Home Freedom of Speech UN and Free Speech

UN and Free Speech

Author

Date

Category

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. 

Previous articleBest explanation ever
Next articleHave Your Say

10 COMMENTS

  1. Fun to always see their complete impotence. Good luck controlling what I say- I’d shoot me a few blue helmets before I’d ever answer to one!

    0

    0

  2. Posted on hys and fits here as a UN concern.
    Ardern must be asked, just to add more stress and pressure,

    So now 3 states are vying for 2 Latin American seats.
    To defeat the criminal Maduro regime [in Venezuela], we are calling on all countries on Oct. 17 to vote for Costa Rica, Brazil

    https://unwatch.org/report-abuser-states-set-to-win-top-u-n-rights-posts/

    It must be asked,who are NZ lobbying and pushing for? ok we probably do not get a vote in this region.
    Make it an issue for the “comrade” as she has in the past seems to be rather ok and blithe concerning “comrade” Maduro socialism.
    Get her to declare her position and why?

    0

    0

  3. A classic case where the UN could do something useful would be to move in and do something about the ISIS fighter held in camps in Syria. The countries from where they came are refusing to help in the situation. Trump is, in my view, quite correctly saying “if you do not want to help the situation why should USA do everything ( which probably means meeting the costs of the camps)?”
    The UN could negotiate with Merkel –she wants lots of refugees. /sarc

    0

    0

  4. Cancel the immigration pact and the UN should stick to their knitting working in undeveloped countries who need internal support. The UN can stop poking their noses into Western countries like telling NZ how badly we treat our poor, etc. No, we don’t need your unwanted advice here.

    0

    0

    • It will be our own judiciary that will leverage UN migration pact into our laws.

      ….. The Crown Law Office of New Zealand published an opinion as guidance to the New Zealand Government, affirming the Compact will be non-binding, but will not be legally irrelevant, and “courts may be willing…to refer to the Compact and to take the Compact into account as an aid in interpreting immigration legislation” …..
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Compact_for_Migration

      That is the NZ1st sell out option of aiding the immigration..

      And just who and how is an illegal immigrant, and legalized legitimate migrant? in the the UN eyes, and then our own judiciary.

      0

      0

    • Our academia, media, judiciary, police, politicians will be able to empire build, making definitions, new departments, officers, enforcement, fines in particular, seizures and all funded from the taxpayer, and that is all in free speech and expression modes so that we are modulated to be in the right “shape of perceptions of migration”.
      Apologies if link is bit long, as long as the ‘convulating’ long winded Winston Peters who was more than happy to sign this.

      OBJECTIVE 17: Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration

      33. We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law.
      We further commit to promote an open and evidence-based public discourse on migration and migrants in partnership with all parts of society, that generates a more realistic, humane and constructive perception in this regard. We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of migration.

      To realize this commitment, we will draw from the following actions:
      a) Enact, implement or maintain legislation that penalizes hate crimes and aggravated hate crimes targeting migrants, and train law enforcement and other public officials to identify, prevent and respond to such crimes and other acts of violence that target migrants, as well as to provide medical, legal and psychosocial assistance for victims

      b) Empower migrants and communities to denounce any acts of incitement to violence directed towards migrants by informing them of available mechanisms for redress, and ensure that those who actively participate in the commission of a hate crime targeting migrants are held accountable, in accordance with national legislation, while upholding international human rights law, in particular the right to freedom of expression

      c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media
      25
      d) Establish mechanisms to prevent, detect and respond to racial, ethnic and religious profiling of migrants by public authorities, as well as systematic instances of intolerance, xenophobia, racism and all other multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination in partnership with National Human Rights Institutions, including by tracking and publishing trends analyses, and ensuring access to effective complaint and redress mechanisms

      e) Provide migrants, especially migrant women, with access to national and regional complaint and redress mechanisms with a view to promoting accountability and addressing governmental actions related to discriminatory acts and manifestations carried out against migrants and their families

      f) Promote awareness-raising campaigns targeted at communities of origin, transit and destination in order to inform public perceptions regarding the positive contributions of safe, orderly and regular migration, based on evidence and facts, and to end racism, xenophobia and stigmatization against all migrants

      g) Engage migrants, political, religious and community leaders, as well as educators and service providers to detect and prevent incidences of intolerance, racism, xenophobia, and other forms of discrimination against migrants and diasporas and support activities in local communities to promote mutual respect, including in the context of electoral campaigns
      https://www.un.org/pga/72/wp-content/uploads/sites/51/2018/07/migration.pdf

      No where does it seem to consider the citizens of the host countries, their possessions, their culture, their finances, their education, health, benefit systems social welfare, pensions, superannuation, infrastructure, pollution resources, etc..

      The real shame is our own politicians do not seem to see some of these problems either, but then it is other peoples money they are happy to spend for a virtue signal of feelz.

      0

      0

  5. One small point. This started with the Jews demanding anything critical of Jews, Judaism, or Israel , be banned.

    This was tremendously successful and now days you simply need to say “anti semite” to shut down a conversation. I see scumbags do that even on YSB.

    Just like Islamaphobia, anti Semite is a fake shaming term used to shut down debate.

    0

    0

    • Kea – for fuck’s sake get off your obsession with the Jews being the source of all evil in the world – they are just another race of people – Okay?
      All races have done good things and bad things – get over it.

      0

      0

      • Why don’t you say that to those ranting about muslims?

        Answer: because you are a sleazy religious bigot.

        You might also want to read the article. Jews are behind this move. And yeah most jews are okay people, same as Muslims. I did not say Jews are the source of all evil. Like all sleazy zionist bigots you lie. Disgusting behaviour.

        0

        0

  6. There should be no protected groups. Freedom of speech is just that, freedom to speak. Either you have it or you don’t. One side claiming everything another says is hate speech is absolute hogwash and nothing short of corruption.

    0

    0

Comments are closed.

Recent posts

Leave The Taxpayers Money Alone

Ex-prime minister Jim Bolger calls for state funding of political parties after NZ First, National revelations A former prime minister has added his voice to...

Hearing Loss?

As some one who has two hearing aids, I am staggered at the number of farmers who used to ask me about my aids....

The Dripping Blob of Rock

Beneath the Hindu Kush mountains drips a giant blob of molten rock Far beneath the Hindu Kush mountains of Central Asia, a giant blob of continental...

Who Saw This Coming?

Coming soon to a road near you. How stupid do you have to be to drive an electric car and not keep it charged? ...

Recent comments

DigNap15 on Have Your Say
waikatogirl on The Dripping Blob of Rock
waikatogirl on Hearing Loss?
Rachael Membery on Have Your Say
Fuzzysnuggleduck on Have Your Say
Salacious Crumb on Have Your Say

The way we all feel about this useless government

Hamilton
few clouds
22.2 ° C
22.2 °
22.2 °
34 %
4kmh
14 %
Fri
22 °
Sat
29 °
Sun
25 °
Mon
26 °
Tue
24 °
NZD - New Zealand Dollar
USD
1.5614
EUR
1.7277
AUD
1.0599
CAD
1.1760
GBP
2.0171
INR
0.0218