Durban II
23 Apr 2009
Does One Moron Really Ruin The Whole Conference?
Racism is alive and well, and not just in Iran. It's also pretty big in Israel and Australia. We need to get over Ahmadinejad's rant and seize opportunities like Durban II to fight it, writes Irfan Yusuf
There's been plenty of hysteria surrounding the United Nations Durban Review Conference currently being held in Geneva. Writing on his Herald Sun blog, Andrew Bolt described the conference as the "great festival of Jew hatred". He wondered whether it was "a complete coincidence" that the conference fell on the 120th anniversary of Hitler's birth. He dismisses the arguments of some of those supporting participation in the conference as engaging in "nasty smell[ing] ... caricature" before wondering why Human Rights Commissioner Tom Calma "and his other ... junkateers" are attending "a conference for racists".Bolt would have us believe that one cannot support a UN anti-racism initiative without supporting the rants of Ahmadinejad. The logical corollary to that is saying one cannot oppose Australia's participation in the Durban II conference without supporting the hysterical fatwas of our own tabloid mullahs — like Bolt — and their supporters.
To get some idea of just how absurd the hysteria has become, consider this. One prominent delegate at the conference was described as "a bigot and a racist" who is "blind, deaf and dumb when it comes to issues of Israel". Two US universities were condemned for inviting him recently, with the national director of the Anti-Defamation League stating the man was "... a poor choice for a ... speaker ... His statements about Israel have time and again conveyed outright bigotry against the Jewish homeland and the Jewish people ... should have raised a red flag. This is not someone to be held up as a model ... given his history of bombastic rhetoric and unceasing support for the anti-Israel boycott effort".
And who is this nasty despicable racist who shows bigotry to the Jewish people? Why, none other than Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a veteran of South Africa's anti-apartheid movement and a Nobel peace laureate. In May 2008 Tutu visited Gaza as part of a UN fact-finding mission. In September 2008, Tutu suggested that an incident in which an Israeli shell killed 18 members of the same family might constitute a war crime. Tutu also supported the proposed academic boycott of Israel initiated by some British academics, and has compared Israel's treatment of indigenous Palestinians to South Africa's old apartheid regime.
Tutu is not the first prominent South African activist to compare Israel's treatment of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to South Africa's apartheid. Farid Esack was a prominent leader of the United Democratic Front (UDF). He is one of the few Muslim scholars campaigning to end discrimination against victims of HIV/AIDS. Esack has visited Israel numerous times, and his conclusions will not be music to the ears of Israel's die-hard supporters.
Opponents of the Durban Review Conference have been working for months to discredit the affair even before Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Geneva. They claim that the initial Durban conference in 2001 descended into a morass of anti-Semitism. But anyone who reads the Durban I declaration will realise that it wasn't just about singling out Israel. And anyone who claims the whole process is just about singling out Israel is merely helping the cause of those who single out Israel.
The UN's multilateral anti-racism process isn't about Israel and Palestine. Not everything the UN does is about Israel and Palestine. The 62-page Durban Declaration and Programme of Action spoke about racism in all its manifestations (a fair few of which have shown up in recent public debate here in Australia). The document spoke of the sufferings of persons of African descent, whether through trans-Atlantic slavery or colonialism or apartheid or the kind of contemporary racism you'd read on an Australian tabloid website commentary on crime. It spoke of xenophobia against asylum seekers, something Herald Sun readers might be familiar with. It recognised racism, ethnic chauvinism and xenophobia as a major cause of wars. And it spoke about the rights of indigenous peoples, including the ones regarded as not being black enough by right-wing commentators.
Ahmadinejad may deny the Holocaust, but the Durban I document certainly didn't. Paragraph 58 of the Durban I declaration states: "We recall that the Holocaust must never be forgotten". And Ahmadinejad should understand that his anti-Semitism runs parallel to other forms of prejudice he perhaps wouldn't approve of: "61. We recognise with deep concern the increase in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas against Jewish, Muslim and Arab communities".
And in case anyone has any doubts, I think Ahmadinejad's remarks before and at the Durban Review Conference have been xenophobic and moronic. I haven't had to wait for his most recent performance to make my own position clear. But does that mean my government must withdraw from a major multilateral effort to fight racism and xenophobia?
Sometimes when you attend international gatherings, you have to hear things you disagree with. Often they are ugly views. But there is a difference between demonising the demonisers and rejecting the entire process. It made sense for a host of Western countries to walk out of Ahmadinejad's speech at Durban II. Now that his rant is over, the time has come for us to walk back in.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
I heard that Ahmadinejad once spoke at the General Assembly, an unseemly organisation which must be dedicated to racism and genocide. I say we quit it.
