Fair Dinkum, with this sub-title “UN resolutions reveal the West is opposed to international democracy, while it tries to block attempts directed against racism and Xenophobia”
The UN Human Rights Council has just concluded its 51st session, adopting 41 resolutions and decisions. Examining the way countries vote on these resolutions reveals much about the hypocrisy of Western values, and that all their talk of democracy, equity, and valuing human rights is just meaningless rhetoric – a fact that can be observed in two important resolutions just passed by the UNHRC.
One UNHRC resolution was titled “from rhetoric to reality: a global call for concrete action against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”
We can see clearly what this resolution stands for. Nine countries opposed the motion – in other words, nine countries oppose concrete action being taken against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. Who are the nine countries? They are predominantly Western nations – France, Germany, Montenegro, Netherlands, Poland, Ukraine, the UK and the USA.
Only seven countries abstained most likely for geopolitical reasons, meaning they didn’t want to offend the US and their odious Rules Based. Among the countries abstaining were Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Marshall Islands and South Korea. The Marshall Islands is a US colony, while Japan and South Korea, which are very much under the control of the Rules Based Order; understand racism, xenophobia and intolerance and couldn’t bring themselves to vote against the resolution, but neither did they want to offend the US, and so these countries chose the safe option of abstaining.
A total of 31 countries supported the resolution. Not one was a Western country or a member of the odious Rules Based Order. Included among the countries supporting the resolution were Benin, Brazil, China, Cuba, Gabon, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan and Paraguay.
A second resolution passed by the UN Human Rights Council called for the promotion of “a democratic and equitable international order”. In other words, this resolution is about empowering international democracy and equity for all nations of the world, not just the so-called Rules Based Order collective which comprises of a tiny club of Western countries incestuously tied to the bosom of the US Government.
A total of 29 countries voted in favour of the resolution. Three countries abstained while 14 countries opposed the motion. It is not surprising that the 14 countries opposing the resolution were all Western nations operating under the collective odious entity that calls itself the Rules Based Order. They included Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Ukraine, UK and the US. Japan and South Korea also opposed the motion perhaps because these two nations are mere vassals of US imperialism and seek comfort in the Rules Based Order hoping to gain something out of it, but they never do. The countries voting in favour of the resolution were just about every other country on the planet outside of the West, predominately in the Global South.
These two resolutions reveal the Great Lie of the US and its allies when they claim they stand for democracy and human rights. The evidence is there. They don’t support these values at all. Indeed, they oppose democracy and equity and support racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. And these are the values of the Rules Based Order that Australia also embodies as a member of this club.
The West is increasingly becoming isolated from the international community a pariah collection of nations that embody no values whatsoever other than greed and control of the planet’s resources. The two UN resolutions speak for themselves.
three images attached
- UNHRC vote on the motionfrom rhetoric to reality: a global call for concrete action against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
- UNHRC vote on calling for a democratic and equitable international order
- Members of the UNHRC on the final day of the 51st session.
4 responses to “UNHRC Resolutions Display Blatant Double Standards”
So, what’s new?
Fair Dinkum’s comments on the UNHRC resolution on Sri Lanka reminds me of Joseph Goebbel’s most famous quote: “Arguments must be crude clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not to the intellect.” He was the chief propagandist of Hitler and the Nazis.as we all know. He committed suicide with his family – wife and six children.
This Brigadier never learns. His attempt to discredit me is totally fallacious. The Brigadier needs to grow up and study history and learn critical thinking. We have enough Goebbelsian propaganda coming out of the West, we don’t need more.
It is clear the Brigadier has no genuine argument and fails to address a single issue I raised in my essay, and so without a clue or an argument he has resorted to playing the Hitler card – a fallacy known as “Argumentum ad Nazium”. Mr. Brigadier, this fallacy should be avoided, particularly in highly emotional cases. It is a card which, sadly, is all too often played when less intelligent people cannot argue properly. There is nothing in what I wrote that has any connection whatsoever with views shared by Hitler.
I provide the following source from a US university that details why playing the Hitler card is foolish, dishonest and fallacious.
“In almost every heated debate, one side or the other—often both—plays the “Hitler card”, that is, criticizes their opponent’s position by associating it in some way with Adolf Hitler or the Nazis in general. This move is so common that it led Mike Godwin to develop the well-known “Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies”: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
“No one wants to be associated with Nazism because it has been so thoroughly discredited in both theory and practise, and Hitler of course was its most famous exponent. So, linking an idea with Hitler or Nazism has become a common form of argument ascribing guilt by association.”
“Some instances of the Hitler card are factually incorrect, or even ludicrous, in ascribing ideas to Hitler or other Nazis that they did not hold. However, from a logical point of view, even if Hitler or other Nazis did accept an idea, this historical fact alone is insufficient to discredit it.”
“The Hitler Card is often combined with other fallacies, for instance, a weak analogy between an opponent and Hitler, or between the opposition political group and the Nazis. A related form of fallacious analogy is that which compares an opposition’s actions with the Holocaust. This is a form of the ad Nazium fallacy because it casts the opposition in the role of Nazi. Not only do such arguments assign guilt by association, but the analogy used to link the opposition’s actions with the Holocaust may be superficial or question-begging.”
“Other arguments ad Nazium combine guilt by association with a slippery slope. For instance, it is sometimes argued that the Nazis practiced euthanasia, and therefore even voluntary forms of it are a first step onto a slippery slope leading to extermination camps. Like many slippery slope arguments, this is a way of avoiding arguing directly against voluntary euthanasia, instead claiming that it may indirectly lead to something admittedly bad.
Playing the Hitler Card demonizes opponents in debate by associating them with evil, and almost always derails the discussion. People naturally resent being associated with Nazism and are usually angered. In this way, playing the Hitler Card can be an effective distraction in a debate, causing the opponent to lose track of the argument. However, when people become convinced by guilt by association arguments that their political opponents are not just mistaken, but are as evil as Nazis, reasoned debate can give way to violence. So, playing the Hitler Card is more than just a dirty trick in debate, it is often “fighting words”.”
My. Brigadier, I suggest you study philosophy and learn how to reason and argue and avoid fallacies which are too often coming from you. If you can achieve that, maybe we can find a better level field to discuss these critical issues.
Fair Dinkum has betrayed his mastery of Nazism. He/she is doing well hiding behind a pseudoym!