The UN's Human Rights Council is both an International Joke as well as a huge Embarrassment for anyone who has any sense of hope that it is the UN that will lead the world into some sort of futuristic
'Modern Society'.
This week, two Council "experts" -- an American lawyer and an Indian architect -- accused the Department of Housing and Urban Development of denying the "internationally recognized human rights" of New Orleans residents whose former homes in public housing complexes are scheduled for demolition. The demolitions, say the experts, "could effectively deny thousands of African-American residents their right to return to housing from which they were displaced by the hurricane." - WSJ
Of course, the Council has no problem with whole villages being burned to the ground in the Darfur region of Sudan. Prison camps in North Korea. Nor did they have problems with Cuba, Russia, China and whoever else you could group with them. The story also notes that the Council was silent when Zimbabwe bulldozed down the slums in their capital in 2005 leaving hundreds of thousands homeless to this day. So where do they come up with this idiotic idea that displaced people on welfare have to be returned to the same homes they had prior to the hurricane, which by the way just happened to be located in an area prone to flooding. This housing was provided by the Government on their terms. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government to make other arrangements when it is no longer possible to continue under the old arrangement. This is what people not on welfare have had to do after Katrina.
Of course, the only way that this would be some sort of human rights crime would be if the Government forced these people to return to public housing. This is what happens in other countries, where the poor are intentionally segregated or isolated. The US Government has not done that, instead offering to transport people all over the country for a chance at a fresh start. While I guess it is too early to do a study, I bet over time it will turn out that the New Orleans flood will have had an overall beneficial effect on the poor, mainly for getting them out of their high crime and unemployment areas to other areas of the country where it is easier to be self-sufficient. Until moving, the only life they knew was in these 'bad' neighborhoods. This makes them a victim of their own experiences. If your window has always had bars on them, they why would you think that it is normal for most of the country to not have bars on your windows.
Unfortunately for some, this means giving up the benefits that they have been taking advantage of. Take this recently famous long-time recipient of public housing,
Sharon Jasper. She is one who has been complaining at the 'crappy' assistance she has been getting, but for some reason failed to think that it would be a bad idea to be photographed next to her huge widescreen TV. Wow! That's nice. I wish I had one. At least I can agree with her that it's a real bitch to have to pay for everything each month, including having to leave security deposits. Saving money for expenses does take a little self-responsibility to save up the the required funds. But the rest of us already know that.
This lady even has the nerve to call her home a slum. If anything, the place is way too small for the huge TV she has. It is also interesting to note that she has an apartment full of things. There is no mention if she lost her belongings in the flood or not, but for a person on welfare, she sure has acquired lots of stuff. If she was really needy of cash, she can sell some of her things.
I wonder, just what her public assistance housing looked like before. I bet it was nowhere near as nice. Fighting to get what was probably a slum back probably keeps her busy during the day.
Unfortunately, this is not all her fault. It is the Government that set up a system where a person could go and collect welfare their entire life. Of course people are going to abuse it.
One more thing. Until the rest of the world is sitting in apartments like this, enjoying movies on their large TVs, The UN should just shut up about 'human rights' in the US. Hell, I wonder how many of the Council Member has widescreen TVs?
The world would be a much better place if the third world got anywhere near the support that the poor in the US receive. Take this historical perspective:
In the Soviet Union in 1989 there was rationing of meat and sugar. The average intake of red meat for a Soviet citizen was half of what it had been for a subject of the Czar in 1913. Blacks in apartheid South Africa owned more cars per capita. The only area of consumption in which the Soviets excelled was the ingestion of hard liquor. Two-thirds of the households had no hot water, and a third had no running water at all. According to the government paper, Izvestia, a typical working class family of four was forced to live for 8 years in a single 8x8 foot room, before marginally better accommodation became available. The housing shortage was so acute that at all times 17% of Soviet families had to be physically separated for want of adequate space. A third of the hospitals had no running water and the bribery of doctors and nurses to get decent medical attention and even amenities like blankets in Soviet hospitals was not only common, but routine. Only 15 percent of Soviet youth were able to attend institutions of higher learning compared to 34 percent in the U.S. The average welfare mother in the United States received more income in a month, than the average Soviet worker could earn in a year. - Wikipedia (More Soviet Crimes listed here)
Sadly, things haven't gotten much better for most Russians, other than having much better access to more housing. Not that any UN Council is going to be concerned about it.
Links:
Your U.N. at Work -- III - WSJ
Welfare queen decries New Orleans public housing - Snopes
---
