A speech by Hillel Neuer of U.N. Watch given in Ottawa March 17 09

view_from_geneva_image

I had the opportunity to go to a lecture by Hillel Neuer of U.N Watch. An organization which all of us certainly should know about if anyone already doesn’t. In fact I brought my Macbook and videotaped the whole thing as I was hoping to post all of, or segments at least of this speech as I was pretty sure it would be a good one. Hillel did not disappoint. Photobooth did. hillel-neuer-and-kofi-annan Memo to all interested, do not use photo booth as a video camera unless you are prepared for crushing disappointment. I got exactly four seconds of it. I did however take some notes. My pen typically works or if it doesn’t I know right away. UN watch is an NGO who occasionally get to speak to the UN on matters which pertain to its various bodies and committees, in this case, the UN Human Rights Council. The lecture was at Carleton University in Ottawa and was attended by about 10 people two of whom where there to protest the speech. Please see videos below of some of the excellent work UN Watch does. Firstly, a word about the United Nations. This is a body of 192 member states. The Human Rights Council has 53 voting members made up from some of the general assembly of the 192 member states. The HRC was created by Eleanor Roosevelt who wrote its charter and mission statement and was in fact, a very good idea. Or at least seemed like it at the time given that it was created shortly after the horrors of Nazi Germany became widely known. The purpose of the HRC was to observe and report on human rights abuses around the world by governments typically against their own citizens. The HRC does not have the power of the sword as the security council does, nor does it have the power of the purse as the general assembly and other UN bodies do, who can fund or stop funding for various groups based on policy. But the HRC has the power of shame. When the UN passes a resolution against human rights abuses, it makes news and brings focus and attention to issues that might otherwise go unnoticed. As a consequence, strange alliances are made at the UN-HRC. There is a body within the UN called the OIC or, ‘Organization of Islamic Councils’ or alternatively, ‘Organization of Islamic Countries’ who of course represent a couple of things. One, the interests of Islam and protection of Islamic goals agendas sensitivities and so on and perhaps more importantly, protect states which are totalitarian, have no basic rights for their own citizens or any similarities to free democracies as we in the west and the Anglosphere would know them. As a consequence, nations rather famous for being atheist and working against religion and religious ideologies tend to vote with the OIC such as Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China or any other communist or socialist totalitarian state. It turns out, the anti religious sentiments of communist nations is a distant second to protecting their dictatorships and making sure that the notion of real individual human rights or individualism at all in fact, never manages to sneak into the human rights council of the United nations. In other words, the UNHRC works actively against any form of human rights whatsoever. Darfur springs lightly to mind. Roosevelt would be hemmoraging from the spleen if she was at a typical UNHRC meeting today. In theory, the Human Rights Commission was created to have the opportunity to speak truth to power. This goes back to the idea of shame as it’s only real tool as referred to above. But then we have the case of John Ziegler. From Reason.com:

As media coverage of Falk’s nomination has metastasized, it has unfortunately obscured news of UN-HRC’s nomination of the Swiss socialist Jean Ziegler to the UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee. A brief recapitulation of Ziegler’s qualifications: In 1996, he defended Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy not only on free speech grounds—an admirable position, after all—but further celebrated his supposed scholarship. “All your work as a writer and philosopher,” Ziegler wrote, “attests to the rigor of your analysis and the unwavering honesty of your intentions. It makes you one of the leading thinkers of our time.” He lauded the Zimbabwean tyrant Robert Mugabe, a leader who “has history and morality with him.” He offered his “total support for the Cuban revolution.” He recently told a Lebanese newspaper the he “refuse[d] to describe Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. It is a national movement of resistance.” Then there’s Ziegler’s friendship with Libyan dictator Moammar Kaddafi. In 1989, according to a report in Neue Zurcher Zeitung (one that confirms research done by UN Watch), Ziegler helped establish the Kaddafi Prize for Human Rights. In 2002, Ziegler himself received the prize, which he shared with, among others, Roger Garaudy. Previous recipients include Fidel Castro, Louis Farrakhan, and Hugo Chavez.

