Jtdylktuy

Liberty Nation and the Sunday Express cite MEP Marcel de Graaff from the Dutch Party for Freedom as saying:

“One basic element of this new agreement is the extension of the
definition of hate speech. The agreement wants to
criminalize migration speech. Criticism of migration will become a
criminal offense. Media outlets that give room to criticism of
migration can be shut down.”

Does the global compact for migration contain elements that seek to extend the definition of hate speech in the way Graaff, co-president of the Europe of Nations and Freedom, charges?

The document that Marcel de Graaff is talking about is the United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration specifically he is referring to section 17.

Objective 17: Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration

33. We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law. We further commit to promote an open and evidence-based public discourse on migration and migrants in partnership with all parts of society, that generates a more realistic, humane and constructive perception in this regard. We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all
    aspects of migration.
    

To realize this commitment, we will draw from the following actions:

(a) Enact, implement or maintain legislation that penalizes hate crimes and aggravated hate crimes targeting migrants, and train law enforcement and other public officials to identify, prevent and respond to such crimes and other acts of violence that target migrants, as well as to provide medical, legal and psychosocial assistance for victims;

(b) Empower migrants and communities to denounce any acts of incitement to violence directed towards migrants by informing them of available mechanisms for redress, and ensure that those who actively participate in the commission of a hate crime targeting migrants are held accountable, in accordance with national legislation, while upholding international human rights law, in particular the right to freedom of expression;

(c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including Internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media;

Nowhere in the proposal does it call for criminalizing speaking out against migration. Even if it did support de Graaff's statement (again it does not) there is this section, the basics of which is repeated throughout the document:

7. 
   This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. It fosters international cooperation among all relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.

In other words the United Nations does not have the right or authority to legislate what is or is not hate speech, only sovereign nations do.

The Global Compact for Migration that this refers to is available online.

Given that it is not legally binding, we can say that nothing is going to become a criminal offense because of it. Politico quotes a human rights commissioner:

She stressed the compact is not binding and, after its formal adoption next month, "there is not a single member state that is obligated to do anything that it doesn't want to."

What it does do - according to politico:

[It] sets out a "cooperative framework" for dealing with international migration. Signatories agree, for example, to limit the pressure on countries with many migrants and to promote the self-reliance of newcomers. The document states that no country can address migration alone, while also upholding "the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law."

The agreement itself does not define or mention "hate speech" (or "speech" for that matter). The only relevant reference to the media is this:

Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media

tl;dr: The proposal is not legally binding, it does not mention hate speech, and it does not outlaw anything. It does suggest to promote objective and quality reporting, and for countries to not fund media outlets that promote racism (which is of course not the same as making it a criminal offense to criticize migration).