HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES DEBATE ON RACISM, DURBAN DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION, DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS

The Council this afternoon concluded its general debate on racism and racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, taking up issues concerning follow up to the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the defamation of religions.

Delegates said there was a resurgence of racism, increasing Islamophobia and anti-Muslim feeling in particular, and emerging contemporary forms of racial intolerance. The exploitation of racism in politics had to stop, and the media also had to be more responsible. The Durban Review Conference would become an important milestone in the world’s joint fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. It should identify obstacles to further progress in combating racism, and look into contemporary forms of racism and ways to deal with them. The consensus-seeking approach should continue during the preparatory process. Constructive dialogue in an open and mutually respectful atmosphere was a necessary prerequisite for harmonious coexistence.

Other speakers raised a range of points: the post-9/11 rise of Islamophobia; the legal and social issues of how to handle defamation of religions, including under Special Procedures; the need for joint international action against racism; the significance of the Durban Review Conference; and issues of wider discrimination against minorities, including the caste system in India.

Najat Al-Hajjaji, Chairperson of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference, in concluding remarks, said the Review Conference would provide very valuable tools to tackle new forms of racism. Attacks on Islam had shown the importance of education to deal effectively with racism. Democracy and racism were contradictory notions. It was important to continue to listen to non-governmental organizations and victims of racism, and much remained to be done in the lead-up to the Durban Review Conference. She hoped that the actual spirit of consensus and harmony continued to prevail until the next meeting.

Juan Martabit, President-Rapporteur of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, in concluding remarks, said the theme of compliance with the Durban process was deeply rooted in international thought, and had an agenda which was affecting not only development, but also situations that could undermine peace, stability, harmony and co-existence, all of which elements should be present if human beings were to all enjoy human rights. The Human Rights Council should open up possibilities for frank and constructive dialogue on issues related to culture, civilisation and religion. The Human Rights Council was the best place for such a dialogue.

Kyung–wha Kang, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said there had been constructive suggestions regarding the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ work in this area. She thanked Ambassadors Al-Hajjaji and Martabit for their roles in the process. As the High Commissioner noted in her address to the Non-Aligned Movement at an earlier date, no culture or school of thought stood above the rights to all freedoms, including those of belief and religion, and the Office would work hard in pursuit of the goals established under the fight against racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance.

Speaking in the general debate were the representatives of Azerbaijan, Italy, Russian Federation, Switzerland, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Senegal, China, Mexico, Peru, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Malaysia, Senegal, China, Mexico, Peru, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Republic of Korea, Turkey, Rwanda, Morocco, Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea, Algeria, Tunisia, Panama, Norway, Argentina and Venezuela.

Also speaking were representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (speaking on behalf of several NGOs1); International Humanist and Ethical Union (speaking on behalf of Association for World Education; World Union for Progressive Judaism; and Association of World Citizens); Fraternite Notre Dame; Japan Fellowship of Reconciliation; International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism; European Union of Public Relations; International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations; International Human Rights Association of American Minorities; Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l'antisemitisme; World Muslim Congress; International Association of Democratic Lawyers; World Circle of the Consensus; International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (speaking on behalf of Organization for Defending Victims of Violence); Interfaith International; World Population Foundation; World Union for Progressive Judaism (speaking on behalf of Association for World Education); European Centre for Law and Justice; and Action Canada for Population and Development (speaking on behalf of Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era and International Alliance of Women).

Speaking in right of reply were the representatives of Japan, Sri Lanka and the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea.

The Human Rights Council will resume its work on Wednesday, 26 September at 10 a.m. to hear a presentation of the report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and to hold an interactive dialogue with him.

General Debate on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

SEYMUR MARDALIYEV (Azerbaijan) said Azerbaijan was deeply concerned over the growing and alarming tendency worldwide of incidents of intolerance and discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. These alarming phenomena continued to lead, in particular, to increasing instances of Islamophobia and stereotyping of Muslims. There was an urgent need to develop cooperative and effective methods of combating defamation of religions. Inter-religious and intra-religious dialogue was crucial for the prevention of intolerance and discrimination, and for promoting respect for religions and beliefs. The minimum prerequisite for harmonious coexistence was that different civilisations and traditions recognised and mutually respected each other’s cultural differences. There was a need for an approach that understood the importance to preserve and respect differences as enriching elements, rather than abandoning them to create fertile ground for enmity and hatred. A strong and unequivocal message should be sent by the Council against religious and racial hatred.

