Harvard’s Jacinda Ardean Calls on the United Nations to Crack Down on Free Speech as a Weapon of War

Jacinda Ardern may no longer be Prime Minister of New Zealand, but she was back at the United Nations continuing her call for international censorship. Ardern is now one of the leading anti-free speech figures in the world and continues to draw support from political and academic establishments.  In her latest attack on free speech, Ardean declared free speech as a virtual weapon of war. She is demanding that the world join her in battling free speech as part of its own war against “misinformation” and “disinformation.” Her views, of course, were not only enthusiastically embraced by authoritarian countries, but the government and academic elite.

In her speech, she notes that we cannot allow free speech to get in the way of fighting things like climate change. She notes that they cannot win the war on climate change if people do not believe them about the underlying problem. The solution is to silence those with opposing views. It is that simple.

While some of us have denounced her views as an attack on free expression, Harvard rushed to give her not one but two fellowships. While the free speech community denounced her for unrelenting attacks on this human right, Harvard praised her for “strong and empathetic political leadership” and specifically enlisted her to help “improve content standards and platform accountability for extremist content online.”

I actually have no objection to the inclusion of Ardern as a Harvard fellow. She is a former world leader who is leading the movement against free speech. It is a view that students should consider in looking at these controversies. However, Harvard has heralded her views with no acknowledgment of her extreme antagonism toward free speech principles. There is also little countervailing balance at the school with fellows supporting free speech as a human right. Rather, Harvard (which ranks dead last on the recent free speech survey) has become a virtual clearinghouse for anti-free speech academics and advocates.

Free speech is now commonly treated on campuses as harmful. Rather than the right that defines us, it is treated as an existential threat.

What is so chilling is to hear Ardean express her fealty to free speech as she calls on the nations of the world to severely curtail it to prevent people from undermining their policies and priorities. She remains the “empathetic” face of raw censorship and intolerance. She is now the virtual ambassador-at-large for global speech regulation and criminalization.

247 thoughts on “Harvard’s Jacinda Ardean Calls on the United Nations to Crack Down on Free Speech as a Weapon of War”

  1. COVID was a time to see the true colors of “leaders” in different countries, states, and cities. NZ and Australia were closed off to the world for a very long time. Once the budding tyrants tasted the power that comes with emergency powers it was difficult for them to go back.

    I suggest that there be a detox center for them much like the the 12 step rehabs centers, replete with counseling and group activities. Returning to the much slower, messier, and more frustrating aspect of the legislative process and hearing the citizens voice their concerns and criticism must be a difficult thing for the “Tyrants Anonymous.”

    The “poor” governor of New Mexico is another example of a tyrant who backslid and could not resist the urge to enact an emergency, step on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens to gain back raw power. She got shut down on her key point, pivoted and still enacted the emergency but with a modification.

    Those who have tasted power, much like the addicted drug user, can easily go over the edge if they are not kept in check. History has proven this time and again over the decades, centuries, and millennia.

  2. This is straight up boo sheet. I do not need a nanny to wipe my bum, let alone tell me how to think or cognate – thanks, and to these utterly arrogant and narcissistic fools – I actually DO care about the planet, just not in your twisted, ignorant, and sophomoric anti-ACTUAL science fashion. These folks sound like four year-olds who might as well be imagining a sheep blocking the road or a mouse in the house and calling the police to fix it.

    I’m just going to keep saying it, because it’s the only conclusion I have: the modern dem party are a regime. The modern dem party are a regime. The modern dem party are a *regime*. If you support them, you are supporting a regime. So are the globalists they are a allied with. This is Robespierre all over again, the wealthy presuming to lord over the rest out of a sense of superiority that they do not actually possess, but this time, it is global, thanks to modern technology, oh how Mao would have loved it. This is the very definition of a cabal, and we have got to stand against it. Breadlines in Chicago are *not* the solution. I honestly still think people are not taking it seriously enough. If it comes down to fighting, even for the generation that is on the side of doing that – they have no idea, no clue what the reality of that is like, and I do not want them to find out. It is madness, and the dem cabal will not ever, ever relent. Unless moderate dems that have the temerity to privately disagree with the regime’s narrative and find their spines to speak publicly – we will never come together again in this country, we are past that.

    The IQs of these people are not impressive, and that they are or have been in positions of power pretty much tells you everything you need to know. Vote. Differently. America is the last bastion, and it is entirely up to us to save it. For Pete’s sake, you can barely even say the word ‘meat’ in the UK at this point, let alone admit that you eat it. But the elites are having their Kobe there every night, I guarantee.

    1. Unless moderate dems that have the temerity to privately disagree with the regime’s narrative and find their spines to speak publicly . . .

      Ain’t gonna happen. First reason, they don’t exist. Second reason, even if they do they won’t for much longer. As the regime gets ever more extreme, it also gets ever more in lockstep. They need to be voted out, it’s the only solution. Either that, or we are headed for the abyss.

    2. That’s a very good post James. I believe regime is more accurate than cabal, as they are not even trying to hide it any longer.

