America and Britain vote against UN racism and Nazi Resolution

On December 19, 2011, a UN Resolution calling for the condemnation and outlawing of all forms of racism and related ideologies including the rise of neo-Nazi ideas was rejected by America, Britain and the rest of Europe; and this crucial vote at the UN was hardly covered by the mainstream media.

In British schools, colleges, and universities, and in the mainstream media Britain and America are portrayed as anti-racist and anti-Nazi. It is often repeated that Britain and America fought against the Nazis in World War II. It is often taught that Britain and America are committed to racial harmony and are against all forms of racial prejudice.

Therefore, it will probably surprise many that Britain and America, along with the rest of Europe rejected a UN Resolution calling for all countries to eliminate all forms of racism, xenophobia, and promotion of Nazi ideals.

In a shocking article by Carla Stea, (NEO-NAZISM: United Nations Anti-Nazi Resolution and Falsification of History: Global Research:January 22, 2012), a journalist at the U.S. Department of State and the United Nations, Britain and particularly America are exposed as Nazi sympathisers and opponents of race equality.

Before I go into this, let me first explain briefly what the UN Resolution states.

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/66/460 on “Inadmissibility of Certain Practices That Contribute to Fuelling Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.”

The Resolution speaks of, “the provision of the Durban Declaration in which States condemned the persistence and resurgence of neo-Nazism, neo-Fascism and violent nationalist ideologies based on racial and national prejudice and stated that those phenomena could never be justified in any instance or in any circumstances.”

It highlights concerns about the rise of neo Nazism and extremist political groups. It highlights the disturbing trend involving the glorification of the Nazi movement and its former members.

It mentions, 1. “…the increase in the number of racist incidents in several countries and the rise of skinhead groups, which have been responsible for many of these incidents, as well as the resurgence of racist and xenophobic violence targeting members of ethnic, religious or cultural communities and national minorities, as observed by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in his latest report.”

The Resolution states that these acts represent an abuse of freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly and more importantly calls on states to, “…take the necessary measures to put an end to the practices described above, and calls upon States to take more effective measures in accordance with international human rights law to combat those phenomena and the extremist movements, which pose a real threat to democratic value.”

It calls on states, (a) “To condemn all propaganda and all organizations that are based on ideas of racial superiority or that attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form;…”

The Resolution’s most important ideals are expressed in these sections in my view.

It calls on states:

(c) “To declare as an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, and incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;”

 (d) “To declare illegal and prohibit organizations and organized and all other propaganda activities that promote and incite racial discrimination and to recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;”

 (e) “To prohibit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, from promoting or inciting racial discrimination;

When you look at these ideals it would be the end of all far right organisations based on racial superiority such as the British National Party in the UK or the Ku Klux Klan in America. It would spell the end for media organisations that perpetuate ideas of immigration based on skin colour. The Daily Mail, The Sun, and many UK newspapers would struggle to fill their newspapers which often publish anti-immigrant stories.

It would spell the end for politicians and political parties who use immigration as an excuse for society’s problems. It would be the end of police racist stop and search. The end of newspapers highlighting crimes based on race.

It would spell the end of irrational nationalism, and the ideas that other people are foreigners to a country, on an earth which belongs to us all. No more census forms based on race and religion. No more alarming statistics about the birth rates of non whites.

The aims and potential effects of this Resolution I believe are numerous and revolutionary.

Despite all this however, Carla Stea said in her article that America, Britain and Europe voted against this Resolution on December 19, 2011.

John F. Sammis, the United States Deputy Representative to The United Nations Economic and Social Council, explained in a statement on November 17, 2011, why America would not be voting in favour of the UN Resolution. He said:

The United States supports many elements of this resolution. We join other members of the Third Committee in expressing revulsion at any attempt to glorify or otherwise promote Nazi ideology. The United States has been a strong supporter of the UN’s efforts to remember the Holocaust and has a deep commitment to honoring the memory of the millions of lives lost. We also condemn without reservation all forms of religious intolerance or hatred.

We remain concerned, however, that the resolution fails again this year to distinguish between actions and statements that, while offensive, should be protected by freedom of expression, and criminal actions motivated by bias that should always be prohibited. The United States shares the concern expressed in this resolution regarding increases in the number of racist incidents expressed in any medium or forum, including on the Internet.”

 “However, we do not consider curtailing expression to be an appropriate or effective means of combating racism and related intolerance. Rather, it is our firm conviction, as reflected in the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States, that individual freedoms of speech, expression and association should be robustly protected, even when the ideas represented by such expression are full of hatred. It is for this reason that the United States has taken a reservation to Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. We remain convinced of the need for this reservation.”

 “In a free society hateful ideas will fail on account of their own intrinsic lack of merit. The best antidote to intolerance is not criminalizing offensive speech but rather a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and freedom of expression.”

Note, that Sammis mentions in the last paragraph that in a free society hateful ideas will fail on their own account because of their lack of merit. Is this the reason why the UN Resolution points to an increase in racism and Nazi ideals? Is that the reason why the UN Resolution highlights the disturbing trend of Nazi glorification because these ideas have failed and lack merit? Clearly there is a huge contradiction in America’s position and the reality on the ground.

Carla Stea mentioned in her article how America and Europe harboured Nazi criminals after World War II, contrary to what has been widely taught in schools, colleges and universities. America provided a safe haven for Nazi criminals and even worked with them.

Stea believes that some of the grandchildren of Nazi war criminals who were given refuge in Europe, may well have been indoctrinated with Nazi ideology, and she believes that this would explain why since 2006 members of the European Union have abstained on the UN Resolution, “expressing deep concern at the glorification of the Nazi movement…”

What is most striking about this Resolution is that the countries which America and Britain call undemocratic, repressive and evil have voted in its favour. Iran, Syria, the Democratic Republic of Korea, Belarus and the Russian Federation all voted for the Resolution.

Revelations like this exposes the real enemies of racial equality and humanity. The countries who portray themselves as peacekeepers and guardians of justice. The countries which pass themselves off as containing the highest democratic values.  It is clearly a lie.

For further research:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28800

http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2011/177340.htm

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,RESOLUTION,,,49abf2ef2,0.html

List of how countries voted on the resolution: http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=1R2734F8793A2.233868&profile=voting&uri=full=3100023~!944044~!1&ri=2&aspect=power&menu=search&source=~!horizon


Print pagePDF pageEmail page

This entry was posted in International News and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to America and Britain vote against UN racism and Nazi Resolution

  1. Pingback: Holocaust ignored, in unlikely places | ShahidulNews

  2. mym says:

    Good article. I just came across the following Youtube video about police brutality against Afro-Americans in America. I doubt that the UK police are any better even though they pretend they are.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFAIQUyS14I

  3. Pingback: US opposes UN anti-Nazism Resolutions repeatedly | Free Ukraine Now

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *