I was going to attempt a dissection of what is actually going on at the UN and how it related to western democracy, but it looks like the Hitch has beaten me to it.
There are a few comments at the Slate, below the article, which seem to make sense, like 'there's no way the US will go for it', or 'it's a non-binding agreement, who cares?' type of thing. Unfortunately, the non-binding agreement has already been passed (Sept '08) and adopted. This is the next stage, in the General Assembly. No power of veto. If you're not there to vote, you don't count, and it becomes a resolution.
Who cares? Well, maybe the hundreds, maybe thousands or more, young women who are ritually subjected to genital mutilation, which, incidentally isn't against the Declaration of Human Rights anymore, because we can't discuss it in the UN due to the non-binding resolution mentioned earlier. The workings of Islam cannot be discussed due to perceived 'offence'.
Then again, maybe it's the gay men and women born in Muslim countries.
Or the children who are raped by family members (but usually only if they have reached puberty, and it's their fault anyway according to the law, the little teasers!)
Or the young married women who are raped and then (because they are women, therefore unreliable and temptresses anyway) stoned to death for adultery. Of course the rapists are punished. sometimes.
Don't be smug, regardless of where you live in the world, this barbarity still happens in your country, even within your community. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening.
Religion has to have its fangs pulled. I'm open to ideas on practical ways to achieve this, but don't look to the UN with its horse-trading for oil and natural resources.
Personally, I'll be doing my best to eradicate the feeling amongst my friends and colleagues that religion doesn't really do any harm.