ROBERTO VELLANO (Italy) said the issue of dialogue among cultures and civilizations was among the most important and yet most challenging issues the Council had to address. Italy welcomed contributions toward a constructive dialogue in an open and mutually respectful atmosphere, and looked forward to a high-level panel or round-table dialogue within the Council on the racism issue. Inter- and intra-religious dialogue was already integrated into the United Nations and other regional or inter-regional frameworks. Italy was committed to supporting measures aimed at fostering tolerance and respect. Such respect stemmed from knowledge of history, traditions and cultural roots.

NATALIA ZOLOTOVA (Russian Federation) said that the fight against racism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination had traditionally been viewed as a priority in human rights by Russia. Nowadays, a resurgence of racism, taking new forms, was noted. Governments did not always have appropriate answers. It was a threat to democracy. The Durban Review Conference was welcomed. It was expected that the High Commissioner would take an active part in the Conference. The participation of victims and non-governmental organizations was important. It was only through joint efforts that the international community would be able to work to counter these topics.

ANH THU DUONG (Switzerland) said Switzerland was, like many other countries, facing certain trends with regards to globalization which could give rise to a climate of tension, and thus encourage racist and discriminatory attitudes. Switzerland had been involved in the negotiations leading to the Durban Conference in 2001, and would continue to be implicated in the Durban Review Conference. It hoped the very substantial decisions adopted during the Preparatory Committee meetings would be adopted during the Review Conference. At the national level, Switzerland had adopted a number of measures aimed at implementing the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action. Switzerland wished to learn and share best practices with other countries with regards to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the Working Group had made significant progress and would make a substantive input into the Durban Conference. The OIC appreciated also the work of the High Commissioner and the African Group in the process. The OIC assured its continued support through the preparatory report that would lead to a meaningful Conference. The Durban Conference should also look into contemporary forms of racism and ways to deal with them. It must deal with Islamophobia and other structural forms of racism. Sufficient budgetary allocations must be provided and contributions from all Special Procedures were needed to enhance the preparatory process. Well-coordinated regional and national initiatives should also provide valuable input. The Anti-Discrimination Unit at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be given a higher profile and improved resources. The OIC supported the Ad Hoc Committee in full and hoped new normative standards would be developed to combat racism.

IDHAM MUSA MOKTAR (Malaysia), said racism was abhorrent not only on its own but also as a root cause of more egregious violations such as genocide and ethnic cleansing. The Review Conference would take place as the world was witnessing rising incidences of racist violence and intolerance. Malaysia was dismayed to see how the aftermath of September 11 had had a negative impact on attempts to combat racism. The events provoked anti-Muslim and anti-Arab reaction, racial profiling and defamation of Islam. The media had an important role to play, especially on issues of religion, in channeling information so as to promote a fair and balanced representation. Malaysia believed governments could do more to combat racism and intolerance. Inclusiveness was at the heart of any such efforts.

MOUSSA BOCAR LY (Senegal) said Senegal was concerned about the tendency to legitimize racism. Despite the Durban commitments, persons of African descent and migrants were still the object of discriminatory practices. This tendency must be reversed more than ever in order to obtain results, if it was truly wished to show that human beings belonged together. Everything had to be done in order to ensure that the Review Conference was successful. Combating discrimination was worthy of support. The international community should deal with discrimination by inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue. It was urgent to strengthen political will to combat defamation of religions and to ensure inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue.

KE YOUSHENG (China) said the Preparatory Committee had adopted decisions by consensus during its meeting, and this established a good basis for the Review Conference. Six years had passed since the Durban Conference, and yet the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action had yet to be implemented. New forms of racism had cropped up. The Review Conference would therefore become another important milestone in the world’s joint fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Focus should be on follow-up and effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action. The organisational meeting had decided on the means of financing the preparatory process, and it was hoped this would be effectively implemented. However, much remained to be done before 2009, and all should work together constructively with this aim.

ELIA SOSA (Mexico) said the Intergovernmental Working Group had made important contributions to tackling the issue of racism in relation to health, education, poverty and other social-economic areas. It had also worked to analyse complementary standards on racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, to be taken up again shortly by the Ad Hoc Committee. Within the Durban framework, it would be up to the Working Group to make a substantial contribution, which could be attained by taking up and strengthening the recommendations and conclusions of the Working Group in its five years of work. The search for common solutions was central to Ambassador Martabit’s approach and it was hoped the search would continue on the same consensus-seeking lines.

CARLOS CHOCANO (Peru) said that the fight against racism, discrimination, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance was of particular importance for Peru, a country which was characterized by an ethnic and multicultural variety. The delegation of Peru had actively participated in the work of the Working Group and was convinced that the future work had to be carried out on the basis of a balanced agenda, reflecting the interests of all regions.

NESTOR CRUZ TORUÑO (Nicaragua) said it was important to continue the process of review of the Durban Conference. Nicaragua hoped the Review Conference would accomplish the objectives of analysing the recent signs of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and would make progress with regard to implementing the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action, including an exchange of national and regional experiences and best practices in order to combat these violations. There was a need to create an atmosphere of tolerance in a world including a wide number of religions and beliefs. Nicaragua intended to criminalize religious discrimination. The work of the Working Group and its efforts towards consensus should be preserved and emulated at the Review Conference but also within the Council.

BENNY SIAHAAN (Indonesia) said good results had been achieved on procedure and objectives for the Durban Conference. There had been positive, consensual outcomes. The Conference should also serve to encourage ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and should become a forum of exchange on good practice. On the defamation of religions, Indonesia agreed that underlying causes of religious discrimination were ignorance and lack of respect for diversity. Accusations and name-calling should stop and dialogue, political will and cooperation should increase.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action had been historic and had provided necessary guidelines. Yet racism was still existent, with new forms appearing. States should show the political will to take action to combat those issues. The publishing of cartoons was not contributing to a spirit of freedom between all nations. The international community should identify gaps in international law. The exploitation of racism in politics had to stop. The media also had to be more responsible. The exploitation of the freedom of expression argument to the detriment of other rights was wrong. Bangladesh looked forward to the forthcoming Durban Review Conference.

DONG-HEE CHANG (Republic of Korea) said the Republic of Korea was concerned that the scourge of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance was growingly affecting not only human rights but also the stability of the international community, and causing unnecessary confrontation among the Member States of the Council. The Working Group should lend its continued contribution to finding a way of uprooting such a tenacious phenomenon. It should hammer out concrete and meaningful outcomes, while providing the impetus for further actions, initiatives and practical solutions to eliminate every kind of racism in the world. The Review Conference would offer a good opportunity for soul-searching on trials and errors in struggling to fulfil the promises of Durban, and should identify obstacles to further progress in combating racism, as well as bolstering the gains already achieved. It would be problematic to reconcile the notion of defamation with the concept of discrimination. However, the negative effect of contemporary intolerance among religions deserved the concern of the Council.

AHMET UZUMCU (Turkey) said racism was gaining ground in several countries due to hostile political platforms. Migrant communities were targets for discrimination and xenophobia, and religious identity was becoming a major component in identifying “the other”. Adoption by consensus of the objectives of the Review Conference had been an important step forward. An open-minded and constructive approach was necessary. Turkey also welcomed the consensual outcome of the intergovernmental Working Group’s fifth session. Additional mechanisms should be created only after all existing ones established by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had been fully explored.

VENETIA SEBUDANDI (Rwanda) said that the Durban Declaration had demonstrated the commitment of the international community to combat racism in all its forms and manifestations. Rwanda fully supported the values represented in it and was actively involved in its implementation. The Declaration had clearly shown that genocide was an extreme manifestation of racism, discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The justification of genocide and revisionism were also serious cases of racial discrimination and defamation of the victims. Not all States were cooperating with the International Tribunal for Rwanda in Tanzania and there were serious gaps that needed to be addressed.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said in accordance with the decisions adopted by the Working Group, the Preparatory Conference and the Council, the Review Conference would contribute to the universal quest against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The Conference should examine and evaluate the progress achieved in the implementation of the Durban Declaration and the Plan of Action, whilst playing particular attention to new manifestations of racism and intolerance. It was hoped that the same spirit of cooperation and compromise would reign during the Conference as it did in the Working Group, as this would have a positive effect on efforts aiming to eliminate all forms of racism and racial discrimination. There was a continuing trend to make manifestations and acts of defamation of religion seem commonplace, especially those against Islam, and the international community should deal promptly and energetically against these manifestations.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea) said racism was still rampant, and had multiplied into modern manifestations including defamation of religion and Islamophobia. In the lead-up to the Durban Conference the international community had recognized the need for compensation for racist practices, colonialism and crimes committed out of so-called “racial superiority” in the past. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had suffered under Japanese military occupation for decades. This criminal past had not been resolved, and today there was discrimination in Japan against Koreans, including violence and arrests. All races in the world had a right to have their diversity respected.

MOHAMMED BESSEDIK (Algeria) said Algeria welcomed the launching of preparations for the Durban Review Conference. It hoped that this process would produce positive results, especially in light of the developments since September 11. Algeria also hoped that the spirit of open mindedness seen in the Preparatory Conference would continue. The need to mobilize sufficient funds was underscored. The fact that the High Commissioner would be the head of the Review Conference was welcomed. The Durban Declaration constituted an appropriate form to counter the roots of racism, discrimination, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance. New measures should be adopted for new forms of racism. The anti-Semitism against Arabs was now a clear fact and not only a rumour as stated by the High Commissioner.

SAMIR LABIDI (Tunisia) said Tunisia was satisfied at the results achieved at the Preparatory Conference for the Durban Review Conference. All should work together to ensure that the best possible conditions were established for the Conference, by mobilising all actors, at the national and international levels, and by assessing the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action, and analysing the new manifestations of racism and racial discrimination. Islamophobia and its adverse consequences with regards to discrimination was a new reality which obliged the international community to shoulder its responsibilities fully. There should be shared denunciation of this phenomenon, and there should be joint strategies promoting tolerance and dialogue between religions, cultures and civilisations.

LUZ LESCURE (Panama) said Panama was multi-cultural and multi-ethnic. Respect for diversity was a priority in a country inhabited by descendents of nine different ethnic groups, all working together towards development in peace and under a modern legal system. Panama was currently working to widen the Panama Canal and the arrival of workers from around the world would hopefully increase and enrich the cultural diversity of Panama. Durban proposals were vital in the development of human society and future coexistence of the human species.

VEBJORN HEINES (Norway) said that in their view it was due to the excellent work of the Chairperson as well as the Facilitator that they had been able to reach consensus on concrete, realistic and constructive decisions during the organisational sessions of the Durban Preparatory Conference. Norway was fully committed to the fight against racism and intolerance as well as the follow-up of the decisions made in Durban. Norway would therefore continue to participate in the preparations for the Review Conference. A common approach was needed to fight against racism and intolerance. The Durban review process had created high expectations. It was a joint responsibility to meet these expectations through innovative approaches and a transparent process.

SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) said Argentina had done major work internationally and internally on the follow-up to the Durban Conference. It planned to continue to promote consensus-based decisions, as they took place during the Preparatory Committee meeting. Argentina had a National Plan against Discrimination, which contained diagnostic tools to diagnose discrimination, based on three pillars: racism, poverty and social exclusion, and the situation of society.

ENZO BITETTO GAVILANES (Venezuela) said the right to religious freedom was central to the Constitution of Venezuela. Eradication of all forms of intolerance was fundamental and States should guarantee adequate protection for freedom of thought and conscience and particularly should offer remedies for situations where violations of these freedoms occurred. The delegation of Venezuela fully shared the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism Doudou Diene to the effect that the Human Rights Council should make room to discuss these themes and stimulate Member States to work towards application of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

GIULIA CHIARA, of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, said that the spirit of cooperation that had guided the work of the Preparatory Committee was welcomed. The Durban agreements contained a profound analysis of the roots of racism and constituted an important step forward. Governments had committed to take concrete steps, however in the past few years they had seen new and extremely violent manifestations of racial discrimination. This had to be addressed. It was also important to include victims of racism in the preparations for the Conference and to ensure their participation. There was a need to mobilize public opinion.

