Somalia: NGOs warn about humanitarian crisis in refugee camps

NGOs warn of humanitarian crisis in Somalian refugee camps | World | Deutsche Welle | 05.10.2010:

The UNHCR used satellite technology to take a bird’s eye view of the refugee camps to be able to analyze their scope and register the refugees’ movement. The pictures from space reveal that the settlements were built hastily and without any form of coordination. They lack infrastructure and hospitals; waste water doesn’t get treated, and there are no schools for the children. The UNHCR, who published these satellite pictures on their web site, speak of a humanitarian crisis happening in the camps whose scope is worrying.

The worst thing, said Melissa Fleming, was that urgently needed help isn’t getting to the people. “The very difficult security situation makes it almost impossible for UNHCR and our partner agencies to operate in Mogadishu at all,” she said. This also applied to the Somali non-governmental organizations, who UNHCR are relying on to access the displaced people in the camps.

Related: Somalia’s ambulance workers risk death to rescue wounded; 20 dead in 3 days of fighting.

Afghanistan: Taliban "earning" more money each day from heroin trade

The Taliban made £65million last year from Afghanistan’s opium trade despite the presence of thousands of British troops, a damning UN report has found.
In a startling indication that the war on poppy growing is having little effect, insurgents are still reaping the benefits despite the loss of life and huge amounts of money being thrown at the problem.
The report for the United Nations ominously warns that the illegal trade will grow even more.
Helmand province, where 9,500 British soldiers are battling the Taliban, produced 53 per cent of the country’s opium, the raw ingredient to make heroin.
The insurgents receive about $100million (£65million) a year from Afghanistan’s illegal opium trade. the report said.
If we add this the money they “ask” (peacefully, of course…) to the contractors in the area, we can understand how they are so well funded.

UN: Islamic countries push (again…) for "Islamophobia" monitoring mechanism

CNSNews thanks to AOW:

The Quran-burning controversy in the United States has prompted the Islamic bloc at the United Nations to revive its call for the U.N. to set up an “international monitoring mechanism” to track incidents of “Islamophobia.”
More here:
Muslim nations must collectively resist growing Islamophobia in the US and Europe, the head of the world’s largest organization of Islamic countries told ministers from the 57 member nations gathered here this week. 
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu urged members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to work with Western leaders to dispel misconceptions about their faith. They met on the edge of the UN General Assembly. 
… “The Muslim world is going through an unprecedented difficult and trying time,” Ihsanoglu told the ministers during their annual meeting on Friday. “We are facing daunting challenges and severe hardships. Islam and Muslims are under serious attack, and Islamophobia is growing and becoming more rampant and dangerous by the day.”
He said a “pandemic of Islam vilification” is sweeping through some parts of Europe and the United States, increasing misperceptions about Islam and eroding Muslims’ human rights.
Well, now that we are (again) with the Islamophobia, the Jyllands-Posten is again under threat and Mr. Ihsanoglu is (again) making stupid statements, it’s time to remember that, after telling Muslims that “violence weakens us” (that is, it’s not that using violence to try achieving a goal is wrong, but that rather people are looking at us as lunatics…), he said:
… the OIC was seeking an assurance from the EU that such incidents would not be repeated in the future and called upon the West to ensure that the dignity of Islam was respected.
Mr Ihsanoglu expressed regret at the failure of some newspapers and governments to apologise to Muslims and rejected the justification that it was an issue of freedom of expression.
“What we are looking for is that you take our sensitivities in your definition [of freedom of expression]. If you fail to do that… it will be a problem of credibility and a problem of universality of European values.”
Sensitivities are not to be considered when saying the truth and respect is earned by each individual’s actions. Precisely because rights are respected, people don’t like several Islamic mores and attitudes. Why should we just be quiet about those things we don’t like? Imagine how this would suit politicians: “don’t critisize us, it hurts our sensitivities“. 
Is it because we, as non-Muslims, can’t criticize Islam? Probably that’s the reason. But Mr. Ihsanoglu doesn’t say that, because he knows he would be laughed at. He prefers to take another path, much more subtle, that consists in exploiting the already deep culpability complex of Western societies. Victimization always produces excellent results, and there is no reason not to believe that this is not going to be the case, as there are important parts of society, who don’t understand that, if sentiments begin to meddle in rational criticism, freedom of speech and control over those actions we legitimately consider wrong, will just dissappear.
For example, take this comment, someone left at the blog:
I came across ur blog as i was searching on these cartoons and I read u’r comments and I read all the Islam bashing that you do in them. 
It’s interesting to note that I mainly don’t comment the news. I just copy the news that are published on different sources, an important part of which are underreported. So, if telling the truth is “bashing”, then the problem is not mine, it’s of the people that are really doing those things.
I don’t want 2 comment on that, as u have categorically said that u’r blog is about the cartoons on the prophet and as per what i understand u’r point is y dont ppl hv a sense of humour n y dont they see the “funny side” of these cartoons and the freedom of expression bit…
I don’t see either the “funny side” of pornographic photos of the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ (those are not the only one example, although in that case they were public funded, something that differs greatly from the Mohammed cartoons’ case) or the insults against Pope Benedict XVIth but I don’t call for the beheading of their authors, for laws against the people who paint/photograph those kind of things, etc. I just don’t buy their products. If they don’t earn money, they are not going to be very anxious to continue doing them. Of course, there would be ever someone who would buy those but, if they continue producing that kind of “art”, it won’t be with my support.
well, my only question 2 u is how would u feel if the person or thing u adore the most in ur life was made fun of in front of the entire world or was ridiculed in public? Now, the prophet is like that for millions of Muslims (sane and insane) across the world. And what sort of freedom of expression are we talking about here, the freedom to insult a religion in public. What the terrorists/extremists do is wrong and condemned by one and all (actually killing innocent ppl is their freedom of expression, but I m sure u wont laugh at this barbaric joke as ur compassion overpowers ur sense of humour), and that is why they are being hunted and killed everywhere, in the same way, these cartoons also hurt millions but then u label it as freedon of expression and a lack of sense of humour in muslims. In a global economy, when every other nation knows what is happening in countries outside their own, events like these should be condemned and not propagated. I am sure the cartoonist can express himself in better ways and show his funny side and creativity. In the end, I wud just like to say that I am a Muslim and I peacefully, without any hard feelings, condemn the views supported by ur blog I hope the next time u think “violent and barbaric = Muslims”, u also think of the millions of peaceful, educated yet devout muslims like me.
The rest of the comment is based on the assumption that I will ask for other people’s freedom to be diminished so my religion is not “insulted“. I wonder what this guy would think of Anjem Choudary and friends?
In the end, this is only a question about lacking self-criticism. If you consider that you’re always right, you’re not going to accept that other people find your ideas, mores or behaviours as absolutely wrong or sufficient to laugh at or mock about. Every human being has the right to laugh about others’ point of views, even if the latter don’t accept criticism.
Lastly, I can’t even consider that drawing a cartoon is the same as killing someone. With the first thing, the people you supposedly hurt can continue their lives and don’t have much more pain that knowing that there is someone very far away, that laughs about their ideas. With the second example, a person is deprived of the one right without which no other right can be exercised: life. So, it’s not a question about “lacking sense of humour“, it’s a question of priorities. Priorities: I guess they are a little changed when Islam enters the scene…
PS: Yes, we all know that there are “peaceful Muslims“. The problem is that those Muslims are not speaking out loud, and, if they do, they just protest about “being insulted” (like this reader) and not about confronting those who, apparently, have “hijacked” Islam.
Anyway, it’s conforting to see a Muslim who is not calling for my beheading for publishing the Mohammed cartoons, that I can add, it’s the exception. Normally I receive comments (as every other anti-jihadist blogger) as the one I posted the other day.
PS2: I have changed the blog’s background to suit this piece of news. I think it’s important to fight for the freedom to critizise the world we are living in, whover gets angry or mad or falls ill after watching its criticism.

