Slutintryck från Durban II

Anne Bayefski från EyeontheUN skriver om sina intryck från Durban II konferensen i Geneve.
How Durban II Undermined Human Rights
"Durban II, the U.N. conference in Geneva that ended on Friday, will forever be remembered for handing a global megaphone to genocidal hatemonger Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the name of combating racism...
Since the position of U.N. high commissioner for human rights was created in 1993, there has never been an incumbent so obviously in the pocket of Arab and Islamic countries. These states invented the global conference formula years ago in an attempt to isolate Israel, curtail free expression, manufacture victimhood that would offset concern with anti-Semitism, and prevent any mention of the racial and religious intolerance and discrimination rampant in their own backyards.
And yet, the high commissioner took the unusual step of singling out these states for praise in her closing remarks. She claimed Arab countries had made "extremely difficult" "political concessions" in not insisting on even more condemnations of Israel, while the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) "was also very cooperative." In fact, it was the stubborn refusal of Arab and Islamic states to agree to any U.N. "anti-racism" declaration that did not allege Israel is racist, which kept the U.S. and other states away. "

På videon här under kan man se hur det gick till på DurbanII konferensen. När Anne Bayefski skulle hålla sitt inlägg avbröts hon gång på gång av Irans representant som krävde att Irans namn och Irans president inte fick nämnas.

Durban II

Antirasimkonferensen i Geneve antog i går utan omröstning en deklaration där man bekräftar slutdokumentet från Durban I. Det betyder att Israel på nytt utpekas som världens enda rasistiska stat.
Det var på grund av detta som USA vägrade delta. Länder som Frankrike och Strobritannien har tidigare sagt att man inte kommer att tillåta att detta inträffar. Men det var alltså tomma ord.
UN conference reaffirms anti-Israel document

Durban Diary, day two: The outrage continues
By Anne Bayefsky
"On Tuesday, the UN’s racist anti-racism conference “Durban II” rammed through a final declaration three days before its scheduled conclusion. On Monday Iranian President Ahamadinejad had opened the substantive program by denying the Holocaust and spewing antisemitism. A day later UN members rewarded Iran by electing it one of three Vice-Chairs of the committee which adopted the final declaration.
The committee meeting was chaired by Libya and lasted fifteen minutes. No discussion of the merits of the Durban II declaration was tolerated.
The document reaffirms the 2001 Durban Declaration which alleges Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism and mentions only Israel among all 192 UN member states. "

EU:s uttalande inför konferensen framförd av Sveriges ambassadör kan läsas här.
Storbritanniens inlägg finns här.
Båda kritiserat skarpt Irans president och hans tal.

Sudans inlägg kan läsas här. Enligt Sudan är både den internationella domstolen, som vill ställa Sudans president inför rätt för folkmordet i Darfur, och Israel rasistiska.

EyeontheUN har mera information.

Durban II

Fler länder har beslutat att inte delta i Durban II konferensen i Geneve.
Av EU länderna har även Tyskland nu meddelat att de inte deltar. Tidigare har Holland och Italien meddelat att de inte deltar. Även Polen verkar ha bestämt sig för att bojkotta tillställningen.
Australien, Nya Zeeland, Canada och USA deltar inte heller.

FN-kommissionär fördömer islamdiktaturer för sabotage av anti-rasismkampen i Durban II

Ordföranden för Kristdemokraterna i Finland kräver att Finland bojkottar konferensen och även EU pralamentarikern Hannu Takkula anser att det vore bäst om EU länderna inte deltog.
Allt fler bojkottar FN:s rasismkonferens

