Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

NOW WITH FUN UPDATE! BREAKING: Was Rights and Democracy on the grassy knoll in Dallas??!?!!!!?

by Paul Wells on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 7:32pm - 121 Comments

It’s so good to find a sympathetic ear. And so the new board majority at Rights and Democracy must be so pleased to find Tim Mak, who splits his time in Washington between the National Post and David Frum’s website, where tonight he is breaking this shock-horror story suggesting Rights and Democracy might — before Aurel Braun and his confrères came riding over the hilltop to stage a gallant cavalry rescue — have bankrolled the Durban II conference in Geneva. Nut graf:

However, a FrumForum examination of United Nations annual reports show that the Canadian-based organization, Rights and Democracy — which received over $10 million from the Canadian government, or nearly 80% of its revenue — contributed nearly half a million dollars to the UN High Commission on Human Rights over the last several years. One FrumForum source puts the number closer to $700,000, accounting for unreleased 2009 figures. The UNHCHR is the parent organization for the Anti-Discrimination Unit, which organized Durban II in April of 2009.

I have fairly strong opinions about this story, but perhaps you are all tired of my fairly strong opinions, so I’ll leave you to read and discuss this one by yourselves. I’ll check back later to see how it’s all going.

UPDATE: In the comment section, anonymous comment-section person “Hannah” delivers a magisterial schooling upside the head of Tim Mak and his sources. Gee, that didn’t take long at <em>all.</em>

Tags: durban ii, fun with figures, Rights and Democracy, Tim Mak

More by Paul Wells

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Anti-Semitic Hate Fest …… I think I'll back slowly out of the room too ….

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

Technically it's not a "room", it's a FrumRoom(TM).

Wallace Cleaver

I have fairly strong opinions about this story, but perhaps you are all tired of my fairly strong opinions

Actually, if it weren't for your strong opinions, I wouldn't have paid any attention to this story. So thanks for those opinions.
guest

Actually, if it was not for your opinions, the facts of the story, interesting though they were at the beginning would have grown stale pretty quickly. So, please keep regaling us with the developments of your opinions.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

I love you all madly too. But never mind me, everyone: Is Tim on to something? Is this proof that R&D was a pit of hatred and mismanagement? Or what? All analysis of the actual FrumForum story will be welcomed with gratitude and interest.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

I don't see a convincing connnection made between donating money to the UN High Commission on Human Rights and direct endorsement or involvement with the "Anti-Semitic Hate Fest" (which is much catchier title than Durban II, you have to admit). Not saying the connection isn't there, just that Mek hasn't shown it.

Wouldn't every contributor to the UN be indirectly supporting UN-sponsored conferences?

Joops

"Wouldn't every contributor to the UN be indirectly supporting UN-sponsored conferences?"

Every government that pays its dues, yes!

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

If it's true that they were funding "UN High Commission on Human Rights" then it's a damn good thing that this will be put to a stop. Might as well be funding the Klu Klux Klan. The UN Commission is horribly corrupted.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Proof? Argument? Something more than bald assertions?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Certainly nobody could ever vote for a government that would permit this kind of thing to continue. And on such a massive scale, too.

Right, s_c_f?

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

It's certainly not a massive amount of money. But that UN commission should not get a cent.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive…

What a joke.

As for "nobody could ever vote for a government that would permit this kind of thing to continue"…

Unfortunately, no matter who is elected, gazillions of dollars are wasted in ways like this. The only thing I can say is that this is a step in the right direction, if indeed the funding to this agency is being cut.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

"Unfortunately, no matter who is elected, gazillions of dollars are wasted in ways like this."

are you saying the PM is powerless to stop waste?
http://intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

It's called harm reduction, and clearly as the current "war on drugs" (or whatever the Canadian equivalent is called) isn't working. Safe injection sites help in reducing overdoses and, more importantly, help reduce the spread of HIV.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SophiaGeffros Sophia Geffros

But can we really justify ceasing to fund an organ that, tainted as it justly should be by past events, still manages, by and large, to do good work the world over? Can you name a single other organization that has the poer, the influence, and the manpower to accomplish what it can?
If so, please do.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