UN: US excludes Israeli representatives in UNHRC

United Nations Human Rights Council logo.Image via Wikipedia

Wednesday in Geneva during the current session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Obama administration became a willing participant in the U.N.’s imposition of an apartheid-style ban on representatives of the state of Israel. Despite the promises made by the administration that by joining the Council the United States would not become part of the problem, U.S. Ambassador to the Council Eileen Donahoe chose to attend and fully participate in a meeting that deliberately excluded anyone representing the Jewish state.
…While Israelis are left standing in the hall during the Council’s regional group meetings, this week for the first time Libya took its seat as a full-fledged Council member. Other full voting members of the U.N.’s lead human rights body include such model citizens as Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Russia and Kyrgyzstan.
Found at Gateway Pundit. Absolutely shameful…
Enhanced by Zemanta

Darfur: UN expert urges Sudan to investigate Darfur market killings

UN expert urges Sudan to investigate Darfur market killings – Yahoo! News:

“A UN-appointed human rights expert Tuesday urged Sudan to investigate a recent attack on a market by suspected government-backed militia in Darfur that left dozens of civilians dead.

Chande Othman said new information appeared to confirm reports that more than 37 people were killed and over 50 injured after a militia group attacked the village of Tabarat in North Darfur on September 2.

‘I am deeply disturbed about these killings which highlight the continuing deterioration of the situation in Darfur,’ said Othman, who was appointed an independent expert on the human rights situation in Sudan by the Human Rights Council last October, in a statement.

Othman called on the Sudanese government to conduct ‘as a matter of urgency a thorough and transparent investigation into the attack on civilians in North Darfur.’

‘This incident should be investigated thoroughly and impartially and those responsible should be brought to justice,’ he said.

Several witnesses had identified the attackers as Janjaweed, according to the expert.

Why this doesn’t surprise me? Till President Bashir, accused of genocide in Darfur by UN, is not removed from power, Janjaweed militias will continue their bloody and deadly work in the area.

Climate change: if you don’t believe in it, you’re an "ecocide"

International Criminal Court (ICC) Haagse ArcImage by ekenitr via Flickr

A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace – alongside genocide and crimes against humanity – is being launched in the UK.
The proposal for the United Nations to accept “ecocide” as a fifth “crime against peace”, which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.
The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry.
Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute “climate deniers” who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.

Via.

Wow. Impressive. So man-made climate change is far from being scientifically tested but if you don’t believe in it, you’re going to be prosecuted (if this is implemented). The ICC cannot even go against Sudanese President Al-Bashir for the Darfurian genocide (they can’t even arrest him) but are going to prosecute anyone who doesn’t agree with their views on a belief.

The UN, just as deaf as these guys, is pushing the climate change agenda: the last one is the access to water sources. Ban Ki-Moon wants that access to water is considered as a climate change issue:

While access to water is a legitimate issue, it is generally not an issue that is global in scope that requires UN intervention. For instance, tensions between Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan over the Nile River are long standing. Various sources of the Nile extend further into central Africa, so it is a regional issue, but it is hardly global.
The Aral Sea Ban mentions is split between Khazakstan and Uzbekistan. Their countries’ leaders, (as well as some neighboring countries) obviously would share concerns in how that water is used. If they want to bring in the UN to help resolve any disputes (most likely the International Court of Justice) or to provide advice on water management, then that is their call. But there is no natural nexus for UN involvement.

Everything with our own money tax-collected.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]