> >Jeroen wrote:
> >[Amnesty Internation] is a highly-respected organization with a huge
> >number of supporters around the world; most governments and millions of
> >people agree with them. Now you dare saying that all those people (and AI
> >itself) have a wrong interpretation of the UDoHR, and your interpretation
> >is the only right one. What a crap.
>
>John D.G. replied:
>I am just pointing out that AI has a position that represents their own
>particular political views on this subject. If AI's position was the
>position of the UN, I would think that the UN would have amended the UDHR
>to reflect such.
>
I think the statement that "most governments" agree with AI is overstating
the issue. Most governments agree with *some parts* of what AI says and
stands for, including the U.S. But I doubt that *any* government agrees
with 100% of what *any* organization states, be that organization AI or the
UN.
Just because AI believes something doesn't make it right, and certainly
doesn't make it UN policy. I'm not saying that I think AI is wrong, mind
you. I'm still of two minds regarding the death penalty, although I'm
leaning towards being opposed to it.
What makes something UN policy is what the UN says about it. By the way,
just for the record, see this page from the UN website:
http://srch1.un.org:80/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=991157482&view=unsearch&numhitsfound=330&query=death%20penalty&&docid=430&docdb=pr1997&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVANCE&operator=adj&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
which says in part:
>Following lengthy debate and a series of rejected amendments, the
> >Commission adopted a resolution calling upon all States parties
>to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that had >not
>yet done so to consider acceding to the Covenant's Second
>Optional Protocol, aiming at abolition of the death penalty; urged >all
>States still maintaining the death penally to comply fully with
>international standards in imposing capital punishment; called upon >such
>States to restrict progressively the number of offenses for
>which it could be imposed; and called upon them to consider >suspending
>executions with a view to completely abolishing the death
>penalty. The measure was passed by a roll-call vote of 27 in favour >and 11
>opposed, with 14 abstaining.
Which says that the UN is against the death penalty, at least as per their
Second Optional Protocol. John's original statements were based on the UN
Declaration on Human Rights, which does not say that the UN is against the
death penalty. According to the following URL:
http://srch1.un.org:80/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=991158427&view=unsearch&numhitsfound=2&query=International%20Covenant%20on%20Civil%20and%20Political%20Rights%20second%20optional%20protocol&&docid=546&docdb=pr1999&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVANCE&operator=adj&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
this Second Optional Protocol was not adopted until 1991 (see section 5 of
the document). So the original declaration of Human Rights has nothing at
all to say about the death penalty, although the UN as a whole seems to be
pretty clear about being against the death penalty as of 1991.
I was unable to find a copy of the Second Optional Protocol itself online,
although that may be due to my lack of patience.
Reggie Bautista
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
