New Moon and Sabbath of 1/11/31/120A

Dear Friends,

This New Moon we will look at the question of Racism and its misuse in the UN. Contrary to what we are led to believe the UN is essentially a racist organisation that uses its anti-democratic Islamic and African majority to advance the causes of Racism and Anti-Semitism in its organisational structure.

We do not set out to become apologists for the excesses of Israeli policy in the Gaza and its failure to advance the proposal of live and let live with the Hamas structure in the Gaza. That has its own healthy discussion going on in Israel at the moment, as some editorial comment in the Jerusalem Post indicates.

We are more concerned with the agenda of hate that underlies the UN discussion on racism which seems directed at an Anti-Semitic and Anti-Western Agenda.

Most of us will remember the infamous Durban Conference on Racism in Durban in 2001. We acknowledge that promoting anti-Semitism at the UN is not a new phenomenon. However most of us agree that the level of hatred given a global platform in Durban was disturbing. It not only deeply disturbed participating Jewish organisations from across the world, but also the US and Israel, who ultimately left the conference in disgust. It also disturbed the Churches of God that are often classed with Jewish organisations because of their adherence to biblical law and its calendar whether in the form of the Hillel Calendar followed by Judaism or in the form of the Temple Calendar followed by CCG and some elements of the COG (7D) such as the Caldwell Conference or other elements of the Churches of God.

In the intervening seven years, from 2001 to 2008, the UN turned the outcome of the conference - the Durban Declaration and Program of Action - into the centrepiece of its anti-racism program.

The UN is about to launch another conference in Geneva in April. It is appropriately named Durban II. The reason is that it plans to repeat and restage the anti-Semetic nature of that infamous UN gab-fest that was hijacked, like much of the UN meetings, by the Islamic Organisations or Organisation of the Islamic Conference.

On Thursday the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, the secretary-general of Durban II in April, engaged in a campaign intended to whitewash the conference and influence President-elect Barack Obama and the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, and a few other Western leaders about to withdraw from the April hate-fest. She was forced to issue the whitewash to rebut editorials and articles in The Australian, The Wall Street Journal and Forbes. She issued a legion of complaints alleging that reports on the UN meeting are plagued by distortions.

It is difficult to see how simply reporting the facts of the matter are not disturbing enough and condemnatory of the UN behaviour.

The Islamic Racists have again hijacked the forum of Durban II. The UN has no credibility in pursuing the issue.

The basis of the Durban Conference was the premise that Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism. That assertion was the only country-specific accusation in the document of the Durban Conference and it is going to be rehashed in April at Geneva. The genocidal blabberings of the Iranian leader will not get a mention. Nor will the Africa tribalism and ongoing conflicts there, including the disaster that is Zimbabwe. Its inflation is running at some 87 sextillion%. It is escalating so fast no one can print money fast enough.

The fact of the matter is that this UN sponsored hate under an Islamic hijacked hate program will continue to escalate and result in Global Thermo-Nuclear War and these Islamicists are too bigoted or stupid to understand that fact. Either that or they are indifferent to the outcome on the grounds of religious misinformation through the ignorance of their misguided religious leaders. Their teachings have nothing to do with the Koran.

Hate is however not confined to Islamic fundamentalist clerics and leaders. The US misuse of its constitutional amendments sees hate speech by the truck load of CDs placed on the talk-back shows and the Internet blogs. The use of the Internet for the purposes of hate speech and misinformation or outright lies in the US is baffling to those outside of the country. Most people try to live under some rules of conduct that are not based on hate and abuse and deliberate lies.

This sort of behaviour has no place in any country and the UN is simply a prime example of a failure to address these deficiencies. The UN has failed in Africa and elsewhere. It will, in the end, go the way of the League of Nations before it. These Islamic Fundamentalists are simply providing the goad and basis for the establishment of the New World Order under an unelected EU system with a US/North American military arm.

It will see the whole world enslaved while it fights its way to complete destruction.

The UN has launched this farce on the adoption in August 2007 of the intention “to foster the implementation of the DDPA.” Together with that is a new list of anti-democratic threats. Pillay makes the assertion that the resolution of Durban in the form of the contents of the DDPA were agreed to by all states present at the end of the 2001 conference. That statement is untrue. Canada said: "The Canadian delegation registers its strongest objections and disassociates itself integrally from all text in this document directly or indirectly relating to the situation in the Middle East. We state emphatically that this text is ultra vires: it is outside the jurisdiction and mandate of this conference."

