Critics wrong to demonize me, McGill professor says
by Gil Troy
The Montreal Gazette, Letters, May 5, 2004
In my May 2 essay explaining the anguish I feel about awarding former United Nations high commissioner for human rights Mary Robinson an honorary doctorate, I made it clear that my issue was Robinson's failure to do enough to condemn the anti-Semitism at the United Nations' anti-racism conference at Durban.
Anyone who accuses me of calling her an anti-Semite is either illiterate or motivated by animus. Here is the opening paragraph in full, which led me to the "injudicious" conclusion that Robinson deemed the conference a success: "It has been an exhausting nine days for all of us but I believe it has been worth it. We have come a very long way. Many questioned whether it would be possible to reach consensus but we have succeeded and that is no small achievement."
Even worse, in the fourth paragraph of her speech, Robinson downplayed the ugly anti-Semitism at the conference by saying, "It is not surprising that the Middle East has played such a prominent part during the preparations for Durban and in the discussions here. Nobody could be unmoved by the human tragedy which continues unabated in the region."
To me, the issue is that Durban cannot be sanitized. That a colleague in the law school and a McGill alumna defended Robinson makes sense; we should have vigorous and respectful disagreement. That they chose to demonize me and distort my words reflects poorly on them, not me.
Gil Troy
Professor, History Department
McGill University
Montreal
© Author 2004
Robinson failed to stop anti-Semitism
May 5, 2004
Mary Robinson might not be an old-fashioned anti-Semite who openly expresses hatred of Jews, and I doubt very much if she harbours such feelings. Nevertheless, she has been instrumental in facilitating a pernicious increase in worldwide anti-Semitism during her tenure as United Nations high commissioner of human rights.
She failed to confront anti-Semitism when it found its most virulent expression in Durban at the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. That venue degenerated into a shocking display of hatred, not only against Israel, but also against Jews everywhere; to cite one instance of blatant racism at the conference, the Arab Lawyers Union distributed pamphlets showing pictures of hook-nosed Jews as Nazis spearing Palestinian children. Robinson was the chief conference architect and she allowed such incidents to occur.
Whatever her other accomplishments, Robinson's failure to stop the evil at Durban disqualifies her as a suitable candidate for an honorary degree from McGill University.
Brian Smith
Faculty member
McGill University
© Author 2004
AND HERE'S WHAT I ACTUALLY SENT IN, A LONGER VERSION AND A SHORTER VERSION AND THEY CONFLATED THE TWO:
To the Editors of the Gazette,
In my essay explaining the anguish I and others in the McGill community feel about awarding Mary Robinson an honourary doctorate, I made it clear that my issue was Mrs. Robinson’s failure to do enough to condemn the anti-Semitism that festered at the United Nations’ farce of an anti-racism conference at Durban. Anyone who accuses me of calling her an anti-Semite – a term I do not take lightly – is either illiterate or motivated by animus. Here is the opening paragraph in full, which led me to the “injudicious” conclusion that Mary Robinson deemed the conference a success: “It has been an exhausting nine days for all of us but I believe it has been worth it. We have come a very long way. Many questioned whether it would be possible to reach consensus but we have succeeded and that is no small achievement.” Moreover, in an interview with Salon.com, posted July 26, 2002, nearly a year later she said: “I'm not defensive about my record on the Middle East or the Durban conference. I think we achieved an extraordinary breakthrough in Durban against all the odds.”
Even worse, in the fourth paragraph of her speech, Robinson downplayed the ugly anti-Semitism, the crude stereotyping, the Jew hatred which festered at the conference by saying, “It is not surprising that the Middle East has played such a prominent part during the preparations for Durban and in the discussions here. Nobody could be unmoved by the human tragedy which continues unabated in the region.”
Unlike her supporters, Mary Robinson stands by the Durban conference – and that to me is the issue. Durban cannot be sanitized, should not be forgotten. At Durban, Israel’s detractors crossed very clear lines from debating the complex issues regarding the Middle East into abusing the Jewish people in the crassest of ways. Mary Robinson’s declaration of success, and her mealy-mouthed attempt to “contextualize” the hate by saying both sides are passionate, blurred the line; her claim in her opening paragraph that the issue was simply reaching “consensus” on some document missed an opportunity to condemn the festival of hate that, some of my Black African friends noted, sidetracked the important and challenging work about racism that needed to be done at the conference.
Mary Robinson’s happy talk at the end, only compounded the insult – not only to Jews, but to all victims of human rights abuse and racism who needed a conference that focused on the big picture. When she comes to McGill, I urge her to condemn anti-Semitism unequivocally.
That an esteemed colleague in the law school and that a McGill alumnus defended Mary Robinson makes sense; we should have vigorous and respectful disagreement. That they chose to demonize me and distort my words, shooting the messenger rather than engaging the message, reflects poorly on them not me.
|
