On Iran and the UN

We are writing to ask that the UN general assembly condemn stoning as a crime against humanity and issue an emergency resolution calling for an end to the medieval and barbaric punishment as well as the immediate release of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani and others sentenced to death by stoning.

We also ask that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not be allowed to address the general assembly and that his government be boycotted.

A government that still stones people to death in the 21st century must have no place in the United Nations or any other international institution or body.

Mina Ahadi, Spokesperson, International Committee against Stoning and International Committee against Execution, Germany

Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, Iran Solidarity, Equal Rights Now and One Law for All, UK

Shahla Abghari, Women's Rights Activist, USA

Boaz Adhengo, Project Nabuur Capital, Kenya

Ophelia Benson, Editor, Butterflies and Wheels, USA

Helle Merete Brix, Writer and Journalist, Denmark

Roy W Brown, International Humanist and Ethical Union, UN Geneva Main Representative, Switzerland

Ewa Dabrowska-Szulc, President, Pro Femina Association, Poland

Richard Dawkins, Scientist and Author, UK

Sanal Edamaruku, President, Rationalist International, India

Sonja Eggerickx, President, International Humanist Ethical Union, Belgium

Caroline Fourest, Writer and Columnist, France

A C Grayling, Writer and Philosopher, UK

Maria Hagberg, Chairperson, Network Against Honour Related Violence, Sweden

Leo Igwe, Executive Director, Nigerian Humanist Movement, Nigeria

Hope Knutsson, President, Sidmennt the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association Reykjavik, Iceland

Julia Kristeva, Président, Jury du Prix Simone de Beauvoir pour la Liberté des Femmes, France

Ghulam Mustafa Lakho, Advocate High Court of Sindh, Pakistan

Anne-marie Lizin, Senate Honorary Speaker, Belgium

Huguette Chomski Magnis, President of Mouvement Pour la Paix et Contre le Terrorisme, France

Reine Marcelis, President, Synergie Wallonie pour l'Egalité entre les Femmes et les Hommes, Belguim

Pragna Patel, Chair, Southall Black Sisters, UK

Fariborz Pooya, Director, Iranian Secular Society, UK

Hassan Radwan, Management Committee, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, UK

Yasmin Rehman, Women's Rights Campaigner, UK

Terry Sanderson, President, National Secular Society, UK

Michael Schmidt-Salomon, Philosopher, Writer, and Spokesman of The Giordano Bruno Foundation, Germany

Udo Schuklenk, Professor of Philosophy and Ontario Research Chair in Bioethics, Canada

Daniel Salvatore Schiffer, Philosopher and Writer, Belgium

Issam Shukri, Head, Committee for the Defence of Secularism and Civil Rights in Iraq, Canada

Joan Smith, Writer and Human Rights Activist, UK

Annie Sugier, President, Ligue du Droit International des Femmes, France

Viviane Teitelbaum, MP and President of the Council of Women, Belgium

Giti Thadani, Writer and Filmmaker, India

Shishir Thadani, South Asian Voice, India

Richy Thompson, President, The National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies, UK

Olga Trostiansky, President, Coordination Française pour le Lobby Européen des Femmes, France

Nira Yuval-Davis, Organising Group, Women Against Fundamentalism, UK

Michèle Vianès, Regards de Femmes, France

Ibn Warraq, Author, USA

Human dignity and individual liberty

There is an argument going on among well-intentioned and more or less knowledgeable bioethicists about the question of whether there is much use in deploying the concept of 'human dignity' in resolving conflicts about normative questions in the field. Here is a good critical take on the issue.

Typically the issue of dignity is wheeled in by opposing sides when they don't like the stance held by the other side, and they have no good arguments left to defend their own take on the matter. Here's a few examples: voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. There's opponents of physician assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia who claim that such means to end a persons life are not dignified. Certainly the Roman Catholic Church thinks so. If you know anything at all about this debate, you will know that 'Death with Dignity' is also the battle-cry deployed by voluntary euthanasia groups. The same concept is used without blushing by groups for diametrically opposed means. That's odd indeed.

Up to this point I talked about the concept of dignity as if there was one. Of course, if neither the euthanasia folks nor the anti-euthanasia folks are able to demonstrate that the other side is wrong in their use of the concept of dignity, quite possibly there is something wrong with the concept, or, more to the point, quite possibly there's no concept.

Is voluntary euthanasia the exception pointing to a small problem with the idea of 'dignity', or is there actually more evidence that 'dignity' might just be a vacuous motherhood-and-apple pie thing suitable for and against anything and nothing. Well, in fact, there's plenty of other examples. IVF and artificial insemination (to go the the other end of our lives) are in the same boat as euthanasia. Christians routinely argue (well, claim) that our dignity is violated if we use such means of modern reproduction, allegedly because it's against our nature to do so. Of course, they don't mean a matter-of-fact type nature, they mean their normative understanding of what our nature should be like. It is well known that people who require access to such means of reproduction think their their dignity as rational agents is violated if the state or others prevents them from exercising such a choice (gays and lesbians come to mind, for instance). Both sides deploy the idea of 'dignity' to advance their diametrically opposing stances! Odd indeed.

