Normally the visit by the prime minister of a fairly tiny country wouldn’t be an issue, but New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern became an iconic figure when she launched a successful effort to deprive her people of their civil rights due to an act of violence.
The resulting deprivation of civil rights has traveled far beyond New Zealand with Ardern’s so-called Christchurch Call that’s already affecting Americans.
In his PJ Media article, Tyler O’Neil dug into the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) which is funded by Google, Facebook, Microsoft and currently chaired by Twitter. Its advisory committee members include the United Nations, the European Union, and the British, French, and Canadian governments as well as the National Security Council in the U.S.
GIFCT had been set up by the industry in response to pressure from governments to remove Jihadist propaganda, but its Hash Sharing Consortium, a secret database of terrorism content to be immediately removed when its 13 dot com companies come across it, is secret, and so there’s no way for anyone to know if they’ve been targeted and no appeal from the secret list.
The creation of a secret “No Fly List” for the internet by the biggest monopolies which control over 80% of social media content and much of the self-created video content on the internet would be troubling enough, but by 2019, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon had joined the Christchurch Call which advocates not just banning terrorist material, but fighting its root causes by strengthening “inclusiveness” and fighting “violent extremism”.
Ardern’s arrival in America is sure to be an attack on the already threatened civil rights of Americans.
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who successfully oversaw the implementation of gun control measures in her own country, will meet with President Biden on Tuesday at the White House to discuss a range of issues, including countering “radicalization to violence both off and online.”
That’s spelled “censorship”.
Ardern touched on the topic during her Harvard commencement address last week, while also discussing the dangers of disinformation and online radicalization.
“We knew we needed significant gun reform, and so that is what we did,” she said. “But we also knew that if we wanted genuine solutions to the issue of violent extremism online, it would take government, civil society and the tech companies themselves to change the landscape.”
The Uvalde shooting was actually inconvenient because the Left wanted to talk about Buffalo which would have fit neatly with that theme. You could see Obama trying to push the Uvalde kids out of the way to connect drug overdose victim George Floyd with the Buffalo shooting victims. But it didn’t work.
That doesn’t mean that they won’t try anyway.
mortimer says
Jacinta Ardern is believed to be another puppet leader who hides the real Machiavellians behind her … people who are selling New Zealand piece by piece to the Chinese.
Sounds like the senile $32-million BEIJING BRIBED-MAN in the White House, doesn’t it?
mortimer says
Bribed-man and Ardern are pushing their countries towards the civil model of Communist China.
bill says
USA is the only ‘civilised’ country I can think of that thinks it is perfectly acceptable for ordinary citizens to own military grade weaponry. Not to mention many other automatic weapons. The oft quoted 2nd amendment was passed when the only weapons available were muzzle loaded rifles and pistols. It was passed to defend the newly created nation could not maintain or afford a standing army, so a citizen army was the obvious solution.
bill says
Missed out ‘that’ after nation
As I have said many times if GELLER REPORT can have an edit feature why is there not one here?
tiredofstupid says
the second amendment was passed to allow the people arms to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Not for hunting, sport, etc, self defense of persons and homeland defense are bonuses. do you know what a assault weapon actually is? It’s not an AR-15-that is an light sporting rifle in .223 caliber that fires one bullet with one trigger pull. Military grade assault rifles by contrast can be fired in single shot, burst (3 rds group) or full auto. They are available only to persons that have passed extreme background checks, have a class 3 federal firearms license and cost upwards of $20k-apiece. They are difficult to obtain and very costly. At the time the second amendment was written you COULD BUY A CANNON or even a WARSHIP if you had the money and the inclination.
We don’t need gun control -we need criminal control-people are dangerous. Not a single one of my guns or the guns of any of my friends has ever behaved badly and hurt anyone on their on.
When I was young there were hospitals for the criminally insane, and violent criminally insane peo[le were sent there-the politicians defunded the mental health programs back in the 60’s and at that time insane people were SENT TO HOSPITALS TO GET HELP. Since then they are sent to prison -making prispn much more dangerous and chaotic and not getting the mentally ill any help at all. We don’t need more gun control-we need mental health progams restored to help ill people.
somehistory says
The mental hospitals were emptied and it put thousands of ill people out on the streets…homeless and unable to take care of themselves.
