Racism is bad, but all the stuff about the muslim untermenchen is probably right on target.

[fallout man]

Text

US boycotts UN racism conference

Washington has confirmed it will boycott a UN forum on racism in Geneva next week because of differences over Israel and the right to free speech.

The state department said the proposed text of the conference's guiding document remained unacceptable despite having been amended significantly.

The US and Israel quit a similar forum in Durban in 2001 when its draft document likened Zionism to racism.

Current language about "incitement to religious hatred" also alarms the US.

The five-day Durban Review Conference is due to open on Monday.

EU diplomats were still consulting on Saturday on whether to attend the conference. Canada and Israel said earlier that they would not attend.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has stirred outrage by repeatedly calling the Holocaust of the Jews a "myth", is the only prominent head of state so far scheduled to attend.

'Serious concerns'

The state department said it was "with regret" that the US had decided to boycott the conference.

"The text still contains language that reaffirms in toto the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action [DDPA] from 2001, which the United States has long said it is unable to support," it said in a statement.

"Its inclusion in the review conference document has the same effect as inserting that original text into the current document and re-adopting it.

"The DDPA singles out one particular conflict and prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.

"The United States also has serious concerns with relatively new additions to the text regarding 'incitement', that run counter to the US commitment to unfettered free speech."

Internal debate has raged in the US for weeks on whether to attend, the Associated Press news agency reports from Washington.

Pro-Israel groups vehemently opposed participation while human rights advocates and organisations like TransAfrica and members of the Congressional Black Caucus thought it was important to attend.

Immediately after the announcement, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who heads the black caucus in Congress, said the group was "deeply dismayed" by the boycott.

"This decision is inconsistent with the administration's policy of engaging with those we agree with and those we disagree with..." she said.

"The US is making it more difficult for it to play a leadership role on UN Human Rights Council as it states it plans to do. This is a missed opportunity, plain and simple."

In other words:

"We don't want to participate in this unholy orgy of condemnation of racism around the world because some of the wording is counter-productive to our goals of using 'Muslim extremism' as a rallying cry for our specific agendas."

Awesome power!

 

[Craig234]

It's hard to disagree with Barbara Lee's take, whatever you think of the issues:

"This decision is inconsistent with the administration's policy of engaging with those we agree with and those we disagree with..." she said.

"The US is making it more difficult for it to play a leadership role on UN Human Rights Council as it states it plans to do. This is a missed opportunity, plain and simple."

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's hard to disagree with Barbara Lee's take, whatever you think of the issues:

"This decision is inconsistent with the administration's policy of engaging with those we agree with and those we disagree with..." she said.

"The US is making it more difficult for it to play a leadership role on UN Human Rights Council as it states it plans to do. This is a missed opportunity, plain and simple."

It's as much of a missed opportunity as it is a worrying continuation of the "do as we say, not as we do" policy.

Apparently, racial/religious incitement is questionably relevant to the discussion of racism. Seriously? Really? Did I misinterpret the article? Someone pinch me.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's hard to disagree with Barbara Lee's take, whatever you think of the issues:

"This decision is inconsistent with the administration's policy of engaging with those we agree with and those we disagree with..." she said.

"The US is making it more difficult for it to play a leadership role on UN Human Rights Council as it states it plans to do. This is a missed opportunity, plain and simple."

Actually, it's very easy to disagree with her take. I'm glad the US is not attending (along with probably a lot of other countries). The "guiding document" for this forum basically goes against one of the main things the US stands for: free speech. This conference is heavily pushing this new politically correct notion that politically incorrect speech should not be allowed and does not deserve free speech protection. In fact, the opposite is true -- unpopular and politically incorrect speech is exactly what needs protecting to maintain freedom.

I disagree with the other major reason for not attending though (the israel stuff).

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's hard to disagree with Barbara Lee's take, whatever you think of the issues:

"This decision is inconsistent with the administration's policy of engaging with those we agree with and those we disagree with..." she said.

"The US is making it more difficult for it to play a leadership role on UN Human Rights Council as it states it plans to do. This is a missed opportunity, plain and simple."

Actually, it's very easy to disagree with her take. I'm glad the US is not attending (along with probably a lot of other countries). The "guiding document" for this forum basically goes against one of the main things the US stands for: free speech. This conference is heavily pushing this new politically correct notion that politically incorrect speech should not be allowed and does not deserve free speech protection. In fact, the opposite is true -- unpopular and politically incorrect speech is exactly what needs protecting to maintain freedom.

I disagree with the other major reason for not attending though (the israel stuff).

The free speech argument is a really good one, and it would be something that a US representative could bring to the table in this "forum." It's hardly a legislative body making world-wide legislation, and important discussions with many viewpoints contribute to its fruitfulness. Nothing agreed-upon, or disagreed-upon at this forum would suddenly nullify Americans' constitutional rights.

