Shame On All Who Stood Silent: Iran Voted In as Member of UN Women’s Rights Commission
Last month, the civilized world permitted the Islamic regime of Iran to become a member of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, demonstrating yet again that the UN is just an institution for corrupt oppressors and their equally corrupt allies.
Forty-eight million Iranian women were thus sold out to the barbaric anti-woman Iranian regime by the UN’s democratic members. The Islamic patriarchal hierarchy can now claim victory and legitimacy, free to crack down on the women of Iran more harshly than ever.
They voted, by acclamation, to legitimize any and all discrimination and violence against the women of Iran, including: random arrest, imprisonment, torture, stoning, hanging. and rape. They voted to legitimize Iran’s laws that consider the value of a woman’s life to be one-half the value of a man’s life, establishing the second class citizenship of women in all aspects of life by law. They legitimized the Iranian perspective that women are incapable of judgment and unworthy of the custody of their own children. They voted to ignore laws that give men the right to deprive women of education, employment, travel, and even exiting the house. They voted against the girls of Iran who, though they have only half the rights of men, are given criminal responsibility at the age of nine under Article 1210 (1) of Iran’s Civil Code.
They voted to unleash even more evil.
Not a word of protest was heard from the democratic governments at all, including from the United States. None of the representatives of the democratic countries walked out. None of the feminist representatives of the UN stood up and protested. Nobody in the U.S. delegation protested when the vote by acclamation was called.
A source in a congressional office told me that this vote was a backroom deal to get Iran to abandon its seat on the Human Rights Council in exchange for the women’s rights seat.
What, exactly, is the difference between the two commissions? Why is the Commission on the Status of Women less important than the Commission on Human Rights? Is it easier to trade the rights of women? Does the UN see women the same way sharia law does?
The Commission on the Status of Women has never demonstrated concern about women deprived of their most basic humanity. No one within the Commission has ever had an interest in discussing the abuse of women living under oppressive Islamic law.
I know. I served on the Commission.
Helloooooooooooooooooooooo…..!
Where are all the powerful womens’ rights groups on this most important womens’ issue in the entire world?
I guess they’re still furious with Sarah Palin for not having aborted her Down Syndrome baby. Maybe American “feminist” groups will have a bit of time for the cause of abused Muslim women if they succeed in getting Barack Hussein Obama reelected. Maybe.
Probably not.
PHONIES. For shame.
Good luck with your battle for equality. The common denominator in anti-female societies is Islam, which is a patriarchal, imperialistic, supremacist political system, posing as a religion. Barack Obama is either a covert Muslim, or not. If he’s not, he might as well be one. And that phony Hillary values nothing but Hillary. She needs to be reminded daily that this abomination happened on her watch.
This is a bit misleading. Most countries were not voting members. For example, Canada did not even have a chance to protest this outrage. But they have publicly condemned it.
http://www.canada.com/news/Canada+deplores+Iran+appointment+women+rights+panel/2978501/story.html
“This month, Iran’s “holy men of God’ hung five young people, one of whom was a woman…”
So only 1 young women was hanged as opposed to 4 young men. Are you saying that 1 young woman being hanged is more appalling than 4 young men? Sounds like you are as sexist as the Iranian men you are having a go at.
That being said I would agree that Iran has no business being associated with any sort of “rights” commission. The UN becomes less meaningless every day.
The Feminist Majority organization has had an Iran campaign for years, headed by dissidents, has it not? I don’t know much about it. But I have met Iranian women who worked in those circles.
So let’s act, ourselves. Not wait for feminist groups (other than TFM), or for that matter equally disinterested right and conservative politicians and activists, who have every bit as much responsibility to women as the wretched N.O.W., if we are to be fair about the notion of women’s rights as human rights, right? Stopping this discussion at the simple point of pointing fingers at people like Kim Gandy, who have no ethical credibility on actual women’s rights anyway, isn’t enough. And I agree there should be a petition drive to pressure Clinton, and others.
I obviously meant “The UN becomes MORE meaningless every day”
Can anyone with more knowledge of international diplomacy than I have please explain why we can’t just leave the U.N. upon the inauguration of the next Republican president and gently relocate their house of horrors from NYC to some more suitable location?
How about Brussels?
Rather like letting the pedophile in the (dysfunctional) family do the babysitting.
Celebrate diversity.
The crime of being female in Islam:
Women’s testimony is worth half a man’s.
Women should be used like a domesticated animal.
Women should be struck for disobedience.
Women are the majority occupiers of HELL.
Rewarding evil seems to be the road the United Nations has chosen. So be it. Now why are we still supporting it? There is no excuse.
