“We’re not talking about speech at all. We’re talking about brazen disinformation.”
As Henrik Ræder Clausen reported last month, The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has morphed from an institution that protects and promotes civil liberties into one that longs to impose a contrived narrative on the news media and civil society.
In the following video excerpt from one of last month’s OSCE sessions in Vienna, you’ll hear several members of the panel respond to a question from Henrik. They unabashedly acknowledge that yes, the truth may sometimes be considered “hate speech”, ushering us into the brave new Orwellian world that is Modern Multicultural Europe.
After the panel holds forth about the need for “narratives”, Stephen Coughlin has a few choice words about their brazen disinformation campaign. When he has finished pointing out the implications of what they are recommending, the young woman who had the most to say becomes somewhat incoherent, as if she had been knocked off the rails by Maj. Coughlin’s insertion of common sense and logic into her comfortable “narrative”.
Many thanks to Henrik Ræder Clausen for recording the footage, and to Vlad Tepes for editing and subtitling the excerpts.
Update: The panelists in this video are (from left to right):
- Victor Khroul, Rossiya Segodnya
- Leila Ghandi, TV Host
- Randa Habib, AFP Foundation (Moderator)
- Dunja Mijatović, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
- Simon Haselock, Albany Associates
Maj. Coughlin’s second comment was not close-miked, so it’s sometimes hard to hear his words clearly. Below is the transcript of that segment, timed from the point where he begins speaking:
| 0:00 | For example, I didn’t name ISIS “The Islamic State”, they did | |
| 0:04 | I didn’t take territory, they did. I didn’t | |
| 0:08 | bring people under my governance, they did. I didn’t do all | |
| 0:12 | these things, they did. And for you to say “We can’t call it the Islamic State when in fact they are… | |
| 0:16 | and that they are executing what they’re calling sharia law against the people who are | |
| 0:20 | actually dead because it happened, | |
| 0:24 | that is a material misrepresentation of an actual fact. And you are leading the public… | |
| 0:28 | by not representing that, what you are saying it’s ‘hate speech’ to know what they are doing, | |
| 0:32 | the hate would be on the actor, not on people being aware of it. This is the thing, | |
| 0:36 | that would be a deliberate attempt to mislead a public | |
| 0:40 | on something they might or might not take an interest. You are engaging… | |
| 0:44 | what hate is, based on how people might appropriately respond, to something | |
| 0:48 | they could reasonably consider to be a threat. And that | |
| 0:52 | is the exact opposite of what a free press is supposed to do, | |
| 0:56 | you are subordinating facts that the public has a right to know and | |
| 1:00 | when they formulate their decsisions and replacing them with narratives to | |
| 1:04 | keep them from coming to the understanding of events that can be articulated | |
| 1:08 | and verified. That can never be considered hate speech. And when it is, | |
| 1:12 | we’re not talking about speech at all. We’re talking about brazen disinformation. |
For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.
I have been giving a little tought to the Newspeak used by the panel, specifically the word “Narrative”. It occurs to me that in this context it is actually synonymous with “Propaganda”.
“Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position.”
I see no difference from “Narrative”.
According to Steve Coughlin:
In order to ensure the “correct” reporting of stories, the Society of Professional Journalists provides a list of rules, none of which relate to the factual accuracy of the event being covered. In postmodern parlance, this is known as maintaining a “narrative”. If you are a postmodern, your overriding fidelity is to the narrative, not to the facts of the event being covered.
“… the European Governments and politicians must prevent their media from denigrating muslims. They must reaffirm their confidence in the Euro-Arab friendship and the respect they feel for the many centuries of Arab contribution to the world civilization.”
(Eurabia review # 2, July 1975).
Just one of hundreds of similar instructions issued by the EU.
Atikva, comment
http://pamelageller.com/2015/06/vehicular-jihad-3-dead-scores-injured-in-austria-after-bosnian-muslim-drives-into-into-crowd-before-stabbing-passers-by.html/
If the difference between strategy and tactics is that strategy is from the neck up and tactics is from the neck down, then one might argue that narrative is from the neck up and propaganda is from the neck down in pretty much exactly the same way.
A narrative is the strategic position. Propaganda is the tactics used to achieve that narrative as the dominant or primary one.
It is a disgrace for western “democracies” to do exactly as those hated countries did before them. Why humanity is so evil? No wonder Martin Luther said that man’s works do not save him. Any saving is by grace.
I wrote to the PM Camerov of The Torski Party about the prosecution of an Irish pastor for calling Islam “Satanic” and asked why is the man now being persecuted and facing prison for telling the truth? I pointed out that I had studied this isnfernal “faith” for 20 years and found it to be orginated from a Christian heresy based upon Marcionism, Arianism and Donatist heresies. I also pointed out that the earliest mosques had crosses in them. The early Caliphs also appear to be Christian. I stated that if he chose to pursue priests for telling the truth then his prison would be overfull with clergy.
Words in respect of the video above fail me. In English Common Law the Truth of a matter is the ultimate defence. I hope one day these disgusting people are held accountable. It is beyond surreal. And look at the smug way they blithely admit to it?
No shame whatsoever.
Just how stupid matters have become. Just three years ago Plod paid a visit to my home asking me to alter an article I have on Scribd written 20 years ago. The originla is in UCL archives in London. I asked the Ociffer sarcastically, “Would you like me to locate te originals in the University too and alter them? Guess how he replied?
I don’t want these people to be given a “get out” clause by labeling them clinically insane but the original legal definition of Immoral, was an individual incapable of telling right from wrong- lost their wits. The Victorians would have placed them in a asylum.
