Things go catawampus when some government, or committee of Nimrods*, seems to think they can organize society better than their Creator. Such is the case far too often with the United Nations, hereafter referred to as the un, and pronounced the same as the prefix in their favorite word - unsustainable. Various un committees claim the power to change the global climate, attempt to manage and/or end private property rights, infringe the right of self defense, and keep millions poor and hungry by their meddling in developing nations, and their insistence that they finance poverty, instead of working towards eradicating it.
They have a $5 Billion dollar annual budget (25% comes from the US), and a workforce of over 40,000 people. Clearly, nothing good can come from such a massive bureaucracy. And let's not forget their "generosity" with your money. Honestly, it might be far more effective to simply fire the blue beret bureaucrats and distribute that money to the world's poor. But I digress.
Am I against the un? Not exactly. There should be a forum for discussing international issues, and a process to attempt to settle conflicts peacefully. That was the original intent. But now the un has devolved into an army of ne'er do wells, academics, and socialists (although I repeat myself) that have no business having any power, or influence.
Here is a yet another example of what is wrong with the un, the curiously named Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The title sounds noble enough. Who is for racism, right? And then you read what tops the agenda of their taxpayer paid meeting/vacation in Geneva - stopping hate speech spread via Internet. Heck, I even have a quote from El Jefe herself.
“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
If these little tyrants REALLY respected the freedom of expression, meetings like this would never happen. While the right to speak freely exists, the right to be offended does not. Offense is a choice. If you don't like what someone writes, or says on the Internet, don't read their blog, or watch their video. Its not complicated to anyone with half a brain. A free and polite society has a way of dealing with any speech that goes over the line. You ignore it. There's no need for Commissar Pansieri to come and save us. And of course there are legal remedies for slander and libel. Again, no need for the un to get involved. The animals that feel it necessary to riot for the cameras at the slightest perceived offense are the problem, not freedom of expression.
What motivated me to write this post is the whole notion of stopping "hate" speech. How anyone could look into the heart of another person and know their motivation is a mystery to me. Do the un folks have superpowers? Who is going to determine what is, and what is not "hate" speech? If a preacher says that homosexuality is sinful, is that "hate" speech? It already is in some countries. If I say Jesus is Lord, is that "hate" speech? It is in some countries. If I write that the un racism committee needs to be dissolved, along with all the rest of the bureaucracy, is that hate speech? It might be if Flavia and her storm troopers get their way.
You can't have freedom-lite. PC language rules on college campuses are killing higher education. Note how freely the terms "racism" or "homophobe" are tossed out to end any productive debate, or shutdown disagreement of any kind. How do you even prove you don't "hate" someone? You can't. But in this brave new utopia the socialists have framed for us, the nature of the evidence is irrelevant. The seriousness of the charge is all that matters now, right?
If Flavia gets her way, would you have to run and hide immediately after publishing, for fear that the blue beret wearing secret police storm in and end your Internet privileges? And then would you be summoned before the un Tribunal Against Hate and Other Bad Stuff We Don't Like, or just sent directly to the death camps?
Either we are a free people, or we are in bondage. You end, or curtail the freedom of expression, and the entire world suffers. Communication, the free exchange of knowledge and ideas, is compromised to the detriment of humanity. No subject should be off limits. No debate should be verboten.
One commentator once compared the un General Assembly to the Mos Eisley Cantina scene from Star Wars. I don't think you could come up with a better comparison. As Obi-Wan warned,
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious."
*Nimrod was a tyrant who enslaved people and attempted to create a single world government without God. His rebellion led to a scattering of the people. His name is synonymous with the futility of defying your Creator.