Radio host Kevin Barrett, who also questions the Holocaust, said that 9/11 was “a false flag attack designed to launch a war on Islam,” and asked Falk if, “given the fact that four out of five Muslims say it was an inside job, we can approach this from a human rights perspective, saying that it’s Islamophobic to accept the official story without questioning it. ” Falk answered: “Yes, you can certainly argue that.”

UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer called on UN chief Ban Ki-moon, UN Human Rights Council president Remigiusz Henczel, High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay to reprimand Falk.

Ban condemned Falk in 2011 for similar remarks, and in April for his remarks on the Boston Marathon bombings. However, the UNHRC president and Ms. Pillay have so far refused to criticize Falk, and both the council and Pillay’s office continue to support his activities.

• Falk told Truth Jihad Radio, where he has appeared several times before despite objections, that many who question “the official version of 9/11″ are being “intimidated,” making them “reluctant” to “raise these suspicions about how to understand that transformative event that has been used to project American power around the world and to engage in these very destructive and dysfunctional wars.”

• Falk once again praised as “essential” the work of David Ray Griffin, the leading author of 9/11 conspiracy books alleging a Washington “inside job.”

• Host Kevin Barrett  — who asked “whether the Boston bombings might not be another false flag attack,” saying “there are all sorts of unanswered questions about Boston, just as there are about 9/11″ — hailed Falk as “one of the most important people that we could ever possibly listen to,” “one of my favorite periodic radio guests,” and “one of the most effective people fighting the good fight today.”

• After Truth Jihad’s Barrett  said that “about 80 percent of the world’s Muslims—and I’m one of them—view 9/11 as a false flag attack designed to launch a war on Islam,” and “that perspective is being systematically suppressed,” and asked “How can you change the situation so that the more than 1 billion Muslims in the world who are convinced that 9/11 was a false flag attack will actually be listened to?” Falk praised this “patient effort to tell the truth.”

• Falk has now admitted that his call to “investigate” UN Watch was designed as retaliation for the NGO’s submission of a Draft Resolution calling for Falk to be removed. Falk told Truth Jihad Radio that:

“There is a meeting in Geneva, in 10 days or so, where this “UN Watch,” this Zionist organization, is trying to introduce a resolution to have me dismissed from my UN position. And if the U.S. government or Canada agrees to sponsor such a resolution then I’d have to confront that directly in the course of the meeting. My own initiative is to question the credentials of this supposed NGO, that does no substantive work, and spends all its time mounting smear tactic, smear campaigns directed at people like myself.”

• In 2010, the Palestinian Authority itself tried to dismiss Falk, complaining of his support for Hamas.

• Last week, the British government accused Falk of inciting anti-Semitism.

Condemnatory Country-Specific Resolutions:

The Deteriorating Situation of Human Rights in the Syrian Arab Republic, and the recent killings in Al-Qusayr (A/HRC/23/L.1)
Submitted by: Qatar, Turkey and the United States.
Vote Result: Adopted, May 29 2013, by a vote of 36 votes in favour, 1 vote against (Venezuela), and 8 abstentions (Angola, Congo, Ecuador, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Philippines, and Uganda), as orally amended.

The Situation of Human Rights in the Syrian Arab Republic and the need to grant acces to the Commission of Inquiry (A/HRC/23/L.29)
Submitted by: United States, UK, Turkey, Qatar, and Kuwait.
Vote Result: Adopted, June 14 2013, by a vote of 37 votes in favour, 1 vote against (Venezuela), and 9 abstentions (Angola, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Philippines, and Uganda), as orally amended.

Situation of Human Rights in Belarus (A/HRC/23/L.18)
Submitted by: Ireland, on behalf of the EU.
Vote Result: Adopted, June 13 2013, by a vote of 26 votes in favour, 3 votes against (India, Kazakhstan, Venezuela) and 18 abstentions (Angola, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, Libya, Mauritania, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Moldova, Sierra Leone, Thailand, Uganda, UAE).

