It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


UN Human Rights Council tells the UK to get rid of their Queen.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:42 PM
Although of course, the Americans took their liberty, and then turned capitalism into something else.

Most likely as a result of sitting on all those resources for such a long time.

When our leaders say that the United States and Great Britain have a 'special' Relationship, they aren't kidding.

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:00 PM
This report sounds like a bad joke , has the UNHRC got nothing better to do with there time? I'll give them a few hints on what to talk about...

1) The attrocities commited in Arica.

2) the ___ thats going on in burma.

They should be talking about these instead of banging on about getting rid of the British monarchy, its upto british citizens whether or not we have a monarchy and countries (which have issues with human rights themselves) like Saudi Arabia and Cuba should take a look at there own countries before criticizing others.

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:11 PM
I'm sorry, but what has a figurehead got anything to do with Human Rights issues? The Queen wields no real power, the parliament does. So how would getting rid of a figurehead do anything for human rights?!

This doesn't make any sense... what are they going to say next?
Assassinate Paris Hilton because of Burma?

It's like they're slinging random words together... maybe they are...

If you want to fix human rights, begin with tribunals in the US, move on to the Chinese, then into Israel, and finish off with the smaller countries, like Burma.

What the heck does the queen have to do with anything?...

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:13 PM
UNHRC strikes again!

Btw, its council denies the genocide in Sudan and rejects investigating abuse against homosexuals and women in the Middle East. There is a thread on ATS regarding the exploits of the UNHRC

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:13 PM
The last time there was a poll - the `roundheads` were a tiny minority (those who want to abolish the monacrhy` - the people of the UK are proud of the Queen and actually want to keep them - for the amount that the tax payer spends on them (they actually earn money themselves) its well worth it.

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:04 PM
Yet another low for the UNHRC. Until they forcibly abolish the Saudi royal family and institute a total democracy there then the UK should be able to have whatever system it wants. Having had the good fortune to spent a day in Northern Ireland I found that the United Kingdom obviously seems to have things working out quite nicely. The UK has more freedoms than the average Saudi can even dream of, and women aren't stoned for wanting basic human rights. I stand by our allies in the UK as being one of the last countries on Earth that needs any lip from the UNHRC. The Brits really should join us in leaving that quagmire, we can go have our own party.

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:22 PM
The Queen is more a simbol than anything else and there is no way you can make us remove the Monarchy. We lose them we lose the right to call ourselves English.

They may not do anything but we are incredibly proud to have them and so yes we should leave the human rights council.

plus if we remove them we'd have to re-write out national anthem...

[edit on 13-6-2008 by umbr45]

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by infinite
Btw, its council denies the genocide in Sudan and rejects investigating abuse against homosexuals and women in the Middle East. There is a thread on ATS regarding the exploits of the UNHRC

This trouble has always plagued UN human rights bodies. You might recall the UNHRC's predecessor, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The New York Times had an editorial back in 2006 detailing some of the UNCHR's failings. It seems that the reforms were simply not done well enough as we're experiencing this ridiculous situation. Whether you support the monarchy or not isn't really relevant: the point is that this body should be dealing with the likes of Burma, Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Zimbabwe and others where there are genuine and extremely serious human rights abuses every day. Oh, I forgot... some of the nations I mentioned just then are actually on the UNHRC. It's a farce, and the UK should join the US in leaving the body until serious reforms are carried out.

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 06:09 PM
This is why I'm opposed to the United Nations - crackpot dictators have as much weight on issues such as 'human rights' and 'religion' as the Kingdom of Heaven would if it replaced the Levant.

And is this part of the same organisation that sent an envoy to investigate the "aggressive crackdown on illegal immigration" in the United States, despite the fact that Mexican military and police units are REQUIRED to "enforce illegal immigration laws", while corrupt units of the aforementioned rob, rape and even murder illegal immigrants from other Central American nations? I smell hypocrisy afoot.

The council has 29 members including Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Sri Lanka.

Am I the only ATS member laughing my ass off that a collection of dictatorships, monarchies and "failed states" is criticising the United Kingdom?

It was the Sri Lankan envoy who raised concerns over the British monarchy.

Huh. Is this the same "Sri Lanka" that was considered one of the "world's most politically unstable countries" by the World Bank, and ranks 25th in the "Failed Sates Index"? by The Fund for Peace?

The UN report was also critical of the UK's treatment of immigrants from Sudan.

Hey, we're all aware of the Sudanese teacher jailed for calling a teddy bear "Jesus", and the ongoing "Scotland genocide", between the southern British government's military and English militias versus rebel Scottish forces, or maybe England's complete ban on all immigration?