Räsänen vaatii Suomea boikotoimaan YK:n rasismikonferenssia

Durban II

USA och Australien har meddelat att de inte kommer att delta i Durban II mötet som startar på måndag i Geneve.
Tidigare har Canada, Italien och Israel meddelat att de inte deltar.
EU länderna tvekar ännu men Sverige har meddelat att de åtminstone inte kommer att sända någon på ministernivå.
De demokartiska länderna bojkottar mötet medan Iran sänder sin president, det visar ganska tydligt vad det handlar om.
Jag har inte sett några ställningstaganden från den finländska regeringen, men på min fråga för flera veckor sedan var åtminstone SFP ministrarna för ett deltagande och de ansåg att Durban I var en framgång. Trots att det är just bekräftandet av Durban I dokumentet som är en av orsakerna till att bl.a. USA drar sig ur.
Läs mera:
Sabuni: Inga svenska ministrar till Durban II
US boycotts UN racism conference
Aurstalia joins US in announcing Durban II conference boycot

Uppdatering:
Nederländerna kommer inte heller att delta i Durban II meddelade deras utrikesminister idag.

Finland säger att: "Vi följer EU:s linje." Men tydligen arbetar Finland för att alla EU länder skall delta, tyvärr!
EU puntaroi osallistumistaan rasismikokoukseen

Uppdatering inför Durban II

Durban II börjar i Geneve på måndag.
Irans president Ahmadinejad har meddelat att han kommer att närvara vid konferensen.
Libyen kommer att sitta som ordförande för “Main Committee” och Iran är viceordförande.
Här följer några svenska artiklar som behandlar ämnet:
"FN konferens hotar mänskliga rättigheter"
"Religion och yttrandefrihet"
"Frihet att förtala"
Ett nytt antisemitiskt spektakel i FN:s regi?
Durban är farligt trots nytt utkast

I en rapport från Eyeonthe UN kan man läsa föjande:
Texten "bekräftar" fortfarande slutdokumentet från DurbanI, där alltså Israel som enda stat kritiseras.

"The opening sentence of this new draft still “reaffirms” the 2001 Durban Declaration which the US rejected the first time around for its overt discrimination and demonization of Israel.

Here is what can be found in the latest draft of the UN’s new “anti-racism” bible:

• Condemnation of “foreign occupation” – aka Israel-bashing. Foreign occupation is said to be “closely associated with racism, racial discrimination…and contribute to the persistence of racist attitudes and practices…” In other words, labeling the Jewish nation as the world’s racist state is back.
• "Defamation of religions" returns under a new guise. The document professes “deep concern” about “the negative stereotyping of religions.”
• More of the Islamic assault on free speech. The draft “reaffirms that all dissemination of ideas based on…incitement to racial discrimination…shall be declared offences punishable by law…”
• More Iranian-driven references to “cultural diversity” – the diplomatic cover for the murder of homosexuals, judicially-sanctioned amputation of hands and feet, and the stoning of woman for alleged adultery.
• Renewed emphasis on the “transatlantic slave trade” and total rejection of a proposed mention of the trans-Saharan slave trade perpetrated by Arabs and other Africans.
• Additional emphasis on the adoption of “complementary standards” on racism and xenophobia – an Islamic idea designed to subvert the universal principles in existing treaties.
  

On Monday, April 20th, the anniversary of Hitler’s birth, an Iranian will be elected as a Vice-chair of a global anti-racism” conference. In the afternoon of opening day, a genocidal Holocaust denier – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – will address a UN conference “against” racism. The European Union will sit and listen to an antisemite give a lecture about combating intolerance. And in the end most UN states will adopt a document incompatible with the UN’s foundational principle of the equality of all men and women and nations large and small.

A good day for UN-based antisemites. A bad day for those who care about human rights."

Demoniseringen av Israel är en viktig del av Durban I och II, man försöker därför ge sken av att Israel är en apartheidstat. En apartheidstat måste naturligtvis bekämpas och avskaffas.
Här nedanför finns en video där Malcom Hedding, uppvuxen i Durban, nu bosatt i Jerusalem, föklarar att apartheid inget har med dagens Israel att göra.

Dismantling the myth that Israel is an Apartheid state from ICEJ USA on Vimeo.
Här finns också mer information på engelska

Analysis: A theater of the absurd

Myths of Durban II

Från UN Watch om förberedelserna inför Durban II

Thank you.

