The latest report from the United Nations Population Fund says that children are the cause of climate change (via ProWomanProLife):

The latest report from the United Nations Population Fund was released on Wednesday at news conferences in Ottawa and other key venues where policy makers could be made aware of the news: more babies will undermine attempts to stop climate change.

Strangely, much of the news conference, like the material put out by the Population Fund, was taken up with detailing the ways the world’s leading population control agency works to combat maternal deaths and serious complications from childbirth, both admirable goals. Yet the crux of the report is that, while we need to save those who do give birth, we need fewer of them. In the eyes of the UNFPA, it is the babies of maternity wards present and future that are the culprits in climate change: “Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants.“

Before world leaders head to Copenhagen to try and hammer out a deal on climate change, UNFPA wants them to consider population growth as a contributing factor to be dealt with. Its report says: “No human is genuinely ‘carbon neutral,’ especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way. The world’s Governments and peoples will need to work together on every aspect of the factors that increase greenhouse-gas emissions. One such factor is the earth’s growing population.”

Ok, can somebody help me here? If we aren’t saving the environment for our children… who exactly are we saving it for?

What does this have to do with abortion? Have a conversation on campus about abortion and see how long it takes for a pro-choicer to bring up the overpopulation argument (“there are too many people already,” “we have enough trouble feeding the world as it is…”). Though, at that point, I get stumped on a separate question: if killing people is a legitimate way to reduce the population… why limit ourselves to the unborn?

And on a slightly economic sidenote: is it really that hard to imagine that people can contribute to solving problems in the world, rather than just being a drain on resources? A baby is not just a “source of emissions…” *sigh*

World population statistic 2008

The world population has risen from 2,5 billion in 1950 to 6,7 billion in 2008. The largest population rise in this period took place in the developing countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean – from a proportion of 68 percent to a whopping 80 percent. These and other interesting statistical date are presented in a document published by doXtop`s member shakti and it is titled World Population Datasheet 2008. The document contains precise official UN data about most populous countries, largest population growth, infant mortality rates and other statistics.

Flash viewer qualities

DoXtop`s flash viewer is equipped with options which make it suitable for displaying documents that combine graphic, table, text, datasheet and diagram form of information.

Our flash comes with useful options, such as:

- Links to a PDF rendition for download and/or print
- Full screen mode
- Upload button for publishing more content
- Share function (embed, email to friends …)
- Scrolling options for various reading modes
- Zoom
– Text selection

DoXtop’s flash viewer offers an auto-generated table of contents for easy navigation in large publications, or presents the publication as a Web site. It also supports hyperlinks, shows Related Publications and rendition links of PDF, HTML or Hypertext. In the end, it all adds to comfortable access to published documents.

(read more)

We can thank Amb. Louis Susman for  confirming to us all that the Obama Administration neither knows nor cares about actual science, only about using it as a weapon with which to silence critics and acquire power.

What other excuse could  His Oneness have for ignoring the fact that the emails suggest that the  raw data was  error-filled and manipulated,  and therefor is unreliable for scientific purposes,  not to mention that the computer  source code used is third-rate.

And give a cheer for the two brave  Canadians who discovered faulty calculations in some of the key scientific studies underlying the UN’s Climate reports.

And this wouldn’t be the first time  scientists eager for grant money reached the conclusion wanted by the money bags instead of actually following the evidence.

Stay tuned,  folks — this is going to get a lot more interesting!

Copenhagen Will Have HUGE Carbon Footprint
At least 41 tons of co2 will be released during Copenhagen Summit

Read Full Article Here

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

display show it’s religion with halos over figures heads, people swarm around TVs like flies

Telegraph
December 5, 2009

Read Full Article Here

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article I

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.

3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng

By ARTHUR MAX and KARL RITTER

COPENHAGEN (AP) – The U.N.’s top climate official on Sunday conceded that hacked e-mails from climate scientists had damaged the image of global warming research but said evidence of a warming Earth is solid.

In an interview with The Associated Press ahead of the U.N. climate summit starting Monday, Yvo de Boer said the e-mails pilfered from a British university fueled skepticism among those who believe the science is manipulated to exaggerate global warming.

“I think a lot of people are skeptical about this issue in any case,” de Boer said. “And then when they have the feeling … that scientists are manipulating information in a certain direction then of course it causes concern in a number of people to say ‘you see I told you so, this is not a real issue.’”

E-mails stolen from the climate unit at the University of East Anglia appeared to show some of world’s leading scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others’ work. Those who deny the influence of man-made climate change have seized on the correspondence to argue that scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence about global warming.

“This correspondence looks very bad,” de Boer said. “But I think both the university is looking into this (and) I believe there is a police investigation going on whether the e-mails were leaked or stolen.”

