We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
Posts must be:
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
Amnesty is not a news source. They are fundraising, here. The article is devoid of necessary contextual information.
UN Commission executive boards are elected not appointed positions. In some UN bodies, chairs rotate in alphabetical order, but not this one. Maybe there was a midterm vacancy and the seat was filled by an appointment process? What is that process? When is the earliest the seat could be recalled?
I can't find anything about their process.
There's really not much about it, the UN page is here: https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/gender-equality
Mostly they seem to have conferences every decade or so and occasionally declare a "International day for X". Seems like a PR kind of thing to me.
But at any rate it's a bad look for the UN. Indicates a dysfunction in the organization that whatever process they have allowed this to happen. I mean it looks like it's a PR campaign that actually makes them look bad. If Guterres was competent he'd shut the thing down entirely and start another one that didn't suck. But since he's an idiot and he will probably just say it's somehow Israel's fault.
Amnesty is not a news source.
It is providing news.
They are fundraising, here.
Their website has a donate button. This article doesn't ask for donations, although it does advertise another Amnesty report.
What? They literally aren't journalists and this literally isn't journalism. It's click bait to get people to click that donate button.
They may not be journalists, but this certainly is news.
"They campaign against abuses of human rights worldwide."
The information shared seems to be high-quality and relevant to their cause. It certainly isn't "10 bad things about Saudi Arabia, number 7 will shock you".
Yeah it's not serious news for serious people. It's click bait. Not as transparent as your example perhaps, but not much different.
If the article is clickbate then it should be easy to respond to the serious points (for serious people) that:-
Saudi Arabia’s 2022 Personal Status Law, creates gender-based discrimination in
Saudi Arabia’s authorities supress freedom of expression including expressing support (ie tweeting about) for women’s rights.
Saudi Arabia must demonstrate its commitment through concrete actions domestically.
Reality really is beyond satire.
I guess the "freedom of the press" forum leadership spot was already taken?
The UN is a joke
why am I not laughing???
It's a bad joke.
The UN is a captured organization. It no longer serves its purpose, and is now an arm of the oil producing countries state departments more than anything. I don't have a good suggestion for what to replace it with but it's sure AF not worthy of being respected any longer.
The UN's purpose is
"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;"- United Nations Charter, Chapter I: Article 1: Section 1
the other sections reference international friendship and equal rights, but section 1 is the meat f why it exists, the UN was created after two World Wars, it's primary goal is to prevent a third and has so far been overwhelmingly successful.
We've avoided world wars by allowing conflicts to fester around the globe. I'd be curious whether the death toll would be higher had there been a world war, but I guess there's still plenty of people left to die in forgotten places like Sudan so the calculation will have to wait.
Pretty sure the fallout from WW3 is gonna hurt everyone everywhere...war in Sufan is still a pretty long way off from a death toll in the billions.
I don't think peace through submission was the original goal here though is the point
Kinda was. That's why the UK and France have a permanent seat on the UNSC but Germany and Japan categorically do not.
Did it ever serve it's purpose?
I'm young and ignorant, so I don't know what I'm talking about and I'd be open to anyone posting any links for me to learn from. But I remember being in middle and high-school 20 years ago, and learning about the UN's "millennium goals" that they were trying to achieve by 2015. And they were... awesome. Like the real definition of awesome. They were awe-inspiring. And they made me hopeful as a young teen. And I remember when 2015 came and went and they hadn't even come close to meeting those goals. And I remember thinking, okay, well, they'll keep trying. But they didn't keep trying, and in fact I never heard anyone talk about the millennium goals ever again. And then 2016 came, and at least from my American-centric viewpoint, the world has been on a rapid decline since then. And I am honestly so hopeless, like rock bottom hopless, like, I don't know what the future is gonna be, but i can't imagine a good one if we stay on this path, and I don't know what to do, because I'm not a world leader.
I used to have so much respect and admiration for the UN but they're just as garbage as every other power in the world. This post is a fucking joke. My ex partner is from Saudi. I remember excitedly asking him about his opinion and his families opinion when women were first given permission to drive and he was DISGUSTED. Said "this should have happened ages ago, Saudi is using this as a PR move, why should we be happy that women are just now getting this right?"
Anyway. Sorry for the long response to your sarcastic comment. Have a good day. Xoxo.
Sorry that your faith in supranational organisations was so thoroughly squashed. It do be like that though. For a little while, Truman hoped that all nuclear weapons could be put under the control of the UN. Then that went belly up when the soviet union under Stalin learned how to build them. Theres always the IAEA though.
Truman never wanted that. He flew around knowing that his nukes gave him an advantage over the USSR. From this paper, it is clear that Truman wanted to maintain an atomic monopoly and as for Joint Chiefs of Staff, they didn't want to share the nuclear secrets with any organization including the UN.