Canada to shun Durban conference

Canada said it will shun next year's U.N. racism conference for fear it will stir up anti-Semitism.

Canadian Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier said Wednesday that her country will not attend the 2009 conference in Durban, South Africa, where the event was held in 2001 and became a venue for a virulent anti-Israel campaign.

Canada "had hoped that the preparatory process for the 2009 conference would remedy the mistakes of the past," Bernier said in a statement. "Despite our efforts, we have concluded that it will not."

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/106573.html

"Canadian Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier said Wednesday that her country will not attend the 2009 conference in Durban, South Africa..."



This is too good!

Even on sites like CNN and MSNBC there are silly typos like that.

It seems like the fast-paced nature of internet publishing is having a seriously negative impact on the quality of copy editing.

Anyway, thanks for the info! I didn't know who that person was myself.

Like everyone else in Steve (The Ape) Harper's government, he's totally out of his depth and hasn't a clue what he's supposed to be doing. That's fine with Steve, of course, since it means that Bernier will do whatever he tells him. :puke:

He's a complete sack of hot air. As for the Cabinet, that's mostly true. Lawrence Cannon is a smart man, bu that's probably why he's the Minister of Transport, and not in the news a lot.

disagree with that stance.

Does not seem like the ideal country to by leading such a conference.

Didn't you hear? Gaddafi's a good guy now! All is forgiven! :sarcasm:

One would think that it ought to be pretty exemplary to be chosen to chair this conference.

Canada has been awfully friendly to the Bush regime, so i am not surprised it is supporting racism this year.

anti-semitism. There's scads of evidence of it. No one should support that kind of ugly bigotry. Not surprising that some do.

In the other thread Oberliner posted about the Durban Conference, I went looking for some, and figure given what Mary Robinson said that something did happen, but wasn't able to work out from googling around whether it was the NGO conference or protesters outside...

What I support is a conference about racism, intolerance and discrimination going ahead. If anyone makes racist or intolerant comments in that sort of forum they should be shown the door rather than not having a conference that deals with such important issues as human trafficking and racism canned totally...

NGO Forum at Durban Conference 2001



A UN resolution began the process leading to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held at Durban in September 2001. Interested non-governmental organizations to be represented by observers, in accordance with UN Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 were also invited to attend as observers.

A regional conference in Tehran, intended to produce a composite Declaration against Racism and a Plan of Action, preceded the conference. Israel, along with Jewish NGOs, were excluded and, in their absence, Israel was accused of committing holocausts and being anti-Semitic. There was no public condemnation of the exclusion of Israel or the Jewish groups by any of the international NGOs. During the World Conference, large numbers of NGOs organized a parallel NGO Forum (sometimes confused with the Conference) that, in turn, succeeded in overshadowing the formal proceedings. This was due to the large amount of media attention the NGOs were able to generate. The NGO Forum produced what is known as "The NGO Declaration," which, while not an official conference document, assumed a high international profile and was signed by groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The NGO declaration at the Durban conference, written in highly politicized language, reflected a concerted effort to undermine Israel. Article 164 states targeted victims of Israel's brand of apartheid and ethnic cleansing methods have been in particular children, women and refugees. Article 425 announces a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state...the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation and training) between all states and Israel. Furthermore, Article 426 talks of condemnation of those states who are supporting, aiding and abetting the Israeli apartheid state and its perpetration of racist crimes against humanity including ethnic cleansing, acts of genocide.

<snip>
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_forum_at_durban_conference_

"The Forum's proceedings were highly disorganized, with several NGO delegates walking out of the Forum, to the jeers of other delegates, and ending in discord; and the resultant declaration had 62 paragraphs of introduction, followed by a document that appeared to commentators as being the result of every lobby putting its pet aversions in. It described Israel as a "racist, apartheid state" that was guilty of "racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing". The document was not intended to be presented to the Conference, although a copy of it was intended to be handed over, as a symbolic gesture, to the Conference secretary-general, Mary Robinson, at the conclusion of the Forum. Ms Robinson refused to accept the document, citing concerns over its language. In a later interview she said of the whole conference that "there was horrible anti-Semitism present — particularly in some of the NGO discussions. A number people came to me and said they've never been so hurt or so harassed or been so blatantly faced with an anti-Semitism."<12><1><13><14>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_Strategy#The_Durban_Declaration_and_Programme_of_Action

Israel, along with Jewish NGOs, were excluded..

The NGO Conference wasn't represented on a state level, so claiming Israel was excluded is ignoring that no states were represented at that conference. Also, what do they mean by 'Jewish NGO's'? They don't mention specifically what NGO's were excluded, though when it comes to Israeli NGO's, I noticed B'Tselem attended, and I'm trying to work out how Rabbis for Human Rights isn't considered by NGO Monitor to be a 'Jewish NGO' coz they attended as well....

