Russia Sponsors UN Resolution Revoking Freedoms Of Speech, Assembly, And Association

It is probably pointless telling you to read this thread in its entirety before you respond, but please do. Russia recently sponsored a UN resolution that would impose government censorship around the world. It would limit free speech and freedom of association, ban political parties and make it illegal to tear down monuments to Stalin and the Red Army in countries that had formerly been occupied by the Soviet Union. The resolution is written so broadly that anti-war films like Das Boot and holocaust themed films like Schindler's List could be banned as "hate speech."

The draconian Russian resolution was supported by China, Venezuela and other totalitarian regimes:

www.un.org...

Does anyone see what I am doing here? I am using exactly the same propaganda techniques as RT and its faithful fellow travelers. I start out with a shocking headline based on an interpretation of the resolution that suits my agenda. RT calls it anti-Nazi, I call it pro-censorship. It is both. RT's agenda is to associate the United States and the other nations that value free speech as being Nazi sympathizers. I used the same technique-- selective presentation of facts-- to make Russia look bad. RT does not provide a link to the actual text of the proposal, nor do I. This is because anyone who actually read the proposal might disagree with the biased interpretation we present. That's right, although they appear to be "fact," both pieces are opinion.

If you think this post is "Anti-Russian" propaganda, what is this post? You will find my explanation of why I have characterized this "Trojan horse" so-called "Anti-Nazi" resolution as an attempt by Russia make the US and its allies look bad here. And, because the point to this post is to deconstruct disinformation, you can read the actual text of the resolution and make up your own mind by going here and copy/paste "A/C.3/69/L56/Rev.1" into the browser.

Let the flaming begin.

When all you have is a hammer
the enemies need to look like a nail

originally posted by: all2human
America 2.0

You didn't actually read the post, did you?

No question propaganda war is raging. If you point out Russian propaganda it seems like there is no propaganda in US/EU domain. So are western media moguls honest?
As I see it, Russia was in defense till Saakashvili extempore (in cooperation with US and Israeli advisors he presented total fail - during Olympics games). It was last drop and from this time Russia starts to be proactive. And that is exactly what US hegemonic mindset can not withstand.

It is funny. I was raised in hatred toward Russia (CCCP/USSR) and bit uncritical admiration of USA. 25 years later poles switched. I see Washington as bad guy and Moscow (almost) like a good guy. At least guy who I can understand.

It is also funny (and have nothing to do with Russia where economic system is same as in USA) that I thought capitalism will be better system then planned economy was. After 25 years I'm not so sure.
Only for illustration: We were mad about corruption everywhere and we hoped that with democracy and capitalism corruption disappear. It was f...g big mistake: Corruption went overdrive and from bottle of western booze it changed to millions of dollars ... And so on. World is not black nor white.

a reply to: JanAmosComenius

Most ATS members are aware of "Western" media's techniques; unfortunately they assume that means non-Western media will be somehow more reliable.

I completely agree; after thinking about it for a while, the only conclusion I could logically come to was that this was some smear campaign against the U.S. and it's allies.

a reply to: Voyaging

I completely agree; after thinking about it for a while, the only conclusion I could logically come to was that this was some smear campaign against the U.S. and it's allies.

Yes, the resolution contained what is known in political circles as a "poison pill." This is a seemingly insignificant clause or provision that renders a seemingly benign piece of legislation completely unacceptable, placed there specifically so that one side can make political capital over the failure of the other to vote in favor. That is exactly what happened here: Russia called the resolution "Anti-Nazi," but it included language that would infringe on certain freedoms guaranteed by many nations and would demonize resistance to the Soviet Union.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: JanAmosComenius

Most ATS members are aware of "Western" media's techniques; unfortunately they assume that means non-Western media will be somehow more reliable.

One saying: Everything what communists said about socialism was lie, but everything what they said about capitalism was true. Half of information we got from Radio Free Europe, BBC, Voice of America. This sources were in some respect accurate when reporting about situation in former eastern block. But was totally dishonest about what was going on in Western world. It was pure pink painting. RT have similar status as VoA or RFE had. And it serve same purpose. On other hand it doesn't mean that RT is bad information source - they will probably do better service on foreign affairs then on what is going on in Russia.

a reply to: JanAmosComenius

You probably know the joke: In Capitalism, man exploits his fellow man, but in Communism it's the other way around.

a reply to: DJW001

I have a question is this your daily job as a propagandist for the state department? i had to ask your UN link is misleading. Just like your thread as always.