The UN is flawed by the fragmentation and tribalism of the Nations in Africa and the Middle East. Its very voting system and numbers produced the flawed processes that make it dysfunctional. The US and Canada have one vote each and cannot prevail under these circumstances with any form of reason. The answer is simply not to go anywhere near these hate forums.

Canada has already declared it has no intention of being duped twice and will not be attending the conference in April. The problem is that you cannot trust the UN officials to tell the truth.

Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and professor and director of the Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust at the Touro Law Centre in New York says that:

“Every UN printing of the 2001 declaration omits the Canadian reservations, and every UN commentator repeats the fabrication that there was agreement on all of the declaration's contents. In January this year Canada was the first country to declare it had no intention of being duped twice by attending Durban II. “

She says:

In all UN negotiations involving Arab and Muslim states, the starting point is hysterical anti-Israel language. The EU then walks back to a "middle ground", characterised by condemnations - still directed at Israel and no other state - that by comparison are heralded as an improvement. The insidious EU-Islamic deal at Durban I was the trade-off that permitted a condemnation of anti-Semitism and a nod to the Holocaust in exchange for including a condemnation of racist Israel.

This formula professes a concern with killing Jews 60 years ago while fostering the anti-Semitism that kills Jewish Israelis now. Pillay says the criticism of the declaration's singling out of Israel is trivial: "It takes a vivid imagination to turn it into the manifesto of a 'hate-fest'," she says. Apparently terrorist attacks on Israelis launched in the name of a struggle to defeat the racist Jewish state don't fire Pillay's imagination.

Pillay is a South African who grew up under apartheid. She knows all too well the nexus between the allegation of racism and the politics of sanctions, isolation and political defeat as Professor Bayefsky points out.

She also points out that General Assembly president Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann is also aware of them and that: “Last month he said Israeli policies amounted to apartheid and ‘must be outlawed’ and met by a ‘campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions to pressure Israel’. She said it sounded like a hate-fest to her and it does to any rational person.

Professor Bayefsky says and we will quote it in full:

“The high commissioner also presents a series of alleged distortions she attempts to debunk. It is not true, she claims, that the Libyan chairwoman of the preparatory committee Najat al-Hajjaji has significant executive power and is using it. Says Pillay: ‘Chairpersons of bodies of this type fulfil an essentially functional role and are not in a position to push their own country's agenda.’

In fact, I took part in the two substantive meetings of the preparatory committee for Durban II and attempted to speak about anti-Semitism and the demonisation of Israel. In an unprecedented use of the chair's power, Hajjaji interrupted me four times on the grounds the subject matter was irrelevant. Together with the Iranian delegation, she concocted a series of delays preventing the participation of a Jewish and pro-Israel non-governmental organisation at the first session.

Not only has the chair pushed her agenda throughout, her very appointment is a travesty. Choosing Libya, a country that leading Arab experts decry as having ‘no written constitution, no political parties and no non-governmental organisations’, to steer preparations for a human rights conference is an outrage.

Pillay claims that ‘some condemnatory language on Israel’ is not part of a draft declaration but merely part of a background compilation. In fact, the language, which accuses Israel of apartheid, genocide and crimes against humanity, is entitled Draft Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference.

Pillay takes umbrage over criticism of the membership of the executive committee charged with planning Durban II.

Beyond the Libyan chairwoman, the job has been entrusted to Cuba as the rapporteur, Iran a vice-chair and other human rights stalwarts such as Russia and Pakistan. No problem, says Pillay, Western and democratic governments are also members and their ‘votes and views have equal weight’. Nowhere does the high commissioner actually object to Iran - a state whose President has openly advocated genocide - being a vice-chair of an anti-racism conference.

Durban II represents a hijacking by Islamic states of the UN's human rights agenda. In addition to demonising Israel, the draft outcome document has eight condemnations of Islamophobia, four more worries about Islam, 12 about Muslims, 11 criticisms of the defamation of religions (that is, Islam), along with a few phrases such as ‘Calls upon states to pay attention to the serious nature of incitement to religious hatred such as anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and, more particularly, Islamophobia.’