Shorter version: when, and in what context, was the money given?
http://intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

Well, I wouldn't go so far as s_c_f in equating UHCHR with the KKK, but the UN is dismally lacking in moral authority on human rights. Sigh. The one-sided condemnation of Israel under the laughable direction of say, Libya or Sudan, gives plenty of ammo for the Maks and Brauns (and the Harpers and Days) of this world. Appalling anti-Semitism on the one hand begets (understandable, but still appalling) hyper-neocon partisanship on the other hand.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I agree, but on the plus side the Durban II thing gave us a chance to publicly condemn anti-Semitism in a way we don't often get to do. I wasn't really following the story, but my impression was that the anti-Semites and reverse-racists came away looking like a bunch of frothing lunatics, which hardly advanced their cause; rather the reverse.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Lord_Bob Lord Bob

Because frothing institutional anti-Semitism usually looks so reasonable and we should take every chance to convince its utterly rational adherents?

I'm usually anti-storming out in a snit, but there are some doctrines so far from any reality that even dignifying them with a hearing is too much dignity. Better to let the madmen shout into the void than convince them they have an audience simply because we shout back.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I thought our walkout was quite eloquent; that was the condemnation to which I was referring. Conferences don't really confer, they're media events and stages for theatrical gestures. We did well there, I think, but we needed to conference to make our gesture.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

A few months back ..maybe Sept., Harper's had a lengthy article by Naomi Klein ( the ritual
grinding of teeth may begin) outlining the actions and motivations of the main actors at Durban.
It's all more complicated than the usual North America media suspects portray.
For example, The US was quite pleased to have the whole thing collapse because one of the
main agenda items was a resolution on reparation for the slave trade … which is a conversation
that no one in the US wants to have. So it was not just an Israel-Iran cat fight .. though it was also that.

The Harper's article is not on-line. Yet. And, with Harper's it may never be.

JamesHalifax

Jack wrote:
"Durban II thing gave us a chance to publicly condemn anti-Semitism in a way we don't often get to do. I wasn't really following the story, but my impression was that the anti-Semites and reverse-racists came away looking like a bunch of frothing lunatics"

I ask:

Jack….were you referring to anti-semites in the arab variety, or anti-semites in the Jewish variety?

You seem to be selective. In effect, you are calling the arab version semites…"Anti-semites"…and according to your previous statements, this couldn't possibly be true. Choose your semite Jack……

Inshallah

Nbob

OMG…..It gets worse!!! OMG…. my keen research and analytic prowess has determined that Canada has actually supplied the UNHCHR with a High Commissioner in the past!!!

Jan

Louise Arbour. The Conservatives weren't fond of her as I recall.

Hannah

A quick look at the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights' website reveals that the Harper government donated US$9,027,785 in 2007 and US$6,452,292 in 2008 to the UN High Commissioner. Even Israel donated $10,000 in each of these two years. Can Tim Mak and Aurel Braun tell us how much of this went to finance the Anti-Semitic Hate-fest?

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/FundingBudg…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!! Hannah, anonymous blog commenter? You're a better reporter than Tim Mak. If you send me your cv, I will make sure I get a copy to David Frum.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Presumably whatever Israeli government agency donated those $20 000 was "Israeli in name only."

http://intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

Heh. Jack, you have way of making me darkly LOL.
Jan

Possibly the leftwing (according to Braun) Supreme Court of Israel.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

So I guess the moral of the story is that we need more Aurel Brauns in Ottawa.

http://twitter.com/DrDawg @DrDawg

We need brain in Ottawa. Leave Braun in Montreal.
Tim

Who's the poor journalist?
http://www.frumforum.com/answering-paul-wells

JamesHalifax

Paul Noted:

"Hannah, anonymous blog commenter? You're a better reporter than Tim Mak. "

I agree Paul, she is.

And I think you're almost as good as Tim Mak.

Joseph

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is not the same as the UN High Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). The former is, to say the least a respectable position previously held by our very own Louise Arbour. The latter is a defunct organization that was replaced by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), but which had the unfortunate history of, among other questionable actions, the uncontested election of Sudan to the commission while the Darfur Genocide was still taking place.