ROY W. BROWN, of International Humanist and Ethical Union, speaking on behalf of Association for World Education; World Union for Progressive Judaism; and Association of World Citizens, said the report on Islamophobia by the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism was seriously flawed in three important respects - he failed to distinguish between Islamophobia and legitimate concerns regarding the rise of Islamic extremism; he failed to recognise the important differences that existed between the Islamic and modern European worldviews; and he failed to distinguish between opposition to Islamic extremism and hostility towards Muslims. It was regrettable that he also failed to address in any meaningful way the contribution of Islamic extremism to the rise of religious confrontation in Europe.

SABINE LEGRAND, of Fraternite Notre Dame, said Fraternité Notre Dame deplored the growing atmosphere of intolerance in France. Deceitful press campaigns, phone calls to the media, and other acts aimed at slandering the Fraternité were a sad testament to this. The plight of spiritual minorities in Europe deserved the Council’s attention.

SUMIE OGASAWARA, of Japan Fellowship of Reconciliation, noted the Special Rapporteur’s warning about a hierarchisation of discrimination against different religions. It had been the hierarchy by the Japanese Emperor that had made possible the enslavement of Korean women by the Japanese military. Issues such as official apology and compensation had still not been settled, as noted by the Special Rapporteur. The Japanese Government was urged to make a formal apology to the victims.

GEORGIA STEVENS, of International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism, said the efforts made towards preparing for the Durban Review Conference were welcome. The Durban Declaration represented the commitments arising from the complex global dialogue which had taken place. The Plan of Action was a road map illustrating how the international community should follow up on the commitments made therein. The Durban Plan of Action was both historic and forward-looking. The Durban Conference also brought to light new and other forms of discrimination.

REFEQUAT ALI KHAN, of European Union for Public Relations, said the scourge of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia was widespread, and since 9/11 new forms of religious discrimination had been added to the mix. Islamophobia was not merely a consequence of 9/11 but a reaction to the aggressive assertion of identity that had been expressed by groups who had hijacked the issue of identity and justified violence in its name. Even today some in the Muslim world expressed admiration for Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Member States should demonstrate firm political will to combat the rise of racial and religious hatred.

FRANCESCA GIANNOTTI, of International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, said that the current and last report on racism, discrimination, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance highlighted the importance of addressing the core issues. It was hoped that States would apply the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations. In India, the lower castes continued to face discrimination. Muslims were underrepresented in the Indian Government. The lowest castes continued to be deprived of their economic rights and were forced to work without remuneration. Their social rights were virtually non-existent. The Human Rights Council and the Special Rapporteur should look into this grave situation.

ALTAF HUSSEIN WANI, of International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said the World Conference had led the international community to believe that sooner, not later, the world would witness positive developments against racial discrimination. The need for joint international action against racism had rarely been as urgent as it was today. Unfortunately, progress so far was not encouraging. The conditions of those suffering from racism and racial discrimination had rather deteriorated over the past years. The Council should accord utmost importance in the agenda for the elimination of race-based discrimination and hatred, and implement policies and programmes that promoted social, cultural and racial harmony.

NICOLAS CAPT, of Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l'antisemitisme, said the League was worried about the scope of the Resolution and the problem of incitement to hatred. Mr. Diène’s report focused on anti-Muslim discrimination. Racism in fact affected all minorities. The League said it was unacceptable for States to affirm the principle of secularism and to conflate rights with religion or race among certain minorities. Repeated attacks against freedom of expression were a throwback to the Inquisition.

SHAGUFTA ASHRAF, of World Muslim Congress, said that fighting racism had become a challenge. There was a need for joint international action against it. People suffered from it. The rights guaranteed under international laws were being infringed upon. It was unpleasant that it continued in certain parts of the world, like the caste system in India. The social rights of the lower castes were non-existent. The Human Rights Council should take concrete measures to end racism in this modern world.

RAYMOND MERAT, of International Association of Democratic Lawyers, said it was historically known that the Durban Declaration affirmed that ethnic minorities should be treated equally and should enjoy their human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination of any kind, and its Plan of Action urged States to ensure this within their jurisdiction. A large number of Koreans living in Japan were today suffering from discrimination. It was sufficiently important for the Council to ask one of its Special Procedures to check these facts, and bring them to the attention of the Council.

