Comments by David G. Littman, NGO Representative of the Association for World Education (AWE) and World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) to the United Nations in Geneva:
A fortnight ago, commenting on Durban II, on President Ahmadinejad’s symbolic hubris, and on my being frogmarched by security guards out of the Assembly Hall, I concluded thus:
Before the special meeting next week when I shall be judged by the powers that be in the Secretariat of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, I shall send a point by point appeal to her for justice, beginning with article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It will be a symbolic moment if on such flimsy and arbitrary grounds — and for other reasons that I shall not enlarge upon here but which might well be the true cause — a “˜decision” will be made to cancel my UN badge after 23 years, speaking on many taboo subjects.
To really taste the Kafkaesque ambiance that is seeping into Geneva’s “˜Castle” of Human Rights, it is necessary to follow in depth some of these “˜inner sanctum mysteries” and “˜rules”. My promised point by point documentation follows. Thanks to the efforts of a friendly ambassador and a senior UN official — they have my heartfelt appreciation — my UN badge was only “suspended” for one month, but, shamefully, the Kangaroo Court’s “decision” was announced in writing by NGO Liaison Officer Ricardo Espinosa, on behalf of “the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights”, but probably unknown to the HCHR herself.
UN bans human rights activist who spoke out against Islamic antisemitism
Readers may neither have the time nor the stamina to imbibe all this lengthy documentation, but it may serve some use today for a few, and perhaps may have an archival use for tomorrow in print — and where better than on the Jihad Watch website with other pieces?
* * * * *
Document 1: Appeal (29 April) to HCHR & Secretary General of DR Conference
ASSOCIATION FOR WORLD EDUCATION
H.E. The High Commissioner for Human Rights
Ms. Nevanethem Pillay
Secretary-General of the DRC
OHCHR — Palais Wilson
8-14 rue des Paquis
1201 GenèveDelivered by hand at the Palais Wilson
29 April 2009Appeal to HCHR and Secretary-General of the Durban Review Conference
Your Excellency,
“Dignity and Justice for All” — the motto of the Durban Review Conference: My Arbitrary and Humiliating Ejection from the Assembly Hall
I wish to inform you, as Secretary General of the Durban Review Conference, of events on the concluding day of the DRC in which I was publicly humiliated and, for no valid reason, frogmarched out of the Assembly Hall “on instructions” from the DRC Secretariat.
1) I had delivered a joint statement for AWE and WUPJ as the first NGO speaker (24 April, a.m.)
2) I placed copies of our oral statement on the two tables outside the Assembly Hall, alongside other NGO statements. I attached to each a joint AWE / WUPJ written text: A/HRC/10/NGO/29: Defamation of Judaism and Jews by ISESCO (OIC): 60th Anniversary at the UN, which I had referred to in my speech, together with copies of the “˜Public Complaint” of 12 January 2009 on the two ISESCO books in question — addressed to you and four other UN dignitaries.
3) Towards the end of that same morning meeting I approached the delegates of Norway (vice-president), France and the UK to raise a point on topics referred to in our statements and I gave each of them copies at their request. In the same manner, two days earlier I had handed our NGO/ 29 written statement to Mgr. Hubertus Matheus Van Megen of the Holy See who was interested in it and also to the delegates of Belgium.
4) As I was walking to the back of the Hall, I noticed an African delegate representing the OIC and admitted, in a friendly manner, that I had criticized the OIC in our statement earlier. He asked me for a copy, but as I was handing it to him I was suddenly surrounded by two guards, one of whom actually had the audacity to grab my arm — I am nearly 76 and have a medically certified back handicap — as if I had committed a grave offense. This surprised everyone present, even the OIC delegate (later I met him in the gallery and he again requested our statements which I gave him)
5) The guard (Corporal Olivier E.) refused to allow me to sit down and insisted on frogmarching me out of the Hall in an undignified manner (on “instructions” from the Secretariat for “breaking the rules”). In the Assembly Hall he said that he had “instructions” to take away my pass for the DRC and, once we were outside the Hall, he even tried to grab my annual AWE year accreditation.
6) I insisted on speaking to or seeing the person who had given these “instructions” and I was given a name difficult to hear (Helena Guerreno — ?). The guard (he refused to give me his name until Sergeant Marcel J. came back and automatically gave me his) then made a call and soon after Elena Kountouri Tapiero arrived. She told me I had broken the rules. My explanations were not heeded and I was then informed by Elena that if I agreed to come for a meeting next week at the UN, I could keep my AWE year badge, but would have to hand over my 2nd pass for the Assembly Hall. (She called yesterday to fix the meeting for 30 April, 3:00pm at Ricardo Espinoza’s office.)
7) This brutal personal discrimination at the UN Durban Review Conference on Racism, and the humiliation of an active veteran human rights defender and NGO representative (since 1986), resulted in me being deprived of my right of access to the Durban Review Conference for its conclusion, after I spoke for AWE and WUPJ that morning on a sensitive subject.
8) This is in total contradiction with the “dignity and justice” motto of the DRC and the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, enshrined in its article 1, often quoted at the UNCHR:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Regarding the rules of procedure for NGOs:
9) It is legitimate for NGOs to attach their UN written statement to an oral statement relating to the subject being addressed. I always show such texts beforehand to the NGO liaison officer to avoid any misunderstanding (to Laura Dolci-Kanaan in the past); on this occasion to Elena Kountouri Tapiero who expressed no objection to what is recognised by all as a customary HRC procedure.
10) I was fully aware of the rules in the “˜Information brief for NGOs” (17 April), which states: “NGOs are not permitted to distribute documents, pamphlets or any other material in Salle des Assemblées”¦” And “˜Procedures and Rules for NGOs participating in the DRC” (17 April) states: “NGOs may not distribute material in or outside the Conference rooms, in the corridors”¦”
11) These rules do not refer to oral or written NGO statements, and it is known that many NGOs (and also some delegates) request from other NGOs an oral statement just delivered, and this has never been considered “distributing documents” (“materials”) by the Secretariat or by security.
12) The expression “to distribute documents” (English) and “Ã distribuer des documents” (French) relates to a general distribution of material to all and sundry. It is not the same as “Ã remettre”, handing an NGO oral statement already delivered to two or three delegations on request.
Madam High Commissioner, a serious injustice was committed against me publicly, causing much personal humiliation, and I respectfully ask for a written apology from the person responsible.
Yours respectfully,
David G. Littman, M.A. (T.C.D.)