Mr. President, racism is evil. How can we truly fight it?

For starters, by clearing up three myths about next month’s conference.

Myth No. 1 — that the new draft removes all pernicious provisions. The truth is that many were removed—thanks only to the credible threat of an E.U. walk-out—but red lines continue to be breached:

Articles 10, 30 and 132 encourage the Islamic states’ campaign to ban any criticism of religion.
Articles 60 to 62 demonize the West, addressing only its sins of slavery, yet saying nothing of the massive Arab trade in African slaves, thereby politicizing that which should never be politicized.
Article 1 breaches President Obama’s red line by reaffirming what his government called the quote, “flawed 2001 Durban Declaration”, a text that stigmatized Israel with false accusations.

Myth No. 2 — that going to the conference means dialogue. In truth, we’ve been negotiating non-stop since August 2007. Going to the conference means endorsing a particular text, and risks legitimizing the greatest perpetrators of racism. Ironically, many who now claim to support dialogue, are Mideast states belonging to the Arab Boycott Office in Damascus, or radical left campaigners who call for equally bigoted boycotts in the West.

Myth No. 3 — that Durban 2 will help millions of victims. But can anyone name a single victim of racism who was helped by the 2001 conference and countless follow-up committees? Did Durban help a single victim of Sudan’s racist campaign of mass killing, rape and displacement against millions in Darfur? Did it help the women of Saudi Arabia subjected to systematic discrimination? Did it help gays executed by Iran, even as President Ahmadinejad says there are no gays in Iran? Did it help the 2 million black African migrants in Libya, who, as we read in last week’s Herald Tribune, say they are treated like slaves and animals?

To truly fight racism, we need to hold perpetrators to account. Tragically, Durban 2 does the opposite.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Här kan man läsa och se hur Libyen, som är ordförande för gruppen som förbereder Durban II, behandlar svarta:
Video

New status in Africa Empowers an Ever-Eccentric Qaddafi

Durban 2

Anne Bayefsky skriver om de senaste vändningarna inför Durban II:
En något förändrad text lades fram i Genve i går. Mycket av det som de islamska länderna lagt till texten under de senaste tio månaderna har nu lämnats bort. Trots detta uppfyller texten inte de krav som USA ställt. Största problemet är kanske att man i texten bekräftar slutdokumentet från Durban 1, där alltså en enda stat pekas ut som rasistisk (Israel).

Nederländerna har lagt fram ett eget textförslag på två sidor (FN:s text är på 17 sidor) där man bl.a klart säger att yttrandefriheten är en av hörnstenarna i kampen mot rasism. Deras förslag ger ingen bekräftelse för Durban 1 dokumentet.

De andra EU länderna var inte så förtjusta i Nederländernas initiativ, Frankrike och Tyskland vill att EU skall agera enhälligt.
Italien som tidigare meddelat att de kommer att dra sig ur konferensen har varit tyst antagligen efter påtryckningar av de andra EU länderna.
Läs Bayefskys artikel:The U.N. betrays human rights, and Israel, yet again.

USA drar sig ur Durban II

USA meddelade i fredags att man inte kommer att delta i Durban II konferensen. "Utkastet till slutdokument från mötet har gått från dåligt till värre", sade USA:s talesman Robert Wood. "Den nuvarande texten kan inte räddas, och som ett resultat av detta kommer USA inte att delta i vidare förhandlingar om texten och kommer inte heller att delta i en konferens baserade på nuvarande text."
Förhoppningsvis drar de europeiska länderna samma slutsats vilket kunde leda till att hela konferensen inställs och FN:s mänskorättsarbete kanske kunde få en ny inriktning.