So we have a fellow, influential in the UNHRC, who created a human rights prize, named after a well known brutal dictator, who then accepted his own prize shortly after. Not a very illustrious record for a prize I would say. Even the most amateur performer knows not to clap for himself.

Then we have the GONGO’s. “What’s a gongo” you may ask? “I don’t even fully understand what an NGO is yet”.  Welcome to the club. A GONGO is a governmental organization designed to appear to be a non governmental one. A GONGO is a shill, dressed up like an NGO but representing actual fascist dictators. They are apparently, all the rage at the UNHRC. Everyone has one from Cuba to China and of course, the Sudan. The idea is, they celebrate all the worst actions of each nation who hires them. “Genocide? I don’t see no genocide everyone in Darfur is happy and fulfilled”.  They manage to add noise to proceedings so that any attempt to actually bring notice shame or attention to the outrages perpetrated by the worst human rights abusers on earth are drowned out in celebration. The one thing the GONGO’s, the John Ziegler people and the dictators all agree on? The US is evil for one, and Israel is the only place they can all safely pass condemnatory resolutions on.

Another word on Ziegler, he was appointed the UN HRC expert on hunger. Oh, before I forget, he was also a good friend and admirer of Robert Mugabe. Who is Mugabe? well of course he is the president for life of Zimbabwe formerly Rhodesia and the cause of most of the worlds hunger. Rhodesia was in fact the bread basket of Africa. A major net exporter of food. Mugabe drove out all the farmers so he could give the land and material wealth to his friends. The excuse was, the farmers where white and hence colonists although most of them if not all had been multi generational for decades to centuries. His friends of course mostly grew a crop of marijuana if they grew anything at all, sold off the equipment and buggered off to Europe.

I suppose this would make Ziegler an expert on hunger. One would hope though that his expertise was based on alieviating it rather than causing it as Mugabe indisputably did.

As the time of NGO’s to speak to the UNHRC is limited, the job of the GONGO’s is to use it up so that real NGO’s really can’t get  much of a word in. They are effective at this we are told by UN Watch.

The last point is the activities of the chair of the UNHRC. The chair of course is acutely aware of who will cause embarrassment to the totalitarian states. And the chair picks who can and cannot speak, and can stop any speaker on points of order which, as you can easily see from the videos, is to make sure no embarrassment falls on exactly who the UN and the UNHRC was intended by design, to if not stop, at least embarras.

Eeyore for Vladtepesblog.com

Some UNHRC videos from UN watch below the more fold:

Continue Reading →

The actual UN resolution on ‘defamation of religion’

Below is a PDF of the actual UN resolution up for voting at the general assembly. Most of the language is innocuous and seemingly harmless. Much of it however states what the real goal is. I think when reading this, it’s important to realize that the Organization of Islamic councils, the 57 odd Islamic states that sponsored this resolution, have no intention, nor will they ever have any intention, of obeying it in the manner we would expect by its wording. That any attempt to remove incitement to genocide against the Jews for example in Saudi and other Islamic nation’s school text books would be seen as defamation of Islam as this is central dogma to Koran and the hadiths etc. In other words, while the west would have to be sure to criminalize any criticism of Islam, it’s followers or any action by Muslims in the name of Islam we may view as anti social or anti progressive, Muslim nations would be safe from these laws as they would in fact, be practicing Islam by breaking these same rules.

Classic Al Taqiyya. Nearly identical strategy to the peace deal signed by the Marines under Jefferson at Tripoli where the English one said one thing and the Arabic one said quite another.

human_rights_council_resolution <—- Here is the actual document as a .pdf

To be clear, this document if passed, would put pressure on all world governments to pass laws making any criticism of Islam, its actions and teachings as criminal, while it would make no difference in the Islamic world at all when it comes to tolerance of secularism, homosexuality apostasy or conversion from Islam to other faiths or tolerance of non Muslims within Muslim and ultimately any nation.

It is also no accident that this is in front of the UN general assembly as it warms up for the Superbowl of antisemitism, Durban II in April.

Please see the excellent Christopher Hitchens video on this matter as he appeared on US national TV as well as any of the dozen or so posts videos and articles on all points I refer to.

