Bureaucratic hypocrisy on the International Day of Democracy

Alexandra Marshall I 16 September I Spectator Australia

Yesterday was the International Day of Democracy. Perhaps conscious of democracy’s decline under their watch, all the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork to flog their virtues.

It is my view that these entities pretend, rather than believe, in the merits of democracy. Either that or they misuse the mirage of democracy as a means to sell their tyrannical wares, these being additional layers of governance designed to suffocate fledgling technologies that threaten existing systems of control.

The European Parliament, easily one of the least democratic Western institutions, tweeted:

‘As we face democratic backsliding across the world, we must double down on our efforts to defend democracy through participation and leadership.’

They attached a quote from the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola.

‘We can never take democracy for granted!’

This is the same European Parliament that has been going out of its way to regulate free speech on social media via the anti-democratic Digital Services Act. Members of the European Union have taunted Elon Musk, daring him to engage in legal action.

The European Union and its Parliament in principle defend freedom of speech – in the same way that nations such as North Korea continue to call themselves a ‘peoples’ republic’ because it sounds good. It is the clutching of Red Riding Hood’s cloak around the wolf.

Not to be outdone, the United Nations – an institution overrun by collectivists and despots – paid lip service to the global day they instigated by tweeting:

‘Democracy enables people to have a say in their futures. Everyone should be able to meaningfully participate in decisions that will affect their lives now, and in years to come.’

To this, they attached an image with the message:

‘Democracy provides an environment that respects human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in which the freely expressed will of people is exercised.’

That is, unless you wish to express your democratic right to oppose the trillion-dollar climate change industry that massages the heart at the centre of United Nations propaganda. See how far democracy gets you when the will of the people opposes the will of the UN.

The UN rounded off its ode to democracy by demanding more regulation.

‘Artificial intelligence must service humanity equitably and safely,’ they said. ‘On Sunday’s Democracy Day, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres stresses the importance of ensuring effective governance of artificial intelligence at all levels, including internationally.’

Democracy, so long as the UN is in charge of it and can regulate it. Or the EU. Or one of the other megaliths of our time.

It is no accident that the governance of technology is being merged with the definition of democracy.

The focus of this year’s ‘Democracy Day’ is Artificial Intelligence.

From the United Nations website:

‘This year’s theme for the International Day of Democracy is focused on the importance of Artificial Intelligence as a tool for good governance.’

António Guterres stressed AI’s potential to enhance public participation, equality, security, and human development but then warned ‘if left unchecked, its dangers could have serious impacts for democracy, peace, and stability’.

We are then directed to the ‘High-Level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence’ and its recommendations.

There are no prizes for guessing the first item on the list: inclusivity.

Not inclusivity of all global citizens… There is a named focus on the ‘Global South’ and an insistence that these governments be able to access AI tools while any global AI technology is to be anchored in the ‘Sustainable Development Goals’.

Why should private companies adhere to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals?

Why should Western countries make their private technology available to third-world dictatorships?

Because the UN says so. It is a decree, not a request.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights penned an open letter to Twitter several years ago following Musk’s acquisition and subsequent sacking of what was widely understood to be a fringe-left workforce responsible for two-tiered censorship. Conservatives remember this as a period of persecution from which the billionaire rescued them. After Musk showed the human rights team the door, the High Commissioner said:

‘Twitter is part of a global revolution that has transformed how we communicate. But I write with concern and apprehension about our digital public square and Twitter’s role in it. Like all companies, Twitter needs to understand harms associated with its platform and take steps to address them.’

That is what Musk was doing – addressing the ‘harms’ caused by one-sided moderation that saw victims of the Covid era vanished from the digital space to satisfy the feelings of pharmaceutical companies, governments, and organisations such as the UN who wrongly misidentified public criticism as ‘harm’. Indeed, they still do. Further to this, has anyone ever heard a humanitarian bureaucrat complain about the censorship of conservatives? I cannot think of any.

The Human Rights Chief, in 2022, said that ‘free speech is not a free pass’.

Free speech is not a free pass:?Viral spread of harmful disinformation, like that seen during the Covid-19 pandemic in relation to vaccines, results in real world harms. Twitter has a responsibility to avoid amplifying content that results in harm to other people’s rights.

The key is in the detail. Reading the letter in question, under the heading ‘protect free speech across the globe’ it adds ‘under relevant laws’. If Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese gets his way, those relevant laws will mean political communication and dissent is effectively taboo. In China, the ‘law’ means thou shalt not upset Beijing. In Brazil, the law means ‘don’t support the Opposition’. In Afghanistan, the laws are irrelevant because the Taliban have reduced the place to rubble.

If we return to the UN’s page celebrating the International Day of Democracy and watch the attached video about AI, we find an interesting line. Buried two-thirds of the way through, the video has this to say:

‘AI can sometimes be intentionally used to spread misinformation, undermining and harming democracy. With many such AI applications being owned and designed by private companies, their transparency and accountability are even more urgent.’

Ah yes, it all comes back down to the UN losing control of the global narrative and desperately grasping for control.

Control over democracy.

If we are going to be truthful, the International Day for Democracy was only ever a tacky bit of marketing for the UN agenda. Other themes have included the Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the Millennium Development Goals, and Covid: A Spotlight on Democracy. As a democracy enthusiast, I only wish we had a genuine celebration for democracy. Maybe that will come when the last moral creatures in Parliament toss these anti-free speech bills into the bonfire where they belong.

Author: Alexandra Marshall