RT calls it anti-Nazi, I call it pro-censorship.

I had no idea some here in ATS actual had supported the fascists but seeing this thread just raises the suspicion. So In truth the bill was not anti-Nazi but censorship?

This is coming from the same American whom has being defending Kiev's government since the EU protests had started, its comical.

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

If a resolution was raised that prevented people from saying things in support of the USSR and Stalin would you support that as well. I mean Stalin and the USR under him executed way more people than Hitler and the Nazis ever did.

You and I may agree that neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers are idiots at best. That however doesn't change the fact that they should be allowed to express their views.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: JanAmosComenius

Most ATS members are aware of "Western" media's techniques; unfortunately they assume that means non-Western media will be somehow more reliable.

No it is not that way. I have always used both sides as an information. I have done so since HS years back during the so called cold war. I used to listen to Radio Free Europe, - an US sponsored propaganda sender beaming its western BS into eastern Europe and would listen to Radio Kreefeld an USSR propaganda sender sending its BS into western Europe. By comparing the 2 extremes I got a pretty good picture about the facts. namely both sides would focus on the enemy's week spot. Issues that were embarrassing to either side would be omitted by one and strongly focused on by the other.
What I noticed on the north American media from quite early on when arriving on this continent was that the papers and the TV reports said practically "nothing". Compared to European Media where one knew this paper is left or right or center and so, American media is just plain simple "bland". And what RT does it just sticks it to the west.
It's like when one listens to the Catholic Church listing their achievements, and all are at awe till some lil' sidekick reminds them about the "altar boys"...(you get my drift, don't you?) and that's what RT is doing. And for a Western media that now endlessly propagates how "good we have it" ... RT is just the nice stuff that reminds the rest about what the west is NOT talking about, same as the church don't talk much about their "altar boys".

a reply to: DJW001

Does anyone see what I am doing here?

Yes...

- Wrongly try to make it look like movies as Das Boot and Schindler's List would be forbidden

- Ignoring that the West and its vassals abstained or voted no but the rest of the World actual was behind it

- Ignoring that the resolution has been brought in before

- Trying to discredit Russia and RT by appealing to the sensitivity of Americans about "Freedom of Speech," while "Freedom of Speech" should never be about allowing racism or xenophobia, but about people who can express their opinions in a respectful manner regarding matters without the need to spew hate towards people of other races or another country

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: DJW001

Does anyone see what I am doing here?

Yes...

- Wrongly try to make it look like movies as Das Boot and Schindler's List would be forbidden

- Ignoring that the West and its vassals abstained or voted no but the rest of the World actual was behind it

- Ignoring that the resolution has been brought in before

- Trying to discredit Russia and RT by appealing to the sensitivity of Americans about "Freedom of Speech," while "Freedom of Speech" should never be about allowing racism or xenophobia, but about people who can express their opinions in a respectful manner regarding matters without the need to spew hate towards people of other races or another country

I begin to enjoy your replies more and more. Especially on your comment on freedom of speech. As an European living in north America I do have a big problem with their so called form of "Free Speech". When arriving here I was shocked to see people actually being allowed to use Nazi symbols or the gvt. even printing license plates - ( just letters and number sequences) as like SS-435-B or 769-NSA and so forth. Speech is supposed to be based on reliable information exchanged between persons or parties; it is not to be meant just to spew any BS around. Propaganda sure is a tool not so much of "lies" as it is a tool to focus and highlight ONE side while omitting the other facts. So sure a propaganda war can become quite hilarious when one cares to read BOTH sides. And I have never seen RT as anything more but to be some kind of a "Devil's Advocate" finding the skeletons under the other guys bed. RT sure covers damn little of "inside Russia" events. But then again, most informed people are quite well aware of RT's purpose and mission.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Yes...

No, you don't.

- Wrongly try to make it look like movies as Das Boot and Schindler's List would be forbidden

Have you bothered to read the text of the resolution? Unlike RT I provided a link so you could actually judge for yourself. Whereas some countries respect the right of their citizens to express themselves freely, some countries do not. Russia, under Vladimir Putin has been "protecting" its people from "unacceptable" speech. No "homosexual propaganda" is allowed. One cannot say offensive things about the Church or religion. Each of these laws is a pretext to charge political dissidents with wrongdoing. This is what happened with Pussy Riot; they were not imprisoned for offending religious sensibilities, they were imprisoned for resisting Putin's agenda.

