libanais pour le Jihad ».

Le ministre libanais parlait également « du rôle de l’Iran dans la construction du Liban »…Sans rire… Un Liban placé sous la coupe de l’Iran par Hezbollah interposé… Par ailleurs ce ministre libanais est contesté pour avoir restreint ce dernier bastion de liberté d’expression qu’est Internet…

Cette rencontre ministérielle suivait l’inauguration de la Semaine Culturelle iranienne à la Maison de l’UNESCO de Beyrouth en présence du ministre de la Culture libanais, Gaby Layoun, de l’ambassadeur de la République Islamique d’Iran, du député libanais Ali Bezi et d’un grand nombre de personnalités du monde culturel et artistique des deux pays ».

A propos de culture il faut savoir que Gaby Layoun est accusé par ses prédécesseurs, entre autres, de saccager l’héritage historique du Liban en ayant retiré d’une liste du patrimoine archéologique libanais un ancien port phénicien, ce qui permettra de construite des tours sur son site… On se demande ce qu’en dit le Comité du Patrimoine Mondial de l’UNESCO…

Ce même ministre libanais, se comportant en vassal parfait, déclarait lors de l’inauguration de la Semaine Culturelle iranienne « il est très important pour nous d’avoir une coopération culturelle avec un pays qui a soutenu la résistance de la nation libanaise contre le régime sioniste ».

Ce à quoi le ministre iranien répondait en affirmant que « depuis le premier siècle ayant suivi l’hégire, l’idée d’unité au sein de l’Oumma a toujours existé pour l’identité de l’humanité ». Évoquant « la lumière de la vérité », il affirmait que « la culture est la seule manière de vaincre les aspects négatifs des relations entre les nations ». En droite ligne avec le credo de l’UNESCO mais cocasse après ses autres déclarations… A propos des livres traduits d’une langue dans l’autre il déclarait aussi, en rient sans doute sous cape : « c’est la preuve de la présence importante de l’Iran au Liban ».

Et puis, faire blanchir de l’argent du Hezbollah et de l’Iran par les banques libanaises, cela soit être culturel aussi…

Cette fête culturelle, hébergée par l’UNESCO à Beyrouth, présentant calligraphie et tapis persans, poésie et musique islamiquement correcte fut donc aussi un festival de la haine anti-sioniste De quoi « construire la paix dans l’esprit des hommes et des femmes ». Drôle de « paix »…
english.khabaronline -desinfos.com

Si tout cela (les exactions des islamistes et la destruction en cours de trésors de l’humanité) n’était pas dramatique à en pleurer, ça pourrait porter à rire …
Tombouctou, la perle du désert, venait d’être classée au Patrimoine mondial en péril de l’Unesco.

Un signe fort qui n’a pas empêché des combattants d’Ansar Dine, mouvement islamiste lié à Al Qaïda au Maghreb islamique (Aqmi) de se lancer dans la destruction de plusieurs mausolées de la ville du nord du Mali.

Bamako avait fait la demande de classement après la prise en avril des deux tiers nord du pays par les séparatistes touareg du Mouvement national de libération de l’Azawad (MNLA) alliés à des islamistes .

Dans le communiqué annonçant le classement au Patrimoine mondial en péril, l’Unesco invite les pays voisins du Mali à « tout mettre en oeuvre pour prévenir le trafic d’objets culturels en provenance de ces sites » (NDLR : malgré les bouddhas de bâmiyân partis en fumée, z’ont toujours pas compris que le danger est plus la destruction que le trafic -comprendront peut-être quand le Sphinx de Gizeh sera réduit en gravas-).

L’Union africaine a invité début juin le Conseil de sécurité de l’Onu à autoriser une intervention militaire pour rétablir l’ordre dans le Nord, mais les Etats membres ont réclamé des précisions . Le Nigeria, le Niger et le Sénégal se sont dits prêts à fournir l’essentiel de la force de 3.300 hommes qui pourrait y être déployée.

Par Sil

http://www.europe-israel.org/2012/07/unesco-combattre-%c2%ab-l%e2%80%99entite-sioniste-%c2%bb-et-promouvoir-le-jihad-est-culturel-%e2%80%93-festival-de-haine-antisemite-a-beyrouth/


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Mer 11 Juil - 00:11 (2012)    Sujet du message: SOFT ON ASSAD, SLANDERING ISRAEL Répondre en citant

SOFT ON ASSAD, SLANDERING ISRAEL

by Joel Himelfarb • Jul 9, 2012 at 6:22 pm
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3666/soft-on-assad-slandering-israel 

Even as Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime continues slaughtering its own people, the dictatorship may be in line for a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council.

UN Watch reported that Syria has declared its candidacy for a seat on the council, the U.N.'s flagship human-rights body, next year. The General Assembly will vote on whether to elect Syria to the council, which is responsible for "the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe."

Because Syria is running as part of U.N.'s 53-country Asian regional group, it is virtually assured of victory. Under the U.N. system, regional groups orchestrate uncontested elections to choose representatives to sit on the rights council.

"That's how non-democracies like China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China won their current seats, and how Pakistan and Venezuela are about to do the same," according to UN Watch.

Damascus declared its desire to join the Human Rights Council last year. But after Western democracies pressed the Asian bloc not to nominate that country, an 11th-hour agreement was announced in May 2011 that Kuwait would replace Syria.

This year, the United States and the European Union have taken the unprecedented step of asking the council to declare in advance that Syria will be disqualified from joining.

