Criticizing Durban II: Is Europe finding a voice of resistance to Eurabia?

There’s evidence that Europe is finally turning around on Durban II. But as we’ve already learned, let’s not jump to hasty optimistic conclusions.

EU countries oppose Muslim views on racism meeting
By ELIANE ENGELER – 21 hours ago

GENEVA (AP) — European Union countries Tuesday stepped up their opposition to Muslim attempts to shield Islam from criticism and attack Israel through a U.N. conference on racism.

EU members were unusually outspoken in appearances before the U.N. Human Rights Council, saying they were worried about preparations for a global racism conference to be held next month because attention was being diverted from the real problems of racial discrimination.

“I am deeply disturbed by the turn this event is taking [sic],” Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Verhagen said.

“The thematic world conference is used by some to try to force their concept of defamation of religions and their focus on one regional conflict on all of us,” Verhagen told the 47-member council.

References to Israel and protection of religion in the current draft conclusion being negotiated for the so-called Durban II conference are unacceptable, Verhagen said.

“We cannot accept any text, which would put religion above individuals, not condemn discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, condone anti-Semitism or single out Israel,” he said. Denmark, Germany, Belgium and Italy voiced similar concerns.

Islamic countries, still angry over cartoons and films attacking Muslims, have been campaigning for wording that would equate criticism of a religious faith with a violation of human rights. The informal negotiations have proven difficult with many issues that marred the first U.N. conference on racism in 2001 re-emerging — such as criticism of Israel.

The April 20-25 meeting is designed to review progress in fighting racism since the global body’s first such conference eight years ago in Durban, South Africa. That 2001 meeting was dominated by clashes over the Middle East and the legacy of slavery, and particularly marred by attacks on Israel and anti-Israel demonstrations at a parallel conference of non-governmental organizations.

The U.S. and Israel walked out midway through the 2001 conference over a draft resolution that singled out Israel for criticism and likened Zionism — the movement to establish and maintain a Jewish state — to racism. The European Union also refused to accept demands by Arab states to criticize Israel for its “racist practices.”

In the end, the 2001 conference dropped criticism of Israel. It urged governments to take concrete steps to fight discrimination and recognized the plight of the Palestinian people and the need for Israel to have security.

Israel and Canada had already announced they would will boycott Durban II. The Obama administration said Friday the U.S. will stay away from this year’s conference unless its final document is changed to drop all references to Israel and the defamation of religion.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Monday that countries should not put conditions for the participation in the meeting. Durban II should deal with contemporary forms of racism, such as religious profiling and Islamophobia, he said.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

They talk as if they just discovered that there was a problem.

3 Responses to Criticizing Durban II: Is Europe finding a voice of resistance to Eurabia?

  1. Eliyahu says:

    of course, the whole conference is absurd. Look at the role that Arab states and Iran are playing in it. Then compare with the human rights situation in those various countries. The subjection of non-Muslims in Islam is no doubt totally disregarded. I was talking to a Libyan Jew last night and mentioned that I saw photos of the destroyed –once beautiful– synagogue of Tripoli. Although he was of the younger, born in Israel generation, he was aware of it and upset by it as he should be. Now, Libya plays a major role in the UN “human rights” council and in the Durban 2 preparations. Do you think anybody at Durban 2 who advocates curbs on criticism of religion will bring up how the synagogues were destroyed in Libya?? Nor will the treatment of Copts in Egypt be brought up. After all, for the Durban crowd, all religions may be equal, but some are more equal than others. By the way, there was a fairly bloodthirsty demo in Durban two months ago against Israel’s defensive operation in Gaza. The one in Paris may have been more destructive. I’m not sure.

    So not only should Durban 2 be cancelled but the whole UN “human rights” council should be abolished. It serves no useful purpose. It certainly does not serve the cause of human rights. Probably the UN too has to be abolished in toto. The UN and the earlier human rights commission are beautiful ideas. But in the real world they only make things worse. After all, the UN itself and the HR Council [formerly HR Commission] are made up of govts. They are made up of govts that do not recognize human rights in principle. Just examine the basic laws of Iran, Libya, Egypt, etc. Now the Muslim govts are a major problem for their denial of HR in principle. Think of the Org. of the Islamic Conference. This body is very influential at the UN. So how can there be any justice or truth there at all on any issues that cast a bad light on Muslims. Now many of the Muslim states signed the original 1948 [year?] Universal Declaration of HR. But they never implemented it. Since then, they have come up with their Cairo Declaration of HR in Islam. An oxymoron obviously. The Cairo Declaration denies universal HR. Now if either the Western govts or the Western “Left” fail to see the problem with the Cairo Declaration and everything that it influences [or contaminates] such as Durban 2, then they are complicit in abolishing univeral Human Rights on this planet.

  2. oao says:

    They talk as if they just discovered that there was a problem.

    what else can they do if they know they should have dismissed it from the start, but didn’t?

    they probably could live with the anti-semitism, but the anti-westernism is harder to justify to their publics.

  3. Eliyahu says:

    It’s time to go back and read [or read for the first time] Abraham Yeselson and Anthony Gaglione’s A Dangerous Place on the UN as a threat to peace, a weapon in the struggle between states.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *