"The full membership of the United Nations on Tuesday suspended Libya from the U.N. Human Rights Council in the latest international effort to isolate Moammar Gadhafi's government for its violent attacks on civilian protesters.
The U.N. General Assembly voted by consensus on the council's recommendation to suspend Libya's rights of council membership for committing "gross and systematic violations of human rights."
Is it inappropriate to ask why Libya was a member of the Human Rights Council to begin with? To clarify, when it is said that "Libya" has had its membership suspended, what is meant is that the Libyan government's permission to preside upon the Human Right's Council has been revoked, at least temporarily. Well, isn't it odd that a government with a human rights record as spectacularly bad as that of Libya's government would have nevertheless been allowed to have its opinion respected within a council professing a concern for human rights? What does this say about the quality of the UN's Human Rights Council?