Even the two Muslim states of Myanmar do not sypmpathise with the Rohiningya - who who driven out after they committed acts of aggression against Myanmar.The complaint against Myanmar was brought by a third party, the African country of Gambia. It's a beat up by malcontents and troublemakers.

Damned if she did! Damned if she didn't!

And more of a ceremonial leader (compliant puppet?) than one with any real power, her own people held virtual hostage to ensure compliance?

And after years of confined solitude! You do it and see how well you do!? Even an iron will has a breaking point! And virtual solitary confinement will break almost any iron will!

No puppet I've heard of has the power to gamble but performs at the will and behest of those who pull the strings! Got it Genius?
Alan B.

" ... And more of a ceremonial leader (compliant puppet?) than one with any real power, her own people held virtual hostage to ensure compliance? ... "

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

The burmese ORCS are evil, genocidal, vermin and it is a tragedy Rambo wasn't sent in a long time ago to terminate them.

I also suspect that Suu Kyi's first loyalty is to her own "people" and that she has been told in no uncertain terms that if she doesn't toe the line that she'll be back in the bin and her own will be persecuted again.

If that's true though that would mean that she is testifying under coercion and thus her testimony should be dismissed.

As I said at the UN Human Right's Conference many years ago, the solution is to give these unique groups enhanced self determination by allowing them direct access to the international legal mechanism as if they were a state party.

So, for example, at the time of the "Stolen Generations" the Original Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (there's your dehumanisation) and surprise, suprise, only got to be recognised as people and citizens once they were 1/8 or 1/16. There's your macabre intent to destroy. And are we expected to believe that beautiful Original Australian woman were just lining up to get into bed with their oppressors? No, I think not. Some were groomed by the Rock Spider churches, others raped.

so, as opposed to having to rely on another State to assist by petitioning the court, they ought be able to do it themselves, and that is why the genocidal crown of this country has yet to pay for it's crimes against humanity, to which I would add, once these kinds of crimes have been committed against a people, you don't get to make the rules for them anymore unless you are an illegitimate, bastard regime such as that which we have here.

Part of the solution to this is to understand that australia is not really an independent nation state. And, the constitution is not really a founding document.

The sad reality is, is that the australian consitution was, and still is, just another act of the uk parliament.

So, whilst most people, not unreasonably, would assert that the only way to change the constitution is by way of a majority of people in a majority of states, this is not the case.

the evidence for this can be seen in the "australia act" which does override certain key sections of the constitution. For example, appeals to the head of state in council

(with limitations (the so called privvy council))

is enshrined in the section of the constitution on the judiciary. A High Court judge is on record as pointing out that this section remains in the constitution but did not add anything further publicly as best I know.

So, how was this change to close access to the privvy council accomplished if not by way of referendum? Well, members of the then aust guv went to the uk and asked them to write the Australia act which then, by way of the precedent of the new law trumps the old one, effectively altered the con and was then duplicated into australian law. Whilst perhaps technically correct, I think that the majority of australians will be exceedingly agitated to know that there constitution has been meddled with in this way.

Why is this important in the context of this thread? Because, in the matters of the crown's atrocities in the post world war 2 period, the matter of the return of Sovereignty must go before the head of state. It cannot be done by the high court. Thus, the relevant sections of the australia act that are inconsistent with the constitution must be challenged as being unconstitutional so that charges can be brought directly against the individual whose hand brought into being the repugnant and vile laws which enabled the atrocities to be committed in the first place.