Please check out Don Cohen's interview of me in this week's Jewish News.
http://www.jnonline.us/main.asp?SectionID=29&SubSectionID=71&ArticleID=6666
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Censorship by another name....
The Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference was approved unanimously by those countries that had not boycotted the conference. You will be told that the document is not bad. It does not mention Israel. It does not mention Zionism. It does not mention the Palestinians. While this is all true, the document still contains a concept within its text that is so anathema to American values that the United States would not have been able to approve the document regardless of the Israeli-Palestinian issues. It is this concept that caused some of the European countries to pull out of the conference – not the arguments surrounding Zionism.
The Outcome Document states that “all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred * * * shall be declared offence punishment by law”. Basically, the Outcome Document states that incitement to hatred should be illegal.
Your response may be, so what? Isn’t it bad to incite hated? Isn’t it bad to claim racial superiority? Aren’t these ideas harmful to the fight against racism, intolerance and xenophobia?
Or course it is bad to incite hatred. Of course it is bad to claim racial superiority.. But it is worse to prevent free speech. Free speech is the keystone to a functioning democratic society. In our country, we do not suppress speech. Speech can be vile. It can be hate-filled. It can be untrue. But, with few exceptions, speech is always legal.
You do not win by suppressing speech. You do not win by allowing the government to chose which ideas are allowed and which ideas are banned. You win by being right, by having the ability to speak back, and by promising that – whether we are in the majority or in the minority – we will always have the right to disseminate our ideas.
As Americans, we are alone in this view of free speech. Many European countries have less expansive views. As just one example, in Germany it is illegal to deny the Holocaust. But because we are alone does not mean that we are wrong. Our country is far from perfect. But taking into consideration our differences as far as race, religion, political philosophies, gender, sexual orientation, culture, and geography, I would say we are doing pretty well. And free speech is a large part of how we can function as such a diverse society. It may be easier to just make hate-speech illegal. It may be easier to have the government decreeing what ideas are allowed and what ideas are banned. But it would be wrong.
So many aspects of Durban were hijacked by the fight over Zionism. The debate centered on this issue, the demonstrations centered on this issue and the media coverage centered on this issue. But do not make the mistake of thinking that Durban was only about this one issue. Durban also put the right to free speech on the line in the name of racial tolerance. Whether the concept is called “incitement to hatred” or “defamation of religion” or any other euphemism that is developed later on, it is about censorship. If we, as a global community, decide that censorship is the way to fight hatred and racism we have already lost.
Text from the outcome document:
Paragraph 13 - Reaffirms that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; reaffirms further that all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall be declared offence punishable by law, in accordance with the international obligations of States and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression
Paragraph 69 - Resolves to, as stipulated in art. 20 of the ICCPR, fully and effectively prohibit any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and implement it through all necessary legislative, policy and judicial measures
Paragraph 99 - Calls upon States, in accordance with their human rights obligations, to declare illegal and to prohibit all organizations based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote national, racial and religious hatred and discrimination in any form, and to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination
The Outcome Document states that “all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred * * * shall be declared offence punishment by law”. Basically, the Outcome Document states that incitement to hatred should be illegal.
Your response may be, so what? Isn’t it bad to incite hated? Isn’t it bad to claim racial superiority? Aren’t these ideas harmful to the fight against racism, intolerance and xenophobia?
Or course it is bad to incite hatred. Of course it is bad to claim racial superiority.. But it is worse to prevent free speech. Free speech is the keystone to a functioning democratic society. In our country, we do not suppress speech. Speech can be vile. It can be hate-filled. It can be untrue. But, with few exceptions, speech is always legal.
You do not win by suppressing speech. You do not win by allowing the government to chose which ideas are allowed and which ideas are banned. You win by being right, by having the ability to speak back, and by promising that – whether we are in the majority or in the minority – we will always have the right to disseminate our ideas.