To quote the most excellent movie ‘Life of Brian’…

“Something is actually happening Reg”

Perhaps it might be worth noting that the enlightenment and all rights freedoms and even technology we have came about by the hard won right to question the authority of the irrational Catholic church. To see it all end by the newly minted authority of the umma through the UN and other institutions presumably designed to preserve and increase world wide freedom, would be a tragedy of unimaginable proportions.

Perhaps this is why so few seem to fight it. It is so huge, we resist seeing it for what it is.

E.U. considers boycott of Durban II

I have wondered why the Czech Republic has not yet stated it’s almost certain condemnation of the Jew hate-fest dubbed Durban II as the Czech’s so far have been the world leader for reason on all fronts for the past few years. Now I know. They have been waiting to get the whole EU on board. Bless you Vaclav you never let me down.

From Reuters:

BRUSSELS (Reuters) – The EU threatened on Monday to withdraw from a U.N. conference on racism next month unless its final declaration is changed, joining a number of countries concerned the meeting could become an anti-Semitic forum.

Israel and Canada have already withdrawn from the April 20-24 World Conference Against Racism in Geneva amid fears Arab nations will use it against Israel. The United States and Australia have said they are considering doing the same.

“The main voices were very skeptical about the direction of the papers prepared there,” Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg said after EU foreign ministers discussed the Geneva meeting on Monday.

“Probably we will send now from the EU a suggestion of ours and if the conference papers are in line with that, we will stay, otherwise there is a strong call to withdraw,” said Schwarzenberg, who chaired the talks.

“Some of the wording (in the conference’s draft documents) is considered to be anti-Semitic,” one EU diplomat said.

The bloc was also concerned about the mention of defamation against religion, he said. “The EU thinks this has nothing to do with human rights,” the diplomat told Reuters.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said he was concerned the conference “might be abused for one sided statements on the Middle East conflict.”

“I plead that we would cancel our participation unless there is in the next few days a change in the preparation,” he told reporters in Brussels.

The United States has also said it will not attend the conference unless the wording of the final declaration is altered radically. Israel is calling for a boycott of the event.

The issues of freedom of speech and anti-Semitism have been set by Western countries, including the United States, as among their “red lines” for participation in the gathering, dubbed Durban II.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, who will preside over the conference, has sought to reassure doubters, arguing fears of anti-Semitic outbursts are unfounded.

But diplomats have said that memories of street marches targeting Jews in general at the first U.N. racism conference in Durban in 2001 remain strong and fears of a repeat have grown after protests in Europe over Israel’s war against Palestinian militants in Gaza.

(Reporting by David Brunnstrom and Ilona Wissenbach; Writing by Ingrid Melander)

Somehow this French speaker managed to get a word in at the UN

Somehow I don’t think it will matter. Even if the OIC does make some conciliatory noise about it the UN thanks to the OIC is setting up for Durban II in a matter of weeks. At this point I don’t really give a damn what the UN has to say. The organization is rotten to the core and nations such as Canada the US and GB should abandon it as a farce to it’s own stated principles. The video is worth seeing anyway.

Egypt sucker punches Canada’s efforts for free speech

From The Edmonton Journal:

un2UNITED NATIONS — Egypt sought to outmanoeuvre Canada at the United Nations Human Rights Council Friday as it began pushing for a “free-speech” resolution the West says deviates from traditional norms.

Egyptian diplomats effectively hijacked the recurring measure Canada has traditionally sponsored by acting three months before their Canadian counterparts were preparing to move.

UN practice dictates the first version of a resolution to be tabled sets the course for subsequent negotiations, meaning Canada and the West would face an uphill battle to get the changes they want. But the office of Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said late Friday in response to inquiries from Canwest News Service that Canada intends to sponsor its own draft resolution anyway.

Officials noted the Egyptian draft is only “circulating” among the 47-members states of the council, though it is expected to be “tabled” within days.

“Canada will continue to speak out against limitations in freedom of speech at all levels. While there is not yet a resolution tabled, Canada has in the past made it clear that it will not support any text which would undermine this fundamental right,” said Catherine Loubier, spokeswoman for Cannon.

