The United Nations Security Council is attempting to establish global regulations for censoring the internet to curb terrorism in the digital age. Just the other week, the UN demanded that the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee devise a plan for such a scheme by the end next year. Both the Obama administration and China are on board with the UK removing what they deem “undesirable” speech online.
The UN will be joining forces with Microsoft, according to a speech before the Security Council on May 11, which called on Big Government to collaborate with Big Business to address online terrorism. The world’s tech giants, including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, are in favor of the UN’s agenda.
During the UN meeting the other week, 15 of the 15 members of the UN Security Council, which consist of some of the world’s most diabolical dictators, said they desired to stymie violence and extremism from circulating the internet. The governments claim these regulations are intended to stop terrorism. The problem is that they never defined terrorism. How can the world’s governments claim to address terrorism if they have not clearly defined the threat at hand?
During the presidential statement in wake of the session, the UN Security said terrorism could only be stopped using international law, as well as cooperation between the UN and burgeoning regional governments. “The Security Council stresses that terrorism can only be defeated by a sustained and comprehensive approach involving the active participation and collaboration of all States, international and regional organizations… consistent with the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy,” the statement read.
War on terror is a war on free speech
The UN’s war on terror is a war on free speech, and they’ve provided clues about how to implement their scheme. UN authorities report the plan to police free speech will accompany a plan that used to be known as the “Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism.”
According to The New American, the plan involves a global war on ideologies. It will involve global efforts to address bigotry against Muslims, slanderous remarks against immigrants, among other sentiments.
It’s not exactly understood how these regulations would put an end to ISIS. Thus far, outlines of the plan do not address the rise of extremism in the UN nor the extremism of the majority of its autocratic member regimes. Rather, the scheme will serve as an excuse to enforce a host of radical policies on both a national and international level.
Immune to these repressive sentiments, UN authorities suggested protection against “excessive punishment” brought against those who make their opinions known on the web. “The protection of free media can be a defense against terrorist narratives,” said UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson. “There must be no arbitrary or excessive punishment against people who are simply expressing their opinions,” he added.
Fighting extremism with extremism
Other UN members, including Communist China, stressed that censorship and regulation were needed to thwart internet propaganda which they did not approve of. In response, the Obama Administration, the European Union and some of its formerly sovereign member states recommended government propaganda to curb extremist propaganda.
To add insult to injury, all of the major tech giants are standing behind the UN’s extreme “Agenda 2030,” which aims to “end poverty” by putting everyone on government welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies and handouts, mandate vaccines for all children, permit corporations to control the world’s water supply, among other radical actions. Nowhere in the documents does it state “achieving human freedom” as a goal, noted Mike Adams from Natural News.
Curbing online extremism by waging war on free speech is an extreme position in itself. Rather than try to regulate the internet as a whole, the best way to fight terrorism is to defund the UN and arrest individuals who identify with terrorist groups.