An RTL Commentator Utters Blasphemy Against the UN Migration Pact

RTL is the only major independent broadcaster in Germany. In the following clip from RTL, the commentator Jörg Zajonc expresses doubleplus ungood thoughts about the United Nations’ proposed migration pact.

Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

00:00   The U.N. Migration Pact, a wish-list detached from reality. Convolutedly
00:04   written, difficult to read and even more difficult to understand except for one claim:
00:08   Migration is good. It is always good and should never be restricted. Why?
00:12   No answer is given. The doubters are assured that it is just a consensus paper,
00:16   not legally binding. Officially that might be the case, but it IS binding — in a political and
00:22   moral sense. That can have legal consequences. That would mean anyone
00:26   can make a claim based on the Pact and take their case to court. What judge would
00:30   dare make a decision against the consensus? It comes from the U.N.
00:34   Additionally, it is noted in the pact that national laws should be taken into account,
00:38   but also encouraged that these national laws be adapted according to the interests
00:42   of the U.N. Then there’s the matter of “information”. There should be an open,
00:47   Fact-based discussion concerning this matter, but I ask how?
00:51   If the results are already established, the perception to be created should be more
00:55   realistic, humane, and more constructive. The media should involved in steering the
00:59   immigration. It says that — literally. And those who don’t play along, they will have
01:04   their financial support taken away. That’s written in there too!
01:08   There one thing that’s not explained in the Pact. If immigration is so great, then why
01:12   does it require a controlled information campaign or such a pact?

4 thoughts on “An RTL Commentator Utters Blasphemy Against the UN Migration Pact

  1. Wow! The times they are a changing. Has this man been fired yet? How many of his listeners I wonder saw this as permission to think the unthinkable. This house of cards is going to fall – it’s control of thinking is the only thing that’s holding it together. Does anyone really take it seriously?

  2. Governments and media outlets soothingly reassure the public that the formally called ‘GLOBAL COMPACT FOR SAFE, ORDERLY AND REGULAR MIGRATION’, an ‘INTERGOVERNMENTALLY NEGOTIATED AND AGREED OUTCOME’ is not a legally binding document.

    That is far from truth. Take the European Court for Human Rights. The ECHR is known to base its altogether and very much BINDING judgements, on the NON-BINDING European Convention on Human Rights. This Convention is drafted in broad terms. It’s statements of principle are, from a legal point of view, not determinative and require extensive interpretation by the courts to bring out meaning in particular factual situations. And that exactly is the problem with this activist court.

    Tyrannies thrive on ambiguous regulations open to self-serving Kafkaesque interpretations. And vaguely defined, equivocal regulations afford the supranational courts of unelected officials dominated by dictatorship ruled countries the opportunity to pass judgements at will. That is how the International Criminal Court ICC, another globalist institution like the ECHR has come to condemn Israel for alleged ‘War Crimes’ time and again.

    That is what will quickly happen with the so-called UN Global Compact on Migration. And we do not want this.

    ‘Heads of State and Government and High Representatives’, are scheduled to meet in Morocco on 10 and 11 December 2018. There, they will reaffirm the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants.

    It gets worse. According to the UN Global Compact on Migration we may not in future, be able to discuss such issues in public. According to article 17, the Compact must QUOTE:

    “Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration.”

    Evidence based… take this to mean that public discourse must fit to certain criteria, determined by …whom one must ask.

    Paragraph c) of Article 17 goes into more gory detail.

    “c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet- based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media.”

    That means that the governments of the 192 signatory countries are committing to stop placing ads in newspapers and publications that do not conform to the official policy of migration. That means no job ads for positions, no publications of tenders, no public announcements by the States on media outlets that do not adhere to the general policy.

    I repeat: the signatory regimes commit to “stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants”

    We are talking about 25% – 40% of a newspaper’s income. In the age of declining subscribers and competition from the Internet, this means a death sentence to any newspaper that will not toe the line. And they will eventually also get to the Internet, be sure of that.

    But don’t worry be happy, paragraph ends with the hollow promise “in full respect for the freedom of the media.”

    Haven’t we witnessed this doublespeak before in the glorious Soviet constitution with all its satellite “Peoples’ Republics?”

  3. I’m honestly surprised they allowed him to publish, saying the truth like that. I like his style, straight to the point, factual.

Comments are closed.