Det är i huvudsak de muslimska länderna som tagit fram dokumentutkastet och istället för att koncentrera sig på att bekämpa rasism, som är tanken med konferensen, kritiseras ensidigt Israel och dessutom vill man begränsa yttrandefriheten och förbjuda kritik av religion (islam).
Livni praises US boycott of Durban II

Information om Durban II kan läsas bl.a. på EyeontheUN:s hemsida.

Durban II och USA

Anne Bayefsky från EyeontheUN skriver om den senaste utvecklingen inför Durban II konferensen i april. USA är nu med i förberedelse arbetet men har inte imponerat med sitt agerande (brist på agerande).



Durban II Planning [Anne Bayefsky]


U.S. Durban II Double-Cross
This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in National Review Online. President Obama had been warned to avoid having anything to do with the U.N.’s Durban II “anti-racism” conference this year. The U.S. walked out of the 2001 Durban I conference because it proved to be a U.N.-sanctioned platform for anti-Semitism. Its final Declaration singled out Israel for criticism, accusing the country of racism. Ignoring these warnings, the U.S. sent a seven-person delegation to a preparatory meeting in Geneva this week — without asking anything of conference sponsors in return. The State Department explained the decision as an effort “to try to change the direction in which the Review Conference is heading.” But the delegation’s behavior during the week, which began by expressing “strong reservations about a document singling out Israel for criticism,” more closely resembles a double-cross.On Wednesday, the European Union proposed a provision for the final document — which is to be adopted formally at the Conference itself in April — on the Holocaust. The EU had attempted to add a reference to the Holocaust at the last preparatory meeting (in January), which the U.S. did not attend. But Iran and Syria had objected. The EU proposal was therefore “bracketed” — entered into the items-in-dispute category. Both Syria and Iran had claimed there weren’t enough facts about the Holocaust to warrant a definitive denunciation. Iran had also complained that the proposal was in the wrong section.So the EU tried again, and this time the American delegation was present. Here is how the discussion went:
European Union: We have a new proposal under the section on education and awareness-raising that would recall the U.N. General Assembly resolution on the remembrance of the Holocaust. It would read: Urges states to raise awareness and to implement U.N. General Assembly resolutions 60/7 and 61/255 which inter alia observes that the remembrance of the Holocaust is critical to prevent further acts of genocide, condemns without reservation any denial of the Holocaust and urges all states to reject denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full, or in part, or any activities to this end. Iran: My delegation thinks that this is an inappropriate place to incorporate this new paragraph, so we request that this new paragraph be put in brackets. Chair: Is there any delegation wishing to comment on this new proposal by the European Union? It doesn’t seem the case. We move on.Since the operating principle is consensus, this put the Holocaust provision in dispute. But the American delegation chose not to go on the record strongly supporting the EU’s proposal, as it had on other items. Not a peep came from the “change the direction in which the Review Conference is heading” folks. Here’s an even more troubling example, this time involving a paragraph the Palestinian delegation proposed Tuesday in the presence of the American representatives:
