My god. A trite expression, no doubt, in these sophisticated times, but there's a double and even a triple irony here.
Firstly, Britain was the last colonial power to hold sway in Sudan, up until 1956. Secondly, as with the case in terms of Belgium/Rwanda, Belgium being the final colonial power vis-a-vis Rwanda, neither the E.U. nor the last ruling colonial power has substantially intervened to help foreclose the premeditated policies of genocide, murder, mayhem, rape, etc. that has transpired. It is no doubt a too facile judgement to assume Belgium, Britain, the E.U., etc. might have easily or readily foreclosed such murderous and perverse activity; but it's nonetheless an authentically shameful occurence that there was not so much as a military or other forces at the ready to even accomplish the task. Nonetheless, the "peace" lovers among the Left in Belgium and elsewhere no doubt give themselves a pat on the back for their "moral" ideals, i.e. a self-exculpatory and deeply shameful apathy and resignation posing as profoundly chin-pulling moral gravitas. Shame is, precisely, the right word.
Secondly, Britain has recently celebrated its 200th anniversay, thanks to William Wilberforce and Co., of the abolition of the slave trade. They deserve much congratulations, not that it wasn't a struggle for Wilberforce in some respects. Much that has occurred in the case of Sudan has involved slavery, especially so during the earlier struggle in southern Sudan.
Thirdly, there's an irony in the fact that while these refugees are being sent back to Sudan, Britain, in the spirit of Melanie Phillips' Londonistan, has in turn opened its arms to Jihadist/salafist polities to a notorious degree.
Fourthly, there is also an irony vis-a-vis the U.N. If Britain, for whatever reason, does not have the institutional, procedural, legal, etc. wherewithall to more conscientiously allow for these refugees, then the U.N. should be able to act as a conduit to find some geographical location where these refugees can be relocated for purposes of a safe-haven. Perhaps the UN "human rights" council could take a few days off from worrying over Israel and concern itself with some real, some concrete human rights concerns.
I'm not going to hold my breath though; after all the U.N. is more and more obviously a facade for authentically shameful and even malevolent actions, and inactions, to be stamped with the officious imprimatur of moral/ethical earnestness and gravitas. Yet Hollywood, and still other PR machines, applaud the goings on at Turtle Bay. Glamor and power represent the facade, and it's a facade that sells.
And no, that's not too harsh. It's a generalization, yes, but it's not too harsh.
Thought you might be interested in this piece which refutes Mahmood Mamdani's claim that there is no genocide taking place in Darfur. Also check the link to the London Review of Books which has further comments on the Mamdani article.
There's so much lip service given to human rights and multiculturalism - racism and xenophobia are quite rightly despised - yet, confronted with an opportunity to help people who are truly suffering - what happens?
This is appallingly reminiscent of what happened to the Jewish people during and after the Holocaust. Ships of refugees fleeing Europe were blockaded, some within sight of Haifa harbor. Many nations refused to help including the US - the story of the St. Louis is a mark of shame to this day. Other ships, like the Struma, were sunk.
After the Holocaust, the Bevin government maintained the blockade and actually fired upon refugee ships and forced survivors back to Europe - where pogroms continued after the camps were liberated.
It's a horrifying story, one which the world has apparently forgotten.
There have been several genocides since the Holocaust but as the UN Watch tries to point out, having the speech stricken from the UN records for their pains, "human rights" apparently don't matter unless the violator is Israeli. REAL genocides, ethnic cleansings, maimings and rapes, real apartheid and even slavery continue today - but the UN's human rights organization focuses almost exclusively on Israel.
Now, the British are going to the UN to see if they can get their kidnapped sailors back from Iran. Maybe the UN will also help get the three Israeli soldiers, kidnapped from Israeli soil as their fellows were murdered, home to their families.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
My god. A trite expression, no doubt, in these sophisticated times, but there's a double and even a triple irony here.
Firstly, Britain was the last colonial power to hold sway in Sudan, up until 1956. Secondly, as with the case in terms of Belgium/Rwanda, Belgium being the final colonial power vis-a-vis Rwanda, neither the E.U. nor the last ruling colonial power has substantially intervened to help foreclose the premeditated policies of genocide, murder, mayhem, rape, etc. that has transpired. It is no doubt a too facile judgement to assume Belgium, Britain, the E.U., etc. might have easily or readily foreclosed such murderous and perverse activity; but it's nonetheless an authentically shameful occurence that there was not so much as a military or other forces at the ready to even accomplish the task. Nonetheless, the "peace" lovers among the Left in Belgium and elsewhere no doubt give themselves a pat on the back for their "moral" ideals, i.e. a self-exculpatory and deeply shameful apathy and resignation posing as profoundly chin-pulling moral gravitas. Shame is, precisely, the right word.
Secondly, Britain has recently celebrated its 200th anniversay, thanks to William Wilberforce and Co., of the abolition of the slave trade. They deserve much congratulations, not that it wasn't a struggle for Wilberforce in some respects. Much that has occurred in the case of Sudan has involved slavery, especially so during the earlier struggle in southern Sudan.
Thirdly, there's an irony in the fact that while these refugees are being sent back to Sudan, Britain, in the spirit of Melanie Phillips' Londonistan, has in turn opened its arms to Jihadist/salafist polities to a notorious degree.
Fourthly, there is also an irony vis-a-vis the U.N. If Britain, for whatever reason, does not have the institutional, procedural, legal, etc. wherewithall to more conscientiously allow for these refugees, then the U.N. should be able to act as a conduit to find some geographical location where these refugees can be relocated for purposes of a safe-haven. Perhaps the UN "human rights" council could take a few days off from worrying over Israel and concern itself with some real, some concrete human rights concerns.
I'm not going to hold my breath though; after all the U.N. is more and more obviously a facade for authentically shameful and even malevolent actions, and inactions, to be stamped with the officious imprimatur of moral/ethical earnestness and gravitas. Yet Hollywood, and still other PR machines, applaud the goings on at Turtle Bay. Glamor and power represent the facade, and it's a facade that sells.
And no, that's not too harsh. It's a generalization, yes, but it's not too harsh.
Thought you might be interested in this piece which refutes Mahmood Mamdani's claim that there is no genocide taking place in Darfur. Also check the link to the London Review of Books which has further comments on the Mamdani article.
There's so much lip service given to human rights and multiculturalism - racism and xenophobia are quite rightly despised - yet, confronted with an opportunity to help people who are truly suffering - what happens?
This is appallingly reminiscent of what happened to the Jewish people during and after the Holocaust. Ships of refugees fleeing Europe were blockaded, some within sight of Haifa harbor. Many nations refused to help including the US - the story of the St. Louis is a mark of shame to this day. Other ships, like the Struma, were sunk.
After the Holocaust, the Bevin government maintained the blockade and actually fired upon refugee ships and forced survivors back to Europe - where pogroms continued after the camps were liberated.
It's a horrifying story, one which the world has apparently forgotten.
There have been several genocides since the Holocaust but as the UN Watch tries to point out, having the speech stricken from the UN records for their pains, "human rights" apparently don't matter unless the violator is Israeli. REAL genocides, ethnic cleansings, maimings and rapes, real apartheid and even slavery continue today - but the UN's human rights organization focuses almost exclusively on Israel.
Now, the British are going to the UN to see if they can get their kidnapped sailors back from Iran. Maybe the UN will also help get the three Israeli soldiers, kidnapped from Israeli soil as their fellows were murdered, home to their families.