United Nations now targeting free speech on a global scale, under the banner of fighting “hate speech”
To most, the United Nations is an innocuous organization that serves as a global forum for countries to work out their differences while providing services like disaster relief, peacekeeping, health care, and others.
In reality, the U.N. is primarily staffed by representatives from authoritarian regimes and elitists who seek to transform the organization into the central hub of a “New World Order” and global government.
Part of that effort involves limiting the right of free speech in as many countries as possible — especially in the United States, whose Constitution still serves as a model for empowering the individual over government.
And like the Left in America, U.N. officials are seeking to curb expression and the free exchange of ideas by claiming to fight “hate speech.”
The U.N. began a ‘crackdown’ of sorts on “hate speech,” but in doing so defined that term so broadly that literally any speech could be considered to be in violation depending on who was doing the evaluating, a political analyst noted.
The crackdown came in response to mostly Muslim countries that were demanding anyone who is critical of Islam be punished, according to Judith Bergman, a lawyer and senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute.
While the U.N. attempted to assure everyone that “addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech,” the fact is, Bergman notes, the organization’s actions betrayed its words.
“This was evident with regard to the U.N. Global Compact on Migration, in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to ‘media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants’ should be stopped,” she wrote.
In fact, the U.N.’s action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the organization considers to be “hate speech.”
The U.N. has failed miserably at its founding mission — preventing war
“Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behavior, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent, gender or other identity factor,” the U.N. says — again, which is broad enough that any speech critical of any protected class of persons or religions could be considered hateful.
In a February speech to the U.N. Human Rights Council, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres provided more clues as to what his organization would consider to be ‘hate speech.’
He said the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “belong to everyone, everywhere. They are independent of nationality, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, belief, or any other status.” It should be noted, however, that member states have never agreed that “sexual orientation” is a protected category of nondiscrimination.
He added that he is alarmed by “a groundswell of xenophobia, racism, and intolerance — including rising anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred,” and that “hate speech is a menace to democratic values, social stability, and peace.” He also said hate speech “spreads like wildfire through social media, the internet, and conspiracy theories.”
As usual, not a single one of the U.N.’s authoritarian Leftists speaks out about hateful speech directed at Christians, Jews, Asians, or members of other religions — always just Muslims.
This comes as Muslim followers continue to commit acts of terrorism and violence against non-Muslims but also against some of their own followers — though we’re not allowed to point that fact out because it’s hateful.
The U.N. is not a global government. It was never intended as such. It wasn’t even originally intended to become a global charity organization or peacekeeping entity. It was only supposed to be a forum where countries could air — and hopefully solve — their grievances without resorting to war.
By that measure, of course, the U.N. has been a miserable failure.