Historian
Representative to the UN Office in Geneva of the Association for World Education (AWE, since 1997); and the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ, since 2000; and from 1986-1991).
———
cc. H.E. President of the DRC, Amos Wako; H.E. Ambassador Bente Angell-Hansen (Norway); Ambassador Peter Gooderham (UK); H.E. Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattéi (France);
H.E. Ambassador Alex Van Meeuwen (Belgium); Mgr Hubertus Matheus Van Megen (Holy See)* * * * *
Document 2: Detailed Report (5 May) on Castle Kangaroo Court Meeting of 30 April
ASSOCIATION FOR WORLD EDUCATION
5 May 2009
David G. Littman: Representative of the AWE (since 1997) to the UNO in Geneva
Kangaroo Court at the Palais des Nations for veteran NGO human rights defender:
A warning for all NGOs on Freedom of Expression at the Human Rights CouncilThe proposed meeting — referred to in my Appeal of 29 April to the High Commissioner [1] — took place on Thursday afternoon, 30 April at the Palais des Nations in the posh Lettonie Room X. I had originally been told by Elena Kountouri-Tapiero — soon after I was physically ejected from the Assembly Hall on 24 April by guards for “distributing documents” — that Human Rights Secretary Eric Tistounet would be present at the meeting. I was later informed (a phone call from Elena on the 28th) that he was not free then but that four persons would be present at that special meeting when I would be informed of “˜a decision”:
Ricardo Espinoza, chief NGO liaison officer, Director-General’s Office, the Palais des Nations
Laura Dolci-Kanaan, representing the UN Secretariat for Human Rights at the Palais Wilson;
Elena Kountouri-Tapiero, in her capacity as NGO liaison official;
Janick Mangin, captain, chief of operations, security section at the UN in Geneva.In the event, six UN staff arrived, so I asked to know the names of the other two. Immediately, Ricardo Espinoza — apparently acting as chairman — interrupted me rudely and, with a raised voice, declared: “You are not here to interrogate us.” I insisted that I was justified in asking to know the names of all present, and they each spelled out their name, despite the Chair’s opposition:
Didier Duc, lieutenant in charge of security;
Perry Buell, in charge of security identification.As I had been informed both times by Elena that I would be given the possibility of explaining freely my position, I proposed that it would be simpler if all present read the 29 April letter that I had handed, the previous afternoon, to the secretary of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Laura indicated that she had seen it, but the others showed little interest and Espinoza declined. I therefore insisted, despite initial disapproval, on reading points 9-12 on page 2: Regarding the rules of procedure for NGOs.
Little attention was given to what I had to say; it was manifestly clear that “˜a decision” had already been taken by the powers that be and this meeting was a mere formality. When I asked to know who had given the instructions for me to be forcibly ejected from the Assembly Hall on 24 April, Espinoza again raised his voice and, in a haughty tone, informed me that they were not there to hear and reply to my questions, but I was there to answer theirs. I persisted, explaining that the last time the guards had been acting under “˜instructions” and had searched my papers, the “˜instructions” cited (their origin known to captain Mangin) had turned out to be irrelevant, and since then no NGO representatives have had their papers searched. [2]
Like Espinoza’s, captain Mangin’s reaction was outrageous. It seemed that their concerted attempt to intimidate me was intended to incite me to leave the room, which would have been seen by this Kangaroo Court as a “˜confession of guilt”. I decided to endure the humiliation and listen to the bitter end, even though I had been warned by doctors to avoid all stress — after suffering a stroke on 22 June 2008 in Belgium, aged 75, and hospitalized for two weeks. Soon after this “˜meeting” I met in a hallway David Chikvaize — Chief of the Office of the Director-General — and he found that my face was very flushed.
Several Orwellian double speak examples were then given to prove a “series of misconducts and abuse of the rules and practices that have been in place, and were in place for NGOs.” In summary:
“¢ I had been distributing material in the Assembly Hall during the DRC. I had not. [3]
“¢ I had asked for another “˜second” badge to enter the Assembly Hall (apparently intending to break the rules when, in fact, this badge had disappeared while I was being checked by security — taking off my jacket — and I had explained this then and asked for a duplicate).
“¢ I had been seen speaking to two representatives of another NGO who were trying to pass a badge from one to the other. I had told both of them not to do so, but Buell accused me.
“¢ My general demeanour had been disruptive. (The mind boggles considering the acts of real disruption carried out during the Durban Review Conference on Monday afternoon.)I described all these examples as ludicrous, but this term was not appreciated at all. My gravest “act of misconduct”, according to Laura, was to have “aggressed” the Nigerian president on the podium. This absurd allegation relates to an incident on 2 December 2008, at the close of the 8th session of the Human Rights Council, which is fully recounted in my next day letter of 3 December to President Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi. [4] Laura was a direct witness on that day and knows that I did not “aggress” the president — it was quite the contrary: he began shouting at me for no reason, accusing me of harassing him simply because I asked him — in a friendly manner — if a reply to our letter of 17 November could be expected. [5] [docs. 6 and 7]
The president then gave instructions to security that I should never be allowed to approach the podium.Although the six UN staff members had arrived late for the meeting, they were in a hurry to leave and Laura Dolce-Kanaan was then asked by Espinoza to read out the “decision” — that had been decided upon:
— My UN annual badge (AWE) would be “suspended” for 3 months (May, June July);
— If I wished to attend the 11th session of the HRC in June, I could ask for a special pass as an NGO;
— After three months, I could reapply to have my annual badge and another decision would be taken.Captain Mangin then stated that I should now go to the UN Pregny entrance and give in my badge and the disabled pass for my car. Lt. Perry Bruell, who had been very disagreeable earlier, added that I should not expect to receive a disabled pass for my car a 2nd time, even if I was granted an annual badge. When I told him that my UN pass for my car had been provided in the usual manner on the basis of a doctor’s certificate and an official cantonal “Carte de stationnement pour personnes handicapées” (this as a result of my cerebral stroke in June and a difficult back condition), he dismissed this by declaring with much authority and delight, that a “˜rule” of 1994 allows the UN to refuse an NGO a car pass. Such a UN attitude is in stark contrast to the recent “˜International Day of Persons with Disabilities” celebrated by the HCHR.
