The UN Condemns Freedom of Speech

I see that the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights is continuing its lunatic hegira to some imaginary perfect world. This time they are taking up the imaginary crime of “hate speech”. These days, “hate speech” accusations are most commonly used by a variety of governments and individuals to prevent discussion of the problems with Islam.

In support of this claim, I offer the two most recent cases, the persecution of Geert Wilders  for asking “Should we have more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands”, and the more recent persecution of Marine Le Pen, not for doing anything criminal, but for posting pictures of some of the inhumane criminal brutality committed by ISIS. The common thread is a brazen attempt to criminalize the criticism of Islam.

Two days ago, the UN High Commission for Human Rights put out a declaration regarding what they claim is”hate speech”.  It starts as follows:

20 March 2017 – On the eve of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the United Nations human rights chief today reminded Governments around the world that they have a legal obligation to stop hate speech and hate crimes 

Whoa. Just whoa up right there, Mr. Human Rights Chief.

As far as I know, the US Government has absolutely NO legal obligation to stop hate speech. None. And in the US such a law would clearly be un-Constitutional. We are guaranteed the right to express our hatred of anything, whether it is the President, or Islam, or anything else that we hate. Ingrown toenails. Our jobs. Our spouses. We can say we hate anything we damn well please, and no UN functionary can say otherwise. (Of course, the UN statement doesn’t mention Islam, no, no, that wouldn’t do at all … but I digress.)

I further object to the UN Chief’s claim that he is “reminding” governments of a non-existent obligation. He is not the father of the world who has come to chide his children or “remind” us of something we’ve forgotten. He is our servant, not our conscience, and we pay his salary. He can certainly recommend things to us, that’s fine … but he is presuming far beyond his station, status, and personal history to “remind” of one damn thing.

Next, this has nothing to do with racial discrimination, the ostensible reason for his lofty proclamation. He could have actually talked about racial discrimination. Unlike “hate speech”, discrimination is a real issue. And who knows, he might have actually done some good. Instead, he’s pretending that the imaginary crime of “hate speech” has something to do with racial discrimination.

Finally, I strongly object to the underhanded joining of two very different things, hate crimes and hate speech, and to his pretending they are the same. They are not. Hate crimes are crimes. Hate speech is free speech that the UN Chief doesn’t happen to like.

The Big Chief goes on:

He urged Governments to adopt legislation expressly prohibiting racist hate speech, including the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, and threats or incitement to violence.

This man is a professional at jamming unrelated things together and claiming they are all the same. Not only does he say these things are they all the same, but they are all so bad we need to implement new laws to deal with them. So let’s look at them one at at time, starting with his claim that we should prohibit speech expressing “racial superiority”.

I can find you ten websites today that claim that black people are far superior to white people, and another ten that claim the opposite. These statements of racial superiority, while they may be unpleasant, are absolutely protected free speech under the US Constitution. Despite that, the Big Chief of All His UN Children continues apace:

“It is not an attack on free speech or the silencing of controversial ideas or criticism, but a recognition that the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities,” he said.

Hogwash. Bovine waste products. It is absolutely an attack on free speech to prohibit a black man from saying, for example, that in terms of looks black women are far superior to white women. It’s an idea based on racial superiority, no question … but it is also absolutely protected speech.

(I’m reminded of living in the Solomons Islands, where almost all the locals are black, brown, or Chinese. I was walking with my Solomon Chinese buddy, the manager of the local band I played in. A cruise ship was in town, a very unusual occurrence. An immense pasty-white woman in short shorts, a halter top, and a straw hat came sailing around the corner in the bright tropical sunshine. It was scary, there were acres of white skin topped by a sour expression like she had encountered a bad smell. After we’d gotten out of her path and turned to watch her stately passing, I said to my friend, “Man, you don’t have to white to be ugly, but I figure it gives us an unfair racial advantage.” He fell out. The UN Grand Gorgonzola would likely have arrested me on the spot for my assertion of white racial superiority. But I digress … we were speaking of protected speech.)