It's best not to confuse the two.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

The Durban Review Conference's (hatefest's) secretariat was the OHCHR and Louise Arbour's successor was Secretary-General of the conference:

http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/background.sht…

Incidentally, I think it's broadly accurate to call Durban Review an anti-Semitic hatefest, and I support the decision of the Canadian government to boycott it. But if the question is gonna be "who bankrolled it?" then it is just overwhelmingly not Rights and Democracy that wins the prize. The Canadian government does.

Joseph

Nevertheless, the prep committee for the Durban Review Conference was the UN Human Rights Council. While the OHCHR did lay the administrative groundwork for the conference, their function appears more comparable to the Speaker and pages of Parliament, in that they run the procedural things while the partisans have all the fun.

So I don't think funding the OHCHR is exactly the same as funding the UNCHR or UNHRC itself. It's a subtle difference perhaps (like supporting parliament vs. supporting the parties themselves).

Though to be honest, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the finances of the UN to know if it is even possible to fund one without indirectly funding the other. It seems at first glance like the UNHRC comes under the nominal mandate of the OHCHR, but functionally makes decisions more or less independently, but I'll admit the bureaucratic obliqueness of the UN leaves me uncertain.

???

Perhaps I am wrong but according to the OHCHR website donations are from 2000-2007 not (Voluntary Contributions to OHCHR 2000-2007 (JPEG – 600KB). Seeing as how Harper has been PM since 2006 are we to assume the entire $9,027,785 was donated only in years 2006 & 2007?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

$US5 million in un-earmarked donations in 2008 alone:

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Press/OHCHR_Report…
Tim

Paul – I never said that R+D gave money to the anti-discrimination unit. In fact, I made an effort to explain how R+D might have funded Durban, despite earmarks.

http://www.frumforum.com/answering-paul-wells

Tim

In my defense, I never once defended the Canadian government. In fact, I'd be happy to demand that they stop funding the UNHCHR. The spotlight and my piece were on R+D, so I focused on them.

Anyhow, fuller rebuttal here:
http://www.frumforum.com/answering-paul-wells

Holly Stick

Wow, way to quote out of context! Why didn't you explain why you were a chicken?
illbethejudge

Tim, as late as this reply is, it stands. You are full of it. You attempted to imply that R and D funded Durban.
You got called out on it. Please don't mistake the majority of the McLean's audience for Fox News teabaggers who believe anything as long as it's in line with what they want to believe. You have approached your story with a pre-concieved notion and even when the evidence told you otherwise, you continued on the same tack. That's not good journalism. I'm not going to say you're a terrible reporter. I wouldn't frequent anything done by David Frum long enough to find out. But, in this instance, well….you really missed the mark.

Raouf

This is another attack and a smear campaign on R&D and the UN by the New Cons and there Zionist allies. Since when the new cons have the high moral authority on Human rights.

http://intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

People's exhibit A. (See my post above).

Toporious Tony

Have I mentioned recently how much I am enjoying this show? Man, it's awesome. Dig yon Raouf tither; see, the New Canadians come from countries that use the word zionism without scare quotes, as is customary here in Canada. Imma let them do the driving on this one.

I do wonder what the Jewish members of the Liberal party like Bob Rae and Irwin Cotler think about all this though.

http://intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

Toporious is a misused adjective judging by the content of your posts. You're entitled to your opinions like anyone here is, but you're definitely lacking in torpor.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

You can't misuse an adjective that doesn't even exist. "Toporious" isn't a real word.

http://intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

Yeah I know, my bad. I was thinking it was an adjective of "torpor." And this after I mistakenly called Samwise "Frodo" on Weinman's blog the other day! Two strikes. Must be the winter stir-crazy getting to me.

kcm

Bob Rae is an Anglican,his chidren are raised in the Jewish faith But why let facts get in the way, he's so obviously their man.

Toporious Tony

Not true, Jason Cherniak confirms Bob Rae has, quote, "always" attended his temple.