I refused to accept this arbitrary oral decision, insisting on receiving it in writing and stated that such an injustice would be harmful for me certainly, but for all NGOs, and for the reputation of the Human Rights Council and Secretariat. This comment was treated with scorn and all six rose to their feet to indicate that the meeting had ended (neither Elena, taking notes on her computer, nor Didier Duc had spoken during the meeting). I reminded them of Lord Acton’s wise saying: “Power tends to corrupts and absolute power corrupt absolutely.” I then expressed my true feelings with a line from Hamlet — a Parthian shot: “we that have free souls, it touches us not: let the galled jade wince, our withers are unwrung.” (Act III, ii, 251-52). I doubt if any of them understood this Shakespearean line. I then left the elegant Lettonie room in disgust.
Background
The underlying problem is, without question, the treatment of NGOs in the Human Rights Council. The absence of a satisfactory reply from the HRC president after more than six months speaks volumes — on the misuse by the Chair of the terms, “rules of procedure”, “off the subject”, and “out of order” in order to silence NGOs. These rulings usually follow points of order — instead of a complaint in a “˜right of reply” — from member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
In 2008 I was constantly stopped on points of order by OIC states (often Egypt) — particularly 24 January, 23 March, 16 June (the historic “Sharia Affair” case), on 23 September, and 6 March 2009 — all on the webcast. Attempts were even made by the OIC and NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) to withdraw the UN accreditation from one of the NGOs I represent (World Union for Progressive Judaism). [6] This failed.
But it is certainly the “˜Canadian Affair” of 6 March 2009 that added grist to the mill for the current drama. On 9 March Canwest News Service published a story by Steven Edwards (New York), Jewish speaker outraged after debate cut short, which was picked up the next day by the four major Canadian papers. A week later, his follow-up story (also widely published by the Canadian press on 18 March) indicated:
The Conservative government said Tuesday that Canada’s top diplomat in Geneva was wrong to use his position as chairman of a United Nations debate to cut short a speaker criticizing Muslim-sourced anti-Semitic material. The statement came after it emerged an official in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office had become involved in the probe into the March 6 action by Ambassador Marius Grinius in the UN Human Rights Council. The escalation of the inquiry, which the office of Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon launched, indicates how seriously the government considered the matter. Grinius had prevented David Littman, an accredited UN non-governmental activist, from completing a statement calling for a “universal condemnation” of defamations of Judaism. “It is our conclusion that Mr. Littman should not have been cut off by Ambassador Grinius,” Catherine Loubier, spokeswoman for Cannon, said in response to questions from Canwest News Service. She noted Grinius acted on the advice of a UN procedural official (“¦) and implied the ambassador had just been trying to do the right thing. “Ambassador Grinius acted in good faith, on the advice of the UN Secretariat and in keeping with complex rules of procedure” Loubier said. “He did not show, or intend to show, any disrespect to the speaker.” (“¦).”Hopefully Canada’s admission will serve as an example for NGOs to enjoy full freedom of expression and not be continually stopped on points of order mainly by the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,” Littman said in a telephone interview, referencing the 56-member grouping of Muslim countries. (“¦) The UN official in question is the secretary of the UN Human Rights Council, Eric Tistounet, who can be seen advising Grinius in the debate video, which Eye on the UN began posting over the weekend (“¦) Littman was speaking March 6 on behalf of the Association for World Education and the World Union for Progressive Judaism (“¦) He said earlier Tuesday he had received no reply from a letter he wrote to Grinius following the incident seeking a “specific response” to his concern the Canadian “censored” him. He also said he was now referring the matter to the official council chairman, Nigerian Ambassador Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi, in a bid to ensure Grinius”s action does not serve as a future precedent for future chairs to shut down debate. “We don’t understand why he didn’t take the trouble to answer.”
Within two days, Eric Tistounet replied; his position was covered by Canwest and in the Canadian press:
“He (Littman) could have referred to this issue under the general debate, but not during this specific discussion,” Tistounet says. “He was therefore rightly called out of order by the president of the meeting.” (“¦) Littman had been calling for a “universal condemnation” of defamations of Judaism in a speech delivered on behalf of the Association for World Education and the World Union for Progressive Judaism. (“¦) Littman said he was justified in denouncing the anti-Semitic material on the grounds that one of the reports dealt with freedom of expression and hate speech.
On 19 March, Tistounet sent me a justification of the vice-president’s decision, which he had inspired. In a two-page letter (8 April), I providing irrefutable evidence to the contrary, but he has still not replied. [document 8]
The documents that I was falsely accused of “distributing” (the 24 April event in the Assembly Hall) were on the same subject directly related to the ISESCO (OIC) books (re: Defamation of Judaism and Jews).
Concluding Remarks
On my return from a week in London — where I had received a call from Canadian prime minister’s office — I attended the CHR on 25 March. Eric Tistounet happened to pass by where I was sitting at the Council and I remarked: “I see that you were widely quoted in the Canadian press.” He replied with a warning in two strong words: “Watch out!” A month later, I was frogmarched out of the Assembly Hall — and now I am being suspended from the United Nations. There is no doubt that many of the statements I make for the AWE and the WUPJ (and jointly for other NGOs) bother many of the member states of the OIC. They will be delighted if I can no longer raise many sensitive, even taboo, issues which others will not.
When I received the call from the Canadian prime minister’s office on 17 March, I was at the East India Club, St. James”s Square, in the room where the Prince of Wales received news of Wellington’s victory at Waterloo in 1815. I mentioned this coincidence to the prime minister’s aide who called me and I added: We look to Canada to win the battle for freedom of opinion and expression for NGOs at the Human Rights Council. This was, indeed, achieved by Canada’s action then. Hopefully, it will be achieved again in May 2009 in relation to this grave personal discrimination aimed at suspending me from the United Nations where I first spoke as a human rights defender in January 1986 (and hundreds of times since). As in my letter of 29 April, I respectfully request a written apology from the person responsible for this grave injustice and discrimination against me, because of what I say and stand for, not for the false allegations.
I have taken much time to record these facts as I have experienced them. Many NGOs believe that the time has come for the High Commissioner of Human Rights and Secretary-General of the Durban Review Conference (its motto was: “Dignity and Justice for All”) to recognise that the Human Rights Council is slowly being taken over by those who wish to silence what is truly “freedom of opinion and expression”.
——————
[1] Appeal to HCHR and Secretary-General of the Durban Review Conference, Ms. Nevanethem Pillay, 29 April 2009 (“Dignity and Justice for All — motto of the Durban Review Conference: My Arbitary and Humiliating Ejection from the Assembly Hall.
