The UN gets a lot of flack for just merely talking. And is that all they do? Is there more substance to them or were they put in place to make us feel like we’re all part of something? What do you think?

Below is a portion of policy decisions made at their meetings. You can see all of them here.

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADOPTS SIX
RESOLUTIONS AND ONE DECISION
ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
WOMEN AND FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION, AMONG
OTHERS

xxxxxxxxxx
Human Rights Council
MORNING

2 October 2009

Defers Action on Resolution Concerning Report of Fact-Finding Mission on Gaza Conflict to March Session

The Human Rights Council this morning adopted six resolutions and one decision on a wide variety of subjects, including on freedom of opinion and expression; elimination of discrimination against women; the adverse effects of the movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights; the effects of foreign debt and other related international and financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights; draft guiding principles on extreme poverty and human rights; Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners in Myanmar; and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind in conformity with international human rights law.

At the request of the sponsors, the Council deferred action on the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which deals among other things with the report of the Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, to its March session.

Under its agenda item on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, the Council adopted four resolutions and one decision. On the freedom of opinion and expression, the Council expressed its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping, continued to rise around the world; and called on all parties to armed conflict to respect international humanitarian law.

Concerning the elimination of discrimination against women, the Council called upon States to fulfill their international obligations and commitments to revoke any remaining laws that discriminate on the basis of sex and remove gender bias in the administration of justice, taking into account that those laws violate their human right to be protected against discrimination. It called on States to ensure full representation and full equal participation of women in political, social and economic decision-making as an essential condition for gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls as a critical factor in the eradication of poverty.

On the adverse effects of the movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, the Council strongly condemned the movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes, which had a negative impact on the enjoyment of human rights, and decided to hold a panel discussion on the matter at its thirteenth session.

With regard to the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, the Council requested the Office of the High Commissioner to allocate sufficient budgetary resources for the implementation of the activities envisaged in resolution 11/5, including the organization and holding of regional stakeholder consultations on the draft general guidelines on foreign debt and human rights during the present term of the mandate holder.

Concerning the draft guiding principles on extreme poverty and human rights, the Council invited the independent expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty to submit a progress report presenting her recommendations on how to improve the draft guiding principles on extreme poverty and human rights to the Council no later than its fifteenth session, to allow the Council to take a decision on the way forward with a view to a possible adoption of guiding principles on the rights of persons living in extreme poverty by 2012.

Under its agenda item on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention, concerning a resolution on Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners in Myanmar, the Council expressed grave concern at the recent conviction and sentencing of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and called for her immediate and unconditional release; and called upon the Government of Myanmar to release all political prisoners, immediately and unconditionally, enabling them to participate fully in the 2010 elections.

Under its agenda item on follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, the Council requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene, in 2010, a workshop for an exchange of views on how a better understanding of traditional values of humankind underpinning international human rights norms and standards can contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Speaking in introduction of resolutions were Mexico, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, France, Sweden on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan and Russia.

Speaking in general comments were South Africa, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Slovenia, United States, Norway, France on behalf of the European Union, Brazil, China, Cuba, Philippines, Russia, Indonesia, Bolivia, Norway,

Speaking in explanations of vote before the vote were France on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Cuba, Chile, India, Senegal, Mexico, Japan, United States, Argentina, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea. Uruguay also spoke in a general comment.

Speaking in explanations of vote after the vote were Japan, Nigeria and Ukraine. Speaking as a concerned country was Myanmar.

The Council will meet at 3 p.m. this afternoon to continue to take action on draft decisions and resolutions before concluding its twelfth regular session.

General Statement

PABLO A. TAPIE (Uruguay) said before continuing with resolutions, Uruguay wished to express absolute solidarity with the people of the Philippines and Indonesia for the calamities that had struck them. These people should have the backing and solidarity of the Human Rights Council. Uruguay wished to salute, as it wished that sport was a bridge for peace, the cities that were candidates for hosting the Olympic Games, which would be chosen today. Uruguay also wished to congratulate Egypt for the brilliant way in which the Championship had been organised, showing how important sport was as a bridge between civilisations.

Action on Resolutions Under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights

In a resolution on Freedom of opinion and expression (A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1), adopted without a vote, the Human Rights Council reaffirms the rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world; calls on all parties to armed conflict to respect international humanitarian law; recognizes the moral and social responsibilities of the media and the importance that the media’s own elaboration of voluntary codes of conduct can play; invites the Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, to carry out his activities in accordance with its resolution 7/36 and all relevant Council resolutions and decisions; requests the Secretary-General to provide the assistance necessary to the Special Rapporteur to fulfil his mandate effectively; requests the Special Rapporteur to submit an annual report to the Council and the General Assembly on the activities relating to his mandate; and decides to continue its consideration of the issue of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in accordance with its programme of work.

The resolution was introduced by Egypt and the United States on Thursday afternoon and a summary of the introduction can be found in press release HRC/09/124 of 1 October 2009.

