Burma’s Buddhists Fighting Back UNHRC’s Muslims

An excellent update on the situation in Burma from our trusted  friend Hla Oo

 (Muslims Running UN Human Rights Commission Are Hell Bent On Islamizing Burma.)

U.N. human rights chief Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein,UNHRC Chief Al Hussein.

The notorious UNHRC or UN Human Rights Commission has been unfairly waging a nasty war on Sri Lanka and Burma the two Buddhist countries facing existential threats from rapidly growing Muslim population. May I remind the readers that the Muslims-and-Socialist-controlled UNHRC has been on a war footing also with Israel for last fifty years?

“Mosques are enemy bases” -Buddhist leader in Burma

Thanks to Vlad Tepes

In case of our Burma the UNHRC Chief Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, a Jordanian Muslim, and his henchwoman-on-Burma Yanghee Lee, a left-leaning Korean-American and the UN Special Rapporteur on Myanmar, are pushing Burma to grant more than one million illegal and stateless Bengali-Muslims on the Burma-Bangladesh border Burmese citizenship. 

In line with the hidden UN agenda of relocating at least fifty million Bangladeshi-Muslims from population-exploding and rapidly sinking Bangladesh into neighbouring Buddhist-Burma within next twenty years Al Hussein and Yanghee Lee have been relentlessly provoking Burmese Buddhists by publicly issuing ultimatum after ultimatum to Burmese government to let million Bengali-Muslims now trapped between two warring armies on the heated Burma-Bangladesh border into proper Burma.

Buddhists’ Stern Response To Hussein and Yanghee Lee’s Ultimatums

On 16 Jamuary 2015 thousands of enraged Burmese Buddhists led by Ma-Ba-Tha (969) monks responded in kind to Yanghee Lee and UNHRC Muslims by staging a public rally in Ranggon where internationally famous (thanks to another Socialist American and Time Magazine editor Hannah Beech) Shin Wirathu delivered following rousing speech directed at now widely-hated Yanghee Lee.

“We have already made public our Race Protection Law, but without even studying it, this bitch (kaungma) keeps on complaining about how it is against human rights!” he shouted to hundreds of supporters on Friday afternoon.

“Can this whore really be from a respectable family background?” he thundered, to which the audience responded, “No!”

“Don’t assume you are a respectable person, just because you have a position in the UN,” he continued. “In our country, you are just a whore (Phar). If you are so willing, you may offer your arse to the kalar (Bengali-Muslims). But you will never sell off our Arakan State!”
After the recent publication of Yanghee Lee’s damning report on Burma’s Buddhists Shin Wirathu wrote on his Facebook page the following threat.

“Oh dear Burmese-Buddhist patriots, let us find ways and means to teach the beastly woman a lesson.”

UNHRC’s Yanghee Lee.

As his direct response the spokesman for UNHRC Chief-Muslim Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said Al Hussein was “disgusted” with that threat of violence on Lee. The human rights chief condemned Shin Wirathu’s comments “as a clear incitement to violence and he wants to stress that it is absolutely the responsibility of the government of Myanmar to deal with threats of violence and to ensure the safety of the special rapporteur,” spokesman Mr Rupert Colville said. “It is totally unacceptable that a special rapporteur appointed by the international community should be subjected to this,” he added.

Burma has been a target of long-running Muslim hate campaign for many years since late Ne Win’s Socialist-Military government tried unsuccessfully to kick out the illegal Bengali-Muslims in the whole 70s and 80s. Seems every Muslim in this world hates us Burmese since then for resisting violently their islamization.

I was once verbally and almost physically abused by a scrawny-black-Muslim cabbie (a fucking brand-new-immigrant from some African country) in Washington DC when he found out that I his Asian passenger was a Burmese-Buddhist.  If I was not bigger and looking meaner than him he would have killed me back then.

Now apparently Mr. Al Hussein of UNHRC appears to harbour a serious hatred of us Burmese Buddhists and thus acting out accordingly. It is too dangerous for our Burma as he as a chief of Muslim-controlled UNHRC can assert enormous international pressure on our Burma and so accelerate the islamization under the disguise of human rights.

Muslims-and-Socialist-controlled UNHRC is so pro-Muslim and so unfairly left-wing United States had boycotted UNHRC during Bush administration era but the Socialist-Muslim Obama administration reversed that wise and right decision.

So what the hell has been going on at seemingly respectable UNHRC? To answer that 64 million dollar question we have to know what really is UNHRC and who really are running the UN’s so-called Human Rights Commission. You will not be surprised to find Burma’s nemesis OIC is basically running the UNHRC.