Situation of human rights in Eritrea (A/HRC/23/L.17)
Submitted by: Djibouti, Somalia, and Nigeria.
Adopted: June 14 2013, without a vote, as orally revised.

Non-Condemnatory Country-Specific Resolutions:

Technical Assistance to the Central African Republic in the field of Human Rights (A/HRC/23/L.3)
Submitted by: Gabon, on behalf of the African Group.
Adopted: June 13 2013, without a vote, as orally revised.

Renforcement de la Coopération Technique et Services Consultatifs en Guinée (A/HRC/23/L.4)
Submitted by: Gabon, on behalf the African Group.
Adopted: June 14 2013, without a vote, as orally revised.

Assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights (A/HRC/23/L.11)
Submitted by: UK, Australia, Austria, Djibouti, Somalia, Italy, Sweden, Qatar, Ethiopia, Norway, Turkey, and Yemen.
Adopted: June 14 2013, without a vote, as orally revised.

Technical Assistance and Capacity Building in South Sudan in the field of Human Rights (A/HRC/23/L.24)
Submitted by: Gabon, on behalf of the African Group.
Adopted: June 14 2013, without a vote.

Assistance Technique à la Côte d’Ivoire dans le domaine des Droits de l’Homme (A/HRC/23/L.2 Rev.1)
Submitted by: Gabon on behalf of the African Group
Adopted: June 14 2013, without a vote.

The Human Rights Situation of Muslims in Myanmar (A/HRC/23/L.26)
Submitted by: Pakistan and Myanmar
Adopted: June 14 2013, without a vote, as orally revised.

Noteworthy Thematic Resolutions:

Promotion of the Right to Peace (A/HRC/23/L.21)
Submitted by: Cuba, on behalf of CELAC (The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States).
Vote Requested: The United States.
Vote Result: Adopted, June 13th 2013, with 30 votes in favour, 9 votes against (Austria, Estonia, Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Montenegro, South Korea, Spain, and The United States), and 8 abstentions (India, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Poland, Moldova, Romania, and Switzerland).

The Effects of Foreign Debt and other related International Financial Obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all Human Rights, Particularly Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (A/HRC/23/L.22)
Submitted by: Cub.
Vote Requested: Ireland, on behalf of the European Union.
Vote Result: Adopted, June 13th 2013, with 30 votes in favour, 15 votes against (EU Countries, United States, Switzerland, South Korea, Montenegro, and Japan), and 2 abstentions (Peru and Chile).

Human Rights and International Solidarity (A/HRC/23/L.23)
Submitted by: Cuba
Vote Requested: The United States, Ireland, and The European Union.
Vote Result: Adopted, June 13th 2013, with 32 votes in favour, 15 votes against (EU Countries, Japan, Montenegro, South Korea, Switzerland, and United States), and no abstentions.

Accelerating Efforts to Eliminate all forms of Violence Against Women (A/HRC/23/L.28)
Submitted by: Canada
Adopted: June 14 2013, without a vote, as orally revised.
Notes: Russia submitted 6 amendments to the original resolution, but later withdrew them after the oral revisions were made.

Two months ago, on April 24, we published on this blog the following UK statement that has been sent to reporters:

UK Press Release: Statement on comments by UN Special Rapporteur, Richard Falk – 24 April 2013

The Spokesperson of the UK Mission to the UN said:

‘The UK objects strongly to recent remarks made by UN Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk, linking the Boston bombings to“American global domination” and “Tel Aviv”. This is the third time we have had cause to express our concerns about Mr Falk’s antisemitic remarks.   It is important to the UK that Special Rapporteurs uphold the highest standards in their work and we have twice previously made clear that remarks by Mr Falk were unacceptable.

Well, a skeptic named S. Smith filed a Freedom of Information request with the UK government asking whether UN Watch had accurately reproduced the above statement, and he requested a specific explanation of what London regarded as antisemitic.