Gourdhead says
And a more just court system. Excellent commentary.
Gourdhead says
I still can’t believe the citizens of New Zealand, as well as Australia, lined up like sheep and turned over all their weaponry.
Brenrod says
What’s your point?
Brenrod says
The police can’t Protect ordinary citizens from criminals therefore I wish that my law abiding neighbors have guns to protect me. I have no problem with my law abiding neighbors owning guns or AR 15s. Like those school children I cannot rely on the police to protect my family.
gravenimage says
bill seldom says anything against Jihad. He sure does hate America, though.
OLD GUY says
You are right about the Muzzle loaded rifles and pistols, but you are missing the fact that the governments also only had the same level of weapons at that time. If we are not free to take up and bear arms against both external an internal forces we won’t be free for long and that requires modern weapons.
Fitna says
Not one mention of Islam by Jacinda, which means she’s totally fine with Muslims raping, killing, terrorizing non-Muslims. What she has a problem with is non-Muslims retaliating against Islam.
As always, our “enlightened betters” on the Left know what’s good for us, we just need to shut up and take it.
She’s so much more superior to us that she doesn’t even need to hear any opposing views, this intellectual giant has already figured out the solution to the global Islamic jihad, (the 1400 year war being waged by Muslims against non-Muslims) is to silence non-Muslims and be laser-focused on the so-called ‘far right’ to make sure they don’t step out of line.
Once opponents of Islam are muzzled and their lives put under a microscope there will be peace and happiness in all the land. Muslims and Leftists prancing hand-in-hand in a future utopia. Well until the Muslims have no need of them and separate the Leftists heads from their bodies.
Great work Jacinda, you’re making all the right moves if you want to send the West to hell in a handbasket.
I know some people get their back up over criticism of female leaders. Ofc there are strong women out there as well as disastrous, cowardly male leaders. But a woman in power who doesn’t have a warrior-like disposition is twice as bad, because the tendency of females due to their genetics/anatomy is to be submissive, to seek surrender (because they are weaker and thus have the mindset of slaves in order to survive) or compromise when the only real solution is to fight and wage war against a terrible enemy.
If Muslims dreamed of cowardly leaders to cause their own nations to fall and submit to Islam, they couldn’t ask for better than losers like Jacinda, Biden, Stefan Lofven (Sweden) or Boris Johnson and their ilk. I’m truly disgusted by most western leaders today and the hordes of uneducated morons who vote for them.
somehistory says
She is an idiot…stupid and conniving. They are all in this together…to take away any and all freedoms of the common person…to speak, to make health decisions, living decisions, family decisions, and even what to think, how to think and when thinking is acceptable.
Puke on “bo.” Puke on j.a. and her blatantly wrong ideas. Puke on the tech giants who want to have freedoms they are trying to limit for everyone else.
Rarely says
There is absolutely no doubt that the dangers of misinformation and online radicalization are real. Since all too many people believe everything they read on the web the spread of misinformation is like never before seen. The same applies to radicalization. The most ridiculous and insane conspiracy theories are accepted as “fact”.
This must be brought under control somehow or other. That various democracies, with the cooperation from the major tech companies and other groups, are trying to do this is quite admirable. Certainly there are problems and hurdles but doing nothing is not an option.
We should not presume that these groups are not aware of the islamic threat. They are not deaf, dumb and blind. Clearly it is not the only “group” that uses the web to radicalize and preach to the gullible.
gravenimage says
There are dangers in some of the misinformation being bandied about at the barber shop or on the street corner, too–that doesn’t mean you prevent people from gathering or speaking.
Unless it involves inciting violence, mistaken speech should be countered by truthful speech, not banned by the government.
And if tech companies *are* aware of the Islamic threat, then it is far worse than if they were simply ignorant, since so many of them have policies that prevent users from speaking out about that threat, all while allowing Jihadists to actually preach violence.
Rarely says
Misinformation spread at the barbershop will reach a few dozen or hundred souls eventually. Misinformation spread on the internet reaches millions of individuals immediately and hundreds of millions eventually. It’s a huge difference.
