| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Jonathan Kay on the creepy, illiberal patchwork of weirdness that is Durban II |
| 2008-10-30 |
| Earlier this month, a UN committee stacked with dictatorships (Libya, Iran, Cuba, etc.) produced a provisional blueprint for the Spring, 2009 "Durban Review Conference," an international confab organized to promote the "Programme of Action" that came out of the original, disastrous 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa. Since Durban I has become a byword for anti-Semitism and anti-Western extremism, the forthcoming Durban II confab is widely expected to be a farce (Canada and Israel have already announced they won't be attending). And so relatively few pundits seem to have bothered wading through the UN's characteristically turgid pre-conference planning documentation. But faced with a slow news day, I decided to take a crack. Four hours later, I don't recommend the exercise. The five-part "Draft Outcome Document" contains 88 pages and 646 provisions. Most of it consists of boilerplate repetition of the same small handful of themes (encapsulated well in this UN Watch report): (1) Racism is everywhere, (2) The fault for this lies with the West, because of its "genocidal" legacy of slavery and colonization, (3) "Islamophobia" and discrimination against "people of African descent" are especially prevalent and pernicious, and (4) Israel is a blight upon nations (Paragraphs 114-117 of Section 1, for instance, are dedicated exclusively to bashing the Jewish state. No other country comes in for singling out in the whole document). In many cases, whole paragraphs are repeated several times over (such as a lengthy Jimmy Carteresque screed about Israel promoting "a new kind of apartheid"). Yet buried amidst all this are some weird, and sometimes welcome, non sequiturs. One section singles out Europe's Roma population as being especially vulnerable (true). In other parts, anti-Semitism and "Christianophobia" (a word I've never heard before) are described as serious problems. "Tribal" violence is deplored -- an implied (and deserved) knock on Africa of the type that this sort of tier-mondiste UN body typically stays far away from. There is full-throated advocacy for the rights of women and children -- despite the obvious clash with traditional Muslim social practices. And then there's Paragraph 109 of Section 1, which calls for nations to address the memory of the "trans Saharan slave trade and the slave trade in the Indian Ocean" -- a clear reference to the Arab and Muslim contribution to the slave trade, which is usually taboo at this sort of anti-Western confab. Even more shocking (given the number of radical Muslim states that had a hand in this document) was Paragraph 292, which "Affirms that the Holocaust, which resulted in the murder of one third of the Jewish people, along with countless members of other minorities, will forever be a warning to all people of the dangers of hatred, bigotry, racism and prejudice and recalls again that the Holocaust must never be forgotten." Amen to that. Didn't think I'd find it here, though. On my pet subject, freedom of speech, the document is a contradictory mess. Section 1, Para. 30 warns us, Canadian Islamic Congress-style, that Islamophobia "takes cover behind the freedom of expression" -- but then, 11 paragraphs later, the document laments, Ezra Levant-style, that the "fight against racial and religious hatred" is "being used as a pretext legitimising impermissible limitations to freedom of expression." And then, later on, this somewhat confusing -- but not altogether censorious -- take on the subject: "285.Stresses that, as human rights are universal, interdependent, interrelated, and mutually reinforcing, the coexistence of rights does not only imply that a particular right should be seen in a restrictive manner because of the existence of another right; 286.Stresses that the right to freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, as it ensures individual self-fulfillment and a pluralistic, tolerant society with access to multitudes of ideas and philosophies." Sadly, that is not the document's final say on the subject. Section 5, Para. 100 "Urges States to take serious steps to address the contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and in this context to take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols." (In other words, no pix of Mohammed.) And then, in Sec. 5, Para 142, comes this especially creepy one-world-government "universal" approach to censorship: "National laws alone cannot deal with the rising tide of defamation and hatred against Muslims, especially if such trends are spreading to the grass root communities. A framework is needed to analyze national laws and understand their provisions. This could then be compiled in a single 'universal document' as guidelines for legislation – aimed at countering 'defamation of religions.'" At other points, the text is weirdly esoteric. Paragraph 276 of Section 1, for instance, invites "the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, in connection with the 2010 Football World Cup tournament to be held in South Africa, to introduce a visible theme on non-racism in football." And then there's Sec. 1, para. 227, which is almost enough to make a reader laugh outright. It warns "that a failure of the Durban review process would, above all, pave the way for intensification of worrying racist and xenophobic trends." If there was ever a single event in modern history that exacerbated "racist and xenophobic trends" in the world, it's Durban itself. Whatever mixed signals are being sent in this follow-up blueprint, I have little doubt that Durban II will be just as bad. Canada is lucky to have a government with the good sense to stay away. Postscript: In response to my blog post, I got this interesting message from a UN insider: The reason the text is contradictory is that the UN facilitators at this stage just pasted in elements of the texts submitted by both the EU as well as the anti-democratic blocs. So at this stage it’s a hodge-podge, all subject to negotiation. Expect that much of the good stuff will be excised, certainly anything that’s a jab at the violators. The references to tribal violence (African), non-Western slave trade (Arab), reference to the ICC (Sudanese genocide) — all of that will be yanked out. Similarly, the far more prevalent offensive material will be softened. Yet given the constellation of bloc power, far more of the poison than the perfume will remain. And in the end, in whatever proportions the combination turns out, it will be no less inedible. So there you have it: All the surprisingly enlightened stuff will probably end up on the cutting room floor. Let's revisit this prediction in a few months and see if it bears out ... |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #3 #1 - Funny... I had thought it was about Dursban insecticide. |
| Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats 2008-10-30 13:13 |
| #2 Just cut off all aid to these folks. I'm sure Libya, Iran and Cuba can cover the shortfall. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-10-30 11:32 |
| #1 Thought this was going to be a story about Dick Durbin. Oh well. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-10-30 11:02 |