Criminalise migration speech.

[Rolluplostinspace]

UN's Global Compact for Migration Expands on Hate Speech to Criminalise Criticism of Migration

I find this short speech quite frightening.
Welcome to the NWO.
It will be a criminal offence to criticize migration/immigration.

[Maddog]

Is it hateful to tell the Useless Nations to fuck off?

[Rolluplostinspace]

Is it hateful to tell the Useless Nations to fuck off?

I think you're safe for now Maddog America refused to sign up.
I think Britain is in.

[Cactus Jack]

Is it hateful to tell the Useless Nations to fuck off?

Do nations migrate?

If the Mountains of Mourne are off to America I'm against that but if people from the Mountains of Mourne want to go to America that's People migrating not 'Nations'

[Maddog]

Is it hateful to tell the Useless Nations to fuck off?

I think you're safe for now Maddog America refused to sign up.
I think Britain is in.

We are pretty much always safe from the UN, as long as our politicians actually follow the constitution.

But we still pay a great deal of the bill for that corrupt organization and put up with their shit in NY. Send them off to Paris and let the yellow vests firebomb them.

[Grafenwalder]

He doesn't seem to be aware of the background to the Yaxley-Lennon case and how/why the charges first came about. The idiot was in contempt breaching a previous court order and very nearly derailed the case being heard. The majority of people in UK know full well what his selective agenda is about. Where was that twat when his EDL paedo rapist chums were on trial? Nowhere to be seen and the only posting on social media with regards to McMillan was informing members to, "keep this quiet among ourselves - we don't need the left rubbing our noses in it".

[Rolluplostinspace]

He doesn't seem to be aware of the background to the Yaxley-Lennon case and how/why the charges first came about. The idiot was in contempt breaching a previous court order and very nearly derailed the case being heard. The majority of people in UK know full well what his selective agenda is about. Where was that twat when his EDL paedo rapist chums were on trial? Nowhere to be seen and the only posting on social media with regards to McMillan was informing members to, "keep this quiet among ourselves - we don't need the left rubbing our noses in it".

Tommy Yaxley Lennon is a distraction from what the post is about.

[Maddog]

He doesn't seem to be aware of the background to the Yaxley-Lennon case and how/why the charges first came about. The idiot was in contempt breaching a previous court order and very nearly derailed the case being heard. The majority of people in UK know full well what his selective agenda is about. Where was that twat when his EDL paedo rapist chums were on trial? Nowhere to be seen and the only posting on social media with regards to McMillan was informing members to, "keep this quiet among ourselves - we don't need the left rubbing our noses in it".

Tommy Yaxley Lennon is a distraction from what the post is about.

In this case, it appears that British law was dealing with the problem. There is no need for an outside entity telling any country what their speech laws should look like.

[Cactus Jack]

He doesn't seem to be aware of the background to the Yaxley-Lennon case and how/why the charges first came about. The idiot was in contempt breaching a previous court order and very nearly derailed the case being heard. The majority of people in UK know full well what his selective agenda is about. Where was that twat when his EDL paedo rapist chums were on trial? Nowhere to be seen and the only posting on social media with regards to McMillan was informing members to, "keep this quiet among ourselves - we don't need the left rubbing our noses in it".

Tommy Yaxley Lennon is a distraction from what the post is about.

In this case, it appears that British law was dealing with the problem. There is no need for an outside entity telling any country what their speech laws should look like.

It's a non-binding voluntary agreement. I can't think of anything less threatening.

Furthermore most Western Democracies already have laws in place that meet the necessary criteria, however there are some countries where - for example, hate speech against Christians is not a criminal offence, looking at you Pakistan https://www.persecution.org/2017/10/13/ ... ing-party/

So Western Democracies don't even seem to be the target of the guidelines. Maybe that's why America helped to draft them

[Maddog]

He doesn't seem to be aware of the background to the Yaxley-Lennon case and how/why the charges first came about. The idiot was in contempt breaching a previous court order and very nearly derailed the case being heard. The majority of people in UK know full well what his selective agenda is about. Where was that twat when his EDL paedo rapist chums were on trial? Nowhere to be seen and the only posting on social media with regards to McMillan was informing members to, "keep this quiet among ourselves - we don't need the left rubbing our noses in it".