I believe what Mary Robinson says about there being anti-semitism present in some of the discussions, but I don't think it's antisemitic to say that Israel commits war crimes or ethnic cleansing, which is what the draft document did. She quite rightly pointed out that the language was inflammatory and shouldn't be happening in a forum like that....

and it becomes anti-semitic when almost all the focus was on Israel's crimes and virtually none on any other country. It's impossible to have a productive conference in the atmosphere that was pervasive in Durban- and that's a shame.

The one attended by states that ran at the same time didn't have those problems. I read the Declaration that came out of it (there's a link to it in that other thread I linked to) and there was no focus on Israel, and I've read nothing to indicate that the discussions at that conference (as opposed to the NGO one) wasn't productive...

I found the NGO Declaration and while the language was inflammatory, it's only part of the declaration and almost all the focus wasn't on it. There's a whole bunch of victim groups that are addressed, including Jews and antisemitism, and I strongly believe that the Palestinians should have been listed as a victim group, but that the language should have been toned down to a level similar to that used when dealing with other victim groups...

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/WCAR2001/NGOFORUM/

I don't think wanting a conference on racism to be a failure or pulling out of it is in any way a constructive way of dealing with problems that arose at the NGO Conference. The best way to deal with it is to exclude anyone who makes racist or intolerant statements and to ensure that the discussion is constructive...

The line you quoted about Israel and Jewish NGOs being excluded is in reference to the Asian regional preparatory meeting for the World Conference against Racism. This meeting was held in Tehran, and although they are part of the Asian regional UN grouping, Israel was excluded from this meeting (40 UN Member states were represented at this meeting).

Here is a UN press release regarding that meeting:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/rd906.doc.htm

In addition to Israel being excluded from this meeting, Jewish NGOs were also, apparently, excluded from attending as well.

That issue comes up at this UN Press Briefing:

http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2001/db021601.doc.htm

But Israel is not and never has been part of the Asian regional group at the UN. The press briefing doesn't make it clear whether or not what the questioner asked had actually happened. I did find the UN website for Durban http://www.un.org/WCAR/ and the report of the Asian prepatory meeting http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/e06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/deb8e5ad2c58d0fac1256a530043a1a3/$FILE/G0112596.pdf and found that Israel rated one mention in the 27 page document, and that there was no mention of Zionism...

There may be something I haven't seen, but claims that the Conference (that's the actual one, not any prepatory meetings or the NGO Conference) was rampant with antisemitism is playing heavily on hyperbole. What I've seen so far is Mary Robinson say that some discussions at the NGO Conference were antisemitic, and that the language in the NGO Declaration concerning Israel was inappropriate. After reading the NGO Declaration I agree with her call on that. The language when it came to talking about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians was vicious and not on the same level as when talking about other victim groups. I didn't think it was antisemitic, but it's definately not the sort of language I'd expect to see at that high level sort of thing, and it's always annoyed me when the US engages in that sort of language aimed at whoever it's next target is...

Emotions are fundamental in us. We have no control over them, they control us. When ugly destructive emotions cause us to do or say ugly destructive things - we deny the emotions or justify them as something else - as in, "It's the Israeli government that I hate, not the Jews."

Emotions are elusive. We don't know where they come from or why we have them - and we often don't know we are experiencing them until we see what they made us do or say. Yet, hateful actions toward other ethnicities do occur. So we look at peoples hateful actions and try to figure out what motivated them.

When discussing a raging long-term conflict that has obvious and easily discerned racist motivations with someone who never sees or acknowledges those motivations - it's often the case that that person in denial shares those motivations.

When ugly destructive emotions cause us to do or say ugly destructive things - we deny the emotions or justify them as something else - as in, "It's the Israeli government that I hate, not the Jews."

Or as in someone saying it's the terrorists they compared to cockroaches, not the Palestinian people....


Emotions are elusive. We don't know where they come from or why we have them - and we often don't know we are experiencing them until we see what they made us do or say. Yet, hateful actions toward other ethnicities do occur. So we look at peoples hateful actions and try to figure out what motivated them.

In all cases the bigotry would be motivated by hatred, fear and/or ignorance. None of it is justifiable...

When discussing a raging long-term conflict that has obvious and easily discerned racist motivations with someone who never sees or acknowledges those motivations - it's often the case that that person in denial shares those motivations.

Ah, so anyone who doesn't agree with yr overly simplistic and nonsensical view of the origins of the conflict is often antisemitic? What a load of complete crap....

Y'know, you complain constantly that people call you a bigot and accuse them of twisting yr words and ascribing motivations to you that you claim aren't there. So if yr so sensitive to it when it's done to you, why are you now turning round and doing it yrself?

VC: "Or as in someone saying it's the terrorists they compared to cockroaches, not the Palestinian people...."

Since you are not offering a quote I assume you are making something up as usual. Oh look, you are. My actual words were,

" . . is it possible I was referring to the militants firing rockets and then scurrying under cover before the IDF could react?"