Last week, in a June 6th response, the British government explained in detail why they recently condemned the UN’s Richard Falk for antisemitism:

Shortly after the appalling event in Boston, Her Majesty the Queen, the Prime Minister and Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Ministers offered condolences to the President and the people of America, and our thoughts go out to those victims and their family and friends. Nothing can justify this attack. We therefore strongly objected to the comments by the UN Special Rapporteur in this context that the “United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks.”

The relevant paragraph from Richard Falk’s article for the Foreign Policy Journal reads:

“The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world. In some respects, the United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks, and these may yet happen, especially if there is no disposition to rethink US relations to others in the world, starting with the Middle East”.

In the same article Mr Falk said that “as long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment, those who wish for peace and justice in the world should not rest easy.” We believe this article is resonant of the longstanding antisemitic practice of blaming Jews (through the State of Israel by proxy) for all that is wrong in the world. This is unacceptable.

We do strongly support the work of Special Rapporteurs as they are a vital part of the UN Human Rights System and it is important that they are able to act independently. However we objected strongly to Mr Falk’s remarks and will continue to raise our objections whenever any Special Rapporteur fails to uphold the standards required in his/her work.

The U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky also said that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon rejected Falk’s comments, which could undermine the U.N.’s credibility and work. “The Secretary-General immediately condemned the Boston marathon bombing and he strongly believes that nothing can justify such an attack.”

As a powerful response and rejoinder to Richard Falk’s unprecedented call for a Human Rights Council “investigation” designed to shut down UN Watch, an emergency campaign has been announced with the goal of raising $50,000 to help the vital organization continue — and strengthen — its frontline position fighting bigots, dictatorships and double standards at the United Nations. To contribute, please click here.

To date, almost half of the goal has been achieved, being $22,766. We hope to raise the remainder before the UNHRC session ends on June 15.

Donations and powerful expressions of support for UN Watch have poured in from hundreds of friends around the world, including people from:

Abbotsford, Albuquerque, Atlanta, Auckland, Berkeley, Bethesda, Beverly Hills, Boulder, Bronx, Brookline, Brussels, Buffalo, Cape Town, Caracas, Caulfield, Chicago, Cincinnati, Concord, Dollard-des-Ormeaux, Dover Heights, New South Wales, Australia, Edgware, Englewood, Falls Church, Forest Hills, Fort Lee, Geneva, Haifa, Hampton, Harrow, Hershey, Hillcrest, Hoboken, Hollywood, Houston, London, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Manchester, Marseille, Merrick, Miami, Monsey, Mercer Islamd, Nahariya, Nanaimo, New Rochelle, New York, Olympia, Palo Alto, Paris, Phoenix, Princeton, Raanana, Richmond, Sacramento, San Diego, San Rafael, Sandy Springs, Santa Barbara, Santa Rosa, Saratoga, Scarborough, Scarsdale, Seattle, Shaker Heights, Stamford, Stanford, Stanford, Sunny Isles Beach, Teaneck, Tel Aviv, The Hague, Thornhill, Toronto, Vancouver, Washington, West Bloomfield, West Orange, Winnipeg, Woodland Hills, and Zichron Yaacov.

Thank you, Mr. President.

UN Watch welcomes today’s report by the Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the field of human rights.

Annex 1 lists the 19 countries where human rights advisers have been deployed. One cannot help but notice that these are all located in the South, and in the East. Not a single country from WEOG, the Western group, is included. Yet some stand in clear need of human rights advice and capacity building.

[...]

Another potential beneficiary of human rights advice is Italy. Two weeks ago in Rome, on May 29, more than 50 armed police raided a house in search of a dissident from a foreign country. They did not find him, but they did find his wife and 6-year-old daughter. Both mother and child were swiftly deported to the foreign country, accompanied by its officials, even though that government is known to practice torture against opponents.

Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino has reportedly called this incident irregular. Surely, advice on international human rights law is needed.