I heard Ahmadinejad once appeared on All Saints. Can we ban that?
LOL, australia has pending complaints at both CERD and the ICC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyj_gWqdDWQ&feature=channel_page
How hypocritical of them to go there and make idiotic statements only for other nation who know of the complaints to laugh in their faces.
AM sure they had intentions of acting proxy for the US !!
but Ahmedhinijad has never denied the holocaust, he has merely questioned the numbers of dead. We constantly challenge the death toll in the wars we indulge in and howl down anyone who dares to suggest the coalition of the killing starved to death 1.3 million Iraqis, murdered 250,000 in Gulf War one, helped Iraq murder hundreds of thousands of Iranians, gave the nod to the Kuwait invasion and have helped to slaughter about 1.3 million Iraqis and made 4.6 million refugees this time around.
We scream blue murder anytime anyone dares to suggest our soldiers gun down Afghan children in their homes, and our government blindly supports Israel’s various massacres, invasions and genocides.
Irfan you have disappointed me because the speech was very good and it was correct.
Europe did kill the jews, we in Australia turned away jewish refugees in 1938 and brought 700 nazis as refugees because they fit the white Australia policy after the war.
The excuse of sending refugees to Palestine was nazi Germany, but that place did not exist in the 19th century and it did not exist in 1946 - 50 when most European jews went to ethnically cleanse Palestine of 80% of the population, as planned in the 19th century.
No matter how you want to cut the cloth, the man spoke the truth.
It’s just disgraceful that the west refuse to look in the mirror though at their crimes and stop demanding the innocent suffer for our sins.
My grandfather was in Palestine in WW11, he used to tell me that zionist settlers were brutal thugs and I did not believe him.
After reading Pappe, Eldar, Avnery, Levy, Hass and many others I know now that he was right.
This comment has been deleted as it was off topic.
This comment has been deleted as it was offensive.
This comment has been deleted as it was off topic.
Irfan,
In my opinion Israel deserves criticism,certainly that nation has an appalling human rights record. That said, the impression that the conference was undermined solely on Israel’s behalf is not accurate, is it? It’s a rather stinking red herring.
The conference wasn’t ruined by one moron it was also boycotted because of a proposal, by Islamic nations to equate criticism of religion with racism, this is an insupportable assault on free speech to citizens of Western democracies.
Perhaps you could enlighten me what does the Durban Document say in regard to the sufferings of Africans,Europeans and Asians as slaves of Moslems? In the past? In the 21st century? Are there any specific references to racism practised against Africans, Europeans or Asians in Isalmic countries?
I agree with MaryJ. Ahmedinejad spoke essentially TRUTH!
The total hypocrisy of US lap-dogs and their Zionists controllers is just absolutely breathtaking.
Irfan, I was pretty much a fan of yours, with some reservations, but now I have many more reservations. President Ahmedinejad is a lot of things, including being a pretty good irritant on Western egos, but he is NOT a moron. He, with his Fundamentalist Islamic Religious leader and crew are TYRANTS, and I have to say, I have nothing but contempt for ALL religions, but most of all for ones that treat half the human race as less than human, but he is NOT a Moron. He has played all the Western leaders for suckers and idiots for years now, and quite successfully (not that that would take a lot of doing, they ARE pretty much morons).
This is all a nasty underhand game, and Joe Public will never get to hear the truth of just what is going on under the flim-flam! Maybe when, one of these years, when people get to read the CIA and US Presidential archives we may be better educated. Dazza.
more conspiracy theories from dazza…
Irfan Yusuf’s article is a waste of space, as he can’t put aside his hatred of Andrew Bolt long enough to listen to what he actually said.
Irfan reject’s Bolt’s position:
Which might be fine were the conference a genuine anti-racism initiative. Except it isn’t. The whole thing is a complete sham with dubious credibility beforehand, and none after Ahmadinajad took the podium.
Irfan demonstrates his wholesale naivety about the UN:
Are you sure about that, Irfan?
During the 2006-2007 year, the General Assembly passed 22 resolutions about Israel.
How many do you think it passed about Sudan? Two? Three maybe?
No. Zero, actually.
In the same year, how many resolutions do you think the
UN’s Human Rights Council passed in relation to North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, China, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Pakistan?
Go on guess.
