The UN's Authority Over the US (from Random Rants LXIX)

[Commodore]

Well, I was always a huge supporter of the UN. After I read several articles that say the UN is now urging the US to give up the First Amendment free speech protections in order to "combat racism" I'm starting to think it may be time for the US to end its association with the UN. I'm glad though, that apparently the US response to the UN was to basically tell the UN to screw off.

Starting to think it might be about time for the US to remind the UN that it is nothing without US support. Without us, the UN loses what little credibility it has and would devolve into nothing more than some insignificant little NGO. We provide the UN with 22% of its funding (which is more than 185 other member nations combined) and we host them on our soil. So it would behoove them to keep their mouths shut about the domestic affairs of the US lest we decide they have worn out their welcome on our land and that our money would be better spent elsewhere.

EDIT: Just saw a comment on one of the articles that makes a good point. The comment said something to the effect of "saying getting rid of free speech will stop people from being racist is about as stupid as saying making gay marriage illegal will stop people from being gay."

 

[Synobun]

That sounds suspiciously like an implication that the UN should be under the US's jurisdiction.

 

[Commodore]

That sounds suspiciously like an implication that the UN should be under the US's jurisdiction.

Not at all. Just saying the UN has no right to attempt to infringe on our sovereignty. They are an international organization that is supposed to deal with international affairs. They have no right or authority to meddle in the domestic affairs of any of their member states.

 

[Arakhor]

Not at all. Just saying the UN has no right to attempt to infringe on our sovereignty. They are an international organization that is supposed to deal with international affairs. They have no right or authority to meddle in the domestic affairs of any of their member states.

Even if everything you said is correct, how is the UN 'urging' the US to make a policy change infringing on US sovereignty?

Moreover, if, by your reckoning, the UN are not even allowed to comment on domestic affairs, what exactly is their reason for existence, given that "international affairs" are simply someone else's domestic affairs?

 

[Cutlass]

All I see about the UN wanting the US to ban free speech is an opinion piece in a very right wing paper by a Teahadist writer who also writes for WND.

On the other hand:

U.N. Sees 'Alarming' U.S. Trend Against Free Speech, Protest
By Reuters On 3/31/17 at 9:20 AM

Nineteen U.S. states have introduced bills that would curb freedom of expression and the right to protest since Donald Trump's election as president, an " alarming and undemocratic" trend, U.N. human rights investigators said on Thursday.

Concerns for free speech in the United States have risen in part because of the Republican Trump's antagonistic relations with prominent U.S. media, which he has branded "the enemy of the American people" as it has reported on policy missteps and dysfunction in his administration.

The push for stricter laws on expression has come as Trump's liberal foes have pursued public protest against his policies on issues ranging from immigration to abortion and climate change.

Maina Kiai and David Kaye, independent U.N. experts on freedom of peaceful assembly and expression respectively, said in a statement that the state bills were incompatible with international human rights law.

"The trend also threatens to jeopardize one of the United States’ constitutional pillars: free speech," they said in a statement, calling for action to reverse such legislation.

“From the Black Lives Matter movement, to the environmental and Native American movements in opposition to the Dakota Access oil pipeline, and the Women’s Marches, individuals and organizations across (American) society have mobilized in peaceful protests,” Kiai and Kaye said.

They said it was their fundamental right to do so, but that bills in Republican-governed states like Indiana, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Missouri sought to stop them exercising that right.

The civil rights movement known as Black Lives Matter has been fueled by a series of shootings of unarmed black men by white U.S. police officers that triggered national protests.

The U.N. experts' statement came a day after they criticized Russia's treatment of peaceful protesters who took to the streets following allegations of corruption against Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.

The U.S. State Department had also criticized Russia's handling of those protests, calling them an affront to democratic values.

Supporters of the U.S. state legislative action say it sums up the frustration some people feel about protests that get in the way of daily lives, and reflects a wish to maintain public safety. Free speech advocates say the bills are worrying, seeing them as opening the way to criminalizing peaceful protests.

The U.N. experts said several bills proposed in Colorado, North Dakota and Oklahoma targeted opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota and would have "a chilling effect on environmental protesters".

Last month dozens of armed U.S. law enforcement officers swept through a protest camp near the site of the pipeline, clearing the gathering that for months served as a base of opposition to the multi-billion-dollar project.

In Missouri a bill proposed a seven-year prison term for "unlawful obstruction of traffic", while the Minnesota bill would criminalize peaceful protesters for participating in demonstrations that subsequently turned violent.

