Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper

On December 5, 2008, there was issued, on the letterhead of the High Commissioner For Human Rights, by Ambassador Idriss Jazairy, President of the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, a “Non-Paper Paper” and a cover letter explaining its purpose. [Emphasis & links added.]
[Due to the use of OCR to extract quotes from scanned document images, there will be some spelling errors and a few Anglicized words will be Americanized. ]

The purpose of this “Non paper” is to stimulate a constructive debate on the content and the framework of major areas of vulnerability which for reasons of substance and/or of procedure suffer from protection gaps. Some of these areas are related to the contemporary manifestations of racism, ~ racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.The purpose of this “Non-paper” is also to invite concrete responses and recommendations based on its content.

The Ambassador set forth the Non Paper’s terms of reference.

  • Paragraph 199 of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action that recommended to the Commission on Human Rights, now replaced by the Human Rights Council, to elaborate complementary intenational standards aimed at strengthening and updating international instruments against all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
  • Decision 3/IO3 of the Human Rights Council that decides, in pursuance of decision and instruction of the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to establish an Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council with the mandate to elaborate, as a matter of priority and necessity, complementary standards in the form of either a convention or additional protocol (s) to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racism, racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related Intolerance that will ill the existing gaps in the Convention and also provide new normative texts aimed at combating all forms of contemporary racism, including incitement to racial and religious hatred.
  • Resolution 6/21 of the Human Rights Council on the elaboration of new international complementary standards to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The following listed phrases are critical because they are encoded to conceal the true intentions of the committee.

  • all forms of racism
  • related intolerance
  • incitement to racial and religious hatred

We must always bear in mind how the United Nations twist the English language!!! The following quote is from Preliminary document of the African Regional Conference Preparatory to the Durban Review Conference [Emphasis added.]

4. Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities;

Islamophobia = racism!!!

The Ambassador directed the member states to keep in mind::

all views expressed and contributions made within the framework of the follow-up mechanisms of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, including:

  • The survey of the five experts on the nature and the scope of substantive gaps, with regard to issues of content in the existing international instruments to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (A/HRC/4/W G.3/ 6) ;
  • The document of the Committee on the Elimination of racial discrimination on possible measures to strengthen the implementation of the final observations by adopting new recommendations by updating its monitoring procedures (All-IRC/4/WG.3/7)
  • The responses provided by the Committee ou the Elimination of racial discrimination to the questionnaire by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights pursuant to decision PC.1/ 10 of the Preparatory Committee of the Durban Review Conference (A/CON’F.2l1/PC.2/CRP.5) including the relevant points of view made by the Members ofthe Committee on behalf ofthe latter; ~
  • The Report of the 5th session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective implementation of the Durban Conference and Prcgrarnmc of Action (A/HCR/6/10) and all relevant recommendations and conclusions adopted by this Group since its creation, particularly those contained in document(AH.CR/AC.!/I/CRP.2);
  • The discussions that took place during the first session of the Ad hoc Committee on complementary standards, held from 18 to 2l February 2008.

The Ambassador lists the following revelations from the two previous sessions.

  • There is global collective agreement and commitment expressed during the 2001 World Conference against racism on the principle of claborating international complementary standards to strengthen and update the international instruments against all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (para 199 of the Durban Programme of Action);
  • However, no consensus was reached on how the specific form of/manner of giving concrete expression to this commiuncnt in priciple;
  • We must also bear in mind the ensuing debate on the links between articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on civil and political rights and the expert meeting of 2 and 3 October 2008, whereafter it was reiterated that the fundamental right of freedom of expression is compatible with the prohibition of any call for national, racial or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence;
  • It is thus imperative to reach the largest possible agreement, through the Ad hoc Committee on complementary standards, on concrete ways and means to implement the commitment in principle made: during the 2001 World Conference against racism.
  • The approach suggested to achieve this goal is to stimulate, in a positive and inclusive spirit, concrete proposals on the fields and themes laid out in the “Non paper” for which complementary standardized provisions or other measures designed to fill protection gaps, are necessary.

Of course, the revelations repeat certain code phrases.

  • all forms of racism
  • related intolerance

Next, we encounter a reference to ICCPR.