The Canadian declaration sets the stage for a showdown in the Human Rights Council, which the UN General Assembly launched in 2006 to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission after that body had become dominated by countries with poor human rights records.

But even in the new body, Western countries are outnumbered, while the United States has yet to stand for election.

Canada long ago took lead on tabling successive freedom of expression resolutions in the commission, and also played an instrumental role in establishing in 1993 the mandate of a UN free-speech watchdog — called a Special Rapporteur.

The measures are not legally binding, but enter the international record. As such, human rights groups say authoritarian governments could use a resolution along the lines of the Egyptian text to justify targeted crackdowns.

“If Egypt tables and maintains a text in March, Canada will have to take a position on it. If it is not acceptable, we will not support it,” Loubier said.

The Egyptian draft expresses “concern” at what it calls a “rise of instances of abuse,” and highlights a need for “limitations.” It also calls on countries to co-operate with the Special Rapporteur by handing over “all (requested) necessary information.”

“The text of the (Egyptian) resolution is pretty much what one would expect from a country that throws its bloggers in jail for no reason at all,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based monitoring group UN Watch.

Some of the measures appeared for the first time as amendments to a Canadian-tabled free speech draft last year that ended up redefining the special rapporteur’s duties. In that contest, Pakistan and Egypt, as well as critics of the West such as Cuba, won sufficient backing from like-minded council members to force changes that led Canada to drop its sponsorship.

“Last year, the repressive regimes that dominate the council inserted two subversive amendments; this year they’ve taken over the whole resolution, with the result Western states are playing defence and losing,” Neuer said.

Western diplomats in Geneva said privately they knew Egypt was considering its Friday move, but decided to respect an additional tradition of waiting for the special rapporteur to file his report, which is expected in June. Loubier said it remained “appropriate” to wait until then.

One diplomatic source said Marius Grinius, Canada’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, had in advance “complained forcefully” to the Egyptian ambassador, as had other Western diplomats. This source also said the group had yet to agree on whether Canada would take the lead this year.

None of the diplomatic sources agreed to be identified because most of the negotiating over texts takes place behind closed doors.

The Egyptian move surprised a number of observers.

“They’ve totally hijacked the agenda and pre-empted Canada,” said Bani Dugal, principal representative of the Baha’i faith’s UN-based office, which follows freedom of speech and religion issues.

Several of the Egyptian measures relate to speech affecting religion.

“This is moving down the road of incorporating anti-blasphemy laws into freedom of expression protection and international law,” warned Bennett Graham, international program director with the Becket Fund, a think-tank aimed at promoting religious liberty.

According the Western diplomatic source, Islamic countries on the council had sought a deal in which the West would refrain from tabling a draft resolution on religious freedom in exchange for a promise by the Islamic group to leave the free speech resolution to the West, and hold off on tabling a text on combatting defamation of religions.

France and the Netherlands began circulating a religious freedom draft Friday after Pakistan Wednesday tabled its text on religious defamation, which critics say is another instrument that risks impinging on free speech.
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

Video from UN, Canada stops David Litman mid speech


The above raw footage of the silencing of Litman at the UN was removed by the user. However, I have found a number of other videos on topic. I will not rest until I can find the same video that was removed above and make sure it stays on this blog.

Here it is. If it comes down again, Ill repost as I saved it locally

Proposal at U.N. to criminalize ‘defamation of Islam’

This article claims that the current resolution is non binding. Other articles I have read claim it is in fact a binding resolution. In any case, this article does detail the issue.

Eeyore

From UN Watch:

Geneva, March 11, 2009 — A new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law. (See full U.N. text below.)

UN Watch obtained a copy of the Pakistani-authored proposal after it was distributed today among Geneva diplomats attending the current session of the UN Human Rights Council. Entitled “Combating defamation of religions,” it mentions only Islam.

While non-binding, the resolution constitutes a dangerous threat to free speech everywhere. It would ban any perceived offense to Islamic sensitivities as a “serious affront to human dignity” and a violation of religious freedom, and would pressure U.N. member states — at the “local, national, regional and international levels” — to erode free speech guarantees in their “legal and constitutional systems.”

