I have previously been an enthusiastic financial supporter of the ACLU, and all I've asked for all along is an explanation of their position and decision to participate in and endorse Durban III.
I want to know what such a meeting of the words most odious dictators to engage in an orgy of Holocaust denial and Israel bashing has to do with protecting the First Amendment, free speech, and religious freedom in America.
It's that simple, and my requests have been polite and information seeking. I have made it clear that I am ready to resume contributing to the ACLU if they would simply respond to my concerns. But no response has been forthcoming. So, below I paste the letter that I mailed two months ago, for all to see:
Dear Sirs,
In regard to my membership renewal (member #xxxxxx) I am writing now with a second inquiry about an issue that is very important to me. My first inquiry, which was via e-mail and which was acknowledged as received (ticket# xxxxxxxxx), was never met with a reply.
I have been a "card carrying" ACLU member since 2000. However, a recent posting on the ACLU's blog made me very concerned that the organization may be straying from its mission of protecting civil liberties into unrelated advocacy that I do not support.
The issue I am concerned about is the ACLU's participation at a UN meeting commemorating the Durban Conferences on racism, known as Durban I and II. As many people are aware, the Durban I Conference was largely hijacked by disgusting, brazen antisemitism from some of the world's worst regimes and non-governmental organizations. Durban II offered a platform for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deny the and minimize the Nazi Holocaust. That, along with the refusal of the conference to acknowledge the Arab slave trade which wreaked havoc on Africa for centuries, is why the US, Canada, and most other Western nations boycotted Durban III.
Why would the ACLU criticize the US government for not participating in a forum commemorating Durban? Durban I and II became a sham and a mockery, and the US, and other Western nations, are right to boycott the commemoration.
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. I am open to feeling differently about this issue, but my previous inquiry was never answered.
Did the ACLU consider the objections to the Durban conference? And, more importantly, what does the Durban commemoration meeting have to do with the ACLU's mission of protecting civil liberties? I am not seeing how Durban is a free speech issue in any way. The United States government should be free to decline to participate in such a forum, in my opinion, and I request a clarification of the ACLU's thinking on this matter.
Sincerely,
Fizziks
My town
So what is it, ACLU? Does a 10 year member get the dignity of a response? I urge other progressives who are disgusted by Durban's antisemitism and the ACLU's lack of an explanation in this instance to join me in withholding contributions until a response is given addressing our concerns. Again, as I state in the letter:
I am open to feeling differently about this issue, but my previous inquiry was never answered.
Answer it, ACLU.
The Durban Conferences are just further evidence of the antisemitism prevalent at the United Nations. This is the same organization that singled out Jewish nationalism, and only Jewish nationalism, as racism. This is the same organization that time and time again seeks to condemn Israel for having the gall to defend itself against attacks directed upon its civilians. If not for the United States being a such a great friend to Israel, how many such odious resolutions would have passed out of the Security Council?
ReplyDeleteGiven this, it is a tremendous shame that the ACLU, an organization with a storied history, and at the forefront of so many important issues here at home, would choose to advocate such vile. An organization that opposes racism and seeks to protect liberty should be standing out at the forefront in combatting bigotry. It is one thing to say that the bigots cannot speak. When that happens, the ACLU is right to be out and front and say the bigots have a right to speak, no matter how odious we may find it. However, this is not that situation. The ACLU disgraces itself, and its history, through this behavior.
The Durban conferences were a sad, sad joke that should be relegated to the junk heap of history. But, they show just how desperate the enemies of progressivism are to try and co-opt the movement.
ReplyDeleteI think the ACLU does need to explain their position rather than run from it. Good on you Fiz for trying to make this happen.
Exactly. It is one thing to say that whoever wants to, even if they are genocidal maniacs, should be able to have a meeting.
ReplyDeleteBut the ACLU is doing something completely different, which is participating in said meeting, and not only that but criticizing others for not participating.
The ACLU, particularly in areas of speech, has always been about what the government should not do. It's now going into the dangerous area of telling the government what it should be doing. Freedom of speech is a negative right and the ACLU should remember that.
ReplyDeleteIf I had a guess, they don't see Durban as a speech issue, they see it as a general human rights issue.
ReplyDeleteWhich is extremely problematic two ways.
For one thing, it isn't a human rights issue, unless you have a really fucked up conception of human rights.
And for another, the ACLU is not a human rights organization. They are a First Amendment advocacy organzation. If they are using their members' donations and considerable endowment to lobby on a new issue that has nothing to do with their stated mission, then that is very dishonest and inappropriate.