TheNZThrower
Active Member
Hi everyone! It appears that one claim that is floating among some far left circles is that there was a UN resolution proposed that condemned Nazism, in which all Western powers and some other nations (49 in total) abstained from voting, 130 nations (including Russia) voted for it, and the US and Ukraine voted against it. The following graphic illustrates the claim rather well:

This is the resolution this graphic alludes to, and here is the vote count, and it appears that the graphic is correct, right?
Not so fast. The resolution itself was first drafted by the Russian mission to the UN. Thus this explains why the US representative to the UN Economic and Social Council, Nicholas Hill, has the following to say about the resolution in question:
This is the resolution this graphic alludes to, and here is the vote count, and it appears that the graphic is correct, right?
Not so fast. The resolution itself was first drafted by the Russian mission to the UN. Thus this explains why the US representative to the UN Economic and Social Council, Nicholas Hill, has the following to say about the resolution in question:
But for good measure, let's look at the resolution itself and what it says. According to article 49 of the resolution, it states that it:We have again attempted this year to improve this resolution by engaging in negotiations on the draft text. Despite consistently expressing our concerns with the Russian delegation and proposing revisions to improve the text and protect against unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression, most of these recommendations were ignored. We discourage States from invoking Article 4 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in order to either silence unwelcome opinions or to excuse their failure to combat intolerance.
For these reasons, the United States has voted against each new version of this resolution since 2005 and is, again, compelled to vote “No” on this resolution, and calls on other States to do the same.
So the main points of concern that Hill brings up likely pertain to the vagueness of the definitions of racial hatred and superiority, or incitement to racial discrimination. Given the US's very strong protections for freedom of speech for even the most morally reprehensible opinions, this will likely conflict with the US' laws and thus this is why the US never signed it. Regarding Article 20, the Resolution has the following to say:Reaffirms article 4 of the Convention, according to which States parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention, inter alia:
(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, and incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;
(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;
Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights mostly reiterates Article 4 of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination:Notes with concern the significant number of racist incidents worldwide, including the rise of skinhead groups... as well as the resurgence of racist and xenophobic violence targeting, inter alia, persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, or on any other grounds, including arson attacks on houses and vandalization of and violence in schools and places of worship and cemeteries
Reaffirms that such acts may, in certain circumstances, be qualified as falling within the scope of the Convention, that they may not be justifiable as exercises of freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association and freedom of expression and that they will often fall within the scope of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and may be subject to certain restrictions, as set out in articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant;
Article 24 of the resolution also has the following interesting quip that legally prohibits stuff like holocaust denial:Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
So Hill kinda has a point regarding the fact that this resolution is a trojan horse. I'd guess that Ukraine's no vote is also based on similar justifications. Whaddya guys think? I find it rather confusing to read it all. So any help deciphering this mess would be appreciated.Takes note of the conclusions of the Special Rapporteur that revisionism and attempts to falsify history may, in certain circumstances, fall under the prohibition of hate speech under article 4 (a) of the Convention, which States are required to declare as offences punishable by law