At first blush, it may seem unthinkable that Damascus could be considered for a position on the Human Rights Council given Assad's latest atrocities. But on Thursday, the council adopted a resolution cosponsored by Syria which called for a new U.N. declaration promoting a "right to resist and oppose oppressive colonial, foreign occupation" – effectively providing a measure of legitimacy to the justification for jihad advanced by terrorist organizations like al-Qaida, Hizballah, and Hamas.

The measure passed by a 34-1 vote (with only the United States in opposition) and 12 abstentions.

Last year, Syria was unanimously elected to a pair of human-rights committees that were part of the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The United States and Great Britain tried to prevent UNESCO from taking this step.

But even though the Assad government had been suspended from the Arab League, the same nations' UNESCO ambassadors in Paris ran interference for Damascus, which today remains a full member of the agency's committees dealing with human-rights organizations and judging human-rights complaints.

While going soft on Assad, U.N. "human-rights" advocates remain tough as ever on Israel. At a meeting last Monday in Geneva, U.N. Special Rapporteur Richard Falk, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, blamed Israel for provoking violence and violating human rights in the "Palestinian territories occupied since 1967." Twenty states and six nongovernmental organizations denounced Israel and praised Falk, including paragons of human rights like Iran, Syria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Cuba. Only one party – UN Watch – defended the Jewish state.

Read more :http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/03/canadas-hillel-neuer-skewers-un-anti-israel-hatemonger-richard-falk/

http://www.investigativeproject.org/3666/soft-on-assad-slandering-israel


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Sam 4 Aoû - 20:17 (2012)    Sujet du message: LE CORAN CONTRE NOS VALEURS ET NOS LOIS - À INTERDIRE PARTOUT EN OCCIDENT Répondre en citant

LE CORAN CONTRE NOS VALEURS ET NOS LOIS - À INTERDIRE PARTOUT EN OCCIDENT


1- Fin avril, le Comité constitutionnel Espagnol a été saisi d’une demande d’interdiction du coran, présentée par Imram Firasat, réfugié pakistanais, apostat de l’islam, et auteur du site internet Mundo sin Islam (un monde sans l’islam) (1).
Et ce qui, pour beaucoup, tient du miracle, s’est accompli : sa pétition demandant l’interdiction du coran en Espagne sera examinée par le Comité Constitutionnel Espagnol.

Ci dessus, en photo d’accroche, la lettre officielle, datée du 12 avril, et publiée par notre confrère posteveille.ca (2), par laquelle le Président de la commission des pétitions du Congrès informe Mr Firasat que sa demande a été acceptée, et qu’elle sera envoyée au Comité constitutionnel du Congrès.

Voici les dix arguments de la pétition :

1. Le coran n’est pas un livre sacré religieux mais un livre violent, débordant de haine et de discriminations.
2. Le coran est un livre horrible qui incite une communauté appelée « les musulmans » à s’engager dans le djihad, à tuer des innocents et à détruire la paix dans le monde.
3. Le coran est responsable de tous les actes terroristes commis ces dernières années dans lesquels des milliers de personnes ont perdu la vie.
4. Le coran est un livre infâme qui oblige les croyants à conquérir le monde entier et à imposer un pouvoir absolu coûte que coûte.
5. Le coran est un livre qui, en toute légalité, permet et encourage la violence et la haine, ce qui le rend incompatible avec le monde moderne, Espagne comprise.
6. Le coran est un livre qui établit des discriminations directes entre les personnes.
7. Le coran est un livre qui n’autorise ni liberté d’expression ni liberté de religion.
8. Le coran est un livre qui impose des souffrances et tortures aux femmes par ses prescriptions misogynes et injustes.
9. Le coran est un livre qui enseigne les divisions plutôt que l’unité : les croyants ne sont pas autorisés à créer des liens d’amitié avec les non musulmans, car le coran les considère comme des infidèles.
10. Le coran est une menace considérable pour la liberté de la société espagnole. C’est un livre qui prêche clairement le djihad, le meurtre, la haine, la discrimination et la vengeance. Pour ces raisons il ne peut en aucune façon être compatible avec le système espagnol. Ce livre est totalement contraire aux lois et à la Constitution de l’Espagne et il incite à la haine et à la violence dans notre pays.

2- Le 26 avril, les 27 ministres de l’intérieur européens, réunis à Luxembourg, ont débattu d phénomène des terroristes solitaires, et des moyens de renforcer leurs actions, suite aux tueries de Toulouse et de Montauban perpétrées par le terroriste Mohamed Merah.

Le coordinateur de la lutte anti-terroriste de l’UE, le Belge Gilles de Kerchove, précise la dépêche de l’Agence Europe du 27 avril, est venu présenter aux ministres plusieurs pistes de réflexion.

Depuis 2008, a expliqué le coordinateur, 13 attentats ont été commis par des individus isolés en Europe, la plupart relevant de l’islam radical et de l’extrême-droite, a indiqué M. de Kerchove. Ce terrorisme de « loups solitaires » ainsi que le phénomène de radicalisation constituent même aujourd’hui la « plus grande menace » à la sécurité des pays de l’UE, a dit la commissaire Cécilia Malmström sur son blog.

L’UE devrait ainsi plancher sur le renforcement de ses contre-arguments à la propagande d’Al-Qaïda, par exemple.
D’autres actions doivent également être menées, a poursuivi le coordinateur, notamment la prévention de la radicalisation dans les prisons en aidant dirigeants d’établissements ou surveillants à détecter certains comportements.

3- le 16 mai dernier, le Tribunal Fédéral a porté un coup décisif contre les tentatives d’interdiction de l’islamophobie, en faisant condamner la ville de Fribourg, en Suisse (3), pour avoir interdit au Mouvement Suisse contre l’islamisation de tenir un stand dans la ville, en 2009, durant la campagne de votations fédérales sur la loi interdisant les minarets, stand qui était destiné à avertir le public sur les dangers de l’Islam.

