Poor Helen, the Aussies look like they might drop support for her bid to be boss of the UN


The Aussies look like they are changing their mind in their support of Helen Clark for the replacement of Ban Ki Moon.

Speculation that Australian support for any Helen Clark bid for the top United Nations job could be overturned comes amidst jostling by potential candidates, Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman David Shearer says.

Malcolm Turnbull’s Australian cabinet may overturn a commitment given by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott to back Helen Clark for Secretary General of the United Nations if she becomes a candidate, according to The Australian newspaper.

The paper revealed that Mr Abbott and Prime Minister John Key committed in letters to conduct a joint strategy to promote Ms Clark as the successor to Ban Ki-Moon whose term ends at the end of this year.

But that commitment looks set to be compromised by two factors: Mr Abbott did not consult his Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, before giving the undertaking to Mr Key.

And former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has made it known he is interested in the job.

Read more »

They keep knock-knocking but they can’t come in

Some people have mocked Slovakia calling it Slow-vakia but they seem to have more sense in their little fingers than Germany, Sweden and Denmark. The pressure will build as more and more European Union member countries refuse to do the bidding of the UN. If Slovakia can say no to 802 Muslim migrants with its population of only 5.4 million people, then why can’t John Key say no on behalf of New Zealand’s population of 4.5 million people?

Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico has reiterated his aim to allow no Muslims into the country….Robert Fico said on Thursday that Slovakia would fight against immigration from Muslim countries to prevent attacks like last year’s shootings in Paris and large-scale assaults of women in Germany, which took place on New Year’s Eve.
“We don’t want something like what happened in Germany taking place in Slovakia,” Fico said, adding that the country must “prevent [its] women from being molested in public places.”

Read more »


The UN uses Human rights experts not Military experts to evaluate armed conflict

The UN have based their ongoing condemnation of Israel on reports written by people ill-equipped to evaluate armed conflict, as they are Human rights experts not Military experts. The restrictions which they expect Israel to operate under would make every other army of the world far less effective if they too were forced by the UN to abide by them. From what I have read, Israel would have to be running the most ethical and self-harming defensive campaign I have ever seen, anywhere in the world, now or indeed in history.

They warn the enemy when they are about to attack to give them time to evacuate, to reduce casualties. They famously knock on the roofs of buildings with a loud warning missile before sending in, a minute later, the missile to destroy the building. They send warning text messages to every phone in the area about to be targeted, again to warn that the attack is about to start. They drop warning leaflets as well for those without phones. This is just one aspect of the ‘ethical’ war that they fight yet they are still condemned for war crimes by the UN for what Human rights, not Military experts call unacceptable civilian casualties.

Read more »

Should a Pro-Human rights organisation be actively Pro-Abortion?


Amnesty International was founded to advocate for the rights and freedom of prisoners of conscience.Today, Amnesty’s website states that: “Through our detailed research and determined campaigning, we help fight abuses of human rights worldwide. We bring torturers to justice. Change oppressive laws. And free people jailed just for voicing their opinion.”

Even though that is Amnesty International’s stated aim they are actively campaigning to legalise abortion in Christian countries across the world. This month they released an ad starring actor Liam Neeson to push for the introduction of abortion in Ireland

Read more »

Helen Clark wants to be President of the World

Hate or loathe her, honest political opponents have to at least respect Helen Clark.  And perhaps enough will do so to make her the top boss at the United Nations.

By this time next year, the prospect of Helen Clark succeeding Ban Ki-moon as head of the United Nations should be clear.

Though the former New Zealand Prime Minister has been careful not to declare her hand, her name appears high on the list of potential candidates whenever the post is publicly discussed.

Clark mused about the idea in an interview last year when she was asked if she wanted the job. She replied: “If there’s enough support for the style of leadership that I have, it will be interesting.”

This week, her office offered the party line. Her spokeswoman, Christina LoNigro, told the Weekend Herald by email: “United Nations Development Program Administrator Helen Clark is very happy in her current position as the head of the UN’s development activities, and has no further comment.”

Clark’s successor at the Beehive, John Key, got on the phone when Clark drew up a CV for the UNDP role after Labour’s defeat in November 2008. On April 17, 2009, nine days after resigning from Parliament, Clark was in New York being sworn in to her US$450,000 UNDP job.

The post, number three in the UN hierarchy, put her in charge of a sprawling agency with offices in 170 countries and territories, a US$5 billion budget and a high-profile platform. Despite his different political stripe, Key has pledged to back Clark if she wants a crack at the Secretary-General’s job.

If we can leave her domestic politics to one side, she’s definitely punching above her weight and is continuing to put New Zealand on the map.  Pity it is for the huge black hole of public money that is the UN, but let’s not get catty about it.

So far Helen has pretty much achieved everything she set her mind to.   It won’t surprise me at all when she leads the UN one day, and I do believe we should be behind this in a non-partisan way.

There will also be other benefits – the UN is a much bigger trough, so we can hope it will attract ambitious lefties that would otherwise mess up our local politics by providing a credible opposition.