As Americans, we are alone in this view of free speech. Many European countries have less expansive views. As just one example, in Germany it is illegal to deny the Holocaust. But because we are alone does not mean that we are wrong. Our country is far from perfect. But taking into consideration our differences as far as race, religion, political philosophies, gender, sexual orientation, culture, and geography, I would say we are doing pretty well. And free speech is a large part of how we can function as such a diverse society. It may be easier to just make hate-speech illegal. It may be easier to have the government decreeing what ideas are allowed and what ideas are banned. But it would be wrong.
So many aspects of Durban were hijacked by the fight over Zionism. The debate centered on this issue, the demonstrations centered on this issue and the media coverage centered on this issue. But do not make the mistake of thinking that Durban was only about this one issue. Durban also put the right to free speech on the line in the name of racial tolerance. Whether the concept is called “incitement to hatred” or “defamation of religion” or any other euphemism that is developed later on, it is about censorship. If we, as a global community, decide that censorship is the way to fight hatred and racism we have already lost.
Text from the outcome document:
Paragraph 13 - Reaffirms that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; reaffirms further that all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall be declared offence punishable by law, in accordance with the international obligations of States and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression
Paragraph 69 - Resolves to, as stipulated in art. 20 of the ICCPR, fully and effectively prohibit any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and implement it through all necessary legislative, policy and judicial measures
Paragraph 99 - Calls upon States, in accordance with their human rights obligations, to declare illegal and to prohibit all organizations based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote national, racial and religious hatred and discrimination in any form, and to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Act Now for Darfur
If this week in Geneva has taught me anything, it is that we all have a moral imperative to act and do what we can to stop genocide and to stop human rights violations around the world. Previously, I was naive to think that there were groups - such as the United Nations Human Rights Council - that existed to act on Genocide. I used to think there were international laws passed - such as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - which were in place to prevent Genocide. However, in order to do anything about this atrocity, the United Nations or the Human Rights Council would actually have to care about the victims in Darfur. But this week in Geneva was not about helping victims, the Human Rights Council is not about helping victims and - unfortunately - the United Nations is not about helping victims. That means the we must be about helping victims. We must stand up and tell our government, our friends, our neighbors and anyone else that will listen that it is our duty as human beings - that it is the responsibility of humanity - to prevent genocide. Genocide has been happening everyday for the past six years in Darfur. We must do everything we can to stop it.
For those of you in Detroit, there is an event going on this Sunday to raise money and awareness about Darfur. Please consider going to the event and donating to the cause.
Act Now for Darfur - A Call To Action
Sunday, April 26, 4-6
Holocaust Memorial Center
Donate at www.firstgiving.org/darfurawareness
Check out the video at www.youtube.com/changedarfur
For those of you in Detroit, there is an event going on this Sunday to raise money and awareness about Darfur. Please consider going to the event and donating to the cause.
Act Now for Darfur - A Call To Action
Sunday, April 26, 4-6
Holocaust Memorial Center
Donate at www.firstgiving.org/darfurawareness
Check out the video at www.youtube.com/changedarfur
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Empty Chairs
Below are pictures of empty chairs. The empty chair of Israel, who boycotted the Durban Review Conference. The empty chair of the United States, who sent a delegation to the Conference but decided the process was beyond salvation and chose to also boycott. The empty chair of France, who is attending the Conference but walked out of Ahmadinejad’s speech as soon as he referred to the Israel as a racist country and Zionism as a racist institution. Then there are countries, such as the eloquent ambassador from Norway, Jonas Gahr Store, who sat through Ahmadinejad’s speech and then gave a rousing speech of his own stating that “Norway will not accept that the odd man out hijacks the collective efforts of many” and noted that Ahmadinejad’s ideas "run counter to the very spirit of dignity of the conference." (See link on the right for the video of Norway's Speech)
Each of these choices have been questioned and criticized (with the exception of Israel’s decision not to attend – however they have spent the entire week having their very existence questioned and criticized). And that is yet another tragedy of Durban. Countries that support human rights and object to the hateful rhetoric of Ahmadinejad are still divided in how to respond. Well-meaning individuals and governments now must spend time debating how to respond to those actions that seek to vilify Israel, restrict free speech and turn the idea of human rights upside down instead of spending time debating how to address growing threats such as Islamophobia and how to address the genocide in Darfur.
