In a piece of cheek so monumental it beggars belief, the United Nations Human Rights Council has said that the UK must "consider holding a referendum on the desirability or otherwise of a written constitution, preferably republican".
The council has 29 members including Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Sri Lanka. It was the Sri Lankan envoy who raised concerns over the British monarchy. The report said Britain should have a referendum on the monarchy and the need for a written constitution with a bill of rights.
The monarchy costs each adult in Britain only 62p a year, which very few of us would resent. It makes you wonder how much each of us pays to keep MPs in the luxury to which they've accustomed themselves, or how much we all pay to support the (largely British-funded) IPCC global warming conspirators. I bet it's more than 62p.
The monarchy may not serve much useful purpose apart from bringing tourists into London by the thousand, but most of us are rather attached to the old dears. The more senior ones like Mrs.Queen herself and the McDuke of McEdinburgh are magnificently grumpy and therefore deserve our whole-hearted support, while the younger ones keep Sun and Daily Mail readers amused. Even pressure-groups representing taxpayers admit there is no case for getting rid of them, says Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance.
Queen … or President? Hmm … tough choice …
Still, on the face of it - and once you've got your breath back! - there's a certain amount of sense in the suggestion. At least it would confirm to the world and to ourselves what we all know in our hearts, and rarely express. Despite the efforts of the mad mullahs who would like us to become the Islamic republic of Britistan, we could embark on a referendum reasonably confident that the result would be an overwhelming vote for the status quo.
The other bit of the suggestion, that we should have a written constitution including a Bill of Rights, is more interesting. What the ignorant savages from Sri Lanka, Syria and Iran won't know is that we already have a Bill of Rights, and have had for quite a long time. It's called Magna Carta, it was a pretty good document when it was first written, and most of it still makes sense today. The current government in its arrogance has driven a coach and horses through many of our fundamental rights and privileges - mainly to appease or control those same minorities we are now accused of discriminating against - but once David Davis is Prime Minister that'll all be set right, with every single MP who voted in favour of locking British people up for 42 days without charge or trial being tried for treason and condemned to death. Especially the Irish ones.
It's important to see the UN report for what it is. It's just a joke (I wonder what the Iranian is for "you're havin' a laugh, aren't you?"). Some of these monkey republics have got fed up with our press, our politicians and our campaigners being all high and mighty, criticising their political excesses, their dreadful treatment of their own citizens, and their appalling human rights practices.
So they've decided to have a go themselves. I'm sure they don't expect us to take it seriously - after all, they include Cuba with its one-party elections, poverty and rotten human rights record, and Sri Lanka which is not even a proper country but a divided society with armed gangs going round murdering innocent people. Then there's Saudi Arabia which is a monarchy itself (and no referendum, I bet!) and stands accused of abusing British prisoners in its gaols.
The Syrian representatives accuse the UK of discriminating against Muslims. That's the same Syria that has acted for years as puppet-master of the ongoing crisis in Lebanon, actively encouraging the violent anti-Semitic and anti-Christian Muslim militia.
Really you have to feel sorry for Neue Arbeit sometimes. It must be really hard to be accused of "discriminating against Muslims", when you've spent the last ten years bending over backwards to appease them and other minorities to the point where most Englishmen - native-born Englishmen, I mean - feel that it is they who are the actual victims of racial discrimination.
Then there's Iran, whose representative complained about - wait for it! - the UK's record on tackling sexual discrimination!
That's the same Iran whose constitution contains no less than thirteen pieces of anti-woman legislation. These great champions of women's right have executed tens of thousands of women since 1979 when the mullahs took power, mostly for just opposing the régime. The worst kinds of torture are inflicted on female political prisoners including repeated sexual assaults and amputation of body parts.
At least 22 women were sentenced to death by stoning during the eight-year reign of the last president, Ayatollah Khatami. Girls between ages 10 to 17 are the prime victims of sexual slavery - in Tehran alone, 4000 street girls roam the city on a daily basis, subject to sexual and physical violence. Reports indicate that 90% of the runaway girls end up in prostitution or are sold in the Persian Gulf human trafficking market.
Women and girls bear the brunt of Iran's poor economic conditions. 700,000 children aged 10 to 14 work in the black labour market. 67% of the students deprived of education are girls between 11 and 16 years old. Only 11% of Iranian women are employed.
The World Health Organization has placed Iran as 3rd ranking country for deaths by suicide, and an Iranian governmental official, Heyran Pournajaf, is on record as saying that 70% of suicides are women, 9 out of 10 of them young women between 17 and 35.
But hey, just so long as they're standing up against the UK's poor record on tackling sexual discrimination …
So, all in all, a bit of a nerve from the United Nations, and one that we will of course ignore. We've got more important fish to fry at the minute - notably the way in which the human rights of our white, Anglo-Saxon majority are under attack from our own government, something the UN report didn't mention, strangely.
But it does raise a more serious issue, doesn't it? Don't we have to ask why we continue to belong to and support an international organisation that permits its committees to indulge in such meaningless and mischievous posturing? Is this any way for serious world leaders to behave? What good has the UN ever done us? And do we, in the UK, want any part of it?
The GOS says: I think a campaign may be beginning to take shape here … Britain out of the UN, out of the EU, and David Davis for Prime Minister …
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2008 The GOS
This site created and maintained by PlainSite