GRASS ROSWITHA, of World Circle of the Consensus, said she wished to share a message of hope: a Group of Sages, Maietrya and the Masters of Wisdom, were ready to help. They could not come and interfere with our freewill, so they must be invited. Let us expand our consciousness and open our hearts and let love flow and fear diminish. They can lead us to a world where sharing, joy, peace and justice and harmony will reign.

ROSA VALERIO, of International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, speaking on behalf of Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, said that manifestations of xenophobia were a continuous problem. It was surprising and depressing to see the resurfacing of old forms of racism such as anti-Semitism together with the surfacing of new ones such Islamophobia. Also, new forms of racism that arose since 9-11 should be taken into account in the next Durban Conference.

VISUVALINGHAM KIRUPATARAN, of Interfaith International, said the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action was an eye opener for any society which was knowingly or unknowingly practicing racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia. The economic, social and cultural rights of the people were denied, violated, and the people became marginalized on the grounds of protection of national identity. Systematic discriminatory legislation had proved that racism and xenophobia existed in Sri Lanka. All participants in the Council should take cognisance of these facts, and all should respect their commitment to the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action.

ROY W. BROWN, of World Population Foundation, said the Foundation often encountered opposition from religious leaders when working to improve reproductive health rights. In Africa there were religiously-inspired campaigns for AIDS prevention promoting abstinence in circumstances where it was simply not an option for many young girls. As the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had said, human rights must take precedence over religious principles.


DAVID LITTMAN, of World Union for Progressive Judaism, speaking on behalf of Association for World Education, said that the Special Rapporteur’s report on racism had numerous omissions in one major field. He had referred only very briefly to anti-Semitism and Christianophobia. As Iran’s President prepared to address the UN’s General Assembly today, his statements denying the holocaust should be recalled. Surprisingly, no State had invoked the Genocide Convention. Even the UN Charter article condemning threats against Member States had also been forgotten by all. The time for words of concern and warnings were past; it was time for urgent action.

TERRENCE MC KEEGAN, of European Center for Law and Justice, said the issue of defamation of religion belonged under the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. Defamation of religions could offend people, but did not necessarily result in a violation of their rights, including the freedom of religion. Under international law, the standard for determining incitement to hatred or violence had been an objective one, but this was often no longer the case. Violence from any group was never justified, and no State or individual was justified in condoning it. States should take particular care that they did not endorse statements that had no critical assessment. The Council should transfer the issue of defamation to the appropriate mandate, and address it under the appropriate international law on religious freedom.

SANDEEP PRASAD, of Action Canada for Population and Development, speaking on behalf of Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era and International Alliance of Women, said a draft inter-American Convention on Racism was in preparation at the initiative of Brazil. This recalled the need expressed in Durban to eliminate racism and racial discrimination to permit societies to develop and exercise their human rights. Discrimination could impact at many levels: race, religion, sexual orientation, cultural situation, level of education, living standard, status as refugee, health or other factor. The vast majority of Latin-American and Caribbean States were supportive of the draft. Its vast range reflected the complexity of the discrimination issue.

Concluding Remarks

NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI, Chairperson of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference, in concluding comments, noted that the delegations had all expressed their satisfaction with the results of the first session of the Preparatory Committee and had welcomed the spirit of consensus that had prevailed. This should continue to prevail during the next two sessions. The Review Conference would provide very valuable tools to tackle new forms of racism. Regarding Islamophobia and religion-phobia, attacks on Islam had stressed the importance of education to deal effectively with racism. Education was of supreme importance in curbing this. Democracy and racism were contradictory. Democracy should call for respect. The statements made by delegations recalling the importance of the implementation of the goals were welcomed. It was important to continue to listen to non-governmental organizations and victims of racism. Much remained to be done until the Durban Review Conference. It was hoped that the actual spirit of consensus and harmony continued to prevail until the next meeting.

JUAN MARTABIT, Chairman of the Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, said he wished to express his thanks for the very kind comments made by various delegations, and for their support. The success of the Group was due to the Group itself - it had excellent diplomats in it, and was willing to work, which was worthy of acknowledgement. This also encouraged the Working Group to continue with the important work before it.