In the end, the tragedy is that this conference is filled with distractions. Ahmadinejad is a distraction. Zionism is a distraction. Israel is a distraction. As long as people are debating whether Zionism is racism, they are not talking about what actions to take to help the survivors of the genocide in Rwanda. As long as people are debating whether it is appropriate to stand for a moment of silence for those killed in Gaza, they are not talking about the discrimination against the Dalits in India. As long as country after country is naming Israel – and only Israel – as a violator of human rights who should be dealt with by the United Nations, the eyes of the world will view this week as a circus instead of an opportunity to bring attention to minority groups from around the globe who are oppressed, tortured and killed by the actions of their governments.
We have heard criticism that the Jewish presence is only here to talk about Israel and does not actually care about the victims of racism. This criticism is, at once, both fair and unfair. We would like nothing more than to have the opportunity to learn about the victims of racism from around the world. Indeed, our group participated in the Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance and Democracy where we listened to genocide survivors from Rwanda and Darfur, dissidents from Cuba and Belarus and torture victims from Iran and Libya. We are here to educate ourselves on these issues so we can bring them back to our communities.
However, because so many of the events have been hijacked by the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic crusaders, we feel we need to be present to bear witness to this hate speech and, as appropriate, speak up to defend Israel. Because of this, it may appear that we only care about Israel. But we did not put Israel on the agenda and we surely did not put Israel in the spotlight. Others made that choice, and now we have spent our Conference doing what we could to minimize the damage. We would like nothing more than to be able to spend all our time going into panels and talking seriously about how to fight racism, intolerance and xenophobia and learning about the minorities around the world who suffer every days because of these tragedies. Instead, we are forced to defend Israel, to correct lies and to point out the hypocrisy. Instead, we are forced to bear witness. We did not want to have to make this choice, but in the end, it was the only choice we could make.
As the Conference draws to a close tomorrow, I know the questions that will face me at home. Were the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Poland, the Czech Republic, Italy, the Netherlands, and Germany right to boycott the conference? Were the remaining countries of the European Union as well as others including Morocco (and, interestingly enough, the representatives from Palestine) right to walk out of Ahmadinejad’s speech? Was Norway right to sit through his speech? But really, there are no right answers here. There is no perfect response here. But there is clearly a wrong answer here. The wrong answer is to sit idly by and do nothing. The wrong answer is to remain silent in the face of evil. Regardless of whether one agrees with the empty chairs, at least these countries made a choice to do something. Regardless of whether one agrees with Norway’s decision to remain in the room, at least Norway made the choice to respond. The real evil is not limited to Ahmadinejad and those who applauded him. The real evil includes those countries that, in the face of evil, sits idly by and do nothing.
Each of these choices have been questioned and criticized (with the exception of Israel’s decision not to attend – however they have spent the entire week having their very existence questioned and criticized). And that is yet another tragedy of Durban. Countries that support human rights and object to the hateful rhetoric of Ahmadinejad are still divided in how to respond. Well-meaning individuals and governments now must spend time debating how to respond to those actions that seek to vilify Israel, restrict free speech and turn the idea of human rights upside down instead of spending time debating how to address growing threats such as Islamophobia and how to address the genocide in Darfur.
In the end, the tragedy is that this conference is filled with distractions. Ahmadinejad is a distraction. Zionism is a distraction. Israel is a distraction. As long as people are debating whether Zionism is racism, they are not talking about what actions to take to help the survivors of the genocide in Rwanda. As long as people are debating whether it is appropriate to stand for a moment of silence for those killed in Gaza, they are not talking about the discrimination against the Dalits in India. As long as country after country is naming Israel – and only Israel – as a violator of human rights who should be dealt with by the United Nations, the eyes of the world will view this week as a circus instead of an opportunity to bring attention to minority groups from around the globe who are oppressed, tortured and killed by the actions of their governments.