[2] Friendly security guards searched my papers — “on instructions” — twice as I entered the 10th HRC session in early March (i.e. every single UN “˜paper” in my briefcase, including 50 copies of our joint AWE/WUPJ written statement, UN document A/HRC/10/NGO/29: Defamation of Judaism and Jews by ISESCO (OIC): 60th UDHR Anniversary at the UN) — and even the oral statement I was scheduled to deliver that same day on that subject. I insisted on knowing what “instructions” justified this. The UN document cited turned out — after I checked its contents — to be totally irrelevant. This event was seen by Elena and by Daniel Lack, a veteran NGO and a lawyer. I complained officially at the time. After that, no NGO was searched for “˜papers”.
[3] Full details on what happened may be found in my appeal to the High Commissioner for Human Rights dated 29 April 2009.
[4] See encl. and my earlier letters of 1 October, 10 and 17 November to the HRC President that provide the full background.
[5] In this second letter to the president, I provided exact details when I was cut (see the UN webcast), as I stated that:
Clearly many of the States that since 1999 have co-sponsored the resolution Combating Defamation of Religion overlook repeated cases where Islamic clerics defame other religions. A recent case is very typical and there was no apology after an Al- [The president ruled the speaker “˜out of order” exactly at this moment, before he could say what it was about, i.e.] Jazeera TV interview with a prominent Egyptian geologist and cleric Dr. Zaghloul Ragheb. His crude defamation of Judaism and Christianity on 9 August was blatant”¦
[6] See 13 May 2008 letter from NAM to the Committee on NGOs (New York) and failed attempt to oust WUPJ.
* * * * *
Document 3: Ricardo Espinosa letter (8 May): OHCHR Decision to suspend UN badge
UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT GENEVA
Cabinet du Directeur General
Bureau 153
Liaison avec les organisations non gouvernementales
Palais des Nations
211 GENEVE 108 May 2009
Mr. David G. Littman
Representative Association for World Education
and the World Union for Progressive Judaism
By fax and mailDear Mr. Littman,
I am writing to follow up on our discussion of 30 April 2009 at UNOG with the participation of colleagues from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UNOG Security and Safety Service.
Based on the understanding reached at the above-mentioned meeting and upon further consultation among all concerned, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has taken the decision to suspend the validity of your UNOG annual grounds pass and of the corresponding vehicle access authorization for one month from the date of this letter, at which point their validity will be restored.
Allow me to take this opportunity to remind that according to the applicable UN rules and regulations, NGO representatives may not distribute materials, including statements, in Committee rooms and cannot transfer their personal grounds passes to anyone else. Additionally, NGO representatives present in Committee rooms are not authorized to directly access the podium; they are required to seek appointments with the relevant Chairpersons or Presidents by contacting directly their respective secretariats.
I look forward to continue working with you as of next month in a dignified work environment, with respect for the rules, regulations and practices established by the United Nations for the conduct of its meetings.
Yours sincerely,
Ricardo Espinosa
NGO Liaison Officer
Copy : Mr. Eric Tistounet; Mr. Marc Wood* * * * *
Document 4: My faxed response to Ricardo Espinosa for his faxed letter of 8 May
Association for World Education
Mr. Ricardo Espinoza
NGO Liaison Officer
Bureau 153
Palais des Nations
1211 GENEVE 10By fax : (022) 917 0583
8 May 2009
Dear Sir,
I have received your letter of 8 May, via fax.
I have forwarded it to my attorney with whom I have consulted on this matter since the time the sequence of incidents first occurred.
You will be informed of my position on my return from Italy, after I will have received his legal advice.
Yours faithfully,
David G. Littman
NGO Representative to the UN in Geneva
Association for World Education
World Union for Progressive Judaism* * * * *
Document 5: Letter (1 October) to HRC President after 23 September 2008 incident
ASSOCIATION FOR WORLD EDUCATION
H.E. Mr. Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi
President of the Human Rights Council
OHCHR, Palais Wilson. Geneva1 October 2008
Dear Mr President,
Freedom of Expression at the Council and the dangers of an ad hominem “˜point of order”
I regret that the statement I made for the AWE at the Council’s 18th meeting (9th session on 23 September), under item 9, created an atmosphere of tension as a result of the intervention by the delegate of Egypt. Once again — as on 23 March and 16 June — Mr. Amr Roshdy Hassan made an ad hominem attack against me — and an explanatory “reply”, not a “point of order”. [See “Slapstick Jihad triumphs again at the UN Human Rights Council,” here.]
For convenience, we will be handing this letter to you at the Palais Wilson tomorrow morning before the start of the Expert Seminar on the links between articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR, entitled: “Freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” We note that you are scheduled to make an Opening Statement after Ms. Navanethem Pillay, High Commissioner for Human Rights. We feel that the matters that we are raising in regard to this question of “Freedom of Expression at the Council” and the danger of ad hominem point of orders is crucial and pertinent to the seminar.
Your diverse comments and reference to the “Golden Rule” were welcome. However, we would appreciate a clarification from you, as President of the Human Rights Council, on the “rule” you applied when deciding that the statement was “out of order”. As I explained during our discussion on this matter just after the end of the 18th and again before the start of the 19th meeting, such ad hominem attacks by the delegate of Egypt have become the norm. This time he even suggested that I “find a hobby or grow a moustache or something” and his comments went unhindered — without a reaction from any Council Member. Your decision as President to declare our statement “out of order” when it dealt with Islamic clerics who defame religion may well result in a dangerous precedent in the future, penalising NGOs under similar themes.
There are many NGO representatives who are sensitive to being stopped on a “point of order”, especially as Governments have a “right to reply” when they can set out their views. There is no “right to reply” for NGOs. Thus, some States have learned to use “points of order” — as did the notorious U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950s — as a way to break into an NGO presentation and silence the speaker. On this issue, there is wide agreement of solidarity among NGO representatives, even when they disagree on the content of a statement.
We are providing our statement in full and an exact transcript of what was said by Mr. Hassan — and by you, as President (all that was said is in red ) The comments in blue, as explained, have been added by me. The accuracy of this transcript can be checked on the UN webcast.
I wish to reproduce the words I had stated for AWE at the moment I was ruled “out of order”:
Clearly, many of the States that since 1999 have co-sponsored the resolution “˜Combating defamation of religions” overlook repeated cases where Islamic clerics defame other religions. A recent case is very typical and there was no apology after an Al-Jazeera”¦
I am including (in the documentation provided herein) the exact translation from MEMRI of the “Defamation of Religions” by an Islamic cleric on 9 August 2008, to which I was referring (“I say to the People of the Book [i.e. Christians and Jews]: The Books you have are forgeries.”)