In any case, Jews are an ethnic group, of whom only a small subset actually practice Judaism, so whether Rae worships a burning bush or Jesus or whatever, he is still a Jew, and a strong supporter of Zionism and Israel, which is going to present some very, very entertaining opportunities when he becomes leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, which may be by the end of this week the way Iggy is running.

kcm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Rae

Check out the family section…perhaps you should give JC a call…or update Wiki.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

Rae and Cotler don't care about anti-semitism while they are in pursuit of power. Men don't care but their wives suffer. I am surprised that Libs stay Libs when you have the likes of Jack M making Jewish jokes and other off colour comments about how Jews have inordinate power over pols.

" Re: Israeli Envoy, Rae Attack Ignatieff's Remarks, Oct. 12.

I have been an active, involved and contributing member of the Liberal party until yesterday, when I decided to give up my membership because of the statements from Michael Ignatieff, given in French to a Quebec radio station …… " Ariela Cotler, Nat Post, Oct 13, 2006
————
"Bob Rae was the target of anti-Semitic attacks during the Liberal leadership contest, motivated at least in part by the fact that his wife is Jewish.

Sources close to Rae say that his wife, Arlene Perly Rae, was approached during last weekend's convention by a delegate who didn't realize she was the candidate's wife. The delegate told her not to vote for Rae "because his wife is Jewish." Canadian Press, Dec 7, 2006

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

the likes of Jack M, and many others, making Jewish jokes and other off colour comments about how Jews have inordinate power over pols.

What the f*ck are you talking about? That's a disgusting slander and you should take it back.

http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

Amazed!
you are the most politically correct joker we got here on this board (ie joker=someone who is actually funny)

Jolyon is so lost he doesn't realize by using the antisemitism smear against you, he has discredited* his entire race of troll-smear guys.

*I am being generous
JamesHalifax

Jolyon….Jack doesn't like it when you call them Jews. Too obvious.

He would prefer that you use the term "Zionist"

That way you can say bad things about them…..and on one can accuse you of being an anti-semite (of the Hebrew variety Jack….feel better?)
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

"This is, I believe, why many people (not just on the "Left") find the fanatical pro-Israel lobby so disturbing and why we're all following this story"

Lord Kitchener's Own

So, is that supposed to be an example of a "Jewish Joke", or of an "off colour comment about how Jews have inordinate power over pols"??? 'Cause I can't see how on Earth it's either.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

There is no "lobby" nor are there any "fanatics", nor do Jews have any inordinate power to control this agency or any other Canadian agency, so that is a unquestionably a comment about how Jews have inordinate power over pols.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

"It's this paranoid mentality that has fuelled a very serious anti-Muslim, anti-Arab racism that is tied to militarism and authoritarianism in our own society, besides being an evil in itself"

Lord Kitchener's Own

Again, is that supposed to be an example of a "Jewish Joke", or of an "off colour comment about how Jews have inordinate power over pols"??? Once again, I can't see how on Earth it's either.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Once again, the comment clearly suggests Jews have inordinate power over pols, it suggests all kinds of nefarious and powerful activity on behalf of Jews in Canada, and it has absolutely no basis in reality. There is no anti-muslim nor anti-arab racism at play in this story, none whatsoever! And especially, there is not a cabal of Jewish people directing an evil militarism and authoritarianism in our own society. It's exactly what Jolyon was talking about.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

yes, seems like a pretty regular human rights organisation

Nothing worth funding there, by God. Contemptible lawfare is what it is. Jesus, where have our standards gone.

http://www.bnaibrith.org/latest_news/UNHRC.cfm
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html

Wallace Cleaver

Normally, Jolyon, you're a reasonable sort…but this time you're totally off base. I think you owe Jack an apology.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Seriously, jolyon, you should retract what you said and apologize to Jack M. He's the last person who would "make Jewish jokes and other off colour comments about how Jews have inordinate power over pols."

kcm

I'm still trying to find his "other" smear. It annoys the hell out of me when a few sanctimonious libertarians appoint themselves sole defenders and official spokesmen for the Israeli cause. They're always so quick to throw out the anti-semitism charge.

