TTM

1. No I'm saying here are the actual words. Show me in the text the basis for these fears 2. ENF are anti-immigrant right wing nationalists. Why would they support any migration pact? Also, see #4 below. 3. The pact addresses a whole host of issues relating to migrants and migration. 4. This does not exist in the document. No special human right is added. At best it says "apply basic human rights to immigrants." Problematic to those who would prefer to demonize them (and worse).

1. Is it possible I cant see it because it's not there. I mean you have not given me anything to work on other than "it is a conspiracy because it is" 2. It went down and then it went back up. Priorities changed. I agree they shouldn't have. 3. The GST was brought in by Mulroney to raise general revenues to help regain control of runaway deficits. That is what happened. That was also ~30 years ago -- lots of things change in 30 years 4. You would be surprised how many do believe in most or all of these things. For the minority that dont, an even smaller percent of their children follow them ... one of the benefits of an universal public secular education system. For the rest, it is what it is ... many "natural citizens" do not believe in some or all of these things either. Freedom of belief and speech and all 6a. Agreed, but also note that based on your posts, my idea of better is very different then yours 6b. I would support pretty much the opposite of everything you said here. "Right Wing Nationalism" is typically not much more than fueled thinly veiled prejudice and xenophobia, and right wing governments have historically been no more or less competent then left. They typically believe in freedom of speech only insofar as that speech is in agreement with them ... see Trump as an example: "The media is the enemy of the people". I prefer effective government to less. I'm for carbon taxes and the climate accord. Trumps tax cuts were terrible unless you are rich or a corporation, and is massively adding to the US deficits and debt. GM closed 2 plants in the states at the same time as the Oshawa one ... Trudeau's fault? 7. I have no particular affection for Trudeau and his government. But I have no issue with a certain amount of foreign aid. It is a false dichotomy ... he can do both.

1. It sure is. Unfortunately people seem to prefer conspiracy sites to the actual documents posted freely on their website 2. Yes 3. False dichotomy. We had a GST reduction, which reduced its effectiveness, then a recession, then a change in priorities. 4. We live in an relatively safe, open, free, tolerant, country with "peace, order, and good government" opportunity for the "pursuit of happiness", and a safety net if we fail or become sick. The vast majority of the world's population does not. https://assets.weforum.org/editor/Jjm4BbK8hjTBFPDOInCJWeIZv-6a_9M_7kihVwGY9Gc.png 5. Per #4, your chances here are as good anywhere, and much better than most of the rest of the world 6a. Per #4, things could be much worse. We could definitely be doing better (or at least different) with poverty, taxes, and regulation, but you would need to be specific. I'm sure my idea of better is not the same as yours. 6b. There are many changes that could be made to improve our democracy. But if you dont believe in it, feel free to suggest a better form of government.

1. You notice how I said "might not". My argument did not depend one way or another on your beliefs on the topic. Apparently your grasp of what a "straw man argument" is is about the same as your grasp of what fascism is. 2. lol. Yes, I'm the only Holy Grail fan on the planet. What were you saying about straw man? My assumption was scribblet, who I was responding to, had probably not. And he basically admitted he had not in his last post, so...

Allegory, of course, about the European colonization of the New World... A rather false analogy for the current situation since the whole power dynamic and motivations of the parties don't line up. You might not like immigration, but the government encourages it as a matter of policy to "fill up that living space". If we decided not, beyond the possible exception of non-refoulement, nothing but internal and international opinion would prevent us. We have full sovereignty over our borders, and nothing in this pact reduces it.