  • the fundamental right of freedom of expression is compatible with the prohibition of any call for national, racial or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence

Muslims, liars, lawyers & U.N. bureaucrats do not use words the way normal people do. “call for national, racial or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence” means any criticism of Islam, specifically the Danish Cartoons & Fitna. In this context, it is asserted that censorship of criticism of Islam does not interfere with freedom of expression.

The Non-Paper begins with a listing of its Purpose, scope and parameters:

  • Implementing paragraph 199 of the Programme of Action of the World Conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in which the Conference “Rec0Recommends that the Commission on Human Rights prepare complementary international standards
  • to strengthen and update international instruments against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in all their aspects”, as well as the relevant Human Rights Council resolutions, in particular decision 3/103 .
  • The need to enhance efforts to counter contemporary and emerging forms of manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
  • The need to strengthen the monitoring procedures of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination with a view to enable it to undertake the responsibilities entrusted to it in a more effective manner.
  • The need to address double or multiple discrimination a continuing source of concern, as it affects certain individuals and groups, in particular gender-related racial discrimination and double discrimination on the grounds of race and religion.
  • The imperative to ensure that measures to combat terrorism respect the fundamental principles and the universally recognized standards of international law, international human rights law and international humanitarian Law.
  • The urgency of addressing racial profiling and eliminating it as a pervasive form of discrimination.
  • The need for uniform and consistent application of the law at the national and international levels to ensure the effectiveness of international efforts to counter racism and racial discrimination.
  • The need to recognize that The prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred and the prohibition of incitement to national, racial -· or religious hatred are compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression.
  • The principle of regarding provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration as a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance which must also be a feature of democratic society.
  • The need to re-emphasize that the prohibition of publication of material with the aim of protecting the rights of others and against seriously or gratuitously offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by the followers of any religion is a legitimate State objective.
  • The need for national and international law to provide adequate legal responses to propaganda of a racist and xenophobia nature committed through computer systems.
  • The need to follow the growing trend in many States to include, in their criminal I legislation, offenses in which religious motives are an aggravating factor.

Once again, the code phrases rear their ugly heads.

  • related intolerance = Islamophobia = any criticism of Islam.
  • contemporary and emerging forms of manifestations of racism = Islamophobia = any criticism of Islam.
  • measures to combat terrorism respect the fundamental principles and the universally recognized standards of intemational law, international human rights law and international humanitarian Law. This is a direct attack on surveillance of young Muslim males, such as the “magnificent 19” and other perpetrators of mass casualty attacks. Suspicion of Muslims = “racial profiling”:.
  • racial profiling
  • The need to recognize that The prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred and the prohibition of incitement to national, racial -· or religious hatred are compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression. A repetition of the egregious attack upon free speech. The reference is to the Danish Cartoons and Fitna.
  • provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration as a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance This is another reference to the Danish Cartoons.
  • The need to re-emphasize that the prohibition of publication of material with the aim of protecting the rights of others and against seriously or gratuitously offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by the followers of any religion is a legitimate State objective. Refer to the quotes from Reliance of the Traveller in the initial post of this series.
  • propaganda of a racist and xenophobia nature committed through computer systems. This is an attack upon blog posts and web sites which expose Islam’s damnable doctrines.

Eight specific themes are listed, here is #3.

3- Terrorism, racial discrimination and racial profiling:

  1. A definition of racial profiling, prioritizing human rights protection, could be elaborated and agreed upon.
  2. States must ensure that measures to combat terrorism do not discriminate, in purpose or effect on ·grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as on religious grounds, bearing in mind in this context the intersectionality between racial and religious discrimination.
  3. Profiling based on stereotypes founded on grounds of discrimination prohibited by international law, including on racial, ethnic and/or religious grounds must be prohibited by law.

Who practices terrorism? Are the majority of terror attacks perpetrated by little old ladies from Iceland? Terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam, established as such by 3:151, 8:12., 8:60, 33:26, 59:2 & 59:13. When you hear hoof beats, they probably come from horses, not from unicorns. Profiling according to current trends in the identity of perpetrators is common sense. Islam is acting through the UN to disarm us.

The fifth listed theme gets down to detail.