The U.N. experts said there was no such thing as a violent protest, only violent protesters. "One person’s decision to resort to violence does not strip other protesters of their right to freedom of peaceful assembly," Kaye and Kiai said.

http://www.newsweek.com/un-sees-alarming-us-trend-against-free-speech-protest-577216


Looks to me like the UN is on the side of the US and freedom of speech, and opposed to Republican efforts to crush both.

 

[Samson]

Not at all. Just saying the UN has no right to attempt to infringe on our sovereignty. They are an international organization that is supposed to deal with international affairs. They have no right or authority to meddle in the domestic affairs of any of their member states.

How do you feel about the UN questioning North Korea's right to develop nuclear weapons? What about the UN criticising Myanmar for the human rights of the rohingya?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

How do you feel about the UN questioning North Korea's right to develop nuclear weapons? What about the UN criticising Myanmar for the human rights of the rohingya?

Surely there is a line between a fundamental human right and genocide or threats of nuclear annihilation by a mad man.

 

[Samson]

Surely there is a line between a fundamental human right and genocide or threats of nuclear annihilation by a mad man.

I guess it is a question of degrees. If the UN can tell Myanmar about who has freedom of movement is it such a stretch to say they can tell the US who has freedom of speech?

 

[Takhisis]

Surely there is a line between a fundamental human right and genocide or threats of nuclear annihilation by a mad man.

I thought that genocide of minorities and use of nuclear weaponry were two of the things people most objected to regarding the U.S. of A.?

(btw we need our own thread for this - @Vincour?)

 

[Commodore]

given that "international affairs" are simply someone else's domestic affairs?

That's not given though.

All I see about the UN wanting the US to ban free speech is an opinion piece in a very right wing paper by a Teahadist writer who also writes for WND.

On the other hand:

U.N. Sees 'Alarming' U.S. Trend Against Free Speech, Protest
By Reuters On 3/31/17 at 9:20 AM



http://www.newsweek.com/un-sees-alarming-us-trend-against-free-speech-protest-577216


Looks to me like the UN is on the side of the US and freedom of speech, and opposed to Republican efforts to crush both.

The source I have isn't the greatest, but it does have direct quotes from UN officials, so unless you are going to claim those quotes are fabricated, I'd say it's still legitimate.

Here's the least ridiculous source on the matter:

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/united-nations-urges-u-s-give-free-speech-combat-racism/

Here is a statement from the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination:

"[The committee] recommends that the United States of America ensure that the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly are not exercised with the aim of destroying or denying the rights and freedoms of others, especially the right to equality and non-discrimination, and that the government of the United States of America provide the necessary guarantees so that such rights are not misused to promote racist hate speech and racist crimes."

Doesn't sound too bad right? Well, the problem is the Supreme Court has already ruled that there is no "hate speech exception" to the First Amendment. That means hate speech IS protected by the First Amendment. For the UN to "recommend" that we essentially reverse a ruling of our highest court is outrageous to me. They overstep themselves and risk alienating the US with such statements. Now while I don't think we'd ever outright leave the UN, if the UN continues to "warn" us about our domestic affairs that don't concern them in the slightest, I could see the US start to take action that serves to undermine UN efforts elsewhere in the globe and essentially make it impossible for them to get anything done at all.

In short, my message to the UN would be: Pick your battles and don't bite the hand that feeds you.

How do you feel about the UN questioning North Korea's right to develop nuclear weapons? What about the UN criticising Myanmar for the human rights of the rohingya?

Well, the North Korea thing falls within the UN's purview since their acquisition of nuclear weapons has potentially significant consequences at the international level. Especially since the North Korean regime is threatening to use that nuclear arsenal against its rivals. I'm not familiar enough with the situation in Myanmar to speak intelligently about it, but if that is a purely domestic affair for them, then I'd say the UN has no right to stick their nose in it.

 

[Synobun]

Moderator Action: I've split this off into its own thread. Enjoy!

 

[FriendlyFire]

Wouldnt it be easier just to ban racisim ?
Problem SOLVED

 

[Ryika]

UN body criticizes US “failure at the highest political level to unequivocally reject racist violent events”

GENEVA (23 August 2017) – The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has called on the Government of the United States of America, as well as high-level politicians and public officials, to unequivocally and unconditionally reject and condemn racist hate speech and crimes in Charlottesville and throughout the country.

In a decision issued under its ‘early warning and urgent action’ procedure, the Committee -- which monitors implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination* -- stated “there should be no place in the world for racist white supremacist ideas or any similar ideologies that reject the core human rights principles of human dignity and equality.”