All should devote themselves to the process leading to the Review Conference. The theme of compliance with the Durban process was deeply rooted in international thought today, and had an agenda which was affecting not only development, but also situations that could undermine peace, stability, harmony and co-existence, all of which elements should be present if human beings were to all enjoy human rights.

If the international community set itself the collective task of reaching the Review Conference in 2009 with an additional Protocol on education to combat racism, or to build constructively a fairer world, then a substantial contribution to the process would be made. The Human Rights Council should open up possibilities for frank and constructive dialogue on issues related to culture, civilisation and religion. It seemed that it could not deal with such issues in a politicised environment - and thus the Human Rights Council was the best place for such a dialogue, and it should hold it systematically, in good faith, as this would allow it to draw some conclusions which would ultimately cover the broad range of human rights.

KYUNG-WHA KANG, Deputy High Commissioner of Human Rights, said there had been constructive suggestions regarding the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ work in this area. She thanked Ambassadors Al-Hajjaji and Martabit for their roles in the process. As the High Commissioner noted in her address to the Non-Aligned Movement at an earlier date, no culture or school of thought stood above the rights to all freedoms, including those of belief and religion, and the Office would work hard in pursuit of the goals established under the fight against racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance.

Right of Reply

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan), speaking in a right of reply concerning the statement by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said that their allegations were unfounded. Japan had been ordering equality before the law without discrimination against all the people residing in Japan in accordance to its Constitution. It had acceded to international human rights institutions and conventions. Japan was fully implementing all obligations under all the conventions and hoped that countries who were not members would join these treaties, including the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

RAJIVA WIJESINHA (Sri Lanka), speaking in a right of reply, said the Government of Sri Lanka regretted as much as did the representative of Interfaith International the paucity of Tamils in the armed forces and high positions in Government in Sri Lanka, but thought that it should be made clear that much of this arose from a form of intolerance practiced by the Tigers. The former Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka, a Tamil, was killed precisely because he participated in the democratic process, as had been other high-ranking Tamils. It was important to recognise that the Government tried to be pluralistic, but the efforts of Tamil Tigers had reduced the participation of Tamils in the Government and in the army over recent years. There was tremendous pressure on minorities by the Tigers not to join the police and the army. The world should realise that the attempts of the Government to move towards pluralism were stymied by attacks by the Tigers on those Tamils who were trying to participate fully in the democratic process. The representative of the NGO was being disingenuous in suggesting that it was the Government’s fault rather than the Tigers, as these latter tolerated no opposition to their position.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said his delegation rejected the Japanese allegations. Japan had committed crimes against humanity during the 40-year occupation of Korea. Added to this was the oppression and discrimination against Koreans living in Japan today. Again he urged Japan to address the human rights violations against Koreans now living in Japan.

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan), speaking in a second right of reply, said that he did not think he needed to repeat himself. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s statement was unacceptable and wrong. Japan had stated in the past that it was ready to address these issues as part of the normalization of their talks. It was hoped that they would come to an agreement and that they did not need to discuss this matter in this Council.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in a second right of reply, said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea categorically rejected the Japanese allegations, and was concerned about the intention of Japan to hoodwink the international community, and to not settle its past actions. The crimes against humanity committed by Japan during the occupation of Korea were evidence of its avoidance of admitting its wrongdoing. The Committee on the Rights of the Child had strongly criticised the unequal treatment of Korean high-school students in Japan. Japan should stop all discrimination and unequal treatment of Koreans in Japan, and settle all past crimes.

_______

1Joint statement on behalf of: Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; Indian Council of South America; International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations; North-South XXI; Interfaith International; English International Association of Lund; International Educational Development; Pan Pacific and South East Asia Women's Association; Worldwide Organization for Women; Asian Legal Resource Centre; Reporters Without Borders - International; International Committee for the Respect and the Application of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights; Femmes Africa Solidarite; Association of World Citizens; Union of Arab Jurists; Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association; International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples; World Young Women's Christian Association; Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights; International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism; International Federation of University Women; International Alliance of Women; International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination; International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic & Other Minorities; International Union of Socialist Youth; Colombian Commission of Jurists; Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network; and World Alliance of Young Men's Christian Association.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC07067E