kcm

I should add that Joylon is giving credence to the disgusting smear – coming from the likes of levant and possibly Braun – of liberal jews like Cotler as: "house jews". This is utterly contempible, and a form of intellectual intimidation to say the very least.
Canuckistanian

not to mention anti-semitic ;-)

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Jack is the one claiming this story is "all part of a fanatical pro-Israel lobby" and a "paranoid mentality that has fuelled a very serious anti-Muslim, anti-Arab racism that is tied to militarism and authoritarianism in our own society, besides being an evil in itself"
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

I wonder if this is evidence of that fanatical pro-Israel lobby:

http://www.bnaibrith.org/latest_news/UNHRC.cfm
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html

wsam

Irwin Cotler and Bob Rae probably have the same view of neo-conservative crap as most Canadians. As sentient individuals, they probably view the R&D fiasco in a dim light and worry about the directions this government is taking Canada.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Lord_Bob Lord Bob

We attended it so we could leave it? I actually like that.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

awwwwwwwwwwww SNAP!!!

day in and day out on this story I am shocked by how unconcerned Braun et al on the front lines of this dispute, or the henchmen taking up the rearguard position, are with the fact that the ~~reasoning~~ senselessness underscoring their public posturing is consistently exposed without those like Paul or Hannah breaking anything close to a sweat.

well done once again to Paul and to Hannah.

matt

Jack, I'm shocked. Reasonable people read what you wrote in defence of Durban, and shake their heads. Hitler happened to be good at planning roads. I think anyone looking for any sort of redeeming facet of the third reich is a voracious anti-semite. Ditto Durban, in my view. And glib phrases like "Protocols of the Elders of Mecca"? Really? Really?

Tony

Or should I say a NGO fully funded by the government complaining about the government.

As a tax-payer, why should I pay a dime for this organization? There would be no argument as to who is on the board, or what the mandate is -Just, see ya later, Good Luck! Sounds Interesting!

wsam

Pave my road!!! Screw Palestine!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Choqué? Say it ain't so. I'm not defending Durban per se, I'm saying it's nice to be able to confront racism (in this case, reverse-racism and anti-Semitism) for once; to be able to say, "Look, here's a bunch of people who are either racists or genuinely off their rockers." You don't do that by huddling around thinking righteous thoughts; you have to communicate.

"Protocols of the Elders of Mecca" isn't a glib phrase, it's my way of saying that, in the West, a lot of the anti-Arab racism and conspiracy theories one finds on the far right are closely analogous to the historical disease of anti-Semitism in Europe. In both cases the terrifying minority speaks a foreign language, dresses different, has a strange religion that might be opposed root and branch to Christianity, is taking over the continent, has a sinister world-dominating agenda, is in league with the Left, and hails from the Middle East (in the case of the Jews, originally from the Middle East). It's this paranoid mentality that has fuelled a very serious anti-Muslim, anti-Arab racism that is tied to militarism and authoritarianism in our own society, besides being an evil in itself.

I'm ignoring your disgusting Hitler analogies.

Mulletaur

Actually, anti-Semitism is now much more a feature of socialism and its followers than those on the right these days.

wsam

Actually, no. Anti-Semitism is much more a feature of right-wing douchbaggery and their attempts to muzzle anyone they disagree with. These days charges of anti-Semitism seem much more to emanate from guys like Ezra Levant who use it as a club.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Chances123 Chances123

I believe you are correct. Bob Rae has spoken about it more than once. For example:
"Like the speakers who followed him, Rae linked the Concordia disturbances of Sept. 9 to a growing international climate of hate against Jews and Israel — expressed in union resolutions, divestment campaigns, boycotts of Israeli intellectuals, and pamphlets, posters and pronouncements that appear to meet every definition of hate speech. "

http://www.cjpac.ca/statements/read/9/236

I assume Union resolutions = Sid Ryan
and divestment campaigns = Global BDS Movement, also known as 'Boycott Divestment and Sanctions for Palestine' ,
(They target unions for support: http://www.bdsmovement.net/?q=node/124)

