A large number of European diplomats walked out during an address by the Iranian president Ahmadinejad, which he held at the UN’s second conference on racism. The conference was boycotted by amongst others Israel and the US, and Ahmadinejad was the only head of state to attend.
Yes, his address was racist and offensive. To the western world. President Ahmadinejad chose his words in order to offend and cause a stir, maybe even to worsen relations with the West. Or was it a test? A couple of years ago, many Danish newspapers printed cartoons of Mohammed, and under Islam the face of Mohammed must not be shown. Some of the pictures are quite offensive, one is of Mohammed as a paedophile, another shows him as a suicide bomber. Is this not racist and offensive to the Arabian world?
Why is it OK for us to hide behind ‘feedom of speech’ when it suits us, but as soon as our world and way of thinking is attacked, it is suddenly labelled as a ‘hate speech’, which is a freedom of speech restriction. Ahmadinejad did not incite violence, but he did say out loud what is on a lot of minds in the Middle East. “Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering.” And we did. We made a whole nation homeless.
If we have freedom of speech, let’s not be as quick to label what we don’t want to hear as ‘hate speeces’. If we can criticize, so can they. It’s as simple as that.
I think it was completely inappropriate for Ahmadenejad to be giving this speech. All the UN has is its reputation, and this reputation has been severely damaged with this spectacle. Maybe it is a lot of fun to see israel be whipped by A., but too many people depend for their survival on the UN, too many are affected by racism (not in the least those in Iran) to let this clown do his one and only trick and jeoapardize the whole conference. A. is guilty of the same self-centerness as Israel and the US. By not participating, or by giving such an inflammatory speech (we are lucky they made him take out the holocaust denial) they completely disregard the needs of the people this conference was made for.
I completely disagree with Israel’s actions. But that doesn’t make me a fan of Ahmadinejad. He actually did an enormous disservice to the palestinian cause. Israeli hard liners couldn’t have wished for a better display and a better reason to aggravate the conflict. I am starting to think A. is zionist’s biggest supporter.
Ban ki moon should be made to resign over letting this happen. It was not good for anything, except for those that want more conflict, war and bloodshed.
http://owlminerva.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/walkout-at-un-conference-after-iran-president-calls-israel-racist/
I agree the speech did damage to the UN, but I still believe the West will only condone ‘freedom of speech’ when in our favour. I am not a fan of A. either, but think we need to stand by our own ethics, whether we like what has been said, or not.