Tag: un

UN demands answers from UK on terror law abuse

As the British state harasses and arrests a growing number of activists and dissident journalists, including the author of this piece, UN rapporteurs delivered a forceful letter of protest to London condemning its abuse of counter-terror legislation.

In December 2024, a quartet of UN rapporteurs focused on “peaceful assembly and of association” and the “right to privacy” delivered a strongly-worded letter to the British government. Expressing grave concerns about the potential “misapplication of counter-terrorism laws” to arrest, detain, interrogate and surveil dissident activists and journalists, including The Grayzone’s Kit Klarenberg, they demanded clarity on a number of serious issues. Given 60 days to respond, London remained suspiciously silent.

As a result, the UN’s correspondence with the British government has now been made public. The rapporteurs were clearly disturbed by reports of Schedule 7 of the 2000 Terrorism Act, and Schedule 3 of the 2019 Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, which covers “hostile” state threats, “being used to examine and obtain data from journalists and activists Johanna Ross, John Laughland, Kit Klarenberg, Craig Murray and Richard Medhurst in circumstances where they appear to have no credible connection to ‘terrorist’ or ‘hostile’ activity.”

While awaiting a reply that never came, the UN “urged” British authorities to undertake “interim measures” to prevent any recurrence of potential human rights breaches under counter-terror legislation, and “ensure the accountability” of anyone responsible for “alleged violations.” Evidently undeterred by pressure from the UN, Britain has continued to escalate its war on dissidents. 

Since the UN issued its letter of protest, British activists and journalists have since been arrested, raided, and prosecuted, including Asa Winstanley, Tony Greenstein, Sarah Wilkinson, Palestine Action cofounder Richard Barnard, and academic David Miller.

The UN letter focused on how “powers under counter-terrorism legislation have been used on multiple occasions to examine, detain, and arrest journalists and activists, particularly at the UK border.” Individuals “who are critical of Western foreign policy in the context of the conflict in the Middle East and the Russia-Ukraine war are especially affected by the reported misuse of these powers,” the rapporteurs wrote. 

Ominously, the UN rapporteurs suggested this could amount to “over-use [or] misuse” of British counter-terrorism legislation “to target legitimate freedom of expression and opinion, including public interest media reporting, and related freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and political dissent or activism.”

Keep reading

U.S. Votes Against UN Resolution Fully Blaming Russia for Ukraine War

The United States voted Tuesday against a three-page United Nations resolution that placed the blame for the ongoing Russia–Ukraine conflict solely on Russia. The resolution came on the third anniversary of the start of the Ukraine War, and passed the UN General Assembly with a vote of 93 in favor and 18 against, with 65 countries abstaining.

Israel also voted against the resolution placing the blame solely on Russia. The Israeli foreign ministry clarified that its position is intended to back the U.S. efforts to end the war, telling the Time of Israel, “Israel believes it is important to support the American effort aimed at bringing about progress in efforts to end the war and resolve the conflict peacefully.”

Notable absentations from the resolution include India, China, and all of the other BRICS members except Egypt and Indonesia, which voted for the resolution. All EU member-states except Hungary also voted for the resolution. 

In contrast to the resolution adopted by the General Assembly fully condemning Russia, the UN Security Council adopted a U.S. resolution calling for an end to the conflict and mourning the loss of life without assigning blame. This American resolution was backed by 10 of the 15 members of the Security Council, with the other five abstaining. Russia backed the American resolution after failing to amend it.

Keep reading

Top UN “Court” to Issue Landmark Ruling on “Climate Change”

At the request of the United Nations and its member governments, the top UN “court” is set to rule on the supposed legal “obligations” of governments when it comes to fighting CO2 emissions and the alleged man-made “climate change” they supposedly cause. Experts say it may be the most significant case ever heard by the global body.

The Biden administration joined governments around the world asking the court to take a strong stand on the issue. But critics are sounding the alarm. Agriculture, energy, transportation, and other industries are all in the crosshairs, fueling concerns over more government-mandated economic carnage ahead.  

“Largest Ever Case”

While the ruling expected from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) later this year is officially considered “advisory,” it will have profound economic and political implications for the entire world. The UN is calling this the “largest ever case before the UN world court.” Media propagandists, meanwhile, framed it as putting “the entire industrialized world on trial.”

UN leaders expect governments around the world as well as international organizations to craft their “climate” policies based on the findings of the controversial judicial body. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, a proud socialist, was one of many key figures touting the significance of the case in the evolution of the global “climate regime,” as they call it.  

Encouraging the UN General Assembly in 2023 to ask the ICJ to rule on the issue, Guterres said the body’s decisions “have tremendous importance and can have a long-standing impact on the international legal order.”