5- Incitement to racial, national and religious hatred

  1. There is a need for further clarifying and reinforcing at the international level existing obligations on the eradication of all incitement to hatred and ‘ discrimination in any form and to prohibit by law, propaganda for war and advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
  2. In this context, complementary standards to be developed should observe the following parameters:
    • Article 4 of ICERD shall be extended to the crime of incitement to racial hatred covering offenses motivated by religious hatred against immigrant communities.
    • The protection provided shall extend to all individuals and groups within the jurisdiction of the State Party.
    • The prohibitions shall equally cover acts committed by any individual, group or organization, including political and media organizations as well as by national or local public authorities.
    • The provisions shall apply to any act which, in purpose or effect, incites discrimination, hostility or violence.
    • In order to achieve consistent and uniform application and maximize protection for actual or potential victims, any doubt as to the existence of a causal link between an act of incitement and the likelihood of a violation, or the threshold required for reaching such a determination, shall be interpreted in a consistent and coherent manner at the national and international levels so as to ensure appropriate protection of the concerned individuals or groups.
    • Addressing acts constituting incitement shall apply whether such acts have aims which are internal or external to the State concerned.
    • Requisite standards would explicitly not prohibit advocacy of the sovereign right to self-defence or the right of peoples to self-determination and independence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
    • Requisite complementary standards shall include the prohibition of publication of material that direct seriously offensive attacks on matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings, with the aim of protecting them against such attacks.
  3. In line with the above parameters, States’ general obligations would include:
    • Undertaking to promulgate, where they do not exist, a specific legislation prohibiting any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
    • Asserting, in the relevant specific legislation, that such propaganda and advocacy are contrary to public policy.
    • Providing for appropriate sanction, including of a criminal nature, in case of violation.

The listed item under sub section c would appear to be straightforward. It is not. Muslims, liars, lawyers and U.N. Bureaucrats do not use the English language to communicate, they use it to deceive! In evidence whereof I cite the egregious remarks of the Secretary General on the subject of Fitna, the short documentary by Girt Wielders.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

Fitna does not incite violence, it documents incitement contained in the Qur’an and propagated by Imams in their Mosques

The program of the Ad Hoc Committee runs parallel to the programs of the General Assembly and Human Rights Council in their resolutions combating “defamation of religion” and that of the Durban II review conference. Those programs are documented in detail and their egregious hypocrisy exposed and documented in the following listed blog posts..

Advertisements

Geneva: Where the Muslims Rule and the West Caves In.

Cross posted at Reject the UN and Monkey in the Middle

In early 2009 the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) will be holding a large conference to deal with the world’s human rights issues. Will they be addressing the ongoing genocide in Darfur? Will they finally address the inequality of women in Muslim nations? Will they address the systematic murder of homosexuals, Christians and Baha’i in Iran?

U.N. Thugs

By Christine Williams
FrontPageMagazine.com

Support for Israel has never ranked high on the United Nations’ agenda. And the upcoming World Conference Against Racism, scheduled for early 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland, presents a valid case. Many observers are concerned that the UN-sponsored event will simply serve as yet another a platform to launch attacks against Israel — as the previous world anti-racism conference did in Durban, South Africa, seven years ago.

Even by the standards of the organization’s traditional antagonism toward the Jewish State, the U.N.’s 2001 Durban gathering marked a low point. To the extent that “racism” was discussed, it was only to condemn Israeli policies. Little wonder that the conference, known as “ Durban I,” is largely remembered as a U.N.-backed assault on Israel.

Now it’s back. And if early evidence is any guide, Durban II, as the Geneva event is already being called, will be a replay of its predecessor. Consider that the chair of the conference’s planning committee is Libya, whose longtime leader, Muammar Gadhafi, has recently claimed that the Israeli Mossad aims to assassinate Barack Obama. The vice chair of the conference, meanwhile, is communist Cuba. And the fact that Iran’s president has notoriously called for Israel’s destruction has not, expectedly, prevented it from playing a key leadership role in the upcoming conference.

Nor does it bode well for Durban II that its agenda will be set by the 56-member Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). In particular, the conference will consider responses to “Islamophobia.” In this connection, the OIC’s members will consider what they regard as the problematic Western right to free speech. Referring to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed published in Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten and to “Fitna,” Dutch politician Geert Wilders’s documentary about Islam, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu recently promised to send “a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.” He went on to warn Western countries to “look seriously into the question of freedom of expression.