One thing that really fails to register on these commie-radars is the difference between little white lies that help grease the social wheels in day to day life and actually obfuscating life and death truths to avoid hurt feelings. People get over being offended a lot better than they get over being dead.
Seems obvious, but I guess not to some people, or it probably is but they are happy to push the lies, anyway.
While they were chuntering on about ‘moderate muslims’ I was just wondering whether this was a similar situation to being moderately pregnant.
Jane Eyre…. The novel.
In a letter dated January 4, 1848 to W. S. Smith, Jane wrote of Bertha:
[T]he character is shocking, but I know that it is but too natural. There is a phase of insanity which may be called moral madness, in which all that is good or even human seems to disappear from the mind and a fiend-nature replaces it. The sole aim and desire of the being thus possessed is to exasperate, to molest, to destroy, and preternatural ingenuity and energy are often exercised to that dreadful end. The aspect in such cases, assimilates with the disposition; all seems demonized. It is true that profound pity ought to be the only sentiment elicited by the view of such degradation, and equally true is it that I have not sufficiently dwelt on that feeling; I have erred in making horror too predominant. Mrs. Rochester indeed lived a sinful life before she was insane, but sin itself is a kind of insanity; the truly good behold and compassionate it as such. (Penguin edition of Jane Eyre, n.8, p. 524-525)
Charlotte’s idea of “moral insanity,” upon which she formed the character of Bertha, was not her own; James Cowles Pritchard defined this concept in 1835 as a type of madness characterized by “a morbid perversion of the natural feelings, affections, inclinations, temper, habits, moral dispositions, and natural impulses, without any remarkable disorder or defect of the intellect, or knowing and reasoning faculties, and particularly without any insane illusion or hallucination.” This definition could be stretched to take in almost any kind of behavior regarded as abnormal or disruptive by community standard; in general, it meant a perversion of the moral sense and was characterized by antisocial behavior and a lack of self-control. Women were thought to be more susceptible than men to such disorders and could even inherit them. Sexual appetite was considered one of the chief symptoms of moral insanity in women; it was subject to severe sanctions and regarded as abnormal or pathological.
http://victoriancontexts.pbworks.com/w/page/12407450/Statistics%20of%20Insanity
So the UN is cooking up a set of “universal values” which it intends to impose on all nations? Did I get that right? Or so says the gentleman on the right, at about the 6:15 minute mark.
Yes – interesting which “universal values” countries such as Sweden and Saudi Arabia can adhere to… unless they’re centered around “respecting the Prophet”.
Viewing this, I despair.
The panellists exemplify what is the perception of reasonable people in positions of power or at least influence.
Stephen is the “rogue” here.
There are no positives to be taken from this. This makes me so sad.
I’m 61 and worked in Saudi on and off in total for 10 years from 1976-1989.
From 1990 I have campaigned against islam and creeping sharia amongst friends and associates to not much avail here in The UK.
My main concern is that the under 40’s have been indoctrinated with multi-culti.
They just avoid the whole issue.
Discuss with 20 odd year olds and they are on the whole dhimmified. This is in the North West of England, the old mill towns of Rochdale, Oldham, Blackburn, Accrington. Growing, influential islamist enclaves with a subjugated khuffar youth in their midst or living close by.
Educated in mixed comprehensive schools with an ever growing muslim quota, the dhimmi students have been indoctrinated to submit to islam.
I don’t see many positives down the line. I so hope I’m wrong.
Talk about sophistry! It brings to mind Romans 1:22: ‘Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.’ It is clear that they regard unpleasant truths as being inextricably related to Mohammedanism.
Yes, and that is the core of it. What we are NOT discussing here is Catholics demanding that meat not be served on a Friday in prisons and schools. What we are discussing is the continuing violence and social upheaval of Western countries by muslim invasion.
Just 20 years ago you would have laughed your head off if someone claimed that displaying a “piggy bank” in a financial institution was an aggression against part of the population. Same with the Celtic cross. What???
Now, this is fact.
The French female has her head twisted on so backwards that she is not capable of reporting “news.”
The fact that “does truth equal a hate crime” is even discussed is pathetic.
I would like to thank the team Pax Europa for attending and fighting as hard as they did. What a heck of a mess we are in.
If the truth is hate speech, then by “combatting” hate speech, you’re also combatting the truth – and punishing people for speaking the truth… is this the characteristic of liberal democracies, or oppressive dictatorships?
As for the lady’s point about France making it illegal to publish statistics profiling crimes by race – how exactly does that help, in combatting the crime wave hitting that country, from predictable sources? If you don’t know anything about a problem, you can’t combat a problem.
Anyone therefore fancy hiding the “racism of white people”? Oh, wait – the Guardian’s deputy editor has already said that “all white people are racist”… and doubtless, many whites have suffered hate crimes, muggings and other abuse due to insinuations such as this. Would the lady in the video therefore also be in favour of hiding “hate speech” such as this – or is it only hate speech when non-whites or non-Christians are on the receiving end?
Correction – Mr Harker is now the Guardian’s “assistant comment editor”.
Who were these fools ???? When that idiot woman stated that sometimes the truth could be Hate Speech I shouted BOLLOCKS at my computer screen.
As an aside, but related, police in Luton are trying to get a legally elected leader of a constitutionally formed political party banned from Luton for one year. See here :
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/06/24/uk-bedfordshire-police-apply-for-injunction-against-britain-first-to-stop-leaders-from-participating-in-planned-demonstration-in-luton-on-saturday/
Very valid question – the Baron has now updated the article with the names.
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” ~~George Orwell