It emerged this week that the U.N.’s Human Rights Council suggested that the United Kingdom should abolish its monarchy and put in place a new form of government based on a written Constitution.

The Human Rights Council, you might recall, is the U.N. body that welcomes members like Cuba and takes no action against countries like North Korea while routinely condemning Israel.

Alex Singleton, writing on the Telegraph’s politics blog, points out a few more inconvenient facts:

When people are being murdered in Zimbabwe and free speech is outlawed in North Korea, it’s good to see that the UN has its priorities right. The fact is that the constitutional arrangements of the UK actually work quite well. A written constitution, far from promoting human rights, would inevitably diminish them by promoting entitlements to resources, rather than freedoms from state interference. Besides, we already have a bill of rights (it was passed by Parliament in 1689).

So, what was the substance of the discussion?

According to this story, “Syria accused the UK of discriminating against Muslims and Iran complained about the UK’s record on tackling sexual discrimination.”

Seriously? Iran? On sex discrimination? The country that mandates how women dress and has literally codified discrimination?

If it weren’t so pathetic, it would be laughable.

More good commentary on this here and here.