Not a Monty Python fan then... The appropriate passage from the scene, in response to your comment of "if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck..." was (parphrasing) "if she weighs as much as a duck then she must be a witch!" But no longer funny if you have to explain it

It is a difficult subject. You seem to more or less agree with the UN. I posted their guidance on hate speech close to the beginning of this thread

Assumes they are familiar with the sketch. If I could assume that, I would have abbreviated it to "if she weighs the same as a duck..." The sketch pokes fun at people using preconceived notions, falsly dressing up the facts, and and using faulty logic in coming to conclusions. I thought it fit. Free expression regarding immigration is protected, as it should be. Hate speech regarding immigrants is not, and should not be. Nothing in this non-binding UN pact changes that

Peasants: We have found a witch! (A witch! a witch!) Burn her burn her! Peasant 1: We have found a witch, may we burn her? (cheers) Vladimir: How do you known she is a witch? P2: She looks like one! V: Bring her forward (advance) Woman: I'm not a witch! I'm not a witch! V: ehh... but you are dressed like one. W: They dressed me up like this! All: naah no we didn't... no. W: And this isn't my nose, it's a false one. (V lifts up carrot) V: Well? P1: Well we did do the nose V: The nose? P1: ...And the hat, but she is a witch! (all: yeah, burn her burn her!) V: Did you dress her up like this? P1: No! (no no... no) Yes. (yes yeah) a bit (a bit bit a bit) But she has got a wart! (P3 points at wart) V: What makes you think she is a witch? P2: Well, she turned me into a newt! V: A newt?! (P2 pause & look around) P2: I got better. (pause) P3: Burn her anyway! (burn her burn her burn!) (king walks in) V: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch. P1: Are there? Well then tell us! (tell us) V: Tell me... what do you do with witches? P3: Burn'em! Burn them up! (burn burn burn) V: What do you burn apart from witches? P1: More witches! (P2 nudge P1) (pause) P3: Wood! V: So, why do witches burn? (long pause) P2: Cuz they're made of... wood? V: Gooood. (crowd congratulates P2) V: So, how do we tell if she is made of wood? P1: Build a bridge out of her! V: Ahh, but can you not also make bridges out of stone? P1: Oh yeah... V: Does wood sink in water? P1: No P3: No. It floats! P1: Let's throw her into the bog! (yeah yeah ya!) V: What also floats in water? P1: Bread P3: Apples P2: Very small rocks (V looks annoyed) P1: Cider P3: Grape gravy P1: Cherries P3: Mud King: A Duck! (all look and stare at king) V: Exactly! So, logically... P1(thinking): If she weighs the same as a duck... she's made of wood! V: And therefore, (pause & think) P3: A witch! (P1: a witch)(P2: a witch)(all: a witch!)

"I dont like this, but cannot formulate valid reasons as to why" cast as an appeal to truthiness. Not much of an argument, but appealing to some.

In just a few posts on this topic you have "accidentally" misdefined a charged term, and done little but throw out red herrings and ad hominems. Sad.

Bulverism, appeal to motive

That is not happening, so that would be a red herring

Not good or bad. One of the most significant factors in Trump getting elected was his anti-immigrant rhetoric. So it stands to reason he wouldn't sign a document protective of their rights regardless; his opposition is of minimal use in judging its actual utility

US: Trump Austria: The current government of Austria is a coalition government formed by the center-right Austrian People's Party (ÖVP) and the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ). Italy: Unstable coalition gov't where one of the major (and fastest rising) parties is Lega Nord which has: embraced Italian nationalism and emphasised Euroscepticism, opposition to immigration and other "populist" policies while forming an alliance with right-wing populist parties such as France's National Front, the Netherlands' Party for Freedom and the Freedom Party of Austria at the European level. Hungary: Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance (Hungarian pronunciation: [ˈfidɛs]; in full, Hungarian: Fidesz – Magyar Polgári Szövetség) is a national-conservative[3][4][5] and right-wing populist[5][4][9] political party in Hungary. It has dominated Hungarian politics on the national and local level since its landslide victory in the 2010 national elections So, opposition by right-wing populist governments (read anti-immigrant) and possibly Japan (historically anti-immigration)

Understanding the meaning of words is important if you want to actually have a rational conversation

Feel free to provide any accepted definition that implies fascists are pro-immigration Masters ... lol. Projection?

I dont think you understand the definition of fascist.

