North Korea's winter of starvation, discontent and being ignored

While the usual suspects hop on the trendy bandwagons of embarrassing the USA, there remains a story of horror, death and misery they largely ignore. 

Oh and by the way, she's dead now.  

If this has upset and angered you then go tell Professor Tim Beal, who takes the North's side on the recent attack on Yeonpyeong Island, and claims that his own observations of how well things look in Pyongyang (which is true) are representative of the whole country.  He is closely associated with North Korea's useful idiot in New Zealand, the Reverend Don Borrie who has visited the country frequently and given glowing paeans about Kim Il Sung.   This NZ-DPRK Society campaigns in favour of the US withdrawing from South Korea, against New Zealand supporting the liberal democratic capitalist South Korea in the event of a military conflict and for the full legitimisation of this slave state at an international level.  

Who knows if these men are simply useful idiots, incapable of understanding the fundamental evil and vileness of a regime that complete and utterly destroys individual thought, initiative and goals, whilst sucking up enormous resources into a combination of empty lie-infested personality cults and a futile partly racist ultra-militarism towards the south, USA and Japan.  Maybe they are themselves sucked into the propaganda and the thin veneer of niceness that pervades and surrounds what North Korea presents to outsiders.

By the way this is one reason I no longer give any financial support to Amnesty International.   Its website almost ignores North Korea.  It campaigns against many things quite rightly, but virtually ignores North Korea.  A search of its website shows it campaigns in FAVOUR of more UN agency based aid going to North Korea despite extensive evidence of such aid being co-opted by the state for the army and party.  It's only press release about North Korea this year was about the health system collapsing and the need for the regime to get help to save it.  Why would it nearly ignore a country that is second bottom in press freedom according to Reporters Without Borders and ranked in the bottom country by Freedom House?  How hard is it to get around your heads that this country imprisons small children for the political "crimes" of their parents?  

What sort of human rights organisation campaigns for aid that assists a totalitarian dictatorship the likes of which is almost unparalleled in human history for its Orwellian enslavement of an entire people?  Would Amnesty have said, in response to the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge, that the UN should provide aid to the regime's "health system"?  Would Amnesty have said, in response to the Holocaust, that there should be aid to help ease the plight of the Jews?

So ask yourself this?  Why is this starving, murdering slave state continuing to be treated with kid gloves by the left-oriented supporters of human rights (the same ones who damn Burma to hell and damn China far more now than they ever did when Mao was in power)?  I don't believe any of them embrace the Juche Idea or the North Korean regime (although some do like the UK based Stop the War Coalition), but their continued unwillingness to actively campaign against it speaks volumes .  Is it because virtually no foreign companies (the true evil in their heads) have a commercial presence there?  Is it because damning North Korea would appear to put one on the side of the relatively free, open and capitalist South Korea and the US?

Karadzic planned eradication of Bosnian Muslims

The Times reports evidence at the The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia trial of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic of phone taps when he said in 1991:

They have to know that there are 20,000 armed Serbs around Sarajevo.... it will be a black cauldron where 300,000 Muslims will die. They will disappear. That people will disappear from the face of the earth.

Charming.

The vile murderous vision of nationalist slaughter by this thug, his right hand brute Ratko Mladic and the late Slobodan Milosevic was put into practice, while the world watched.

Of course, it wasn't helped by the arms embargo which meant Bosnian Muslims could not readily acquire the means to defend themselves, whilst Bosnian Serbs had already taken control of most of the arms of the former Yugoslav National Army, which had been controlled from Belgrade. It wasn't helped by the UN declaring Srebrenica as a "safe haven" which Bosnian Muslim refugees fled to, only to be slaughtered (the men and the boys slaughtered, the women and girls raped, as part of a deliberate plan to fill Bosnia with "baby Serbs"). The mistakes were many in the international response to this conflict, but nothing beats the pure brutal evil of the likes of Karadzic, proving some Europeans still have the willingness to undertake atrocities akin to those committed by the Nazis.

Of course, no side was innocent of bloodshed inflicted on the innocent, but without a doubt the Bosnian Serb side was the blatant standard-bearer of "ethnic cleansing". The trial of Karadzic reminds us all of how xenophobic chauvinism remains a cancerous tumour that some politicians are only too willing to encourage, and all too many are willing to kill in the name of.

