Author
|
Topic: Canada pulls support for UN anti-racism conference II
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 30 January 2008 11:58 AM
And what better way to start the new thread than with a brand new rabble columnist? quote: The Durban-II conference set for 2009 is to world politics what the Kyoto Accord is to climate change: a painful but inescapable search for consensus to grapple with the fallout of the past if we are to salvage our common future on our only planet. Within two short years, the Harper minority government has pulled Canada out of both processes. In a reckless and petulant display of "Fortress North America" mentality, it has jumped ahead of the George W. Bush neo-cons by announcing Canada will not take part in Durban-II. Global warming and the ecological catastrophe it heralds know no boundaries. The same is true of global social and political resentment. The evidence shows that global warming caused by our patterns of growth and consumption has reached an explosive point. Yet Harper dismissed Kyoto as "a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations." Opinion polls show that the environment is the main concern of Canadians. Yet at the Bali conference on climate change, the Harper government insisted that all countries, rich and poor, accept the same obligations – or Ottawa won't budge. To claim that rich and poor countries are equally responsible for the global condition is to negate the Durban process. After days and nights of wrangling, European ministers paraded before the UN Summit against Racism in 2001 to apologize for the crimes of colonialism, slavery and the slave trade, the dispossession of aboriginal nations, racism and discrimination, and to offer redress in the form of development.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 31 January 2008 07:41 PM
This article quotes Wayne Marston admitting - at long last - that he and Dewar got shot down for supporting Harper - and Gilles Duceppe says Canada should attend: quote: Liberal Foreign Affairs critic Bob Rae said the government had made the correct decision in pulling out of the conference, saying preparatory sessions for Durban II show it won't be any better than the first.Two NDP critics released a statement last week saying the same thing. However, the statement from Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar and Human Rights critic Wayne Marston was taken off the party's website soon afterward. "There's discussions going on within our caucus," Mr. Marston said Monday. "I think that [original] position got moved out a little too quickly." Mr. Marston said his view is that Canada should work within the UN system to ensure it is pushing its position ahead. "We should do things on the inside," he said. "When you have a UN functioning organization or program or anything where you have the UN taking a lead, I think it's important for us to sustain the UN and ensure that the process is upfront and not hijacked." NDP leader Jack Layton said Monday the party is "urging the Canadian government now to try to ensure that an anti-racism under the auspices of the UN actually happens." He acknowledged there were some concerns over the way the planning work was proceeding, but "our fear is that [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper is just going to walk away from the problem now." For his part, Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe said Canada "should be there to have our own stand."
The NDP has not yet stated clearly that Canada must attend Durban II. It is still essential to keep the phone calls and emails and other forms of pressure up. Bill Siksay got it right (as he does on so many issues - like Afghanistan). I've sent him my encouragement and I think everyone should do likewise by clicking [email protected] .
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 31 January 2008 07:56 PM
quote: Originally posted by remind: Personally, I think it was pretty damn clear, and that it indicates a clear responsivess to NDP supporters/members stating their disagreement with the NDP supporting a withdrawing, and for myself, I had already sent a letter in support of Siksay to Siksay, days ago.
Remind, you were absolutely onside with the need to participate in Durban II and I know you wrote to all the NDP MPs urging them to do the right thing: quote: I am leaning towards this perception too Michelle, as I believe we should be there, and I have written almost exactly what you stated, before I read what you stated, to the NDP and to the ALL NDP MP's, plus saying more. And I have also asked them for truth and clarification as to the change in postions from one day to the next, and who exactly lobbied for this change. (well except for Jean Crowder, her parliament email is not working and it bounced back)
Just wondering, what replies did you receive from the party and/or the MPs, specifically about the "change in positions from one day to the next" and "who exactly lobbied for this change"? [ 31 January 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 31 January 2008 10:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist: Just wondering, what replies did you receive from the party and/or the MPs, specifically about the "change in positions from one day to the next" and "who exactly lobbied for this change"?
Unionist, you know, as I have said it before, I rarely, if ever, state here, who I have heard from, or discuss what they have said to me. In fact, the only time I have mentioned anything I believe, is stating that I have gotten a long letter from Jack in response to questions I had had.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 February 2008 07:13 AM
quote: Originally posted by remind: Unionist, you know, as I have said it before, I rarely, if ever, state here, who I have heard from, or discuss what they have said to me.