« Les libertés d’opinion et d’information ont été violées » a décidé le juge fédéral, cassant la décision du tribunal cantonal et l’interdiction de la commune.

Il confirme ainsi que la critique de l’Islam est un droit fondamental de la liberté d’opinion et d’information, oblige la ville de Fribourg, à verser 2000 francs d’indemnité au MOSCI à titre de dépens, mais, si elle s’inquiète pour l’ordre public, à « prendre des mesures pour prévenir tout risque de heurts, en demandant des forces de police supplémentaires, ou en exposant pourquoi cela n’était pas possible », de façon à prendre des « mesures moins incisives pour les libertés d’opinion et d’information »

Reproduction autorisée, et même vivement encouragée, avec la mention suivante et impérativement le lien html ci dessous :

© Jean-Patrick Grumberg pour

www.Dreuz.info

(1) http://mundosinislam.com/
(2) http://www.postedeveille.ca/2012/04/espagne-le-comite-constitutionnel-saisi-d-une-demande-dinterdiction-du-coran.html
(3) http://www.24heures.ch/suisse/mouvement-suisse-islamisation-censure-tort/story/11040668


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Mar 18 Sep - 17:48 (2012)    Sujet du message: HEZBOLLAH DEMANDS INTERNATIONAL LAW MAKING INSULTING ISLAM A CRIME Répondre en citant





GLOBAL CRUSADE

HEZBOLLAH DEMANDS INTERNATIONAL LAW MAKING INSULTING ISLAM A CRIME

That was the agenda since day 1. All the human rights Durban reform was to prepare the way to this global Caliphate.

Will Obama Appease The Muslims?

In a move that could escalate tensions around the Arab world, the leader of the Hezbollah militant group called for protests against the movie and said the U.S. must be held accountable for the film.



In a televised speech, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah pushed for the creation of an international law that would ban insults of Islam and other religions, citing similar laws that exist to prevent anti-Semitism.

His outrage stems from the anti-Islam film produced by a mysterious convict based in California, that has since sparked protests outside American embassies in the Middle East and across the globe.



Citation:
The protests were set off by a low-budget, crudely produced film called ‘Innocence of Muslims’, which portrays Muhammad as a fraud, a womanizer and a child molester.





‘Those who should be held accountable, punished, prosecuted and boycotted are those directly responsible for this film and those who stand behind them and those who support and protect them, primarily the United States of America,’ Mr Nasrallah said.



Arguing for action: Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah pushed for the creation of an international law that would ban insults of Islam in wake of the offensive film that prompted global protests

He called for protests on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, urging protesters to call on their leaders to express their anger too.

‘We should not only express our anger at an American embassy here or there.

We should tell our rulers in the Arab and Muslim world that it is “your responsibility in the first place” and since you officially represent the governments and states of the Muslim world you should impose on the United States, Europe and the whole world that our prophet, our Quran and our holy places and honor of our Prophet be respected,’ he said.

In Pakistan, police fired tear gas and water cannons at the protesters in Karachi after they broke through the barricade and reached the outer wall of the U.S. Consulate.

The protesters threw stones and bricks, prompting the police to beat back the crowd with their batons.

The police and private security guards outside the consulate also fired in the air to disperse the crowd.

One protester was killed during the clash, said Ali Ahmar, spokesman for the Shiite Muslim group that organized the rally. source – Daily Mail UK

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=11253


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Mer 19 Sep - 14:55 (2012)    Sujet du message: TOP MUSLIM CALLS FOR U.N. TO END FREE SPEECH Répondre en citant



  

TOP MUSLIM CALLS FOR U.N. TO END FREE SPEECH

Claims violence over film proof constitutional protection 'benefits no one'

Published: 18 hours ago

by Drew Zahn



Drew Zahn is a former pastor who cut his editing teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today's professional journal for church leaders. He is the editor of seven books, including Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching, which sparked his ongoing love affair with film and his weekly WND column, "Popcorn and a (world)view."



One of the world’s most influential Muslims is now calling on the United Nations – in light of the YouTube movie blamed for violent protests across the Mideast – to impose international restrictions on free speech, criminalizing any statement that impugns Islam.

Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah, a professor at King Abdul Aziz University in Saudi Arabia, is a member of several international organizations, including the Centre for Studying the Aims of Sharia in the U.K., as well as serving as the vice chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars.

The Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre ranked bin Bayyah No. 31 on its list of the 500 most influential Muslims in the world for 2011.

In a public declaration issued to several Islamic bodies, including the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, one of the largest Muslim mosques in the D.C. metro area and the U.S., bin Bayyah called upon “people of reason and understanding” to put a legal stop to statements that would offend Muslims and thereby threaten WORLD PEACE.

“We ask everyone to ponder the ramifications of provoking the feelings of over one billion people by a small party of people who desires not to seek peace nor fraternity between members of humanity,” bin Bayyah wrote. “This poses a threat to world peace with no tangible benefit realized. Is it not necessary in today’s world for the United Nations to issue a resolution criminalizing the impingement of religious symbols? We request all religious and political authorities, as well as people of reason to join us in putting a stop to this futility that benefits no one.”

Bin Bayyah’s statement was titled a “Declaration Regarding the Offensive Video to Muslims,” a clear reference to the YouTube film, “Innocence of Muslims,” which has been widely – if controversially – blamed for inciting riots against embassies in the Middle East and the resulting death of four U.S. diplomats.

The Obama administration had similarly asked Google, the parent company of YouTube, to review whether “Innocence of Muslims” violates its terms-of-use policies.

