Monday

In the name of civility?


I get it, I understand that at times it is necessary to hold one’s tongue to grease the wheels of progress but at what point does civility become negligence. MSNBC reported on a UN conference about racism. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30304767

The recent summit on racism seems to be a shinning example of what is lacking in world politics, the desire to stand up for what is right. The lack of will to call a racist a racist, instead of allowing them to spew racism in a public forum we provided him. The Nigerian ambassador Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi appealed for "civility, decorum, and respect for different viewpoints" at the conference which runs until Friday. What in the hell does that mean exactly?

I have grown weary of playing nice in the interest of appearing civil. There are certain issues in which it is possible to negotiate. We can negotiate trade agreements, negotiate arms control, negotiate peace agreements but what we can never negotiate on is our core principles. I suspect that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would agree.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that President Obama also agreed along with the leaders of many other nations.

The article reported:

Australia, Germany, Poland, Italy and the Netherlands were among countries already cold-shouldering the meeting because of fears it would be a platform for what U.S. President Barack Obama called "hypocritical and counterproductive" antagonism toward Israel.


Good for them, they understand the hypocrisy of denouncing racism while simultaneously giving it a worldwide stage.

The problem is this, just because one holds an opinion does not mean that the opinion is correct or garners any respect. Just take a look at Ahmadinejad’s statement:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Israel of being the "most cruel and racist regime," sparking a walkout by angry Western diplomats at a U.N. racism conference and protests from others.

Or better yet:

In a rambling speech, Ahmadinejad on Monday pointed the finger at the United States, Europe and Israel and said they were destabilizing the entire world.
Some European diplomats immediately walked out of the room when Ahmadinejad said Israel was created on the "pretext of Jewish suffering" from World War II.
My question is why were they there in the first place?

The "pretext of Jewish suffering"? That's right, I forgot this reprobate contends that they Holocaust never occurred. So he is a racist and delusional, but we already knew that.

Some don’t seem to understand as evidenced by this incredible statement:
Human Rights Watch, a New York-based group, said the absence of the United States and other Western powers in Geneva "strikes a blow at U.N. efforts to fight racism."
"Instead of isolating radical voices, governments have capitulated to them," advocacy director Juliette de Rivero said.

I could not disagree more. The problem is this, when nations like the United States attend these conferences it lends to them an air of credibility. We legitimize these hate fests with our mere presence. What’s worse is we give them an active target in which to direct their hatred. We should never lend our credibility to such a useless forum. I am happy to have found at least one tenuous point to agree with Obama on.

I hope this is just the beginning; a dim point of light that is the prelude to understanding that we cannot treat despots and lunatics as equals. We have to stand on our principles, to denounce racist, totalitarian regimes such as Ahmadinejad’s. What we should not be doing is going along to get along.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Be respectful or be deleted. Your choice.