Tag: Human rights

Ted Cruz Sets Trayvon Martin’s Mother Straight On Stand Your Ground Laws

WOW! God bless Senator Cruz

I do, of course feel sympathy for this woman, she lost her child, but my sympathy ends when she tries to use the justified killing of her son, and yes, it was, I believe justified, to stamp out my right to defend my life, and the lives of my family. Sorry, but a mother’s grief pales in comparison to the grief that legislating against the most basic human right, that of self-defense, would cause. No “justice” will ever come from disarming the law-abiding or interfering with their right to protect themselves by criminalizing a basic human right.

 

UN Human Rights Official Says Boston Got What It Deserved

UN Human Rights Official Says Boston Got What It Deserved – Big Peace

UN Human Rights Council “expert” Richard Falk has published a statement saying Bostonians got what they deserved in last week’s terror attack. He quotes W.H. Auden to make his point: “to whom evil is done/do evil in return.”

.

Richard Falk is the UN’s “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.” He has held the post since 2008, despite exposure as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

In his latest rant, published online on April 21, 2013 by foreignpolicyjournal.com Falk repeats the libel that prior to 9/11 President George W. Bush was seeking a “pretext” for war, and that anything Israel is the opposite of “justice and peace.”

And then he attacks Bostonians head-on. The police action in Boston was a “hysterical dragnet.” Boston’s dead were “canaries” that “have to die” because of America’s “fantasy of global domination.”

Falk explains the attacks as justifiable “resistance.” In his words: “The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world.”

He minimizes the crime and predicts worse if America doesn’t change its ways to better accommodate the demands of “the Islamic world.” As he puts it: “In some respects, the United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks, and these may yet happen…”.

For years, Falk has been espousing the worst forms of antisemitism from his UN perch, and for his efforts has been rewarded with repeated opportunities by the Council to lecture others on his world view.

That world view is shared by the 56 member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), who only a week ago at UN Headquarters refused to define terrorism unless an exception clause was created for “legitimate struggle.”

The OIC controls the balance of power at the UN’s top human rights body, by holding majorities in both the African and Asian regional groups. Africa and Asia, in turn, control 26 of the 47 seats on the Council. With the backing of the OIC, therefore, Falk has been encouraged and protected.

The Obama administration has long championed the UN Human Rights Council, which it decided to join as one of its first foreign policy moves in 2009. Thanks to the Obama administration, U.S. began a second three-year term on the Council this past January. At the opening of the Council’s most recent session in March, Assistant Secretary of State Esther Brimmer traveled to Geneva to address what she called “this esteemed body.”

There is nothing about a “human rights” body that countenances the likes of Richard Falk that is “esteemed,” and the United States should resign – effective immediately.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Beware the Wolves in Human Rights Clothing

1389 Blog has news about what Human Rights has devolved into in Canada. Human rights, a legitimate concern has been hijacked by the Left with increasingly disturbing results

Kangaroo courts waste tax dollars, time

By Charles Adler, QMI Agency
First posted: Thursday, February 21, 2013 08:00 PM EST | Updated: Friday, February 22, 2013 06:56 AM EST

Canadians are truly fortunate for many reasons. But an unfortunate side effect of our privileged position is many Canadians have lost the understanding of true human rights.

Provincial human rights commissions are supposed to protect citizens from genuine acts of discrimination. But all too often they act as misguided enforcers for the easily offended — a forum for people who seek out anything remotely controversial and warp basic human disagreements into human rights violations.

Take restaurant chain Earls and its Albino Rhino beer, sold in 50 locations across Canada and the U.S. Albino rhinos actually do exist. So do albino lions, birds, dolphins and reptiles; they have in common the condition where there is no pigment in the skin, increasing sun sensitivity.

But it was the extreme sensitivity of a human albino, Ikponwosa Ero, that has caused a lot of problems for Earls. Ero complained that Earls didn’t understand that it was “demeaning and humiliating for their condition to be featured on a menu item.” She went to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. Earl’s caved to the politically correct plaintiffs.

Suppose I made a beer and called it “Bucky Beaver.” That’s just plain insensitive to those who suffer from “overjet” — buck teeth.

How about something like “Hairy Monkey”? That would drive people with hypertrichosis — excessive body hair — into a deep depression.

There’s a lot more at stake here than a brand of beer. The victory over Earls’ Albino Rhino is only the most recent example of how human rights commissions can empower even a single person to infringe on the freedoms of everyone else. These cases not only inhibit us but they can also harm us.

When Beena Datt, a McDonald’s employee, claimed she had developed a skin condition and could no longer wash her hands to restaurant standards, McDonald’s ended up letting her go, after searching for a solution. What happened? The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled McDonald’s had to pay Datt $23,000 for lost income, $25,000 for lost dignity plus all her legal fees and rehab experts. Then to top it all off, the tribunal ordered McDonald’s to stop discriminating against people who can’t wash their hands!

In Alberta, the provincial human rights commission awarded Ruby Repas $5,000 after fighting for her right to work in a restaurant while infected with hepatitis.

This is just another front in the Left’s assault on Western values.

The Left’s war on freedom

I think we all have made choices about where to eat, stay, shop, etc haven’t we? Sometimes those decisions are financial, or sometimes maybe it is about location, and yep, sometimes, that decision might be based on poor service, or what we think is poor quality. For instance, there are four chains of steakhouses around me, no matter the names, and I refuse to go to two of them because their food is subpar, another I will go to for a drink after work, the beer is ice-cold, the service is good, but I only eat the few things that are good there. The other chain, Texas Roadhouse, I love, the food, and service rock, the atmosphere is good, and it does not have that chain restaurant feel that I loathe. It is head and shoulders above the others. Clearly I have made choices. Seems fair doesn’t it? So what does any of my dining choices have to do with freedom and Lesbian marriage?

Well, it seems that some folks are not satisfied with choosing NOT to do business with certain businesses. They prefer to try to force businesses to do business with them. This strikes me as strange. There are businesses I refuse to go to, because I or some family member has been treated in a shabby fashion. I do not wish to sue these businesses because they hurt my feelings, I simply stop doing trade with them. Hey if you do not want to sell me something, fine, someone else will, seems fair doesn’t it?

Well, increasingly, we are seeing Gay couples, rather than taking their business elsewhere, turn to lawsuits. We have seen bakeries, photographers, and now businesses that host weddings, threatened with lawsuits, or actually sued, because they refuse to do businesses with Gay couples. Isn’t it the right of a business to refuse service? It certainly ought to be, but, this simple truth seems to escape some folks

Two New York women who say they were turned away from a potential wedding site because they are lesbians have filed a discrimination complaint.

Advocates say the complaint filed with the state Division of Human Rights is among the first of its kind since New York legalized same-sex weddings last year.

Melisa Erwin and Jennie McCarthy, of Albany, say they filed the complaint Oct. 11 after Liberty Ridge Farm told them they could not use the site for their wedding next summer.

“When we asked why [the owners told us], ‘That’s what my husband and I decided. We’ve been married a long time and it’s great you’re getting married and all, but you can’t do it here,’”McCarthy told WNYT-TV.

The farm has had a growing presence of weddings on its premises. This year, alone, 15 nuptials were booked. But with gay marriage being so new in New York State — and with this being one of the first cases of alleged discrimination – there’s no telling how the legalities will play out.

Despite critique, owner Robert Gifford is adamant about not hosting gay marriages at Liberty Ridge.

“I think it’s our right to choose who we market to, like any business,” he said in an interview with WNYT last week. ”We are a family business and we just feel we ought to stay down the family path.”

We often hear how those darned Christians are forcing their religion on others, yet, in these cases it seems it is Homosexual activists that are trying to use force of law. Again, this reminds me Atheists who want to join the Boy Scouts, but want the Scouts to completely change THEIR pledge, which mentions God, before they join. Talk about an entitled mentality! Again, pretty simple, if you REALLY want to join the Scouts, then YOU accept THEIR rules. If you really believe in freedom, then do not attempt to force a business into catering to you. Find somewhere else to get married, or buy a cake, or to get photographs made. 

