• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Trump appointee guts UN document on racism, says leaders don't have duty to condemn hate speech

chaos789

Banned
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/29/politics/veprek-state-dept-un-racism/index.html

A Trump administration appointee to the State Department tore into standard UN documents that condemn racism as a threat to democracy.

The deputy assistant secretary for refugees and migration, a foreign service officer promoted by the White House to an unusually senior position for his rank, disputed the idea that leaders have a "duty" to condemn hate speech and incitement, and repeatedly rejected use of the words nationalism, populism, and xenophobia.

"The drafters say 'populism and nationalism' as if these are dirty words," wrote Andrew Veprek, the deputy assistant secretary for refugees and migration, in documents obtained exclusively by CNN. "There are millions of Americans who likely would describe themselves as adhering to these concepts. (Maybe even the President.). So are we looking to here condemn our fellow-citizens, those who pay our salaries?"

President Donald Trump has described himself as a nationalist.

Veprek also pushed to soften language about fighting racism and about racism in politics in his proposed amendments to a UN Human Rights Council resolution titled "The Incompatibility between Democracy and Racism" that is adopted without a vote, with much of the same language, every few years.

In response to one section that says national leaders have a responsibility to condemn hate speech, Veprek writes, "'[d]uty to condemn' goes too far. Our public figures can't be obliged to police every intolerant thought out their [sic] at the risk of being condemned for intolerance themselves."

Fear of foreigners
And he repeatedly argues against using the word "xenophobia," or the fear of foreigners, writing in side notes that he has concerns over "the malleability of the term now and in the future."

"[W]hat real or perceived offense is next to be considered 'xenophobic?'" he writes. "How does that square with our historic respect for the right of free expression? The drafters need to focus on behavior and actions - which states can control - rather than attitudes and states of mind."

The internal administration documents show suggested edits Veprek apparently made, marked by his electronic State Department identifier on notes in the margins, according to a source familiar with the documents.

It's unclear if Veprek has the authority within the State Department to make changes to the documents, which are full of crossed out sentences and other comments vigorously contesting the UN statements.

Shortly after the edits were suggested, the US announced it was leaving the Geneva based Human Rights Council.

A State Department spokesperson said the agency does not comment on "leaked, alleged documents or internal deliberative material," but the agency did not deny the existence of the documents.

Rob Berschinski, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for human rights and member of the National Security Council under President Barack Obama, called Veprek's changes to the documents "explosive."

"It seems clear (Veprek) feels the UN language is targeted at the Trump administration, when it mentions racism in political circles," Berschinski told CNN. "Clearly, he is making these edits to reduce the power of the resolution, as relates to racism in politics."

Veprek appears to have struck out an entire section that links fighting racism with building a diverse democracy, crossing out the language, "acknowledging the linkage and complementarity of the combat against racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia with the long-term construction of a democratic, non-discriminatory and multicultural society, based on the recognition, respect and promotion of cultural, ethnic and religious diversity."

Veprek instead makes a case against multiculturalism in his comments. "What's the evidence for such 'complementarity?' Some commentators assert that a unifying culture (as opposed to multiculturalism) is the best way to promote social trust and combat racism."

The edits take issue with a passage that calls out racism in politics, crossing out language expressing concern over "the rise of extremist political parties, movements and groups that seek to normalize racism," as well as "xenophobia" and incitement of hatred and violence.

The phrase "normalize racism," the internal edits state, "is vague and has no legal definition."
 

Liberty4all

Banned
Agreed, but a leader is fucking stupid if he/she doesn't condone racism. I mean, how hard could it be to denounce racism?

Because lately the Left is calling EVERYONE racist.

The document they are proposing is dangerous because their definition of what constitutes hate speech/racism is not the same as most people.

Is an attempt to criminalize political expression for views that were never seen a racist.... The left loves to criminalize behaviour by label.
 

TTOOLL

Member
"[W]hat real or perceived offense is next to be considered 'xenophobic?'" he writes. "How does that square with our historic respect for the right of free expression? The drafters need to focus on behavior and actions - which states can control - rather than attitudes and states of mind."

That's a good point.
 

chaos789

Banned
I guess people are going to come on here and support the Trump administration on this and then claim his administration does not have racist tendecies.

The mental gymnastics some people put themselves through must be exhausting.
 

ilfait

Member
Only barely skimmed the first post, but very impressed by this statement:

And he repeatedly argues against using the word "xenophobia," or the fear of foreigners, writing in side notes that he has concerns over "the malleability of the term now and in the future."

"[W]hat real or perceived offense is next to be considered 'xenophobic?'" he writes. "How does that square with our historic respect for the right of free expression? The drafters need to focus on behavior and actions - which states can control - rather than attitudes and states of mind."


Surprisingly enlightened thing to come out of a current bureaucrat's mouth.
 
D

Deleted member 738645

Unconfirmed Member
HTTP://Resetera.com

It won't take long if you go through a few threads ;)

ERA isn't even left, most of them are centrists. They are a US-centric forum that cheers for centrists like Hillary and the Dems while they would be conservatives in western Europe. So your "left" is way off here.
 

