Islamo agitprop Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein: “The right to freedom of speech carries with it special duties and responsibilities”

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: UN Human Rights Chief: ‘Legal Obligation to Stop Hate Speech’

Jordanian Islamo agitprop Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein holds the position of High Commissioner at the OIC controlled United Nations.  He demands that our GOD-given right to freedom of speech  is subjected to Islamic law, the shari’a. In that case Muslims get to decide what our “special duties and responsibilities” are.

The jihad against free speech continues, and virtually no one is paying attention to how rapidly it is advancing. Robert Spencer’s latest in PJ Media:

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein declared last week that the nations of the world “have a legal obligation to stop hate speech and hate crimes.” This comes just as Muslim countries are planning to demand that the UN explore “legal options” to stamp out “blasphemy” on social media.

And so the jihad against the freedom of speech is looking to heat up considerably in the near future.

Al Hussein lamented:

[A]cross the world, the politics of division and the rhetoric of intolerance are targeting racial, ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities, and migrants and refugees.

Channeling Hunter S. Thompson, he added:

Words of fear and loathing can, and do, have real consequences.

To forestall those consequences, he demands governments must take action:

States have no excuse for allowing racism and xenophobia to fester, much less flourish. They have the legal obligation to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination, to guarantee the right of everyone, no matter their race, color, national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law.

Al Hussein insisted that criminalizing “hate speech” was not an assault on the freedom of speech:

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.

His denial is hollow. What he is describing is precisely an attack on free speech and the silencing of controversial ideas or criticism. Al Hussein is likely well aware of that fact.

This has been a years-long chess game: first came the charge — ridiculous on its face but relentlessly and indefatigably repeated — that to speak honestly about how jihad terrorists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims constituted “hate.” Then came the likewise specious charge that “hate speech” was not “free speech,” and was capable of being identified by neutral, impartial observers, and that it did not deserve the protection that various governments gave to the freedom of speech.

None of that is true. In reality, hate speech is a subjective judgment based on the political perspectives of the one doing the evaluating.

Freedom of speech protections were first instituted in order to ensure that speech that was hated by the party in power could still be aired. The freedom of speech is our fundamental bulwark against tyranny, and prevents tyrants from declaring opposition to their will to be “hate speech” and thereby outlawing it.

But I never was any good at chess, and now Facebook and Twitter have blocked 90% of their daily referrals from Jihad Watch, my news and commentary site tracking jihad activity in all its forms, and both domestically and internationally. The site is also blocked by many Internet service providers in the UK and Europe.

This represents one fulfillment of Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein’s demand, which other members of the political elites, particularly among the EU, have made previously. These clampdowns are a manifestation of those elites’ growing anxiety in the face of the populist movement that caught them unaware in the UK with Brexit and in the U.S. with Trump, and that threatens to overturn their hegemony in Europe in the near future. They’re doing everything they can to make sure that as few people as possible wake up to how they’ve destroyed Europe with their disastrous Muslim migrant policies, and now threaten to destroy North America as well….

5 thoughts on “Islamo agitprop Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein: “The right to freedom of speech carries with it special duties and responsibilities””

  1. Having a Muslim as head of the human rights commission is like having a neo Nazi as head of a Jewish welfare agency. It’s about time that the Western world pulled the pin on the UN. It is just a front for every totalitarian regime to push their anti democratic agenda.

  2. When will the UN ban the Koran? It is the most hate-filled book on the planet. When will the hate speaking Imams be banned? Oh, if it is Islamic it is somehow exempt.

  3. In Shari’ah, slander is “anythin the hearer might not like”.

    I do not like “Allahu Akbar!”! I do not like “convert or die”. I don’t like “fight them until”, “fight those of the disbeliever nearest you” or “kill them wherever you find them”. I don’t like “I bring you slaugher.”.

    Every Harbi who learns of those accursed sayings and the numerous other sayings and variants in the Unholy Koranus, hadith & shari’ah has a duty and obligation to inform others of impending danger.

    Sounding the warning is not just a duty, it is our right. The first amendment guarantees tht right.

    If my comments and blog post offend the imperialistic predators, they can just move on to the next post or comment and ignore what I write.

    The United Nazis and their denier of human rights can go to Hell! The sooner the better.

  4. The only responsibility in speech is the same as in any other venue – to not attack first, to not lie and thereby attempt to steal the truth.

    The only right is to not be slandered by lying frauds.

    ALL “Hate-Speech Laws” ARE CRIMES!

    “Progressive” criminals – who like all criminals desire an equality of outcome over a true equality of opportunity, and to get it will always try to socially engineer ever-more rights and ever-less responsibilities for them selves, by offloading their responsibilities onto their victims by stealing their victims’ rights – pretend to hold submissive masochism as the highest virtue (for their victims to hold, not them) and the ultimate crime to be causing offense and hurting other people’s (criminal’s) feelings, (i.e: by accusing them of their crimes).

    So they want to make it illegal to accuse criminals of their crimes, since that might hurt their feelings and in offending them with the often-painful truth, “make” them commit even more crimes!

    Is there anything which really ought to qualify as hate speech and be banned?

    NO – not because it’s “hateful” (because that sort of nonsense is only making subjective assessments based on emotions;) and “HATE” is really only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam); without ‘hate’ we would never bother to accuse criminals of their crimes in order to stop those crimes.

    Unreasonable false displays of hatred and anger on the other hand, are what the Left is good at – but that’s already illegal, not because of the anger displayed – that’s just the outrageous holier-than-thou virtue-signalling packaging used to disguise their preposterous extortion attempts – but because it’s fraudulent slander.

    Such criminal leftists who try to make “hate” into a crime, only ever make it ‘illegal’ to hate crime itself!

    Speech which is already disallowed is incitement of immediate violence and death-threats … and even those aren’t illegal, if say they call for the police to use violence to counter ongoing mob violence and looting, or call for the death-penalty for murderers!

  5. The whole concept of “hate speech” is political correctness run amok, a leftist anti-free-speech tool that provides an unlimited excuse to shut down and punish anyone who openly disagrees with establishment dicta. Every totalitarian state has similar laws designed to protect the rulers. Such laws have no place in a free society.

    – Patrick1984 –


    Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), Virginia v. Black (2003), Snyder v. Phelps (2011) These SCOTUS cases show that unpopular speech is still protected speech.

Comments are closed.