For their part, Western countries should make clear that they will not allow the OIC to dictate what can and cannot be said about Islam. Instead, they should shift the focus onto the OIC. Instead of concerning themselves with alleged Western prejudices, Islamic states would do well to ponder the rampant racism in the Muslim World. Darfur, where an estimated 300,000 Muslims have been killed by their fellow Muslims, prompting the United Nations to call it the worst human rights disaster in the world, would be a logical starting point. From there, the OIC might consider the continued bloodshed between Shiites and Sunnis, and the fanatical suicide bombers who have claimed the lives of thousands of their co-religionists. One need hardly look to the West to find “Islamophobia” in action.

As for “racism,” the conference’s nominal subject, it is worth bearing in mind that slavery – the most racist of practices – endures in the Islamic world even as it has been abolished in the West. In OIC member states like Sudan and Mauritania, Arabs still keep black African slaves. Sudan ‘s president, Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted by the World Court for human rights abuses in Darfur, is reputed to have black slaves in his own house. According to NGO reports, some 200,000 southern Sudanese have been enslaved during Bashir’s reign, a practice that the UN has charged is “deeply rooted in Arab and Muslim supremacism.” (Such grim statistics did not deter the Sudanese Minister of Justice from demanding, in a stunning act of hypocrisy, reparations for historical slavery during Durban I.) And while Mauritania legally abolished slavery in 1980, it is still practiced secretly. Even Muslims in the West have not accepted its ban on slavery. For example, four Arab princesses were found in July living in Brussels with 17 slaves.

The persistence of slavery in the Muslim world is not, of course, surprising. In August 1990, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights was affirmed by the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). It stated that Islamic Sharia law is the sole source of the Islamic perspective on human rights. And slavery is codified in Sharia law. It is doubtful, naturally, that this detail will be much discussed during Durban II.

In light of recent history, it makes sense that Israel has decided to boycott next year’s conference. Canada has also decided to boycott Durban II, and other Western countries should consider following the Canadian example. It’s the height of absurdity for free nations to have to endure lectures on human rights from its preeminent abusers. In 2001, they could have claimed to be unaware of the conference’s sinister agenda. Seven years later, ignorance is no longer an excuse or an option.

Geneva, Sept. 8, 2008 — After new UN rights chief Navanethem Pillay addressed the 47-nation Human Rights Council for the first time today, independent human rights organization UN Watch praised her “inspiring life example as an anti-apartheid advocate,” yet expressed deep concern over her remarks praising the UN’s preparations for a follow-up to the troubled 2001 Durban world conference on racism. Her defense of the Durban process was immediately hailed in the plenary by Pakistan on behalf of the Islamic states, Egypt for the African bloc, Cuba for the Non-Aligned, Russia and South Africa.

Without mentioning their names, Pillay criticized the current absence in the UN deliberations of Canada, the U.S. and Israel, as well as similar threats to walk out of the already controversial April 2009 conference made by the French, U.K. and Dutch governments.

“I do not believe that ‘all or nothing’ is the right approach to affirm one’s principles or to win an argument,” said Pillay. “Should differences be allowed to become pretexts for inaction, the hopes and aspirations of the many victims of intolerance would be dashed irreparably. For these reasons, I urge those governments that have expressed an intention not to participate to reconsider their position,” she said.

According to UN Watch, Pillay “is shooting in the wrong direction. Why is the high commissioner aiming her fire at the world’s most tolerant democracies, instead of at racist tyrants like Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who, under the chairmanship of Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya, have already begun to hijack the conference?,” asked UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer.

In her speech, Pillay praised the African states’ recent preparatory conference, held in Abuja, Nigeria on August 24-26, as “productive.”

“In fact,” said Neuer, “the Abuja conference utterly failed its stated mission, and was a major setback for the anti-racism cause and millions suffering around the globe. Its concluding declaration failed to say a word for the victims of Sudan’s atrocities in Darfur, or those other African governments perpetrating ethnic violence. Instead, it explicitly attacked free speech and singled out Israel — exactly what the UN’s highest officials promised Durban II wouldn’t do. The high commissioner ought to be taking on the hijackers of the anti-racism conference, instead of the few that seek to resist them.”