Torture isn't serious in New Zealand

Picture this.

A gang of your relatives believe in "goblins, ghosts and demons". They believe you contain a "demon". No doubt the more you resist, the more they are convinced you have one.

They imprison you in a flat against your will. Assault and restrain you. Engage in the systematic water torture of you, to try to “exorcise” the “demon”. It is forced down your throat and nose repeatedly while you remain inprisoned by this gang.

In other words, Guantanamo Bay treated Islamist terrorist suspects better. Waterboarding is childs' play in comparison.

Ultimately your tired body, fed up with resisting, has its lungs fill with enough water that you drown. Remember drowning? That's when you can't breathe, because every time you do, you go into an enormous cough reflex and eventually pass out in desperation, all the while this gang force feeds you water.

What do these loving relatives do? They don’t phone for an ambulance, don’t try to resuscitate you. You see they probably don’t believe in modern medicine. They grab your 14yo cousin and start the same process on her.

What are the reasonable conclusions?

1. They are sadistic murderers, out to dispose of you, but not very efficiently (unlikely in this case)
2. They are clinically insane. Seriously mentally ill and dangerous.
3. They are stupid and mindless. Not quite insane, but very very stupid and incapable of empathy when they convinced a person is a “demon”.

Note the difference between 2 and 3 is a matter of degree and legal definition.

So what should a judge do with them?

According to the NZ Herald, High Court Justice Simon France says "community based sentences". Stuff reports that this includes this horrible penalty "Under the community detention order Rawiri and Wright will be curfewed to their homes between the hours of 9pm and 6am daily for six months." How rough is that? They will have to - watch TV and sleep then!!

Yes, it is the dark ages. So all you need to do to get rid of someone you know who you don’t like is to claim you’re exorcising a demon, demonstrate it as a truly held belief, and go for it. As Cactus Kate says, “Look for the "Makutu" mitigation of sentence to pop up in child-bashing cases from now on” and don’t expect the Greens, who care so much about child abuse, to express interest in this. These people will walk free and be able to practice their mindless violent techniques again.

Yes they didn’t intend to kill her, or harm her. However, how many other crimes can be justified by that? Can a child rapist claim “I wanted her to enjoy it, I wanted it to be positive for her, I didn’t intend to hurt her”? No.

However, presumably because it is Maori religious mumbo-jumbo it is ok. I suspect had a Catholic priest engaged in such techniques for an exorcism and the result was death, that he wouldn’t be getting a community based sentence.

So in New Zealand, torturing and accidentally killing someone isn't a reason to imprison, as long as you do it under the aegis of Maori supernatural beliefs. This wont, of course, be an issue for most New Zealanders - but woe betide the children or young adults of families full of these sorts of cretins. If auntie or uncle or mum and dad talk about worrying about demons in the family, get far away, there is precious little deterrent to them torturing you to get it out.

UPDATE: Oswald Bastable agrees "these fuckers are all barking mad"

Obama to Muslims: We share common principles

There was some criticism of President Obama choosing Egypt rather than Indonesia for his speech to the Muslim world. Indonesia has a thriving (and recently formed) open fairly liberal democracy with a free press – notwithstanding decades of US support for the Suharto autocracy. It is a far more welcoming example of a country with a high Muslim population than Egypt. Egypt by contrast is a dictatorship, admittedly with much more personal freedom than many countries in the Middle East, it is still dominated by one man, who does not tolerate much questioning of his rule.

So going to Egypt to talk to the Muslim world was perhaps a mistake. However, it is the largest Arab state, the third biggest recipient of US aid, and the first Arab state to make peace with Israel – albeit that relations remain frosty.

So what did he say? His speech in full is here, but overall I found it disappointing, with some flashes of inspiration.

There is some which is positive, reaffirming the alliance with Israel, damning those who would deny the Holocaust, criticising Israel’s continued construction of settlements on the West Bank. He talked openly about the rights Muslims have in the USA, and how their rights to freedom of worship are protected. This was a positive message, one not made often enough in the censored world of much media in the autocracies than control most of the Muslim world.

He made it clear that the USA will “relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.” A critical point, but there are sadly more than enough of all faiths who believe in killing innocent men, women and children, and faiths who believe no one is innocent – Islamists who happily seek to murder any in the name of jihad or those Christians who think everyone is a sinner.

