h/t Herb Richmond
The United Nations periodically attempts to limit free speech, passing it off as the human right to not be offended. It isn’t surprising that they do. The United Nations is comprised of dictators and free speech presents a real threat to their continued existence.
The United Nations totalitarians are attempting to criminalize “hate speech” worldwide. They falsely claim that “international law” actually requires governments to ban speech and organizations they disagree with.
Recently, they attempted to find an inroad with the Japanese over an internal battle with ethnic Koreans. The UN has had some success.
“Hate-speech” rallies, as depicted in the press and by the UN, are breaking out in Japan led by an anti-Korean group dedicated to protecting Japan from “anti-Japanese leftists, traitors and lawless foreigners.”
The group, the Zaitokukai, appear to be ultra-conservative nationalists, which is also dangerous, but often these groups pick up steam because there are problems that are not addressed and everyone who objects to the problems are painted with the same broad brush.
This group might be a hate group or not, but banning them is dangerous and letting the UN decide is even more dangerous.
Anything that protects free speech and national sovereignty will be opposed by the United Nations.
The communist/fascist-dominated “Human Rights Commission” and the UN “Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,” condemned Japan for not criminalizing the type of free speech exhibited by the Zaitokukai.
How is it their business?
The UN Human Rights Committee told them to revise their constitution in August to meet the UN demands which are to provide reparations for victims of sexual slavery during WW II, end surveillance of Muslims in Japan, continue funding Korean schools, stop exploitation of foreign workers, and pass a comprehensive anti-discrimination law.
The UN racial committee, comprised of a number of dictators, said much the same thing.
If you look at one of their pages on the issue, you will find that they want nations to adopt the Rabat Plan of Action which prohibits advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. They recommend the adoption of comprehensive anti-discrimination national legislations with preventive and punitive action to effectively combat incitement to hatred, as well as the empowerment of minorities and vulnerable groups.”
They want nations to use force and they want all nations to do as they direct. Using an issue that offends many people is always where they start.
Then what happens. Well, in Russia, they arrest punk rock singers who annoy them. Gays have to stay closeted. In the Middle and Far East, people are often hung for apostasy. This is what comes from laws that prohibit free speech with apply vague laws dependent on the opinion of a religious leader, a judge or a politician or some fanatic’s conscript.
High Commissioner Pillay (pictured below) wants the UN to decide what is acceptable on the Internet as well. “Hate speech on the internet must not be tolerated,” she said in Leuven last year when she went back to collect an honorary degree.
Pillay, a South African national, ran for the position as an anti-hate speech candidate.
There is a movement around Japan to limit free speech based on the UN condemnation. Local assemblies are pressuring the central government to eradicate “hate speech.” In December of last year, 12 local entities issued statements calling on the government to act.
Japanese courts actually rely on the U.N. They penalized the groups leading the rallies – the Zaitokukai – for saying the Koreans propagandize in schools in Kyoto and encourage children to worship the NORK dictator – Kim Jong-un.
The Japanese courts don’t see a conflict between freedom of human expression guaranteed in their constitution and the banning of speech that promotes “racial superiority.”
Is American Exceptionalism the same as racial superiority?
Where does it end?
Does sovereignty fall under racial superiority and who gets to decide? Do the courts that bow to the U.N. get to decide?
Japan’s courts acted as they did immediately after the recommendation by the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in August and a Supreme Court ruling on Dec. 9.
The CERD called on the Japanese government to take legal steps to stamp out hate speech, while the Supreme Court ruling recognized that hate speech constitutes racial discrimination.
In mid-December, Japan’s high court fined the anti-Korean demonstrators $12 million yen (about 8.3 million dollars) for protesting outside a school, chanting anti-Korean slogans through a megaphone.
They sound despicable but would a safe zone around the school have stopped it without limiting free speech which will affect everyone else?
On Dec. 22, the Kyoto city assembly unanimously adopted a statement, which declared, “Hate speeches are not only insults but also social expulsion and violence against ethnic Koreans living in Japan and must never be tolerated.”
In 1994, the U.S. was presented with a treaty that would criminalize some speech. The U.S. did not accept the article that requires its signatories to “declare illegal and prohibit” organizations that incite racial hatred. Neither did Japan.
The U.N. never gave up and won’t. It’s in their interests to limit free speech and they will do it by picking unsympathetic characters and activities.
The Zaitokukai might be awful people or not. No one should support xenophobes, nativists or racists if that’s what they are. I have no idea if that is what they are. Their press is probably no better than ours so it’s hard to know what the true story is and it isn’t the point.
The Human Rights Commission includes among its members China, Venezuela, the UAE, Congo, Cuba, El Salvador, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia and so on. The Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination includes the Russian Federation – the people who jail homosexuals, China, Pakistan, Turkey, Lebanon, and so on.
Think about it. These people – the world’s dictators – get to decide?
These are the people who get to decide who gets free speech and when they get it, at least in Japan. Are we next?