NZ won’t attend racism conference because we are cowards
NZ won't attend racism conference
Labour and the Greens are at odds with the Government over its decision to boycott this week's United Nations conference on racism. Foreign Minister Murray McCully confirmed today New Zealand would not take part, joining other countries including the United States, Australia, Canada, Italy, Israel and Germany. The Geneva conference is in trouble because of intense sensitivity around Israel and Arab states – the last UN meeting called to condemn racism ended in chaos when Muslim delegates tried to insert language into a declaration defining Zionism as racist. The US walked out of that conference in 2001 and won't attend this one despite a draft declaration which doesn't mention Israel, the Middle East or any other divisive issues. Mr McCully said New Zealand would not attend because he was not satisfied the wording of the draft declaration would prevent the conference from "descending into the same kind of rancorous and unproductive debate that took place in 2001".
And yet the French and the British ARE going, so they can’t be too frightened about turning up at a conference that points out (rightfully so) that Zionism is racist. It’s the absurdity of it all that makes the whole tantrum of storming off so pathetic, Zionism IS racist, look at the manner in which the occupation has brutally treated Palestinians and it’s clearly a racist mindset against Palestinians, what Israel’s allies (and apparently with National/ACT winning in NZ, and McCully not wanting to risk his Israeli wine collection, we are now allies of this racist and paranoid state) can not tolerate is the idea that Israel get called on it’s racist policies towards the Palestinian people. Refusing to turn up to UN conference on racism because your mate is going to get called on their actions is just gutless pathetic pandering on behalf of National.
posted by Bomber @ 5:59 am
17 comments
17 Comments:
you want us to spend about $100000 in taxpayers money so a bunch of fat cats can go to a confrence that dosnt make the slightest bit of diffreence to our country? no wonder were in a recessioin with that kinda thinking!
The Maori Party should be speaking out on this.
Is the issue of racism no longer a worthwhile issue to debate, now that they have comfortable seats in government?
Don't they care about indigenous rights of other colonised peoples any more?
Is the Maori Party accomodation with National more important than principle?
And yet the French and the British ARE going,What a surprise - the two Euro counties with the biggest and most vocal Muslim populations are scared of the protests they'd spark in their own countries.
I think it is utterly refreshing to have the NZ govt draw a line in the sand and say "No, we aren't interested in propping up a some rubbish UN junket that everyone knows full well will promptly be hijacked by the usual crazies and turn into a massive shitfest."
This is the change I wanted when I voted for National.
It seems as though the British and French don't agree with your assessment of the situation Bomber as they were part of a mass walk out during Mr Ahmadinejad's tirad against Israel. Funnily enough his speach sounded very much like your blog. Perhaps you have a case for plagiarism.
Just saw stippets of Ahmadinejad's speech. That is his contribution toward "anti-racism" and I am proud of our Government in not attending. It showed guts and disgust how the UN has been hijacked by predominantly Muslim countries that ignore racism in their own backyards. So ironic watching a racist in action at an "anti-racsim" conference. Good to see the UN has a sense of humour though.
Oh Gosman, you tire me and bore me so, I know you would never have the balls to say these things to someones face, but how did Britain and France hear what Ahmadinejad had to say Gosman?
Probably the same way we did Bomber: Media coverage.
Probably the same way we did Bomber: Media coverage.Oh Anon, I think you are being purposely deceitful, Gosman’s childish come back in his right wing apologist position for Israel to my point that Britain and France were at the conference was It seems as though the British and French don't agree with your assessment of the situation Bomber as they were part of a mass walk out during Mr Ahmadinejad's tirad against Israel, I countered by asking how Britain and France heard what Ahmadinejad had to say to storm out and you proffer the above answer as a defense against my overall point which was that they had to be there to storm out in the first place. They were present, we were not, we gutlessly followed America and Israel, we could’ve turned up, we could’ve argued our case, we choose to hide – and hide from what? The claim that Israel is a racist state, if they not a racist state and their abuse of Palestinians isn’t apartheid, let’s hear their defence because it looks 100% true based on the position of brutal occupation Palestinians live under, it looks very much like they are second class citizens based purely on their race. Why the terror of being told the truth?
No, they are second class citizens based on their religion i.e. they are not of the Jewish faith (not race). It's most definitely bigotry but it's not racism.
we gutlessly followed America and Israel, As in the US "Obama we can do it" US?
Oh, and you call Israel racist, but are somewhat silent on the imprisonment of homosexuals and the imprisonment of journalists and bloggers in Iran?
Somehow I don't think Iran has any moral high ground to pontificate to anybody.
Oh, and you call Israel racist, but are somewhat silent on the imprisonment of homosexuals and the imprisonment of journalists and bloggers in Iran?I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever condoned the disgusting hangings of homosexuals or the imprisonment of bloggers in Iran EVER! Please note where I have said anything of the sort Anonymous poster? I have blogged on the plight of Iranian bloggers AND Ahmadinejad's ridiculous claims that homosexuals don't exist in Iran, so where do you get off claiming I have been silent on these issues, I haven't.
"Ahmadinejad - the first government official to take the floor - restarted and delivered his speech for more than a half-hour, saying the United States and Europe had helped establish Israel after the Second World War at the expense of Palestinians.
"They resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering," he said.
