(Robert Malone) — The “International Day for Countering Hate Speech” was on June 18. Yep, there is now a special day to promote and legitimize propaganda and censorship. On that day, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres released a press release outlining their new “plan of action” to censor speech and calling for more governmental propaganda.
The United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech provides a framework to tackle both the causes and impacts of this scourge. And the United Nations is currently preparing Global Principles for Information Integrity to guide decision makers around these issues.
Basically, the U.N. will be rolling out a new edict requiring nations to censor citizens and organizations by documenting what they perceive as harms done by free-speech “this scourge.”
Hate speech today targets a broad range of groups, often based on grounds of race, ethnicity, religion, belief or political affiliation.
So, hate speech now includes speech criticizing a belief or specific political affiliation. When did the definition of hate speech change? Who knew?
Secretary-General António Guterres then states that each nation already has an obligation under international law to censor as well as propagandize. He writes:
States have an obligation under international law to prevent and combat incitement to hatred and to promote diversity, mutual understanding and solidarity. They must step up and implement these commitments, while ensuring that the measures they take preserve freedom of speech and protect minorities and other communities.
Wait! What!
So, the U.N. has already passed international law to “prevent and combat incitement to hatred and to promote diversity, mutual understanding and solidarity.” To which each nation has already committed to. So there we are:
- There are international laws that nations must prevent and combat “incitement to hatred.” (What the heck is hatred and who gets to define it? Does this include saying bad things about a “belief” or “political group”? Who decides what beliefs or political groups?)
- There are international laws that nations must promote diversity. (Diversity – a code word for?)
- There are international laws that nations must “promote mutual understanding.” (What the heck is “mutual understanding.” When and how did the U.S. commit to that via international law?)
- There are international laws that nations must promote solidarity. (The term “solidarity” is a well-defined modern term for socialism.)
From Wikipedia:
Solidarity describes itself as ‘a democratic, revolutionary socialist, feminist, anti-racist organization.’ Its roots are in strains of the Trotskyist tradition but has departed from many aspects of traditional Leninism and Trotskyism. It is more loosely organized than most ‘democratic centralist’ groups, and it does not see itself as the vanguard of the working class or the nucleus of a vanguard. It was formed in 1986 from a fusion of the International Socialists, Workers Power, and socialist unity. The former two groups had recently been reunited in a single organization, while the last was an expelled fragment of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Solidarity’s name was originally in part an homage to Solidarność – a US-backed labor union in Communist Poland which, in Solidarity’s view, had challenged the Soviet Union from the left.
So…
The self-described socialist Secretary-General António Guterres, who served as secretary-general of the Portuguese Socialist Party from 1992 to 2002, and his comrades have basically inserted language into various treaties to ensure that the U.N.’s globalist agenda is built on the backbone of socialism.
So, where is that international law, exactly? The international law(s) that state that each nation commits to propaganda and censoring free speech in the name of some ambiguous terminology, that now also includes speech that targets political affiliations and beliefs.
What are the international laws that state that each nation commits to “solidarity”?
There is no acceptable level of hate speech; we must all work to eradicate it completely.
Who put that socialist Secretary-General António Guterres in charge of the world?
Ummm… we did?
But beyond that, where are those international laws? Look no further than Agenda 2030.
Agenda 2030 is a U.N. treaty, which is supposed to drive sustainable development and eradicate poverty “in all its forms and dimensions.” But Agenda 2030 does so much more than that. Agenda 2030 promotes socialism, emphasizing government intervention, a redistribution of wealth, a universal living wage for everyone (working or not), a program of universal education, universal healthcare, and the creation of a globalized governing body – with a centrally controlled globalized governance system. President Obama signed Agenda 2030 just before he left office in 2016.
President Trump must commit to removing the U.S. from this executive agreement if he is elected. Furthermore, the Senate must insist upon ratifying this treaty, which would then require a 2/3 vote to pass. Ex-president Obama had no right to sign this as an executive agreement, as it is one of the most flawed and over-reaching treaties that the U.N. has ever passed. The Senate must assert its fundamental duty under the Constitution to ratify this treaty ASAP.
In reading Secretary-General António Guterres statement on censoring free speech, one must wonder how does the U.N. intend to censor and propagandize free speech. The only way it is possible to both censor people from saying wrong-speak and to preserve free speech is to make “wrong speech” separate from “free speech” in the eyes of the law. All a nation or the U.N. needs is a high-profile court case or two, and some new international agreements passed (courtesy of the U.N.). You know, a law here, a law there, a court case supporting those laws, and then “wrong speech” is not included in the definition of “free speech.” Then bobs-your-uncle, the issue is resolved, right?
Governments, local authorities, religious, corporate and community leaders have a duty to invest in measures to promote tolerance, diversity and inclusivity, and to challenge hate speech in all its forms.
We, as a people, as a nation, must stand up and say no to this assault on our very rights as United States citizens.
The founders of this great nation knew that the unpopular, the ugly, and the controversial speech is precisely what needs protecting. What matters here is our fundamental right to say whatever we want. This freedom is at the heart of our constitution, and to remaining a free people.
The globalists, the socialists, and the communists seem to need to control society because they distrust the free will and thought of the general populace. Their power can only be maintained by removing our rights to free speech, and that means ALL speech. When it becomes a crime to speak of certain things, when the government becomes the arbitrator of “good speech,” and by extension to control thought, we are no longer free.
The U.N. has again overstepped.
The issue at hand is the rights of people to express themselves. Good, bad, or indifferent.
Reprinted with permission from Robert Malone.