The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women".
Does the four year appointment of Iran (elected by acclamation - ie no open vote) in any way hold out promise for the advancement of women?
How does this move reflect on the credibility of the United Nations?
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ecosoc6419.doc.htm

Dear Proxy,

What a superb move!

And one that you should thoroughly approve
of - seeing as you're so concerned about
Islamic extremism.

As Johann Hari, one of London's ,"Indpendent's"
columnists, wrote in an article:

"The best way to undermine the jihadists is to
trigger a rebellion of Muslim women!"

This is certainly a step in the right direction
and very much adds to the credibility of the UN.

Bravo!

I can't see the logic that there is anything good in this for women. Would putting a bandit on your audit committee protect your shareholders, or give them confidence in your governance as CEO?

Maybe in the weird world of western feminist politics there is some rationalisation? Not good for women though and therein lies an essential difference.

Membership of Iran lowers the credibility of Commission on Women's Rights. Iran can confidently be expected to be up to its ears in shafting any policy it disagreed with and would be forever promoting its not so delicate ways of protecting women such as stoning them to death and giving them a flogging for sporting a sun tan. Then there is the earthquake problem.

What pray tell are the 'rights' that Iran would support for itself and the West? Would anyone like to mention Sharia Law, the 'right' to (always) wear burqa, hijab or niqab on Bondi beach, FMG as a multicultural right and so on?

What about barbaric halal slaughter, not a problem?

I think the advice about tents, micturation within and without thereof, comes into play here.

I cannot for example see a situation where a single voice might sway the entire commission, despite Cornflower's concerns.

>>Would putting a bandit on your audit committee protect your shareholders...<<

I'm not sure that is a valid comparison, but it is actually quite possibly a good thing. After all, great strides in Internet security have been made by some companies - and governments, even - by recruiting convicted hackers. Having a reformed fraudster on board might be of great assistance to any governance process.

Tents, remember.

>>Iran can confidently be expected to be up to its ears in shafting any policy it disagreed with and would be forever promoting its not so delicate ways of protecting women such as stoning them to death and giving them a flogging for sporting a sun tan<<

Isn't it far, far more likely that the constant exposure to serried ranks of liberated females is bound to have a more-than-substantial impact on the psyche of the Iranian representative? If anyone should be concerned, it is the religious leaders who have allowed her to participate in the first place.

>>What pray tell are the 'rights' that Iran would support for itself and the West? Would anyone like to mention Sharia Law, the 'right' to (always) wear burqa, hijab or niqab on Bondi beach, FMG as a multicultural right and so on?<<

Well isn't that exactly the point? If the Iranian member's ideas are voted down, time after time, isn't there just a vague possibility that this might leak back into the Iranian system, and become a force for good?

>>What about barbaric halal slaughter, not a problem?<<

Not convinced this fits into the Status of Women, Cornflower.

Are you sure you're not just having a whack-a-mozzie rant?

Pericles

Well you won! You were streets ahead of anyone else in going for the ad hominem attack, you good thing. However you will have to pardon me if I don't follow you into that dark place and I don't think attacking me will convince anyone to your view.

Home is where the heart is and Iraq has had and continues to have, a wealth of opportunity to demonstrate a more enlightened attitude to women in its own backyard.

If exposure to the west and criticism of its attitudes to women could have had any effect, why hasn't there been any so far? After all, there is the diplomatic circuit, the media and travel for starters.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I remain convinced that Iraq only intends to use membership of United Nations Commission on the Status of Women as evidence at home and abroad of the acceptability of its internal policy and it intends to use the Commission as a pulpit to promote its own agenda.

I thought we were talking about Iran?