The ruling, expected later this year, he continued, will “assist the General Assembly, the United Nations and Member States to take the bolder and stronger climate action that our world so desperately needs.”

“It could also guide the actions and conduct of States in their relations with each other, as well as towards their own citizens,” added Guterres. “This is essential.”

Keep reading

UN accuses Israel of turning Gaza hospitals into ‘death traps’

The UN Human Rights Office issued a report on 31 December condemning Israeli attacks on Gaza hospitals, saying they had become “death traps.”

The 23-page report documented various Israeli attacks on Gaza’s hospitals and the destruction of the strip’s health care system between October 2023 and July 2024.

“The destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza, and the extent of killing of patients, staff, and other civilians in these attacks, is a direct consequence of the disregard of international humanitarian and human rights law,” the report said.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk, said the Israeli military had shown “blatant disregard for international humanitarian and human rights law.”

“As if the relentless bombing and the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza were not enough, the one sanctuary where Palestinians should have felt safe, in fact, became a death trap,” Turk said in a statement.

In recent days, the Israeli military escalated its attack on the Kamal Adwan Hospital in north Gaza while detaining the hospital director, Hussam Abu Safia, and hundreds of others.

Keep reading

UN Expert Urges Medical World to Cut Ties With Israel Amid Attacks on Gaza Hospitals

As Israeli forces stand accused of war crimes during attacks on multiple Gaza hospitals in recent days, Francesca Albanese – the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories – on Monday implored the global medical community to respond by cutting ties with Israel.

“I urge medical professionals worldwide to pursue the severance of all ties with Israel as a concrete way to forcefully denounce Israel’s full destruction of the Palestinian healthcare system in Gaza, a critical tool of its ongoing genocide,” Albanese wrote on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

Albanese amplified a post by Dr. Rupa Marya – one of the most vocal defenders of Palestinian human rights in the U.S. medical community – calling on Israeli forces to release Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia.

Abu Safiya, who documented Israel’s siege and attack on Kamal Adwan and who reported last week that nearly 50 people including five hospital staff members were killed by an Israel Defense Forces airstrike on a nearby apartment tower, was among dozens of other medical staffers abducted by IDF troops on Saturday.

After besieging and attacking the hospital for weeks, Israeli forces raided the facility and rounded up 240 people, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Israel claimed without evidence that Kamal Adwan was being used as a Hamas command center. With the facility shut down and badly damaged, critical patients and their caregivers were forced to evacuate to the nearby Indonesian Hospital.

Keep reading

UN General Assembly Adopts Controversial Cybercrime Treaty Amid Criticism Over Censorship and Surveillance Risks

As we expected, even though opponents have been warning that the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime needed to have a narrower scope, strong human rights safeguard and be more clearly defined in order to avoid abuse – the UN General Assembly has just adopted the documents, after five years of wrangling between various stakeholders.

It is now up to UN-member states to first sign, and then ratify the treaty that will come into force three months after the 40th country does that.

The UN bureaucracy is pleased with the development, hailing the convention as a “landmark” and “historic” global treaty that will improve cross-border cooperation against cybercrime and digital threats.

But critics have been saying that speech and human rights might fall victim to the treaty since various UN members treat human rights and privacy in vastly different ways – while the treaty now in a way “standardizes” law enforcement agencies’ investigative powers across borders.

Considerable emphasis has been put by some on how “authoritarian” countries might abuse this new tool meant to tackle online crime – but in reality, this concern applies to any country that ends up ratifying the treaty.

Keep reading

WHO Expands “Misinformation Management” Efforts with “Social Listening”

The UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) is not the only entity engaging globally (the Gates Foundation comes to mind as another) that likes to turn to developing, or small and often functionally dependent states to “test” or “check” some of the key elements of its policies.

The pandemic put the WHO center-stage, and in many ways influenced the UN’s clear change of trajectory from its true purpose to assisting governments globally in policing speech and surveilling their populations.

The WHO is comfortable in conflating health-focused issues (its actual mandate), with what it presents as threats linked to “disinformation” and “AI.”

Keep reading

UN General Assembly to Adopt Controversial Cybercrime Treaty, Ignoring Privacy and Free Speech Concerns

The United Nations General Assembly will this week adopt the UN Cybercrime Treaty, with the US expected to be among the countries that support the controversial document.

Opponents will then have to hope that various UN member-states would eventually opt not to sign and ratify the treaty, which has variously been described as “flawed” and all the way to being “a threat to free speech and privacy” and a tool for “transnational oppression.”