Thus far, Google has refused to remove the video from YouTube, though it blocked access in some sensitive countries.
Pundits from a wide spectrum of news outlets have agreed the video is protected by free speech rights in the U.S.

Bin Bayyah’s statement continued, condemning the embassy attacks in the Middle East: “We implore you not to inflict violence upon anyone, whether foreign delegations or otherwise. You should not destroy property or flout the values and cherished principles that you defend, as attacking innocents, killing foreign diplomats and ambassadors contravenes religious and moral principles before it contravenes political ones.”

Nonetheless, bin Bayyah reiterated the U.S. should make videos like “Innocence of Muslims” illegal, even while he claimed to back “free speech.”

“To our Western neighbors … we are extremely concerned with a small active minority in your countries that seeks to perpetuate a state of conflict and war,” bin Bayyah wrote. “We estimate that such objectives do not serve the general interest. Therefore, it is our hope that you reconsider and criminalize the denigration of religious symbols, as such provocations do not serve the principles of free speech, principles that you and us both seek to uphold.”

In a WND commentary, Diana West discussed other leading Muslims’ attempts to criminalize criticism of Islam.

“Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt (who denies that al-Qaida attacked the U.S. on 9/11, by the way), directed the Egyptian Embassy in Washington to ‘take legal action’ against the movie’s producers,” West writes. “Morsi doesn’t seem to understand First Amendment protections.”

West continued, “Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil asked for similar action ‘within the framework of international charters that criminalize acts that stir strife on the basis of race, color or religion.’ This is a direct appeal to hold Americans accountable to the U.N. blasphemy resolution Hillary Clinton, along with the Islamic bloc, has championed, despite its repressive controls on free speech.”

West was referring a “defamation against religion” resolution the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has been pushing at the U.N. every year since 1999. Last year, Clinton worked with the OIC to pass a revised version, Resolution 16/18, which included both the usual condemnation of defaming speech and a paragraph affirming “the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression” plays in “strengthening democracy.”

Critics of the defamation resolutions fear they could be used to outlaw valid and critical scrutiny of Islamic teachings, as some OIC states do through controversial blasphemy laws at home.

The Clinton compromise version, though still roundly criticized, enjoyed more popularity at the U.N. itself and was adopted by consensus.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/top-muslim-calls-for-u-n-to-end-free-speech/


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Jeu 20 Sep - 21:03 (2012)    Sujet du message: DE PLUS EN PLUS D'INITIATIVES EN FAVEUR D'UN PROTOCOLE INTERNATIONAL CONTRE LE BLASPHÈME Répondre en citant



DE PLUS EN PLUS D'INITIATIVES EN FAVEUR D'UN PROTOCOLE INTERNATIONAL CONTRE LE BLASPHÈME


La rédaction | le 19.09.2012 à 18:13
Depuis lundi 17 septembre, trois entités ont manifesté le désir de mettre en place un protocole international contre le blasphème. Face à la vague de violence provoquée par les extraits du film Innocence of Muslims, les gouvernements égyptien et indonésien appellent clairement à une résolution internationale de l'Organisation des nations unies (Onu) pour lutter contre les atteintes à la religion. Ils ont été suivis par quatre évêques anglicans du Moyen-Orient. Chacun de ces groupes souhaite faire entendre sa voix à sa façon auprès de l'Onu. Le grand cheikh égyptien d'al-Azhar compte sur un soutien français. Il a explicitement demandé au ministre des affaires étrangères Laurent Fabius d'appuyer sa démarche à l'Onu. Cette requête risque de rester sans suite : « Il faut éviter toutes les provocations, mais agir ex ante est délicat, car, dans un État laïc, il y a la loi et il y a la foi. C'est aux individus et non aux religions d'être protégés par la loi », a déclaré le ministre au Président égyptien Mohamed Morsi. Laurent Fabius a également souligné que le film Innocence of Muslims est « débile, nul et insultant » mais que « ce n'était pas une raison pour assassiner un ambassadeur ». Pour lui, les violences déclenchées par le film ont révélé « une alliance objective des extrêmes qui prétendent s'opposer mais qui se font la courte échelle ».

Le Président indonésien Susilo Bambang a choisi de déposer une proposition de protocole international auprès des Nations-Unies. Il peut compter sur le soutien de l'une des principales organisations musulmane du pays, Muhammadiyah, qui suggère de porter plainte contre le réalisateur du film à la Cour internationale de justice de l'Onu.

Les quatre évêques anglicans, l'égyptien Mouner Anis, le chypriote Michael Lewis, Bill Musk en Afrique du nord et Grant LeMarquand pour la corne de l'Afrique, ont préféré écrire au secrétaire de l'Onu, Ban Ki-Moon : « Nous suggérons fortement qu'une résolution internationale rende une résolution concernant les insultes ou la diffamation de personnes telles que les prophètes, mais aussi des symboles, textes et édifices religieux considérés comme sacrés par les croyants ». Ils sont conscients des risquent qui pèsent sur la liberté d'expression, mais souhaitent encourager les gens à être plus « responsables et modérés lorsqu'ils expriment ou promeuvent des idées offensantes, ou encore lorsqu'ils émettent des opinions calomnieuses envers les religions. »

L'Onu est régulièrement confrontée à des demandes de résolution internationale contre le blasphème. Cela fait douze ans que le problème se pose, aucun consensus n'a encore été trouvé.