De Boer noted that the head of the U.N.’s expert panel on climate change, Rajendra Pachauri, had also announced that he would investigate the matter.

De Boer defended the rigorous review process by some 2,500 scientists of climate change research as solid and thorough. “I think this is about the most credible piece of science that there is out there,” he said.

Climate negotiators and world leaders from 192 nations are meeting in Copenhagen in the next two weeks, seeking to agree on an all-encompassing package to combat global warming and help its victims. A key issue is cutting the greenhouse emissions that scientists say are to blame for the warming in average global temperatures observed in recent decades.

U.S. climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing called the science on global warming “very robust, very substantial.” He told the AP that the controversy surrounding the leaked e-mails came at an “unfortunate” time, just before the long-awaited U.N. talks, “but has no fundamental bearing on the outcome.”

via myway.com

Al Gore 'Pitching' his global climate fraud!

Adam Murdock, M.D.
Infowars
December 6, 2009

This week, President Obama and the leaders of the world are to meet to determine the fate of humanity. This meeting, to be held in Copenhagen, has as its’ mission to bind the nations of the world under a climatocracy, or rather a climate regulatory scheme devised and operated by bureaucrats and elitists. The members of this climatocracy will profit while the rest of humanity will sink into darkness. There will be nowhere to hide; no oasis to be found in the desert. Indeed, after the discussions have concluded will our freedoms also be concluded? Will humanity be plunged into a global tyranny governed by a state of climate fear or will we be able to stop them before it is too late? There have never been greater stakes for the freedom of mankind.

Over the past couple decades globalists like Al Gore and Maurice Strong have used the cloak of pseudo climate science as their veil. Now that ‘climategate’ has removed the curtain and shone the light on the slithering cockroaches within the backrooms of climate cookbookery, there is no longer any debate about the science. The only thing that now exists is laid bare before our eyes – a deliberate attempt to subjugate the people of the earth to global governance under the guise of science.

As the newly ‘elected’ EU President Von Rompuy puts it:

“2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”

This goal as stated by the EU President was made prior to the recent revelations about the padding of the climate data by key climate scientists. Yet, what has been the response of the very leaders now proceeding on with the conference? Have they toned down their rhetoric or better yet admitted the charade that the conference represents? Unfortunately, they have done the exact opposite. They have continued their relentless course toward the “global management” of our planet as if nothing has happened. It is as if they are willing to deny that the sun is shining at noonday when it is clearly visible. I can fathom no other reason for these leaders to do this, unless climate change is not really the goal but only a means to an end. Now that their desired end is so close it appears that they are not about to let some emails or real science get in the way of global progress.

Maurie Strong and Al Gore Partners in Global Warming Scam

It appears that although the fraud has been revealed, the deck may have been stacked against humanity. Indeed, the stacked deck may have already been dealt. My only hope is that the clock has not already struck midnight on our freedoms.

Now is the time to make your collective voices heard. Once the treaties have been signed and freedom has been lost there will be very little we can do to rescind such agreements. Call your local, state, and federal representatives wherever you live. Do it for your children, do it for your country, do it for your freedom to live and breathe as you see fit.

A life of regret will not make up for inaction at this time. Let us hold up a flag of liberty to everyone around us and rally them to the cause of freedom at this crucial moment in our history.

Adam Murdock, M.D. is founder of The Freemen Institute, www.freemeninstitute.com.

I seem to be noticing a bit of a pattern with the whole putting peoples issues into perspective with advertising lately. 

Heres another example of the latest Union Gospel Mission Ads that uses the same concept as the failed ‘Save the Seals’ and more successful UN Refugee Agency. I still stand by that this approach is more successful with people then cute little baby seals. I really do want to know why everyone is all out peoples lattes. Are we as city folk really that possessive over our java???

Note:  A prescient geo-political analysis  from pre-9/11 2001.  LBW

By Dr George Friedman

Abstract:

Look at the time line of the last few years and trace a finger across a map.

NATO dispatches troops to Bosnia, Kosovo and now Macedonia. Sentiment builds within the G-8 to send forces to the West Bank and Gaza to control the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Russia reasserts its claims to the Caucasus, despite condemnation by the United States and its allies.

At first glance, these appear to be unrelated events. In fact, though, they are intimately connected. Each intervention by Western powers is on behalf of Islamic movements; a peacekeeping force in the West Bank would merely be the latest. Even Western opposition to Russia in the Caucasus is more of the same.

A step back reveals an important geographical and historical overlap: the United States and its allies are in the process of trying to occupy significant portions of the old Ottoman Empire. They are using sufficient forces only if unopposed and catastrophically insufficient forces when they are opposed. And the Western powers are, interestingly, intervening on behalf of Muslims against Christians and Jews.