      The IQs of these people are not impressive, and that they are or have been in positions of power pretty much tells you everything you need to know.

      The thing is we don’t get tyrannical regimes out of thin air. Their rise to power is made possible because the people ignorantly allow it to happen. And it’s all very predictable. There is a great book called The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy – What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny. Unfortunately we’ll repeat history because we have no idea why governments exist in the first place. It’s not a difficult thing to understand: governments exist to secure the rights of the people. Period! If everyone followed Patrick Henry’s warning, we might have broken that cycle:

      Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who comes near that precious jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined.

      1. @oldman and @Olly

        Globally they aren’t all so brazen, hence cabal, but they are thick as thieves, and I agree; the lockdown brought a lot out of the shadows. I am in complete agreement with you both. 👍🏼

  3. My, look at all the commoners publicizing their opinions. It was not so very long ago, back when access was controlled by those in power, that this would not have been possible. But the internet changed that and, surprise, surprise, those in power suddenly lost all enthusiasm for free speech. With lightening speed our rights under the First Amendment “transitioned” from a pillar of democracy into an existential threat to it. With all this instability in our laws, culture, and institutions I’m beginning to wonder if the only thing safe from transitioning is the possession of power.

  4. “She remains the “empathetic” face of raw censorship and intolerance.”

    Here, I fixed that for you:

    She remains the “horsey” face of raw censorship and intolerance.

    A little ridicule goes a long way when fighting fascism . . . . .

  5. Moronic behavior and thought have invaded the dolts who have been elevated into leadership. Their simplistic idea that banning speech will help achieve their goal to change the course of the world’s climate in short order if at all, is narcissistic. They continue to cast attractive lures into the pond, attracting nitwits into their extravagant vagary of abandoning hydrocarbons as the solution. They continually avoid listing the pitfalls and the dire consequences which may befall the world citizens, (the list of consequence is too large to enumerate here) if there is not a reliable alternative to all classes of hydrocarbons. Their shortsightedness is astounding to view and if they are victorious, it does portent mass starvation worldwide and war between neighbors or countries. God help us ALL.

    I’ll mention just a few items where hydrocarbons are an ingredient, not including fuels:
    Electronics: (smartphones, computers, televisions)
    Textiles: (nylon, spandex, rayon, vegan leather, polyester)
    Sport equipment: (basketball, golf balls, helmets, skis, boats and more)
    Medical Supplies and Pharmaceuticals: (aspirin, antihistamines, dentures, heart values and more)
    Beauty products: (perfume, dyes, cosmetics, soap, toothpaste, deodorant, panty hose and more)
    Home products: (carpet/rugs, appliances, paint, dishes, detergent, and more).
    And not to forget (fertilizers which has helped to produce more food worldwide).

  6. Coverage of scientific issues should reflect the consensus of scientists. If 0.5 percent of scientists believ climate change is not real, they need to be given 0.5 percent of the places on talk shows to talk about it. the way it is now they get 50 percent of the slots because “both sides” need to be represented – and that leads viewers to think that there is a serious debate among scientists when there is not.

    Turley wants the 0.5 percent to get outsized coverage because that is what the Republican Party wants.

    1. Reminds me of a time when I was young that a schoolmate, Johnny, brought a rabbit in for show and tell. One kid eventually asked, is it a boy or a girl? Johnny didn’t know and the teacher couldn’t tell. In the end the teacher said we should settle the question by voting on it.

    2. In the Soviet Union, Lyssenko enjoyed that 99.5 % support in the talk shows of the day. That sure proved him right for thirty odd years.

    3. Bubba, at one point 100% of “Scientists” told us the virus was from an animal. 100% of intelligence officers told us the laptop was Russian. 100% of the media told us Trump was in Russia’s pocket AND “scientists’ also told us to stay home, don’t work, don’t visit sick family members, don’t let your kids go to school…BUT GO OUT AND PROTEST.

      BTW, where oh where is it that 50% of the info we get on the climate is from actual scientists and not activist losers like you?

      1. This is blatantly false. Do you have evidence for your claim that 100% of scientists told us the virus was from an animal?

    4. How very fascist of you. Nice to out yourself that you want certain people to control who gets a say on topics and oppress those that you don’t like. I suggest you go look up the definition of fascism and look at the third entry. THAT is what you are proposing. I’ve been hearing the “global warming”/”climate change” BS for 52 years. It is 100% garbage and a power and money grab. That people keep falling for this decade after decade just shows how dumb the worldwide population actually is. IQ’s are definitely dropping and it is extremely scary what the future will be-from healthcare to just your basic worker.

    5. Bubba, who measures ‘consensus’ /

      Here’s a question. what is the experiment that can falsify the theory of catastrophic anthropomorphic global climate change? t

      What experiment has proven the theory? A repeatable experiment?

    6. There is no way to know what the “consensus of scientests is”, you goofball. Scientist have the right to speak. Why not just listen to them?

  7. Aren’t you Democrat? Will you still vote for these things? I don’t understand you people. You seem to understand everything, but you turn around and vote against your own views. What is wrong with you?