One hundred percent of its condemnatory resolutions were against Israel.
The Human Rights Council ignored every single one of the other 191 UN member states, including the world’s worst abusers.
Can you really tell me there isn’t a single other country deserving of just a little bit of their attention?
It’s a shame some of you can’t put aside your thoughts about Israel long enough, to consider that maybe, just maybe, the UN really is a boys club for the worst dictatorial regimes on the planet. And your taxpayer dollars are funding it.
This comment has been deleted as it was off-topic and offensive.
It is well known that the UN along with the British authorities essentially colluded in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Israel has little to complain about.
In any case is not true that Israel has an appalling Human rights record?
There are three kinds of hypocrisy.
First, there is a hypocrisy of attending a conference on human rights (in this case related to racism) while at the same time engaging in racist or discriminatory behaviour.
Second, there is the hypocrisy of refusing to attend such a conference on the grounds that racists will be attending, while at the same time currently engaging in racist behaviour.
Third, there is the hypocrisy of calling the other side a hypocrite while at the same time being hypocritical yourself.
Iran falls into the first category. Israel falls into the second. Both fall into the third category. Arguably, falls into the second and third categories too.
@danlew….
the UN is a political game, played by these political leaders at the heads of states level, but it also a boys club for the West and the US at beaurocratic level…..
judicial corruption is rife but according to UN reports it only in 3rd world countries…..how many UN reports target the US, Australia, canada.
Bolt is a whore for certain factions, and you know who…..
Ahmadinejad is the figurehead of the Iranian people and in my opinion, wants to be seen by the UN as making an effort to address these serious issues in his own country.
The fact that he is likely one of the biggest hypocrites in the whole racism and human rights issues is blatantly obvious to some. I agree with eps in that he falls into definietely the first category of hypocrisy, and middling in the second and third.
"The UN’s multilateral anti-racism process isn’t about Israel and Palestine. Not everything the UN does is about Israel and Palestine. The 62-page Durban Declaration and Programme of Action spoke about racism in all its manifestations.."
Interesting to note that this is the aim apparently of the UN to address racism and human rights everywhere they have a foothold, that is, in each of the 191 countries and not just focus on one trouble spot. Because the Middle East is such a hotbed of contorted political power play it appears to me there is some need by the UN to justify their motions.
I think Irfad has made a valid point.
Yusuf makes some good points. If anyone bothers to read translations of what the Iranian president has said it is clear to see he has been grossly misquoted and misrepresented. Of course he may be inclined to rant and use religious language but in essence he is talking to his electorate and not the world.
The double standards would be funny if they were not so tragic. The greatest crime of Ahmadinejad is that in essence he tells the truth about Israeli and American crimes and human rights abuses. Iran may be less than perfect in the way it treats its citizens but lets not forget that the Israelis torture their non-Jewish citizens and treat them as second class citizens and the Americans have capital punishment which is barbaric in the extreme. However, the wrongs of Iran aside, the fact is that it is the Americans and their allies, including us, who are murdering and maiming civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Israelis who are murdering and maiming the Palestinians and any of their neighbours when it takes their fancy and the Iranians who are, well, not murdering or maiming any of their neighbours. I love the way it’s okay for Israel to talk about bombing Iran, which means slaughtering and maiming millions of Iranians, but it’s not okay for Iranians to talk about wanting to see an end to the Zionist entity.
Who was it that said:
"I may not like what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it." Wise words. Freedom of speech, any and all speech, is the bedrock of a free, democratic and civilized society.
danlew, we should never put aside our hatred of Andrew Bolt. If we do, the terrorists win.
"I love the way it’s okay for Israel to talk about bombing Iran, which means slaughtering and maiming millions of Iranians, but it’s not okay for Iranians to talk about wanting to see an end to the Zionist entity.
Well said, rosross. Consistency has never been a strong Zionist trait.
The Iran "situation" provides the Zionists with a convenient scapegoat to divert the world’s eyes from the atrocities occurring in Palestine. In fact, the Durban conference has moved much focus from the continuing occupation to what, in my opinion, was a legitimate speech based, mostly, on fact.
Ahmadinejad has every right to call a spade a spade.
If a country is quite plainly committed to the complete removal of its indigineous population, what is so wrong with calling attention to this fact?
And can anyone prove that Ahmadinejad is actually racist?
Why does standing up for the downtrodden make one a racist?
Rossross,
Is Keysar Trad posting here now?
