Now we all come from a land down UNder

evelyn says:

10:25am | 25/10/12

Winning the U.N seat is a disaster because the U.N is now corrupted. In the past, the U.N. had one saving grace - it was a vehicle by which the West could spread Western democracy and the Western conception of universal human rights. Sadly the growth of Muslim populations worldwide has given them increasing strength. By voting as a cohesive block through the 57 member Office of Islamic Cooperation (O.I.C.), the single united Muslim Ummah of 1.4 billion people are gradually succeeding in making the U.N. abandon its commitment to universal human rights in favor of cultural relativism.
Cultural relativism, deceptively sold on the basis of ‘respect’ for sovereignty, or anti-colonialism, or anti-Zionism (the U.N, Genaral Assembly has even itself equated Zionsim, simply Jewish nationalism, with racism) or anti- racism, is actually the most pernicious attack on human rights the world has ever known. Why? This is because, if all cultures are equal, as cultural relativism demands, then all cultural practices are equal too.  Since law is culture then all laws are also equal. If all laws are equal, then shari’a law is the same as modern Western laws based on universal human rights as set out in the U.N’s own international bill of rights – the ICCPR and UN Declaration on Human Rights. If all laws and cultures are equal, then theocracy is the same as democracy.
The Muslim Ummah now has its own alternative U.N. - the OIC - and its own human rights charter the Cairo declaration - that makes all human rights subject to sharia law.  By increasing political pressure at the U.N backed by terrorism, they are gradually forcing the U.N to abandon universal human rights and implement sharia law. This explains why Ban Ki Moon met with Iran’s leader recently at the Non-Aligned Nations conference instead of calling for Amedinejad to be indicted for genocide incitement as Mitt Romney has rightly demanded; this is why the U.N has passed 16/18 supporting sharia blasphemy laws worldwide even in non-Muslim countries on the basis of opposing Islamophobia. This is why the U.N has actually taken part in military actions to oust so called dictators in order to install theocratic sharia law Governments. This is why the U.N remains largely mute when Christians are ethnically cleansed from places like Bosnia, Egypt, Libya, Syria. This is why the U.N. allows Muslim countries to exclude non- Muslims such as in Mecca or Jews from Malaysia. This is why the U.N takes no effective action to stop Muslim countries legally harshly penalizing blasphemy, apostasy and proselytizing of other religions.
Theocracies, that put immutable God made law above man made law can never be democratic even when elected. It is that simple. But under cultural relativism they can.  PM Gillard and Minister Carr simply lack the intellectual and moral capacity to resist cultural relativism and sharia law. By making multiculturalism, which is based on cultural relativism, Government policy, they have actually entrenched it. Carr’s response to the blasphemy riots here in Australia was actually to implement sharia quicker by his suggestion of allowing Muslims a Government sanctioned forum to protest (but really to incite violence and vilify Australians and Christians with legal impunity) whilst ratcheting up the punishments of ordinary Australians opposing sharia on the basis of opposing Islamophobia.  The Gillard Government allows encroachment of sharia law every day in Australia (burqa wearing, Halal meat, sharia banking, separate family law courts, sharia wills). Winning the U.N seat will simply increase the pressure and the concessions. It will bring on sharia sooner. Reformist and moderate Muslims and all those genuinely committed to human rights must unite and resist now - before it is too late.

ghanga darin says:

11:13am | 25/10/12

This article is a classical example of the internationalist mindset. What exact reasons are we given for the constant mantra that a globalised borderless world is good v strong nation State and State sovereignty is bad? A: None whatsoever.  The truth is that there are just as many negatives to a borderless world ruled by supranational agencies (‘UNtopia’) such as the U.N., as a world in which no supranational agencies existed. The first and foremost is that ‘UNtopia’ is fundamentally undemocratic. Individual citizen voters and taxpayers have little or no control. They are not meant to.
The wet dream of UNtopians is to have a U.N. defence force controlled by the U.N. , guided by a U.N. Parliament (with voting power determined by population size alone – remember Bob Brown’s ‘Fellow earthlings’ speech supporting this ) that can override States, and a U.N. judiciary with universal jurisdiction. Gradually this dream is becoming reality. Gareth Evans ‘responsibility to protect’ was a victory for UNtopians – it was a clear expression of the determination of the U.N to push aside States whenever it chooses (on the pretense of humanitarian reasons) so as to intervene in any conflict it chooses and install new Governments. The Arab Spring, really the Arab Winter, is a clear example of what this will mean. The truth is that, just like in Iraq, one Government is simply being replaced with another, but even more disastrously with theocratic Governments that intend to implement sharia law (which law breaches just about every international human rights norm the U.N. was supposed to stand for !). The role of taxpayer in the nation State in UNtopia is simply to provide the finance for elites to spend through aid budgets and on wars decided upon by the UNSC and UNGA not the democratic will of individual nations. In UNtopia there is no rule of law because the democratic will of State parliaments means nothing, instead international law is placed above domestic law. We have no control of our borders now because our own High Court is captive to the internationalist mindset and overrides any attempt to enforce Australian law. 
The writer’s lobbying for U.N involvement is nothing more than a self-serving plea for more lucrative jobs and power for a small bunch of elites, paid for by ordinary taxpayers who have no say. It is taxation without representation. Winning the U.N. seat is a sad day for Australian democracy.

PJ says:

12:32pm | 25/10/12

We’ve spend billions on this ego trip and Swan cannot get his figures right at home.

Swan has twice blundered this morning in claiming his mining tax will raise $9 billion this year. But this turns out to be $7 billion more than the Budget figures.

Swan’s big secret, that monies doled out to Australians from the MRRT is in fact a loan, have been discovered today. Swan’s been found out again.

I’ve been saying this for months of course.

Swan cannot tell the difference between the four-year estimates for the tax’s revenue and its forecast take this year.

Yet they’ve signed off an annual commitment to sent $320 Million to Africa, so those States can continue their wars .

Richard says:

04:30pm | 25/10/12

We should have got our gig on the Security council on the basis of being a foundation member of the UN (San Francisco )and we should have gotten more credit for all the peace keeping missions we have participated in since 1948. Some may only have 3 or 4 observers but it is still a peace keeping mission.