It is insane to expect justice or moral behavior from an organization that elected a former Waffen SS officer to its highest position.
But being sensinble is “judgemental” and “Islamophobic” and that would make Iran feel bad and be angry with the UN… UN should have a brain and some balls, but apparently that’s too much for transnational progressive crowd.
Once again, the UN proves itself to be worthless. I wish I could say useless, but I fear dangerous is the better term.
Hillary??? US Feminist Movement??? Cowards…. each and every one of them.
#10 Lynn: don’t bring Islam into this.. it was only 70-80 years ago that women were not allowed to votw in this counry. and that is Christianity. the probelm is all religions. get rid of them all…. and then get rid of the UN as well..and there will not be any problem then…
#15 miriam rove,
Would you kindly post a convincing link that inextricably links Christianity as a religion, through its precepts, to the disenfranchisement of women in the USA. I’m pretty sure that Christianity was actually one of the driving forces BEHIND the suffrage movement.
Let miriam have her two minutes of hate.
It’s the only thing she has left.
Given the way that women have voted overwhelmingly Democratic, a plausible argument can be made that universal sufferage may have been a mistake.
Dons asbestos underwear.
Bill, you’re wrong . . . and right.
The suffragettes were not supported by religious authorities, to say the least, nor by popular religious writers of the day. But I think it’s very fair to say that they derived their own sense of justice from Christianity itself, and that their movement, like the movements to free slaves and admit wider circles of men into full citizenship owe a great debt to Christian ethics as well.
I like Chesterton’s take: much like Mark the Great quivering in his asbestos girdle, he worries that women are such despots already that endowing them with political rights will merely empower harpies who need no such encouragement:
“Almost every despotic or oligarchic state has admitted women to its privileges. Scarcely one democratic state has ever admitted them to its rights The reason is very simple: that something female is endangered much more by the violence of the crowd. In short, one Pankhurst is an exception, but a thousand Pankhursts are a nightmare, a Bacchic orgie, a Witches Sabbath.”
Why not bring religion into it…This is what the Islamic religion teaches, preaches, and does…
Mark the great: I do not have any hate and #16 Bill:
when women were being denied of voting here in this country, did the catholic church or any other church canr to their rescue? I highly doubt it… Religion is the problem…
I feel that any religion that holds one sex higher that the other does not deserve to have a voice in any debate. Reading this from the BBC website –
The chief rabbi of a West Bank settlement has prohibited women from standing in a local community election and stated women lacked the authority to stand for the post of local secretary and women must only be heard through their husbands.
Shows that this believe is widespread throught different religions
“Shows that this believe is widespread throught different religions”
Citing a single source is hardly proof of your premise.
Try that one again – and cite ‘widespread’ sources if you wish to be believable.
miriam rove:
You highly doubt it???!? With scholarship like this, who needs history? Does the Catholic Church represent all Christians? Susan B. Anthony was a lifelong Quaker who took their teachings (which much more resembled those of Jesus than the Catholic’s do) to heart.(http://susanbanthonyhouse.org/her-story/biography.php). If you know anything of history, which by your own admission you don’t, you would know that Jesus’ outreach to the fairer sex was unprecedented and radical for its time. If you have a problem with Susan B. Anthony, then you are a proponent of Slavery and Abortion- both are issues which Anthony found repulsive. Fine, kill the babies and enslave the blacks, all so you can claim religion is the problem.
The over-arching answer to the crux in which this article presents is actually quite simple: “any means to an end”; if this means sacrificing the supposed ethics they pretend to abide by, so be it – so long as they can spit in the eye of their political enemies. They have completely retarded and twisted the titles of “progressive,” and “liberal” – they don’t actually mean anything to these people. Rather, they use the terms as a safety blanket.
KT, Greg is right. Where have you been?
Women’s testimony is worth half a man’s.
Women should be used like a domesticated animal.
Women should be struck for disobedience.
Women are the majority occupiers of HELL.
Well there goes the Judicial and Legislative System of the Islamic State of Iran. With it’s Islamic roots, it would be impossible for them to be a part of anything to do with women and their value when it is obvious that they prefer to believe in a spiritual being that has great enmity toward women.
The United Nations is in bed with those who disregard women at the least and even more frightening when they do regard women they affirm what Mohammad and Allah proclaimed about women 600 or so years after the birth of Jesus the Christ.
How bad can it get with the UN? Their capacity for gruesome stupidity is boundless. John Bolton once said that the nobody would miss the effect of x floors being lopped off the top of their building in NYC. I’ve been wondering why Mr Bolton was no meager with his number? Obliterating the UN would be one of the best things that could happen in the name of universal human decency!