“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:
|For example, I didn’t name ISIS “The Islamic State”, they did
|I didn’t take territory, they did. I didn’t
|bring people under my governance, they did. I didn’t do all
|these things, they did. And for you to say “We can’t call it the Islamic State when in fact they are…
|and that they are executing what they’re calling sharia law against the people who are
|actually dead because it happened,
|that is a material misrepresentation of an actual fact. And you are leading the public…
|by not representing that, what you are saying it’s ‘hate speech’ to know what they are doing,
|the hate would be on the actor, not on people being aware of it. This is the thing,
|that would be a deliberate attempt to mislead a public
|on something they might or might not take an interest. You are engaging…
|what hate is, based on how people might appropriately respond, to something
|they could reasonably consider to be a threat. And that
|is the exact opposite of what a free press is supposed to do,
|you are subordinating facts that the public has a right to know and
|when they formulate their decsisions and replacing them with narratives to
|keep them from coming to the understanding of events that can be articulated
|and verified. That can never be considered hate speech. And when it is,
|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.