Which brings us to a curious wording at Al-haq's site:
"and participation in civil society discourse and activities regarding divestment, boycott, and sanctions."
http://www.alhaq.org/etemplate.php?id=51

JamesHalifax

Not surprisingly, Jack Mitchell wrote:

"It's this paranoid mentality that has fuelled a very serious anti-Muslim, anti-Arab racism that is tied to militarism and authoritarianism in our own society, besides being an evil in itself"

To which I respond,
Actually Jack, feelings of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiment have not arisen due to any paranoid mentality on the part of Westerners. It arose when Muslim's and/or Arabs decided to start blowing people up and killing innocent women, children, and men. It began when Muslim's or Arab decided to blow up embassies full of our diplomats, hotels full of our citizens, pizza parlours full of familes, and crowds gathered in marketplaces.

It continues because Muslim's / Arabs still support these activities, and have tried to carry on their tradition every waking moment, and the negative feelings won't begin to ebb until the Muslim's and Arab's you refer to start speaking or acting out AGAINT this behaviour….and meaning it when they do.

wsam

Is this the same as we have to be suspicious of Christians because Christian militants advocate murdering medical professionals?

wsam

Hitler never planned a road in his life.

kcm

"As Sirco staff arrived to begin their work, they also found that a computer belonging to Anne-Marie Lavoie, deputy director of the group’s human resources department, had been “wiped clean with a very sophisticated software program,” according to a FrumForum source close to the investigation."

Would this "source" have the initials EL, or even AB? Given how Hannah's shown just how ludicrous this particular 'scandal"is, can any stock be put in this gem. Would i be wrong in wondering if this is yet another example of a selective release of information…the way it's put here it seems scandlous. Amusing is how Mak mentions an 'alleged' break-in, inferring what exactly?
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

But merely having Libya, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, etc. as members

Yes it does, somehow those countries were voted in as members and leads. Those countries, while talking about human rights, are abusing them at the same time. The very same people in fact. How on earth could the money be put to good use when it's these types of people that are directing where it goes?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Why even bother trying to answer that question when you learned of the existence of UNCHR this evening?

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

That's not true at all, I've known about that corrupt organization for years.

wsam

Prove it.

You're searching for reasons to legitimize your biases. Oh, I don't like that organization because five years ago someone who works there was mean to this guy I used to kn ow.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Who are you, Joe McCarthy? Puhleaze.

Anybody who reads the news has known about that organization for years. Look at the links I provided. That's why Mak can write the article he did, because anyone who knows anything about the UN has known about this corrupt organization for years.

I guess that means you've been lost in space. Try reading the news once in a while, you might learn something.

Tony

Yeah! Well Done Pau! Continue with your investigative journalism (which consists of reading other newspapers) -let get to the bottom of this.

Imagine a non-governmental organization complaining about the government (and a conservative government too!)- Wow!
Joops

UNHCHR used to be headed by – gasp! – former Canadian Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour, and also by – gasp! – former Irish President Mary Robinson! Therefore UNHCHR = super evil and all the work they do promoting human rights is automatically anti-Semitic.

Thank you, FrumForum, for such a scintillating argument!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

FrumForum sounds like the place next door to FraggleRock, where the nut grafs grow.

Seriously, what is there to say about this non-story? It's nothing but another attempt by Braun to smear his own organisation. Either you're an anti-Semite (genus anti-Arab) who thinks that the UN is a vast plot by Arabs and their brown-skinned fellow travellers to take over the world ("Protocols of the Elders of Mecca" etc.), and you're open to this kind of paranoia, or you're not and you're not.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Yeah, with a web site like that, they're clearly a bunch of mother teresas over there. Yeah, a perfectly regular human rights organization.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/inside…

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/opinion/26sun2….

Even the NY Times thinks the organization is a cesspool.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

So your strategy would be . . . what? Kick Libya and Saudi Arabia and Nepal out? That's going to promote human rights in those countries how, exactly? At least this way they have to pay lip service to human rights instead of denouncing them as some nefarious Western plot. I don't think that's the right way to approach human rights in general, but there's a case to be made for forcing tyrannical regimes to admit the concept.

