The Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission has questioned political parties and social commentators attacking Fiji’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva Nazhat Shameem Khan.
Khan spoke about racial discrimination at the 34th Session of the Human Rights Council – but has seen backlash from the National Federation Party and the Social Democratic Liberal Party.
Ambassador Khan raised the point that racism was institutionalised in Fiji and instilled in a privileged ‘class’ a sense of entitlement based on ethnicity.
However, political leaders – Professor Biman Prasad and Sitiveni Rabuka called her a racist.
“The number of things the ambassador said has been said before around the issue of class and how racism has produced an internalized examatics of class hypothesis.”
Human Rights Director Ashwin Raj claims Professor Biman and Rabuka have selectively focussed on the issue of racism and distorted Ambassador Khan’s statement to suit their political agenda.
“They strategically focused on the statement of racism and did not talk about the iniative the government has in place to deal with the issue of relocation which is inextricably woven into the question of the human rights concern of the I-Taukei.”
The Commission also questions the NFP’s motives behind using the word ‘caste’ in reference to Ambassador Khan’s comments – when she never uttered the word.
_“The invocation of the term caste is equally problematic because it’s got a certain political purchase to it given the sociologic significance of the term caste particularly for indo-Fijians. Therefore, I am compel to ask this question whether the NFP consciously was trying to confrontate communalism.” _
NFP General Secretary Kamal Iyer says the Party stands by its statement.
-FBC
