Keith Locke said it was "an unacceptable insult" for New Zealand to snub the United Nations Forum on Racism. I think he's right.
A more acceptable insult might be to send a shoe to the convention.
The reasons Keith Locke and the Greens cite for going to the convention are typical:
"There may be some criticism of Israel at the meeting, but surely that is par for the course at UN meetings, and has some validity given the way a number of Israeli administrations have treated Palestinians, particularly those residing in Gaza.
Looks like Locke got confused. Even though it's a forum to discuss racism, it's not actually supposed to encourage racism, but look at ways of curbing it. Starting out with a Jew hating tirade shouldn't be "par for the course". Just as it didn't back in 2001. Just think of it as breaking the cycle Keith.
"Pulling out of the conference is an unacceptable insult to the UN"
The United Nations is a bureaucratic machine. Bureaucratic machines cannot be insulted. Only the members of the machine, and the servants of the machinery. Who are these people? Helen Clark? Are we offending her? Ki Ban Moon? Surely, he should be more offended about happenings in Sri Lanka, North Korea, Zimbabwe, The DRC - places where people are dying and the UN failing to stop it.
just at the time when our former Prime Minister Helen Clark is taking up a major UN post," said Mr Locke.
Oh, so we have to buy Tupperware because your aunt works for the company?
"It is also a slap in the face for Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who will be opening the conference and played such a key role in getting Helen Clark appointed as head of the UN Development Programme."
Well maybe he should have appointed her a conference delegate instead, if its that important? Are you saying Helen didn't get the job because of her ability? That the whole job is just some big leftist quid-pro-quo? I think you've just given Helen an unacceptable insult.
The UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Navi Pillay apparently went to great lengths to produce a draft conference text that avoided controversial issues, such as the Middle East, and any restrictions on criticising religion.
And then went to great lengths to re-affirm the 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action, reminding all of the anti-Israeli views expressed first time around. And to add the icing to the cake, brings in Ahmadinejad as the opening speaker. No wonder Keith Locke is wetting his pants.
"Our boycott is letting down the victims of racism around the world and putting us at odds with most other nations.
Who are the victims of racism? New Zealanders?
Maybe Ki Ban Moon should have invited Turia, who could speak on how important racism is for New Zealand, and how she would like a racially based prison system, racially reserved seats on a local council, racially protected seats in National Elections and ownership of New Zealand's resources, racially based health care, racially based education and a separate superannuation scheme to be paid according to race.
"It is not a good look for us to be seen once more as a pawn of the bigger Western nations trying to enforce their will on a world body, to stop any criticism of Israel."
And there goes your same excuse again - you want a forum that is going to criticise Israel. You are like a broken record. With Ahmadinejad the opening speaker, who is the pawn? The Western nations are not enforcing their will, they are just choosing not to play this petty game.
Let's spend our tax dollars on something more fruitful, and we'll wait for the DVD edition of the conference. Then we can fast forward through all the racist bits.
Related Link: Going against the Geneva Convention
Related Link: Greenies Red With Anger Over Lost Opportunity to Bash Israel
Oswald asks the United Nations to make diplomatic overtures
Inventory2 points out that Keith probably has a "Palestinians want peace - it's not rocket science" bumper sticker.
And I'm sure the other blogs are getting around to commenting. The more that do, the more the Greens will probably decry the excessively unfair and disproportionate disagreement :-)
A more acceptable insult might be to send a shoe to the convention.
The reasons Keith Locke and the Greens cite for going to the convention are typical:
"There may be some criticism of Israel at the meeting, but surely that is par for the course at UN meetings, and has some validity given the way a number of Israeli administrations have treated Palestinians, particularly those residing in Gaza.
Looks like Locke got confused. Even though it's a forum to discuss racism, it's not actually supposed to encourage racism, but look at ways of curbing it. Starting out with a Jew hating tirade shouldn't be "par for the course". Just as it didn't back in 2001. Just think of it as breaking the cycle Keith.
"Pulling out of the conference is an unacceptable insult to the UN"
The United Nations is a bureaucratic machine. Bureaucratic machines cannot be insulted. Only the members of the machine, and the servants of the machinery. Who are these people? Helen Clark? Are we offending her? Ki Ban Moon? Surely, he should be more offended about happenings in Sri Lanka, North Korea, Zimbabwe, The DRC - places where people are dying and the UN failing to stop it.
just at the time when our former Prime Minister Helen Clark is taking up a major UN post," said Mr Locke.
Oh, so we have to buy Tupperware because your aunt works for the company?
"It is also a slap in the face for Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who will be opening the conference and played such a key role in getting Helen Clark appointed as head of the UN Development Programme."
Well maybe he should have appointed her a conference delegate instead, if its that important? Are you saying Helen didn't get the job because of her ability? That the whole job is just some big leftist quid-pro-quo? I think you've just given Helen an unacceptable insult.
The UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Navi Pillay apparently went to great lengths to produce a draft conference text that avoided controversial issues, such as the Middle East, and any restrictions on criticising religion.
And then went to great lengths to re-affirm the 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action, reminding all of the anti-Israeli views expressed first time around. And to add the icing to the cake, brings in Ahmadinejad as the opening speaker. No wonder Keith Locke is wetting his pants.
"Our boycott is letting down the victims of racism around the world and putting us at odds with most other nations.
Who are the victims of racism? New Zealanders?
Maybe Ki Ban Moon should have invited Turia, who could speak on how important racism is for New Zealand, and how she would like a racially based prison system, racially reserved seats on a local council, racially protected seats in National Elections and ownership of New Zealand's resources, racially based health care, racially based education and a separate superannuation scheme to be paid according to race.
"It is not a good look for us to be seen once more as a pawn of the bigger Western nations trying to enforce their will on a world body, to stop any criticism of Israel."
And there goes your same excuse again - you want a forum that is going to criticise Israel. You are like a broken record. With Ahmadinejad the opening speaker, who is the pawn? The Western nations are not enforcing their will, they are just choosing not to play this petty game.
Let's spend our tax dollars on something more fruitful, and we'll wait for the DVD edition of the conference. Then we can fast forward through all the racist bits.
Related Link: Going against the Geneva Convention
Related Link: Greenies Red With Anger Over Lost Opportunity to Bash Israel
Oswald asks the United Nations to make diplomatic overtures
Inventory2 points out that Keith probably has a "Palestinians want peace - it's not rocket science" bumper sticker.
And I'm sure the other blogs are getting around to commenting. The more that do, the more the Greens will probably decry the excessively unfair and disproportionate disagreement :-)