such as the British National Party in the UK or the Ku Klux Klan in America. It would spell the end for media organisations that perpetuate ideas of immigration based on skin colour. The Daily Mail, The Sun, and many UK newspapers would struggle to fill their newspapers which often publish anti-immigrant stories.
It would spell the end for politicians and political parties who use immigration as an excuse for society’s problems. It would be the end of police racist stop and search. The end of newspapers highlighting crimes based on race.
It would spell the end of irrational nationalism, and the ideas that other people are foreigners to a country, on an earth which belongs to us all. No more census forms based on race and religion. No more alarming statistics about the birth rates of non whites.
The aims and potential effects of this Resolution I believe are numerous and revolutionary.
Despite all this however, Carla Stea said in her article that America, Britain and Europe voted against this Resolution on December 19, 2011.
John F. Sammis, the United States Deputy Representative to The United Nations Economic and Social Council, explained in a statement on November 17, 2011, why America would not be voting in favour of the UN Resolution. He said:
“The United States supports many elements of this resolution. We join other members of the Third Committee in expressing revulsion at any attempt to glorify or otherwise promote Nazi ideology. The United States has been a strong supporter of the UN’s efforts to remember the Holocaust and has a deep commitment to honoring the memory of the millions of lives lost. We also condemn without reservation all forms of religious intolerance or hatred.”
“We remain concerned, however, that the resolution fails again this year to distinguish between actions and statements that, while offensive, should be protected by freedom of expression, and criminal actions motivated by bias that should always be prohibited. The United States shares the concern expressed in this resolution regarding increases in the number of racist incidents expressed in any medium or forum, including on the Internet.”
“However, we do not consider curtailing expression to be an appropriate or effective means of combating racism and related intolerance. Rather, it is our firm conviction, as reflected in the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States, that individual freedoms of speech, expression and association should be robustly protected, even when the ideas represented by such expression are full of hatred. It is for this reason that the United States has taken a reservation to Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. We remain convinced of the need for this reservation.”
“In a free society hateful ideas will fail on account of their own intrinsic lack of merit. The best antidote to intolerance is not criminalizing offensive speech but rather a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and freedom of expression.”
Note, that Sammis mentions in the last paragraph that in a free society hateful ideas will fail on their own account because of their lack of merit. Is this the reason why the UN Resolution points to an increase in racism and Nazi ideals? Is that the reason why the UN Resolution highlights the disturbing trend of Nazi glorification because these ideas have failed and lack merit? Clearly there is a huge contradiction in America’s position and the reality on the ground.
Carla Stea mentioned in her article how America and Europe harboured Nazi criminals after World War II, contrary to what has been widely taught in schools, colleges and universities. America provided a safe haven for Nazi criminals and even worked with them.
Stea believes that some of the grandchildren of Nazi war criminals who were given refuge in Europe, may well have been indoctrinated with Nazi ideology, and she believes that thi