We have heard criticism that the Jewish presence is only here to talk about Israel and does not actually care about the victims of racism. This criticism is, at once, both fair and unfair. We would like nothing more than to have the opportunity to learn about the victims of racism from around the world. Indeed, our group participated in the Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance and Democracy where we listened to genocide survivors from Rwanda and Darfur, dissidents from Cuba and Belarus and torture victims from Iran and Libya. We are here to educate ourselves on these issues so we can bring them back to our communities.However, because so many of the events have been hijacked by the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic crusaders, we feel we need to be present to bear witness to this hate speech and, as appropriate, speak up to defend Israel. Because of this, it may appear that we only care about Israel. But we did not put Israel on the agenda and we surely did not put Israel in the spotlight. Others made that choice, and now we have spent our Conference doing what we could to minimize the damage. We would like nothing more than to be able to spend all our time going into panels and talking seriously about how to fight racism, intolerance and xenophobia and learning about the minorities around the world who suffer every days because of these tragedies. Instead, we are forced to defend Israel, to correct lies and to point out the hypocrisy. Instead, we are forced to bear witness. We did not want to have to make this choice, but in the end, it was the only choice we could make.
As the Conference draws to a close tomorrow, I know the questions that will face me at home. Were the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Poland, the Czech Republic, Italy, the Netherlands, and Germany right to boycott the conference? Were the remaining countries of the European Union as well as others including Morocco (and, interestingly enough, the representatives from Palestine) right to walk out of Ahmadinejad’s speech? Was Norway right to sit through his speech? But really, there are no right answers here. There is no perfect response here. But there is clearly a wrong answer here. The wrong answer is to sit idly by and do nothing. The wrong answer is to remain silent in the face of evil. Regardless of whether one agrees with the empty chairs, at least these countries made a choice to do something. Regardless of whether one agrees with Norway’s decision to remain in the room, at least Norway made the choice to respond. The real evil is not limited to Ahmadinejad and those who applauded him. The real evil includes those countries that, in the face of evil, sits idly by and do nothing.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
As Exhaustion Sets In….
Tonight, I am exhausted. Physically, our days have been going from 7 a.m. until past midnight every night with no breaks, which is exhausting. Emotionally, I have endured listening to vile hate speech and people blaming Zionism for all the ills of the world, which is exhausting. Intellectually, I have listened to endless hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty, which is exhausting. But even though I am exhausted, I am still invigorated at the prospect of using these next few days to make a difference, to reach out, to show the world that there are still people at this conference who care about fighting racism, xenophobia and intolerance. We hope to show the world that groups from different parts of the world with different beliefs can still listen to each other and find common ground. After everything that has gone on, it is hard to be optimistic but we do have glimmers of hope.
So, at the conclusion of this Yom Ha’Shoah (the Holocaust Day of Remembrance), it is important to remember that we can not become too exhausted, too apathetic, too indifferent to care about those who are killed around the world because of their race, their religion, their gender or their sexuality. Professor Irwin Cotler has given several rousing speeches this week about the evils of genocide, reminding us that at the end of WWII the world promised “Never Again” yet there have been multiple instances of genocide in recent memory. We just passed the 15th anniversary of the start of the genocide in Rwanda where 1 million people were killed in 100 days. We are in the sixth year of the genocide in Darfur. While the world said “Never Again”, genocide has happened again and again. While the world said “Never Again”, genocide continues to happen as this conference goes on.
There are human rights violations happening today, all over the world. And that is exhausting. It is easy to shut down and not listen to the evils of the world. It is easy to protect ourselves in a bubble and ignore the cries for help. But a long time ago, the world said “Never Again”. “Never Again” was more than just words, it was a promise that the citizens of the world made to each other. If we allow ourselves to become exhausted, if we allow ourselves to become indifferent, if we allow ourselves to become apathetic then do we have the right to stand up once a year and cry for the six million Jews and five million other human beings that were slaughtered by the Nazis? Do we have the right to yell about anti-Semitism or gender discrimination or homophobia or whatever our particular cause is when we are too exhausted to care about the evils that are being enacted on others?
