This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
UN Migration pact
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 PalazioVecchio  south pole 19 Dec 18 12.56pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by LeeG
You guys really are nuts. Echo chambers are dangerous. Ethnic ghettos with walls around them. Hypothetical madness. It will never happen in the UK. U Never visited Belfast then ?
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| steve1984 19 Dec 18 1.09pm | |
|---|---|
|
I gave up using that discriminatory factor a long time ago.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Cucking Funt  Clapham on the Back 19 Dec 18 1.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I'm Palace but you don't like me. So your logic is flawed.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 19 Dec 18 1.39pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio
Ethnic ghettos with walls around them. Hypothetical madness. It will never happen in the UK. U Never visited Belfast then ? Funnily enough I'm visiting family in Belfast late spring. Staunch and loyal unionists of course.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 19 Dec 18 1.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Well perhaps calling you far left is a little presumptuous ....but I seem to remember you arguing for social constructionism and complaining about attitudes against immigration.....and here you seem to be advocating for censorship on the Hol. Social constructionism – on the whole no to it, and Peterson is someone I find myself aligning with more and more on the subject, but I understand why it exists as an ideology and there are parts of it that are interesting to debate rather than ignore and shut down without proper exploration. Also, note, that is not the same as being wholly in agreement with it, by the way. Everything isn't binary. I'm not sure complaining about 'attitudes' against immigration is exclusive to the far left. Especially if some of those attitudes are emotive, partisan, sometimes baseless and hateful rather than logical and intellectually though through (reply to this on another thread, them be the rules). Censorship – open to interpretation. I don't make the rules, I was just pointing them out. I agree that threads should remain on topic rather than constantly being derailed into left, right and immigration. This happens without fail, all the time. And there are about four people that are the main protagonists. There should be a dedicated thread for that. I reckon it would reach 30000 posts within a year. No one is arguing for censorship, from what I can see. What they are arguing for is topics to stay on topic, and specific generalist left, right and immigration chat, along with sniping, to go elsewhere. Nothing wrong with trying to debate properly. I appreciate the hypocrisy of some of the above but at least I can admit it.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 19 Dec 18 1.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by davenotamonkey
Sounds like a great idea.... [Tweet Link]
Can anyone defend this? We are on course to sign it. Can't wait for the censorship? Looking forward to accusations of xenophobia for opposing it? Back on topic, I don't agree with criminalising criticism of migration. That is ridiculous. In the same way the Canadian govt. is/has passed legislation to criminalise people refusing to use gender pronouns. Unless this has been badly worded, and they are referring more to outright abuse/hate against migrants. That is different from criticism and intelligent opinion.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 19 Dec 18 2.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I don't like you. I adore you Cucking If I tease it's only my way of flirting
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 19 Dec 18 2.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Ah. Some further reading clarifies these comments.So this de Graaff has decided to summarise incorrectly rather than actually reading from the document, which is not particularly helpful in the current climate. 'The document asks nations to “commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination…against all migrants” And any country that took this further and tried to criminalise criticism of migration would likely be breaching human rights legislation. Making sure migrants aren’t discriminated against is a very different thing to asking states to criminalise criticism of migration. The document explicitly says: “We also commit to protect freedom of expression.” Professor Costello also told us: “Any government that decided to meet the commitment to tackle discrimination and xenophobia by censorship would in likelihood be breaching its international human rights obligations, in particular the right to freedom of expression.” Mr de Graaff also said the compact means: “media outlets…that give room to criticism of migration can be shut down.” That’s also not correct. The compact asks signatories to commit to “stopping allocation of public funding or material supports to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants.” In both these cases the phrasing is crucial. The UN wants signatories to ensure migrants aren’t discriminated against, not to outlaw criticism of migration.' Taken from full fact, and also crosschecked from the document itself which you can read here [Link] for yourselves, rather than rely on media outlets to summarise for you. Whilst I'd agree that these rules then have to be interpreted and could be bent, well, that's life. But the actual wording and intent of the document appears to be generally sound. It's up to others to ensure it is policed and enacted properly, and not abused. See any legislation, ever.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 19 Dec 18 2.