Governments from Paris to Washington, as a result, are adopting old imperial responsibilities as the new century unfolds. Like other empires, they will not be thanked by anyone. And as policy goes, this one has not been explicitly stated; it is neither clear nor backed by sufficient force with an understanding of risks and rewards.

Of course, no policymaker will confess that this is policy; these governments are merely adopting a neutral, peacekeeping stance. That is their sincere intent, at least. But there is always a gap between intentions and reality. And the reality, however unintended, is mind-boggling in scope, cost and risk — and can easily swallow the ambitions of more than one political leader and even his nation.

Full Analysis Available. Requires Registration for Free Article.

http://www.stratfor.com/node/3503/analysis/skopje_jerusalem_american_empire

With the UN climate summit getting underway in Copenhagen tomorrow, the web is a buzz in stories about the talks and whether they could yield an international action plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions and head off more global warming. Here are a few highlights:

UK newspaper, The Telegraph, has a nifty climate change timeline that stretches all the way back to 1824, when a French physicist described “the greenhouse effect” for the first time.

Though expectations remain low for a meaningful accord, President Obama has changed his travel plans and will now be on hand for the critical negotiations that could led to an international agreement on cutting the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean an accord in the offing. The Associated Press is reporting: “Twenty congressional Republicans, including the top House GOP leadership, sent a letter to the president Friday expressing their ‘grave concern’ that the U.S. delegation might commit to mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reductions.”

Copenhagen officials are gearing up to crack down on protesters converging on the city. Among those planning to march Dec. 12 are Apa and Dawa Sherpa, the Nepalese mountaineers and activists, who talked about global warming’s threat to the Himalayas at GreenAccord last month. Hopefully, they will stay safe and out of the pens Copenhagen law enforcers have installed to hold arrested activists.

Some experts say its too late to head off at least some climate change. If you agree, you might want ot check out Washington Post on what the Dutch are doing to adapt to climate change and a future with higher sea levels and storm surges.

Let them eat seaweed! Speaking of adaptation, the Los Angeles Times has a story on a couple of kelp farmers in Maine who are trying to revolutionize the American diet with seaweed. The stuff, which they sell to Whole Foods Market, among other places, is good for you and good for the environment. Kelp grows fast without need of fresh water, fertilizer – or land, for that matter.  It also cleans the ocean, sopping up excess nutrients and the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. The story suggests we may all one day be eating more ocean veggies. So far, however, the aquatic farmers struggle to overcome the “yuck” factor.

No singing, no laughing, no dancing, no fun-

Christmas is a world wide holiday celebrating the birth of Christ and is recognised by billions of people.

Christmas trees BANNED at climategate summit! (note: slow loading page)

Where have I seen this before?

Yes I know, Christmas trees are not biblical and the Bible doesn’t say explicitly when Jesus was born but I would have to point out that this is the time of year when billions of people mark the birth of the Savior.

“But Christmas is a religious holiday that has no place at a United Nations function,”

and

“there can be no Christmas trees in the decor, because the UN wishes to maintain neutrality,”

No place?
Maintain neutrality?
God says otherwise, in Matthews gospel 12:30 Jesus said “He who is not with Me is agianst Me”. God doesn’t offer neutrality, either your in or your out.

No room at the inn for baby Jesus, no room at the U.N. for baby Jesus.
Is there room for Jesus in your life?
Are you giving place to the Savior?

I think the U.N. is wrong on this, as well as a lot of other things.

Canadian Politics

• Senior diplomat Richard Colvin testified at a House of Commons committee Wednesday that he warned government and military officials that Afghan detainees being turned over by Canadian soldiers were being tortured. Conservatives have denied the credibility of Colvin’s testimony.

American Politics

• The Senate is expected to vote Saturday on whether to take up sweeping health legislation that would cover five million fewer people than a companion bill passed by the House of Representatives, but it would cost less, in part because Senate Democratic leaders felt they had to win support from fiscally conservative members of their party. For a breakdown of some of the differences between the House and Senate bills, click here.
• Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in an unannounced visit to Kabul on Wednesday, warned Hamid Karzai that future civilian aid would depend in part on how his government performed in areas like developing an effective army and curbing cronyism.

Reproductive Choice

• A report released by the George Washington University, found that the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange. Read the report here.

Gendered Violence

• The suspect in the brutal homophobia fueled murder of Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado in Puerto Rico was charged Wednesday with first-degree murder and four other counts. Juan A. Martinez Matos was arrested late Monday in connection with the slaying of the teenager, whose decapitated, dismembered and partially burned body was found Friday afternoon on a road in central Puerto Rico.
• Waiting lists are a common occurrence in crisis shelters, “which is a strange thing to have when you’re talking about women needing to get into a safe place, away from someone who is a risk of violence toward them,” admits the executive director of the YWCA Regina crisis shelter.