A similar situation happened with Gutenberg;s invention of moveable type in the late 15th Century which immensely increased the printing of books. Along with an increase in literacy and an increase in the use of the vernacular in books, pamphlets, the Renaissance was able to explode and dramatically change Western Civilization. Without it the Reformation may not even have occurred.
The expansion of new ideas is one thing but the expansion of misinformation and insane conspiracy theories, especially at lightening speed, is quite another.
The biggest hurdle, as I see it, is just who is going to decide on what is misinformation and what is not. Ah, there’s the rub.
gravenimage says
So you consider books and literacy to be a threat as well?
And your last is the whole point–who do you want to decide what is misinformation and what isn’t? Few civilized people who value freedom of speech would want such a job to begin with.
somehistory says
the best thing is to have each side free to say what that side believes, thinks, wants, etc. and the other side can do the same.
It’s then up to the people to listen, think and decide what each believes is true.
One side should not get to make the decisions and then shut down the debate of ideas and cause only their statements to stand.
Each person has every right to hear both sides and decide which they believe. and each has the right to freely express what they think.
Just because a lot of people disagree with the “ruling elite” doesn’t mean they should be silenced until the side that had been allowed to say things gets control of the airwaves…books, internet, etc….again.
Rarely says
gi
You missed my point. Of course I am in favour of books and literacy – the Renaissance was certainly not a negative. I was simply illustrating how a revolutionary change can effect World events– it has done it before. Without the internet information takes a long time to spread.
Who decides what is false information and what is hate speech? A very good question for which I have no definitive answer. I suspect that placing online companies responsible for what they “publish” much like newspapers are responsible would be an answer. That way law enforcement and the judicial system would decide on a case by case basis. The current laws covering newspapers would likely be sufficient.
SH.
Your suggestion is no solution to anything except the advancement of anarchy. You are totally ignoring human nature.
somehistory says
rarely,
that is a lot of bologna. It has been that way from the beginning where people have the freedom to speak and when those who don’t want the Truth, or dissent from their rulings, that is when speech is limited and called “wrong.” “misinformation and disinformation”….*modern” words for lies.
You are wrong, and you know it. Since what you have written in response to me is “wrong,” you shouldn’t get to write it….according to your rules.
gravenimage says
Well, good to know that you aren’t against literacy and the invention of the printing press.
Rarely, any newspaper has editorial control over what is published in the paper. But social media is a *platform*. Are you suggesting that every social media platform has to vet every single comment before it can be posted? What company could possibly afford to do this?
Then, they would have to second guess law enforcement and the judicial system since you claim this would have to be done on a case by case basis. Companies and individuals under such a system would have to self censor lest they be accused of a crime after the fact. This would crush freedom of speech.
Then, describing freedom of speech as “anarchy” is just appalling.
Rarely says
GI
To suggest that anybody can put anything they wish on the internet with the idea that, if false (or not), it can be openly debated and a reasonable result will occur is beyond laughable.
The internet can, and does, spread the most ridiculous conspiracy theories and outright lies at lightening speed. Those conspiracy theories and outright lies can be (and are) gobbled up in no time. The “gobblers” rarely look into whether there is truth to the theory. For example, I know one person who has bought into the idea that the mega-rich are kidnapping children, killing them and drinking their blood in order to regain their youth. Evidence for that? Zero, zip, zilch.
The idea that Elvis came out of hiding last week, confessed to being behind the JFK assassination and, while being pursued by fans fell off the edge of the Earth will be believed by all too many people. Obviously the left-wing MSM wouldn’t cover it.
If its on the internet it MUST BE TRUE is the mantra of too many people. Many people will believe ANYTHING if it’s on the net. The potential for very real major league damage is real.
It’s unfortunate that you don’t see the dangers.
gravenimage says
Rarely, I see more danger in prosecuting people who think that Elvis is still around than I do in allowing freedom of speech.
There is nothing in the First Amendment that says that only non-fake speech as designated by–who, exactly?–is allowed.
James Lincoln says
The picture of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in the feature article shows a woman whose eyes appeared to be “wide open”.
