Fighting “Islamophobia:” Muslim Countries Impose Their Will on EU (and US) at UN

In September 2001, just a few days before 9/11, the United Nations held a conference in Durban, ostensibly to combat racism and xenophobia. ‘Durban’ became a vehicle for hatred of Israel and of Europeans who oppose the Islamization of their continent. Now, the UN are preparing a follow-up conference in early 2009. Though both the United States and the European Union criticize the biased aims of ‘Durban 2’ the West will probably vote in favour of the conference’s budget this week.


The UN Human Rights Council (the UN commission with the Allah logo) has scheduled a second “global anti-racism and anti-xenophobia” conference for the Spring of 2009. The conference is part of what UN diplomats call, the “Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.” The venue of the conference has yet to be decided. The official title is the “Durban Review Conference,” but the conference is generally referred to as ‘Durban 2.’ The UN’s Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) Bureau for ‘Durban 2’ is chaired by Libya. Other human rights luminaries on the Preparatory Bureau are Iran, Pakistan and Cuba.
Prof. Gerald Steinberg wrote in yesterday’s Jerusalem Post that Durban 2

provides a rare opportunity for the governments that actually care about human rights […] to reverse course, and demonstrate that the lessons have been learned. If they succeed, this will mark an important step in the restoration of the values embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But if they fail, the Declaration, and the foundation of an international moral code based on a single universal standard, may never recover.

Unfortunately, there are indications that the opportunity will be missed and that Durban 2 will become another hatefest targeted at Israel and at so-called “Islamophobes” in the West. This week (or next week at the latest) the UN members will approve the budget for Durban 2. Guess who is probably going to vote in favour of funding the new hatefest? The US and the EU.

This website has explained how the European Union, a club of 27 free and democratic (or more or less free and democratic) European countries, abuses the “combat against racism and xenophobia as an alibi to restrict freedom of speech, thereby silencing Europeans who express concern about the Islamization of their countries.

At the UN, a club of 192 predominantly unfree and undemocratic countries, 57 of whom are also member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the situation is even worse. This became very clear during the 2005-2006 crisis over the Danish cartoons but also at the Durban conference. Non-democratic and Muslim countries impose their views about “racism” and “xenophobia” on the West by redefining “racism” and “xenophobia” as opposition to Islam. In this context Israel is the world’s most racist state and people defending the traditional culture of Europe are “Islamophobes.”

Anne Bayefsky, the editor of Eye on the UN writes that one of the things the UN aims to do at the Durban 2 conference is create a new UN body to fight “global Islamophobia” because, as Egypt stated at a recent meeting of the Durban 2 Preparatory Bureau: The “aftermath” of 9/11

saw a new and dangerous phenomenon in incitement to racial and religious hatred [...] [T]he highly defamatory cartoons published by a Danish newspaper [...] deeply hurt over a billion Muslims around the world, and threatened social harmony and peace, both nationally and internationally.

Last November 28th the US voted against the UN resolution concerning Durban 2. Even the 27 EU countries considered the UN aims to be so blatant that they voted against the UN resolution. The EU objects to a number of decisions by the Durban 2 Preparatory Bureau, chaired by Libya, including the decision that the questionnaire which would solicit comments from all states about the extent to which they protect their own peoples from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, will be drafted by the Bureau. Bayefsky:

The knees of the EU got a little wobbly at this point in time and Belgium (“in the spirit of compromise”) said “how about ‘under the guidance of the Bureau’ instead of ‘under the supervision of the Bureau’”?

The final result? The questionnaire will be drafted under the supervision of the Bureau. And responses will be sent back to the UN Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) – so that PrepCom Bureau members Iran, Libya, Cuba and Pakistan will review how other states implement anti-racism measures.

In a statement [pdf] following the 28 November vote, the EU countries said they felt compelled to vote against the resolution preparing Durban 2 because they doubt “whether some of the main players in this process are genuinely interested in keeping the Durban follow-up process on a consensus basis which includes all regions of the world.” The resolution setting the guidelines for the Durban 2 conference was, however, approved by 119 UN members against 45 and 6 abstentions.

The tradition at the UN is that Western democracies, once they are overruled by the majority of dictatorships in the UN club, always loyally accept the majority’s decision and vote in favour of funding the very projects they oppose. John Bolton, America’s previous UN Ambassador, tried to end this ludicrous practice that Western democracies fund projects which the West’s non-democratic enemies impose on them. Zalmay Khalilzad, the current US ambassador at the UN and the highest ranking Muslim in George Bush’s administration, however, seems inclined to play by the old rule again.

The initial budget for Durban 2 is set at 7.2 million US dollars. This week (or next week at the latest) the UN’s budget committee will approve it. This will allow the plenary session of the UN General Assembly to rubberstamp the decision before Christmas.

