Canada & USA block UN proposed universal right to Water.
international |
rights, freedoms and repression |
news report 
Saturday March 29, 2008 17:55
by shapeshiftin reptile
Since the international water conference in Dublin in 1992, the international community has continued to refuse (institutionally) to recognise the access to water as a human right, i.e. as a universal, impartible and untouchable right. A proposed resolution by Germany & Spain to include water as a universal right through the framework of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva
has been blocked by Canada & the USA. This might be because Canada has lots of H2O as the clean bit of the fluid is called by first worlders once they take out the oestrogen, cryptosporidium, residual heavy metals & artificial colourings. Third worlders have many words for water & don't often worry about the oestrogen, cryptosporidium & heavy metals due to the cholera thing which can sometimes worries them more than the lack of artificial colourings in their water which often gives it a brownish or greyish tint......This is quite normal.......Honestly it is.
I believe we're already boycotting Canada for being nasty to seal cubs & Quebeckers. But I'd suggest making a mental note to refuse Canadian water once we've gone past peak oil, peak bread & peak seal cub juice.
That day is coming soon.
Meanwhile every 9 minutes a child, a human child, (whether an angelic creature or hellspawn head lice ridden anti-social langer) dies of thirst.
Thirst is the technical term for the bodily sensation caused by not having H2O. Many Europeans think it has something to do with alcohol or tea. This is quite normal. We call it residual memory. The European still remembers what water looks like with no artificial colourings. Brown like Tea or Amber like Beer. Canadians are easy to spot. They always put a Canadian flag on their luggage so people don't think their representative of the human rights abusing warlike people of the USA. The USA has less than 2 years left of deep water aquifiers for their arable land, a technical term used by amateur geologists to describe underground water which is tapped to help grow crops like wheat. You make bread from wheat & water. The USA opposed the resolution too. This will be the second time in a century they attempt to exterminate their farming population. It's easier to blame Canada for this than the USA though because we already blame the USA for too may things & people are beginning to notice & think we've a chip on our shoulder. So to be fair to the US, I'll cite their newspaper "The International Herald Tribune" :-
every 20 seconds a child dies from diseases associated with a lack of clean water
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/21/opinion/edban.php
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/151958-UN-rejects-wat...right
http://www.thestar.com/article/349256
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19590.htm
background data -
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/rightowater/en/
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-122345-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
http://www.protos.be/protosh2o/water-in-the-world/water...right
http://www.righttowater.org.uk/code/HumanRights.asp
http://www.freshwateraction.net/
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/a5458d1d1bbd713fc125...ument
Since you tried to understand my article, how many children do you think have died from thirst?
Comments (4 of 4)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4We need to distinguish between Canadian people and the actions of their government; is there a way to lobby Canada government on this matter?
I think that's at the heart of this. People cannot agree to to something when they KNOW that the other person who is asking for the agreement has an entirely different understanding of what agreement would mean.
Let's say "person X has a right to Y" (suppose we agree to that)
A) Do we all agree that means "no person Z may take Y away from X"?
Yes, I think we can safely say that we are agreed that this is a direct consequence of "person X has a right to Y"
B) Do we all agree that means "if person X lacks Y and it is in the ability of person Z to supply Y to X then person Z is OBLIGATED to do so"?
No, we are not all agreed. PLEASE -- I am not asking whether you also accept this statement (or not) but just to recognize that not all people would. They might all agree "it would be nice of person Z to do so" or "it would be praiseworthy of person Z to do so". But I assure you that there are people who would not accept "person Z is obligated to do so" as long as "A" didn't apply (in other words, as long as we aren't talking about a situation where person Z had taken Y away from person X in the first place -- as long as person Z hadn't CAUSED the situation).
THAT is why neither a Canadian nor a US administration can "agree" --- because the people who are asking for the agreement clearly have the understanding that accepting "people have a right to water" implies the obligation to supply water to those who lack it and too many Canadians and too many of us here in the States would not accept that interpretation. Not all of us, but far too many to have "agreement". It is as simple as that.
Unfortunately USAians do that too because they also don't want to be identified with their country. And given that Canada is busy backing up US imperial policy by providing troops for Afghanistan the mantle of "nice Canadians" is wearing a bit ragged.
www.couragetoresist.org/canada
Indymedia Ireland is a media collective. We are independent volunteer citizen journalists producing and distributing the authentic voices of the people. Indymedia Ireland is an open news project where anyone can post their own news, comment, videos or photos about Ireland or related matters.