standing in it.
- Original Message -
From: Laurie Forde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] Re: The Canberra Times: Row over protocol on
torture victims
> Very true, Sandy.
>
> Problems seem to arise
rs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] Re: The Canberra Times: Row over protocol on
torture victims
> Yes (or, at least, OTHER issues, if not bigger!) One of the better
> arguments in favour of having a Bill of R
?
- Original Message -
From: Sandy Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] Re: The Canberra Times: Row over protocol on
torture victims
> Tim, I could be wrong, but my understanding of the UN
> co
Hi Trudy,
You're right, and I take the general point - withholding money can be
another way of influencing outcomes. It is also true that US hasn't paid
its regular fees for a number of years; however, it does contribute
voluntary funding to particular bodies such as UNESCO and it has provided
l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But who does fund the UN? The sovereign states, or some of them. The US
> for one has said that if we pay the bills we expect them to do what we say.
> That's almost a direct quote from a former US ambassador to the UN, though I
> don't have the ref to hand. The US
Hi Laurie,
Interesting comments - I've interspersed a few in return.
Laurie wrote:
>Very true, Sandy.
>
>Problems seem to arise when we are unprepared to recognise or unable to
>understand that others also have the same rights.
>
>Hence the necessity to not only have a Bill of Rights but also b
- Original Message -
From: "Sandy Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] Re: The Canberra Times: Row over protocol on
torture victims
>
>
> > Thanks a lot, Sandy. I
> Thanks a lot, Sandy. I'll do some research on some other points - the
> UN site isn't much help actually, well, so far. I guess I'm also
> interested in the idea that the UN should be some sort of court appeal
> over and above those in any given state. We used to do that to the
> Privy Coun
Thanks a lot, Sandy. I'll do some research on some other points - the UN
site isn't much help actually, well, so far. I guess I'm also interested in
the idea that the UN should be some sort of court appeal over and above
those in any given state. We used to do that to the Privy Council in
Engla
Tim, I could be wrong, but my understanding of the UN
conventions on human rights to which Australia is a signatory is
that individuals can use them to appeal to the relevant UN
committee if they believe that the Australian government has not
fulfilled its obligations under the convention. S
>Hi Tim,
>
>Surely it is terrible that a government would return someone to a place
>where they claim they were tortured without first ensuring that any such
>claims are false.
Hi Laurie - yeah, it is beyond obvious that it is, if, as you say, the claim
is true. My question is really to do w
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] Re: The Canberra Times: Row over protocol on
torture victims
> Brooke wrote, referring to the article below:
>
>
> >This is really terrible!
>
>
> My question is, why? I am showing my i
Brooke wrote, referring to the article below:
>This is really terrible!
My question is, why? I am showing my ignorance of the protocol in question
but would appreciate if someone could explain its function and therefore why
the govt's behaviour is terrible - I don't find any self-evident expl
This is really terrible!
>>> "Trudy Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/06/00 10:15am >>>
The Canberra Times
Tuesday, 5 September, 2000
Row over protocol on torture victims
By ROSS PEAKE
Political Correspondent
Australia is considering withdrawing from another United Nations
convention - on t
14 matches
Mail list logo