Hypocrisy overload in 3, 2, 1…..

China, you know RED, as in COMMUNIST China, as in no liberty, China, as in FORCED abortions China, has now called the United States a violater of human rights. Why? Well we actually allow people to own firearms

A report issued by the State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China has included U.S. gun ownership among a list of  human rights violations, Law Enforcement Examiner Jim Kouri reported yesterday.  “The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2011” was published last Friday on the PRC’s Consulate General in New York website.

“The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens’ lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership,” the report claims. “The U.S. people hold between 35 percent and 50 percent of the world’ s civilian-owned guns, with every 100 people having 90 guns [and] 47 percent of American adults reported that they had a gun.”

Odd how much Communists in China sound like the gun grabbers here in American isn’t it? Think about that as you read this next part

The conclusion that gun bans will result in enhanced protection of lives and personal security flies in the face of both the American and Chinese experience. Predictably, the report presents many of the same cherry-picked arguments used by “leading” U.S. and international “gun control” organizations that totally ignore the protective benefits of arms in private hands.  And, as typical with advocates of a centralized monopoly of violence, Chinese-style genocide, which resulted in government-caused deaths of unknown tens of millions of defenseless human beings in the 20th Century, and the current brutal occupation and tyrannical suppression of Tibetan sovereignty, is left unacknowledged. Left unsaid is the inconvenient truth that rendering captive populations unable to resist makes such monstrous crimes against humanity not only possible, but inevitable.

Remember this, gun control is not about guns, it is about CONTROL!

Your Perpetually Offended Atheist Asshole of the Day!

WHINY ASSHOLE!

Via Blazing Cat Fur. Wait did say asshole? How insensitive of me! I apologize to every asshole out there, you do not deserve to be compared to this whiny blob of self-pity!

 A Christian prayer by a city councillor at a City of Saskatoon volunteer appreciation dinner discriminated against non-Christians, says a volunteer who intends to complain to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.

Ashu Solo, a member of the city’s cultural diversity and race relations committee, was among the guests at the dinner Wednesday, where Coun. Randy Donauer said a blessing over the food in which he mentioned Jesus and ended with “amen.”

“It made me feel like a second-class citizen. It makes you feel excluded,” said Solo, who is an atheist.

“It’s ironic that I’ve now become a victim of religious bigotry and discrimination at this banquet that was supposed to be an appreciation banquet for the service of volunteers like me.”

No Ashu, you are a victim of your own over-inflated sense of self-importance and your own love of playing the victim! People like you deserve to spend a month in a country that REALLY discriminates and oppresses people. Then you might appreciate what freedom REALLY is!

The war on Christianity is all too real

People in Great Britain are now forced to fight for a very basic right. The right to wear a cross

Imagine how awful it will be for any Christians who fail to escape the rotting remnants of Britain after Muslims have achieved the majority if it’s this bad already:

Britain’s Conservative [sic]-led government plans to argue in a European Court of Human Rights case that employers are entitled to ban the visible wearing of crosses at work because displaying the symbol is not a recognized “requirement” of the Christian faith. …

At the center of the applicants’ case is Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

Moonbattery also has the story of the origin of this fight

The issue has been brought to a head in part by Nadia Eweida:

Eweida, a Coptic Christian and British Airways staffer at Heathrow Airport, was told in 2006 to remove or cover up a small cross she wears around her neck. She refused and was sent home on unpaid leave. Eweida noted that colleagues of other religions, including Muslims and Sikhs, were allowed to wear religious items such as hijabs, turbans and religious bracelets.

So, how long? How long until this fight comes to America? Folks it is a fight that Christians, or anyone that respects basic human rights does not want. But, we have little choice, we must fight this. And even if you are a non-believer, or of a different faith, do not think this fight foes not hold dire implications for you.