Spheyr

Banned
ERA isn't even left, most of them are centrists. They are a US-centric forum that cheers for centrists like Hillary and the Dems while they would be conservatives in western Europe. So your "left" is way off here.
In the US, where their site is based, they're hilarious parodies of leftists except sincere.
 

chaos789

Banned
Because lately the Left is calling EVERYONE racist.

The document they are proposing is dangerous because their definition of what constitutes hate speech/racism is not the same as most people.

Is an attempt to criminalize political expression for views that were never seen a racist.... The left loves to criminalize behaviour by label.

This is the United Nations, not some
HTTP://Resetera.com

It won't take long if you go through a few threads ;)

Resetera is not representative of everyone on the left. I was not aware it had millions of members. Oh wait, it doesn't.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
ERA isn't even left, most of them are centrists. They are a US-centric forum that cheers for centrists like Hillary and the Dems while they would be conservatives in western Europe. So your "left" is way off here.
It absolutely without question is left. So far left its abandoned everyone who was left of center, or centrists such as myself.

Resetera is what everyone with a rational mind is mocking these days. Openly. They are the poster child for what people are talking about when they say identity politics. How you cant see that is breathtaking.
 

luigimario

Banned
There is a real problem on the right and their unwillingness to condemn racism. Why is that so difficult for you guys? If you can't do it then atleast wear the racist badge with pride.
 
D

Deleted member 738645

Unconfirmed Member
Really? No I am not going to indulge you. But I will remark something from someone on the left From the WoPo and Steven Petrow

You know it happens. I know it happens. Don't play it down.

Oh I am playing it down. It simply is false.

It absolutely without question is left. So far left its abandoned everyone who was left of center, or centrists such as myself.

Resetera is what everyone with a rational mind is mocking these days. Openly. They are the poster child for what people are talking about when they say identity politics. How you cant see that is breathtaking.

It's not left lol. And it certainly doesn't have millions of users either.
 
D

Deleted member 738645

Unconfirmed Member
I never said it has millions of users but it is without question left. Far, far left. You may not understand what that means but that's a different conversation.

So we went from "left" to "far, far left" in this thread.

Wow.

No, let's take that conversation here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ERA isn't even left, most of them are centrists. They are a US-centric forum that cheers for centrists like Hillary and the Dems while they would be conservatives in western Europe. So your "left" is way off here.


Holy fuck lol

V0l2ZSW.gif
 

KINGMOKU

Member
This is a textbook example of cognitive dissonance. Let me ask a question;

What would you feel is far left? What policy support would be far left? What rhetoric would be considered far left?

In answering these questions I feel a connection with reality will ensue.
 
Theyre about as left wing as newneogaf is right wing....

The difference being that neo-neogaf actually allows all sides to discuss while resetera just calls everyone who doesnt agree 100% a neo nazi racist and then bans them.

It wont be long until you are banned and come back here full time.
 
Resetera represents a very specific bubble of the left that is hyper focused on a few pet issues. And they're also prone to a ridiculous level of hyperbole. But as the poster above me said they're massive dnc supporters so they're either clueless about what that party really stands for or aren't far left.
 
Last edited:
There is a real problem on the right and their unwillingness to condemn racism. Why is that so difficult for you guys? If you can't do it then atleast wear the racist badge with pride.

I'm not on the right, but the problem isn't with governments condemning racism, it's with governments that believe they can decide what is and what isn't hate speech. As if that's not completely subjective, even among the members of various groups that fight against social intolerance.
 
Last edited:

luigimario

Banned
I'm not on the right, but the problem isn't with governments condemning racism, it's with governments that believe they can decide what is and what isn't hate speech. As if that's not completely subjective, even among the members of various groups that fight against social intolerance.

So give me an example of something that was deemed hate speech that you think wasn't actually hate speech? And it's not just about hate speech, its about racism. Ofcourse the government that said "mexicans are rapists" will find it difficult to condemn racism...
 
The guy is right.

Besides, either it's all hate speech and needs to be prosecuted accordingly, or we let people say what they want. Otherwise, UN needs to follow their own rules and condemn the dozen-or-so Middle Eastern UN members whose parties have repeated "death to Israel" for decades.
 
Last edited:
Resetera represents a very specific bubble of the left that is hyper focused on a few pet issues. And they're also prone to a ridiculous level of hyperbole. But as the poster above me said they're massive dnc supporters so they're either clueless about what that party really stands for or aren't far left.
I vote for clueless. It isn't at all uncommon in any political sphere for people to support that which is actually against their stated goals. Hell, I've seen people hold contradictory positions themselves just because they haven't thought them through and how supporting X is at odds with supporting Y. Probably the biggest example of this is people pushing for equality and diversity at as if they are mutually cooperative goals when in fact they are opposing goals. People just don't give it any thought.
 

chaos789

Banned
It absolutely without question is left. So far left its abandoned everyone who was left of center, or centrists such as myself.

Resetera is what everyone with a rational mind is mocking these days. Openly. They are the poster child for what people are talking about when they say identity politics. How you cant see that is breathtaking.

