The UK Telegraph reports that the United Nations has now inserted itself into the Trayvon Martin case:
UN Human Rights chief Navi Pillay has called for an “immediate investigation” into the circumstances surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black teen who was shot dead by a volunteer neighbourhood watchman in Florida.
Ms Pillay made the comments about the controversial case at a press conference in Barbados, as she wrapped up a three-day visit to the Caribbean island nation.
“As High Commissioner for Human Rights, I call for an immediate investigation,” she said.
“Justice must be done for the victim. It’s not just this individual case. It calls into question the delivery of justice in all situations like this.”
Of course, we’re talking about the kind of cosmic “justice” that has absolutely nothing to do with “the law,” especially not our benighted American laws:
Ms Pillay expressed shock that Zimmerman was not arrested right away, and expressed concern about Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows the use of deadly force in situations where there is a belief of a threat.
“The law should operate equally in respect of all violations. I will be awaiting an investigation and prosecution and trial and of course reparations for the victims concerned,” Ms Pillay said.
Well, at least she’s willing to wait and see how the investigation and prosecution and trial and reparations work out. Incidentally, Stand Your Ground laws do not “allow the use of deadly force in situations where there is a belief of a threat.” Was it too much to ask the Telegraph writers to Google the concept before writing about it?
William Bigelow at Breitbart.com took a look at Pillay’s human-rights resume:
According to Freedom House, between September 2008, when she became the Human Rights Chief, and June 2010, Pillay made no comment whatsoever on the victims in 34 countries rated “Not Free.” Some of the countries not criticized were: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Vietnam.
That’s quite a rogues’ gallery for Pillay to ignore! And it took a lot of work for her to ignore them, because Angola, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia are currently members of the U.N. Human Rights Council. They’ll be losing Cuba and Saudi Arabia – considered among “the world’s worst human rights abusers” by Freedom Watch – over the summer, as their terms run out. According to a recent article in CNS News, Pakistan and Venezuela will be among the nations looking to pick up their seats.
When Iranian demonstrators were abused violently by the Iranian government’s forces following the June 2009 presidential elections, Pillay refrained for three months from commenting even though video existed of demonstrators being killed; she only mentioned the matter as part of her traditional opening speech at the UN Human Rights Council session in September 2009. She did not give any statement dealing directly with the matter. And when she did speak, it was only in an “unprecedented effort to engage” with the Muslim world. While she did raise some human rights concerns, she praised Iran’s progress instead of naming violence that had been recorded or current violations.
The pattern of do-nothingness continued. In July 2010, two renowned human rights lawyers, Haytham al-Maleh and Muhanad al-Hasani were jailed for criticizing the Syrian authorities on human rights grounds. In March 2010, the Syrian military detained Kurdish leader Abdel Hafez Abdel and journalists, bloggers and writers for exposing Syria’s corruption. But Pillay did not respond at all. In addition, Pillay was a staunch defender of the falsified Goldstone Report which ripped Israel and also questioned whether the United States had the legal right to kill Osama Bin Laden.
In 2011, the United States, Canada, Israel, the Czech Republic, Italy and the Netherlands announced a boycott of Durban III, the UN meeting to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the first Durban conference, where Israel was targeted for vilification. Pillay tried to block further countries boycotting the event, and claimed that the boycotts were a “political distraction.”
(Emphases mine, because damn.) I can certainly see why we’d value the input of such an unblinking champion of human rights on a difficult American legal matter. Hopefully it won’t distract her from other pressing matters, such as monitoring that “cease-fire” in Syria.
This is part of the price we pay for treating the United Nations like a serious organization with moral authority. It is nothing of the kind, and never has been. It’s a charade that obliges civilized nations like the United States to pretend that an isolated criminal case in Florida is more distressing than the bloody harvesting of dissidents by dictatorial regimes.