Next, we are “reminded” by Mr. Big Cheese UN Man that we have a “legal obligation” to prohibit the dissemination of ideas based on hatred. Right there you’d have to assume that this guy has been to college. Only a college graduate would think that we could stop people from “the dissemination of ideas based on hatred”. Dear heavens, there are hundreds of thousands of hateful messages posted on the internet every day. How on earth does he plan to stop that? That doesn’t pass the laugh test.

And of course, since the secret subject is Islam, you can be sure that he isn’t talking about the endless hatred spewed by Muslims against Israel and the West …

Next, Big Chief Knows-More-Than-Us “reminds” us we have a “legal obligation” to prohibit the incitement to racial discrimination. By this, I assume he means advocating the highly unequal treatment of blacks, Asians, and whites under the Affirmative Action laws in the US … because if that’s not what he means, it certainly fits the description. Yes, I know it was done for “noble” reasons, but it has been highly destructive nonetheless. And since decisions are being made based on nothing more than race, it is assuredly racial discrimination.

The Chief goes on to say we also have a legal obligation to stop threats. No sure how any state can stop threats, but in any case in the US threatening someone can indeed be a crime. If you seriously and believably threaten to harm someone you can be charged. And if it is neither serious nor believable … who cares?

Finally, our UN Head Nanny says we need to keep people from incitement to violence. Curiously this is one of the few exceptions to the US free speech laws. However, even there not all incitement to violence is punishable. The Supremes ruled in 1969 that incitement to violence could be a crime if it passed three tests. The incitement had to have the intent and the likelihood of inciting immediate violence.

Obviously, that could not be applied to anything said on the web. No matter what I say, there’s almost no way I could intentionally incite someone to immediate violence. Instead, it has been applied in the US solely to “fighting words”, something said in a social setting which would whip the hearers up to immediately go attack their neighbors. It would apply, for example, to someone leading a lynch mob whipping the crowd into a frenzy.

But anything short of that is legal.

Sadly, I would note that the very strongest online incitements to violence these days come from Islam. ISIS regularly calls for people in the west to KILL THEIR NEIGHBORS … but nooo, again, you’ll notice that His Noble UN-Consciousness didn’t mention that either.

As I said, the statement from His Royal UN-Pleasantness jammed together a wide variety of thing ranging from the ludicrous to the unenforceable to the one exception to the US First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

So … anyone care to take bets on the religion of the man leading the UN charge against hate speech?

Yes, you are right. His name is Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad, of Jordan. But he can’t use his title when working for the UN, so he’s required to be plain Mr.Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein. So I guess that at least he comes by his unpleasant holier-than-thou attitude honestly. If you are born a prince, looking down on commoners is what you do … doesn’t make it any more likable, however.


It gets worse. His Princeliness was also one of the main authors of the abomination known as the International Criminal Court (ICC). Fortunately, the US is NOT a member of this international power grab. We’re saved by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has long held that only US courts have the right to try citizens for crimes committed on US soil … but the ICC claims jurisdiction for any crime committed anywhere. Sorry, Princey, not interested …

It gets worse yet. The Prince is from Jordan. Here’s a bit of Jordan’s human rights record.

In 2006, two newspaper editors who reprinted cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad previously published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten were sentenced to two months of imprisonment.

In 2011, Jordan initiated a trial in absentia against Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, the creator of the offending cartoon, as well as 19 Danish journalists and editors who had published the cartoon in various news outlets.

In 2009, Jordanian poet Eslam Samhan was sentenced to imprisonment and a fine for blasphemy after having included Quranic verses in his poetry.

Those evil Jordanian Muslim maniacs are throwing cartoonists in jail, and their precious Prince wants to lecture us on proper speech???

Sadly, it gets even worse. The UN Bloatocrat Formerly Known as Prince is rabidly anti-free-market. His official Twitter account tweeted the following, before hastily deleting it:


“Urgent threat”? And why is a Human Rights Chief involving himself in economic questions at all??

My take on Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad is that he is likely a cultured, educated, decent, and eminently presentable gentleman, a wonderful man to fill an empty seat at dinner, urbane and polished, who unfortunately thinks that he and his elite friends should be in charge of the highest court on the planet; that his kangaroo court should rule over every single person on Earth; that the free market is a danger to mankind; and that criticism of Islam constitutes “hate speech” and must be stopped, by violence if necessary. In addition, he’s clearly OK with throwing cartoonists like me who’ve drawn cartoons of Mohammed in jail, and he says nothing about the Koran-inspired hate speech that jams the airwaves.

How perfectly Islamic …

Gotta say … as usual, the UN has totally beclowned itself by elevating this most pleasant of unpleasant fellows to his lofty, very well-paid, and totally undeserved position. Instead of using his title and responsibilities for good, he is doing his best to cover up the manifold wrongs done in the name of Islam by declaring that any criticism of Islam is “hate speech”. This view is a very dangerous modern trend, one that is totally antithetical and inimical to free women and men everywhere.

Onwards, dear friends, what a glorious time to be alive.


43 thoughts on “The UN Condemns Freedom of Speech

  1. Thanks Willis for the article. First of all, our house was lit up like a candle for the “Earth Hour” . Even the neighbor asked why all the lights were on , a short explanation led him to turn on his lights as well !
    Second thanks to you and many others these people like this “Princeliness” are irrelevant and their screeching is proof of that. And third the UN out of the US but at least the US out of the UN . Let them flounder with their own money.


  2. When considering Middle Eastern comment and thought –pattern you have to take an 180 degree – opposite – perspective. They do not utilize Western thought patterns and logic. Of paramount concern is Islam-Allah, their family, Their clan/tribal relationships – everything else is secondary. Their idea of a free markets is having a – privilege granted – corner or percentage of a particular market which benefits them. The one thing they do understand is a Big Stick – which they will readily use on others less fortunate.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Read Leon Uris, The Haj. Also James Clavelle’s Whirlwind. For a better understanding of ME as current iteration Lawrence In Arabia by Scott Anderson is an excellent introduction.


  3. I hate about 97% of the UN, and the High Commission for Human Rights is at the top of that pile of horse manure.
    I did not make that 100% because (alluding to Ronald Reagan), there must be a pony in there somewhere.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. It is de rigeur for UN human rights commissioners to say dopey things. It goes with the make-believe territory. Navi Pillay was also a master of the absurd. This interview was briefly available at the BBC website, though it was quickly taken down, presumably when it was realised just how embarrassing Pillay sounds.

    BBC radio’s Owen Bennett-Jones and Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on The Interview, aired 12 December 2008, beginning at 10 minutes and 16 seconds, when the topic of rights was introduced:

    OBJ: Well, let me ask you about human rights. I would like to ask you whether they exist?
    NP: Human rights exist. It was all written up 6 years ago in the universal declaration of human rights.
    OBJ: 60 years ago.
    NP: 60 years ago. And the principles written then are true today. All of us embrace those human rights principles – the right to life, the right to dignity, the right to social and economic rights. What is absent is a vigorous implementation of those rights. There are huge gaps in implementation. That’s where I come in as High Commissioner.
    OBJ: I’d like to go back though before the implementation of this document, because there it is, as you say, 60 years ago the universal declaration of human rights…. Now I was surprised to read only 48 countries actually voted for it and yet people such as yourself say it has universal application.
    NP: It is a founding document of the United Nations. It’s now international law that every member of the United Nations by virtue of membership undertakes obligations to observe the founding documents.
    OBJ: And yet it is in some ways out of date isn’t it?
    NP: It’s been fleshed out in many significant ways. Economic and social rights, we have a convention. Civil and political rights, we have a convention. And numerous – like the Convention on the rights of the child, the Convention against discrimination of women, and more recently on the Convention on disabilities – so it’s been fleshed out in many other documents.
    OBJ: But what I’m getting at is that you would see it as, I think, as a permanent statement of human rights, and it isn’t, because human rights change, they’re not permanent. For instance, sexuality is not in that document – the right to your own sexuality. And yet now, if someone was writing that document, they would definitely include it. So what does that tell you about human rights and how universal and permanent they are?
    NP: Well it tells me the original document the universal declaration sets out the universal norms to which we all subscribe. Subsequent developments have im…, have met – gone along with evolving time – evolving, not even new rights, the realisation of the rights …
    OBJ: Well that’s the crucial point, you’ve put your finger on it, not new rights. But they are new rights aren’t they?
    NP: No, they were always demands of the population. They were not, in that point in time – see the right to sexual orientation at that point in time was not spelt out in the universal declaration but has been, and is being, in subsequent documentation.
    OBJ: Yes, but prehistoric man would not have missed the right to a fair trial, there were no lawyers, there were no judges.
    NP: Yeah, well I’m not referring to a prehistoric document. I’m referring…
    OBJ: No, no, but you’ve missed my point that these things change, I mean, you know, they’re not as absolute as I suspect you would like to argue they are.
    NP: The rights set out in the universal declaration are absolute, universal, indivisible, interrelated. I agree with you, there are huge gaps. There are many countries who resist rights that they think are western devised, Western oriented. Well, these are all different, divergent points of view.
    OBJ: Yes, but they may be right. Take China for example. Do you think a Chinese person has the same rights as an American person, human rights?
    NP: A Chinese person is entitled to the same rights as other persons in the United States or anywhere in the world.
    OBJ: But they are different societies and they have different moral values. So why shouldn’t a Chinese person be able to say look, you know, we think that old people have the right not to be put in old people’s homes, we take that seriously, you don’t do that in the West, in the West you have democracy we don’t. I mean they’re different.
    NP: You have to take into account local context, cultural concerns. In Africa, for instance, there are very concerned with community rights, not only individual rights. But elderly people have a right to dignity, and even the Chinese will agree with that.
    OBJ: The Chinese certainly would; it’s a question of whether the West does. What I’m trying to get at is I’m not convinced there is a universal – I mean, for instance, if a Chinese person says, well quite as most do, we are quite happy with one-party rule, it’s working fine.
    NP: Yeah, that’s at the implemental, implementation level, the interpretation of how they are going to apply that, that norm. A different country may interpret it differently in terms of their context. My job is to ensure human rights are respected in the way countries interpret these norms.

    As Jeremy Bentham said, ‘nonsense on stilts’.
    In relation to the Prince, I suppose he is recommending excision of sections of the holy book. Otherwise what he is asking for doesn’t make much sense, does it?

    Liked by 1 person

    • It shows how progressive the UN is. They were concerned about the rights of the 0.8% who are confused which bathroom to use years before anybody else.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. On the issue of hate crimes vs hate speech. As a member of the class that receives the plurality of hate crime targeting in the US, I still believe that just as the term hate speech is meaningless, so should the concept of the hate crime. Assault is assault, battery is battery, murder is murder, and vandalism is vandalism. To try and attribute essentially political motives to these crimes and put them in a different category is placing the government in the position of arbitrating thoughts.

    Let’s go back to protecting First Amendment speech and get rid of all the attempts to legislate thought.

    Liked by 3 people

        • motivation and intent
          “oh yes, I killed someone, but I didn’t mean to do it, therefore I’m not guilty by reason of carelessness”.

          motivation and intent should be irrelevant. if you kill someone, either by accident or on purpose, what difference does it make to the dead person?

          does the family of the dead person take any comfort in the knowledge that their loved one is dead as a result of you not paying attention?

          the penalty should match the harm done. your intentions should be irrelevant, because all too often “good intentions” are an excuse for evil on a massive scale.

          motivation and intent is simply an attempt to excuse the person in the wrong, for the harm they have done.


          • > “oh yes, I killed someone, but I didn’t mean to do it, therefore I’m not guilty by reason of carelessness”.

            I believe that you have just outlined the legal difference between manslaughter and murder

            Intent very much matters.

            accidents happen and sometimes people die, that doesn’t always result in charges, let alone murder charges


  6. Outstanding, WE. Your writing and your thought process are treasures.
    “Bovine waste products” reminded me of Bess Truman’s response to reporters who asked her if she could get the president (Harry Truman) to find a replacement for the word “manure” (which he apparently said a few dozen times a day):
    “Gentlemen, do you realize how long it took me to get him to use the word ‘manure’?”


  7. I totally agree with the UN! Islam is an ongoing hate crime from which hate speech spews continuously and all humans must stand against it and bring it to a swift end! Whats that? The UN wants to round up all non-muslims and put them in re-education camps? Oopsie, my bad, never mind.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Willis,
    Are you notified when a comment is added to an earlier post?
    I just did so to “the Problem with Islam.”


  9. The UN is acquiring aspects of a government: Forbid, forbid, forbid. They don’t mind North Korea. They don’t mind China. They even elected Ghaddafi’s Libya to the human rights commission – that’s like putting Leo DiCaprio in charge of a reduction of jet aircraft CO2 emissions.


  10. ….Why are you looking for your money under the street light?
    ….dah…the light is better and it is a lot safer than in the alley over there!

    The reason YOU are guilty sinners is because
    ……. you are nice, responsive, kind, etc and might respond
    …..and will give money like your mamma told you to.

    The folk doing jihad are not likely to do anything but cut his throat.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. You can add to your quoted cases of Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen, the anti “Islamaphobia” blasphemy motions recently passed in Canada’s federal and Ontario’s provincial parliament.


  12. Hate speech, hate crimes, what does this mean? If you murdered someone, chances are it’s because you hated them, you probably didn’t set out to murder a random person. So what makes a hate crime special? I figure it’s just the opposite — you hate some concept, so you murder some random person who you do not hate but who happens to belong to that concept. For example, every recent terrorist attack has been by Muslims against random and unknown persons who were not Muslim, because they were not Muslim. All hate crimes.

    One definition of the verb ‘hate’ is “feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone)”. That sounds ordinary, even banal, so Hannah Arendt’s phrase “the banality of evil” comes to mind.

    Likewise, hate speech would be calling a person bad names based on their race, religion or whatever, instead of calling them bad names for something they did. Libel by association rather than direct libel. Too hypothetical to me, I only mention it to be able to point out that criticizing a person is different than criticizing a religion, and also different from criticizing the actions of of the followers of a religion.

    If I say something about some religion, say Scientology, I say it without hatred of anybody, but someone in Scientology might claim it was hate speech because they hated what I said. Odd, the hatred is on the wrong foot.


  13. What never ceases to amaze – and increasingly disturb – me is how much of this nonsense seems to originate from one or more of the UN/EU’s ever-expanding multiplicity of arms, elbows hands and fingers. Particularly on the “climate” front and the Israel-can-do-no-right front.

    As a Canadian Jewish person who’s been observing and writing about UN antics on these two fronts since Dec. 2009, I recently took a trip down my blog-memory-lane. Until about Dec. 2016, I held some optimism (albeit in increasingly decreasing measure!) that things would not get to be, well, worse than I thought!

    Alas, I was mistaken – on both fronts. But this latest from the UN – apart from banishing my puzzlement as to why the “vote” on M-103 transpired prior to the previously announced early April date – has convinced me that nothing short of a UN-exit on the part of real democracies (before they lose all semblance thereof) stands a chance of getting us back to the way we were, so to speak.

    The UN thrives on “let’s you and him fight” while the bureaucrats push forward with their agenda – and under Trudeau (who is not the brightest of political lights), Canada is being torn apart by the same “principle” 😦

    All of the above whining aside … I really stopped by to mention that Matt Ridley has a piece in today’s UK The Times, that’s definitely worth a read, IMHO:

    Stand up for our right to criticise Islam

    Since the Enlightenment we’ve been free to poke fun at religion and a blasphemy offence has no place in a modern society
    [W]hile a few sick individuals find within Islam justification for murder and terror, a far larger number find justification for misogyny and intolerance. We must be allowed to say this without being thought to criticise Muslims as people.