That's fine. You chose to emphasize that you had written to all MPs, besides to the party, and that you had asked very specific questions which we were all discussing. I though you might share the responses, even without disclosing names, but obviously I respect your wish to keep all that confidential. To be very frank, however, I don't see how the answers to your very important questions (namely, explaining the policy shifts etc.) could be viewed as confidential by the party. It's their responsibility, not yours, to explain their positions and why they change them.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 24 February 2008 08:41 AM
Excellent Rabble News article Lawrence Boxall of Vancouver's Jews for a Just Peace:Is the NDP missing the boat on Durban? quote: No thoughtful person expects the NDP to be perfect, or even to be fully aware of the consequences of every decision the party makes. Even the most thoughtful person or group is not immune to an occasional impulsive mistaken decision.With this understanding, the NDP's apparent decision to support the Canadian government's abandonment of the United Nations sponsored UN Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance both saddens and disturbs me deeply. The decision is an alarming indication of just how precarious the future of international humanitarian law has become. [...] For all the hype that has surrounded the 2001 conference in Durban it is surprising that the NDP so easily caved in to the hysteria surrounding this new conference scheduled for Durban in 2009. [...] One would hope that the party of social democracy in Canada would be prepared to meet with the rest of the human family to try to solve our mutual problems. Currently the only organization that comes close to being a universal body of humankind is the United Nations. Any competing conference that Canada would organize, as the NDP statement advocated, in opposition to a UN conference with the intention of not addressing Israel and Palestine is going to be limited to ex-colonial powers and their hangers-on. It would be shameful for the NDP to be supportive of such an option.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 24 February 2008 09:42 AM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: Why don't the Liberals do some opposing for a change and stop placing the onus on Canada's fourth political party to instigate an election call? We know why, and that's because the 100 do-nothing Librano successors to the stoogecracy in Ottawa are looking for yet another phony-baloney FPP majority. I'm sick of the Liberals. We need to clean'em out of Ottawa but good.
Stop derailing threads with your perpetual chant. This issue is far too important to be drowned in your "WE LOVE THE NDP" cheerleading. Just take it somewhere else if you can't comment on Durban. I'd actually like to get your views on this, but I know you don't dare say anything, because the NDP has already switched positions a few times, and they may do so a few more dozen times yet. At least we know for sure that when they're looking for advice from supporters, they won't get any from you. "Just keep up the good work!!!" doesn't shed much light on difficult decisions. ETA: By the way, if some Vancouver Jews can work up enough courage to condemn Harper, Dion and Layton for boycotting Durban - where the Protocols were being sold last time - you could shock the world for a change and stand up and say something too, you know. [ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125
|
posted 24 February 2008 09:48 AM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: Why don't the Liberals do some opposing for a change and stop placing the onus on Canada's fourth political party to instigate an election call? We know why, and that's because the 100 do-nothing Librano successors to the stoogecracy in Ottawa are looking for yet another phony-baloney FPP majority. I'm sick of the Liberals. We need to clean'em out of Ottawa but good.
Yeah why don't the Liberals do some opposing for a change and do some honest to God work for a change? [ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]
From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 24 February 2008 09:55 AM
quote: Originally posted by Petsy: Just heard on radio that Israel has also pulled out. Also noted that France and the US may soon follow.
Excellent. Before it was Harper that placed first in the "I Love Israel" world olympics, when his was the first government to block funding to the Palestinian Authority. Now it is Harper, Dion, and Layton who can brag about having beat out Olmert, George W. Bush, and Sarkozy!!! What a bunch of slimy bastards they are. ETA: by the way, when the Dewar/Marston statement was first issued, I wrote to my MP asking for an explanation. He never replied - which is extremely unusual for him. I think they're having real problems with this. Any true NDP supporters who care about their party should please take a moment and explain to them the stakes in opposing this U.N. conference. [ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 24 February 2008 11:18 AM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: The opposition of Israel, Canada, the USA, France, etc. to Durban II is no surprise at all. Those countries have nothing constructive to offer to the cause of anti-racism.Racism is rooted in the historical development of capitalism as a world system. We can therefore expect that the list of flagbearers for capitalism who are boycotting the conference will continue to grow.