Among those opponents are human rights and media organizations, as well as tech companies, while doubts have been expressed even by the UN High Commissioner for human rights, among others.

Yet governments and law enforcement agencies are among the Cybercrime Treaty’s supporters since it opens up the possibility of more effective cross-border cooperation and evidence (including personal data) gathering and sharing.

But, the final text that is about to be adopted, in many parts falls short of what are considered international human rights standards, allowing UN members who sign the document to then choose whether to build a number of these standards into their own implementation.

Keep reading

Many Preppers and 2nd Amendment Proponents Believe That the Arms Trade Treaty Will First Lead to Registration of All Firearms

The UN’s Arms Trade Treaty which covers everything from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships – came into force on 24 December 2014. This treaty has not been ratified by our Congress but had the support of our Secretary of State, John Kerry who signed it and Our president at that time, who without expressly mentioning the treaty, said in a speech at the UN that all nations “must meet our responsibility to observe and enforce international norms.” The problem with that statement and this treaty is that we the people aren’t in control of what those ‘international norms’ are and as we have seen time and time again, those international norms might be detrimental to our country.

Many preppers and 2nd Amendment proponents believe that the Arms Trade Treaty will first lead to registration of all firearms and when that happens, historically the next step is confiscation through some means. Technically, no treaty can be put into action in the United States unless it has been ratified by a 2/3 majority of the senate. This fact is what most people cite when they are trying to refute any legitimate concerns about the UN Arms Trade Treaty or any other treaty’s potential effect on our country. This sounds well and good and serves to placate some, but for this fail-safe to have any weight you would first need to have a government that followed the letter of the constitution and additionally, that government would need to follow the wishes of the citizens they are representing.

Our government has proven time and time again that following the constitution is simply not something they feel they have to do when it stands in their way. For example, the senate has never voted on the Kyoto Protocol but that hasn’t stopped the EPA from enacting rules complying with the main goals of that treaty. Coal plants are being shut down left and right while the US and China agreed in 2014 to let China keep growing their output of carbon emissions (with coal power plants) until 2030. There are many examples of policies that are enacted that fall well outside the bounds of Constitutional limits on power but that doesn’t stop our representatives does it? On any issue there is more brainpower spent on finding ways around the Constitution than actually following it with the seeming goal of every single facet of law being finally decided by the Supreme Court. It’s as if in our society, the rules we decided long ago to set for ourselves are only as good as the interpretations of people today and if every single thing can be challenged (and in some cases changed), we don’t really have a Constitution at all. What we have is a framework for legal arguments that only establishes a baseline which can be over ruled completely by a simple majority of ideology on the bench.

As for a government that listens to their constituents, that long gone relic of thought is promised by every single person running for office. “I feel your pain” The truth of the matter is that in this day and age, every politician is a benefactor of the same special interests. There are no democrat and republican sides whenever both are receiving money from the same companies. The elected politicians, by overwhelming majority do not care what you say or want because they don’t answer to you. Their actions directly contradict election results, polls and public outcry. The 2014 mid-term elections  held should have sent a very strong signal to the leadership of both parties that the country wasn’t on-board with the policies of the current administration and the direction of affairs with the Congress, however; Obamacare and Amnesty both remain intact without so much as a whimper from our newly elected majority who promised for years to repeal it as soon as they were ‘in power’. To add insult to injury, the Republicans just released a 1 trillion budget proposal just over 24 hours before a procedural vote on it knowing that nobody would have time to read it. Same tricks but a different face is behind the podium. Why should we expect anything different from what we have been seeing?

Keep reading

War On Drugs Has ‘Completely And Utterly’ Failed, United Nations Human Rights Commissioner Says

The United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights is calling on the international community to move away from punitive, criminal drug policies, saying that the global war on drugs “has failed, completely and utterly.”

“Criminalisation and prohibition have failed to reduce drug use and failed to deter drug-related crime,” Commissioner Volker Türk said on Thursday at a conference in Warsaw that included leaders and experts from across Europe. “These policies are simply not working—and we are failing some of the most vulnerable groups in our societies.”

Türk urged a shift to a more evidence-based, human rights-centered approach to drug policies “prioritising people over punishment.”

“We need to start treating the person, not punishing the drug use disorder,” he said, according to a UN press release. “Historically, people who use drugs are marginalised, criminalised, discriminated against and left behind—very often stripped of their dignity and their rights.”

Rather than ostracize or punish drug users, Türk said their perspectives should be included in discussions about how to craft policies that minimize harm. “We are destined to fail unless we ensure their genuine participation in formulating and implementing drug policy,” he said.

Keep reading