Pornography is another, and my last example. There is no consensus at all about the question of whether someone violates his her or dignity (and that of others) by watching or participating in the production of pornographic material.

The German enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant initially understood respect for someone's dignity really as respect for a rational, autonomous agent. In that sense, dignity is kind of a short for respect for autonomous persons. That probably is a sensible thing. All other things being equal, we should be respectful of at least the self-regarding actions autonomous beings wish to undertake. May be that is what we should be saying, however. Of course, since then religious folks and invariably the UN have stepped in with a deluge of dignity here and dignity there declarations and statements that resulted into dignity being reduced to a campaign tool for everything and nothing at all. Christianity, for instance, quickly removed the Kantian criteria of reason and rationality and agitated for embryos' dignity, and human rights related claims derived from those. In case of doubt the supposedly necessary respect for these embryos' alleged dignity was used to override women's interest in controlling what's happening with their bodies. The UN has declared, for no good ethical reason at all, that reproductive human cloning is dignity violating. This emperor certainly is naked! Human dignity, warm and fuzzy as it may sound, is a useless tool for advancing arguments on any of the relevant fronts in bioethics. This insight is true regardless of the substantive stance that you'd take on any of these controversial issues, by the way. Dignity really is just a rhetorical tool as opposed to a serious conceptual means to advance discussions on these issues.

Today we are probably well advised, should we face the need to make a snap-decision, to reject dignity related claims unless these claims have another rationale attached to them that is based on some other framework. If anything, you'd probably right if you assumed that more often than not human dignity is deployed as a means of preventing people from making self-regarding choices.

Complete list of civilised countries now available

Very interesting stuff: the UN (that beacon of hope for human rights - NOT) voted on a resolution demanding basic civil rights for gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered (lgbt) people. Some 66 countries supported the resolution, and not unexpectedly, to quote Donald Rumsfeld, Old European countries with their respect for civil rights feature prominently on the list. No surprise, unfortunately, that thuggish places like Saudia Arabia, Russia, Jamaica and others are missing in action. No surprise either that the USA and the Vatican cannot be found on the list of supporters of the human rights of lgbt people. No surprise also that South Africa, sliding ever faster itself into a Zimbabwe type failed state, is absent among the signatories of the resolution, despite the fact that the country's progressive constitution binds the government of the day to recognize the rights of lgbt folks.

It's probably useful to reflect on this also in the context of high hopes that people have for the incoming Obama administration in the USA. This guy (leaving aside for a moment the fact that he doesn't even support the idea of universal health care in the USA) has announced today that a known homophobic evangelical preacher will hold the sermon during his inauguration ceremony.

Here then the complete honor list (keep em in mind, next time you plan a vacation!):

Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon,
Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

The UN statement, which includes a call for the decriminalisation of homosexuality worldwide, was read by Argentina.

Here's a Background briefing from IDAHO, the organisation that launched a campaign to get this resolution off the ground:

On May 17 2006, the International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO), the IDAHO Committee launched a campaign « for the universal decriminalisation of homosexuality », and published a list of the first signatories, which include several Nobel Prize winners: (Desmond Tutu, Elfriede Jelinek, José Saramago, Dario Fo, Amartya Sen), entertainers (Merryl Streep, Victoria Abril, Cyndi Lauper, Elton John, David Bowie), intellectuals (Judith Butler, Noam Chomsky, Bernard-Henri Lévy), and humanitarian organisations like ILGA, Aids International and the FIDH. On IDAHO 2008 (17 May this year) the French government announced that it would bring a LGBT human rights statement to the General Assembly of the United Nations. The text was read today in New York, and was supported by 66 countries in the world, and it clearly inscribes sexual orientation and gender identity as human rights.

The IDAHO Committee is the NGO coordinating the International Day Against Homophobia. This day is celebrated in more than 50 countries in the world, and is officially recognised by the European Union, Belgium, United Kingdom, France, Mexico, Costa-Rica, etc. These actions support international campaigns, like the call launched in 2006 "for a universal decriminalisation of homosexuality"
http://www.idahomophobia.org/

Responsibility to Protect

The UN Security Council's decision to do nothing about Zimbabwe is remarkable and it isn't. It isn't remarkable to anyone who considers the UN to be a by and large useless, and deeply corrupt organization, the disappearance of which would barely be noticed by most people except those who have their hands in the UN salary troughs. Of course, the UN can only be so good as its weakest links, and there's plenty of weak links. South Africa's voice on the Security Council has fairly routinely been supportive of the worst criminals as far as human rights violating states go. China couldn't possibly bring itself to issue a vote condemning Mugabe's junta because it's in bed, pardon, in business with the kleptocratic dictator and his minions. Indeed, just today the BBC reports that China, despite an official UN arms embargo, has busily sold weapons to the Sudanese regime. It is still training the Sudanese army in the use of these weapons. These weapons have demonstrably been used to murder innocent people in the ongoing genozide in Darfur.