Lire la lettre des évêques anglicans.





http://www.fait-religieux.com/monde/religions_1/2012/09/19/de_plus_en_plus_d_initiatives_en_faveur_d_un_protocole_international_contre_le_blaspheme


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Lun 24 Sep - 15:19 (2012)    Sujet du message: BLASPHEMY- FROM BOOKS TO CYBER MODE Répondre en citant



BLASPHEMY- FROM BOOKS TO CYBER MODE

By this article, we can understand how the global community will be able to criminalize anyone who stand against the global Caliphate and great terror.
September 22, 2012 at 10:18:52

By Aymen Ijaz (about the author)


 
Ah! What a matter of agony and fury for the true believers of Islam?? Islam is a religion, which is based on the concept of Touheed-Oneness of Allah Almighty and Finality of Prophet (PBUH). It is mandatory upon Muslims to love Holy Prophet (PBUH) more than their own lives, wealth and family and to make no compromise where the question of Holy Prophet (PBUH) respect and dignity arises. Turning a blind eye towards the deep sacred sentiments which the Muslims hold for their Holy Prophet (PBUH) the western community has once again tried to enkindle violence and aggression among Muslims all across the world by introducing a modern version of blasphemy.

I simply don't understand what the westerners are up to? Why don't they keep their hands off Muslims? Such sacrilegious acts have started from the infamous literature, text books since early 80's through Salaman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, turned into September 2005 printing of 12 Danish Cartoons by a Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten , and finally the recent blasphemous movie by Sam Bacile. Few of the western authors, scholars and media persons have acted so ignorant and irreverent towards our Islamic beliefs and holy personalities, and tried to propagate false Islamic ideas and misleading religious history whether it is in the form of books, The Jewel of Madina (2008) by like Sherry Jones and the most recent one In the Shadow of the Sword (2012) by Tom Holland or screening of a controversial Channel 4 documentary film Islam: The Untold Story?.

All these acts simply lead toward an agitation and violence among Muslims. It is just a foul play by the West to receive publicity and sensitize common readers through books, films and TV programmes, which would have disappeared without much attention in the international community if they have written on another less sensitive issue. As a reaction, we see public demonstrations, attack on the foreign embassies, diplomatic consulates, damage to government property (burning of buses, breaking of street lights, electricity poles etc), and targeting of diplomats/ambassadors. In the end, who should be actually blamed for starting the violent fire".the responsive Muslims or the initiator West? Why the Muslims are then entitled as extremists or religious lunatics? Taking the example of Europe, the Jewish holocaust is considered legally prohibited to even talk about as it hurts the Jewish sentiments. Why the treatment with Muslims is so discriminatory that after every few years their religious beliefs are tested, ignoring their feelings and sentiments?

Unfortunately, the Muslims around the globe are once again hosting public demonstrations in Tunis, Tripoli, Khartoum, Cairo, Jordan, Qatar, Tehran, London and Jerusalem. In South Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Maldives have strongly condemned this blasphemous act. The Afghanis have called the lawmakers for the cancellation of Pact with US burned an effigy of Mr. Obama in the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad, while in Pakistan all political parties have erupted in protests. Hundred of protestors rallied in front of US consulate Karachi, Lahore and other big cities. Pakistan Muslim League President Ch Shujaat Hussain has demanded the government to summon the US ambassador to take serious notice of the issue and demanded an action against the film makers and an apology from the US and website officials. He also called Muslims Ummah for evolving a unanimous strategy on the issue.

Majlis Wahdatul Muslameen called for the handover of Terry Jones, an American Christian pastor linked with the film, who has drawn protests in the past for burning the Holy Quran and demanded Terry Jones trial in the sharia court. The Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) held protests in several cities including Peshawar, Karachi and Swat. Other organizations like Islami Jamiat-i-Talaba (IJT), Imamia Students Organisation (ISO) and Jamaatud Dawa (JuD) also organized protest s and threatened to attack the US embassy and US consulates across country if the Pakistani government did not protest against the film.
Apart from all this violence, the western media is silent, no ad hoc action has been taken and it seems to be just another attempt to enrage Muslims. One must notice that just the propaganda tool has been refined from books to cyber mode; the objective remains same i.e to instigate Muslims to create violence and uprising, and to portray them as religious fundamentalists and extremists in the eyes of the International community.
Aymen Ijaz is a freelance writer, analyst and researcher from South Asia. Her areas of interests include current affairs, international relations,disarmament, non proliferation, strategic and nuclear studies. = A puppet of the New World Order

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Blasphemy-From-Books-to-C-by-Aymen-Ijaz-120918-954.html


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Lun 24 Sep - 17:35 (2012)    Sujet du message: L'ONU DEMANDE À ISRAëL DE VEILLER AU RESPECT DES DROITS DES PALESTINIENS Répondre en citant

L'ONU DEMANDE À ISRAëL DE VEILLER AU RESPECT DES DROITS DES PALESTINIENS


La Haut commissaire adjointe aux droits de l'homme, Kyung-Wha Kang.



24 September 2012 – La Haut Commissaire adjointe aux droits de l'homme, Kyung-wha Kang, a présenté lundi au Conseil des droits de l'homme à Genève un rapport du Secrétaire général qui fait le point sur les progrès réalisés dans la mise en œuvre des recommandations de la Mission d'établissement des faits sur le conflit de Gaza, établie en 2009 à la demande du Conseil à la suite de l'opération militaire israélienne « Plomb durci ».

Présenté lors du débat général sur la situation des droits de l'homme en Palestine et dans les autres territoires occupés, le rapport souligne notamment que trois ans plus tard, aucun individu n'a encore été inculpé pour les violations documentées par la mission.

« En conséquence, le Secrétaire général encourage les parties prenantes, le gouvernement d'Israël et l'Autorité palestinienne à adopter des mesures rapides en réponse aux conclusions de la mission et à se conformer à leurs obligations redditionnelles », a déclaré Mme Kang.