It’s an Orwellian text that distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech, and religious freedom, and marks a giant step backwards for liberty and democracy worldwide.

The first to suffer will be moderate Muslims in the countries that are behind this resolution, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, who seek international legitimacy for state-sanctioned blasphemy laws that stifle religious freedom and outlaw conversions from Islam to other faiths.

Next to suffer from this U.N.-sanctioned McCarthyism will be writers and journalists in the democratic West, with the resolution targeting the media for the “deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons.”

Ultimately, it is the very notion of individual human rights at stake, because the sponsors of this resolution seek not to protect individuals from harm, but rather to shield a specific set of beliefs from any question, debate, or critical inquiry.

The resolution’s core premise — that “defamation of religion” exists as legal concept — is a distortion. The law on defamation protects the reputations of individuals, not beliefs. It also requires an examination of the truth or falsity of the challenged remarks — a determination that no one, especially not the UN, is capable of undertaking concerning any religion.

Tragically, given that Islamic states completely dominate the Human Rights Council, with the support of non-democratic members like Russia, China, and Cuba, adoption of the regressive resolution is a forgone conclusion. E.U. diplomats hope at best to win over a handful of wavering Latin American states to the dissenting side.

___________________________________

Following is a copy of the draft U.N. Human Rights Council resolution obtained by UN Watch. Prepared by Pakistan on behalf of the Islamic group, the text was circulated today to Geneva diplomats in advance of a council vote scheduled for the end of March. Emphasis added.

Human Rights Council Resolution
A/HRC/10/L.. Combating Defamation of Religions

Continue Reading →

Speaker at UN stopped mid speech by Canadian chairperson

Ottawa Citizen March 9 2009

Jewish speaker outraged after debate cut short

UNITED NATIONS — Canada’s top diplomat at the United Nations in Geneva used his position as debate chair to cut short an accredited speaker as he detailed anti-Semitism in Islamic-sourced books.

The action by Ambassador Marius Grinius took place in the UN’s Human Rights Council, where Muslim and Arab countries regularly deliver harangues against the “Zionist Entity” — a term many of them use to describe Israel.

He said David Littman, delivering a joint statement for the Association for World Education and the World Union for Progressive Judaism, had been “off topic” as the chamber debated a series of human rights reports.

Littman said his bid to call for a “universal condemnation” of defamations of Judaism was appropriate because a report dealing with freedom of expression and hate speech had been at the top of the agenda list.

“There was no valid reason for me to be stopped by the chair,” he wrote in a letter of protest to Grinius Monday.

“We are constantly stopped by points of order by (Muslim) delegates . . . It is very depressing to be censored this time by the Canadian chairman.”

Continue Reading →

Once again, the Czech republic shines the light of reason

Europe Concerned About Freedom of Speech – Czech EU Presidency

Europe concerned about freedom of speech – Czech EU presidency

Ženeva, známý pohled na Ženevské jezero s vodotryskem (v pozadí), centrem OSN (vp?edu), dlouhá budova s muzeem Ariana (vpravo)a kongresovým centrem OSN (vlevo). Uprost?ed snímku jsou budovy Sv?tové meteorologické organizace WWO a uprost?ed vlevo centrum Sv?tové obchodní organizace a uprost?ed vpravo areál Vysokého komisa?e pro uprchlíky (UNHCR).  - ilustra?ní foto

published: 04.03.2009, 20:04 | updated: 04.03.2009 20:15:29

?R a Evropa se na konferenci o rasismu obávají o svobodu slova

Geneva – The Czech Republic, as the EU presiding country, and other European countries today expressed fears that the freedom of speech would be at risk if Islamic countries pushed for a ban on “defamation of religion” at the conference on racism in April, Reuters has reported.

Geneva – The Czech Republic, as the EU presiding country, and other European
countries today expressed fears that the freedom of speech would be at risk if
Islamic countries pushed for a ban on “defamation of religion” at the
conference on racism in April, Reuters has reported.