The provisions are so loose that if Stephen Spielberg were to criticize Putin, Putin's censors could claim that by portraying Schindler, a Nazi, in a sympathetic light, the film Schindler's List glorified Nazism and should be banned in Russia. Asimilar objection could be made about Das Boot. The intent of the expression is irrelevant, it is only the usefulness of the provision to enable censorship that matters.

- Ignoring that the West and its vassals abstained or voted no but the rest of the World actual was behind it

Vassals? Oh, I get it; you are using crude propaganda techniques to further demonize the countries that permit freedom of speech. It was not the "rest of the world" that was behind it, it was the governments of the rest of the world that were behind it. With the exception of India and Israel, most of the governments who voted in favor of censorship do not hold democratic elections.

- Ignoring that the resolution has been brought in before

What difference does that make? Russia pulls the same stunt every year. Why? They surely don't expect for the Western Bloc to suddenly change their mind about freedom of speech.

- Trying to discredit Russia and RT by appealing to the sensitivity of Americans about "Freedom of Speech," while "Freedom of Speech" should never be about allowing racism or xenophobia, but about people who can express their opinions in a respectful manner regarding matters without the need to spew hate towards people of other races or another country

How is that different from trying to discredit the United States and its allies by appealing to people's sensitivity about Nazis? Considering you just referred to most of the civilized world as America's "vassals," I don't think you are in any position to pass judgement on what is or is not " hate speech." That is precisely the issue in hand. This resolution would label people who resisted the Soviet Union as Nazis. It specifically referred to them as " collaborators." If you were an Eastern European, you would consider that as " hate speech," as nothing is more hateful than being accused of being a Nazi. Nevertheless, I would rather you have the right to call me a Nazi, than be " protected" from your honest, if wrong, opinion.

a reply to: Guenter

And I have never seen RT as anything more but to be some kind of a "Devil's Advocate" finding the skeletons under the other guys bed. RT sure covers damn little of "inside Russia" events. But then again, most informed people are quite well aware of RT's purpose and mission.

You`re right about RT.

RT tries to fill in the gaps left out by Western Media as has been said by Anissa Naouai, and in general not with lies. But you can`t expect them to post really damaging stuff about Russia.

Western media however twists, lies and leaves important stuff out in a big time, because they need to in order to protect their sponsors.

a reply to: Voyaging

Don't really HAVE to smear anything just follow the leaks...

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

I have a question is this your daily job as a propagandist for the state department?

When facts are not on your side, go for a personal attack.

i had to ask your UN link is misleading.

In what way is it misleading? Unlike the paid propagandists at RT, I actually linked to the text of the document in question. You can actually read it for yourself and debate its actual language with me if you wanted... but you don't. You prefer name calling. Fine, it's your credibility on the line here, not mine.

Just like your thread as always.

Finished yet? Your heavy handed tactics must be tedious even to you by now.

RT calls it anti-Nazi, I call it pro-censorship.

I had no idea some here in ATS actual had supported the fascists but seeing this thread just raises the suspicion. So In truth the bill was not anti-Nazi but censorship?

Where do you get that anyone here supports fascists, other than the people who are advocating censorship? Banning freedom of expression is the hallmark of Fascism.

This is coming from the same American whom has being defending Kiev's government since the EU protests had started, its comical.

Thank you, I try to amuse as well as inform. Perhaps some day you can join me in having a discussion instead of just hurling insults and innuendo.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

RT tries to fill in the gaps left out by Western Media as has been said by Anissa Naouai, and in general not with lies. But you can`t expect them to post really damaging stuff about Russia.

That reminds me... did you find out if RT posts the full transcripts of its edited interviews online the way CNN does?

Western media however twists, lies and leaves important stuff out in a big time, because they need to in order protect their sponsors.

Whereas Russian media actually makes things up:



But then, that's straying a bit off topic....

a reply to: DJW001

I have read it before responding.

In Western Europe it`s already forbidden what was proposed in the resolution, but yet those same governments are the ones who abstain...how more vassal can you be?

I would rather you have the right to call me a Nazi, than be " protected" from your honest, if wrong, opinion.

We already have those proposed rules and I don`t feel the need to be doing that, but I could if I would...so you`re just overstating to break down the resolution.