Select Page
Chris Merritt at the Australian is right on to the slippery and duplicitous language of the UN.
Example….
“….The big con is the guarantee that signatories will be free to enact their own migration policies. This promise, in paragraph 15 of the pact, is subject to the qualification that this freedom is to be exercised “in accordance with international law”.
This form of words, which is peppered throughout the compact, might seem innocent, but it’s not. It invites some UN committee of experts to decide which Australian laws are in accord with international law.
Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten should have nothing to do with this — unless they are happy to make the UN the arbiter of Australian law.
This is a key measure of sovereignty and it resides exclusively with those who vote in Australian elections — and that is where it should stay..”
“…The Global Compact for Migration contains an affirmation of respect for national sovereignty that would have to be the world’s finest example of dissembling claptrap. It means nothing.
Also bereft of meaning is the argument that this pact is benign because its provisions are not enforceable. They don’t need to be. They work by encouraging governments to pass laws that the UN considers to be correct.
Without change, Peter Dutton is right to reject this pact. Signing up would permit the UN to make Australia a whipping boy for deviating from the terms of the compact.
Signatories will be subjecting themselves to “inter-governmental measures that will assist us in fulfilling our objectives and commitments”.
And that includes re-educating journalists, “sensitising” them about migration-related terminology, manipulation by governments designed to “shape perceptions of migration”, the withdrawal of public funding from certain media outlets and investing in “ethical” reporting standards.
The big con is the guarantee that signatories will be free to enact their own migration policies. This promise, in paragraph 15 of the pact, is subject to the qualification that this freedom is to be exercised “in accordance with international law”.
This form of words, which is peppered throughout the compact, might seem innocent, but it’s not. It invites some UN committee of experts to decide which Australian laws are in accord with international law.
Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten should have nothing to do with this — unless they are happy to make the UN the arbiter of Australian law.
This is a key measure of sovereignty and it resides exclusively with those who vote in Australian elections — and that is where it should stay…”