The Talmud (Jewish teachings) says, “It is not incumbent upon you to finish the task, but neither are you free to absolve yourself from it.” Trust me when I say that no one here is naïve enough to believe that we can solve racism, intolerance, xenophobia or – the evil of all evils – genocide. But however exhausted we are, we are not absolved from our duty to humanity to do what we can. So, for the next few days, I promise to do all I can. I ask you to do the same.
So, at the conclusion of this Yom Ha’Shoah (the Holocaust Day of Remembrance), it is important to remember that we can not become too exhausted, too apathetic, too indifferent to care about those who are killed around the world because of their race, their religion, their gender or their sexuality. Professor Irwin Cotler has given several rousing speeches this week about the evils of genocide, reminding us that at the end of WWII the world promised “Never Again” yet there have been multiple instances of genocide in recent memory. We just passed the 15th anniversary of the start of the genocide in Rwanda where 1 million people were killed in 100 days. We are in the sixth year of the genocide in Darfur. While the world said “Never Again”, genocide has happened again and again. While the world said “Never Again”, genocide continues to happen as this conference goes on.
There are human rights violations happening today, all over the world. And that is exhausting. It is easy to shut down and not listen to the evils of the world. It is easy to protect ourselves in a bubble and ignore the cries for help. But a long time ago, the world said “Never Again”. “Never Again” was more than just words, it was a promise that the citizens of the world made to each other. If we allow ourselves to become exhausted, if we allow ourselves to become indifferent, if we allow ourselves to become apathetic then do we have the right to stand up once a year and cry for the six million Jews and five million other human beings that were slaughtered by the Nazis? Do we have the right to yell about anti-Semitism or gender discrimination or homophobia or whatever our particular cause is when we are too exhausted to care about the evils that are being enacted on others?
The Talmud (Jewish teachings) says, “It is not incumbent upon you to finish the task, but neither are you free to absolve yourself from it.” Trust me when I say that no one here is naïve enough to believe that we can solve racism, intolerance, xenophobia or – the evil of all evils – genocide. But however exhausted we are, we are not absolved from our duty to humanity to do what we can. So, for the next few days, I promise to do all I can. I ask you to do the same.
Draft Document Approved
The draft document from April 17th has been approved with only one country dissenting (it is unclear which country - I will update as soon as I find out). I have linked to the document on the right side of the page. I will update with more information and the significance of the document when I am able.
Grab Bag
Over the past few days, I have received several questions that I would like to answer in this quick blog post. If you have any questions, please post as a comment or send in an e-mail and I will try to get to them later this week.
Why is the American Jewish Committee taking part in the Durban Review Conference since the US government has boycotted the conference?
I hope to write a longer essay soon regarding the dynamics between countries that have boycotted (of which there are 10 - Italy, Israel, US, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Germany, New Zealand, Poland and the Czech Republic), the countries that chose to walk out of Ahmadinejad's speech (which included the EU countries and others) and the countries who support Israel but chose to stay in the room (the prime example is Norway). However, I obviously support the participation of the American Jewish Committee and UN Watch at this conference. Our presence does not lend legitimacy to the conference, as would the presence of the US government. Our presence does give us the opportunity to dialogue with other groups - including the victims of genocide in Darfur and Rwanda, Arab and Palestinian groups, other Jewish groups, and many other international NGOs who are hear to discuss a wide variety of issues affecting our world.
Why did you stay in the room for Ahmadinejad's speech instead of walking out?
