Mass global censorship of hate speech is the United Nation’s self-proclaimed goal.
After the Islamic attack on the Charlie Hebdo newspaper we saw incredible posturing about freedom of speech. But it was all a ruse. There is no free speech in France. That means their posing over the Charlie Hebdo slaughters was not a statement by the French government in favor of freedom of speech, but an endorsement of the newspaper’s hateful blasphemy and mockery. Telling religious believers that they must tolerate blasphemy because all speech is tolerated is one thing. Telling them that only blasphemy must be tolerated but other speech will be punished is an entirely different matter.
And so we find that the United Nations has no problem openly campaigning for internet censorship. It’s own news service boasts in it: “Stopping hate speech spread via Internet tops agenda of UN anti-racism committee.”
The United Nations committee tasked with combating racial discrimination today opened its latest round of work in Geneva with a focus on stopping the spread of racist hate speech on the Internet and social media networks, as well as the need to use education to prevent racism and xenophobia.
“Where does the right of expression, which we all want to respect, stop and the need to sanction and prevent hate speech begin? What is the point in time when one right has to recognize that it cannot be exercised if it implies the violation of another one,” UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Flavia Pansieri said in her address to the opening of the 83rd session of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).
As the world becomes more inter-connected, incidents in numerous countries have drawn attention to the issue of racist hate speech, which today is more easily spread across national borders, she added.
Ms. Pansieri urged the Committee to include in its deliberations the Rabat Plan of Action, adopted by independent UN experts at a meeting in Morocco in October 2012, on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
She then invoked the name of Martin Luther King Jr, as if anything he accomplished would have been possible if the state governments and Federal government had not been bound to allow speech. Basically, once the government has the power to label speech as “hate speech” there will be no more disruptive reformers permitted in the world.
And if hate speech is scrubbed off the internet, you know it won’t be limited to real racism.