Representatives of the EU countries also warned in their speeches to the U.N.’s
Human Rights Council today that they could not accept any pillorying of Israel
as “racist” and any promotion of anti-Semitism at the April conference in
Geneva.

Reuters reported that the same opinions were expressed in the U.N. Human Rights
Council this week by the delegations of the Czech Republic, holding the EU
presidency in the first half of 2009, Austria, France, Germany, Netherlands,
Poland and Switzerland.

“The freedom of expression must be the cornerstone of our fight against
racism,” Reuters quotes Sweden’s delegate Frank Belfrage as saying in the U.N.

The draft declaration for the Geneva conference has also been criticised by
Israel, which, along with Canada previously decided to boycott the event. The
United States and France are considering this step.

The World Conference Against Racism, also called Durban II, will be held at the
UN headquarters in Geneva on April 20-24, as the continuation of the conference
in Durban, South Africa, in
2001.

Kenney praises U.S. for Durban II boycott

By SHERI SHEFA, Staff Reporter
Thursday, 05 March 2009
Now that the United States has followed Canada and Israel’s lead in boycotting the upcoming Durban II world anti-racism conference over concerns about anti-Semitism, Canada’s citizenship, immigration and multicultural minister, Jason Kenney, said he hopes other countries will do the same.

“I would like to believe that we had some positive impact, and certainly the recent decision of the Obama administration, I am confident, will be followed by other European allies,” Kenney told The CJN on Sunday in Toronto, referring to the followup conference to the 2001 United Nations World Conference Against Racism, known as Durban II.

The 2001 human rights meeting in Durban, South Africa, singled Israel out for criticism and compared Zionism to racism. Israel and the United States walked out.

Kenney – who was meeting with representatives from Jewish groups, including Canadian Jewish Congress and UJA Federation of Greater Toronto, to brief them on last month’s inaugural conference in London of the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism – said he hopes to deepen his close relationship with the Jewish community.

“Canada under the Harper government takes a zero tolerance approach to anti-Semitism, both domestically and internationally, and we understand the direct connection between Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism,” Kenney said.

He added that when he attended the Feb. 17 London conference, the Obama administration had not yet opted to pull out of the Durban II conference, set to take place in Geneva next month.

The CJC released a statement that applauded last week’s decision by the United States to join Canada and Israel in refusing to participate in the United Nations Durban Review Conference.

“In the preparatory conferences for Durban II, it has already become clear that Israel would be singled out among all the nations of the world for condemnation… Durban II has already become nothing more than a venue for the most pernicious and vile anti-Semitism,” CJC co-president Rabbi Reuven Bulka said.

Congress CEO Bernie Farber added that the refusal of democratic countries such as Canada, Israel and the United States to take part sends a message of tolerance and hope to the international community.

“We now call on all other democratic countries to be true to their pluralistic values. They should follow Canada’s lead, together with Israel and the United States, in dissociating from the hatefest that Durban II has already become,” Farber said.

Kenney told The CJN that anti-Semitism in Canada is fuelled by “anti-Zionist rhetoric” and has become “almost epidemic in Canada.”

But he said he hopes that the London conference last month will push other members of the international community to actively combat anti-Semitism, starting with a boycott of the Durban II conference.

Kenney said that Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has said that “Italy is ready to withdraw, but it wasn’t announcing that it was doing so.”

He added that Britain is also close to making the decision now that the United States has pulled out.

But the main message Kenney said he wanted to present to the Canadian Jewish community was that his government recognizes that “the new anti-Semitism – that is to say, anti-Semitism taking on the form of anti-Zionism, this notion that Israel is an abomination, that the Jewish people alone have no right to a homeland and that Israel must be destroyed – is [manifesting itself] even here in Canada.”

He said that events such as Israeli Apartheid Week, happening this week on campuses worldwide, are efforts to scapegoat and delegitimize the Jewish state.

“[Israel] is not a perfect country, and it is entirely fair, as I said in London, to disagree with particular policies of the Israeli government, but this anti-Zionism is much more profound than that,” Kenney said.

“It questions, essentially, the right of Israel to exist as a democratic Jewish state, and for the government of [Prime Minister] Stephen Harper, that is a totally outrageous and unacceptable position.”