This is purely a matter of global politics, and an attempt by a few select players to not stick out like a sore thumb.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: fallout man
Apparently, racial/religious incitement is questionably relevant to the discussion of racism. Seriously? Really? Did I misinterpret the article? Someone pinch me.

Free speech is a basic tenet of the US, and should be maintained at all costs. That includes allowing people to speak freely even if we think their speech is repugnant. If some KKK guy or Black Panther wants to spew his racial bigotry, he should have the right to do so.

 

[dahunan]

I cannot support this without it TEARING SAUDI ARABIA to fucking SHREDS... for their abuse and destruction of Middle Eastern Islam

All Madrasas should be destroyed .. they were far far far more of a threat than Saddam was

Tear Pakistan in half for their accepting and promotion of BARBARIC AND DISCRIMINATORY perversions of Islamic Law

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: fallout man
The free speech argument is a really good one, and it would be something that a US representative could bring to the table in this "forum." It's hardly a legislative body making world-wide legislation, and important discussions with many viewpoints contribute to its fruitfulness. Nothing agreed-upon, or disagreed-upon at this forum would suddenly nullify Americans' constitutional rights.

I disagree. It might not be a "legislative body", but when they set out "guiding documents" that are supposed to guide the discussions of the forum that go contrary to fundamental tenets of freedom, then the forum should not be given any legitimacy through attendance. Basically, the message the US is sending is "this is a non-starter, and as long as this type of language is in there, we will neither attend nor participate." -- exactly the message that should be sent.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: fallout man
The free speech argument is a really good one, and it would be something that a US representative could bring to the table in this "forum." It's hardly a legislative body making world-wide legislation, and important discussions with many viewpoints contribute to its fruitfulness. Nothing agreed-upon, or disagreed-upon at this forum would suddenly nullify Americans' constitutional rights.

I disagree. It might not be a "legislative body", but when they set out "guiding documents" that are supposed to guide the discussions of the forum that go contrary to fundamental tenets of freedom, then the forum should not be given any legitimacy through attendance. Basically, the message the US is sending is "this is a non-starter, and as long as this type of language is in there, we will neither attend nor participate." -- exactly the message that should be sent.

I'm sorry man, but I completely disagree with you.

Our political/ideological contribution to the UN is the only thing that makes it worth-while to contribute OVER 9000 BAZILLION DOLLAREZ to that whole failure of an establishment.

Avoiding these "forums" based on the reasoning given amounts to writing a "NO FU U LOL" letter to a school-board participation invitation you've paid for with your tax honey-moneys.

That kind of shit is stupid. "NO U" only works on the internet.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: fallout man


Text

US boycotts UN racism conference

Washington has confirmed it will boycott a UN forum on racism in Geneva next week because of differences over Israel and the right to free speech.

The state department said the proposed text of the conference's guiding document remained unacceptable despite having been amended significantly.

The US and Israel quit a similar forum in Durban in 2001 when its draft document likened Zionism to racism.

Current language about "incitement to religious hatred" also alarms the US.

The five-day Durban Review Conference is due to open on Monday.

EU diplomats were still consulting on Saturday on whether to attend the conference. Canada and Israel said earlier that they would not attend.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has stirred outrage by repeatedly calling the Holocaust of the Jews a "myth", is the only prominent head of state so far scheduled to attend.

'Serious concerns'

The state department said it was "with regret" that the US had decided to boycott the conference.

"The text still contains language that reaffirms in toto the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action [DDPA] from 2001, which the United States has long said it is unable to support," it said in a statement.

"Its inclusion in the review conference document has the same effect as inserting that original text into the current document and re-adopting it.

"The DDPA singles out one particular conflict and prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.

"The United States also has serious concerns with relatively new additions to the text regarding 'incitement', that run counter to the US commitment to unfettered free speech."

Internal debate has raged in the US for weeks on whether to attend, the Associated Press news agency reports from Washington.

Pro-Israel groups vehemently opposed participation while human rights advocates and organisations like TransAfrica and members of the Congressional Black Caucus thought it was important to attend.

Immediately after the announcement, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who heads the black caucus in Congress, said the group was "deeply dismayed" by the boycott.

"This decision is inconsistent with the administration's policy of engaging with those we agree with and those we disagree with..." she said.

"The US is making it more difficult for it to play a leadership role on UN Human Rights Council as it states it plans to do. This is a missed opportunity, plain and simple."

In other words:

"We don't want to participate in this unholy orgy of condemnation of racism around the world because some of the wording is counter-productive to our goals of using 'Muslim extremism' as a rallying cry for our specific agendas."

Awesome power!