    1. @Mary

      That’s the thing: we aren’t dealing with democrats anymore, we are dealing with the people that have successfully taken over the democratic party (*cough*Soros*cough*). They honestly do believe that the rest of us are poor and ignorant plebes that have been inculcated to a particular set of beliefs (the Constitution. For Pete’s sake; they are the ones that cannot translate or infer that humanity is just humanity, as it has been time immemorial, when we remove all of their hyperbole. And they do this while simultaneously bowing to the churches of woke and personal profit) and need to be ‘managed’, even though that is actually a description of them. The fact that they can’t be ‘special’ sub-sect goes all the way back to Feudalism. Maybe before that. We’ll never know since the Romans burned the library. They are trying to do it again. Everyone on earth needs to pay attention.

  8. OT:

    Watching Garland testify, I find it interesting that he frequently acts like he cant hear the questions of Republicans, and wastes their time having them repeat it. Not so much with Dems. Of course they dont ask many questions, they just give speeches and grandstand.

  9. She is not a “leading anti-free speech figures in the world”. She is greatly eclipsed by North Korea’s Kim, Russia’s Putin, Florida’s Desantis, Mothers for Liberty book banning club and many others. She has a point that self serving liars are preventing us from solving global problems. These are not “opposing points of view”, these are lies Gish Galloper style. Free speech is a bedrock of a civilized community, but it is also not a suicide pack.

    1. Riiiiight, and what’s more, convenience stores that won’t sell Hustler to minors are in the same league as Putin and Kum Jun Un in suppressing free speech. Only an insane mind would seriously think that protecting kids from hard-core porn has any relation to a movement to suppress dissenting political speech in society.

      1. Why is it in the interest of the state to protect kids from pornography? Isn’t that the job of the parents?

        What a silly question. Would you ask the same thing about alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, driving, and schooling, and child labor laws? There should be no laws regulating any of those activities with regard to minors?

        Both parents and the government have an interest in promoting the health, safety, and welfare of little kids. You can look it up. And next time stop and think for maybe three seconds before posting a silly comment. Really, three seconds, it’s not too much to ask.

        1. Actually I would ask the same thing of those, and I think there should not be any laws about them, but they should be left to each child’s parents to decide when that child is ready for them.

          As should be the case with pornography, and as the laws De Santis supports try to ensure will be the case with pornography. NONE of these laws ban anything. Rather, they ban state employees, on the job, from imposing pornography on young children without their parents’ consent or even knowledge. Thus preserving the parents’ right to decide what their children are ready for.

      2. Yes, the parents are the ultimate decider and the parents decided that porn in schools should be removed or we will remove you pedophiles from talking sex to children.

      3. No, DeSantis is trying to “protect” kids from listening to children’s books that have two male penguins as protagonists. That is anti-free speech, pure and simple. (And anti-penguin, for good measure.)

        1. This story is only about DeSantis in that he speaks and you disagree with him. He isn’t mentioned in this article. Neither are the names Biden, Trump, etc.

        2. No, DeSantis is trying to “protect” kids from listening to children’s books that have two male penguins as protagonists.

          That is an outright, knowing, deliberate lie.

    2. Indeed.

      And here is the biggest lie.

      “God does not exist”.

      Oh yes God exists. Spreading this lie damns souls!

      Jacinda Ahearn was right. We need to stop the spread of atheism!

    3. DeSantis? Because parents believe kids shouldn’t be able to access pornography in their school library? Ok. That’s your position. Comparable to Kim in NK.

    4. @sammy

      Perhaps we need a Ministry of Truth to protect us from suicide? Of course it’s for our own good, right?


  10. She is the epitome of the modern western progressive: a despicable totalitarian thug who would be very fulfilled serving as a senior commissar in a Stalin like regime. She is evil. She represents the only venomous species that resides in the beautiful country.

  11. Got Natural Rights?

    It’s a good question, because the real enemy to humanity are those on offense trying desperately to erase the very idea of them. Everything, and I mean absolutely everything must be viewed through the lens of natural rights. This is not just an American problem. This is the real global war man has been fighting since they first walked the planet. And no, this is not an argument to defend the existence of God. However we came into existence, we did so with rights that preexist everything. There are only two sides in this war. This is not one nation good and another evil. This is not one culture good and another evil. This is not one continent good and another evil. The good guys and bad guys in this war are not identifiable by any of the usual means used to group us. Either you defend natural rights, or you oppose them. The enemy of this worldview has done everything to bury its existence. This worldview makes it very clear who is on what side. It’s time to go on offense with this worldview.

  12. And the U.N. is going to enforce censorship with it’s elite army of bureaucrats…yeah right.

    Just like they successfully vanquish countless war criminals and despots who kill millions.

    1. The UN has no intention, and never has, of vanquishing countless war criminals and despots. Why? Because they ARE the war criminals and despots. Iran on the “Human Rights” council. Think about that for a minute. The power hungry at the UN just soak up the money and do absolutely nothing. I would actually say they make it worse. How many reports of UN workers sexually assaulting those they were sent to protect? That really tells you everything anyone needs to know about the UN.

Leave a Reply