Also enclosed are two more recent TV translations, again from Arabic (MEMRI), which
confirm what we were saying about the constant religious defaming of other religions and an endemic Arab-Muslim Judeophobia/Antisemitism, all of which within the parameters of item 9.In fact, Mr. Hassan made other points of order; he attempted to have me ruled “out of order” when reading a most relevant statement for Rabbi François Garaï, on behalf of the World Union for Progressive Judaism. Here, you took no heed of this reiterated call. (transcript here)
In this precise context, our written statement to the 62nd session (final) of the Commission is pertinent: General Comments on the Human Rights Commission and a future Council — “A riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma” (E/CN.4/2006/NGO/1). In it, we referred to these frequent ad hominem attacks (there were several other cases on that day, and others): Freedom of speech: end personal attacks on Special Rapporteurs and NGO representatives.
There, we quote Argentine Ambassador Leandro Despouys, Chairman of the 57th session of the Commission (2001) who — in his statement to the plenum on 12 April 2001 — referred to the “˜Main Rules and Practices” (article 16 of the paper: E/CN.4/2001/CRP.1), covering ad hominem attacks on Special Rapporteurs. He included NGOs in it. There is a quote from the chairperson of the 50th session (8/3/1994), stating that: “it is the duty of the Commission on Human Rights to ensure that, while respecting the right to freedom of expression and the right to disagree, the character and integrity of its Special Rapporteurs are not called in question.”
His appeal was understood and noted by all on that occasion. We also quoted, in that text, a remarkably pertinent recommendation by Libyan Chairperson, Ambassador Najat A-Hajjaji, when she addressed Special Rapporteurs, Representatives and Independent Experts and others at the their 10th session (23-27 June 2003). This was after the 59th Commission, when she had announced — at the first plenum meeting — that she would not tolerate personal attacks on speakers. This followed an appeal we had made to her (at an NGO meeting) not to allow ad hominem attacks on NGOs, nor on Special Rapporteurs, and observers. She did exactly that and was highly successful. There were no “˜incidents”. Her words are worth quoting here:
Speak freely as you have done in the past. Continue to do so in the interest of truth, of justice, irrespective of the pressure that is brought to bear upon you by Governments. Even if what you say is contrary to the interests of the Government, there are thousands, millions of victims, who look upon the Commission, the special procedures as the conscience of humanity”¦ Stand firm; let nothing stand in the way of truth.
In view of the comments above from two of your predecessors, and the gravity of this matter, we are appealing to you to provide us with comprehensive answers to our queries and, we hope, put the Council back on track with a decision that will remove misunderstandings on this matter of “freedom of expression and the right to disagree” on the one hand, and “the character and integrity” of all representatives on the other hand.
Yours respectfully,
David G. Littman
Representative of the Association for World Education to the United Nations (Geneva)
——————————————————————————————————–
Text approved by René Wadlow, Main Representative to the UN (Geneva):
Association for World Education and Association of World Citizenscc. H.E. Ms. Navanethan Pillay, High Commissioner for Human Rights
* * * * *
Document 6: Letter (17 November) to HRC President after 23 September 2008 incident
ASSOCIATION FOR WORLD EDUCATION
H.E. Mr. Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi
President of the Human Rights Council
Palais des Nations. Geneva17 November 2008
Dear Mr. President,
Freedom of Expression at the Council and the dangers of ad hominem points of order
I handed my letter of 10 November to your assistant at the Palais des Nations that same afternoon and informed him that I had read it out in full at the Meeting of the Committee of NGOs on Human Rights an hour earlier, since we maintain that what happened at the last session of the Council — and at earlier sessions — affects all NGOs. Our 1 October letter to you (with written statement 2006/NGO/1) was made available to those present as we feel strongly that this is a very sensitive subject that should be examined by UN legal experts. This major point of principle was understood by the NGO community members present.
I acknowledge reception of your reply dated 11 November and wish to confirm that I wrote to you in my capacity as a representative of the Association for World Education and that both my letters, as indicated, were approved by Mr. René Wadlow, main representative to the UN (Geneva) of the Association for World Education (AWE) and the Association of World Citizens (AWC). Your letter is addressed to me personally — without mention of my AWE accreditation. I am also the representative of the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) in Geneva, but my two above letters were sent in my capacity as representative for AWE.
We note what you write that all speakers should make their “statements in dignity and respect for each others” views,” and that you call “upon everybody to be decent and respectful of the beliefs and values of every person participating in the work of the Council.” You conclude that you “will continue to apply the rules of procedure”, which is what you maintain was done in regard to my oral statement of 23 September for AWE.
We would appreciate knowing which “˜rule of procedure” was followed by you on that occasion — or was it merely the right of the president to act as he feels is correct? Since everyone may obtain access to the UN webcast — and this particular “˜exchange” has been seen in several versions and posted on blogs — it is clearly evident that Egyptian delegate Amr Roshdy Hassan again attacked me personally, even suggesting that I “find a hobby or grow a moustache or something,” without any reaction emanating from a Council member — or by you as Council President. Here is the precise moment when you ruled me “˜out of order”:
Clearly, many of the States that since 1999 have co-sponsored the resolution Combating Defamation of Religions overlook repeated cases where Islamic clerics defame other religions. A recent case is very typical and there was no apology after an Al-“¦” [The precise place of your “˜out of order” ruling, yet my full text was available via the Secretariat — it provides irrefutable proof that this point was a perfectly legitimate statement to be made at the Council ] Jazeera TV interview with a prominent Egyptian geologist and cleric Dr.Zaghloul Ragheb. His crude defamation of Judaism & Christianity on 9 August was blatant. On 28 August an indignant presenter on Al-Hayat TV criticised such double standards strongly: His words are in our text. [Our oral statement is attached, with a full transcript of all interventions by Mr. Hassan, and you, as president.]
We maintain that, for the Council and other UN sessions, “freedom of expression and the right to disagree”, and “the character and integrity” of all representatives should merit an official UN “˜legal ruling”. Creative work in the Council is only possible, as you have pointed out, with mutual respect which we can only encourage, but all forms of official or self-censorship should not become the norm, thus contradicting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 60th anniversary (10 December 2008) will be celebrated at the UN — and worldwide.
Yours respectfully,
David G. Littman
Representative of the Association for World Education to the United Nations (Geneva)
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Text approved by René Wadlow, Main Representative to the UN (Geneva) of the AWE and the AWC
—————————————————————————————————————————
cc. H.E. Ms. Navanethan Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights* * * * *
Document 7: Letter (2 December) to HRC President re: 23 September 2008 incident
ASSOCIATION FOR WORLD EDUCATION
H.E. Mr. Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi
President of the Human Rights Council
c/o Permanent Mission, Federal Republic of Nigeria
Chemin du Petit-Sacconex 28a
1209 Genève. Case Posstale 2571. 1211 Genève 22 December 2008
Dear Mr. President,
I deeply regret the unfortunate discord that occurred yesterday after the close of the 8th Special Session of the Council. For the record, I wish to provide my version of what occurred then in the presence of your secretary and Laura Dolci-Kanaan — and others.
After you had closed the session at about 2:30pm, you remained on the podium greeting and speaking with ambassadors and representatives for about fifteen minutes. Toward the end when there was no one else speaking to you, I went up to the podium and extended a friendly handshake of congratulations, which you reciprocated with a smile. I then asked casually — perhaps an error on my part — whether there was any possibility of receiving a reply to my letter of 17 November. You looked surprised, asking me twice: “what letter?–“ adding: “I have already replied.” I tried to explain that it had been faxed and posted c/o the Nigerian Permanent Mission two weeks earlier and that it was in reply to your brief message of the 11th. Your genuine surprise seemed to imply that you had not received or read it, although I called your Mission, after faxing, for confirmation, having beforehand spoken to both your first counsellor Francis Eyo and second secretary Mohammed Haidara, to whom I had handed our previous letter at the Palais des Nations. (We are enclosing here a copy of this 17 November reply, in case the faxed or posted letter was not notified to you.)
Our reply stressed that Freedom of Expression at the Council in the framework of the Rules of Procedure was a crucial matter that affected all NGOs, not just AWE — and that we would appreciate a UN “˜legal opinion” on this question, if you felt that the matter was somehow outside your competence. At this, you raised your voice, accusing me of harassing you. You repeated the word “harassment” loudly in what I heard as an angry voice, stating that I was insulting you. I expressed surprise, but did not respond in the same tone. After a moment, I then walked away, without raising my voice although you were still speaking loudly about my harassing you.
* * * * *
As we wrote in our response to your letter of 11 November, you state that you “will continue to apply the rules of procedure”, which is what you imply had been done regarding my oral statement of 23 September for AWE. Yet, soon after Egyptian Counsellor Amr Roshdy Hassan had attacked me personally, suggesting that I “find a hobby or grow a moustache or something”, you ruled me “˜out of order”. The exact place is indicated below — with the end of our unpronounced sentence to be found in our statement given to the Secretariat for the interpreters. The appropriate UN webcast shows exactly when the Egyptian delegate interrupted me on a “˜point of order”, your comments, my continuation at your request, and your rapid “˜out of order” decision.
Clearly, many of the States that since 1999 have co-sponsored the resolution Combating Defamation of Religions overlook repeated cases where Islamic clerics defame other religions. A recent case is very typical, and there was no apology after an Al-“¦” [your “˜out of order” ruling here, although “˜Combating defamation of Religions” concerns the agenda item] Jazeera TV interview with a prominent Egyptian geologist and cleric Dr.Zaghloul Ragheb. His crude defamation of Judaism & Christianity on 9 August was blatant. On 28 August an indignant presenter on Al-Hayat TV criticised such double standards strongly: His words are in our text.
We maintain that — for the Council and other UN bodies — “freedom of expression and the right to disagree”, and: “the character and integrity” of all representatives merits a UN “˜legal opinion”, in regard to the Rules of Procedure. Any forms of official, or self-censorship, should not become the norm, contradicting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose 60th anniversary will be celebrated at the United Nations on 12 December.
Yours respectfully,
David G. Littman
Representative of the Association for World Education to the United Nations (Geneva)
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Text approved by René Wadlow, Main Representative to the UN (Geneva) of the AWE and the AWC* * * * *
Document 8: Public Complaint (12 January) concerning two ISESCO (OIC) publications
ASSOCIATION FOR WORLD EDUCATION
Case Postal 205 — 1196 Gland — SuissePUBLIC COMPLAINT
to
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
UN Director-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze
UNHRC President Martin I. Uhomoibhi
UNHCHR Nevanethem Pillay
UNESCO Director-General Koïchiro MatsuuraConcerning two books published and made available by the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) containing attacks against Jews, a general defamation of Judaism, and an obscene reference to a known Nazi forgery — and which were displayed at an OIC event at the Palais des Nations on 19 December 2008 “on the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”
12 January 2009
Your Excellencies,
As each one of you is directly or indirectly concerned by this grave matter, we wish to lodge a general public complaint. It relates to the misuse by the OIC of a public event at the Palais des Nations — in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — in order to make available two ISESCO publications containing passages that maliciously falsify ancient history, defame Judaism, propagate hatred of Jews — directly or under the guise of anti-Zionism — and distil an infamous Nazi forgery, denounced as such 70 years ago.
We are attaching the following information to support this serious accusation:
1) An explanatory page regarding the event itself and some background data;
2) Six pages of extracts from the two ISESCO books, to which we refer;
3) I have made two comments in our submission, providing refutations, but will not address all the obvious gross exaggerations and inaccuracies;
4) Presumably, these publications may be found in the UN Libraries. I will have with me my copy of each book when I hand the envelope to your respective secretaries at the Palais des Nations this morning.Yours respectfully,
David G. Littman, M.A. (T.C.D.)
Historian. Representative of the AWE to the United Nations Office in Geneva********
Document 9: Letter (8 April) to UN Secretary Eric Tistounet re: 6 March 2009 incident
ASSOCIATION FOR WORLD EDUCATION
Mr. Eric Tistounet
Secretary, Human Rights Council
United Nations Office
Palais des Nations. 1211 Genève 108 April 2009
Dear Mr. Tistounet,
Thank you for your letter of 19 March regarding the incident on 6 March. I have taken note of your response and will here restrict myself to some pertinent aspects on this specific case. This incident has regrettably taken on particular significance given the subject of our statement: “Defamation of Judaism and Jews by ISESCO”. In view of the gravity of this matter, I am copying all those directly and indirectly concerned.
In your reply. you stress that the 9th meeting on 6 March was not a “general debate”. You write:
“Statements of a very general nature, including references to positions by groups of States or human rights violations, may be exercised in the context of what is being referred to as a general debate. Participation into a discussion or dialogue with United Nations officials or Special Rapporteurs are an altogether different issue an participants, governmental or non-governmental alike, are expected to raise questions, make observations or comments in relation to what the said individuals stated in oral or written reports.”
But your explanation does not match the words used by Vice-President Grinius at the opening:
“Yesterday we concluded the inter-active dialogue on the annual Reports of the High Commissioner. This morning we shall proceed to hear the presentation of some of the Reports submitted by the High Commissioner, the Secretary-General, and the Office of the HCHR to the 10th session. Following the presentation of these Reports, we shall hold a general debate and I invite delegations wishing to participate in this general debate to inscribe in the list of speakers at the desk to your right. The list will close in 10 minutes; I repeat 10 minutes. I welcome the presentation of the Deputy of the High Commissioner.”
Nor does your statement accord with what I had been informed by the NGO liaison officer Elena Kountouri Tapiero the previous evening. She was surprised that an unscheduled “general debate” had been announced for the next morning under item 2 and advised me that I could speak under any of the Reports of the High Commissioner, as only two NGOs were inscribed.
This surprising information — that there would be a “general debate” under item 2 — was confirmed both in the “Order of the Day” and by the vice-president as mentioned above.
It is further confirmed on the OHCHR website in the introduction to the video archive of the morning’s meeting, which states:
Item 2: Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and
reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General
United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Kyung-wha Kang, to introduce the reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General.
A/HRC/10/31/Add.3, A/HRC/10/25, A/HRC/10/26 and Add.1, A/HRC/10/28, A/HRC/10/30, A/HRC/10/33, A/HRC/10/34, A/HRC/10/36, A/HRC/10/38 and Corr.1 and Add.1, A/HRC/10/39, A/HRC/10/40, A/HRC/10/41, A/HRC/10/42, A/HRC/10/43, A/HRC/10/45, A/HRC/10/46, A/HRC/10/47, A/HRC/10/48, A/HRC/10/49, A/HRC/10/51, A/HRC/10/54, A/HRC/10/55, A/HRC/10/60, A/HRC/10/61, A/HRC/10/62, A/HRC/10/64General Debate on the Reports on Item 2
I prepared our joint oral statement until late into the night of 5-6 March and obtained approval to deliver it jointly for AWE and WUPJ. As you can see (clearly indicated still on the website), the Deputy HCHR was scheduled “to introduce the reports”. The example we provided on the propagation of “incitement to religious hatred” relates directly to A/HRC/10/31/Add.3 — the first report listed above.
The presentation by Deputy High Commissioner Kyung-wha Kang was entitled: “Introduction of Reports by the Secretary General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights”. It was only made available during her actual presentation in the morning. She began by stating:
I am pleased to begin with the presentation of reports by the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner. These reports are before you.
In her presentation she did not speak of any restriction of the “˜general debate” announced the previous day, confirmed in the “˜Order of the Day” available to all participants, and twice reiterated by the vice-president.
Just before my time to speak, Elena Kouantouri Tapiero came to me and suggested that the debate was on “˜thematic issues”. (Perhaps she was prompted by you). I explained that it was not possible for me to change my text instantaneously, and that since a general debate had been announced and our statement related to the first listed report, I was obliged to keep to our prepared text.
After the vice-president gavelled me, he did not say that my statement was “out of order”, as you write — he referred to me “straying off the subject”, adding “please stick to what the subject matter in hand is”. His intervention was apparently prompted by you, as you are seen on video advising him just prior to his intervention. He did not mention the word “˜thematic” at all, nor did he say it was not a general debate.
The only NGO representative who followed addressed a country situation (Iraq), but he was allowed to continue for two minutes even though I expressed strong bodily language in relation to this flagrant contrast with the decision just taken in our case. This can be seen clearly on the video.
Given all of the above, I feel confident that you will now wish to acknowledge that I was wrongly cut off from speaking by the Chair, apparently on your advice. I would be grateful if you would kindly do so, with copies to all those directly and indirectly concerned.
Yours sincerely,
David G. Littman. NGO Representative: AWE and WUPJ — to the UN Office in Geneva
—————————————————————————————————————–
Encl. Verbatim joint oral statement as delivered on 6 March (AWE/WUPJ & written statement:
A/HRC/10/NGO/29:Defamation of Judaism & Jews by ISESCO (OIC): 60th UDHR Anniversarycc: H.E. Mr. Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi H.E. Ms. Nevanetham Pillay
President of the Human Rights Council High Commissioner for Human Rights
H. E. Mr. Marius Grinius Mr. Kyung-wha Kang
Permanent Representative of Canada to Deputy High Commissioner Human Rights
the United Nations Office in Geneva,* * * * *
Document 10: Letter (8 April) to UNESCO Assistant Director-General Ahmed Sayyad
ASSOCIATION FOR WORLD EDUCATION
Mr Ahmed Sayyad
Assistant Director-General
External Relations and Cooperation
UNESCO
7, Place de Fontenoy
75352 Paris 07 SP, FranceYour ref.: ERC/RPO/IGO/2009/029
8 April 2009
Re: Public Complaint on ISESCO books (12 January 2009)
Dear Mr Sayyad,
My colleagues and I wish to express our appreciation for your response on behalf of the Director-General to AWE”s Public Complaint of 12 January. We have taken note of your interest in this matter, the references you make to UNESCO”s Constitution, and that “the promotion of dialogue as a means of building peace is at the core of UNESCO”s mission”, as well as the other decisions mentioned and in particular Decision 174 EX/46, adopted in April 2006, which you kindly attached.
We chose to complain about two specific books published by ISESCO, the educational wing of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), since they were publicly displayed at an OIC full-day event at the Palais des Nations commemorating the 60th anniversary of the UDHR. This was, however, but one example of a plethora of such presentations regularly documented on the TV and in the press in the Middle East, that have been described as rampant Judeophobia by CNRS Director of Research Pierre-André Taguieff in three well-documented academic studies: La Nouvelle Judéophobia ; Prêcheurs de haine: Traversée de la judéophobie planétaire; L’Imaginaire du complot mondial: Aspects d’un mythe moderne. Other examples of this culture of hate in the media — reminiscent of Nazi times — are available as videos reproduced and translated into English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Hebrew on the websites of MEMRI (totalling over 230 hours), PMW and numerous others.
In order to bring this ISESCO matter directly to the attention of the international community and civil society, we submitted to the 10th session of the Human Rights Council, , a joint written NGO statement (AWE & WUPJ) entitled: Defamation of Judaism and Jews by ISESCO (OIC): 60th UDHR Anniversary at the UN (General Assembly document, A/HRC/10/NGO/29 — copied below)
This written statement was widely circulated at the 10th HRC. Our joint oral statement on 6 March 2009 (copied below), referring to these two books, quoted an article from ISESCO”s 2007 volume where the “President of the Jenine Information Centre, Jenine, State of Palestine” stated (pp. 252-76):
“Enemies of the Almighty: Jews are the enemies of Allah, the enemies of faith and of the worship of Allah”, after which he suggested: “It would also be beneficial to urge the United Nations Organisation and other affiliated organisations to discharge their duty in defending the lofty principles for which they were created.”
(pp. 253-54). These “affiliated organisations” presumably include UNESCO with its links to ISESCO.Furthermore, the Final Recommendations of the Proceedings of the Second International Conference appeal twice to UNESCO to unite with ISESCO in an overall plan of propagating its viewpoints. (§14, §16, p. 347)
Due to a controversial decision by the Chair of the HRC, our 6 March statement ended with:
Sir, ISESCO is the cultural wing of the OIC and its 56 UN Member States. Intended as a scholarly body, it should not publish such literature and display it at the United Nations, during an OIC commemoration of UDHR. A higher standard of moderation, avoiding incitement to religious hatred, is to be expected from an international body with close ties to UNESCO.
Although the HRC Chair and Secretary had our statement, our final paragraph could not be spoken:
Such grave matters can no longer be ignored here. It is high time for the international community to act firmly against the promotion of hate. We look to this Council — with its concern for defamation of religion — to lead the way during this 10th session.
As explained in our written statement NGO/29, §14 — details regarding the 25-year close collaboration between UNESCO and ISESCO were obtained from their respective websites:
In 2008, a programme of cooperation was signed for 2008-2009 between ISESCO Director General Dr Abdullaziz Othman Altwaijri and UNESCO Director General Mr Koïchiro Matsuura. At the 9th ISESCO-UNESCO Joint meeting in May 2006, mention was made of the framework of an official 1984 agreement signed between the two Organisations and their growing cooperation; Mr Matsuura expressed “great pleasure” at the growing cooperation with ISESCO, stating that past agreements are “producing important results.” He is also quoted as saying that: “Dialogue among Civilizations and respect for religion also forms an important part of the Organization’s work.” Reference is made also to the decision taken by the 174th Session of the Board on: “Respect for freedom of expression and respect for sacred beliefs and values and religious and cultural symbols.”
You indicate in your letter that the Executive Board of UNESCO adopted Decision 174 EX/46 in April 2006. The 9th ISESCO-UNESCO joint meeting, referred to above, took place in May 2006. The next year the 2nd International Conference on “Protection of Islamic and Christian Holy Sites in Palestine” (2004), held in Amman, Jordan was published by ISESCO, with hate passages such as: Enemies of the Almighty.
In note 15 of A/HRC/10/NGO/29, we refer to information on the ISESCO website (curiously no longer accessible and which may have been removed as a result of our Public Complaint of 12 January). (http://www.isesco.org.ma/english/DG/DG.php?page=/Home/Director%20General).
We also noted that:
With a budget of five billion [sic] dollars, the new cooperation programme will implement 128 activities covering the fields of education, science culture, communication, external relations and the national commissions (“¦) ISESCO and UNESCO also agreed to organize training sessions for the staff working in the National Commissions for Education, Science and Culture in the Member States.”
Our written statement ended with the following general appeal, (which was totally ignored at the Council, although the highly controversial resolution “combating defamation of religions” cosponsored by the OIC received the usual automatic majority vote):
We urgently call on all eminent dignitaries of the UN and UNESCO and to the 10th Session of the Human Rights Council to firmly condemn these blatant defamations of Judaism and the constant demonization of Jews, Zionists and Israelis in such ISESCO publications, as well as on radio, TV and websites. ISESCO — with its close ties to UNESCO — is a part of the OIC, representing 56 UN Member States. Intended as a scholarly body, ISESCO should never host such Conferences or publish such literature, and display it at the United Nations. A higher standard of moderation and an effort at historical accuracy on such matters is to be expected from this international body with close ties to UNESCO. This grave matter should no longer be ignored. It is time for the international community to act and the time is now at this HR Council.
You state, regarding UNESCO Decision 174 EX/46: “This decision which reaffirms strongly the exercise of freedom of expression in a spirit of mutual respect for religious beliefs and mutual understanding, is in line with the rights and obligations contained in the UDHR, as well as in the 1966 ICCPR.”
Clearly the statements cited above fall far short of “mutual respect for religious beliefs” and we are hereby appealing to the Director General of UNESCO to take up this matter with ISESCO & the OIC.
We hope to see such respect for religious beliefs being observed soon within ISESCO publications, as well as in programmes on the Middle East media notable for their rampant Judeophobia. UNESCO is well-placed to help end to this spreading cultural plague. We are therefore appealing once again to the Director General of UNESCO and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to use their influence with ISESCO and the OIC to bring to an end these egregious abuses.
Yours sincerely,
David G. Littman,
M.A. Historian
Representative to the United Nations Office in Geneva for the
Association for World Education and World Union for Progressive Judaismcc. Recipients of AWE”s “˜Public Complaint” (with documentation) of 12 Jan. 2009 (no replies yet):
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon; UN Director-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze,
UNHRC President Martin I. Uhomoibhi; UNHCHR Nevanethem Pillay* * * * *
These ten very detailed documents concerning my recent activities on behalf of AWE and WUPJ may provide a glimpse into the UN labyrinth of the Human Rights Council at the Geneva Kafakesque “˜Castle”.
“The time is out of joint”, as Hamlet said, and I am tempted “to set it right” with a quote from Churchill:
I have watched this famous island [the UN Council on Human Rights] descending incontinently, recklessly, the stairway which leads to a dark gulf. It is a fine broad stairway at the beginning, but, after a bit, the carpet ends. A little further on there are only flagstones, and, a little further still, these break beneath your feet. [Speech in the House of Commons, 24 March 1938]