The Expose On UNHRC From The Conservative Group Gatestone Institute
The UNHRC was created in 2006 to replace the UN Commission on Human Rights, which had been widely condemned for its bias, especially towards Israel. Ironically, the United Nations had created the state of Israel in 1947 to implement the purposes of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
But rapidly, and increasingly as more non-Western states joined the UN, the UN became viciously anti-Israel, despising what it had itself brought into being; and nowhere is that hatred for Israel more deeply underscored than it was by the Commission and is now by the UNHRC.

Burmese nationalist monk Shin Wirathu.

On its creation, the UNHRC resolved to make Israel the chief focus of its investigations, thereby subjecting one of the world’s few democracies to more intense criticism than any of the world’s most lawless dictatorships. At its first meeting in June 2006, the Council made a review of Israeli human rights abuses a permanent feature of every session in future. A Special Rapporteur was appointed to cover this conflict — the only expert mandate without a year of expiry.

John Dugard, the notorious “Special Rapporteur” on Israel and the Palestinian territories, who worked for the Commission from 2001 to 2008, was given a mandate “to investigate human rights violations by Israel only, not by Palestinians.” It should have been obvious that something was out of kilter. Human Rights Watch, seldom the friend of Israel, saw the imbalance and asked the UNHRC to cover Palestinian abuses as well; the request was ignored. The agenda had been set.

Dugard’s successor, the hardly impartial Richard Falk, took an even harder line against Israel, comparing Israelis to Nazis; justifying suicide bombings as a proper last resort for the Palestinians; calling Israel’s 2008 response to Hamas attacks “war crimes of the greatest magnitude,” (as if he had never heard of the Nazis or the Japanese forces in World War II), and claiming that Israel practiced apartheid in the West Bank.

Earlier, however, Falk had defended violence by anti-Vietnam War protesters; resisted U.S. action everywhere, and in 2013 blamed the Boston Marathon bombings on the U.S. and Israel.

According to UN Watch, Falk “had endorsed the conspiracy theory that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were orchestrated by the US government and not by al-Qaida terrorists.” Even the Palestinian Authority called for his resignation because he sided so strongly with Hamas. For all that, he has exercised a powerful influence on the UNHRC’s policy towards Israel.

Between 2006 and 2014, the UNHRC had condemned Israel in 50 resolutions — more than the rest of the entire world. In twenty-one Special Sessions, resolutions have been made on the human rights situation in seven countries: Syria, Libya, Côte d’Ivoire, Sri Lanka, Congo, Myanmar, and Sudan (relating to Darfur) — eleven resolutions in all, five on Syria. None on Iran, Saudi Arabia, China or any other rights-abusing states. In those same sessions, a total of eight resolutions have been adopted against Israel.
According to Freedom House, there are 88 free countries in the world, 59 partly free, and 48 not free. Israel is one of the free countries in respect of political, religious, and personal freedoms. The ten “worst of the worst” states are: Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The UNHRC has adopted resolutions against only two of those, Syria and Sudan, yet focuses in every session on one of the world’s freest states.
On a planet packed with countries that abuse human rights daily, and that execute, persecute, imprison and torture with impunity, if we are to talk of disproportion — as so many do when talking of Israel’s defensive measures against Hamas — then here is the real thing, paraded in public, packaged for media consumption, and sequestered behind a grinning mask of neutrality, non-partisanship, and self-congratulatory “justice.”

In 2001, UNESCO organized the third World Conference Against Racism. Held in Durban (and often labeled the “Durban Conference”), it became a platform for incendiary attacks on Israel, anti-Semitic demonstrations, and accusations that Zionism is a form of racism.

A subsequent conference held in Geneva (the Durban Review Conference) featured a deeply anti-Semitic and anti-Israel speech by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ten countries boycotted it, and twenty-three EU countries sent only low-level delegations. Yet at its eleventh Special Session, the UNHRC passed resolution 11/12, which included the following decision:
Acknowledging with appreciation the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference, held in the framework of the General Assembly from 20 to 24 April 2009, including paragraph 124 thereof

  1. Decides to extend the mandate of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action for a period of three years

Over the years, it has become clear that the UNHRC is controlled by African and Middle Eastern countries, and is supported by China, Russia and Cuba. Currently, members include (each with a three-year term) 13 African states, 13 Asia-Pacific states, 8 Latin American and Caribbean states, and 8 Western European and other states (the “other” being the United States). 