By the same token, we should wind up the United Nations? I wonder which countries, according to your criterion, have something constructive to offer to the cause of anti-racism?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851
|
posted 26 May 2008 05:04 AM
Why do I get the feeling that the world is dividing into North and South blocs, with a bit of penetration in oligarchs and settler states inhabiting the South, and Third World pockets in the North.Portugal and Spain hold on barely to the center-left, while western, central, and eastern Europe come increasingly under the domination of the right-wing, anti-immigrant, and ironically, also stridently pro-Israel forces. Add to this, the Anglosphere bloc of countries (Australia remaining pro-US even with a Labor government), you have a new imperial geography. What's going on?
From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 26 May 2008 06:48 AM
It is positively stunning that a babbler should have posted: quote: I agree with Layton that Canada should send a contingent to Durban. Being there doesn't mean Ottawa has to agree with the outcome.
And then, when asked to cite his source, he changes the subject. Thank you for confirming the history of this, Michelle. Only the Bloc québécois has condemned Harper's decision to boycott Durban II. It is important to lobby MPs of all parties to reconsider that shameful stand.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 26 May 2008 08:11 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: Then they pulled the statement from their web site after a backlash, and they haven't given their support for attending Durban since.[ 26 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
CTV still has this on their web site though: quote: The NDP said Canada needs to be at the table in Durban. "I think Canada needs to be there even if we bring a different perspective and can say something differently than other people in the world," said British Columbia MP Bill Siksay. Siksay added that the Conservative government should not abandon its traditional commitment to multilateralism.
I'm just guessing that contempt for such a world forum on anti-racism might be due in part to U.S. foreign policy in so many countries. Canada might run into some trouble with credibility in an anti-racist forum when our two mainline parties have supported U.S. imperialism abroad on several levels in recent history. I think "imperialism" and "anti-racism" are bound to conflict with the other at some point. Our two old line parties have shown no intention to take back control of our environment from corporate America, but the least our stoogeocrats could do is to stop aiding and abetting U.S. imperialism abroad. I vote NDP because of their protests of Ottawa's kow-towing to U.S. imperialism. Imperialism makes things difficult for basic human rights in general.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 26 May 2008 08:43 AM
quote: Originally posted by Makwa: I want to know why, any discussion of racism whether locally or internationally must always turn to a discussion of Isreal or anti-semitism? If, as it is reported, the first conference had some anti-semitic idiots running around in places, why does that automatically make everything else disappear into a cloud of dust? Surely someone from somewhere had some salient points to make about racism? This seems to me a convenient way to ignore racist issues.
Exactly, Makwa, right on. Harper used a few unofficial anti-semitic nutcases with tables (Larouche-style) at Durban I as his excuse to be the first country in the world to withdraw from Durban II. The Liberals supported him. Bill Siksay of the NDP attacked this decision, but he was immediately overruled by the Dewar-Marston party establishment, who hailed Harper's decision - then they backtracked when faced with condemnation by many NDPers, but have never come back to say, "we must participate in Durban II". Only the Bloc has taken a principled position on this question. So you are right on - except for your first sentence, where you suggest that any discussion on racism must "always turn to a discussion of Isreal or anti-semitism". Maybe you should ask yourself why you would have such a strange perception. Just check out the Aboriginal threads here and see if your perception applies, for example. However, if someone starts stating that hating and killing Jews or Tutsis or Punjabis or Bengalis isn't "racism", you can expect that some people may wish to disagree.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 26 May 2008 08:57 AM
quote: Originally posted by Makwa: I want to know why, any discussion of racism whether locally or internationally must always turn to a discussion of Isreal or anti-semitism? If, as it is reported, the first conference had some anti-semitic idiots running around in places, why does that automatically make everything else disappear into a cloud of dust? Surely someone from somewhere had some salient points to make about racism? This seems to me a convenient way to ignore racist issues.
I think it has a lot to do with Israel becoming a "front line state" for the west during the cold war. There were millions of Jews murdered by the Nazis, as we well know. And so goes the many references to Holocaust and denial and whether or not that terrible incident could ever be repeated. And there has been much finger pointing ever since, and sometimes it's for good reason. Lots of poor communist Jews died in Russia and Ukraine, too, with many having died in the fight against fascist aggression against Russia. Some number of Jews lucky enough to escape the Holocaust, and some with means and wealth, came to the west where they were educated and inserted into political positions in the front line state of Israel. And they denounced communism at every turn, an important qualifier for U.S. support. And so it goes with U.S. and British support, right-wing Israeli's have managed to piss off a lot of people in surrounding nations. They take afront to being referred to as Nazis, and so do American imperialists.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|