PITSO MONTWEDI (South Africa), in a general comment, said that South Africa wished to thank the President of the Council for having given the South African delegation the opportunity to get final instructions from their capital. The issue of freedom of opinion and expression had always been highly politicized in the deliberations of this Council. South Africa for its part had always ensured that its engagement was informed by current provisions of international human rights law. As a country, South Africa respected the principles and the Charter of the United Nations, and all its legislative measures were compatible with international human rights law. As a country, South Africa had ensured that all requisite declarations were consistent with all pertinent human rights treaties. South Africa was therefore concerned at deliberate efforts to undermine international human rights law. Regrettably, the text of L. 14/Rev.1 represented a major setback for South Africa, which would have wished to see a reaffirmation of the provisions of general recommendation number 15, which provided for the prohibition by law of any dissemination of racial discrimination. South Africa was also concerned about the lack of clarity in operative paragraph 4; South Africa’s preference was not for a confusing language as had been used in this paragraph.

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the European Union thanked the main sponsors for bringing forward this important issue at this session. The freedom of opinion and expression was a fundamental human right that every member of the Council had to uphold, promote and protect. The cornerstones of the European Union’s value systems were their beliefs in tolerance, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and freedom of religion or belief. They demanded that all people of the world were able to enjoy their right to hold opinions without interference. Restrictions on the right to freedom of expression should be no more extensive than permitted by human rights law. Respect for the freedom of expression and opinion was vital for strengthening democracy, combating racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance. Optional Paragraph four of the current resolution constituted a final compromise for the European Union since they firmly believed that debate on how to deal with these issues had to be grounded in international human rights law, which protected individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion or belief. Human rights laws did not and should not protect belief systems. Hence, the language on stereotyping only applied to stereotyping of individuals and not of ideologies, religions or abstract values. The European Union rejected and would continue to reject the concept of defamation of religions and also rejected the misuse of religions or belief themselves for incitement of hatred. Further, the notion of a moral and social responsibility of the media as expressed in the resolution went well behind the “special duties and responsibilities”. The European Union could not subscribe to this concept in such general terms. States should not seek to interfere with the work of journalists and had to enable editorial independence of the media.

how did we get a place where we know santa wears red. and when we color him in he only looks like a legitimate santa only when he’s red. or maybe green for father christmas. or how have we come to a place where when we color the sky it can only be blue? see things like coloring books shape us when we’re children. they tell us we should color inside the lines and the ocean should only be painted blue. that dirt should be brown and grass should be green. and its sometimes greener on the otherside. who are parents are, how they treated us, when they didn’t listen, how they taught us to color in our books all have a hand in how we see the world, each other, theology, islam, grace, climate change, and etc. For some life is much more like a forensic investigation and objective and for others its all how they feel and and an adventure of subjectivity. We are the sum of our childhoods and our past. But who we were is not who we are becoming, sometimes they might need to be completely different. but, they can be different. we don’t have to listen to the ghosts in our closet, we can learn to be okay with them and unlearn the things we need to let go of and relearn our full potential. for most might mean coloring outside of their own lines of ideas, truths, experiences, pasts and realities. maybe we can learn that coloring books provided an initial framework but is not the world we are meant to live in. maybe it about rediscovering the art of coloring outside the lines…

this is a bit tongue and cheek. but what do you think?

I have been having conversations with some friends over media, politics, agendas and how they all effect things like Copenhagen and what we are shown to believe. So, tell me do you think the world is going to end because of climate change? (I think it won’t, I think it is good to be reminded that we need to be good stewards of our resources, but it shouldn’t have to be fear based to get it across…what are your thoughts?

Here’s an article I have up over at Wrecked where I am an editor for.

Symbols have power. For some, symbols might hold something even deeper than a memory, maybe your identity. For those who follow the god of Wal-Mart, it might be the cheesy yellow pin with a grin on it. For those who follow the god of the Dallas Cowboys, your symbol might be the blue star of Texas. And others who say they follow Yahweh, their symbol is a cross. For those in the Old Testament, their symbol may have been the burning bush or the two tablets or a map with little traveling nomads on it.

We can’t get away from the reality that symbols shape us. Symbols might even have more influence than we think.

Semiotics, as an academic discipline, seeks to make sense of symbols and what they mean and why they mean what they mean. Take for example, the cross. We might think of the cross as a symbol of atonement or a symbol of self-sacrificial love or maybe a symbol of death. For Rome, the cross didn’t signify atonement. It signified someone who deserved to die because they were insurrectionists. It was a tool of embarrassment and public shame. It signified failure on the part of the crucified ones. It signaled victory to the way of Rome. But, why the cross? Why has the cross come to mean so much to those who follow in the way of Jesus?

Some might say because it is the ultimate act of love and salvation of the God-man who came to earth on our behalf. Others say it is a symbol of deep hope and invitation to the world. If I can pose a question at this point in the conversation:

How would the electric chair be a symbol of hope or redemption or atonement?

Don’t get me wrong, I think we needed Jesus to save us, but it is an act that is past tense in the sense of universal salvation. He is still saving us, and for that I think the cross can be a reminder of what He did for us and what He is doing. But the cross as a symbol becomes a bit anemic to the story of Jesus only because, according to Biblical witness, He comes back to life. And so, why isn’t the symbol we hold dear the tomb? It was a sign of victory over sin, over death, over darkness and destructive ways of living. It was an act of defiant hope against all odds. The cross was defiant, it was deadly. That’s what the purpose of the cross was and is and anything else like it today would hold the same stigma. So, why end the story there in our symbols when we all know it didn’t actually end there?