Thankfully many heads of states, from George W Bush to Angela Merkel are falling over each other to promise to the Chinese government that they will attend the opening of the olympic games. It is business as usual. So, surely, if permanent members of the UN Security Council are actively supporting governments like the Zimbabwean and Sudanese, we cannot seriously expect the Council to act in any meaningful way. Indeed, if it acted against Zimbabwe, why should China not be next on its list. It seems then that we cannot seriously expect the Security Council to enforce the UN's 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine - after all, we all know the saying 'don't throw stones while you're sitting in the glasshouse'. China, South Africa (and its President Thabo Mbeki) are anything but genuinely concerned about civil rights and the duty to protect citizens of UN member states from serious abuses of such. So, Bob Madhatter, go on... nobody is gonna stop you until someone finds oil in Zim. No wonder you declared, in view of the international community's failure to deal with you and your fellow thugs, that you're 'happy'. So would I be, if I was in your shoes.

Criticizing organized religion - The latest human rights violation

Yep, you read it correctly. While organized monotheistic religions have been uniquely responsible for the oppression of countless citizens the world all over, the UN, that true beacon of hope for anything corrupt, has nonetheless for a long time been the last best hope for human rights campaigners. Not any longer, thanks to an ominous UN outfit called the United Nations Council on Human Rights. The defenders of human rights on the council consist of such nice countries as Syria, China (PR of) and Cuba. Well, quietly colluding with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Council a few weeks back announced a revised mandate for the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression. UNCHR managed so successfully to defeat the very purpose of having such a Rapporteur. IHEU advises that 'the Rapporteur will now be required to report on the “abuse” of this most cherished freedom [of expression - US]. We fear this will be interpreted to include those daring speak out against Sharia laws that require women to be stoned to death for adultery or young men to be hanged for being gay, or against the marriage of girls as young as nine, as in Iran. ... The amendment was passed by 27 votes to 15, the OIC states being supported by China, Russia and Cuba. Canada, India, and a number of European states spoke out against the change of focus from protecting to limiting freedom of expression.' Here's the wording of the newly defined role of the Special Rapporteur: “To report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination …” - Ein Schelm were boeses dabei denkt! - As Canada pointed out, '“Requesting the Special Rapporteur to report on abuses of [this right] would turn the mandate on its head. Instead of promoting freedom of expression the Special Rapporteur would be policing its exercise … If this amendment is adopted, Canada will withdraw its sponsorship from the main resolution.”

Incidentally, since it came into existence, the Council on Human Rights failed to criticize China (PR of), Iran (IR of) and other routine violators of human rights for their actions.

I wonder how the UK voted on this issue, seeing that it has also instituted some kind of blasphemy legislation (aka hate speech legislation) that's designed to prevent people from being critical of religious ideologies.

The OIC has since called on the Dutch government to prosecute a Dutch MP for 'defamation of religion.'

There are those, of course, who believe the hype that goes with the UN, and they probably think it's worth putting up a fight over the Council on Human Rights and its Rapporteur. There are also those who believe that the earth is flat, pigs can fly, and that nuclear power is safe. Perhaps our UN believers and these people should get together and begin an NGO of the willing-but-naive to change the situation :).

UNICEF - latest money scandal at UN

Hey, anyone monitoring closely the UN's latest frolics in terms of money wastage, corruption and incompetence will be pleased to see that the international organisation remains true to its historical form. It's been discovered that the German arm of UNICEF diverted about 20% of all donations (roughly 20 mio of 100 mio Euros) to pay its staff nicely exorbitant salaries, make plenty of external consultants happy etc. It could well be that this year, possibly for the first time, UNESCO might have to give up the mantle of most corrupt (and arguably most pointless) or most inefficiently run outfit in the UN bureaucracy, and might have to pass it on to UNICEF. No doubt UNESCO will fight hard, and, according to well-informed insiders, will almost certainly be able to claim the title back in 2009. Still, for 2008 it seems a remarkably close race. The only bit that's really funny about this are serial resignation of UNICEF 'ambassadors' (invariably actors, sports people, and the like, trying to do good by the world's children without wanting to think too much about it). It's as if it had never before occurred to them that any money poured into a UN outfit or a UN affiliated outfit is like attempting to fill a bottom-less pit.

This, of course, goes very much to the heart of the international do-good industry. Many such organisations these days have sufficient cash at hand, and are prepared to pay salaries sufficiently high to advertise in eg. THE ECONOMIST, a magazine in which a half-page advertisement costs probably about 15000 GBP. The question one has to ask in this context is whether poverty fighting organisations really need to pay many of their staff more in terms of salaries than most of their donors take home in a good year.