“We remind the high commissioner that in 2001, the most virulent and inciteful language of the Durban declaration was removed only under the pressure of European threats to walk out, as the U.S. and Israel did. So too now, the threat of Western non-participation remains the only force with the slightest chance of preventing the conference from degenerating into an out-and-out fiasco,” said Neuer.

An early draft of the April conference’s outcome document, released by a UN planning committee on Friday, reserves space to include provisions adopted by the African conference in Abuja. The Abuja text calls on states “to refrain from condoning incitement to racial and religious hatred and violence under the pretext of free speech” (par 13). It also expresses “concern about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupations” (par. 32). The rest of the document focuses on Western practices today and in the past against people of African descent.

I do not expect that the Geneva conference aka Durban II will be any different than the first Durban conference. Darfur will not be discussed. Women’s rights will not be discussed. Gays, Christians and Baha’i will not be discussed. Slavery will not be discussed. But Israel and Judaism will be condemned over and over and over again.

I am glad that at least 3 nations will not be attending this hatefest. Israel, Canada and the United States already have said, “Thanks but no thanks!” to the hatemongers. It is time for the rest of the Free World to come on board and reject this obscenity.

Geneva: Where the Muslims Rule and the West Caves In.

Cross posted at Reject the UN and Monkey in the Middle

In early 2009 the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) will be holding a large conference to deal with the world’s human rights issues. Will they be addressing the ongoing genocide in Darfur? Will they finally address the inequality of women in Muslim nations? Will they address the systematic murder of homosexuals, Christians and Baha’i in Iran?

U.N. Thugs

By Christine Williams
FrontPageMagazine.com

Support for Israel has never ranked high on the United Nations’ agenda. And the upcoming World Conference Against Racism, scheduled for early 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland, presents a valid case. Many observers are concerned that the UN-sponsored event will simply serve as yet another a platform to launch attacks against Israel — as the previous world anti-racism conference did in Durban, South Africa, seven years ago.

Even by the standards of the organization’s traditional antagonism toward the Jewish State, the U.N.’s 2001 Durban gathering marked a low point. To the extent that “racism” was discussed, it was only to condemn Israeli policies. Little wonder that the conference, known as “ Durban I,” is largely remembered as a U.N.-backed assault on Israel.

Now it’s back. And if early evidence is any guide, Durban II, as the Geneva event is already being called, will be a replay of its predecessor. Consider that the chair of the conference’s planning committee is Libya, whose longtime leader, Muammar Gadhafi, has recently claimed that the Israeli Mossad aims to assassinate Barack Obama. The vice chair of the conference, meanwhile, is communist Cuba. And the fact that Iran’s president has notoriously called for Israel’s destruction has not, expectedly, prevented it from playing a key leadership role in the upcoming conference.

Nor does it bode well for Durban II that its agenda will be set by the 56-member Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). In particular, the conference will consider responses to “Islamophobia.” In this connection, the OIC’s members will consider what they regard as the problematic Western right to free speech. Referring to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed published in Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten and to “Fitna,” Dutch politician Geert Wilders’s documentary about Islam, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu recently promised to send “a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.” He went on to warn Western countries to “look seriously into the question of freedom of expression.

For their part, Western countries should make clear that they will not allow the OIC to dictate what can and cannot be said about Islam. Instead, they should shift the focus onto the OIC. Instead of concerning themselves with alleged Western prejudices, Islamic states would do well to ponder the rampant racism in the Muslim World. Darfur, where an estimated 300,000 Muslims have been killed by their fellow Muslims, prompting the United Nations to call it the worst human rights disaster in the world, would be a logical starting point. From there, the OIC might consider the continued bloodshed between Shiites and Sunnis, and the fanatical suicide bombers who have claimed the lives of thousands of their co-religionists. One need hardly look to the West to find “Islamophobia” in action.

As for “racism,” the conference’s nominal subject, it is worth bearing in mind that slavery – the most racist of practices – endures in the Islamic world even as it has been abolished in the West. In OIC member states like Sudan and Mauritania, Arabs still keep black African slaves. Sudan ‘s president, Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted by the World Court for human rights abuses in Darfur, is reputed to have black slaves in his own house. According to NGO reports, some 200,000 southern Sudanese have been enslaved during Bashir’s reign, a practice that the UN has charged is “deeply rooted in Arab and Muslim supremacism.” (Such grim statistics did not deter the Sudanese Minister of Justice from demanding, in a stunning act of hypocrisy, reparations for historical slavery during Durban I.) And while Mauritania legally abolished slavery in 1980, it is still practiced secretly. Even Muslims in the West have not accepted its ban on slavery. For example, four Arab princesses were found in July living in Brussels with 17 slaves.