Palestine: I would like to propose a new paragraph which reads as follows: Calls for an end of all actions violating international human rights and humanitarian law, the respect for the principle of self-determination and an end of all suffering. Calls also for implementation of international legal obligations, including the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the wall, and the international protection of the Palestinian people throughout the occupied Palestinian territory. Chair: Now let’s move on to paragraph . . .Dead silence again, despite the fact that an objection could have made a real difference by putting the paragraph unequivocally in dispute. Everybody knew that there was no other country-specific provision in the 250-paragraph-plus document. Yet there were no comments objecting to the idea of singling out Israel in an anti-racism manifesto, and no call for a paragraph decrying racism in any other state. Instead, the Palestinian and EU delegations have confirmed that in a backroom deal, the EU agreed ahead of time not to object. Members of the American delegation might not have known of the arrangement in advance (highly unlikely), but regardless, they got tongue-tied when it mattered. The new paragraph is scheduled to appear in a section called “Identification of further concrete measures and initiatives at all levels for combating and eliminating all manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance . . .” with the subtitle “General provisions on victims and grounds of discrimination.” In other words, it didn’t take President Obama’s delegation two days before it sat in silence while Israel was singled out as guilty of racism — again. Why would the delegation behave this way? The idea, seemingly, is to make it appear to an American audience that the Conference’s prospects are improving, that there are no intense disagreements. Just business as usual at the U.N., where multilateral engagement is always a force for good. The less said by the United States, the smoother multilateralism proceeds. A pistol-whipped United States may be endearing for U.N. human-rights “authorities,” like the meeting’s very active Iranian vice-chair. It may not be quite so appealing to Americans. The pace of the preparatory meetings also suggests an intent to keep real conflicts out of the public eye. Only 15 percent of the proposed text has so far been adopted, and 30 percent of the proposals have never been reviewed. Most of the remaining preparatory meetings are not scheduled until April, just prior to the actual conference. What is more visible is that the U.S. has little to gain for itself — or for global human rights — from participating. Under the consensus rule, many important suggestions have gone unadopted. A proposal to condemn human-rights violations based on sexual orientation ran into immediate objections from South Africa, Syria, Algeria, Iran, Botswana, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Morocco, Holy See, Libya, Egypt, and China. Pakistan said no to a provision that sought to make violence against women and children a criminal offence. Iran balked at a call for states to promote gender equality, and at a suggestion to ensure that the concept of multiculturalism is not used to infringe human rights.U.S. strategy is evidently to announce the United States participated actively in the planning session, made proposals, and was given a warm welcome. Continuing efforts to improve the final result, it will be argued, are therefore warranted. The pace is sufficiently slow that this refrain will be repeated until it is so late in the day that walking out would cause a major diplomatic furor, which will in turn be used to justify attendance at the Conference itself. Obama’s hunger for engagement, in and of itself, is apparently his first priority. Israel is way down on the list and and American first principles are now subject to discussion. By contrast, what President Obama could have done was to explain to the American public that Durban II is a continuation of Durban I. Its purpose is to foster the implementation of Durban I’s Declaration and, at a minimum, to reaffirm it. Because of the Durban I Declaration’s treatment of Israel – a modern form of anti-Semitism – alone, the United States should continue to reject it. Not to mention the multiplicity of attacks on basics like free speech, equality, liberty, and security that are still in the Durban II draft. It should have been that simple. But the behavior of the United States delegation gives every indication that the pretense of change just around the corner will trump the obligation to give Americans the straight goods.
For a complete source of information on Durban IIsee http://eyeontheun.list-manage.com/track/click?u=779a7657507fa1127185b036a&id=f45a8f7d9c&e=ae630b1485