La Haut Commissaire adjointe a toutefois relevé qu'Israël venait d'arrêter un soldat israélien pour « homicide sur une personne anonyme »: il était soupçonné du meurtre d'une femme, Abu Hajaj et de sa fille, un incident qui a fait l'objet d'une enquête par la mission d'établissement des faits.

Le respect des droits de l'homme et du droit international signifie que les responsables de violations doivent comparaître devant la justice à l'issue d'enquêtes rapides, indépendantes et impartiales, suivies de procès équitables conformes au droit international, a-t-elle rappelé. = Quel respect des droits de l'homme alors qu'ils sont tous sous les lois de la Sharia, usurpant ainsi les droits divins donnés par le Créateur!

« Le Haut Commissariat continue de faire la lumière sur les exactions commises contre les Palestiniens dans les territoires occupés », a indiqué Mme Kang, citant notamment les incessantes violences subies par la famille Daraghme, dont le père a été arrêté alors que des colons israéliens avaient, à plusieurs reprises, mis le feu à sa propriété et à ses oliviers et blessé des membres de sa famille.

La Haut Commissaire adjointe s'est félicitée de l'annonce par Israël de l'établissement d'une équipe spéciale chargée d'enquêter sur les exactions commises par les colons israéliens contre des Palestiniens et leurs biens.

http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=28989&Cr=palestine&Cr1=


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Jeu 27 Sep - 02:37 (2012)    Sujet du message: LE YÉMEN SOUHAITE QUE LE DROIT INTERNATIONAL INTERDISE L'ABUS DU DROIT À LA LIBERTÉ D'EXPRESSION Répondre en citant



LE YÉMEN SOUHAITE QUE LE DROIT INTERNATIONAL INTERDISE L'ABUS DU DROIT À LA LIBERTÉ D'EXPRESSION


Le Président du Yémen Abd Rabbuh Mansour Ali. Photo ONU/E. Schneider


26 September 2012 – Le nouveau Président du Yémen, Abdrabu Mansour Hadi, a appelé mercredi, devant l'Assemblée générale de l'ONU, à l'adoption de lois internationales pour empêcher les « ABUS DU DROIT À LA LIBERTÉ D'EXPRESSION. »

Evoquant la vague de colère qui a secoué le monde musulman ces dernières semaines à la suite de la production aux Etats-Unis d'un film dénigrant le prophète Mohammed, M. Hadi a dénoncé l'existence « d'une campagne d'insultes délibérées contre l'Islam et les musulmans, visant à ternir leur image dans le monde et semer la division et l'animosité entre les nations et les religions ».

Relevant que ces comportements sont parfois défendus au nom de la liberté d'expression, le Président yéménite a affirmé que ces défenseurs « oublient qu'il doit y avoir des limites à la liberté d'expression, surtout si cette liberté mène à blasphémer les croyances de certaines nations et à diffamer leurs héros ».

Le Yémen « appelle au respect des religions et des figures religieuses, au renforcement de la compréhension entre les religions et les civilisations et à l'adoption de lois internationales nécessaires pour empêcher la répétition de telles pratiques et de tels abus du droit à la liberté d'expression », a dit M. Hadi.

« Mon pays appelle également à l'expression pacifique des opinions et dénonce la violence et l'incitation à la haine, qui sont contraires aux vraies valeurs de l'Islam », a-t-il souligné.

http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=29022&Cr=yémen&Cr1=


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Jeu 27 Sep - 02:50 (2012)    Sujet du message: DEVANT L'ASSEMBLÉE, LE PRÉSIDENT DE L'AFGHANISTAN DÉNONCE AVEC VIRULENCE L'ISLAMOPHOBIE Répondre en citant



DEVANT L'ASSEMBLÉE, LE PRÉSIDENT DE L'AFGHANISTAN DÉNONCE AVEC VIRULENCE L'ISLAMOPHOBIE


Le Président de l'Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, à la tribune de l'Assemblée générale.


25 septembre 2012 – Le Président de l'Afghanistan, Hamid Karzaï, a indiqué devant l'Assemblée générale que le monde était secoué par « la décadence de fanatiques » coupables d'avoir commis des actes « insultants » contre la foi de 1,5 milliard de musulmans, qu'il s'agisse de la production d'un film ou de la publication de caricatures, qui ne sauraient selon lui être justifiés au nom de la liberté d'expression. Cependant, a-t-il ajouté, de tels actes ne sauraient excuser non plus la violence et le chaos qu'elles ont déclenchés au cours des dernières semaines à travers le monde.

« La menace de l'islamophobie est un phénomène inquiétant qui menace la paix et la sécurité entre les cultures et les civilisations », a dénoncé M. Karzaï, appelant les politiciens et les médias occidentaux à tout mettre en œuvre contre toutes les formes et manifestations d'une telle intolérance.

Évoquant la lutte contre le terrorisme, dans laquelle, a-t-il affirmé, son pays est engagé, le Président a indiqué que ce fléau n'existait pas auparavant en Afghanistan et qu'il n'y était apparu qu'avec le soutien de « réseaux extérieurs ».