You really don't get it. The original Durban conference ended up being essentially an anti-Israel harangue. It had nothing to do with the stated agenda - combating racism on an international level. And the documents being prepared for the 2009 conference - the "Durban Review Conference" - show that it's headed in exactly the same direction. Why else do you suppose the following have occurred:

Text

On 23 January 2008, Canada stated it would not participate in the Durban Review Conference. A joint statement by Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Maxime Bernier and the Minister of Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity Jason Kenney said the 2001 conference "degenerated into open and divisive expressions of intolerance and anti-Semitism that undermined the principles of the United Nations and the very goals the conference sought to achieve.? Canada said it "had hoped that the preparatory process for the 2009 Durban Review Conference would remedy the mistakes of the past" but Canada had concluded the process was too flawed to make the conference worthwhile.

On 5 March 2009, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini announced at a NATO summit that his country was pulling out of the conference because of "aggressive and anti-Semitic statements in the draft of the event's final document." Ministry Spokesman Maurizio Massari confirmed Frattini's statements, and charged that the final draft document of the Durban Review Conference contained "expressions of anti-Semitism." Massari said Rome would not participate in the conference unless the document was changed.

On 12 March 2009, Australia's Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, said in the federal parliament that Australia would join Israel, Canada, the United States and Italy in withdrawing from the United Nations-sponsored conference if the draft documents were not revised. ?If we form the view that the text is going to lead to nothing more than an anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic harangue and an anti-Jewish propaganda exercise, Australia will not be in attendance,? Smith said. On 19 April, the Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs Stephen Smith announced that Australia would be boycotting the conference.

The German federal government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid, Günter Nooke, said "In the first instance we should try everything to improve the text of the final document," but also that "Germany should not lend itself to a conference that tries to one-sidedly incriminate Israel." On April 16 Nooke stated at this point it was very unlikely that Germany would attend the Durban conference.

On 16 March 2009, the European Union stated it would boycott the conference unless major changes were made to its declaration. Britain said it would not attend unless the draft showed a "change in direction."

On 18 April, it was revealed that the government of Sweden would boycott the conference, sending no ministers to the event. A spokesman said that such a presence would "legitimize undemocratic forces," adding that the country might send a lower level delegation.

As to the statement about "incitement to religious hatred, here is the text from the Durban document:

Urges States to implement legal sanctions, in accordance with relevant international human rights law, in respect of incitement to racial hatred through new information and communications technologies, including the Internet, and further urges them to apply all relevant human rights instruments to which they are parties, in particular the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, to racism on the Internet.

Why would the United States attend a conference dedicated (in part) to a proposition that is fundamentally at odds with a core principal of freedom: freedom of expression. The "incitement to religious hatred" is the Arab world's attempt to criminalize anything that shows "disrespect" for the Muslim faith. Do you really think the U.S. should be a party to a conference that would have states implement legal sanctions against those who (say) write that Islam is a religion of terror? Or who portray Muhammad in a negative light?

The point is, it's clear from the get-go that this conference isn't about what its title suggests. From the experience at the 2001 conference, this is just a forum for beating up on Israel and for criminalizing anti-Muslim speech.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: fallout man


Text

US boycotts UN racism conference

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has stirred outrage by repeatedly calling the Holocaust of the Jews a "myth", is the only prominent head of state so far scheduled to attend.

Maybe no one else saw this? The question should not be, "Why hasn't the US decided to attend?" but rather, "Why hasn't the rest of the world decided to attend?"

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: fallout man


Text

US boycotts UN racism conference

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has stirred outrage by repeatedly calling the Holocaust of the Jews a "myth", is the only prominent head of state so far scheduled to attend.

Maybe no one else saw this? The question should not be, "Why hasn't the US decided to attend?" but rather, "Why hasn't the rest of the world decided to attend?"

Correct. The US along with other nations can see what the actual purpose of this type of forum is, and thus will not participate. Good call Obama.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Correct. The US along with other nations can see what the actual purpose of this type of forum is, and thus will not participate. Good call Obama.

What, we don't want to empower those who have our blood on their hands? Yes, good call indeed.

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: fallout manText

The US and Israel quit a similar forum in Durban in 2001 when its draft document likened Zionism to racism.

Awesome power!

what happens to all those people that thought what they got taught as schoolkids, about America being a shining beacon of democracy, realize that the adults don't always - or hardly ever - practice what they preach ?

Zionism is a form of racism that is related to & practice by Israel, so you're really not supposed to talk about it, especially if you work in the media or in staff meetings at work.

one thing that doesn't get talked about much is that many American Christians receive a dose of this double-standard about racism at the church every Sunday. they are taught, "if you want to go to Heaven, you have to support Israel." if you say, "what about the Palestinians", you hear "you're not supposed to talk about them", or "we'll pray for them. literally, check out the prophecy archives at
http://www.horizon.org/

the largest church in one of the 2 most wealthy communities in San Diego.