And question:
If the United Kingdom is so harsh towards "Sudanese immigrants", why the hell do Sudanese keep immigrating there?

Syrian representatives accused the UK of discriminating against Muslims

The same Syria where it is illegal for Christians to "proselytise" and "accept Islamic converts"?

Iran complained about the UK's record on tackling sexual discrimination.

True - another two British boys have been executed for "homosexuality" in the United Kingdom.

I'm just waiting on Burma to "criticise the control the U.S. military has over domestic affairs in the United States".

Hypocrisy has never been so open!

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 06:23 PM
Why aren't countries with proven human rights records actually in the commission? Isn't it slightly counter productive for members with atrocious human rights records being in the human rights committee? Who gives a feck about the U.N. anyway? Bunch of useless charlatans every single one of them.

Not that I care much about the Monarchy. I just think God saves the Queen is a good song. (the sex pistols version)

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 06:45 PM
reply to post by Pellevoisin

Canada's got its conservative lean on, dont be so hard on them. Harper is cleaning house right now, and its about time. Canada is an ally in the war on terror, and we have alot of friends up there.

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:17 PM
Maybe the UN and Saudi wouldn't make such a fuss if Prince Eugenic Virus Nazi Phil were sitting on the throne as king. LOL If that were the case, they'd want to recommend all countries convert to that governing system.

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:21 PM
The rise of the young princes will save your monarchy probably. They got some of their mom's looks - spruced up that gene pool a bit LOL

[edit on 13-6-2008 by primus2012]

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:35 PM
I'd like to get rid of the vile monarchy...i dont like it at all,i hardly see the point except maybe for a tourist attraction..

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:19 PM
Wow, I'm glad I read this I needed a good laugh. Those countries who are sitting on the Human Rights need to go look in the mirror before they start casting aspersions on others. The recommendation is totally asinine; if Great Britain wants to keep their monarchy then who are they to tell them to get rid of it. Total and complete silliness.

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:31 PM
Great read! Am I the only one who thinks that the UNHRC should be left exactly as is? It shows us exactly what we could expect if we let the UN grab more power. Once all the democracies and republics leave the council only the loonies will be left. I think it is a perfect example of what we would get with a world government.

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 12:51 AM
Oh god yes. I hate the monarchy.

They are unelectged scroungers. After so many papers go after dole, incapacity and disabilty scroungers, why don't they go after the royal family? they became royal in the past by killing, maiming and generally causing trouble! that's what makes them royal.

Abolish the monarchy, establisha republic and institute a constitution, seems damn good idea to me. As long as that constitution is made so that only the public can change it and not a congress like the states.

These unelected scroungers need to go now, i'm tired of it, they suck up our tax money and although some people claim they bring in money you have to ask how? In the end tourists would still come to see the palace and London, they don't need to know there is a queen in the country.

Royals seem to think they're better than the average person simply fo rbeing royal, i'm not a communist here but they're simply human beings, supported by tax money and that to me makes them little more than your average council house, false incapacity claiming piece of filth.

Down with the royals!


Oh and whilst i dislike the idea that dictators are having a go at the UK, even dictators make the occasional salient point. The monarchy is not a good system.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 06:15 AM
reply to post by Chaoticar

Huh. Is this the same "Sri Lanka" that was considered one of the "world's most politically unstable countries" by the World Bank, and ranks 25th in the "Failed Sates Index"? by The Fund for Peace?

Yes, it is. This proposed resolution is just sour grapes. Sri Lanka has just been kicked off the council because its own human-rights record is so appalling (its membership expires later this year). The current Sri Lankan government is selling the public at home a story about an international conspiracy against it led by Western powers. Why? Because these countries are pushing for a peaceful solution to Sri Lanka's 25-year civil war between the majority Sinhalese, who dominate the government and the country, and the minority Tamils, who have been almost continuously oppressed by the State, on behalf of the Sinhalese, since the country gained independence from Britain in 1948.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Astyanax]

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 06:29 AM

Originally posted by budski

I simply think that we shouldn't be paying the richest woman in the world more money each year.

She is nowhere close to being the richest woman in the world, what ever gave you that idea?

Infact, she doesn’t even make it into the top 10.

J K Rowling is even richer than the Queen!


posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 07:18 AM
The queen brings more money into the country (via tourism) than what she takes out and we are quite capable of stating if we want a monarch or not. The fact that Iran and suadi-arabia are banging on about rights for women is a F***ing joke. To me, this is all part of the EU's plan to get rid of Britain's Identity making it easier for them to absorb us into their crappy state, either that or the evil secret Muslim council plans to take over the UK.

They should be out stopping Africa's and China's human rights atrocities

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in