categoryMenu_new
 
  Home
  EXTRAORDINARY AH Teaching from Spiritual Hierarchy
  AbundantHope
  NEW READERS! Read Here First
  Supporting AH
  Leadership of AbundantHope
  Announcements
  Regional AH Sites
  Other Sites with AH material
  Contact Us
  Becoming A Messiah
  OUR PUBLIC FORUM IS OPEN TOO ALL
  Mission Ideas
  System Busting
  Cleric Letter/English
  Translations of Cleric Letter
  AH Member Writings
  Candace
  Ron
  Rosie
  Jess
  Brian's Poetry
  James
  Giuseppe
  Esteban
  Telepathic Messages
  Candace
  Jess Anthony
  Vince
  Leonette
  John
  Adam
  Bela
  Joyce
  Hazel
  Kibo
  Peter
  Rosie
  Johan
  Lucia
  Lucia G
  Rubens
  Shellee-Kim
  Ben
  Dorothea
  Solon
  Others
  Targeted Messages
  Hano
  Light Flower
  Changing The Face Of Religion
  - Phoenix Journals - PDF in German
  Candace on Religion
  Other Spiritual Pieces
  Spiritual Nuggets by the Masters
  Phoenix Journals
  Phoenix Journals - PDF
  Telepathic Messages PDF books
  Selections from the Urantia Book
  Illustrations For The Urantia Book
  CMGSN Pieces
  THE WAVE
  Environment/Science
  David Crayford and the ITC
  Health and Nutrition
  Podcasts, Radio Shows, Video by AH
 
  Political Information
  True US History
  Human/Animal Rights
  The Miracle That Is Me
  Education
  Resources
  911 Material
  Books - eBooks
  government email/phone #'s
  Self Reliance
  Video
  Websites
  Alternative News Sources
  Art and Music
  Foreign Sites
  Health and Healing
  Human/Animal Rights
  Scientific
  Spiritual
  Vegan Recipes
  Translated Material
  Dutch
  Gekanaliseerde berichten Jess
  Gekanaliseerde berichten Candace
  Gekanaliseerde berichten Anderen
  Artikelen/berichten
  French
  Canal Jess
  Par Candace
  Other Channels
  Articles
  German
  Telepathische Nachrichten (Candace)
  Telepathische Nachrichten (Jess)
  Telepathische Nachrichten (div.)
  AH Mitgliederbeiträge (Candace)
  AH Mitgliederbeiträge (Jess)
  Spirituelle Schätze
  Italian
  Translations - Candace
  Translations - Jess
  Translations - Others
  Portuguese
  by Candace
  By Jess
  By Others
  Spanish
  Anfitriones Divinos
  Bitácoras Fénix
  Creadores-de-Alas (WingMakers/Lyricus)
  Escritos de Candace
  Escritos de Otros
  Monjoronsón
  Telemensajes de Candace
  Telemensajes de Jess Anthony
  Telemensajes de Otros
  Chinese
  By Candace
  By Jess
  By Others
  Korean Translations
  Hungarian Translations
  Swedish Translations

Search
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Political Information Last Updated: Jul 17, 2019 - 5:40:46 AM


The UN’s Free Speech Problem
By Binoy Kampmark with comments by Ron
Jul 16, 2019 - 11:46:42 PM

Email this article
 Printer friendly page Share/Bookmark

https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/07/the-uns-free-speech-problem/#more-94598

July 14th, 2019

Anyone willing to consult the international law book on the subject of free speech will find it heavy with protections for free speech.  The UN Declaration of Human Rights features, in its preamble, the ideal that "human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want", nothing less than "the highest aspiration of the common people". Article 19 re-emphasises the point that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression including the "freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

International law did, however, come with its onerous, stifling limits.  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights gives nodding approval to legitimate injunctions "as are provided by law and are necessary... (c) for respect of the rights or reputation of others; (d) for the protection of national order (ordre public), or of public health or morals".  Such limits have provided governments with fertile ground to target the contrarian happy to march to a different tune.

In recent years, the pendulum has shifted its ponderous way from such notions of untrammelled expression - if, indeed, it could ever be said to exist - to one of regulation. There are opinions best not expressed, let alone held.  They constitute threats to social order, harmony, offending sensibilities and minds alike. A global policing effort against inappropriate content on the Internet and on social media is receiving a number of enthusiasts from purported liberal democracies and authoritarian states alike.  A war on hate speech, and words in general deemed disorderly to the social fabric, has been declared, and anyone having views suitably labelled will be targeted.

Social media platforms figure heavily in this regard.  Call it hate, call it an inspiration to terrorism: the lines blend and blur, rubbed out before the censor and the legislator. At the G20 summit in Osaka this year, Australia's Pentecostal Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, was busy moralising about the dangers posed by online content that might be considered terroristic in nature.  In what he regarded as a personal victory of sorts, he encouraged G20 leaders to issue a joint statement urging "online platforms to meet our citizens' expectations that they must not allow use of their platforms to facilitate terrorism and [violent extremism conducive to terrorism]."

