At
UN, Selective
Banning of
Press, No
Answer to NY
Civil
Liberties
Union
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
August 10 --
Although
inept, the UN
at times tries
its best
to mimic some
of its police
state members.
Not
only does the
UN hold itself
immune from
any freedom of
the press
protections --
it has yet to
respond to the
New
York Civil
Liberties
Union
questions
about Voice
of America's
and now it is
clear others'
attempts
to get Inner
City Press thrown out
of the UN
-- but some in
its Security
unit make up
arbitrary
rules against
particular
journalists,
hoping it
seems to
trigger a
reaction as a
pretext for
further
action.
Last
month as
Colombia's
presidency of
the Security
Council began,
a UN
Security
Lieutenant
suddenly
announced that
a storage room
next to
the Security
Council
stakeout could
no longer be
used, should
be
locked. Inner
City Press
asked for the
Lieutenant's
name, but he
refused to
give it. Other
Security
officers
shrugged, and
later the
storage room
was unlocked
again.
Soon
thereafter, a
UN Security
officer at the
47th Street
gate suddenly
told Inner
City Press
that it could
not enter
through that
gate,
either at all
or with a
backpack. It
was the first
time this
"order"
was given, but
Inner City
Press obeyed,
went around
and in.
During
a lull Inner
City Press fit
the encourage
into a 140
character
tweet.
UN Security
responded that
having blocked
entry was a
mistake, or
"b.s." as one
official put
it.
But
the next time
Inner City
Press came in
through 47th
Street and the
same officer
was there, he
again said
"you can't
enter." The
female officer
with him,
seemingly high
ranked, told
him to stand
down and waved
Inner City
Press in. And
so the rogue
operations
seemed to be
over.
But
on the morning
of Friday,
August 10 as
Inner City
Press entered
the
47th Street
gate to cover
a 10 am
meeting in the
North Lawn
building,
the same
officer
blocked Inner
City Press,
this time
saying that
journalists as
a group cannot
enter through
47th Street.
Inner
City Press
said this is
not the case,
this is b.s.
as it had
previously
been told,
journalists
enter this way
all the time,
and
reminded him
that he had
previously
been
overruled. But
the officer,
Richard
Johnson,
insisted.
A
Security
Council Deputy
Permanent
Representative
who came in
monents
later and
witnessed the
encounter
asked Inner
City Press,
"why
are they doing
this to you?
You are in
front of the
Security
Council
all the time.
Now you can't
come in
through this
gate?" Why
indeed.
But
the UN doesn't
feel a need to
answer
questions. It
has not
answered
the NYCLU's
July 5 letter;
the officer
could not cite
any rule or
who
had given him
this
instruction;
the UN
lieutenant
would not even
give
his name. How
can the UN
purport to
teach "rule of
law"
policing under
these
conditions?
Watch this
site.
Footnote:
The previous
day, August 9,
at the UN's
noon briefing
Inner City
Press asked:
Inner
City Press:
This is the UN
dispute
tribunal. So
there was a
decision
after a long
delay in the
case of a UN
Security
Officer, DSS,
a
matter of
promotion and
exams. It’s a
pretty long
decision and
it’s very
critical of
DSS
management.
Some even tied
it to Mr.
Starr leaving.
I’m not sure
if that’s the
case or not.
But I’m
wondering what
is the UN’s
response to
this, are they
going to
appeal? Did
they think the
decision was
wrong and the
criticism made
in it,
including of
relations with
the staff
union and
other things?
Will there be
a response to
it?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Well, my
immediate
response to
the little
aside in the
middle about
Mr. Starr,
that is
absolutely
unfounded and
gratuitous,
not necessary.
And on the
broader
question
you’ve raised,
I will
see if there
is a response.
Inner
City Press:
Sure. I wasn’t
trying to, I
was just
saying that
people say it.
I wanted you
to deny it and
I’m glad to
hear you.
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
I do
emphatically.
, 