Let me get this straight. Israel treats its non-citizens, as second class citizens? Contradicting yourself has never been an issue, has it Rossross?
An Israeli leader said that? Transcript please.
Israel has referred solely to destroying Iranian military targets. Not bombing downtown Teheran. This is a stark contrast to Iranian aspirations to wipe Israel off the map altogether. You are a liar and a fraud, Rossross.
Danlew,
I said:
lets not forget that the Israelis torture their non-Jewish citizens and treat them as second class citizens
You said:Let me get this straight. Israel treats its non-citizens, as second class citizens?
No, I did not say non-citizens I said non-Jewish citizens. No contradiction there. The Jewish State sanctions torture. Torture is used on Palestinians and non-Jewish Israelis. This is easily found by having a look at Israeli human rights organisations like B’Tselem and the like.
I said: I love the way it’s okay for Israel to talk about bombing Iran, which means slaughtering and maiming millions of Iranians
You said: An Israeli leader said that?
The Israeli State has often talked about bombing Iran. That is not in dispute by anyone. If they do then millions will be murdered and maimed because many of the sites are strangely enough, places where Iranians live.
You said: Israel has referred solely to destroying Iranian military targets.
As I said above. Where do you think these sites are? Iran is a heavily populated country. People work in these facilities. If there are nuclear materials which are bombed they are released into the atmosphere. What on earth do you think would happen if anyone bombed Israel’s nuclear sites?
And, as I repeat, go and read the translation of what was said. The Iranian president never said that Iran wished to wipe Israel off the map, he said:’The Zionist entity will pass from the pages of history" And it will.
Calling people names is childish. You need to do some research.
Israel and torture:
http://www.btselem.org/english/torture/HCJ_Ruling.asp
Torture of children:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2270.shtml
More on Israel’s use of torture.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/07/israel
Consequences of bombing Iranian nuclear facilities:
"Never in history has it happened that nuclear power plants and nuclear enrichment facilities have been deliberately bombed. Such facilities, everywhere in the world, operate under severe safety conditions because the release of radioactive materials is deadly, immediately and also long after exposure. If the USA or Israel deliberately bomb a fully fueled nuclear power plant or nuclear fuel enrichment facilities, containment will be breached; radioactive elements will be released into the environment. There will be horrific deaths for families in the surrounding vicinity. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated 3 million deaths would result in 3 weeks from bombing the nuclear enrichment facilities near Esfahan, and the contamination would cover Afghanistan, Pakistan, all the way to India."
http://www.infowars.com/consider-the-consequences-of-bombing-iran%E2%80%…
Danlew: some reading for you. Given the deadly effects of the Chernobyl accident what makes you think that bombing a nuclear power station in Iran would have any different sort of outcome? Can you please post links showing that bombing nuclear facilities is safe.
I remember an old saying.
It goes, "one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch"
The UN (united nudniks) is a failure as was the "League of Nations" before the first World War.
Kev baby would be better placed in seeking permanent positions in Seato or Asean, or whatever the Muslim dominated states call it these days.
Another thing, one of the intellectual giant regular anti Israel contributors to this post said "Israel would contemplate attacking Iran and killing millions of innocent people"
This is absolute rubbish.
Most Persians are not in support of this fanatic dictator.
Israel has a super smart weapon which can not only locate Ahmadinajad, but can penetrate his left nostril and lobotomize him.
The only problem is that OPEC has’nt given its approval yet.
Remember the Shah was kicked out by the Europeans because he wanted to safeguard Iranian oil and call the shots for Iran (Persia).
So don’t blame Israel, like Iran, the Palestrinians have been hijacked by the Jihadists long ago.
They alone can rise up against the Arab terrorists. Oli
Me thinks that Revlio had too much Sabbath wine!
Just why does Irfan consider the President of Iran a "moron"??
He spoke the truth to a worldwide audience of billions.
The boycott by "western" displays more ignorance than virtue. A cowardly double-standard that will never advance the cause of human rights.
What can the world expect in leadership from these "morons".? They are ill-equipped to preach on Climate Ccange. World Poverty, Globalisation.etc.
Change, Yes We Can. Bulldust!
Irfan: you are full of it, mate. This conference was a sham from the get-go. Your anti-Israel rhetoric (especially the ridiculous comparison with apartheid) is wearing extremely thin.
Grow up and accept that your precious UN is nothing but a bunch of Jew-hating bigots. Bravo to the few courageous nations that boycotted this hatefest, or at least walked out on that fascist animal from the Islamic Republic of Iran.