The "walk out" took place on the main floor of the Assembly Hall. The official representatives of various countries walked out at the first mention of Israel as a racist state and Zionism as a racist institution. The walk out did not occur in the galleries (which consisted of representatives of NGOs and press). Again, as with the boycott issue, my presence in the gallery did not legitimize Ahmadinejad's hate speech. However, many believe that the presence of the governmental officials from the western democracies would have legitimatized this man. In choosing whether the attend the speech, I believe that I am hear to bear witness to what occurs at this convention and I need to be present for the speech to be able to come home and describe this experience.
Is your safety at risk?
We spend most of our time in the UN complex itself, which as you would expect, has a lot of security. Additionally, at all Jewish-themed events, there is independent security as well as Swiss police present. In short, I feel very safe here.
Are you having fun?
I have smiled at this question, because fun is a strange word to describe my experience here (especially my experience yesterday). It has been an interesting and educational experience. Also, the sessions themselves have alternated between exhilarating and painfully boring. And yes - there have been moments of meeting new and incredible people that have been fun. However, fun is not the first word I would use to describe this experience as a whole.
Why are there so many typos in your blog?
I am often blogging after midnight. Our group is running on little sleep. For example, last night some of us did not return to the hotel until 1 a.m., at which point we had our first opportunity to upload pictures and videos, check out news coverage and write about our experiences. We meet for breakfast every morning at 7:30 and then leave for a full day of sitting in the sessions, going to NGO events, going to demonstrations and networking with other participants. So I apologize for my typos and grammatical mistakes, but it is fairly miraculous that I am even writing full sentences. I just had two shots of espresso, so I am wide awake at the moment!
Why is the American Jewish Committee taking part in the Durban Review Conference since the US government has boycotted the conference?
I hope to write a longer essay soon regarding the dynamics between countries that have boycotted (of which there are 10 - Italy, Israel, US, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Germany, New Zealand, Poland and the Czech Republic), the countries that chose to walk out of Ahmadinejad's speech (which included the EU countries and others) and the countries who support Israel but chose to stay in the room (the prime example is Norway). However, I obviously support the participation of the American Jewish Committee and UN Watch at this conference. Our presence does not lend legitimacy to the conference, as would the presence of the US government. Our presence does give us the opportunity to dialogue with other groups - including the victims of genocide in Darfur and Rwanda, Arab and Palestinian groups, other Jewish groups, and many other international NGOs who are hear to discuss a wide variety of issues affecting our world.
Why did you stay in the room for Ahmadinejad's speech instead of walking out?
The "walk out" took place on the main floor of the Assembly Hall. The official representatives of various countries walked out at the first mention of Israel as a racist state and Zionism as a racist institution. The walk out did not occur in the galleries (which consisted of representatives of NGOs and press). Again, as with the boycott issue, my presence in the gallery did not legitimize Ahmadinejad's hate speech. However, many believe that the presence of the governmental officials from the western democracies would have legitimatized this man. In choosing whether the attend the speech, I believe that I am hear to bear witness to what occurs at this convention and I need to be present for the speech to be able to come home and describe this experience.
Is your safety at risk?
We spend most of our time in the UN complex itself, which as you would expect, has a lot of security. Additionally, at all Jewish-themed events, there is independent security as well as Swiss police present. In short, I feel very safe here.
Are you having fun?
I have smiled at this question, because fun is a strange word to describe my experience here (especially my experience yesterday). It has been an interesting and educational experience. Also, the sessions themselves have alternated between exhilarating and painfully boring. And yes - there have been moments of meeting new and incredible people that have been fun. However, fun is not the first word I would use to describe this experience as a whole.
Why are there so many typos in your blog?
I am often blogging after midnight. Our group is running on little sleep. For example, last night some of us did not return to the hotel until 1 a.m., at which point we had our first opportunity to upload pictures and videos, check out news coverage and write about our experiences. We meet for breakfast every morning at 7:30 and then leave for a full day of sitting in the sessions, going to NGO events, going to demonstrations and networking with other participants. So I apologize for my typos and grammatical mistakes, but it is fairly miraculous that I am even writing full sentences. I just had two shots of espresso, so I am wide awake at the moment!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