Health

• In a new report released Wednesday by Statistics Canada, the highest-earning Canadians can look forward to 10 more years of healthy living than their poorest counterparts.

International

• A new United Nations report, released this week has chronicles the effects climate change will have on women. “Poor women in poor countries are among the hardest hit by climate change, even though they contributed the least to it.” This article, explores the effect climate change will have on global food supply.
• A Somali woman has been stoned to death for committing what a judge has said was adultery. The 20-year-old divorcee was executed on Tuesday after confessing to having had sex with a 29-year-old unmarried man.
• A fascinating interview with Malalai Joya was featured in the Globe and Mail this week, to read it click here.
• A growing number of Egyptian women are demanding divorce and seeking marital counseling. The social stigma against these practices has weakened as talking about relationship problems have become more popular in the media.
• Following the Pope’s call to Anglicans to join Catholicism and recent changes to Anglican practices on ordaining women as Bishops; Rev Vincent Nichols, the most senior Catholic in England and Wales warned that Anglicans should not become Catholic to protest against female clergy or sexual ethics.
• World leaders convened on Rome this week for a United Nations sponsored Hunger Summit. Leaders rallied around a new strategy to fight global hunger and help poor countries feed themselves, but failed to pledge funds sought by the U.N.
• November 20th is Transgender Day of Remembrance, and a day to grieve Trans and gender non-conforming people killed over the past year because of fear and hatred. It also serves as a time to raise awareness about all gendered violence.

Human Rights Day 2009 focuses on ending discrimination, under the theme Embrace Diversity, End Discrimination.

“Discrimination lies at the root of many of the world’s most pressinghuman rights problems. No country is immune from this scourge. Eliminating discrimination is a duty of the highest order,” said Navi Pillay, U. N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. ““Our main objective is to help promote discrimination-free societies and a world of equal treatment for all,” she said.

The High Commissioner encouraged people everywhere to join hands in celebration of Human Rights Day to speak out and act to advocate non-discrimination and raise awareness in their local communities.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted December 10, 1948 by the international community, has served as a beacon of hope. The Declaration has been translated into more than 360 languages. It holds the Guinness World Record for most translated document in the world.

“The extraordinary vision and determination of the drafters produced a document that for the first time set out universal human rights for all people in an individual context,” U. N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said.

Many countries have incorporated provisions of the Declaration into their Constitutions and laws. The principles of the Declarationform the basis of numerous actions taken by the nations of the world.

Join hands to end discrimination

All human rights work can be viewed through the non-discrimination lens. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, colour, gender, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, disability, property, birth or other status.

These stories describe its impact on peoples’ lives and the work everyone can support to end discrimination.

Quality Education for Indigenous Peoples

The enjoyment of the right to education is not fully realized for most indigenous peoples. The Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says that without access to quality education indigenous communities will not be able to fully enjoy their rights. The Expert Mechanism is a group of five independent specialists who provide expertise on the rights of indigenous peoples to the Human Rights Council.

In their report to the Council on the right of indigenous peoples to education the experts say, “Deprivation of access to quality education is a major factor contributing to social marginalization, poverty and dispossession of indigenous peoples”.

The report makes the case that designing education programs for indigenous communities must take into account many factors that acknowledge the special needs of these communities. Indigenous students cannot be forced into mainstream education systems which do not integrate indigenous culture, it says.
An approach using a single model is inappropriate because of the diversity of indigenous peoples.

Promoting “indigenous perspectives, innovations and practices in an environment that replicates traditional ways of learning” is another interest of the Expert Mechanism. This includes having mother-tongue based bilingual and multilingual education at the primary as well as at higher levels. Indigenous languages should be integrated into the teaching programs. The report proposes that community members be trained as language teachers and the development of indigenous literacy material.

The report identifies gender issues as a common impediment to education for both boys and girls in indigenous communities. In fact, girls are regularly prevented from attending school. The report found that “families often prefer girls to remain at home to perform domestic chores and care for children and siblings”. When put together with other discrimination issues, this has serious social consequences for the indigenous communities.

The Expert Mechanism says that indigenous peoples have the “right to educational autonomy” including “the right to decide their own educational priorities […] as well as the right to establish and control their own educational systems and institutions, if they so choose”.

The report recommends too that human rights education be included in schools to encourage cooperation between the different cultures. The Expert Mechanism advises that “learning about human rights is the first step towards respecting, promoting and defending the rights of all individuals and peoples.” For this to happen, States must ensure funding for appropriate teaching materials and the recruitment of indigenous teachers. Education is identified by the report as “one of the best long-term financial investments that States can make.” This year on December 10, celebrate Human Rights Day by joining together to celebrate diversity and end discrimination.

