The Use of Undefined Terms Gives the State Arbitrary Power to Prosecute Dissent

Today, unlike yesterday — when they were prevented from speaking — members of the Counterjihad Collective were able to get on the roster of speakers at the OSCE “Human Dimension” meeting in Warsaw. Below is the intervention prepared and read by Maj. (ret.) Stephen Coughlin, representing Unconstrained Analytics.

2019 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Working Session No 14 (10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.)
Specifically Selected Topic: Hate Crime — Participating State’s Compliance

Warsaw, Poland
24 September 2019

Thank you, madam moderator, ladies and gentlemen.

“Hate Crimes” needs a definition. Let me explain. At a formal OSCE Side Event in Warsaw in 2013, we got the drafters of the “Islamophobia” narrative to acknowledge that the term has no central definition.

In 2017, on the 20th Anniversary of Runnymede’s “Islamophobia — A Challenge for Us All,” Runnymede put out “Islamophobia — Still a Challenge for Us All” where, yet again, it was acknowledged that Islamophobia “still does not have an agreed, published definition” before offering its own definition, “Islamophobia is anti-Muslim racism,” which happens to be the same definition the Organization of Islamic Cooperation promulgated in 2005 when declaring it a “new form of racism.”

In September 2019, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change issued Designating Hate — New Policy Responses to Stop Hate Crimes that likewise designated Islamophobia a form of racism while also affirming that the term lacks for a definition — all the while seeking its aggressive criminalization. To no-one’s surprise, the Tony Blair report also acknowledges that Hate Crime has no definition.

At a June 2015 OSCE event in Vienna, at an official forum, we got an OSCE panel to admit that saying something known to be true can constitute hate speech — thus seeking the criminalization of speech.

As of May 2019, UN General Secretary António Guterres, in a speech on the “United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech” called for stepped-up action to prosecute Hate Speech even as the UN officially acknowledged that the term lacks definition.

It is not a coincidence that both Islamophobia and Hate Crimes converge on repurposed Neo-Marxist notions of racism to be arbitrated by unelected diplomats in international forums where the people are cut off from any meaningful participation. Masked in facially neutral language, the energy behind prosecuting these “known-to-lack-definition” attack narratives is chilling.

Of course, as we are constantly reminded, “we all know what it is.” And we do! It is the granting to the state the arbitrary authority to prosecute its citizens for any reason or no reason at all. We will have those definitions after it’s too late to stop the process. When that happens, we will have completed the transition from citizens to subjects.

Just consider all the aphorisms built around slogans calling for the suppression of those who “seek to divide us!” Stripped of their saccharine narratives, these phrases, in the guise of prosecuting hate speech and Islamophobia, would give the state the arbitrary power to criminalize the dissent of its citizens. This is the rhetoric of totalitarianism. It is the abuse of language leading to the abuse of power. In forums like this, we are left to ponder whether our delegates are gullible, cynical or both.

Unconstrained Analytics recommends that the OSCE and all participating States reconsider hate speech and Islamophobia. As they now stand, they are attack narratives designed to suppress free expression. Certainly, implementation should be suspended until articulable definitions are provided. Thank you!

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

7 thoughts on “The Use of Undefined Terms Gives the State Arbitrary Power to Prosecute Dissent

  1. I had understood that a “Hate Crime” was the commission of a crime against a person without cause and solely because of a person’s characteristic, i.e. race, gender, national origin, and religion as defined by Title IX in the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Therefore, “Hate Speech” would be the incitement to commit a Hate Crime.
    Phobias are irrational fears that are the product of a person’s imagination and often the beginning symptoms of paranoia.
    With the above definitions the Muslim duty as per Sura 9:38 to lie in wait and with every stratagem of war slaughter the Jew and the Christian who refuse to pay the poll tax. In this verse you have two crimes that are directed against race and religion. The first is premeditated murder which is defined (biblically as well [Exodus and Leviticus]) as “lying in wait” for the intended victim. The other crime is forcible extortion, the payment of the Jizya, protection money that is also known as the poll tax.
    Given that the courts have not enforced the law against this Muslim dogma but rather looked the other way and have allowed their ‘temples of worship’ mosques and mosquitos (the smaller ones). to spawn and flourish, it is no wonder that the citizens who feel as though they have been abandoned by the government that was to have protected them to fear these people and publicly avoid them lest they fall victim to both the Muslim’s violence and government reprisal for having defended themselves. Thus Islamophobia is not an irrational fear but one that is grounded in a reality that has been sponsored by the governments who have seemingly betrayed us as part of their agenda to bring the world under its globalist heel with Islam as the means of accomplishing it if western-style consumerism is ineffective or is still open to populism, as has been recently shown.

  2. You can add Hate Groups as another undefined concept from Tony Blair, the effect of which would also be to hand arbitrary power to the state. The proposed process of designating groups as Hate Groups, and then denying them access to the media is to be found here:

    The means to achieve this would be comical if it weren’t so threatening. His researchers compared the tweets of four groups, For Britain being one of them, with ideological themes taken from Anders Breivik. We are not allowed to see the tweets but we can trust Blair’s researchers’ judgments.

    Having had the bone pointed at them these groups would then be subject to measures to “stem their narrative” before they actually turn violent like Breivik. In this way Blair has shown it is possible to read people’s true intentions and thus foretell (and avert) the future.

    Evidence? So last century.

  3. Hate crimes? My guess is it’s any offense in thought, word, or deed against one of the Left’s clients.

    Still, I’m confused. Is there such a thing as a “love crime” or a “simple respect crime”, in which you rob, murder, assault, or rape someone out of love or because you simply respect that person?

  4. Sounds like jordan Peterson address to Canadian parliament regarding the use of personal pronouns… imaginative anguage without definition that carries criminal penalties, arbitrated by unelected liberals, whose definitions are ever expanding and growing.. tyranny by inorganic language..

    The best video of someone in my time to stand like William Wallace and strike them all down. I pray he is protected and thank him for the right words to use to slay the liberal mind.

  5. Brenton Tarrant’s manifesto.
    Certain ‘other’ key identities and words do not show up in that wikipedia article, whilst other names were slurred in other media articles.

    New Zealanders are not allowed a copy, and have to take “trained” academia and “skillful” journalists at their word who are granted access. yeah right.

    Having the document on one’s computer or having a printed copy of it is an offense punishable with 10 years in jail, while sending it to someone via the internet could be punishable with 14 years. [or a fine of up to $10,000.] …..
    …. “Every time a person downloads objectionable material onto their screen, there is the potential for a possession offence having been committed,” …..
    [ ]

    The cost of court cases, plus fines, loss of a job or business besides the risk of jail is major factor in enforcing compliance.

    Then there is the effect of receiving a criminal conviction.
    That may affect having a firearms licence as that may be rescinded.
    It may affect travel overseas, by having visas turned down.
    Would it affect what a bank may lend you, for a house or business mortgage?

    All meant to beat down a good tax paying citizen, but the person who has little to lose? does not care? and has no problem being more criminalized, will in a perverse way receive unemployed benefits, legal aid, etc..
    Already the state owns him, and in a way he does not care about freedom of speech, or liberty, and goes his own way, unless he commits a major ordinary crime, like aggravated robbery, murder, rape.

Comments are closed.