“We are alarmed by the racist demonstrations, with overtly racist slogans, chants and salutes by white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan, promoting white supremacy and inciting racial discrimination and hatred”, said CERD Chairperson Anastasia Crickley.

In addition to the criminal investigation of the individual who ploughed his car into a crowd of peaceful protestors killing Ms. Heather Heyer, the UN experts asked the US authorities to undertake concrete measures “to address the root causes of the proliferation of such racist manifestations.”

“We call on the US Government to investigate thoroughly the phenomenon of racial discrimination targeting, in particular, people of African descent, ethnic or ethno-religious minorities, and migrants,” added Ms. Crickley.

Acting under its early warning procedure, CERD also called on the US to ensure that the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly are not exercised with the aim of destroying or denying the rights and freedoms of others. It also asked US to provide the necessary guarantees so that such rights are not misused to promote racist hate speech and racist crimes.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21990&LangID=E

Pretty ridiculous in my opinion. Not only is it an incredible overreaction to the events in Charlotteville, it's also them attempting to override the cultural values of the USA, without even demonstrating first that their set of cultural values is better at achieving the goal they claim to be working towards. After all, we still see racism and racist attacks in countries that have a ban on "hate speech", and the USA is in a unique position that will lead to greater problems than other countries have, with- or without hate speech laws.

So this is in my opinion not at all an attempt to combat racism and racist crimes, but rather a form of cultural imperialism.

 

[Silurian]

The US ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1994. By ratifying the convention the US agreed to the convention as outlined below. If the US is, or is about to break the convention the UN should give advice but it would appear that there are limits in what the UN can do.

From the UN

""23 August 2017 – The United Nations body monitoring implementation of the global convention on prohibiting racial discrimination has called on high-level politicians and public officials of the United States to unequivocally and unconditionally reject and condemn racist hate speech and crimes in Charlottesville and throughout the country.

“We are alarmed by the racist demonstrations, with overtly racist slogans, chants and salutes by white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan, promoting white supremacy and inciting racial discrimination and hatred,” said Anastasia Crickley, Chairperson of UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), in a news release.

In a decision issued under its 'early warning and urgent action' procedure, the Committee, which monitors implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, stated “there should be no place in the world for racist white supremacist ideas or any similar ideologies that reject the core human rights principles of human dignity and equality.”

The United States ratified the Convention in 1994""

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=57399#.Wa-6KdGQzcs


""United States of America
Upon signature:
"The Constitution of the United States contains provisions for the protection of individual rights, such as the right of free speech, and nothing in the Convention shall be deemed to require or to authorize legislation or other action by the United States of America incompatible with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America."

Upon ratification:
"I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:
(1) That the Constitution and laws of the United States contain extensive protections of individual freedom of speech, expression and association. Accordingly, the United States does not accept any obligation under this Convention, in particular under articles 4 and 7, to restrict those rights, through the adoption of legislation or any other measures, to the extent that they are protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(2) That the Constitution and laws of the United States establish extensive protections against discrimination, reaching significant areas of non-governmental activity. Individual privacy and freedom from governmental interference in private conduct, however, are also recognized as among the fundamental values which shape our free and democratic society. The United States understands that the identification of the rights protected under the Convention by reference in article 1 to fields of `public life' reflects a similar distinction between spheres of public conduct that are customarily the subject of governmental regulation, and spheres of private conduct that are not. To the extent, however, that the Convention calls for a broader regulation of private conduct, the United States does not accept any obligation under this Convention to enact legislation or take other measures under paragraph (1) of article 2, subparagraphs (1) (c) and (d) of article 2, article 3 and article 5 with respect to private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(3) That with reference to article 22 of the Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case.
II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understanding, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:
That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments. To the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall, as necessary, take appropriate measures to ensure the fulfilment of this Convention.
III. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declaration:
That the United States declares that the provisions of the Convention are not self-executing."
""

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-2&chapter=4&clang=_en

 

[Arakhor]

That's not given though.

That carefully avoids answering the actual point of my question.

 

[Yeekim]

Well, I was always a huge supporter of the UN. After I read several articles that say the UN is now urging the US to give up the First Amendment free speech protections in order to "combat racism" I'm starting to think it may be time for the US to end its association with the UN. I'm glad though, that apparently the US response to the UN was to basically tell the UN to screw off.

Starting to think it might be about time for the US to remind the UN that it is nothing without US support. Without us, the UN loses what little credibility it has and would devolve into nothing more than some insignificant little NGO. We provide the UN with 22% of its funding (which is more than 185 other member nations combined) and we host them on our soil. So it would behoove them to keep their mouths shut about the domestic affairs of the US lest we decide they have worn out their welcome on our land and that our money would be better spent elsewhere.