He clearly tried to reach out to moderate Islam by claiming “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.” Yet surely without Islam, Al Qaeda would not exist, Hamas would not exist, in fact terrorism would be confined to far more localised actions and not united by a religion that can be used to justify waging war on non-believers. Afghanistan would be far safer if it was full of objectivists, for example! If the US is to promote peace it can do no better than to promote respect for individual rights, and to let Islam wither.

However, while Obama sought a new beginning, talking of ending a “cycle of suspicion and discord”, some of the language he uses is a cause for concern.

He wants to “fight negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear”, which begs some obvious questions:
1. What is a negative stereotype, compared to a negative fact – i.e. when Islamic regimes employ violence against their own citizens for matters that should be free will, such as apostasy, criticising Islam, homosexuality? Who decides what is a stereotype and what isn't?
2. How does this fit in with the fundamental right of free speech in the 1st amendment of the US Constitution? Can nobody poke fun at Islam anymore? What of negative stereotypes of atheists or those of other religions?

Obama suggested that there needed to be mutual respect. Indeed there does, between individuals, and by governments of individuals. However, will Muslim states even allow people to promote other religions, eliminate apostasy as a crime and allow the promotion of atheism?

The mutual respect he calls for is based on “the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings”. Whoa hold on a minute. “America” as a political/philosophical concept is embodied in one document – the Constitution of the United States. “Islam” is embodied in the Koran, how DO they overlap?

What of those common principles? Well you can say the USA was founded to achieve justice, but the philosophical basis underpinning justice is what is important - justice in the concept of fundamental freedoms, not submission to a deity. Something that Obama carefully sidestepped away from.

The United States is based on the premise that government does not exist for God, or the rulers, but as an instrument of the people. That government exists to protect their rights, and explicitly guarantees rights of free speech, assembly, association, religion, bear arms, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, a right to jury trial etc. etc. The fundamental underpinnings of government that protects individual rights, and has a superstructure of separation of powers, liberal democracy and government to serve the people.

Islam, the very word, has its roots in the Arabic word Aslama, meaning to “submit”. Islam demands individual submission, the USA demands the state be submissive to the rights of the individual. How different could you be?

Yes, it is possible to distil elements of Islam that would be seen compatible with individual rights, it is easy to acknowledge that in the USA Muslims are free to live their personal lives compatible with Islam, as long as they respect others to do the same. However, beyond that Islam and secular individualism ARE in competition, it is quite naive to suggest that a secular government protecting individual rights (the idea of the USA) can be compatible with an Islamic government demanding submission to Islamic law.

Obama may have been better to suggest that the values expounded by the USA are universal, apply to all individuals, and that they allow Muslims to practice their religion, and promote it, as long as they respect others to do the same. Indeed, relatively secular Egypt is in some respects a partial example. One can be Christian or atheist in Egypt relatively easily, although the law still has some elements of Sharia, and by no means is one free to criticise the government openly.

On Iran he simply wanted it to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but also talked about the abolition of nuclear weapons. Without context to that, it is a meaningless concept – and for me that context is one where all countries relate to each other more like western countries do, where the idea of military action of any kind between each other is inconceivable.

He appeared supported democracy in a more optimistic way than I would have expected “I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.” The freedom to live as you choose is the closest he has got to yet on individual rights, which is more than democracy – something that should be welcomed.

As is his belief that “we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.” Although what respect means is obviously a bit unclear, and sadly his further statements don’t help “No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.” Respecting the rights of minorities is NOT respecting the rights of individuals, and a spirit of compromise when it comes to individual rights is hardly tolerable. Besides, every dictatorship in recent history has talked of the interests of the people. Russia would meet this standard, and even China may claim power through consent and happily claim the rest to be true.

His words on faiths bringing people together are relatively benign, and he encouraged women having rights, which in Egypt they do have more than most states in the Middle East.

Overall, his message was clearly intended to be one of goodwill, but it falls far short of promoting the idea that Islam should only exist within a framework of individual rights. He is badly mistaken to claim overlaps between the USA and Islam, but more disturbingly to want to fight negative stereotypes about Islam – he is effectively endorsing laws to harass Danish cartoon makers, for example. His view of democracy gave enormous room to move to allow for continued repression of individual rights, as he talked only of rights for minorities – which of course can be defined by governments themselves. So the verdict? Not hopeless, but maybe 4 out of 10. Clear messages on Israel, against Holocaust denial, against terrorism and alluding to freedom are welcome, along with clarity on what rights Muslims have in the USA, but he did not have the courage to explain what the USA is about – nor did he expound democracy as being besides the point if fundamental individual rights are not respected.