Il s'est également dit convaincu qu'une solution militaire ne suffirait pas à mettre fin aux violences, mais qu'il fallait au contraire privilégier un processus de PAIX et de RÉCONCILIATION destiné à inclure tous les éléments armés, talibans ou autres groupes d'opposition désireux de déposer les armes.

http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=29018&Cr=afghanistan&Cr1=


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Jeu 27 Sep - 02:54 (2012)    Sujet du message: DÉNONÇANT UN FILM « MALVEILLANT ET PROVOCATEUR », PILLAY EXHORTE LES LEADERS MUSULMANS À RÉTABLIR LE CALME Répondre en citant

DÉNONÇANT UN FILM « MALVEILLANT ET PROVOCATEUR », PILLAY EXHORTE LES LEADERS MUSULMANS À RÉTABLIR LE CALME


http://www.un.org/News/dh/photos/large/2012/September/525177-navipillay.jpg
La Haut Commissaire des Nations Unies aux droits de l’homme, Navi Pillay. ONU Photo/Violaine Martin


14 September 2012 – La Haut Commissaire des Nations Unies aux droits de l'homme a exhorté aujourd'hui les dirigeants religieux et politiques à tout mettre en œuvre pour rétablir le calme alors que le monde musulman est secoué par une vague de protestations déclenchée par un film islamophobe.

« Ce film malveillant et délibérément provocateur renvoie une image déformée des musulmans. Je comprends pleinement pourquoi les populations veulent manifester vigoureusement contre et c'est leur droit de le faire pacifiquement », a estimé Navi Pillay dans un communiqué de presse.

« Toutefois, je condamne les tueries de Benghazi et autres réactions violentes et destructrices à ce film, et exhorte les dirigeants politiques et leaders religieux à redoubler d'efforts afin de rétablir le calme », a-t-elle ajouté, en faisant allusion à l'attaque qui a coûté la vie mardi à l'Ambassadeur des États-Unis en Libye et à trois autres diplomates.

Selon les médias, les responsables auraient agi en représailles d'une vidéo islamophobe réalisée en Californie par un Américain. Les premières manifestations ont éclaté en Égypte mardi dans la journée, lorsque des individus on escaladé les murs de l'ambassade des États-Unis au Caire et remplacé le drapeau américain par un étendard islamique. Les violences auraient fait plus de 200 blessés.

Jeudi au Yémen, des manifestants ont pris d'assaut les locaux de l'ambassade américaine sans pouvoir pénétrer dans le bâtiment principal. L'incident a fait un mort et 15 blessés. D'autres manifestations auraient eu lieu aujourd'hui au Soudan, en Tunisie, en Afghanistan, au Liban, au Bangladesh, au Sri Lanka et au Royaume-Uni.

Mme Pillay a estimé que le meilleur moyen de répondre à de telles provocations était de les ignorer. « Des actes délibérés et odieux de ce type devraient être privés de l'oxygène de la publicité », a-t-elle affirmé, soulignant qu'elle saluait les efforts du gouvernement libyen pour faire traduire en justice les auteurs de l'attaque de Benghazi en justice.

La Haut Commissaire a rappelé qu'il existait un cadre juridique – en particulier les articles 19 et 20 du Pacte international sur les droits civiques et politiques – qui offrent des mesures de protection à toutes les formes d'expression, tout en donnant simultanément à l'État le droit d'imposer des restrictions prévues par la loi lorsqu'il est porté atteinte aux droits et aux réputations des autres.

http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=28939&Cr=Islam&Cr1=


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Lun 1 Oct - 22:27 (2012)    Sujet du message: L’OCI VEUT INSCRIRE LE BLASPHÈME DANS LE DROIT INTERNATIONAL Répondre en citant


L’OCI VEUT INSCRIRE LE BLASPHÈME DANS LE DROIT INTERNATIONAL

septembre 20th, 2012
Rub - Europe-Israel.org



 
L‘O.C.I, cet espèce de consortium de 57 pays producteurs de pétrole a tendance islamiste, joue son role dans la partition musicale du moment. A l’heure où les jihadistes attaquent les intérêts occidentaux dans le monde arabe, les jihadistes en costard viennent poser les conditions de l’arret des violences. Le mardi 19 septembre, l’ O.C.I a annoncé qu’elle redoublerait d’efforts pour faire inscrire le blasphème parmi les crimes et délits reconnus en droit international.

Depuis 1999, l’OCI défend, devant la commission des droits de l’homme de l’ONU, le concept de « diffamation des religions », un faux nez pour imposer au monde un controversé « délit de blasphème ». Chaque année les pays occidentaux, rejoints par l’Amérique latine et l’Afrique, s’y opposent fermement au nom de la liberté d’expression et du droit international.

Mais pour Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secrétaire général de l’OCI, il est temps que la communauté internationale cesse de « se cacher derrière le prétexte de la liberté d’expression ». « Les abus délibérés, motivés et systématiques de cette liberté », a-t-il ajouté, sont un danger pour la sécurité et la stabilité mondiales.

La commission des droits de l’homme de l’OCI a jugé parallèlement que« l’intolérance croissante envers les musulmans » devait être contenue et a réclamé« un code de conduite international s’appliquant aux médias et aux médias sociaux afin de rejeter la propagation de documents incitant [à cette intolérance]« .

Il semble peu probable que l’OCI, qui mène campagne depuis plus de dix ans sur ce sujet, rallie les Occidentaux à leur cause. D’autant plus que ces pays s’inquiètent de l’effet répressif des lois contre le blasphème en vigueur dans certains pays musulmans comme le Pakistan, où le blasphème est passible de la peine de mort .

Source:
LeMonde - http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2012/09/20/l-oci-veut-inscrire-le-blaspheme-dans-le-droit-international_1762602_3224.html

http://www.europe-israel.org/2012/09/loci-veut-inscrire-le-blaspheme-dans-le-droit-international/


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Dim 7 Oct - 23:18 (2012)    Sujet du message: INDONESIA'S PRESIDENT TO PROPOSE GLOBAL BLASPHEMY PROTOCOL Répondre en citant

INDONESIA'S PRESIDENT TO PROPOSE GLOBAL BLASPHEMY PROTOCOL
 

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (file photo)

Kate Lamb
September 25, 2012

JAKARTA — Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is to address a United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York Tuesday, to propose an international protocol against religious blasphemy. But - even as so-called Muslim rage flares across the globe - critics say the proposal is insincere and that the Indonesian president should take care of problems at home, first.
At the height of the anti-Islamic blowback partially fueled by the provocative amateur film The Innocence of Muslims, some 1,000 Islamic hardliners staged a violent protest at the U.S. embassy in Jakarta, earlier this month.