22 October 2009

A story of modern slavery

The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, its causes and consequences, Gulnara Shahinian, in her latest report to the Human Rights Council, has called for comprehensive global action to eliminate the practice of bonded labour which she describes as a form of slavery. Quoting data from the International Labour Organisation, the Special Rapporteur says at a minimum, more than 12 million people are living as forced labourers. The causes are many – poverty, demand for cheap labour, unemployment, national or global crises.

“Time and realities may have changed,” Shahinian says, “but the core essence of slavery persists in modern economies. In its modern forms, we find forced labour in agriculture, domestic servitude, the garment industry, the construction industry and prostitution and in the supply chains of mainstream companies.”

Bonded labour occurs when a person offers their services in exchange for the repayment of a debt and, as part of the arrangement, loses control over work conditions and the length of the agreement. Usually there are no safeguards attached to the agreement that would normally be found with a regular loan such as reasonable conditions of repayment or agreed interest rates. Often the employer uses the debt to force individuals to work in exploitative conditions: bonded labourers commonly work very long hours, for very low wages and with no days off.

Technically, bonded labourers can end their state of servitude once the debt is repaid but as the report points out, this seldom happens. Debtors are often illiterate, lack basic maths skills and are easy prey for money lenders.

In building a profile of this form of forced labour the Special Rapporteur has found poverty first and foremost plays a crucial role: the vast majority of bonded labourers are chronically poor. Consequently, they often have little or no education, they are mostly from socially excluded groups, including indigenous people, minorities and migrants and they are more vulnerable because in many cases they have limited access to land where they might otherwise earn a living.

The Special Rapporteur is concerned that in the eyes of many, human trafficking and bonded labour are one and the same. Shahinian says seeing forced labour only through the prism of trafficking means that the magnitude of the problem is seriously underestimated. “Forced labour which may occur in the informal sector, in supply chains and export processing zones, within indigenous or minority populations and in rural areas – the overwhelming majority – is not addressed,” she says.

International efforts to sign, ratify, enforce and monitor the slavery conventions “pale in comparison” to those for trafficking, she says. Given the gravity of the human rights violations associated with bonded labour and the millions of people affected by such practices in every part of the world, it is important, the Special Rapporteur says that slavery be given its due prominence and attention.

Shahinian acknowledges that many countries have ratified the slavery conventions and the relevant conventions of the International Labour Organization. However, where laws on forced labour exist, their enforcement is limited and Shahinian says there are very few policies and programmes specifically directed at bonded labour. “Comprehensive action to eliminate this phenomenon,” she says, “requires strong political will and the coordinated actions of many Governments to enforce international law and protect the rights of all.”

4 November, 2009

Peter Gabriel and the HUB

It was an ordinary day of skateboarding dog videos on YouTube last November when a harrowing clip appeared. The grainy shots from Egypt showed police officers beating and sodomizing a man with a nightstick. The clip had been distributed by Egyptian bloggers Wael Abbas and Hossam el-Hamalawy as a call to action against police brutality.

There was one problem. YouTube has strict guidelines against graphic sexual or violent material, and suspended the bloggers’ account. Eventually the story got picked up by other bloggers and the mainstream media, and sparked international outrage that led to the prosecution of the offending officers and the reactivation of Abbas and el-Hamalawy’s YouTube account.

But with thousands of undocumented abuses playing out around the world every day, the episode highlighted the potential for an online-video network devoted to human rights. Filling that void is the Hub (hub.witness.org), a video-sharing Web site launched by ex-rock star Peter Gabriel to empower people to document and publicize unseen atrocities. Now in beta, the Hub allows anyone around the world to submit clips to a central site where its target audience of activists can connect and take action. “It’s a YouTube for human rights,” Gabriel says. And it shows how the dynamics of social networking can be applied in powerful new ways.

The Hub is an offshoot of Witness, the Brooklyn-based human-rights nonprofit that Gabriel started in 1992 after learning the extent of abuses worldwide while headlining a concert tour sponsored by Amnesty International. “What I found extraordinary was that people could suffer in this way and have their stories completely buried,” he says. “But it seemed like whenever there was video evidence, it was very hard to deny and bury and forget.”

For the past 16 years, Witness has provided video cameras to carefully selected activists and community leaders in more than 100 countries. The group has amassed one of the largest existing collections of human-rights-abuse footage and has shown its videos to policy makers and human-rights groups around the world. There have been plenty of success stories as a result, from the arrest of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo for war crimes in the Congo to raising money for land-mine victims in Senegal. Just last year, “Crying Sun,” a Witness video on the impact of war on the community of the North Caucasus mountains, was presented to Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov, whose private militia had been widely criticized by human-rights organizations. Afterward, Kadyrov funded the rebuilding of homes, a school, a medical center, and other infrastructure.