Is it that Obama does not understand what the US is about, or does he simply lack the courage to explain it?

Student unions are an arm of government?

Yes that's the argument made by Tony Milne at Just Left criticising David Farrar:

"Instead he advocates for student associations to become voluntary. The equivalent of course is the public refusing to pay their taxes when the Government does something they don't like."

My response to that is fairly clear:

Tony that is absolute bollocks, student unions are not like some arm of government, they are associations no different from a political party, industry association, trade union, environmental group, sports club or the like. This same old tired argument gets trotted out time and time again.

Governments have a monopoly of the use of legalised force against citizens. This is typically used to protect citizens from each other and from invasion. Local government has specified devolved statutory responsibilities regarding the enforcement and operation of certain laws (e.g. RMA, dog laws, food premises).

Student unions do not by any stretch of the imagination carry out any statutorily defined functions or have a legal right to use force in any way - except to force students to belong.

I don't "belong" to the New Zealand Government, nor Wellington City Council or Wellington Regional Council. All those entities have legally defined powers related to my behaviour in public places and the use of my property, student unions have none of the sort (all the powers they have are private property rights).

There is a fundamental human right of freedom of association. That means if I don't want to belong an association because I do not want it to represent me (which is the core function of student unions), then I shouldn't be forced to. Whatever other services student union's provide can largely be rationed by showing a membership card, or other techniques that, remarkably, virtually all other voluntary associations manage. For example, associate membership just to use certain facilities and not cross subsidise the political activity.

I know the left pined for compulsory trade union membership after the Nats abolished it in 1983 and again in 1991, but it is no different.

Yes members can vote, but why should one vote in an organisation that you don't believe in, that you don't want representing you, and which doesn't deliver what you want.

The truth is that student associations oppose voluntary membership because they are scared shitless that most students would rather keep the money than support a student association if they use few to none of the facilities, and don't agree with the fringe Marxists who run the show.

Of course Marxists have never been known for their belief in individual rights.

This follows up the appaling case of some turd at Salient spamming Big News, and then when Dave at Big News outed it, Salient threatened a defamation law suit, until it was outed that Dave was right. Salient thinks an apology makes up for someone being threatened with a lawsuit. Like kids left with the liquor cabinet open, they behave as if they are responsible to no one, because they aren't.

It also follows up the ANZAC Day celebrates war, so we wont celebrate ANZAC Day view of the communists running the VUWSA. In the past a couple of VUWSA Presidents have had the audacity of laying communist wreaths, happy to insult veterans of the Korean and Vietnam Wars, as if it would have been better had Kim Il Sung made all of Korea a totalitarian hellhole instead of half.

Most students don't vote at student union elections for some obvious reasons, many go to university to go to lectures and tutorials, not to spend time figuring out how to vote. Most students get little chance to really understand the candidates (it's a bit different from a general election!), and so many candidates are mediocrities that nobody can be bothered voting for.

Most students will see their vote not counting at all, because student unions are almost always run by leftwing activist types, so the student union is not seen as relevant to them.

David Farrar is dead right, Anne Tolley should be putting voluntary student union membership on the agenda (although she's never struck me as a supporter of individual freedom in the past). The primary opponents will be Labour and the Greens, both of whom treat student unions as training boot camps for future candidates, but it is ACT policy, and National might get some kudos from students by making student associations truly accountable.

It is about freedom, fundamentally.

UN Racism conference proven to be a farce

The vile speech by Iran's homophobic warmongering racist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has previously damned liberal democracy as a failure, has provoked a walk out by many delegates at the UN Conference on Racism according to the BBC.

He claimed Israel was created to "make an entire nation homeless", which is historical nonsense.
He claimed Israel existed to create a "totally racist government".
He claimed Israel existed on the "pretext of Jewish suffering", as he denies the Holocaust once again.

CNN says he was jeered at and cheered at, but the cheers were from Iran and the Palestinian delegations it appears.

