Boycott blow for UN racism forum

[Happy Times]

Little bit dissapointed as Finland wont boycott, they will walk out if antisemitic wiews are expressed tough.

[Skybird]

I translate a comment in a German newspaper, it is spot on.

That Iran'S president Ahmadinejad will abuse the conference as a platform for his propaganda, perfectly illustrates the true character of this event. Since years already, authoritarian regimes in Africa, Asia and Latin America and before all others: the Islamic world, abuse the maxim of "fighting against racism" in order to distract from their own systematic ignoring of most basic human rights, and to put the much hated western democracies in the dock, claiming an alleged rape of cultural and religious rights.

Like the first UN-anti-racism-confernce in Durban 2001, the second meeting in Geneva primarily and before anythign else serves this sole purpose - even if this time no one-sided condemning of Israel and no verbal formulation of "criticism of Islam equals racism" would make their way into the final document. But only just the EU diplomats could counter the Iraniahn intention to see the reminding of the Jewish holocaust being deleted from the draft.

This will not stop Ahmadinejad to repeat his rabble-rousing against the Jewish state and his relativising of the holocaust. what one has to think of the "anti-racism" of Arab states, one learned just short time ago at the summit of the Arab League in Quatar. While one was busy to vie each other in condemning alleged Israeli war crimes, one was giving a warm and wholeheartly welcome to Sudanese dictator Al Bashir who is beeing sought with international warrant. Al Bashir is responsible for one of the worst actual racist crimes today: the genocide in Darfhur that takes place since 2003, (where islamic militias kill black natives of Christian and other faith by hundreds of thousands, Skybird).

"Anti-racism-conferences" like the one in Geneva, where racist crimes are not allowed to be mentioned when they have been committed by states like Lybia, Iran and Cuba, are nothing but a bad farce. The same is true of the human Rights council, who was organising the conference and where the biggest human rights violators of the present are in command, making utter mockery of it. western democracies that participate in such conferences and institutions, by that make acceptable the attempt of anti-western ideologists to reverse the fight against racism into it'S complete opposite.

And from another sources, this short excerpt:

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said the failure of the EU to agree on a common position was a huge disappointment. "Going there and acting as a silent witness does not pay in the end: you only risk becoming complicit in it," he said.

I want to add that a UN secretary who all to willingly allows himself to be abused for these human-rights-violating, pro-Islamic, anti-Western agendas, and who accepts to be harnessed in front of the wagon of these ideologic arsonists, is neither morally nor intellectually in a position to criticise countries like Germany or the US for not participating in this hoax, and only illustrates what a poor way of thinking he practices when expressing how sorry he feels that these countries have not come. A new low in the respectability of this poor little fella.

[Happy Times]

Nothing is enough for the ones pushing this agenda, West has to surrender unconditionally by opening its borders, denouncing its cultural heritage and redistribute its wealth.
The Chinese, Japanese and Koreans might be smiling for real when observing at this madness.

[SteamWake]

The UN is becomming more and more like Hollywood, sure its fun to watch the people, point at them and laugh, but in the long run they have very little impact on the world.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Little bit dissapointed as Finland wont boycott, they will walk out if antisemitic wiews are expressed tough.

I actually think this approach might have been more effective for the US and the Western Europeans.

[Skybird]

How's that? The whole show from the very beginning of it's planning by the Human Rights Commission, which also is in the hands of massmurderers, violators of human rights, and islamists, is intended to prohibit any talking about these perpetrators crimes (doing so earns you the label of being a racist and makes them threatening to leave in protest), and exclusively put blame on Western nations and make them accepting breaching of human rights by islamists and third world dictators and making them self-limiting in their free speech , and making them morer submissive to Islamic totalitarianism. The HumanRights commission planned this event, and the Commission is dominated by a strong orthodox-Islamic block, collaborating with non-Muslim nations for they have the same interest: to damage the West and get it'S pieces of cake under their control. What is in that that is worth to be considered to be negotiable? Nothing, rien, nichts, nada. It's all a fake show. And one-eyed good-people and naive hopers for the fairy queen's intervention fall for it, thinking they could talk it all towards the better. Today, in these institutions and on such conferences, any opposition to inhuman ideologies are forbidden and labelled as racism as soon as these ideologies claim to be "culture" or "religion", becoming immediately untouchable that way - all for free, without any value in themselves justifying that. That is the point were any further talking simply becomes absurd - it cannot lead anywhere. This conference does not introduce the kind of audience that you can talk to about freedom and human rights and anti-racism in Westenr understanding - and for example Al Bashir's or Muhabe's understanding of "freedom" or Islam's understanding of "tolerance" I am not willing to consider as being worth to waste time with. Much of this audience in Geneva wants it's own crimes being hidden, and wants to make us, the western civilisation and most free society there ever has been in the history of mankind, vulnerable for their predatory drive into our centre.

So when legitimising this conference by our presence - how could that have any positive reward for us? We only illustrate our naivety and weakness, our willingness to fall back in the face of threat and intimidation. What we would have to say there - does not interest anybody of them seriously.

So do something clever - save the time, get some icecream and enjoy the sunny weather. By that you do incredibly much more to turn the planet into a better world and a more peaceful place than you ever would do by visiting this "conference". It is as much a useful talk and open negotiation as was Chamberlain's visit in Munich. Many of those going to that conference - should be seated in the courtroom in The Hague instead, getting sentenced for life. So stop giving them respectability - they are not going to Geneva to listen to your reasonable contributions to discussion anyway.

It is an anti-Western propaganda coup, nothing else. What you would have to say there - does not interest anybody and will not change anything. A complete waste of time.

[Dowly]

Uganda, weganda, theyganda! Hoooly poo I cracked up so bad!

[Max2147]

I just think that a walkout sends a stronger message than a boycott. It's a more effective way of protesting the conference.

[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.

[SteamWake]

Yea I see Achmidemanutjob brought them to their feet !

[Max2147]

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.