Office of the Hon. Jason Kenney, PC, MP / Bureau du député
Calgary Southeast / Calgary-sud-est
Office of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism/
Cabinet du Ministre de la Citoyenneté, de l’immigration et du Multiculturalisme
325 East Block / Édifice de l’Est, Pièce 325
House of Commons / Chambre des communes Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Phone / Tél. : 613-992-2235
Fax / Téléc. : 613-992-1920
www.jasonkenney.com

National post on Durban

The following article is about the events at the ‘Durban anti racism’ confrence that took place a few years ago and is a preview of the events that will take place in Geneva next month at Durban II.

The only thing with which I disagree with the author is that it will be a do nothing inefective confrence. In fact it will do a lot and be very effective. We can see the effects Durban I had already with universities all over the western world holding ‘Israel Apartheid week’ which are becoming increasingly hostile and openly anti semitic while more and more pro terrorist. The connection to Durban is real in many ways but even if not direct, which it is, it legitimizes antisemitism and anti Israel ism-in a major global forum. Please find article below..

The travesty of Durban

Michael Ross, National Post Published: Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Protesters at the first Durban conference in 2001.AFP, Getty ImagesProtesters at the first Durban conference in 2001.

Back in August, 2001, while working for a counterterrorism unit of Israel’s Secret Intelligence Service, I witnessed a hijacking in the making. Not the kind that involved a plane or a ship, but the systematic takeover of the UN-sanctioned World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa. Later this year, the same hijackers will return to the scene of the crime.

As is now widely known, the original Durban conference devolved into an orgy of blatant anti-Semitism. The delegates to the conference didn’t even pretend to engage in a discussion about Israel’s right to secure territorial boundaries or promote a peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict. Official representatives from Iran and Syria objected to the inclusion of anti-Semitism or the Holocaust in the conference’s agenda. There would be no sympathy for the Jewish plight nor any attempt to understand the historical context that gave rise to Israel’s existence in the first place.

A wide selection of hate literature vilifying Jews and Israel was disseminated during the Durban conference. Some of the “protest” material included Nazi-style caricatures of Jews with hooked noses. The only difference was that the updated hate propaganda showed Jews with Palestinian blood on their hands …as they sat on their piles of money. There were various banners and posters showing Israelis wearing Nazi uniforms and other regalia related to the perpetrators of the Holocaust.

Continue Reading →

Durban lite: Israel apartheid week

March 1 through to 8, 2009, is Israel Apartheid Week, the fifth annual event of it’s kind organized to bring awareness to the plight of Arabs and Muslims world wide, persecuted at the hands of the great Zionist entity, Israel. Over forty universities will hold seminars, dialogues and discussions inviting guest speakers to illuminate students of the ongoing injustice and discriminatory practices of Israel. Sounds fine. Nice. Informative.

Many would presume this event as benign and nothing but a registered, legitimate forum to counter severe bias and discrimination. What an opportunity for a young thinking man or woman to oppose such terrific injustice and perpetual hardship and to flex their intillectual bicepts in the world of geo-politics. It is easy to latch onto a cause, any cause, especially if it is distant enough to cushion any real responsibility. It is even easier when university administrators and student bodies lie in absolute apathy, paving the road for extremist ideology to flourish. And easier still when young bloods are culled to swallow extremist rhetoric by foreign influenced agencies. 

Israel Apartheid Week is anything but benign. Like the Durban conferences,  which both Canada and the United States have seen fit to abandon realizing it to be THE festival of hatred, IAW seeks to annually undermine Israel at every opportunity, de-legitimize it’s right to defend itself at the hands of terrorist assault and aggression and seeks to deny Islam’s participation as a political, religious and warring aggressor. While the Durban conferences denouce Jews as a sub-human group worthy of abuse and seeks to condemn open criticism of religion, Israel Apartheid Week seems a spawned copy of the anti-Semitic and anti free expression propaganda machine, seduced into action by Canadian Arab and Muslim organizations loudmouthing on behalf of their instructors abroad. In 2008 school children were invited by both the CAF and the CIC to write essays for a cash prize on the ‘ethnic cleansing of Palestine’ as part of the celebration of Canadian Islamic History Month, held every October. Coincidence perhaps?