The names of the unjustly deported were Alma Shalabayeva, and her daughter Aula; and the country they have dangerously been sent back to is Kazakhstan.  Although recently elected a member of this UN Human Rights Council, it too appears in need of human rights advice.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President.

UN Watch welcomes today’s report by the Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the field of human rights.

Annex 1 lists the 19 countries where human rights advisers have been deployed. One cannot help but notice that these are all located in the South, and in the East. Not a single country from WEOG, the Western group, is included. Yet some stand in clear need of human rights advice and capacity building.

For example, as we meet, one member of this group is experiencing grave challenges in handling peaceful protests. According to that country’s medical association, more than 5,000 people have been wounded. A large number have lost their eyes, injured by water cannons, as well as close-range shots from tear gas canisters and plastic bullets aimed directly at them.

In this regard, the Office of the High Commissioner has recognized an excessive use of force. It could now also offer advice. It could point to the model of a nearby country, which two years ago witnessed its own mass protests. Tents were pitched across the center of its largest city. Hundreds of thousands rallied for social justice. Yet the government’s response was entirely peaceful, leading only to the election of new political parties…

Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Richard Falk has once again disgraced himself. Mr. Falk is once again attacking UN Watch, an NGO led by Canadian Hillel Neuer, and called for it to be investigated. This is McCarthyism in the worse sense of the term. Will the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism inform the House whether the government agrees with Mr. Falk or not?

Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Richard Falk is an embarrassment to the United Nations Human Rights Council. He has praised 9/11 conspiracy theorists repeatedly. He has suggested that the United States provoked terrorist attacks against it. He is now attacking Canadian-led UN Watch. We call on Richard Falk to be fired as a special rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council. He is a disgrace to that body and the United Nations.

Testimony delivered by UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer, UN Human Rights Council’s “Interactive Dialogue with Special Rapporteur Richard Falk,” 10 June 2013.

Mr. Falk, in the first page of your report, you attack my NGO and ask this Council to launch an investigation in order to shut us down.

Does your report allege a crime? No, you simply object to our words. We are the only watchdog at the UN, and we report what you say. In reprisal, you now seek to muzzle our voice, to avoid being held accountable.

The real issue is whether your work, conducted under the banner of human rights, actually exonerates and exculpates the perpetrators of terrorism.

Exhibit A, which I am holding up, is this book by David Ray Griffin, the bible for those who blame America, instead of Al Qaeda, for the 9/11 attacks. Do you deny that this is your name on the front cover, praising the author’s “fortitude,” “courage,” and “intelligence”?

Do you understand why Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, appearing in this room in January 2011, delivered an unprecedented condemnation of a UN expert, when he called your remarks, quote: “preposterous, and an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in that tragic terrorist attack”?

Exhibit B: “The Wandering Who,” a book condemned as antisemitic even by your own top supporter, Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada. Do you deny that, once again, this is your name on the front cover, endorsing it?  Do you understand why the British Foreign Office has officially accused you of racism, on multiple occasions?

Exhibit C:  Your article of two months ago, blaming the Boston terrorist attack—which left more than 300 dead and grievously wounded—on, quote “the American global domination project and “Tel Aviv.” Do you deny justifying the attacks as a form, of quote, “resistance”?

Do you understand why the Secretary-General announced that he rejected your comments, saying they, quote, “undermine the credibility and the work of the United Nations”? And why this condemnation was echoed by Britain, Canada, the U.S., and many others?

When we recently brought all of this to the attention of Human Rights Watch, within 24 hours they removed you from their committee.

Finally, according to a cable revealed by Wikileaks, on February 16, 2009, the Palestinian delegate to this council complained to his US counterpart about your support for Hamas, saying that “he had called Falk personally and asked him to step down, something Falk angrily rejected.”

So, Mr. Falk, please feel free to investigate us — and to investigate the UN Secretary-General; Britain; Canada; the U.S.; Human Rights Watch; and the State of Palestine. Thank you, Mr. President.