Many western countries have either anti-immigrant governments, or large anti-immigrant populations. As you and DoP exemplify

Who's stopping them ... hint, not the EU

As long as you are aware that your fears are not based on any actual, fact but perception only

You do realize Brexit is not about Great Britain trying to leave the UN...

From the Words Matter Speech: In order to distinguish free speech from hate speech, the UN Human Rights Office has provided practical guidance through the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of incitement to hatred . It outlines a six-part test that looks into the context of the statement, the speaker’s position and intent, the content and extent of the speech, as well as the likelihood that the speech would incite action against the target group. From the Rabat Plan of Action: It was suggested that a high threshold be sought for defining restrictions on freedom of expression, incitement to hatred, and for the application of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In order to establish severity as the underlying consideration of the thresholds, incitement to hatred must refer to the most severe and deeply felt form of opprobrium. To assess the severity of the hatred, possible elements may include the cruelty or intent of the statement or harm advocated, the frequency, quantity and extent of the communication. In this regard, a six-part threshold test was proposed for expressions considered as criminal offences: (a) Context: Context is of great importance when assessing whether particular statements are likely to incite discrimination, hostility or violence against the target group, and it may have a direct bearing on both intent and/or causation. Analysis of the context should place the speech act within the social and political context prevalent at the time the speech was made and disseminated; (b) Speaker: The speaker‟s position or status in the society should be considered, specifically the individual's or organization‟s standing in the context of the audience to whom the speech is directed; (c) Intent: Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights anticipates intent. Negligence and recklessness are not sufficient for an act to be an offence under article 20 of the Covenant, as this article provides for “advocacy” and “incitement” rather than the mere distribution or circulation of material. In this regard, it requires the activation of a triangular relationship between the object and subject of the speech act as well as the audience. (d) Content and form: The content of the speech constitutes one of the key foci of the court‟s deliberations and is a critical element of incitement. Content analysis may include the degree to which the speech was provocative and direct, as well as the form, style, nature of arguments deployed in the speech or the balance struck between arguments deployed; (e) Extent of the speech act: Extent includes such elements as the reach of the speech act, its public nature, its magnitude and size of its audience. Other elements to consider include whether the speech is public, what means of dissemination are used, for example by a single leaflet or broadcast in the mainstream media or via the Internet, the frequency, the quantity and the extent of the communications, whether the audience had the means to act on the incitement, whether the statement (or work) is circulated in a restricted environment or widely accessible to the general public; (f) Likelihood, including imminence: Incitement, by definition, is an inchoate crime. The action advocated through incitement speech does not have to be committed for said speech to amount to a crime. Nevertheless, some degree of risk of harm must be identified. It means that the courts will have to determine that there was a reasonable probability that the speech would succeed in inciting actual action against the target group, recognizing that such causation should be rather direct.

1. I don't see that anywhere in the text posted. Where specifically do you see that interpretation 2. There are a lot of gov'ts that are either clearly against migration, or politically do not feel they can afford to appear to support it

So that people can discuss the actual text, and not third-hand descriptions, it is here Regarding "criticism of migration becoming hate speach", and shutting down media, the actual text is this: 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 d) Establish mechanisms to prevent, detect and respond to racial, ethnic and religious profiling of migrants by public authorities, as well as systematic instances of intolerance, xenophobia, racism and all other multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination in partnership with National Human Rights Institutions, including by tracking and publishing trends analyses, and ensuring access to effective complaint and redress mechanisms e) Provide migrants, especially migrant women, with access to national and regional complaint and redress mechanisms with a view to promoting accountability and addressing governmental actions related to discriminatory acts and manifestations carried out against migrants and their families f) Promote awareness-raising campaigns targeted at communities of origin, transit and destination in order to inform public perceptions regarding the positive contributions of safe, orderly and regular migration, based on evidence and facts, and to end racism, xenophobia and stigmatization against all migrants g) Engage migrants, political, religious and community leaders, as well as educators and service providers to detect and prevent incidences of intolerance, racism, xenophobia, and other forms of discrimination against migrants and diasporas and support activities in local communities to promote mutual respect, including in the context of electoral campaigns