Of the thirteen African states, two (Burkina Faso and Sierra Leone) have large majority Muslim populations, and two (Côte d’Ivoire and Ethiopia) have large Muslim minorities. Of the thirteen Asia-Pacific states, seven are fully Muslim entities.
When I was growing up, the UN looked as if it were the best thing to come out of the Second World War, a restoration of dignity to the human race after the enormities of the short-lived but destructive Nazi empire, and a guarantor of peace in the future. Then the Cold War set in hard with the specter of nuclear war. The Cuba crisis brought the West close to annihilation and the UN was powerless to do much more than watch as the drama unfolded.
But by then the UN itself had started to change. When it was founded in 1945, it had 51 members. Only ten were non-Western states, and the UN was driven by Western values.
Now, there are 193 member states. 72 of those are (in rough terms) non-Western, and 56 of those are member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which has 57 members in all). All of the OIC states are vehemently anti-Israel, and more than one has, at some point, actually engaged in wars with Israel, or supplied money and arms to Israel’s terrorist enemies, or advanced media lies against Israel and the West, or taught its populations hatred for Jews and Israel, or opposed democratic rights for its citizens.
The UNHRC is the successor to the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights, which started life well by creating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. As we all know, the Declaration is the ideal of human rights values throughout the world, and even though it is more often observed in the breach than in practice, it constitutes a bulwark against infringements and a core text for the values it has introduced to the universal consciousness.
But the Declaration is founded on Western values, most of them derived from Judaeo-Christian ethics, the standards developed during and after the Enlightenment, the Jewish Haskalah [Enlightenment] and the virtues promoted by secular humanism — and that does not go down well with countries that cling to other value systems. Thus, the Declaration, which most of us thought beyond reproach, has been much criticized exactly because it was inspired by Western points of view. Nowhere is this criticism more pronounced than in the Islamic world, a concatenation of some 1.6 billion people.
In 2013, in Conakry, the capital of the African state of Guinea, the OIC stated that Muslim foreign ministers should cut ties with any state that dared to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And many countries follow its lead and refuse to acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s ancient, modern and indivisible capital.
Of all the UN member states, only two — Guatemala and El Salvador — have been willing to extend recognition to a city that has been the focus of Jewish prayers for thousands of years. Not even the U.S., Canada, Australia, or the EU — possibly out of fear of offending the majority countries at the UN, most of which not only fail to share Western values but are only hostile to them — recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Such is the influence Muslim states and anti-democratic states exert even on the liberal democracies.
The introduction of so many Muslim states from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East has warped the manner in which the United Nations reaches its decisions and conducts its affairs. There is now a broad swathe of states that push an agenda of “post-colonialism,” “anti-Western-‘imperialism,'” and hostility to liberal democracies and the original human rights agenda of the UN.

Many of these countries are dictatorships like Iran, Syria, China, or Sudan, and many that are not are far from being democracies in any sense of the word. The OIC has not only attacked the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for being too Western. In 1990, it helped create the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, a revolutionary challenge to human rights standards everywhere and an ideological counterweight to the UN’s Universal Declaration.

Are not human rights indivisible, constant, and beyond reproach? Not according to the OIC and its supporters round the world. Here is a statement from Article 24 of the Cairo Declaration: “[All] the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subjected to the Islamic shari’a” [Islamic religious law].

And here is a passage from Article 25 of that same document: “The Islamic shari’a is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”

This is the same shari’a that sanctions jihad against non-Muslims and regulates the Islamic version of international law, which sanctions attacks on Israel and the killing of Jews. It is the same shari’a that calls for amputation as a punishment for often minor crimes; stoning to death for alleged adultery; the subordination of women; execution for apostasy; capital punishment for homosexuality; the treatment of Jews and Christians as second-class citizens who must pay protection money to stay alive; that permits slavery; punishes, often with death, speech and writing it deems “blasphemous” — and more, until there seems to be not a single human right it does not contradict. According to the Cairo Declaration, whatever is inside shari’a law is a human right, whatever is outside shari’a law is not.
The OIC has made efforts to have the Cairo Declaration (and, through it, shari’a law) be officially adopted by the UNHRC.
In particular, the United Nation Human Rights Council has introduced a resolution to “combat defamation of religions” — meaning internationally to criminalize, with punishment, all forms of speech regarding religion; chiefly any perceived criticism of Islam.
It has been adopted by the UNHRC every year since 1999, and as Resolution 16/18, and promoted for three years in a row, in three-day closed-door meetings in Washington and London, by the United States under the leadership of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.


And within the UNHRC, OIC members, supported by dictatorships and politically radical countries, fight to shield themselves and their allied states from criticism. But never Israel, the only country they condemn at every opportunity. North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Cuba, Nigeria or other of the world’s great tyrannies which have appointed themselves to leadership positions in the UNHRC — the better to embody Orwell’s inversions — are never criticized.