Finally, Pillay is livid about any suggestion of a linkage between hate and terrorism. The Forbes article says Durban II is ‘a vehicle for the kind of hate that leads to such horrors as the slaughter in Mumbai or, for that matter, 9/11.’ Having witnessed Durban I and 9/11, I couldn't agree more. Terrorists are enabled when the villains are encouraged to believe they are the victims.

Pillay worries about ‘efforts to derail’ Durban II. People who care about human rights and preventing racism should worry if it isn't.

We agree. This conduct is simply another recipe for hate and genocide under an anti-democratic racist agenda using anti-Semitism as its vehicle and must not be tolerated.

What we find as disturbing is the demonstrated bias in academia and especially in Australia where the same anti-Semitic approach is being viewed among university academia. It is also being supported by a Trinitarian bias that has a stranglehold on Religious Studies preventing proper objective analysis and in fact punishing it among students.

The report from the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations' inquiry into academic freedom is of note precisely in what it did not say. The majority report made no recommendations and hinted strongly that the exercise was a waste of time. The majority report singled out Liberal (read Conservative) students submissions and politicised the whole affair. That of itself was disappointing as there are serious concerns over bias and intimidation in universities. We have seen it first hand.

The minority report was more helpful and showed that governments can encourage specific, sensitive measures that can minimise problems of bias without impinging on the academic freedom of lecturers or the autonomy of universities.

Academic freedom is essential and must be protected in universities. However, it must be balanced by the rights of the students to an appropriate - meaning professional and unbiased - education that fairly presents the best empirical evidence and fully explores a variety of relevant, evidence-based perspectives. This obvious point is being denied today by some university lecturers who declare that presenting blatantly political or one-sided courses or lectures is justified to challenge students' preconceptions.

The Senate committee failed to deal with the absurd claims of the leftist academics that asserted that academic freedom applied to faculty only and not to students. In fact, the majority report supported them and ignored evidence submitted by the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council and others of not just ideological bias but also of anti-Semitic or anti-Israel bias, harassment and even intimidation at universities across the country. The fact is that this anti-Semitic bias is extended to all those who keep the laws of God and is in fact worse in its direction to Christians who keep the Laws of God.

At Monash University, for example, a first-year politics course on fundamentalism and global violence had two lectures on Jewish fundamentalism, including one on the power of the "US Jewish lobby", but whitewashed the issue of Islamist fundamentalism.

At the University of NSW, a lecturer reportedly labelled a student the "resident Zionist" merely because she was Jewish, then publicly disparaged her views whenever she spoke. At Murdoch University, a guest lecturer and tutor for a first-year world politics course reportedly labelled Israel an apartheid state, openly identified herself as a member of the Friends of Palestine, and promoted the group during her lecture.

Thus we see the improper use of guest lecturers and the use of class time to promote a political agenda. Inappropriately this occurs at first year and establishes a tone to the course.

Despite having evidence the majority report simply dismissed the evidence as being an insignificant number of complaints and submissions to the committee. Bigotry is endemic to universities and has been for centuries.

Faculty get away with it by students being unfamiliar with the complaint process and kept that way. They are held in line by intimidation across the spectrum using grades.

The majority report also made no recommendation on the potentially serious issue of foreign countries funding university research centres. Australia is seeing more of this funding and it is affecting or enabling the promotion of anti-Semitic agendas.

Colin Rubenstein, executive director of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, said that the AIJAC's submission recalled the issue of foreign funding of centres at two universities that might have inappropriately influenced the direction, research and conclusions of those centres. This seems to have been ignored whereas it might have been addressed through neutral recommendations. Universities and educational institutions should have to disclose their sources of funds and any conditions attached to gifts, and the gifts of corporate and foreign donors with a material interest in the subject they fund should be controlled by regulations.

Anti-Semitism starts in educational institutions and continues into the universities. It is encouraged by Religions and affects all of the Churches of God as well as Jews. It operates in the Hospital systems and spreads to all areas of the societies and is fuelled on one side by Trinitarainsim and on the other by Islamic radicals.

We are all hurt by it and often we have been killed by it. Sabbatarian losses in WWII were significant and the Holocaust was only 63 years ago. They are trying to reproduce the nightmare again and it is at every level to the UN Commission on Human Rights and is fuelled by academic and religious bigotry at all levels. It must be exposed and stamped out.

Wade Cox

Coordinator General