National Post columnist Craig Offman writes an article detailing the heightened tensions between Arab/Muslim and Jewish students on Canadian university campuses. Jewish students are warned of increasing threats of violence and police probes have been launched into instances of campus racism. It would seem to me that Canadian universities have become a flourishing platform which mirrors a broader based coalition of anti-Semitic and Islamist nations intent upon importing radicalism, excusing terror and promoting intolerance.

I would wonder what the cushioned, left world reaction would be to the hosting of say, an annual Islamic Terrorism Week?

Grace

Melanie Phillips writes on Durban II

At least we can blame the Jews for one thing. Most of them voted for Obama. Here is Melanie’s critical analysis of the Durban conference. I do not know if she wrote and published this before the USA pulled out or if she knows yet. But her article has a lot of calid points about the damage done merely by examining the possibility of going. Fortunately I believe there is still time for the Czech’s and the UK to pull out of Durban. In any case here is the article:
February 27, 2009
Silent in the face of antisemitism

National Review Online, 27 February 2009

In a letter to the Jerusalem Post, David Harris, director of the American Jewish Committee [AJC], has defended his organization’s decision to participate in the preparatory meeting for Durban II — the follow-up to the 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which took place in Durban, South Africa.

Two weeks ago, AJC senior official Felice Gaer was part of the delegation America sent to try to improve the draft of the declaration, the final version of which will ultimately be approved at Durban II itself. The U.S. vowed that if its attempts to improve the draft failed, it would not participate in the final conference.

Israel and the United States walked out of the 2001 conference in protest against the anti-Semitism on display there. Israel and Canada have already announced that they do not intend to participate in the Durban II conference in Geneva this April, fearing a re-run. The Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick raised similar concerns, which is what compelled Harris to respond.

Harris wrote that although “under the present circumstances” the United States should not attend the April conference, “this leaves two options: to throw up our hands, or work to change those circumstances.”

The AJC, he explains, believed it should “work with our government to assess whether Durban is beyond salvaging. . . . If Durban can be fixed, everybody wins — not least, the global struggle against racism, to which AJC has been committed for more than a century. If it can’t, we will absolutely seek to hold the administration to its promise to withdraw.”

This is, to put it mildly, a serious misjudgment. Durban II is intrinsically a disgrace, and no civilized country should have anything to do with it. Since it is being run by the U.N. Human Rights Council — whose Durban Preparatory Committee is chaired by Libya, with Iran and Cuba as vice-chairs — the idea that such a meeting can assist in “the global struggle against racism” is absurd.

Continue Reading →

US pulls out of Durban II

Some really good news. The Obama administration has decided to boycott Durban II

See story below

U.S. pulling out of ‘Durban II’ conference

WASHINGTON (JTA) — The Obama administration has decided to boycott the so-called Durban II conference out of concerns for anti-Semitism.

Multiple sources on a conference call with the White House on Friday told JTA that the Obama administration had opted not to attend any further preparatory meetings ahead of the planned U.N. conference against racism in Geneva in April.

The conference reprises the 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa that devolved into an anti-Jewish free-for-all. Canada and Israel have opted not to attend the conference, and some U.S. Jewish groups had been pressing the United States to do the same.

Preparations for a draft document so far have seen Iran leading a coterie of nations blocking inclusion of anything that might guarantee Jewish protections – including mention of the Holocaust – while inserting draconian language guarding Islam against “insult.”

The State Department sent a delegation, including a senior staffer from the American Jewish Committee, to this month’s preparatory talks. The delegation’s conclusions were that the anti-Israel and anti-Western tendencies were too deeply entrenched to excise.

Now that the United States is withdrawing from the conference, European nations are expected to follow.

Speaking for the White House on Friday’s call were Samantha Power and James Warlick, who handle international organizations for, respectively, the national security council and the State Department; and Jennifer Simon, an adviser to Susan Rice, the U.S. envoy to the United Nations.