Designed to prevent tensions from rising further, the Indonesian government - emulating similar government reactions in Libya, Egypt, Malaysia and Singapore - blocked the film from being viewed on-line in the country.

Now, the Indonesian president is taking it a step further. During his address to the U.N. General Assembly in New York, President Yudhoyono is expected to propose an international protocol against religious defamation, to prevent religious motivated violence and promote global peace.

But Phil Robertson, deputy director at Human Rights Watch’s Asia division, says the proposal is hypocritical.

“There is a high level of hypocrisy; by saying that he is going to be the champion of religious moderation and religious tolerance at the international level, while he has basically presided over a significant decline in religious tolerance in Indonesia,” said Robertson.

Although Indonesia likes to present the image that it is a moderate, Muslim-majority democracy, only six religions are allowed.

And, in recent years, the president has attracted criticism for failing to take a stand against Islamic vigilantes and to protect the rights of religious minority groups from vengeful and sometimes fatal attacks.

Ironically, it was just a few months ago that United Nations Human Rights Commission recommended that Indonesia revoke its own blasphemy law, given the effect it has had on curbing religious freedom.

http://www.voafanti.com/gate/gb/www.voanews.com/content/Indonesia-blasphemy-protocol/1514420.html


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 671
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Sam 13 Oct - 16:36 (2012)    Sujet du message: SAUDI ARABIA CALLS FOR NEW INTERNATIONAL BODY TO CENSOR INTERNET OF CONTENT CRITICAL OF ISLAM Répondre en citant

SAUDI ARABIA CALLS FOR NEW INTERNATIONAL BODY TO CENSOR INTERNET OF CONTENT CRITICAL OF ISLAM

“Any reasonable person would know that this film would foment violence and, indeed, many innocent persons have died and been injured with this film as a root cause.” No. Any reasonable person would address the madness of reacting violently to this film, and would address the core beliefs that lead to that behavior.

"Anti-Islam film prompts Saudi call for net censorship body," from the Telegraph, October 11 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Citation:
Saudi Arabia has called for a new international body to censor the internet, in the wake of the anti-Islam YouTube clip that recently sparked violence in the Middle East.

In a submission to forthcoming international talks on internet governance, the Gulf state said “there is a crying need for international collaboration to address ‘freedom of expression’ which clearly disregards public order”.

During the controversy over a 14-minute clip posted on YouTube and purportedly a trailer for a feature film called “The Innocence of Muslims”, Google resisted pressure, including from the White House, to remove it.

"This video - which is widely available on the web - is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube," Google said last month.

The Saudi government has now told the World Telecommunications Policy Forum, a UN body, that the incident was “an obvious example” of the need for greater international cooperation to restrict content online.

“Any reasonable person would know that this film would foment violence and, indeed, many innocent persons have died and been injured with this film as a root cause,” the Saudi submission said.

The amateurish clip, produced on tiny budget by Nakoula Nakoula, a 55-year-old Egyptian Coptic Christian resident in the United States, depicts the Prophet Mohammad as a fool and sexual deviant.

In the uproar surrounding it, there were violent protests in across the Middle East and North Africa, coinciding with an attack by extremists on the American Embassy in Benghazi. The Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three other officials were killed.

Following the attack Google did restrict access to “The Innocence of Muslims” clip in Egypt and Libya on account of “the very difficult situation”, but maintained its refusal to delete it. The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan meanwhile ordered internet providers to completely cut off access to YouTube.

The Saudi government called for greater international cooperation to censor such material at the source, comparing it to outlawed content such as images of child abuse and malicious software.

“This behaviour, along with other malicious and criminal activities such as child pornography, identity theft, spam, denial of service attacks, and malware aimed at destroying or crippling businesses, inter alia, must be addressed by states in a collaborative and cooperative environment and strongly underscores the need for enhanced cooperation,” it said.

The submission highlights increasing interest in internet governance discussions from nations that do not share Western liberal values, as access to and the influence of the web grows.




Posted by Robert on October 12, 2012 11:57 AM|

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/10/saudi-arabia-calls-for-new-international-body-to-censor-internet-of-content-critical-of-islam.html


Revenir en haut
Contenu Sponsorisé






MessagePosté le: Aujourd’hui à 23:51 (2016)    Sujet du message: DURBAN ET LES DROITS DE L'HOMME (PARTIE 2) P.1

Revenir en haut
Montrer les messages depuis:   
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet    LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1) Index du Forum -> CONSEIL MONDIAL DES ÉGLISES/WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES - voir les sous-groupes dans cette section -> DURBAN ET LES NOUVEAUX DROITS DE L'HOMME ISLAMIQUES / DURBAN AND THE NEW ISLAMIC HUMAN RIGHTS + GENEVE 2/GENEVE 2 TALKS (PARTIE 2) - CAIRO, etc Toutes les heures sont au format GMT + 2 Heures
Aller à la page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  >
Page 1 sur 6

 
Sauter vers:  

Portail | Index | Creer un forum | Forum gratuit d’entraide | Annuaire des forums gratuits | Signaler une violation | Conditions générales d'utilisation
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Traduction par : phpBB-fr.com