That was a question, not a statement. Is lying habitual for you now or do still have to think about it?

VC: "In all cases the bigotry would be motivated by hatred, fear and/or ignorance. None of it is justifiable..."

Try composing your sentences more carefully. Words have meanings. If you actually wanted to respond to the sentence you quoted, what you possibly meant to say was, "In all cases the hateful actions would be motivated by bigotry. None of it is justifiable..." (I'm not putting words into your mouth. Just trying to figure out what you're trying to say.)

But if that's what you meant, that statement would be wrong anyway. Hateful actions, such as IDF attacks on those firing the rockets are not necessarily motivated by bigotry. In fact they are most likely motivated by the need to defend Israeli lives.

Me from above: "When discussing a raging long-term conflict that has obvious and easily discerned racist motivations with someone who never sees or acknowledges those motivations - it's often the case that that person in denial shares those motivations."

VC: Ah, so anyone who doesn't agree with yr overly simplistic and nonsensical view of the origins of the conflict is often antisemitic? What a load of complete crap....

No, those who never see obvious racist motivations in people whose views they strongly agree with - often share those motivations. It's human nature. It has nothing to do with agreeing with me or not.

VC: "Y'know, you complain constantly that people call you a bigot and accuse them of twisting yr words and ascribing motivations to you that you claim aren't there. So if yr so sensitive to it when it's done to you, why are you now turning round and doing it yrself?"

I'm not twisting anyone's words and it's true I don't like being called a bigot. I'm using reason and not lies to make my point. Now, if you respond to this please try to say something on topic and not fly off into some semantic word salad (credit to Vegasaurus for that term) to avoid the beat down. ;)

Since you didn't offer a link to yr 'quotation', I didn't realise I had to use an actual verifiable quote myself. Whether or not either example is something that has been said here is irrelevent because the point was how they would be taken if someone were to say those things. You really need to stop obsessing and talking about yrself all the time. I'm not interested in yr pathetic excuses for why you think yr posts shouldn't have been deleted...

Another thing I'm not interested in is wading through yr stream of personal attacks to see that all that remains is you trying to justify why bigotry against one group of people is totally unacceptable while it's acceptable against another group. Yr posts are a mess of muddled thinking and double standards when it comes to things like bigotry, and screeching that I'm a liar (which I'm not) is no excuse for yr constant confusion and inability to express yr 'thoughts' clearly...

Speaking about being on topic. Until you stumbled into this thread, several of us were discussing Durban, something you haven't even attempted to do. How about you try to discuss the topic of this thread and do it without yr clumsy insults and attempts to imply that others are bigots?

No surprises there ;)

However, Canada did not force 38,000 Jews out of Canada and confiscate their property without compensation. Nor is Canada likely to do such a thing any time soon. However, apparently Libya did do that.



http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=9373

..and using that article as some sort of condemnation of its human rights record, it looks from reading the article that Libya is willing to accept the return of Libyan Jews as well as compensate them. That would put Libya pretty far ahead of Israel and it's attitude towards the Palestinian refugees forced out of what is now Israel...

How far ahead of Israel would it put Libya? Previously, was Libya at roughly the same level as Israel over a spectrum of different human rights issues?

were to fire a few hundred rockets into Libya, do you think that the Libyan offer for Jews to return to Libya wouldn't be revoked?

Try again...

or one descendant of a Palestinian refugee to return to Israel for every Libyan Jew who accepts the offer of the government of Libya by returning to Libya. Would such an offer be inadequate to place Israel near the moral high ground that the government of Libya has staked out?

That's one idea. Here's another:

Why doesn't the government of Libya offer Libyan citizenship to 38,000 Palestinian refugees? After all, I don't read in the news anything about suffering people who left Libya in 1951 and have been refugees ever since then. However, there does seem to be a Palestinian refugee problem. Now, you may say that Israel is the top preference destination. However, isn't a less desired destination better than nothing?

You attacked Libya's human right record and posted an article that said Libya was offering compensation and return to Jews from Libya. So why isn't it okay to attack Israel's human rights record since it's never made that offer to Palestinian refugees?

Another thing about yr initial post. While Canada may not have a bad human rights record when it comes to Jews, doesn't human rights abuses against any other group count? I'm not familiar with Candada's record when it comes to its own indigenous population, but in Australia there's never been a mass expulsion/emigration/flight of Jews, but when it comes to the indigenous population there's been colonial genocide where the brutality has utdone anything else I've ever read about, blatant racism against them, a refusal to compensate them (and until very recently even to apologise) for being stolen from their parents right up till the 1960's, and a whole lot more. Western states aren't immune from having appalling human rights records, so sometimes I wonder why there's so much focus on states in the Middle East...

You must mean state, as in the singular.

But I have to say, it's good to see you asking this question. Why do you think there's so much focus on Israel's human rights record as opposed to other states' records?