Tommy Yaxley Lennon is a distraction from what the post is about.

In this case, it appears that British law was dealing with the problem. There is no need for an outside entity telling any country what their speech laws should look like.

It's a non-binding voluntary agreement. I can't think of anything less threatening.

Furthermore most Western Democracies already have laws in place that meet the necessary criteria, however there are some countries where - for example, hate speech against Christians is not a criminal offence, looking at you Pakistan https://www.persecution.org/2017/10/13/ ... ing-party/

So Western Democracies don't even seem to be the target of the guidelines. Maybe that's why America helped to draft them

So it's a waste of time, like pretty much everything the UN does, like give the Saudis a seat on the human rights council.

[Rolluplostinspace]

They lied: The UN Migration Pact IS legally binding and could be valid FOR ALL countries

They lied.

For months proponents of the UN Migration Pact told us that the pact was non-binding. The response to the many citizens of nation states worldwide having signed country specific petitions was that it was non-binding so there was nothing to worry about, it was going to be good.

The immensely opposed and disastrous document declares unlimited migration to be treated as a human right, thereby deprecating the term ‘illegal migrants’, and criminalises any criticism of migration as hate speech.

The points that raised alarm for most was that it seeks to eliminate all forms of dissent. Media organisations for example, should they criticise anything to do with migration would lose access to state funding. People would be labelled as racists or guilty of hate speech which will now be criminalised. This pact will literally erase our borders.
https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/12/they- ... UQ.twitter

[Cactus Jack]

In this case, it appears that British law was dealing with the problem. There is no need for an outside entity telling any country what their speech laws should look like.

It's a non-binding voluntary agreement. I can't think of anything less threatening.

Furthermore most Western Democracies already have laws in place that meet the necessary criteria, however there are some countries where - for example, hate speech against Christians is not a criminal offence, looking at you Pakistan https://www.persecution.org/2017/10/13/ ... ing-party/

So Western Democracies don't even seem to be the target of the guidelines. Maybe that's why America helped to draft them

So it's a waste of time, like pretty much everything the UN does, like give the Saudis a seat on the human rights council.

If it's effective it's an intrusion and if it's ineffective it's a waste of time - I guess that's how the authoritarian mindset works and I shouldn't be surprised.

A country not wishing to sign need not. A country signing is giving a signal that it intends to hold to some basic standards, largely drafted by America so they put a premium on free speech, to which other countries should aspire. A country that signs and does not abide by the agreement can be named and shamed which will apply some moral pressure.

You should congratulate Nikki Haley for this.

[Rolluplostinspace]

It is not racist or wrong to discuss immigration ... yet.

[Fletch]

They lied: The UN Migration Pact IS legally binding and could be valid FOR ALL countries

They lied.

For months proponents of the UN Migration Pact told us that the pact was non-binding. The response to the many citizens of nation states worldwide having signed country specific petitions was that it was non-binding so there was nothing to worry about, it was going to be good.

The immensely opposed and disastrous document declares unlimited migration to be treated as a human right, thereby deprecating the term ‘illegal migrants’, and criminalises any criticism of migration as hate speech.

The points that raised alarm for most was that it seeks to eliminate all forms of dissent. Media organisations for example, should they criticise anything to do with migration would lose access to state funding. People would be labelled as racists or guilty of hate speech which will now be criminalised. This pact will literally erase our borders.
https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/12/they- ... UQ.twitter

Yet in all of that 'assistance' for those fleeing, not one mention of stopping the wars that has created the exodus of millions of people. All it is, is about funnelling that ;resource' in to western economies, as I said on the other thread about it.

Why do we think they want to funnel 'resources' (new borrowers, buyers, renters and tax payers) rather than stop the western waged wars that have caused it? Making money at both ends? Sell the weapons to drive people out then direct that manpower in to western economies where they can make more money out of them and exploit their labour?

You avoided my comment in the other thread Cactus Jack (or canny), maybe you can comment on this one. As a supporter of it, why isn't stopping the source of the problem paramount?

[Rolluplostinspace]

Before anyone says it yes I know voice of Europe is a far right group.