Some links

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights

Alliances for Africa

Amnesty International

Arab Organization for Human Rights

Asian Human Rights Commission

Carter Center

Centre for Human Rights
(University of Pretoria, South Africa)

Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
(Washington College of Law, American University)

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

Derechos Human Rights

European Court of Human Rights

Human and Constitutional Rights (Arthur W. Diamond Law Library, Columbia Law School )

Human Rights Internet

Human Rights Library
(University of Minnesota)

Human Rights Watch

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

International Committee of the Red Cross

International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

International Federation of Human Rights Leagues

International Institute of Human Rights

Rights International

Universal Rights Network

Women’s Human Rights

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gets alot, if not most, of its “evidence” of climate change from Anglia University.  With that in mind, it should have been devastating to their cause when in fact, they seem to have taken a page from President Obama on healthcare, just ignore the opposition even though they outnumber you.

The first point of contention should be the theory that the emails were leaked from a “hacked” servor.  My understanding is that they weren’t hacked, they were released as a result of Britain’s version of the Freedom of Information Act.  A similar FOA for information from NASA has resulted in NASA refusing to release its data on climate change.  NASA recently, quietly changed its data to show that the 1930s were the hottest decade since records have been kept, not the 1990s as previously stated by NASA.  The mistake was the result of bad numbers according to NASA.

The second point of contention is that the emails show an intention to do several things which would be fraudulent at best and criminal at worst.  They specifically showed that the scientists that the UN rely on were changing numbers to make global warming appear real and dangerous, they showed that scientists were hiding evidence that stood in opposition to global warming, they showed that scientists were refusing to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests and would destroy documents before releasing them.  The documents also showed that there were no peer-reviewed studies unless they could be reviewed only by scientists that supported the global warming conspiracy.

This should give government and the UN pause on the issue of climate change.  It SHOULD.  It doesn’t, but it should.  In fact, government and the UN appear to be getting the wrong message.

Arthur Max and Karl Ritter of the Associated Press wrote, “The U.N.’s top climate official on Sunday conceded that hacked e-mails from climate scientists had damaged the image of global warming research but said evidence of a warming Earth is solid.”  Really?  Evidence is “solid”?  The emails showed that the evidence was FAKED.  Only a politician could honestly believe that “faked” evidence is solid, not unlike the Democrats that believe the people want their healthcare reform when all the polls show that fewer than 40% of America wants what the Dems are offering.  The article goes on to say the following, “

In an interview with The Associated Press ahead of the U.N. climate summit starting Monday, Yvo de Boer said the e-mails pilfered from a British university fueled skepticism among those who believe the science is manipulated to exaggerate global warming.

“I think a lot of people are skeptical about this issue in any case,” de Boer said. “And then when they have the feeling … that scientists are manipulating information in a certain direction then of course it causes concern in a number of people to say ‘you see I told you so, this is not a real issue.’”

It would be hard not to believe that scientists are manipulating evidence when you have the emails that say the scientists are manipulating evidence.  And that would tend to make people even more skeptical than they had previously been.  The UN is on top of the matter. 

E-mails stolen from the climate unit at the University of East Anglia appeared to show some of world’s leading scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others’ work. Those who deny the influence of man-made climate change have seized on the correspondence to argue that scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence about global warming.

“This correspondence looks very bad,” said. “But I think both the university is looking into this (and) I believe there is a police investigation going on whether the e-mails were leaked or stolen.”

De Boer noted that the head of the U.N.’s expert panel on climate change, Rajendra Pachauri, had also announced that he would investigate the matter.

That should settle the matter.  Ignore the faked and manipulated evidence and concentrate on an investigation into how the emails became public.  Ignore the fact that Freedom of Information Act requests were being ignored by the scientists in question, and insist that the emails were “hacked” illegally.

Even the US Climate negotiator had a well thought out opinion.

“

U.S. climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing called the science on global warming “very robust, very substantial.” He told the AP that the controversy surrounding the leaked e-mails came at an “unfortunate” time, just before the long-awaited U.N. talks, “but has no fundamental bearing on the outcome.”

“Many of us have been exposed to those kind of events” where e-mails have been unintentionally published, he said. “All of us are adults. all of us are aware that there are consequences to writing e-mails, that the Internet is a very fluid place.”

So the problem isn’t that the evidence was manipulated to show a predetermined outcome, or that there was no peer review that might actually contradict the findings that global warming is man-caused, and no evidence that global warming was part of a natural cycle was considered. or even that the evidence was hidden from the public.  The problem is that the evil internet and the internet users hacked emails and released them.

The truth of global warming is that it has nothing to do with global warming, climate change, or greenhouse gases.  The sole purpose of the climate change issue is to take money from hard working wealthy nations to give to poorer nations.

Negotiators in Copenhagen are trying to set targets for controlling emissions of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases, including by the leading contributors, China and the United States. They will also seek agreement on how much rich countries should pay to help poor nations to deal with climate change.