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Social constructionism – on the whole no to it, and Peterson is someone I find myself aligning with more and more on the subject, but I understand why it exists as an ideology and there are parts of it that are interesting to debate rather than ignore and shut down without proper exploration. Also, note, that is not the same as being wholly in agreement with it, by the way. Everything isn't binary. I'm not sure complaining about 'attitudes' against immigration is exclusive to the far left. Especially if some of those attitudes are emotive, partisan, sometimes baseless and hateful rather than logical and intellectually though through (reply to this on another thread, them be the rules). Censorship – open to interpretation. I don't make the rules, I was just pointing them out. I agree that threads should remain on topic rather than constantly being derailed into left, right and immigration. This happens without fail, all the time. And there are about four people that are the main protagonists. There should be a dedicated thread for that. I reckon it would reach 30000 posts within a year. No one is arguing for censorship, from what I can see. What they are arguing for is topics to stay on topic, and specific generalist left, right and immigration chat, along with sniping, to go elsewhere. Nothing wrong with trying to debate properly. I appreciate the hypocrisy of some of the above but at least I can admit it. A good post, I retract calling you far left. I'm more liberal than you regarding how we interpret the rules on discussion censorship perhaps and threads have always wandered and contained heated arguments.....but nevertheless valid points.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 19 Dec 18 2.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Whilst I'd agree that these rules then have to be interpreted and could be bent, well, that's life. But the actual wording and intent of the document appears to be generally sound. It's up to others to ensure it is policed and enacted properly, and not abused. See any legislation, ever. We have already discussed these points in the thread of course. I'm completely at odds with this 'that's life' attitude you take here. There are already laws and rules governing how everybody is treated in this country which include immigrants and there is zero requirement for any further laws or guidelines.....certainly for us to sign up to. Immigration, at the type and levels we have seen, has been terrible for this country and I regard this compact from the UN as yet another attack on those that wish to pushback on it. Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Dec 2018 2.33pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 19 Dec 18 2.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
We have already discussed these points in the thread of course. I'm completely at odds with this 'that's life' attitude you take here. There are already laws and rules governing how everybody is treated in this country which include immigrants and there is zero requirement for any further laws or guidelines.....certainly for us to sign up to. Immigration, at the type and levels we have seen, has been terrible for this country and I regard this compact from the UN as yet another attack on those that wish to pushback on it. Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Dec 2018 2.33pm) I'm not saying don't pushback against it, and I actually think, to your point this additional level is simply clarifying what already exists legally in most countries legal framework (note, not legally binding) and has probably been introduced as it's such a contentious topic right now and is in danger of becoming too polarised. As we all know, when things get contentious they get heated and occasionally become irrational, personal, abusive and overstep the mark. Maybe this is just clarifying what the boundaries are to try to prevent that from happening. From reading the text I don't see it as attempting to silence anyone at all, or prevent constructive, intelligent criticism from being broadcasted in the media. However, if it becomes a tool of abuse and censorship not in keeping with the document and how it is worded? I would not agree with that but it's for people with more time on their hands, and more power, to campaign and protest to do something about it, not me. It's also worth noting again that if it was used this way, it's not a legal document and the legal system would most likely put an end to any such attempt to do so. Can I also say, that it's important to note that what has been said in that clip from the OP is not factually accurate, hence my previous post.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 19 Dec 18 3.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
I'm not saying don't pushback against it, and I actually think, to your point this additional level is simply clarifying what already exists legally in most countries legal framework (note, not legally binding) and has probably been introduced as it's such a contentious topic right now and is in danger of becoming too polarised. As we all know, when things get contentious they get heated and occasionally become irrational, personal, abusive and overstep the mark. Maybe this is just clarifying what the boundaries are to try to prevent that from happening. From reading the text I don't see it as attempting to silence anyone at all, or prevent constructive, intelligent criticism from being broadcasted in the media. However, if it becomes a tool of abuse and censorship not in keeping with the document and how it is worded? I would not agree with that but it's for people with more time on their hands, and more power, to campaign and protest to do something about it, not me. It's also worth noting again that if it was used this way, it's not a legal document and the legal system would most likely put an end to any such attempt to do so. Can I also say, that it's important to note that what has been said in that clip from the OP is not factually accurate, hence my previous post. I respect your opinion.....I'm just obviously far more cynical about it over the intentions of the stakeholders....and also I'm far more cynical over the guardianship of liberty in this country....and I'd say recent events bare me out. However, I've also started on the christmas craft beers.....So my ability to articulate my points is likely to significantly erode from this point forward. Hic! Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Dec 2018 3.01pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.