UNHRC President Remigiusz Henczel

I thank you, the representative of United Nations Watch. But as I mentioned, there should be no personal attacks against the Special Rapporteur.

—————-

Richard Falk Concluding Remarks (Repeating His Call to “Investigate” UN Watch)

… Finally, the defamatory remarks that were repeated again this morning only underscore the importance of investigating whether a NGO that is accredited to the UN has some kind of responsibility to address the substance of their concerns, and not concentrate on distracting attention from the urgent issues covered in the report.

And what is most distressing is the fact that UN officials have not really protected the Special Rapporteur, or the mandate, in response to such defamation.

And this seems to me to suggest the need—not only in my case, but generally—for Special Rapporteurs to be protected in their efforts to discharge, as conscientiously as they are able to, often under difficult circumstances, the burden of their mandate to protect, to the extent possible, a vulnerable people.

UNHRC President:

Mr. Special Rapporteur, Colleagues, let me remind you all that as per Resolution 5/1 the only criteria for a NGO to participate in the Human Rights Council is that the NGO be in consultative status with ECOSOC. Accordingly, responsibility for NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC is with the NGO Committee of ECOSOC.

Furthermore, I continue encouraging NGOs to discuss issues with appropriate level of dignity and respect. This means and implies that all of us will have to respect and tolerate arguments and ideas expressed by others that may at times be uncomfortable to listen to.

UN Watch: “We do not take this lightly; the UN has a record of suspending or removing NGOs that criticize the worst regimes”

GENEVA, June 6, 2013 – In a scathing and unprecedented attack on a UN-accredited NGO, top UN Human Rights Council official Richard Falk is publicly calling on the 47-nation body to investigate and potentially expel a watchdog organization after it mobilized world leaders—including his own boss, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon—to condemn his comments blaming the Boston Marathon bombings on “the American global domination project” and “Tel Aviv.”

In his just-released annual report, Falk—the controversial human rights monitor tasked by the Council with investigating “Israel’s violations of the principles and bases of international law” in the Palestinian territories—accuses UN Watch, a Geneva-based human rights group that fight antisemitism and anti-Israel bias, with “demeaning” and “defaming” his character, damaging the “credibility,” “effectiveness,” and “substantive intention” of his mandate, all of which “diverts attention from the message” and “shifts public interest away.”

UN Watch, whose draft resolution to remove Falk has been circulated by the United Nations as an official document and will be before the Council when he addresses it on Monday, “categorically rejected Falk’s baseless and pathetic attempt to cast aspersions on our independence.”

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant, wrote Justice Brandeis, and that’s why Falk wants to shut us down—so his despicable abuses can proliferate in the dark,” said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer.

In Falk’s report, as well as in intense lobbying efforts that he conducted this week as reported by UN insiders, the Council official demands that UN Watch “be investigated” to determine whether it qualifies as a genuine NGO.

“We call on UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon to denounce Richard Falk’s McCarthy-style attempt to have rogue regimes conduct a retaliatory ‘investigation’ of UN Watch, as a punishment for successfully exposing his gross misconduct,” said Neuer.

“Falk is dangerously trying to intimidate and silence the UN’s only watchdog group, to grant himself impunity while he continues to exculpate terrorist groups and make other inflammatory remarks that contradict the UN’s founding principles,” said Neuer.

“We are in good company, however, given that Falk’s report also accuses Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of being ‘complicit’ with UN Watch for having condemned his ‘preposterous’ comments, in 2011 and again last month.”

Falk wrote that “it seems important to encourage a greater willingness on the part of senior United Nations officials to defend special rapporteurs subject to such diversionary attacks.”

Falk’s report claims that UN Watch’s “smear campaign” is carried out in “numerous settings, including at the Human Rights Council, as well as university venues where the Special Rapporteur gives lectures.”