In reality, she sees nothing…
somehistory says
She wears the molzum scarf…but not only is her hair showing, but the part of her upper chest area, the lower neck, where her clavicle shows.
Brenrod says
Showing that she understands the Muslim headrest superficially., But wishes to sport it for effect
somehistory says
Yes.
Wellington says
+1
tim gallagher says
I’m pretty sure that New Zealand used to elect some fairly conservative political leaders, so the people there certainly do seem to have drunk the KoolAid since they have elected this most woke of politicians, Ardern. She seems to be as wishy washy a political leader as you could find anywhere in the world. She seems to be out to implement the entire left wing, politically correct agenda. I suspect she sees herself as the most virtuous, most woke of all, a sort of patron saint of the whole left wing program. I guess a lot of New Zealanders must like that sort of thing.
gravenimage says
Biden Meeting with New Zealand PM Will Push Censorship of Americans
……………………..
I’m sure she will–and Biden will be an eager audience. In debate over freedom of speech at home Jacinda Ardern basically called the opposition leader a “Karen” for not fully supporting the crushing of freedom of speech there:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/asia/jacinda-ardern-nz-karen-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
And it already has a law dating from 1993 that makes it unlawful to publish or distribute “words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting” or “likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons … on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.”
By these lights you could be arrested for just making a joke about old guys or someone being unemployed–even if the comic themselves fall into that group. Disturbing stuff. Of course with laws like this you are at the mercy of just how hard authorities decide to crack down–and that can change at any time.
Rarely says
There are laws which define the limits newspapers and the like can go vis-a-vie Freedom of Speech. By expanding these laws to make internet companies responsible for what they “publish and distribute” the problem of misinformation becomes greatly reduced. They will, of course, have to screen what they “publish and distribute” much the same as newspapers do.
The determination of what is dangerous would be left to law enforcement and the courts.
Not a bad solution but not a perfect one either.
gravenimage says
A newspaper is a publisher–in civilized societies they have to avoid calls for violence and are subject to libel laws.
An internet company is not a publisher–they provide a platform.
I notice that you appear to have no problem with comics being prosecuted for jokes–I’m sadly not all that surprised.
And what if your authorities decide that one of the protected groups, since it includes political opinion, includes Jihadists? After all, wanting to murder Infidels and impose brutal Shari’ah law is certainly political, so no criticism of them will be allowed.
Are you fine with that?
And this is hardly theoretical–people have been censored and even arrested, fined, and imprisoned for saying anything critical of Jihad.
Is this also “not a bad solution”?
Rarely says
GI.
They are more than just platforms. They are actually spreading the information. In essence they are publishing it.
I don’t know where you get the idea that I am against jokes or in favour of stifling criticism of sharia law, jihad or islam but you are totally wrong if you think that.
gravenimage says
A platform can allow the spread of information, whether the platform is a soapbox in the park of a large internet site. That is what a platform does.
And I listed New Zealand’s law–this would indeed prohibit jokes if enforced.
And speakers like Tommy Robinson have been jailed for speaking out against Jihad–and this was done by police and the courts. A man in Britain was also arrested for quoting Winston Churchill.
The idea that it is impossible for law enforcement and the courts to act this way if given enough power is clearly *not* the case–this is happening already.
Andrew Blackadder says
An AUSTRALIAN guy went to New Zealand and shot up a mosque killing a dozen people.. awful for sure…. World wide headlines for months and the good folks of New Zealand were told to hand in THEIR guns, the World cried for those muslims killed by that crazy AUSTRALIAN dude, the PM of NZ wore a hijab and cried on anybody and everybody’s shoulder as long as there was a camera crew close by.
Meanwhile hundreds of Christians are SLAUGHTERED almost every Week in West Africa, Jews and Christians attacked across Europe, Churches and Synagogues burned down…No World Leader wore a Crucifix or a Star of David around their neck in support of those killed by some islamic savages…
Small mention sometimes in the MSM press reports then passed over…Because we must not let the muslims get angry as they may want to attack us.
Nothing to see here folks, move along now, and remember islam means piss… oops I mean peace….
Yeah right !!!