New Zealand can be glad it isn't a party to a forum for this vile bigoted thug to express his idiotic views. Of course, I expect Green MPs to send a note of protest to the Iranian Embassy about Ahmadinejad's views, like the Greens did when he denied there were homosexuals in Iran - remember that? It must have happened surely, I mean they always claim the moral high ground!

Racism is mindless, but to hijack this forum to talk only of the Palestinians, to engage in historical denial, to point a finger at one but not others, shows little real interest in racism.

Reuters report

UPDATE: Colin Espiner in the Press reports that Chief Human Rights Commissioner (and long standing leftwing Labour Party stalwark) Ros Noonan claims "I've been through the programme and I can't find anything that smacks of anti-Semitism quite the reverse". I guess the fact Ahmadinejad would use the conference as a platform for it, didn't matter did it?

Espiner basically takes the Labour and the Green view, by not stating until halfway through his article that only the Labour and Greens are questioning whether foreign policy is independent, and he doesn't list all the countries boycotting the conference. Yep, good independent unbiased MSM journalism there Colin.

UPDATE 2: Keeping Stock reports that Joris de Bres is attending the Geneva conference, despite it being boycotted by the government.

Shouldn't this supercilious little man arrive home to find a letter advising him of the termination of his employment, with the bill for this unauthorised trip removed from his salary?

Good riddance to Stalin Kiro - let's not replace her

The children who benefited from this office were those of the people "working" there, which of course took money from families with their own children.

I have long regarded Dr Cindy Kiro as odious. She is prepared to sacrifice reason and individual rights for a big nanny state that puts safety of children above everything else. She was an authoritarian bully of the worst kind, she wanted all children monitored and planned by the state, under her warm stifling embrace. Instead of focusing on the vileness of parents who brutally abuse and neglect their kids, she adopted a scatter gun.

Meanwhile, the record of child after child murdered and abused by their extended families, far too often Maori, grew under her watch. She was gutless. Unable to confront the gravy train of intergenerational welfare that sees too many have accidental children and pay them at best negligible attention, at worst treat them as violent and sexual playthings, she wanted what's best "for all children" - ignoring that most parents, most of the time raise children who turn out to be reasonably well balanced, happy, healthy and productive citizens.

It was like she saw security at airports (because of terrorism) and figured the same "screen everyone every time" approach should apply to parenting.

I watched the antics of this woman throughout the life of this blog as follows:

In 2005, Cindy Kiro supported airlines having a deliberate policy of never sitting men next to children. She said "children’s safety is paramount" which of course can justify a Police state. It doesn't matter how many adults are offended, blamed for abuse or what freedoms people lose, nothing comes before the safety of children.

In 2006, Cindy Kiro promoted a single ID number for all children, so the state could track them. Her phrase ""If there is glue ear, or major issues about safety at home, then people do not learn properly. All the little bits need to come together." seems to justify monitoring every child. As Not PC said at the time "To say that all children need to be numbered because some children have been beaten by their parents is not just disingenuous, it's downright insulting to the vast majority of New Zealand parents." Indeed, Cindy Kiro wanted it to be about ensuring every child "did better", because the state, somehow can know best.

I first called her Cindy "Stalin" Kiro in June 2006. Why? Because she called for a "plan for every child" agreed by the state in a press release that remains on Scoop, but curiously not on the OCC website (Stalin rewrote history often too). She said "“In future we need to put in place a plan for each child from the day that they are born so that children don’t fall through the gaps again". Terrifying stuff, nonsensical when you consider CYPS is incapable of handling the deluge of cases of children living with criminally negligent/abusive parents already. A chilling vision of the state checking if, maybe you let your 10 year old taste wine, or maybe let your child briefly read Lady Chatterly's Lover, and punish you appropriately.

In October 2006 I blogged how Sue Bradford SUPPORTED Kiro's idea. Kiro called it "Te Ara Tukutuku Nga Whanaungatanga o Nga Tamariki" "This would provide a systematic approach to monitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential. The assessments would take into account the whole child: their physical, social, educational, emotional, and psychological development.”

She was awfully excited about planning childrens' lives.

In September 2007 I despaired it took the MSM a year to catch up on this story. Kiro claimed it would cost NZ$5 million a year. The Dom Post reported she "would make it compulsory for every newborn's caregiver to nominate an authorised provider to assess their family's progress through home visits. Those who refused to take part would be referred to welfare authorities." In other words, state goons to watch on your family. She said "She did not know of any similar schemes internationally. "We can lead the world in it.""