The “smears” have been “sent to diplomats and United Nations officials, including the Secretary-General, who has apparently accepted the allegations at face value, issuing public criticism of the Special Rapporteur… with no effort to seek the views of the Special Rapporteur.”

In his report, Falk’s ninth and final recommendation is for the Human Rights Council to “establish a mechanism to support Special Rapporteurs who are subject to defamatory attacks, especially those that divert attention from the substantive human rights concerns relevant to their respective mandates.”

The council can show good faith by removing its notorious agenda item on Israel, the only provision of its kind that requires a special and separate focus on a particular country at every meeting. Not even gross abusers like China, Sudan, or Syria, nor any other country in the world, is subjected to this kind of treatment.

Under that item, in its last session in March, the council adopted six resolutions condemning Israel – while it adopted only four resolutions condeming other countries around the world, one each on Syria, Iran, Myanmar and Sri Lanka. The plight of the vast majority of the world’s victims of gross and systematic violations—from China to Saudi Arabia, Cuba to Zimbabwe—failed to merit a single resolution.

Israel is the only UN member state excluded from the regional group system at the council. The UN must end this violation of basic equality and due process. EU states should enable Israel to join the council’s Western group, to which it was admitted at the UN in New York over a decade ago.

Moreover, the council’s permanent investigator on Israeli violations is mandated by the council to examine only Israel and not Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, or any other Palestinian actor. It’s the only country mandate that examines the actions of only one side, and presumes them to be violations.

The one they chose for the job, Richard Falk, endorses Hamas, praises 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and was just condemned two weeks ago by UN chief Ban Ki-moon, the US, the UK, and Canada for implying the Boston attacks were somehow the fault of the U.S. and Israel.

The United Nations must stop violating its own charter guarantee to respect the equal rights of nations large and small, and the Human Rights Council must respect its own principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity.

Quotes and Key Facts on UNHRC Treatment of Israel

Regional Group Exclusion

• UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on 25 March 1998, said that “Israel [is] the only Member State that is not a member of one of the regional groups…This anomaly should be corrected. We must uphold the principle of equality among all United Nations Member States.”

• UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on 12 December 1999 remarked that “the exclusion of Israel from the system of regional groupings [and] the intense focus given to some of Israel’s actions, while other situations sometimes fail to elicit the similar outrage […] have given a regrettable impression of bias and one-sidedness.”

• Kofi Annan, in regard to Israel’s exclusion from a regional group, said that “we must uphold the principle of equality among Member States. I shall keep encouraging all concerned to find a solution.”

• Late UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio de Mello actively lobbied Ambassadors in Geneva for the inclusion of Israel into the Western group.

• UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on 15 March 2005 spoke of the “need to correct a long-standing anomaly that kep tIsrael from participating fully and equally in the work of the Organization” by including Israel as member of the Western European and Others Group in Geneva.

• Sir Robert Jennings, QC, former President of the International Court of Justice, wrote that “Israel’s exclusion from the regional group system places the UN in breach of its fundamental obligations regarding sovereign equality and is thus illegal… The need now to redress it is urgent.”

Biased Agenda Item and Resolutions

• UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on 20 June 2007 criticized “the Council’s decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range of human rights violations throughout the entire world,” referring to item 7 on the Council’s agenda.

• UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on 25 March 1998 said that “I know that Israelis see hypocrisy and double standards in the intense scrutiny given to some of its actions, while other situations fail to elicit the world’s outrage and condemnations.”

• UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his message to the Human Rights Council on 29 November 2006, expressed the hope that the Council would deal with the Middle East issue “in an impartial way” and “not allow it to monopolize attention at the expense of others where there are equally grave or even graver violations.”

• UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, addressing the Security Council on 12 December 2006, remarked “I believe the actions of some UN bodies may themselves be counterproductive. The Human Rights Council, for example, has already held three special sessions focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I hope the Council will take care to handle the issue in an impartial way, and not allow it to monopolize attention at the expense of other situations where there are no less grave violations, or even worse.”