The persistence of slavery in the Muslim world is not, of course, surprising. In August 1990, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights was affirmed by the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). It stated that Islamic Sharia law is the sole source of the Islamic perspective on human rights. And slavery is codified in Sharia law. It is doubtful, naturally, that this detail will be much discussed during Durban II.

In light of recent history, it makes sense that Israel has decided to boycott next year’s conference. Canada has also decided to boycott Durban II, and other Western countries should consider following the Canadian example. It’s the height of absurdity for free nations to have to endure lectures on human rights from its preeminent abusers. In 2001, they could have claimed to be unaware of the conference’s sinister agenda. Seven years later, ignorance is no longer an excuse or an option.

Geneva, Sept. 8, 2008 — After new UN rights chief Navanethem Pillay addressed the 47-nation Human Rights Council for the first time today, independent human rights organization UN Watch praised her “inspiring life example as an anti-apartheid advocate,” yet expressed deep concern over her remarks praising the UN’s preparations for a follow-up to the troubled 2001 Durban world conference on racism. Her defense of the Durban process was immediately hailed in the plenary by Pakistan on behalf of the Islamic states, Egypt for the African bloc, Cuba for the Non-Aligned, Russia and South Africa.

Without mentioning their names, Pillay criticized the current absence in the UN deliberations of Canada, the U.S. and Israel, as well as similar threats to walk out of the already controversial April 2009 conference made by the French, U.K. and Dutch governments.

“I do not believe that ‘all or nothing’ is the right approach to affirm one’s principles or to win an argument,” said Pillay. “Should differences be allowed to become pretexts for inaction, the hopes and aspirations of the many victims of intolerance would be dashed irreparably. For these reasons, I urge those governments that have expressed an intention not to participate to reconsider their position,” she said.

According to UN Watch, Pillay “is shooting in the wrong direction. Why is the high commissioner aiming her fire at the world’s most tolerant democracies, instead of at racist tyrants like Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who, under the chairmanship of Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya, have already begun to hijack the conference?,” asked UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer.

In her speech, Pillay praised the African states’ recent preparatory conference, held in Abuja, Nigeria on August 24-26, as “productive.”

“In fact,” said Neuer, “the Abuja conference utterly failed its stated mission, and was a major setback for the anti-racism cause and millions suffering around the globe. Its concluding declaration failed to say a word for the victims of Sudan’s atrocities in Darfur, or those other African governments perpetrating ethnic violence. Instead, it explicitly attacked free speech and singled out Israel — exactly what the UN’s highest officials promised Durban II wouldn’t do. The high commissioner ought to be taking on the hijackers of the anti-racism conference, instead of the few that seek to resist them.”

“We remind the high commissioner that in 2001, the most virulent and inciteful language of the Durban declaration was removed only under the pressure of European threats to walk out, as the U.S. and Israel did. So too now, the threat of Western non-participation remains the only force with the slightest chance of preventing the conference from degenerating into an out-and-out fiasco,” said Neuer.

An early draft of the April conference’s outcome document, released by a UN planning committee on Friday, reserves space to include provisions adopted by the African conference in Abuja. The Abuja text calls on states “to refrain from condoning incitement to racial and religious hatred and violence under the pretext of free speech” (par 13). It also expresses “concern about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupations” (par. 32). The rest of the document focuses on Western practices today and in the past against people of African descent.

I do not expect that the Geneva conference aka Durban II will be any different than the first Durban conference. Darfur will not be discussed. Women’s rights will not be discussed. Gays, Christians and Baha’i will not be discussed. Slavery will not be discussed. But Israel and Judaism will be condemned over and over and over again.

I am glad that at least 3 nations will not be attending this hatefest. Israel, Canada and the United States already have said, “Thanks but no thanks!” to the hatemongers. It is time for the rest of the Free World to come on board and reject this obscenity.