You appear to have missed the neocon memo on Gaddafi, btw. He's Bush's only success story. He's a convert to all things good and bright and American; thus his human rights record is moot.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

If I remember correctly, the Bush success was somehow getting Libya to stop their weapons program. Gaddhafi himself will always be a vile madman.

As for my strategy, I would actually find agencies that deserve donations, and not send a cent to corrupt organizations, regardless of whether they have the "UN" initials. Corrupt is corrupt. Sending donations is supporting the corruption. There are untold organizations around the world that deserve donations. Instead we end up sending money to perpetuate that fraudulent group.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

But merely having Libya, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, etc. as members does not make them corrupt. The question is whether any particular program, such as we funded via R&D, squandered the money or gave it to evil people. If you have evidence of that, as opposed to fact-free denunciations in the NYT or FOX News, feel free to provide it.

Doug

Wow. If David Frum and his neo-con cohorts are getting involved, then this is really going to get our of control. With any other government, we would have attempt to do damage control, get Braun to resign for the good of the organization, etc. The government should be moving to appoint a new President very quickly but I fear that Bob is right. The government is going to create a new democracy institute and let this one die.

Note that Frumforum claims to have insider info. Given that all the staff of R &D are strongly opposed to this pro-Zionist takeover of R & D, who is the Deep Throat here. Open up, Braun.
Jan

And checking Mr. Mak's bio it turns out that he worked in the Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Chances123 Chances123

I have a small quibble. Rather than saying the Harper government made those donations, I think it would be more accurate to say CIDA approved them. BTW, CIDA came under new management June'08 on the advice of the Senate no less. Another Braun plot?

http://www2.carleton.ca/fpa/news/npsia-alumna-app…

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

I don't understand why what the Feds do has anything to do with R/D, an arms length quango that is free to do with its money as it chooses.

Money is fungible so earmarking money is mostly pointless. Cons should not be in business of funding anything to do with UN – it has more paedophiles than Catholic church on its books, as just one example – and they should be ashamed of their themselves. R/D should stop funding UN activities as should the Fed government.

I still don't understand why people are worked up about this issue if they are sincere about Harper having right to appoint people he wants. I know why I am interested in this topic but I don't see why others are bothered about R/D if they have no problem with Harper appointing people.

wsam

"Money is fungible so earmarking money is mostly pointless."

Wow!

It's like at work how we keep trying to build up inventory but instead end up re-designing our website. because money is fungible, you know. You just cannot control what that crazy money is going to do next.

The real sticking point here is the Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Unit, a notorious font of anti-Semitism.

JamesHalifax

You see one IMAM give an interview, Jack, and you assume he is sincere when he claims to be a moderate peaceful Muslim…….but you completely ignore video evidence of that same Moderate peaceful Muslim calling for the death of infidels, and comparing Jews to pigs and swine.

Jack…here's a hint;

It's not "Paranoid" to have negative feelings or suspiscions about the motives of a group of people who have given you EVERY REASON to be suspiscious OF THEM. It's just common sense….and that Jack, is a survival mechanism that doesn't seem to be in your own arsenal.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Ah, right, the old "but they actually are a threat to our civilisation and conspiring to take over the world and evil evil evil" excuse. In other words, "it's not anti-Semitism if it's TRUE!!!" A key technique again is to take one Youtube video of a terrorist imam in London and claim that he speaks for a billion Muslims, just as it used to be that Baron Rothschild proved that all Jews were secret banking magnates or Trotsky that all Jews were secretly trying to kill all the banking magnates (usually at the same time).

If matt or Mulletaur above are curious, this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that old-school anti-Semitism has mainly morphed into anti-Arabism. There are, of course, people who are anti-Jew in the old-school sense still, but far fewer than 100 years ago; most of the people who would have been anti-Jew then are anti-Arab now, at least primarily. (And I'm sure there are lots of Westerners who are both.) Of course, relatively few anti-Semites in 1903 or 2010 are keen to go around advertising their hatred like Steyn or, in his own small way, James Halifax does, which is all the more disturbing; but it functions as a powerful engine of political opinion below in the surface in many cases, for instance Levant.