That prompted the walkout by some 40 diplomats from Britain and France and other European Union countries."http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/640877
Ahmadinejad's position is summarised here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykd-syzZ4ZY
1. 58 million non combatants died during WWII why does one group enjoy such prominence?
2. All historical events are subject to revision as more scholarship is applied. Why are scholars being incarcerated for investigating this one event?
3. Whatever the truth of the Holocaust, it was a European event in which the Palestinian people took no part. Why have they been made to give up their land to recompense the victims of it?
These are valid questions deserving proper debate. That the possibility of that debate occurring "prompted the walkout by some 40 diplomats from Britain and France and other European Union countries"
indicates an unwillingness or, more likely, inability to provide a decent rebuttal.
That Israel has a case to answer is beyond doubt. Shulamit Aloni, the former Education Minister of Israel wrote this in 2007:
"Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what's right in front of our eyes. It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population."http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html
It seems she has more guts that McCully and 40 Europeans put together.
So what was the big deal over Durban? At least the Herald provided a crumb of balance:
"Israel's Foreign Ministry yesterday thanked the boycotters and predicted the conference would "once again serve as a platform to denigrate Israel and single it out for criticism".
Still, after years of preparations there appears little evidence to validate these fears.
The statement of 2001 that is so contentious now was cheered in Israel at the time, as it recognised the Jewish state's right to security."Go figure.
Prime Minister John Key shared the concerns.
"We believe it would restrict the freedom of expression,"
Race Relations Commissioner;
He said there would be different views raised during the conference but said efforts were made to prevent the conference being used as a platform for 'hate speech'/freedom of expression?
"It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds?"
ARE U SAYIN 'THEY AIN'T HUMAN BEINGS OR DON'T ACT LIKE HUMAN BEINGS OR DON'T CARE ABOUT OTHER HUMAN BEINGS' COS IF YA ARE THEN U WOULD BE REFUTING YOUR OWN ARGUMENT WOULDN'T YOU MATE?
1. 58 million non combatants died during WWII why does one group enjoy such prominence? Because they were systematically put to death in their millions because of their religion, thats why.
2. All historical events are subject to revision as more scholarship is applied. Why are scholars being incarcerated for investigating this one event? You mean like David Irving?
The issue of the holocaust has been documented, verified, and witnessed by so many, to deny or downplay is obscene.
3. Whatever the truth of the Holocaust, it was a European event in which the Palestinian people took no part. Why have they been made to give up their land to recompense the victims of it? Valid point, not that the Persians have ever given a fuck for Palestinians, except for political point scoring.
These are valid questions deserving proper debate. That the possibility of that debate occurring "prompted the walkout by some 40 diplomats from Britain and France and other European Union countries"
indicates an unwillingness or, more likely, inability to provide a decent rebuttal. Rather, attacking Israel whilst downplaying the Holocaust is seen as obscene to any rational person.
National's position is no suprise considering John Key is half coveted Jew. Of course, it's a Jewish conspiracy innit.
Why would any fiscally prudent government waste taxpayer's money sending a delegation on a junket to a consortium of disreputable crooks and despots, just to gab about racism, a phenomenon that no organisation on Earth can eliminate without breaking new ground in thought control techniques?
If it were possible to eliminate racism, the worst choice of those to assign this task would be an outfit like the UN; an organisation that couldn't eliminate dandruff, even if they were armed with a large axe and a chopping block.
Bill.
1.Because they were systematically put to death in their millions because of their religion, thats why.So the other 52 million died for no reason at all? I'd say its a fair bet most of then died at the hands of someone who systematically bombed civilian areas or at the hands of someone who truly hated them and their kind. Are you saying there are degrees of victimhood among the dead?
2. The issue of the holocaust has been documented, verified, and witnessed by so many, to deny or downplay is obscene.Then your charge of obscenity should be leveled at the "official" historians who have already downplayed it considerably
3.Valid point, not that the Persians have ever given a fuck for Palestinians, except for political point scoring.Unsubstantiated nonsense.
By defending Iran then you condone this behaviour.WTF - that's an absolute lie, I do not defend Irans position on those issues, I have blogged against them - YOU claimed I had been silent on Irans blogging and treatment of homosexuals and that's an outright lie, I HAVE BLOGGED ON THEM.
Bomber, how many posts on Tumeke have there been condemning Iran for such policy vs posts saying Bush is a moron? No you don't, you are twisting what you originally accused me of, you claimed I was silent remember, and I pointed out that was a lie and thta I had blogged on both those issues, NOW you are trying to wriggle out of that by claiming the ratio isn't as high as calling Bush a moron, well that's a major change from me not saying anything.
This would be a good indication of how seriously you rate Iran's behaviour.BULLSHIT - you originally claimed I was silent on Iranian bloggers and treatment of homosexuals when I clearly HAVE written blogs criticising Iran on those issues, because you've been called on that you are changing your argument from 'silent' to 'not many' and pretending to use that ratio as proof that I don't care.
I don't actually expect an answer from you because it would expose you for the hypocrite you are.Oh and this little gem at the end is the real joke, you are the one who has been called, not me. If you are going to insult me, make sure you actually know what you are talking about before you do it, because you've come off as an idiot in this, you claimed I was silent on those issues, turns out I wasn't and now you've tried to twist your point to fit the circumstances.
Better luck next time champ.
Post a Comment
<< Home