“Those are the two key issues,” de Boer said. “And if those can be unlocked I think the rest will come together as well.”

De Boer said he didn’t think the conference would fail because key nations have already made pledges on emissions and financial assistance — even though they are still short of what experts say is needed.

“It’s going to be two weeks of thorough negotiation to try and get the ambition level up and to get the financial specifics on the table,” de Boer said.

They won’t let false science get in the way of their true goal.  The true goal appears to be obamanomics on an international scale, take from the rich to help the poor remain poor.

As thousands of negotiators, activists, diplomats, scientists, politicians and journalists start pouring into Copenhagen for the climate summit – formally said, the 15th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – the question has been raised whether we should want them to succeed or fail. Which, of course, begs the next question: what is success at Copenhagen?

So is Copenhagen not the time to seal a new climate deal after all? Is it time for a re-think? My own view is that it’s best never to stop thinking, then you don’t have to make the effort to start up again.

Calling for failure when failure is a given

James Hansen, who did more than any other individual 20 years ago to get the issue onto the world’s agenda, has said it would be better for the conference to fail. Anything it can achieve, he argues (Audio of Hansen\’s Guardian interview), will be so badly flawed as to be counter-productive – worse than useless. A very different kind of voice expresses a conclusion along the same lines: Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and  author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, also argues that a fiasco in Copenhagen would be the best thing for the global climate.

First things first: the last minute opti-spin of politicians saying that a deal in Copenhagen is still possible and the urgent insistence of mass rallies that a new and ambitious climate treaty is necessary should not distract us from a simple but unpleasant recognition: compared to the original goal of getting agreement on a treaty to replace and improve upon the Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen gathering will indeed fail.

There will be a political deal at most. Some leaders, some commentators and some activists will say the deal is binding, which might be a moral truth but will be a legal fiction. Political commitments can be laid aside either because the issue is in the hands of a new government or just because it is convenient.

So Copenhagen is not the endpoint and both hopes and fears that it is are somewhat overblown; arguments for failure, therefore, are really arguments for continuing the discussion.

Hansen and Lomborg

Hansen and Lomborg have completely different positions and standings in the climate debate. Hansen is a heavyweight who insisted on energetically disseminating the conclusions of scientific research at a time when the world did not want to hear it and the weight of established scientific opinion was against him. Thirty or forty years ago, the settled view was that climates do not change quickly. That he succeeded in getting a proper hearing was the result of his dedication and determination to carry through on a major act of public service.

By contrast, Lomborg is a gadfly with a talent for getting publicity, who courts controversy, some of it around his ideas but much of it around his use of evidence, and who is often worth listening to because what he says is not all stupid.

Hansen has become more radical and in some ways more public in his views and his articulation of them; it is, apparently, the Bush administration in particular that pushed him towards more vocal and radical stances over climate policy. He believes that world leaders are wedded to preserving as much of “business as usual” as possible and that the emphasis on reducing CO2 emissions by carbon trading is bound to fail. Lomborg likewise argues that the current approach to mitigation is an expensive non-runner. Better, he says, to invest in adapting to climate change now and in long-term green energy technology.

Thus, there is both some compatibility and major divergences between the arguments that Hansen and Lomborg separately advance. From my perspective, Lomborg is too complacent about the need for mitigation but right about putting emphasis both on adaptation and on long-term green investment, while Hansen is right about mitigation and about the enormous risk of relying on carbon trading as a major instrument for reducing CO2 emissions, but strangely silent on adaptation.

But there is something else that they have in common with each other and with the dominant way in which climate issues are debated. There’s too much thinking in boxes.

The conflict and peace dimension – the reason for thinking outside the box

In some small circles, discussions about the right policy responses to climate change are slowly starting to acknowledge that they have to address the implications of climate change for conflict and security. It is now reasonably widely accepted, as International Alert argued in a report I co-authored two years ago that there is a subtle, complex and real linkage between climate change and conflict and that the knock-on consequences of climate change interact with other economic, political and social factors to increase the risk of violent conflict and political instability.

But this insight has not yet filtered into the design of the policy response. As exemplified in the build-up to Copenhagen, the issue is in the hands of climate experts (because it’s about climate) and lawyers (because it’s about a treaty) with some diplomats (because inter-state negotiations are unfolding), but not in the hands of experts in peacebuilding, development or governance – even though it’s about all those things too.

A new report from International Alert, Climate Change, Conflict and Fragility, was launched last week. In a way our sub-title says it all: Understanding the linkages, shaping effective responses. If we – the world – are unable to come up with policy responses that address the linkages between climate change, conflict, development, government, human rights, trade and the world economy – if we cannot find good and effective ways of addressing the linkages, then policy responses are going to fail.