A fourth, and arguably the most important, was not approached, partly because Eyley says she was told it would be pointless. That person was Heather Simpson, who got on board with Clark 30 years ago and has ridden shotgun with her ever since, though she has barely uttered a public peep. Known as “H2”, Simpson was hired from Otago University where she taught economics.

Her style is described in the book by Sir Michael Cullen, who worked with Simpson at Otago and was deputy prime minister to Clark from 2002 until 2008. Cullen says big decisions were often a three-way thing between the leader, himself and Simpson.

“Heather was often the one who went off to see whether various members of the caucus’ kneecaps needed a degree of ventilation …”

Whatever the true source of Helen’s power, you can’t deny the result.


– Andrew Stone, A newspaper


Would you trust the UN to control the Internet?


Everything the UN does turns to custard, except profligate waste and spending money, they are world champions at that.

Now there is a proposal for the UN to take over control of the internet.

It may not have intended to, precisely, but the United Nations just took sides in the Internet’s most brutal culture war.

On Thursday, the organization’s Broadband Commission for Digital Development released a damning “world-wide wake-up call” on what it calls “cyber VAWG,” or violence against women and girls. The report concludes that online harassment is “a problem of pandemic proportion” — which, nbd, we’ve all heard before.

But the United Nations then goes on to propose radical, proactive policy changes for both governments and social networks, effectively projecting a whole new vision for how the Internet could work.

Under U.S. law — the law that, not coincidentally, governs most of the world’s largest online platforms — intermediaries such as Twitter and Facebook generally can’t be held responsible for what people do on them. But the United Nations proposes both that social networks proactively police every profile and post, and that government agencies only “license” those who agree to do so.

“The respect for and security of girls and women must at all times be front and center,” the report reads, not only for those “producing and providing the content,” but also everyone with any role in shaping the “technical backbone and enabling environment of our digital society.”

How that would actually work, we don’t know; the report is light on concrete, actionable policy. But it repeatedly suggests both that social networks need to opt-in to stronger anti-harassment regimes and that governments need to enforce them proactively.

Read more »

I really don’t know what to make of this


Credit: AAP

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are reportedly set to adopt a Syrian orphan.

The pair are already parents to three adopted children – Maddox from Cambodia, Zahara from Ethiopia and Pax from Vietnam – as well as three biological children, daughter Shiloh and twins Vivienne and Knox.

But following a recent trip to Syria in her capacity as UN ambassador, Angelina is said to have decided to once again extend her “rainbow family” by adopting a refuguee. Read more »

Would you support a Rape support centre headed by a rapist?

If you wouldn’t support a Rape support centre headed by a rapist why on earth would you or any country support the United Nations?

In the topsy turvey world we live in we now have an organisation dedicated to human rights headed by a country that is famous for its human rights abuses. This is the same Islamic country that has taken exactly ZERO Muslim refugees but from its position of power as the head of the Human Rights Panel will be telling Christian countries not only to adhere to quotas set by them but will be telling them that they are not allowed to take only Christians. Yes, the country that helps no one will be telling other nations who are helping at great personal cost to their countries’ safety and economy that they are not allowed to pick and choose who they help!

It’s a sad comment on our world that oil continues to trump basic human rights principles.”

– UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer

Read more »

UN has solved the refugee crisis: it’s re-labelled them as migrants

It is always good to check out any change in language.  One of the biggies is when global warming turned into climate change.   We have another major shift on our hands as the UN and the Media Party realises their “refugee” approach doesn’t stack up.  Refugees are now migrants.  Problem solved.

Hungary has come under mounting criticism as regional neighbours joined the UN in blasting its use of water cannon and tear gas against migrants as “unacceptable” and “unbecoming”.

Greece, Croatia and Serbia, all of whom are under mounting pressure as Europe struggles with its biggest migration crisis since World War II, had harsh words for Budapest’s treatment of migrants at its southern border on Wednesday (local time).

But Hungary brushed off the criticism, with Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto describing the world’s reading of the events as “bizarre and shocking”.

Hours after the clashes, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he was personally “shocked” to see how the refugees and migrants were being treated.

“It’s not acceptable,” he said.

Since when is a sovereign nation to be criticised for protecting itself, its citizens, its interests from an invasion of unwanted people?    Read more »

John Key buckles under pressure, as he does

Political parties – including the government’s allies ACT, United Future and the Maori Party – are calling for the refugee quota to be lifted in response to the growing crisis in Europe as people flee the conflict in Syria.

The quota of 750 refugees a year was set 28 years ago and is scheduled to be reviewed next year, but Mr Key suggested on Thursday action could be taken sooner.

“We’re not ruling out looking at whether there’s more we can possibly do earlier,” he told reporters.

“But we would want to get good advice that meant if we were to make any decisions, we could back that up with the level of support and assurances that we give other refugees who come to New Zealand.

“We’d also want to be absolutely sure that was the right thing to do.”

The hard “No” is now a “No… for now, with conditions, maybe”.   Read more »