Durban II

Förberedelserna för anti-rasisimkonferensen Durban II är i full gång. Med viceordförande landet Irans hjälp har ett nytt utkast till dokument från mötet sett dagens ljus.
Liksom Durban I ser Durban II ut att bli en rasistisk konferens istället för en anti-rasism konferens.
Vad gör EU länderna? I stort sett ingenting.

Anne Bayefsky från EyeontheUN rapporterar:
"Intensive negotiations last week in Geneva have resulted in a new version of the "Draft Outcome Document" for Durban II - released yesterday. Iran - a Vice-Chair of the executive committee for Durban II - played a leading role in the drafting process, speaking more often than any other single state. The result? Now on the negotiating table: Jewish self-determination or Zionism is racism. Israel is guilty of apartheid and the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust is questionable."

Here are some of the features now part of negotiations according to the new draft:
-the "law of return" - the core of the self-determination of the Jewish people or Zionism - is racist
- Israel is guilty of crimes against humanity and "a contemporary form of apartheid"
- Israel's security fence is a "segregation wall"
- a provision condemning Israel's actions in Gaza
- while Israel is repeatedly condemned, not one of the other 191 UN states is mentioned
- a proposal to delete reference to the numbers of Jews murdered in the Holocaust - on the grounds that it is questionable
- a claim that "religions" - as opposed to individuals - can be "defamed"
- provisions curtailing free speech - "abuse of freedom of expression"
- efforts to limit and govern the media by "a code of ethical conduct"
- creation of a hierarchy of victims, with Muslim minorities on top - "most disturbing phenomenon is the intellectual and ideological validation of Islamophobia"
- efforts to trump universal rights and freedoms by references to cultural diversity, "cultural particularities," religious and cultural "identities"
- undermining counterterrorism activities by alleging they increase racism
- challenges to any responsibility for the trans-Saharan slave trade and the slave trade in the Indian Ocean
- introducing "anti-Arabism" as intolerance against a religious minority
- attempting to introduce laws against "projecting negative, insulting and derogatory images of religions and religious personalities"
- calls for new laws endangering rights and freedoms, such as, laws on "respect for human rights and reputation, public morals, and incitement to racial and religious hatred and freedom of expression".

Delta eller inte delta

Hollands utrikesminister Maxime Verhagen sade igår att Holland kommer att utebli från DurbanII ifall inte de anti-israeliska uttalandena stryks från textutkastet.
Dutch threaten to boycott 'Durban II'

Här kan man läsa en uppmaning till USA att inte delta i konferensen med motiveringar.
Don’t Do Durban II Some advice for President Obama.

De muslimska länderna har kapat Durban II

De dominerande teserna i det 88-sidiga utkastet till deklaration ("Draft Outcome Document") från Durban II (FN:s uppföljningskonferens till antirasismkonferensen i Durban) är att USA, västeuropa, Israel och andra liberala demokratier och deras institutioner, politik, historia och nationeella identitet är rasistiska och diskriminerande mot islam. Yttrandefrihet, välstånd,globalisering, säkerhetsåtgärder för att bekämpa terrorism som riktar sig mot Väst, allt detta sägs förorsaka rasism, diskriminering och förtal av Islam (defamation of Islam).
Språket i deklarationen används till att förvanska de mänskliga rättigheterna så att det blir värre än texten från Durban 2001.
Utkastet som sammanställts av en kommitte där Libyen är ordförande och Iran, Pakistan och Cuba viceordföranden fokuserar på en speciell stat, Israel, som utpekas som fiende till mänskligheten.
Utkastet strider på flera punkter mot de riktlinjer som Frankrikes president på EU:s vägnar sagt att måste följas för att EU skall delta.
Detta rapporterar UN Watch på sin hemsida i en lättläst rapport.

The EU red lines reject (1) singling out one region of the world in particular; (2) reopening the 2001 Durban
declaration by inserting a prohibition against “defamation of religion,” designed to restrict free
speech and impose the censorship of Islamic anti-blasphemy laws; (3) drawing up an order of
priority among victims; and (4) politicizing or polarizing the discussion.

Några citat från UN Watch
FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY:
You have spoken about the Durban conference. I will tell you: The Durban conference in
2001 led to intolerable excesses from certain states and numerous NGOs that turned the
conference into a forum against Israel. No one has forgotten. A follow-up conference is
planned for 2009. Mr. President [of the CRIF], you asked me a question. I will answer
very frankly. France will not allow a repetition of the excesses and abuses of 2001.
Our European partners share France’s concerns. France will chair the EU in the final
months preceding the review conference. I say to you: if ever our legitimate
demands are not taken into account, we will disengage from the process. I think my
answer is unambiguous.
Source: Nicolas Sarkozy au diner annuel du crif, February
13, 2008.
U.K.MINISTER FOR EUROPE JIM MURPHY:
There should be no repeat of the disgraceful anti-Semitism that blighted events
surrounding the 2001 world conference against racism… [We] will play no part in an
international conference that exhibits the degree of anti-Semitism that was
disgracefully on view on the previous occasion… If it gets to a point that we come to
the view that the conference cannot be a success, the option of withdrawal from the
conference remains available to us.”
Source: Parliamentary debates, May 13, 2008.
NETHERLANDS FOREIGN MINISTER MAXIME VERHAGEN:
Report from Radio Netherlands, May 18, 2008: The Netherlands will not accept it if
there are any attempts to call Israel a racist state at a UN conference in the South
African city of Durban next year, said Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen. He said that
the Netherlands was involved in the organization of the new Durban conference and
would not hesitate to withdraw if there is a similar negative spiral of events.
Source: Radio Netherlands, May 18, 2008.
DANISH FOREIGN MINISTER PER STIG MØLLER:
If the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) pushes through this draft
resolution, they shall not expect European or Western countries to be present at the
table... we cannot accept that religion be conflated with racism.
Source: “Danish foreign minister threatens Western boycott of
Durban II,” Europe News, citing Jyllands-Posten, October 28 2008