The EU and the US are now faced with the budgetary implications of a resolution which they did not approve. There is no doubt that if the US and the EU members vote against assigning a budget to Durban 2 they will be overruled by the UN majority. However, a “No”-vote of the West would send a powerful message of disapproval, making it clear that the West is no longer prepared to accept the abuse of terms such as racism and xenophobia. The question is: Will the US and the EU vote against the Durban 2 budget? UN watcher Anne Bayefsky fears they will not.

lack of free speech promotes racism

"... how the European Union, a club of 27 free and democratic free and democratic) European countries, abuses the “combat against racism and xenophobia
as an alibi to restrict freedom of speech, thereby silencing Europeans
who express concern about the Islamization of their countries."


I would rather say "... how the EU restricts freedom of speech to promote racism and xenophobia against its indigenous people, thereby silencing Europeans
who express concern about the Islamization of their countries." 


Europe has always been a multicultural continent as is any continent. The claim that Europe should become multicultural is therefore plain bullshit. And  most of the times that cultures have been persecuted happened when free speech was restricted. 


It is only when wrong (political) ideas or philosophies start restricting freedom of speech in order to protect their own survival that racism erupted. 

Isn't it ironic that today, political forces claim to restrict freedom of speech to fight racism. Yes cartoons have been drawn, the French and Dutch have told jokes about the Belgians, as there exist Jewish and Polish jokes. And sometimes it was more than a joke. How many negative articles and books did the Catholic Church have to endure? And in the end it is also the Catholic Church who became wiser by learning from it.


Freedom of speech propels a society forward. Restricting freedom of speech throws it back in the past (see Islamic regimes, the power of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages, and all kinds of state socialism going from national socialism to communism).


What we see today in Europe, is that freedom of speech, local customs and culture have to be set aside in order to accept another culture. People are told not to say that there own culture is important, not to say "my own people or culture first".

What kind of world are we going to when people cannot be proud of themselves? It is a world of weak people and therefore a very dangerous world.


What will be most deadly: plain racism or auto-racism? Or does auto-racism only precede plain racism?


Give me back my free speech. And those who cannot stand free speech should stay out of heat because they are not fit for (delivering) progress to the world.

Sly old fox!

Atlanticist, what a sly old fox you are!   Trying to expose a fundamentalist and a 'moral poseur', by testing his high-faluting principles with concrete examples! 

The question remains: could Kappert identify REAL contemporary "intolerants, racists, colonisers and occupiers"?  His reference to "Durban 2" certainly is not a good sign.


Re: (dys-) lexica

"Now,a list of names and countries should be too long for this blog,don't you think?"


Well,I'd say that would depend upon the number of "names" and "countries" one has been asked to pass comment upon,don't you think? If you do agree,perhaps you'd care to read my original post again, and have another crack at it. 


Once again, I thank you.


Sorry, I may have upset you.
The answers have nothing mystical about. Intolerance is raised by an emotion of fear towards other things. We can learn to be tolerant. A racist judges others for not being of his kind. Again, this is a lack of formation. Colonizers invade other territories in order to establish their rules, and occupiers simply invade other territories in order to dominate.
Now, a list of names and countries should be much too long for this blog, don't you think?

Re: Lexica

@ Kappert



"Have a look in the dictionary and you find the answers".


Done that.


Lexicon: The vocabulary of a particular (language,field,social class), person etc.,


I've also consulted my Reader's Digest pocket edition of "The Complete Works of Nostradamus", John Buchan's enduring classic, "The Thirty-nine Steps", and several back issues of "Clairvoyant's Weekly",but all to no avail.Is it really too much to expect a fellow blogger to proffer a simple answer to what I consider to have been a reasonable and politely worded query? Sadly,it would appear so. 

Re: coexistence

Would I be correct in assuming that,in your lexicon,"intolerants","racists","colonizers",and "occupiers" would include;


* Christians and others who express their legitimate concerns regarding the

  creeping Islamification of Europe.


* Indigenous Europeans  who express legitimate concerns about uncontrolled immigration from third world countries


* Israel


* The US  military ?

Thank you.


Have a look in the dictionary and you find the answers.

To Kappert

"Anyway, it's still a long way to peaceful coexistence.

If you mean with Muslims,there's a better chance with Scorpions.


Actually, I mean all intolerants, racists, colonizers and occupiers.

President Bush, What are you thinking?

 Zalmay Khalilzad, the current US ambassador at the UN and the highest ranking Muslim in George Bush’s administration, however, seems inclined to play by the old rule again.

Appointing a Muslim as UN Ambassador.  That's analogous to Israel appointing one of Julius Streicher's grandchildren to a similar post. This march toward self destruction goes on as we stand on the sidelines and watch.

Durban 2

Hopefully Durban 2 will pass, as the majority does not see any abuse. Anyway, it's still a long way to peaceful coexistence.