Top Menu

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff Takes on Islamophobia in UN Speech

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff is quite impressive, she is the leader of one the largest emerging economies and nations in the world, and her strong condemnation of Islamophobia in the West in her recent UN Speech has not gone unnoticed.

Here is the full video of her speech, (her remarks about Islamophobia begin at 10:40):

“Also as my capacity as President of a country that houses millions and millions of people of Muslim background and persuasion, that I state for the record from this podium, we very strongly condemn the escalation in Islamophobic prejudice in Western countries. Brazil is one of the high profile players in the generous initiative titled, “The Alliance of Civilizations,” originally convened by the Turkish government.” –Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff

, , , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Bush Era Neo-Con Schmuck Jonathan Schanzer Shills For Nasty Islamophobia Movement | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper()

  • Stoned Gremlin

    @libertarian You mean like how the Jews were supposed to do back in the 30s?

  • libertarian

    Islamaphobia is an oxymoron, to be a phobia it needs to be an irrational fear. Fearing what will happen to our countries and our children if muslims achieve dominance and start to get their way is perferctly rational.

  • Truth Hurts

    Re: “There can be no alliance of civilisations with Islam.Period.It is the 7th century political and political system which has only one agenda and that is to dominate the world.No peaceful co-existence.Every thing evil is holy in Islam.”

    Compare & contrast with Full-Spectrum Dominance.

  • GĂ©ji

    Oh dear God, Ilisha, I just reread my post for I was lacking the time to do so before submitting it, so my dear please do not mind my many spelling errors and even at times forgetting to place prepositions & articles in between words.

  • GĂ©ji

    @Ilisha Says:

    “Curving the definition? I’m not sure what you mean.

    Are you referring to the “who’s a Semite” debate? I’ve heard many times the argument that “Antisemitism” is not an accurate term for hatred of Jews because Arabs are Semites too. But the modern usage does refer to Jews.”

    First of all, thank you for your reply Ilisha, and sorry I couldn’t fallow-up for lack of time. Oh boy, I don’t even know where to begin, but I see that my previous post caused quite a debate, the intention of my post wasn’t to take away the focus of the discussion from this courageous leader that condemned bigotry, so I apologize if it was perceived that way. But though a bit sarcastic, my post initially was in response to some bigot above my reply, questioning precisely that bigotry against western Muslims this leader in the article was speaking-of. But my ‘question’ to you Ilisha was far from me implying what the bigot “Searcher” stated (denying anti-Muslim bigotry ever exist) to deny anti-Jewish bigotry, and when I’ve asked I’ve hoped you’d understand that without me specifying it. But perhaps the way I asked was a bit hard, and so I apologize for that, I’ll admit perhaps at times depending on how tired I am working 12 hours a day, resulting my patience for other things wearing thin, I’m not the most tactful character, my mom have made quite numerous pleas towards me to change that ‘bad habit’, but who listen to wise advises from moms anyway?. So though I’ll admit my question wasn’t of the best moment and space, or of proper tone, nonetheless I think it is fair to question the terms we use to define things. And yes, you can kind of say I was referring to the “who’s a Semite debate”, not so much as a “debate” of “who’s a Semite” and whatnot, but rather not to shut doors on discussions questioning the accuracy of questionable terms we get comfortable using, or why/how is it it is we use them in certain ways as oppose to others, and I’m talking about controversial ‘definitions’ of some terms that we perfectly know are inaccurate. Example, the term Islamophobia ‘defining’ anti-Muslim bigotry may have inaccuracy problems, but in itself at least we can quasi understand who the term is referring to, certainly the term “Anti-Antisemitism” in its current ‘defined’ way does not offer that and do bare the question of “anti-who?”, without anyway, shape or form taking away the reality of anti-Jewish hatred, nor the fact that there are Jewish Semites. Words we use and how we define them have strong affect on people’s mind, it sets the course of thoughts on subjects, and just to say – well, we have no ‘choice’ but to go along and ‘accept’ said mind-set of ‘modern’ discourse on terms regardless of how inconsistent and contradictory we know of them to be, and knowing how it can disfigure reality without considering the weight it carries on ears and minds, or how other may see them, is in my estimation very wrong.

    I’ve meet many Arabs, whether Christian or Muslim confession, who will passionately argue against bigotry towards Jews, regardless of how they see the Isreal-Palestine issue, and will be red-faced in defense against anyone bad-mouthing Judaism and Jews in their presence, be they against non-Arabs or fellow Arabs, but it will be foolish to expect that they will utter to an anti-Jewish bigoted Arab bad mouthing Jews, you’re an “anti-Semite”, I hope you understand this.

    True, the term Islamophobia may not be accurate to define anti-Muslim bigotry, although most time we can hardly tell who’s bigoted against the religion itself, from who’s bigoted against the mostly brown people that are ‘invading’ the white lands carrying the “gene” of this evil Islam, i.e., those ‘Islamic Supremecists’ (Spencer/Geller precise word). So the line between the two are not visible, but a least we do know from the visible letters of term itself who is referring to and does not imply to “exclude” large section of those its trying to “define”. The term “anti-Semetism” though explicit in its visible wording, yet does exclude the largest portion of who is supposedly referring to. I know your main focus its not to “correct” the inaccuracy of terms we use to define the bigotry against specific racial, ethnic or religious groups, but questioning their accuracy in my estimation is legit, and doing so do not take away the purpose the used for. Anti-Jewish bigotry exist regardless of what we call it, so as the anti-Muslim bigotry, but best for us will be to use terms that are closer to home in order to avoid confusion, rather than ones that are shady and far from home. Peace Ilisha.