E N Kendal på WEA skriver:
All that is left on the OIC's agenda for combating Islamophobia is the legitimisation and implementation of national and international laws and legal instruments to punish offenders. It looks like Durban II might be a step in this direction."
"The OIC & the UN: Islamophobia and "defamation of religion"
The OIC formulated its Ten Year Program of Action (TYPOA) in Makkah in December 2005. Item VI on the TYPOA is "Combating Islamophobia". The OIC determined to do this by means of: 1) establishing an Observatory on Islamophobia tasked with monitoring Islamophobia and "defamation" of Islam and issuing annual reports; 2) getting the UN to adopt an international resolution on Islamophobia, and call on all States to enact laws to counter it; and 3) establishing international legal instruments to enforce anti-defamation laws and deliver deterrent punishments to those charged with inciting Islamophobia through defamation of Islam.The Observatory of Islamophobia was launched in Dakar in March 2008 and the UN has been passing resolutions against Islamophobia and "defamation" of religion ever since the OIC and Arab League-incited Cartoon Intifada of February 2006. All that is left on the OIC's agenda for combating Islamophobia is the legitimisation and implementation of national and international laws and legal instruments to punish offenders. It looks like Durban II might be a step in this direction."

Shocking Draft of the Durban II Final Declaration Released

Eye on the UN rapporterar om de senaste händelserna i föreberdelserna för Durban II.

UN Racist "Anti-Racism" Campaign Now in Black & White
The shocking text of the "Draft Outcome Document" to be adopted at the UN's so-called anti-racism conference, Durban II, has just been released. It features:
-accusations that Israel is guilty of apartheid, crimes against humanity and genocide
-allegations that Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism
-the accusation that Zionism is racism by referring to a "racially based law of return"
-claims of a right of return that would end the Jewishness of the state of Israel
-an effort to end Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem
-an attempt to strangle free speech by demands that states "encourage objective and balanced portrayals of people, events and history, especially in the media"
-a demand that states adopt laws to invade public and private life for the purposes of "preventing and punishing expressly and specifically contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in public and private life"
-an insistence that the world media be governed by "a code of ethical conduct with a view to prohibiting the proliferation of ideas of superiority and the justification of racial or religious hatred"
-an effort to tarnish "counterterrorism or national security" efforts with the accusation that they "hamper...progress in the collective struggle against racism"
-trumped-up accusations of global Muslim victimhood - including the claim that "the most serious manifestations of defamation of religions are the increase in Islamophobia and the worsening of the situation of Muslim minorities around the world"- a blatant effort by states sponsors of terrorism to turn attention away from their own heinous behavior by reinventing themselves as victims
-demands for broad new laws that would undercut democratic rights and freedoms in the name of religious sensibilities: "take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols."

During the week of October 13, 2008, democratic states led by the European Union are sitting down to conduct a second reading of this outrageous "anti-racism" document. The continued participation of democratic states like the EU and Australia in the Durban II forum is legitimizing a global discussion for and against antisemitism, for and against a Jewish state, for and against freedom of expression. Instead of providing a global platform to the enemies of human rights, they should immediately join Canada, the United States and Israel and get out.