Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
Fine, you got your thing: walkout during Iranian leader's speech:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8008572.stm
And now what? Does this change the event? Does it change the Human Rights Commission? Is it now allowed to mention the human rights abuses of Islamic and third world countries? Will Mugabe and Al Bahsir be made objects of discussion? Will the prosecution of cultural minorities in Islamic countries be discussed? Islam's totalitarian egocentrism? The genocide(s) in Africa? Saudi and Iranian-financed terror in the Middle East? The barbarism of now almost pandemically spreading Sharia law? Etc etc etc
No.
When the Iranian has finsihed, the diplomats will come back and continue as is nothing happened, goiving respectability to this whole conference.
Where is the "protest" in that? Where is the effect? As I quoted him, Frattini said: " Going there and acting as a silent witness does not pay in the end: you only risk becoming complicit in it."
Right he is. |
The walkout got a lot more media attention than the initial boycott. It was a huge embarrassment for the UN, and it would have been even bigger had the US and other prominent countries been there to walk out.
I agree that returning to the conference was a bad move - the countries should have walked out and stayed out.