What's at stake at Durban II

National Post ^ | 2008-01-26 | David Frum

[Clive]

To call anything the United Nations does a "new low" does an injustice to all the previous "old lows."

How do you do worse than pass a resolution condemning Zionism as a form of racism on the anniversary of the Nazi Kristallnacht, as the UN did in 1974?

Still, even by the sordid standards of the UN, the 2001 Durban "antiracism" conference was a record-breaker. Denouncing racism while conference attendees sold copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- breathtaking.

Now, however, the UN faces a new challenge. Was the 2001 anti-racism conference truly the very worst it could do? Or could it push the boundaries even further, explore new depths? At Durban, the UN had allowed an antiracism conference to be hijacked by anti-Semites. But what if it allowed anti-Semites to organize a conference from the very start? What if it made hatred of Jews and the annihilation of the Jewish state the very organizing principle of the conference? Now that truly would be a record low.

And so it happened. The UN has been at work organizing a "Durban II" to be held sometime in 2009. The organizing committee for the conference is chaired by Libya -- with seats offered to Iran and Cuba. Preparatory meetings have been scheduled for Jewish holidays, in an effort to prevent pro-Israel groups from participating.

In December, 41 Western countries voted to shut off funding for Durban II. These countries pay the UN's bills -- but the non-paying majority has the votes. This week, Canada gallantly announced it will not attend the Durban II "circus of intolerance," in the scornful words of Jason Kenney, Secretary of State for Multiculturalism.

Let's hope that Canada's example inspires other democracies to follow.

But let's also understand more clearly what is at stake at Durban II.

In the first planning session for Durban II back in August, Pakistan's representative declared: "The defamation of Islam and discrimination against Muslims represent the most conspicuous demonstration of contemporary racism and intolerance … It is regrettable that the world media has allowed defamation and blasphemy in this form…"

These are more than mere words. We have already witnessed attempts to put the UN bureaucracy to work as an international enforcer of Islamic definitions of blasphemy.

During the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005, the Organization of Islamic Countries demanded that the UN condemn the cartoons as a form of racism. The UN did not quite do that. But UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, a Canadian, did take jurisdiction of the matter and did promise an investigation.

Nor does the UN act alone. Inside Canada too, the Alberta Human Rights Commission has agreed to treat the republication of the cartoons as a possible human rights offense. Former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant has been called before a tribunal to defend his decision in what stands, in effect, as the first blasphemy prosecution in English-speaking Canada since 1926.

Human rights? No, what we are witnessing here is a power grab, an attempt to seize crucial principles of Western individualism and reshape them as weapons of domination. The investigation of Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine is not so glaringly sectarian as the attack on Ezra Levant and the now defunct Western Standard, but it too is an attempt to redefine "human rights" as a tool for the destruction of individual liberty.

Walking out of Durban II was a great first step toward rediscovering authentic rights and genuine liberty. But it was only a first step. The corruption of the human rights ideal has to be fought not only at the United Nations, but inside the domestic institutions of Western nations -- and within our own minds and consciences.

[Clive]

-

[Clive]

-

[Clive]

See also these threads:

Gov't official calls anti-racism conference a 'gong show' (UN Durban II conference)

Canada: Durban II Promotes Racism

Shun Durban II

Dollars for Durban II Back to the U.N.

[samtheman]

Why.

Are.

We.

Still.

In.

The.

UN?

[maine-iac7]

Walking out of Durban II was a great first step toward rediscovering authentic rights and genuine liberty. But it was only a first step. The corruption of the human rights ideal has to be fought not only at the United Nations, but inside the domestic institutions of Western nations -- and within our own minds and consciences. ,

Imperative. We stand with Israel, per admonition of God, or we fall, per God...

[fanfan]

[Clive]

Beats me.

There is no up side and lots of down side for both the US and Canada. Any good that the UN does can be done by more effectively treaties between Western donor nations and without having to kowtow.

[Jim Noble]

Isn't it incredible that there are Canadians and Europeans who actually, truly speak and write about the U.N. as if it has any significance?

Amazing.

[Clive]

Unfortunately, the UN does have significance.

Just a few of the ways in which its significance is manifest:

It biases the relationships between nation states, supports tyrants and terrorists, diverts funds that could help ordinary people and actively works active harm on the third world peoples that it claims to want to help.

[Snowyman]

Isn't it incredible that there are Canadians and Europeans who actually, truly speak and write about the U.N. as if it has any significance?

No more incredible than there are Americans who do the same thing.

[Clive]

Agreed.

I have not seen the State Department following Canada's example in this case or withdraw US funding for this conference so It would seem that the US is treating the US as having some kind of credibility.

This even in the face of what it knows is being planned for Durban II.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The Weekly World News tabloid, now defunct, would publish, along with its hilarious fabrications, factual news stories at intervals. Ironically, some of these “News of the Weird” type stories were even stranger than the made-up ones.

One such factual story concerned the U.N. General Assembly, and its bizarre character. And it was entirely accurate news, but news that wouldn’t be published anywhere else, because of the profoundly ugly picture of the UN it presented. After reading it, only a fool would think the UN deserved any authority over anyone.

Some of the highlights I remember about the General Assembly:

1) The average education is 5th grade.
2) UN security regularly confiscates hundreds of weapons from delegates. Not just guns, but blowguns and darts, knives, throwing weapons, poisons, incendiary devices, etc.
3) The General Assembly regularly votes “fried grasshoppers” as their favorite snack food.
4) The majority believe that the Moon landing in 1969 was just a Hollywood movie production.
5) Several times, motions to have “drums” included as a translation language for delegates, have been narrowly defeated.
6) Theodor Seuss Geisel “Dr. Seuss”, anonymously produced many comic book-style pamphlets for the UN General Assembly, using pictures to explain such complex issues as nuclear proliferation.
7) The vast majority of General Assembly delegates are blood relatives of the leaders of the nations they represent, having no other experience in diplomacy.
8) Delegates are fascinated with fire, and the most popular gift shop item they purchase are butane lighters, which they both send home and use to light fires in the building, despite repeated requests that they don’t.

The article also listed some of the wackier and irrational resolutions that had won General Assembly votes, but are ignored by the western press as “damaging” to the importance of the organization.