Governments around the world are moving to criminalize thought. Consider the following:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and the European Court of Justice are among those who advocate criminalizing skepticism or doubt regarding climate change.

Message: If you are skeptical about human activity being the sole cause of climate change, you are a criminal.

In Japan, prime minister Shinzo Abe has enacted a state secrets law under which government workers who leak “state secrets” face up to 10 years in prison, while journalists who publish information provided by whistle-blowers can be imprisoned for up to five years.

Message: If you think we should be told the truth of the full extent of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant triple meltdown, you are a criminal.

Currently, it is illegal to question any aspect of the holocaust in 14 European nations. To do so is considered “hate speech” or “racial vilification.”

Message: If you question how the official death toll at Auschwitz can be reduced from four million to 1.5 million, yet that “six million” figure stays the same, you are both a racist and a criminal.

In France and the U.K., governments are attempting to make “conspiracy theories” illegal. U.K. prime minister David Cameron claims anyone espousing these alternative explanations for major events are “extremist” and equivalent to “terrorists.”

Message: If you suspect it is more than a coincidence that during the 9/11 attacks, the London 7/7 bombings, and the Paris 11/13 attacks, drills were being conducted that simulated those exact attack scenarios, you are an extremist and a terrorist.

The United Nations Human Rights Commission and Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination are pushing to criminalize free speech, rallies and groups they consider “hateful,” including people who oppose immigration or satirize religion.

Message: If you think England should be for the English, if you think Sweden is too small to take in so many culturally incompatible “refugees” or if you think comedians should be able to make fun of religion on stage, you are a criminal proponent of hate speech.

After 9/11, George W. Bush stated “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories regarding the attacks of September 11…” Yet the official story of 9/11 is, itself, a conspiracy theory. Then White House press secretary Ari Fleischer warned that U.S. citizens “need to watch what they say, watch what they do.”

Message: If you you believe you have the right of free speech, protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you stand in opposition to authority figures and are therefore suspect.

Australia has enacted a policy whereby families on welfare must vaccinate their children or risk losing their government assistance. Medical, religious and conscientious objections are no longer accepted. In California, parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated may be visited by child protective services or have a court order imposed on them. Schools are required to report parents whose children are not vaccinated.

Message: If you are concerned about possible side-effects or even the basic efficacy of vaccines, if you have concerns or beliefs that preclude allowing your children to be vaccinated, your children may be taken away and you may be sent to prison.

A recent survey by Pew Research reveals that approximately 40% of the U.S. population between the ages of 18—34 support government censorship of free speech if it is offensive to minorities.

Message: If you aren’t standing up for your right not to be offended, if you don’t denigrate your race and see everything as a “microaggression,” your voice must be silenced, says the future generation of the United States.

Truth is self-evident and verifiable. It does not require legal protection. It should be a clear red flag when simply asking a question is forbidden. It should be a clear red flag when claims and ideas are censored or banned outright and not treated with logic, reason and facts. If man-made climate change is real, if six million Jews were killed during WWII, if vaccinations are safe, effective and necessary, we do not need laws to silence claims to the contrary. We should be provided with incontrovertible proof. Hard evidence would silence the climate change skeptics, holocaust questioners and conspiracy theorists forever. However, we are not provided with hard evidence. Rather, our skepticism, questions and thoughts themselves are ridiculed and we are personally attacked for simply thinking about our world in a way that is not officially sanctioned.

If the triple meltdown at Fukushima poses no threat to life on planet Earth, if 19 hijackers really did pull off 9/11, then anyone who believes otherwise is merely confused or deluded. Just like people who believe in guardian angles or think eating margarine is healthier than real butter. So you have to wonder: Why do governments think it necessary to enact laws that censor, silence and criminalize thought, rather than simply providing facts and evidence that could clear up doubts and confusion?