Saturday, June 14, 2008

Unmitigated Gall

Here's another example of why the U.N. should be disbanded, the building torn down and the earth it stood on salted.



Britain should get rid of the monarchy, says UN

[all emphasis: mine]

A United Nations report says Britain should abolish its monarchy.
13 Jun 08: The UN has said that the UK must consider asking the public whether they would like to keep the Royal Family.

The UN Human Rights Council said the UK must "consider holding a referendum on the desirability or otherwise of a written constitution, preferably republican".

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

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


Let's see here, the "Human Rights Council" that seats some of the biggest human right abusers (China, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cuba and pick any of the 13 African countries)are dictating to England that they should give up what's worked for them since 1707, and really much longer than that.

And you noticed who was the "enlightened" country that proposed ridding Britain of her monarchy? Sri Lanka, who even in Wikipedia is noted as:
was considered one of the "world's most politically unstable countries" by the World Bank and Asian Development Bank in 2004. The Economist labels Sri Lanka a "flawed democracy" in its 2006 rankings
.

People in glass houses...

The resulting report said Britain should have a referendum on the monarchy and the need for a written constitution with a bill of rights.

The monarchy costs each adult in Britain around 62p a year but even groups representing taxpayers said there was no case for getting rid of it.


$1.35 (US dollars) a year per adult to support the Queen and her brood.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "With so many human rights abuses around the world the UN should be busy reporting on issues of starvation, execution and the denial of the vote to huge numbers of people around the world.

"Saudi Arabia and Cuba should pay a little more attention to their own human rights record."


No, it's just so much easier to point at countries were the people are free to live their lives without fear of being hauled away in the night by "special police" rather than have anyone take notice of what's going on in their own country. Besides, if Britain got to vote on a referendum we all know they would chose a system even more socialist that the one they have. You know "Workers Unite" and all that rot.

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

Syrian representatives accused the UK of discriminating against Muslims and Iran complained about the UK's record on tackling sexual discrimination.


They mean the mooselimbs that riot at every perceived slight, threaten to behead anyone who won't bow down to islam, blow up train stations and airports. And sexual discrimination...this from Syria...no sexual discrimination there, if anyone brought up that they were discriminated against sexually, why they'd cane that bitch...or hang the queer.

A royal source said: "People here certainly haven't detected any appetite for a referendum. The Queen is a focus for national unity, identity and pride."


Can't have that now, can we?

No comments: