I have been a "card-carrying" ACLU member since 2000, which is basically all of my adult life. I take the First Amendment extremely seriously. I especially think that the defense of our liberty from encroaching right-wing theocracy is of the utmost importance.
So suffice it to say that I consider the work that the ACLU does in challenging the theocrats and the civil rights violators in court to be invaluable. I've donated at one of the standard membership levels ever year. However this year might be different.
The reason is that they have stepped on another issue that is extremely important to me. The ACLU criticized the US government for boycotting events surrounding the 10th Anniversary of the UN World Conference on Racism, also known as the "Durban III" conference.
From the ACLU statement:
The absence of the United States in today’s proceedings is disappointing; it contradicts the administration’s stated position to push for positive models to advance human rights, and sends the wrong message to the global community regarding the U.S. commitment to fight racial injustice everywhere.
The US government indeed boycotted Durban III - along with Canada, Australia, UK, Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Poland. And why was this so?
-------------------
The Durban I Conference, held in 2001, and Durban II conference, held in 2009, were both hijacked by extreme anti-Israel elements and became a circus-like atmosphere with stunning displays of antisemitism.
At Durban I, the major diplomatic fight was over the draft statement containing six paragraphs about "Zionist racist practices". The stalemate caused the US and Israeli delegations to leave, and the offending text was actually removed from the resolution. However, the events associated with a parallel NGO conference were a circus:
The Forum's proceedings were highly disorganized, with several NGO delegates walking out of the Forum, to the jeers of other delegates, and ending in discord; and the resultant declaration had 62 paragraphs of introduction, followed by a document that appeared to commentators as being the result of every lobby putting its pet aversions in. It described Israel as a "racist, apartheid state" that was guilty of "racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing". The document was not intended to be presented to the Conference, although a copy of it was intended to be handed over, as a symbolic gesture, to the Conference secretary-general, Mary Robinson, at the conclusion of the Forum. Ms Robinson refused to accept the document, citing concerns over its language. In a later interview she said of the whole conference that "there was horrible anti-Semitism present — particularly in some of the NGO discussions. A number people said they've never been so hurt or so harassed or been so blatantly faced with an anti-Semitism." The Palestinian Solidarity Committee of South Africa reportedly distributed copies of the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Adding to the atmosphere of antisemitism:
On the grounds of the U.N. conference itself, the Arab Lawyers Union distributed pamphlets filled with grotesque caricatures of hook-nosed Jews depicted as Nazis, spearing Palestinian children, dripping blood from their fangs, with missiles bulging from their eyes or with pots of money nearby. Attempts to have the group's U.N. accreditation revoked were refused.
Under the tent where the final NGO declaration was approved over the weekend ... fliers were found with a photo of Hitler and the following question: "What if Hitler had won? There would be no Israel, and no Palestinian bloodshed."
In a Palestinian-led march with thousands of participants, a placard was held aloft that read "Hitler Should Have Finished the Job." Nearby, someone was selling the most notorious of anti-Jewish tracts, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
Due to the failures of Durban I, the Durban II conference was boycotted by most of the Western nations, which allowed various tin pot dictators to run amok. The Iranian president was up to his usual tricks:
Ahmadinejad, the only head of state to attend, made a speech condemning Israel as "totally racist" and accusing the West of using the Holocaust as a "pretext" for aggression against Palestinians. The distributed English version of the speech referred to the Holocaust as an "ambiguous and dubious question".
Durban II was also used by Islamic nations to promote an addendum that criticizing a religion would be considered a form of hate speech.
----------------------
Ok, so I review the sordid history here to make the case for why I think the US (and other nations) were right to stay the hell away from Durban III. Why would the ACLU criticize the US government for doing so? Why would the ACLU not support the US government's non-attendance? To me, this ACLU statement is pretty outlandish. And even if in some alternate reality the Durban conference was legitimate and productive, what does it have to do with the ACLU's mission to protect civil liberties in the US?
I was on the verge of tearing up my membership card right there, but a cooler head prevailed and I wrote the following e-mail seeking more information:
Hello,
I have been a card carrying ACLU member since 2000. Today I was surprised and terribly disappointed to read about the ACLU's particpation at a UN meeting commemorating the Durban Conference on racism.
As you are probably aware, the Durban conference was largely hijacked by disgusting, brazen antisemitism from some of the world's worst regimes. That is why the US, Canada, and most other Western nations are boycotting Durban III.
Why would the ACLU criticize the US government for not participating in a forum commemorating Durban? Durban became a sham and a mockery, and the US, and other Western nations, are right to boycott it.
I would really appreciate a further explanation as to why the ACLU chose to take part in this forum in the first place and criticize the US government for not taking part. Did the ACLU consider the objections to the Durban conference? Is there a different, more official forum where I could register my concerns?
Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxx, CA
That was last week and I haven't heard anything back.
So what does this mean? Is this something I should drop my ACLU membership over? I know that people can't agree on every single issue with an advocacy organization, but not enabling antisemitism is pretty important to me. Not to mention the possibility of a declaration that criticizing a religion would be considered a form of hate speech would be anathema to everything the ACLU stands for.
But then there's stuff like this that show why I need the ACLU. What do you think?