    Islamist terrorism has become more frequent, but criticism of the faith of Islam, and of religion in general, seems to be becoming less acceptable, as if it were equivalent to racism or blasphemy. The charge of Islamophobia is too quickly levelled.

    [he concludes:]

    We can and must make an offer to the fundamentalist Muslims: abandon your political ambitions and become a religion as this has come to be understood elsewhere in an increasingly diverse and tolerant world — a private moral code, a way of life, a philosophy — and you will find the rest of us to be friends. But threaten the hard-won political, intellectual and physical freedoms now accorded to every man and woman, yes even and especially women, in our essentially secular society and you will be resisted and, pray God, defeated.

    Keep up the good work:-)

    Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks, Willis. I’ve always harboured some suspicions that WordPress has some … uh … anti-femitic tendencies, and I shall add its treatment of that comment to my collection of “evidence” 😉

        As an aside, I am increasingly leaning towards dropping the word “passionate” into my personal basket of “deplorables” – along with “transformative” and other assorted droppings of frequently recycled UN verbiage. My alarm bells on this particular word first began ringing circa July 2015 when Australia’s now-former PM, Julia Gillard, declared her “passion” for education. And, IMHO, it pops up far too often during the course of my twitter-trawlings!

        Hilary (hoping that this comment succeeds in escaping WP’s filters!)

        P.S. Looking at the 11:02 am timestamp on your comment, notification of which hit my Inbox one hour later, suggests to me that you might want to change your settings. See: Settings–>Site Time Zone


        • The word “passionate” is very trendy right now, which is enough reason to classify it as deplorable.
          If the world is divided into “thinkers” and “feelers”, the feelers being the left wing and the thinkers being the right wing, then the “passionates” would be the extreme left.


          • Well, via Dr. Judith Curry’s very important and enlightening blog today, I see that recycle-Mann has declared that he’s “passionate about communicating what we know to the public and to policymakers”.

            So, this indisputably settles it for me: “passionate” has now been consigned to my personal basket of “deplorables”!


    • Is there a word like “tru-dope-ean” being used in Canada these days? I have not been there since I left Quebec back in 1971; at that time it seemed to be headed that way.


  14. If you don’t think hate speech and hate crimes are the same thing, you haven’t been to the northwest. Hate speech IS a hate crime.


  15. Muslims don’t have a monopoly on “hate speech” laws, even if they are more aggressive in using them. Hate speech, blasphemy, censorship, it’s all the same thing, it’s a dangerous political tool. The latest news is from Ireland.

    Under the Defamation Act 2009 a person who publishes or utters blasphemous material “shall be guilty of an offence”. They are be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000.

    The specific complaint relates to an interview conducted on ‘The Meaning of Life’ with Mr Fry. During the show the comedian and writer was questioned about what he might say to God at the pearly gates.

    Mr Fry replied: “How dare you create a world in which there is such misery? It’s not our fault? It’s not right. It’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?”

    He went on to say that if he was met by the Greek gods he would accept them quicker because, “they didn’t present themselves as being all seeing, all wise, all beneficent.”

    He added: “Because the god who created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish.
    “We have to spend our lives on our knees thanking him. What kind of god would do that?”

    See the above link for a video clip from the “offensive” program.

    Stephen Fry’s comments are just a modern version of what Voltaire said after the Lisbon earthquake.


    • Thanks, YMMV. I always thought that a “god” that wanted humans to worship him/her would be the most insecure being on the planet … guess it’s a good thing I didn’t say so in Ireland.

      All of these “hate speech” and “blasphemy” laws are a sickness.



  16. Pingback: Trademarked Hate Speech | Skating Under The Ice

  17. Pingback: Can The Truth Be “Racist”? | Skating Under The Ice

You are invited to add your comments. Please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so we can all be clear on your subject.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s