[ClumsyPilot]

I see two possible interpretations:

A - This is a special process meant to assure that reports are truly independent and neutral. These conclusions are even more trustworthy.

B - UN Special Rapporteur can't be trusted, it's is a random nobody that can publish untrue allegations and slap UN logo on top.

It appears you are implying B is the correct interpretations. If so, why? Additionally, can you suggest a more trustworthy, unbiased party than the UN?

[thatlongthrow1]

OK I'll be explicit.

You attempted to spin the opinion of special rapporteur into that of the UN. In every special rapporteur article they have to put the disclaimer I posted because of people like you attempting to frame something in false or malicious ways.

To recap your claim:

>Its not just my opinion, its the UN opinion.

UN's actual position as stated in the article you posted:

>The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council's independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures' experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

That line is meant for you:

>they are not UN staff

[monocasa]

The UN's own press statements refer to the Special Rapporteurs as "UN Experts"

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

[thatlongthrow1]

There is a reason people have to put annoyingly long official titles in when discussing persons and their opinions. "UN Special Rapporteur" does not equal the UN, it specially does not equal an official position of the UN which is what the user tried to do.

You have to be specific. "UN Special Rapporteur" does not equal the UN, which is why that specific language is put onto the footer of all their articles.

[monocasa]

> it specially does not equal an official position of the UN

I don't know how you cans ay that, when the UN press briefings literally refer to them as a "UN expert".

Yes it's a financially independent position to remove as much bias as possible, but it is very much an official UN position.

[thatlongthrow1]

>I don't know how you cans ay that, when the UN press briefings literally refer to them as a "UN expert".

His claim:

>Its not just my opinion, its the UN opinion.

It's not the UN's position, its a position of a Special Rapporteur for the UN. Thats why I can say it. You are arguing a different subject, if he is a UN expert. Notice I'm not debating his affiliation with the UN. A position of the UN would be a decision made by council, not by someone who:

>are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

According to UN, the body.

[ClumsyPilot]

See my comment above. This argument is a total red herring.

[ClumsyPilot]

This paragraph contains neither "UN's actual position" nor a disclaimer, so I don't why you keep posting it.

If you actually understand how the UN works, clarify for the rest of us, who would be the UN authority on the matter. I would humbly accept the enlightenment.

Alternatively, if you don't know, you should not be running around and accusing people of "false or malicious ways" and "spin". You seem to be misinterpreting the statement .

Not everything UN does needs to be a resolution passed passed by 194 countries in the general assembly.