Order In the House!
Whereas Muslim and Arab countries were successful in ensuring that the 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council enshrined the ruling that references to Islamic Sharia law and any mention of purported human rights abuses taking place in Muslim and Arab countries were off bounds for discussion within the United Nations, it is astounding that a representative of Canada acting as temporary debate chairman would summarily cut off a joint statement for the Association for world Education and the World Union for Progressive Judaism before its conclusion.
This was, after all, an issue of human rights, and advisedly also and in particular a bid to legitimately lead to a "universal condemnation" of the United Nations' members led by the Arab and Muslim bloc to defame Jews and Israel. Since freedom of expression and hate speech happened to be top of the agenda list, the address should have been seen to be appropriate to the occasion. Yet, Canada's Ambassador Marius Grinius called a stop to the address on a point of order. Peculiar indeed.
In his defence it is claimed that a preliminary enquiry launched by the Foreign Affairs Minister of Canada revealed that UN procedural officials had been consulted. Which, actually, explains nothing other than the fact that the ambassador can claim he acted with total propriety according to the process set down by the governing body of the UN. Despite which, what he accomplished was to make a ruling that would satisfy the Arab and Muslim bloc that they not be held to account on an important human rights and racism issue.
None other than the institutionalized anti-Semitism practised in Arab and Muslim countries whereby school curricula and their associated textbooks commonly reveal an abhorrent view of Jews and of the State of Israel. Teaching young children and their older counterparts that Jews are the scum of the earth, and the cause of all the ills that befall the world, inclusive of initiating world wars, and aspiring to control world governments, finances, and news media.
"There was no valid reason for me to be stopped by the chair", wrote David Littman in his letter to Ambassador Grinius protesting the occurrence. "We are constantly stopped on points of order by (Muslim) delegates... It is very depressing to be censored this time by the Canadian chairman." Mr. Littman revealed that he was well aware that what he was saying was felt to be "incendiary" by Muslim and Arab countries ... and this is what he felt Ambassador Grinius reacted to.
It's ironic beyond measure that this curtailment of an entirely appropriate address occurred during a debate revolving around freedom of speech and hate speech. The occurrence has not gone unnoticed by UN monitoring groups. "We're used to seeing NGOs interrupted ... by Iran, Pakistan and Egypt", said UN Watch's executive director. "But diplomats from democracies need to resist, not accommodate, the forces of censorship and intolerance."
As far as the government of Canada is concerned, although they plan to follow up on the matter, "This was a procedural ruling and in no way indicative of the views of the Government of Canada on either the content of Mr. Littman's remarks or on the issue of defamation of religions", said a spokesperson for Canada's Foreign Affairs minister.
Mr. Littman had been speaking specifically of two books that could be classified as anti-Semitic in content, but yet which were available in Geneva during a December event organized by the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, on United Nations premises.
Why is this depressingly dreary fact not the least little bit surprising?
This was, after all, an issue of human rights, and advisedly also and in particular a bid to legitimately lead to a "universal condemnation" of the United Nations' members led by the Arab and Muslim bloc to defame Jews and Israel. Since freedom of expression and hate speech happened to be top of the agenda list, the address should have been seen to be appropriate to the occasion. Yet, Canada's Ambassador Marius Grinius called a stop to the address on a point of order. Peculiar indeed.
In his defence it is claimed that a preliminary enquiry launched by the Foreign Affairs Minister of Canada revealed that UN procedural officials had been consulted. Which, actually, explains nothing other than the fact that the ambassador can claim he acted with total propriety according to the process set down by the governing body of the UN. Despite which, what he accomplished was to make a ruling that would satisfy the Arab and Muslim bloc that they not be held to account on an important human rights and racism issue.
None other than the institutionalized anti-Semitism practised in Arab and Muslim countries whereby school curricula and their associated textbooks commonly reveal an abhorrent view of Jews and of the State of Israel. Teaching young children and their older counterparts that Jews are the scum of the earth, and the cause of all the ills that befall the world, inclusive of initiating world wars, and aspiring to control world governments, finances, and news media.
"There was no valid reason for me to be stopped by the chair", wrote David Littman in his letter to Ambassador Grinius protesting the occurrence. "We are constantly stopped on points of order by (Muslim) delegates... It is very depressing to be censored this time by the Canadian chairman." Mr. Littman revealed that he was well aware that what he was saying was felt to be "incendiary" by Muslim and Arab countries ... and this is what he felt Ambassador Grinius reacted to.
It's ironic beyond measure that this curtailment of an entirely appropriate address occurred during a debate revolving around freedom of speech and hate speech. The occurrence has not gone unnoticed by UN monitoring groups. "We're used to seeing NGOs interrupted ... by Iran, Pakistan and Egypt", said UN Watch's executive director. "But diplomats from democracies need to resist, not accommodate, the forces of censorship and intolerance."
As far as the government of Canada is concerned, although they plan to follow up on the matter, "This was a procedural ruling and in no way indicative of the views of the Government of Canada on either the content of Mr. Littman's remarks or on the issue of defamation of religions", said a spokesperson for Canada's Foreign Affairs minister.
Mr. Littman had been speaking specifically of two books that could be classified as anti-Semitic in content, but yet which were available in Geneva during a December event organized by the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, on United Nations premises.
Why is this depressingly dreary fact not the least little bit surprising?
Labels: Anti-Semitism, Canada, United Nations
posted by Pieface | 7:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home