  • Averroes’ Ghost

    One day Brazil I will make you my home. I’ve already fallen in love with you

  • Pingback: Oct 4, 2012, NEWS « Muslim News Digest()

  • eslaporte

    Again – it’s going to take global leadership from national and international leaders in combination with cooperation down to the grass roots level to combat Islamophobia – and the abuse of “free speech” to spread it.

    I think that realizing that the use Islamophobia to divide us into “civilizations” is a real threat international security and peace. It appears here that President Rousseff has also taken steps to combat it in her own country, as well as presenting the idea internationally, it also should be combated regionally, among South American and Caribbean nations.

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32)

    Lord Hawhaw
    You think anyone would want an alliance with you ?

    Sir David

  • LORD Pork

    There can be no alliance of civilisations with Islam.Period.It is the 7th century political and political system which has only one agenda and that is to dominate the world.No peaceful co-existence.Every thing evil is holy in Islam.

  • Garo

    Tinka Boutit,

    I have not meant you in particular. Not at all. I have meant every one who has deviated from the topic at hand. And there were several.

  • Tinka Boutit

    You are indeed correct about sticking to the topic at hand, but every topic has a scope for reasonable elasticity with regard to related topics. We are human beings & can become distracted – sorry đź?‰

    Islamophobia & Anti-Semitism are both uncivil blanket hatreds which unfairly dehumanize whole groups of humanity.

  • Tinka Boutit

    @Just Stopping By
    Re: “Only the most partisan sectarian opportunist would ignore the logical facts.”

    Thanks for the thought-provoking post ;-).

    Regarding Danios, I cannot read his mind, so I cannot say whether he is a pro-Jewish Zionist anti-Arabian partisan sectarian opportunist, BUT it seems unlikely. He appears fair & humanistic.
    However, your hyperlink does go some way in explaining the reasons for restricting anti-Semitism to Jewish Semites & NOT Arabian Semites.

    As I am a stickler for the Oxford English Dictionary O.E.D. as being a vital tool in accurate communication of ideas, I have to be consistent. Therefore, I retract the partisan opportunist statement.

  • Garo

    Look folks,I profoundly despise Anti-Semitism as much as I despise Islamophobia. However,the current topic is about what the Ms.Dilma Rousseff, the President of Brazil stated in her remarkable speech,addressed to the General Assembly of the United Nations,about Islamophobia. Why deviate from Islamophobia to Anti-Semitism? I just do not understand.

    The vast majority of the people who express their opinions,thoughts or facts on sound intelligent to me. Why do they allow themselves to be dragged into off-topic is beyond me.

    Please,please adhere firmly to the topic at hand. Thank you.

  • Just Stopping By

    The word anti-Semitism has historically been used to mean hatred of Jews and/or Judaism. It’s clearly not technically accurate, but neither is Islamophobia, which technically covers only fear but not hatred based on any other motive, and also technically would not cover hatred/fear of Muslims but not of Islam itself (and, yes, I understand that the concept of Muslims without Islam may appear to be an oxymoron, but there are distinctions that one could make, however strained).

    The question is whether to keep using the historical terms because they are familiar, or to adopt new ones that are more technically correct. I think there are arguments for both sides.

    However, if you want to claim that “[o]nly the most partisan sectarian opportunist would ignore the logical facts” and keep the term anti-Semitism for anti-Jewish attitudes or behavior, be prepared to argue with this guy and call him the most partisan sectarian opportunist: (Danios says, “I think it’s all a matter of semantics. The technical meanings of words are always imprecise, and we just go by convention. The arguments against using the term “Islamophobia” are as cruddy as the arguments used against “anti-Semitism.” Both words are perfectly fine to use, in my humble opinion.”)

  • Tinka Boutit

    How strange, so the definition of “anti-Semite” is not someone who is actually anti-Semite, but one who is anti-Jewish?

    I think the definition was historically useful when the only Semites in Europe were Jews. However, the modern situation has changed from the past, so that most European Semites are Arabian. (This ignores the glaring fact that Semitic people are labelled as such BECAUSE it is a linguistic label, & that they speak that group of related languages).

    If one is logical anti-Semites should be defined as those who are anti the Semites, should it not.

    If the definition is restricted due to an artificial historical freeze-frame that ignores the etymology, then that itself is anti-Semitic, as it it excludes the largest Semitic group from being acknowledged as existing! If we freeze the meaning to a historic snapshot, then why expand the meaning geographically to non-European American Jewry?

    Only the most partisan sectarian opportunist would ignore the logical facts .

  • Umayr

    Friendship btw Muslims and Christians
    “The compassion of the great companion of Prophet Muhammed (SAW) Amr ibn Al Aas (RA)”

  • Deva

    I wonder with the people who hate religion. All religions teach goodness. If there is bad, it’s not the religion. it’s human.

  • RDS

    To all newcomers, and to all who hasn’t taken their Internet Chill Pill today:

    Crow was being sarcastic.

    Thank you very much.

  • tarig

    @John, Crow was being sarcastic, he should have put a disclaimer on it since we can’t see his facial features, but judging by his other posts I doubt he means it.

  • TheBig-T

    @ john dickens
    ” Why does she want Muslims to rule the world?”

    Tell me, are there currently Muslim armies occupying London, Washington,or Moscow?
    Are there muslim bases in europe and north america?

    If no, then how are Muslims taking over the world
    please take a good look at this picture and then tell me who’s trying to take over the world

    and also read

Powered by Loon Watchers