JamesHalifax

Ahhh…Jack, always predictable.

"A key technique again is to take one Youtube video of a terrorist imam in London and claim that he speaks for a billion Muslims"

I respond:

It wasn't just one YouTube video Jack, there are many. Secondly, I wasn't concerned about the Billion other Muslim's this many may have been speaking for……I was more concerned about the several hundred BRITISH muslim's in attendance that were clapping and cheering him on. Do the extrapolation Jack.

Jack continues:
"Of course, relatively few anti-Semites in 1903 or 2010 are keen to go around advertising their hatred like Steyn or, in his own small way, James Halifax does, which is all the more disturbing"

Sorry Jack, I don't hate anyone…..but I do have reservations about intentions when it comes to "moderate" muslims who insist that Jews are evil, and descended from pigs. If that's MODERATE in your mind….I'd be curious as to what you would consider an extremist.

JamesHalifax

Jack tries to prove his "diversity credentials" with this variation of old time tolerance

"Second, it harms Israel, a country that deserves our support."

I comment:
Yeah Jack, sure. I bet some of your best friends are Jews right? (Naomi Klein doesn't count)

Jack's next Whopper:
"What the fanatical Zionists and their glass-eyed evangelical Christian supporters need to learn is that anti-Semitism is not a whit more acceptable when deployed against the Arabs than it is when deployed against the Jews, and people like me have absolutely no tolerance for either form"

When written in the way he was actually thinking goes something like this;

"What the fanatical JEWS and their glass-eyed evangelical Christian supporters need to learn"

Sorry, Jack. I'm an atheist……the only faith I need is knowing that the guy in the robe in front of me isn't packing a surpise when he sits on the airplane.
wsam

Good one Gambonei. In graduate school they taught us if more than ten YouTube videos on a subject exist, then that something must be true.

I thought Jews were descended from the same common ancestor as everyone else. It is impossible they evolved from pigs. Pigs do not have hands.

JamesHalifax

Louise Arbour was and is simply an activist for the Left….who happens to have a law degree. She's as loopy as Jack Layton, and her feelings about Israel are well known. She's not to fond of the country, NOR its inhabitants.

Cloaking her "feelings" in legalize doesn't change that fact.
wsam

Yeah. Louise Arbour is a real enemy of Israel. That is why she has done so much work on behalf of global justice. To undermine Israel.

JamesHalifax

Wsam….one simply has to look to Ms. Arbours fan club to see what global justice she prefers. They include:

-Palestine house
-Amnesty International
-PLO
-Hamas and Hezbollah (when Arbour condemns Israel, as she has done on numerous occasions)
etc…etc…etc…

If that's the kind of Global Justice your looking for assam……youre welcome to it.

wsam

Are you not the same guy who worked himself into a tizzy because some reporter wrote all 47 R&D staff had signed the petition protesting against the board, when one had in fact emailed in his support? That being proof enough for you the story was a non-story. The same guy who is willing, on the slightest pretext, to disbelieve any ideologically uncomfortable fact?

According to you Louis Arbour hates Israel. On what basis? Because she supports Amnesty International? Hezbollah and Hamas are in her fan club. (What does that even mean?) On what basis? Because you say so.

Could you supply me with an official list of that fan club? Please?

I won’t be satisfied with anything less than ten distinct YouTube videos of her, Arafat and Bull Clinton enjoying a ménage-a-tois. Otherwise I’ll have to conclude you are a filthy liar who never cleans his toes.

JamesHalifax

Sorry assam, er, wsam…….I'm not the guy who worked himself in the aforementioned tizzy.

I do however, stand by what I said about Arbour. She's a biased fruitcake who happens to have a law degree….and she does not have much time for Israel or its inhabitants.

She believes Israel was wrong to defend itself against terror attacks……for the simply reason that Israel is stronger, and too many Palestinians died. Who is to say what consititutes too many? If you launch rockets and hide in a group of kids…..too bad, so sad. They all die with you when Israel defends herself.
but hey…at least you get your virgins right?