EDIT: Just saw a comment on one of the articles that makes a good point. The comment said something to the effect of "saying getting rid of free speech will stop people from being racist is about as stupid as saying making gay marriage illegal will stop people from being gay."

"How DARE anyone express concern over what happens in the US#1? How DARE anyone suggest anything to us?!"

Honestly, you've managed to come off as ridiculously arrogant, oversensitive and clueless in equal parts.
I guess you haven't quite realized what CERD is or how it came to be, which is really the only explanation to how you've managed to get so worked up here.
Calm down.
They are a body that is explicitly set up by signatories of a particular UN convention - including the US - to monitor domestic affairs of those signatories, to ensure the convention is being followed.
Obviously, writing letters of "concern" or possibly "deep concern" is about all they can do in that capacity.
However, in perfect world that should be quite enough to have the recipient self-reflect a bit. In said perfect world, the US could answer that while free speech is protected by their constitution (and point out the reservation they made upon ratification in that regard), they will do what is possible to eliminate racial discrimination. This being perfect world, the US could then even act on that promise.

In actual world, the US can just ignore them with no tangible consequences.

Throwing a tantrum about the UN doing what it is supposed to do is childish. Turning a blind eye to US would definitely make the UN lose every credibility, which probably was not FDR's intention in setting it up in the first place.

 

[Cutlass]

See, the problem here is that in virtually all cases the UN haters just don't understand the purpose and the place in the world that the UN serves.

The UN is primarily a forum for international diplomacy where all nations have a seat at the table. It is not a government. The purpose of it is to get as much buy in from as many nations as possible of policies that it is believed will be of benefit to all nations, and the people of all nations. When you have this many participants then you certainly have a pretty broad variety of opinions. And the fact that some portion of those participants don't like everything that is going on in the US all the time does not mean that the UN as a whole is working to force the US to change some fundamental positions it holds.

Taken as a whole the UN has sided with the US more than any other nation. But the UN is not a US organization, and it is foolish to expect the UN to agree with the US 100% of the time. That's like saying that the rest of the world doesn't have the right to have an opinion which differs from the opinions of the US. Which is ridiculous. The whole point of the UN is that everyone's opinion get to be heard.

Further, the UN haters have amply demonstrated that they simply do not understand the concepts of national sovereignty or international diplomacy and treaties. Take for example The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The US Senate conservatives have refused to ratify the treaty, despite the fact that it is in the best interest of the US, because they do not understand sovereignty or treaties. They think it ""violates" US sovereignty. But the reality is that, like all treaties, the signatory nations have voluntarily chosen to restrict their actions as a trade for the purpose of getting other nation(s) to do the same on that or another issue! We are not "giving up sovereignty", we are trading something we want for something others want. It is a business transaction. And yet somehow the radical right in this country can't understand that.

The radical right has a serious hate on for the UN even though over time the US gets most of what it wants out of the UN. They seem to think that the US is entitled to get everything we want out of it. The UN to them is some sort of a massive bogeyman. And they go to ridiculous lengths to demonize it. One of the latest is that many of them have been making the claim that Obama is working to get elected as UN Secretary General. Thus combining 2 of their biggest bogeymen into one. It's completely insane.

TLDR, The UN is a large organization with a lot of people working in it and a lot of nations participating in it, and so a lot of differing opinions involved. That one participant has an opinion that we may not like is not in any sense equivalent to the UN as an organization trying to force the US to abandon the Constitution.

 

[Takhisis]

"How DARE anyone express concern over what happens in the US#1? How DARE anyone suggest anything to us?!"

Honestly, you've managed to come off as ridiculously arrogant, oversensitive and clueless in equal parts.

(…)

Yes, you're basically implying that the UN is an offshoot of the US government and that it's meant to obey, not order, the dictates of the US, and that everyone should bow before your might.

 

[JohannaK]

I mean just because the UN's lost credibility is over everyone seeing it as a US puppet it doesn't mean that it actually is, and the rare times when it does the right thing about the US are when the other 6.7bn people on Earth see some hope in it.

As an aside, you guys seriously need to write a new Constitution. One with a decent election method, sensible rights, and no references to 3/5ths of a person.

 

[Synobun]

As an aside, you guys seriously need to write a new Constitution. One with a decent election method, sensible rights, and no references to 3/5ths of a person.

I agree but feel this is probably not going to happen any time soon. Many people consider the Constitution to be what essentially amounts to a holy relic (even with the multiple amendments in US history in mind). A revamp would 'spoil the spirit' of the US.

(Which might be a good thing, really.)