I think we might have been misled to think that the cross was the point. And so our symbols have gotten mixed up. Think of it like a radio signal. Every radio has its own signal it uses to broadcast its’ station to the world. Now, those signals can even go over the Internet. But, we can easily flip the dial and switch over to another radio station because static is just that tricky. And so maybe in the historic static of semiotics, either the people who directly followed Jesus or those who followed after them might have mixed up their signals and have turned an instrument of death into hope. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It is good to restore paradoxes, but that’s if the story we subscribe to ends there, and as we know it, it doesn’t.

It ends with resurrection. Which is a better symbol for hope. A better symbol to empower us to go and resurrect love, peace, grace and redemption wherever we go!

What do you think? Is the cross a good symbol for Christianity or is the tomb a better one?

this is a great movement of people who are looking to help ex-child soldiers who make some amazing quality bags for women, and i think men. check it out and support the cause by buying some cool gifts for Christmas. Save a life!

The women employed in our program are formerly abducted child soldiers, often used in captivity as sex slaves. Those lucky enough to escape, often with children of their own, are ostracized due to their affiliation with the rebels. They lack education, and are taught sewing as a part of their brief rehabilitation. With demand for seamstresses already sparse due to the war, many are left without the means to support themselves and their children.

MEND is a socially and environmentally responsible company, made in afflicted emergent regions in hopes of stimulating growth, local employment, and economic stability. Similar to its parent company- Invisible Children, MEND is beginning with northern Uganda, with the possibility of heedful worldwide expansion. In October of 2007, 13 women began to MEND. Our dream is that many more will follow.

MEND Explanation Video from MEND on Vimeo.

Some world events and a great organization trying to help people in need: Invisible Children

Local officials said that the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) fighters have attacked Southern Sudan at least three times this month, forcing civilians to flee their homes. In the month of November, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that seven people were killed and eight were abducted in southern Sudan alone. Then, in northeast Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), at least 16 people, for the most part civilians, were killed in LRA attacks causing many more civilians to flee their homes. Simultaneously, an independent Catholic news source reports that a group of 22 LRA-abducted children around age ten were released to missionaries in DRC.

According to an interview with a surrendered LRA Lt. Col., Charles Arop, LRA leader Joseph Kony has instructed his troops to move into Darfur and report to the first detachment of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) seeking protection and logistical support. Arop estimates that there are only about 250 rebels left, half the number they had before Operation Lightning Thunder. “Before the December 14 attack, we had about 500 fighters and 300 unarmed civilians. Most have died or defected since. We now have between 250 and 300 fighters left and not more than 100 civilians,” Arop said.

nationalism is this idea that our country, our ideas, our worldviews or theologies are the most important thing. that whatever object we hold dear has so much value that we would be willing to die or maybe even kill for. maybe we can revise the way we see nationalism. maybe we can balance our views on any kind of tribal nationalism. because the dangers are when we become extreme about any of the above we support a tyrranical approach to our subjective theories about how the world works and should work. this kind of nationalism, (whether country or ideologically speaking), can actually separate us from one another and break up common ground that we are all made to stand on. if we choose to move forward with our views as the only right views than we have condoned a spirit of exclusivity that seeks to ostracize people and put them in one of those corners where the little bad children go to because they don’t fit our mold. people are connected. when we point the finger we blame ourselves. when our nationalism becomes about promoting our views we make it about us. we don’t make it about them. which is who its supposed to be about. in our ideas, we should find ways to bring people together. we should find ways to promote healing and forgiveness. love and grace. we are responsible for repairing the divine in those we come into contact with. but how can we repair something if we are spending all of out time trying to tear it down?

what has the world come to when people think it okay to rape people to ‘correct them’ because their version of scripture is more correct than another? James the book writer, says this, “Brothers, this should not be so!”…we need to bridge the gap between the reality of heaven and the reality of the bible, somewhere in our history we have mixed the two up…we are all connected. when we hurt one person, we hurt the whole of the human race. this is why love is the movement. we cannot longer afford an ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality. this is atrocious and should not be tolerated.(essentially what it comes down is : are we following God who created humanity or a book about a portion of humanity who didn’t always get it right?)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Sky-News-Lisa-Holland-Finds-Evidence-That-South-African-Lesbians-Are-Raped-To-Correct-Them/Article/200911315458416?lpos=World_News_News_Your_Way_Region_1&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15458416_Sky_News_Lisa_Holland_Finds_Evidence_That_South_African_Lesbians_Are_Raped_To_Correct_Them__

“Our intense need to understand will always be a powerful stumbling block to our attempts to reach God in simple love [...] and must always be overcome. For if you do not overcome this need to understand, it will undermine your quest. It will replace the darkness which you have pierced to reach God with clear images of something which, however good, however beautiful, however Godlike, is not God.” — cloud of uknowing