Because the treaty that will not be agreed at Copenhagen treats the reduction of CO2 emissions and the tasks of adapting to unavoidable climate change as technical tasks that are not linked to other major problems of peace, development and the economy, I have a degree of sympathy with both James Hansen and Bjørn Lomborg in their calls for failure. At least, the non-securing of a treaty in Copenhagen makes it possible that when the treaty is finalised it will include some steps – or some articles in it that facilitate steps – towards dealing with these troublesome linkages.

There are five main recommendations in the International Alert report for shaping an effective response:

1. Ensure that climate adaptation is conflict-sensitive.
2. Likewise but on the other side of the coin, make sure peacebuilding is climate-proofed.
3. Back that up by ensuring that shifts towards a low carbon economy are supportive of development and peace (no more egregious errors like the hasty shift into biofuels).
4. Strengthen the capacity for risk management and information handling in developing countries.
5. Support developing countries in preparing to cope peacefully with climate-induced increases in migration; here, as at other points in the necessary policies, what is required is readiness for social adaptation to the social challenges climate change may generate.

In addition the report argues that

1. Institutions responsible for adapting to climate change, whether at local or national or regional or global level, must be structured and staffed in a way that reflects the specific challenges of the climate-conflict linkages, especially the need to respond to unforeseen events.
2. National development strategies henceforth along with international development assistance must integrate peaceful adaptation to climate change into their planning and implementation.
3. There is an urgent need for a large scale, comprehensive study of the likely costs of adaptation, including the social and political dimensions along with those economic sectors that have thus far been left out of the cost estimates.

Linkage, linkage, linkage

A masterly overview in the Daily Telegraph by Geoffrey Lean on 5th December showed how the debate on climate science has moved over two centuries and especially over the last two to three decades and outlined where the areas of dispute remain. The article appears in a conservative newspaper, a majority of whose readers according to surveys do not accept that global warming is happening, is anthropogenic and is generating climate change. That is exactly where such articles – thoughtful, open-minded, rigourous, calm and authoritative – need to be published. Next stop, Wall Street Journal.

But once the scientific argument is won so that the overwhelming majority understands that there is a problem and something both must and can be done about it, then there is the need to win the argument about what that “something” is.

And at that point two nasty but necessary thoughts occur:

Climate is not only a climate issue. So it needs to get out of the hands of the climate experts. Or, at least, out of their monopoly control. Climate is a social, economic and political issue as well as environmental. From now on, let us undertake to respect those linkages.

We have to persuade people to shape policy responses without knowing exactly what those responses have to be. Exactly how climate will change, at what speed, with precisely what impacts still remains uncertain. Multiply that uncertainty by a very large but unknown quantity and you start to gauge the piled-up uncertainty about the social and political consequences. So exactly what needs to be done is not clear. We have to explore and advocate at the same time. It is a new way of doing politics and a new way of advocacy for a problem the world has thus far shown that it does not know how to handle.

It would be surprising if new forms of politics and modes of advocacy were not required.

The arguments are not over and the issue is in no way at an endpoint. Consensus about what to do is even further way than consensus about the problem. Both are necessary. Whatever happens these next two weeks at Copenhagen, the main conclusion is we shall keep thinking and keep arguing.

After tarnishing UBC’s reputation and neglecting democratic principles, Blake Frederick and Tim Chu will finally face an impeachment decision on Monday. We at Foxtrot urge you to WEAR BLUE at this meeting to stand up for democracy!

Special AMS Meeting
December 7th, 2009
4-6pm
Sub Room 206

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=192692685302&index=1

According to a spokesman for UNAMID, a peacekeeping force in Darfur, Sudan, three Rwandan soldiers were killed by gunmen in an ambush earlier today. Two other soldiers were hurt.
The spokesman, Kemal Saiki, commented that the ambush occurred close to a government checkpoint in the town of Saraf Umra, near Darfur. The peacekeeping troops returned fire at the gunmen, wounding one, but they evaded capture. The identities of the assaliants was not immediately known.
Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations Secretary General, released a statement in which he expressed his sympathy to the families of the killed soldiers.
With this incident, twenty peacekeepers have been killed in the Darfur region since January 2008, when the African Union and the UN dispatched armed forces to the region. Violence, however, has become less frequent in the past few months.

The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor reported Friday to the U.N. Security Council that violence continues in Darfur and that the Sudanese president and his government are not cooperating with investigators.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo noted positive developments in judicial proceedings and “fruitful” cooperation with international bodies, but said there still remain many setbacks. He explained that crimes continue in the region, including “indiscriminate bombings of civilians … rapes and sexual violence” and the “use of child soldiers.”

…..

Click on the link to read the article

via Darfur crimes continue, Sudan not cooperating with ICC, official says – CNN.com.