North Korea watches on families constantly Cindy, hardly world leading. I bet you don't know much about North Korea though do you? It's a long way from where you have spent your life.

In November 2007, I blogged about how she talked about "our children" again and how "we" needed to change "our" attitudes to child abuse, as if most people were casual about it. She said "New Zealanders had to change their attitudes and behaviour to become more child-focused". I'd bet most parents would beat to a pulp anyone they caught harming their kids.

No Dr Kiro, perhaps abusers should change their attitudes, and you can stop lumping everyone in the same group you collectivist!

In February 2008, I blogged about how she encouraged people to spend more time with their kids, having recently pocketed her relatively comfortable salary paid for forcibly by the people she wants to spent more time with their kids.

In August 2008, I blogged on how she called for "action on child poverty", not from those who breed without the means to raise kids. No. She wants to force everyone else to pay for those families. She wanted more welfare, and for no penalties for DPB beneficiaries not naming "deadbeat dads" (hey we can all be forced to pay for it).

Finally in December 2008 I asked when she would be fired. Zentiger at NZ Conservative noted how she said "New Zealand has a high tolerance to violence", making the murder of children everyone's problem and fault.

However Dr Kiro never liked picking on those who abused their kids, because it would raise some uncomfortable truths about demographics both of income and race. She let down Maori children in particular because she wouldn't finger point at the disproportionate number of young Maori who have children they never wanted, who leave children in the hands of extended families that include abusers, and who live a life on welfare giving scant attention to the educational, nutritional and emotional needs of the children.

That is the scandal of modern New Zealand - and Cindy Kiro was too ideologically blind or afraid of offence to point it out.

She COULD have called for an outright ban on anyone convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence from ever having custody of children or being allowed to live under the same roof as children - but no.

She COULD have called for a denial of welfare payment to anyone who abused children, but no.

She COULD have shouted loud and clear to Maori, given her own background, that it is disproportionately poor fatherless Maori families on welfare that somehow see the worst cases of abuse. Parents who abuse their kids, neglect them or let them be abused or neglected should have them removed.

but she is a gutless control freak who would rather regulate and monitor everyone Orwellian style (bet she never even read "1984") than point blame at those who ARE to blame. Not only that she wanted you to be forced to pay MORE welfare to those who are to blame, meaning less for you and your kids.

The Office of the Childrens' Commissioner should be abolished, to save the money taken from families to pay for it. To have a bureaucrat willing to advocate to sacrifice the freedoms and responsibility of most citizens because a small number are vile towards children is wrong - the experiment of this bureaucracy has failed - it is time to save a little money, and let the criminal justice system focus on identifying, convicting and punishing abusive parents, and placing the victims in the hands of those who give a damn - which also means abolishing the institutional bias against adoption.

but that's another story.

Be glad NZ avoided the Human Rights Council

Why? Because New Zealand would never have the gravitas or the courage to confront the barely mitigated evil contained within it.

Peter Singer in The Guardian writes about how the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution that considers defamation of religion a human rights violation. This resolution was sponsored by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. The likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia, governments that completely reject the concept of individual rights, promoted this vile non-binding resolution.

UN Watch describes it as "an Orwellian text that distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech, and religious freedom, and marks a giant step backwards for liberty and democracy worldwide."

Quite.

Germany bravely spoke against it saying it "rejected the concept of "defamation of religion" as not valid in a human rights context, because human rights belonged to individuals, not to institutions or religions."

Which is of course the key point.

Now assuming the US sits on the Human Rights Council, it should use that role to stamp on the morally wanting states who want to treat rights as subservient to the state, or religion. However, don't blame me if I think that a US Administration with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is hardly going to be a strong fervent supporter of individual rights.

Individuals have a freedom of religion, and a freedom to believe in no religion, and no state should interfere with that free choice. Sadly, most of the Muslim world retains laws on apostasy (Muslims changing religion or becoming atheists).

However, it is the UN that puts all governments on a level playing field - treating New Zealand, Iran, the United States, North Korea, Germany and Turkmenistan as each having equally valid points of view.

New Zealand is best standing to one side from the debates between those who have some respect for individual rights, and the murdering, torturing, thieving bullies that sadly govern the majority of the world's population.