They have a thread right now where most of the people commenting are knocking Bernie and talking about how he ruined Hiliaries chances. They are definetly not majority progressive at least economically progressive. The only way you would see it differently is if you were to the right.

I am getting tired of right wingers claiming they are morderates while supporting Trump on everything he does , as he dismantles environmental protections, endangered species protections, tries to repel ACA( which would negatively impact millions, including myself), feuds with our allies, gives tax cuts that favor multi-nationals and the rich, violates the emoluments clause, talks favorably about dictators, calls the media "the enemy of the people", separates kids from parents at the border who seek asylum, amongst a bunch of other horrible shit.

But no he is not the problem, "its the left". The right are the ones in power right now. They control the House,Senate, and White House and most of the state legislatures and soon the Supreme Court. But they continue to convince people they are in the minority.
 
Last edited:
ERA isn't even left, most of them are centrists. They are a US-centric forum that cheers for centrists like Hillary and the Dems while they would be conservatives in western Europe. So your "left" is way off here.
I got an official warning once because I said that some statement was "retarded" (because I used that phrase) and almost banned because I asked a question with which I apparently implied something.... Very centrist forum indeed mate.

The first incident made me lift an eyebrow, the latter log out and never go to that site again.

Centrist.... LMAO
 
Last edited:

Spheyr

Banned
I got permabanned from there for saying I disregard anyone who uses the term "gun nuts", including people into guns.
 

Zambatoh

Member
I got an official warning once because I said that some statement was "retarded" (because I used that phrase) and almost banned because I asked a question with which I apparently implied something.... Very centrist forum indeed mate.

The first incident made me lift an eyebrow, the latter log out and never go to that site again.

Centrist.... LMAO

I concur. As a regular visitor to both forums, I've seen a lot of bans for seemingly benign things on their end.
It's actually the whole reason why I don't even bother posting there anymore.
 
The difference being that neo-neogaf actually allows all sides to discuss while resetera just calls everyone who doesnt agree 100% a neo nazi racist and then bans them
I remember getting permaban for victim blaming and people get 3-day ban or nothing if some people ask for killing of white people. So...

There is a real problem on the right and their unwillingness to condemn racism. Why is that so difficult for you guys? If you can't do it then atleast wear the racist badge with pride.
Because of the definition of the racism. Imagine if a sick person would ask healthy to feel guilty for him being healthy. Mexicans are rapists is actually not a racism at all. Racism is the idea of superiority over somebody by race.
Actually, soft racism is popular among left as they always look at minorities disparagingly - consider them some kind of common group like "if they black - then they all are the same and share same values. They definitely believe in the same thing as we are. And we as being on the higher position should help them"

I never said it has millions of users but it is without question left. Far, far left. You may not understand what that means but that's a different conversation.
Resetera also doesn't consider itself far left (probably). Though it consider newgaf as alt-righters so I don't know :eek:

I vote for clueless. It isn't at all uncommon in any political sphere for people to support that which is actually against their stated goals. Hell, I've seen people hold contradictory positions themselves just because they haven't thought them through and how supporting X is at odds with supporting Y. Probably the biggest example of this is people pushing for equality and diversity at as if they are mutually cooperative goals when in fact they are opposing goals. People just don't give it any thought.
25% of black, 25% of white, 25% of brown, 25% of yellow. Diversity and equality :p
 

luigimario

Banned
Because of the definition of the racism. Imagine if a sick person would ask healthy to feel guilty for him being healthy. Mexicans are rapists is actually not a racism at all. Racism is the idea of superiority over somebody by race.
Actually, soft racism is popular among left as they always look at minorities disparagingly - consider them some kind of common group like "if they black - then they all are the same and share same values. They definitely believe in the same thing as we are. And we as being on the higher position should help them"

Saying "Mexicans are rapists" is racist, because it implies that mexicans rape people and are therefore an inferior race. Ergo, racism. Is the reason you find it difficult to condemn because you believe it to be true? You think Mexicans are rapists?
 
I am getting tired of right wingers claiming they are morderates while supporting Trump on everything he does , as he dismantles environmental protections, endangered species protections, tries to repel ACA( which would negatively impact millions, including myself), feuds with our allies, gives tax cuts that favor multi-nationals and the rich, violates the emoluments clause, talks favorably about dictators, calls the media "the enemy of the people", separates kids from parents at the border who seek asylum, amongst a bunch of other horrible shit.
The thing is that west and Obama-USA were some kind of idealists that believe in democratic ideals or whatever, yet never condemned Iran, China, Turkey and other major countries for not being that democratic or whatever. It is overall problem of UN and co - they simply can't do anything against crucial for their agenda countries. Or at most they might say oh how bad they are and that's all.

I would dig into more details in all points, but I mention only two
talks favorably about dictators - what's the reason to conflict with them? Make a deal and let them do whatever they want. For example Russia is heavy sanctioned - cool "we are ruining that dictatorship", and russian government find a perfect solution for that - increase taxation for russian citizens. As always.
calls the media "the enemy of the people" - yet bash For News as propaganda machine and definitely consider it is friend of the people.

There is also frightening retoric is happening how government should control and final say on beliefs and values and we should have only one party. But whatever.
 
Top Bottom