The United Nations has not been exempted from such outbursts of moral regulation.  Last month, the UN Secretary General António Guterres indicateda shift of sorts.  "Hate speech may have gained a foothold, but it is now on notice."  Sounding like a figure taking to the barricades, bayonet at the ready, Guterres insisted that, "We will never stop confronting it." On looking at global conditions, the Secretary General saw "a groundswell of xenophobia, racism and intolerance, violent misogyny, anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred".

In his foreword to the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, the Secretary General points the finger to such culprits as social media "and other forms of communication".  (No surprise there.)  "Public discourse is being weaponized for political gain and incendiary rhetoric that stigmatizes and dehumanizes minorities, migrants, refugees, women and any so-called ‘other'."

Ron: However, the cultural Marxist weaponisation of rhetoric that stigmatizes and dehumanizes white men and Christians is apparently OK. Presumably they are not "other".].

It does not take long for matters to bet murky.  Freedom of expression is straight forward enough: usually, states and authorities will always control it citing some general prevailing interest.  Punishing hate speech, however, is an exercise doomed to endless manipulations.  Spot the hate; spot the authoritarian wishing to prevent it.

Even the UN strategy document on the subject acknowledges an absence of any international legal definition of hate speech.working definition is offered: "any kind of communication in speech, writing, or behaviour, 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, [Ron: other than Christian?!] ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, [Ron: other than white?!] descent, gender or other identity factor [Ron: For instance if someone self identifies as, say,  a "turnip"] ."

The document seems to take issue with thresholds.  Hate speech is not prohibited in international law per se, preferring to focus on "the incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence".  Despite States not being required to prohibit hate speech, it was "important to underline that even when not prohibited, hate speech may be harmful."  We are left to the unruly world of hurt feelings and taking offence.

The UN strategy struggles to find coherence.  Meaningless assertions are made.  "The UN supports more speech, not less, as the key means to address hate speech." Hardly.  The more important point is the urge "to know to act effectively" involving various commitments to address "root causes, drivers and actors of hate speech", the "monitoring and analysing of hate speech" and examining "the misuse of the Internet and social media for spreading hate speech and the factors that drive individuals towards violence."  We have been warned.

Roping in hate within a regime of punishment is a dangerous legislative or regulatory game to play.  Given the distinctly omnivorous nature of the digital world, the very idea of seeking some retributive model against the spouters of bile has all the hallmarks of failure and scattergun zealotry.  States pounce on such instances, taking issue with anything contrarian that might be deemed hateful. [Ron: some] Political, cultural and religious practices are elevated to realms of the unquestioned. The UN should be the last body to take such a road, but finds itself in rather unfortunate company in doing so.

[Ron: Arguably the UN is actually at the Talmudic core of the Talmudic cultural Marxism disease and needs to be abolished and replaced with a truly moral and genuinely global representative governance organisation.].

As Frank La Rue, UN special rapporteur on the promotion of protection of freedom of opinion and expression noted in 2012:

The right to freedom of expression implies that it should be possible to scrutinize, openly debate and criticize, even harshly and unreasonably, ideas, opinions, belief systems and institutions, including religious ones, as long as this does not advocate hatred that incites hostility, discrimination or violence against an individual or a group of individuals.

[Ron: Sooo, WHY is it kosher to call people 'Nazis' and/or white supremicists? And why is it OK to discriminate and use State force and violence to imprison    scholars and others who question the veracity of the Holocaust Hoax or the crimes commtted by the Rothschilds and other Jews?].

Danish lawyer and human rights activist Jacob Mchangama makes the sensible point that:

The UN should and must fight racism and hate speech.  But any attempt at widening the definition and strengthening the enforcement of hate speech bans under international law creates a clear and present danger for freedom of expression already under global attack.

The inner authoritarian in governments has been encouraged.

[Colour fonts, bolding and comments in square brackets added.].

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne and can be reached at: bkampmark@gmail.comRead other articles by Binoy.




All writings by members of AbundantHope are copyrighted by
©2005-2019 AbundantHope - All rights reserved

Detailed explanation of AbundantHope's Copyrights are found here


Top of Page

Political Information
Latest Headlines
Media and Film Industry Promote Satan Worshipers
Protecting Information Space from Facebook’s Tyranny
Who Owns the UK Media in 2019 ?
Raising the Red Flag: Americans Fear a Gun Grab on the Horizon
Britain and its Hidden War on its Minors
UK Calls for ‘stronger protections for Christians’ while Continuing to Support Terrorism in Syria
Researcher Reports Soviets Created Child-Trafficking Rings in the West for Blackmail
Hillary & the Conspiracy of Relentless Suicides
Upside down or right side up ? Comparing Chinese vs. Western Civilizational Hierarchies
Daesh Is Curiously Pursuing The Same Strategic Goal As India In Afghanistan
British Colonialism laid the ground for the Crises in Hong Kong and Kashmir
Former CIA Spook: "Russian Hoax Coup & Epstein Are Interlocked"
Aussie Reserve Bank, Considering "Extreme Measures", Admits "We're Almost Out Of Ammo"
The Writing's On The Wall
Death Of Inmate 76318-054
The History Of The World, In One Video
Who Governs ?
America-Firsters Gather
Monsanto Had ‘Fusion Center’ Dedicated to Discrediting Journalists, Documents Reveal
Interpreting Russia & China’s UNSC Stances Towards Kashmir & Crimea