War of the Worlds U.N. Migration Compact

[scribblet]

I'm surprised there isn't a discussion on this or maybe I missed it.   Either way even though most western countries are not signing on, Canada is and IMO, we should not.   What is very alarming is the intent to define criticism of migration as 'hate speech'  so would become a criminal offense.  “Media outlets that give room for criticism of migration,can be shut down.“

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/the-war-of-the-world/?fbclid=IwAR3CYLDBEhqxZ_cghgQX_WA_KR3jKvNNdtPJnC8lcqpQHofxHFv9lvO2Ooc

To properly understand the trend of world political events in recent years, it is essential to appreciate that a titanic struggle for supremacy between two implacably opposed ideologies is raging right across the Western world. It is an undeclared war waged largely behind the scenes.

The attackers are powerful globalist and multi-national interests such as the EU and the UN, supported by many leftist groups funded, paradoxically, by mega-rich financiers. Their ultimate aim is the abolition of borders, migration between countries at will, the dismantling of national identity, the transfer of power to supra-national bodies, and eventually the imposition of a post-democratic unitary world government. The defenders are those who believe that Western-style democracy based on the nation-state remains the least-worst way yet devised of safe-guarding the life, liberty and prosperity of its citizens.

Public awareness of the struggle is almost non-existent because, with very few exceptions, the free world’s mainstream media long ago aligned themselves with the globalists and have shamefully failed to

Dutch politician and European Parliament member Marcel de Graaff      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lORLGL2no_U

Edited December 1, 2018 by scribblet

[AngusThermopyle]

I've been following this. Trudeau is heading out on the 10th of December to sign us on to this travesty. In effect the UN will control our borders and immigration policies, in effect we'll be surrendering our sovereignty to the UN. Yes, the MSM have remained overwhelmingly silent on this issue, undoubtedly because if the public understood what is at stake there'd be a massive push back against it. If you remember, before he was elected Trudeau stated in an interview with The New York Times that he saw Canada as the worlds first post national state. It looks like he's doing everything he can to make that vision a reality. If you actually read the agreement and cut through the weasel words it's very disturbing. They talk about how to control the media and punish those who do not support the approved message. Another plan that the UN has that dovetails with this agreement is their intention to move 450 million people from the third world to the first by 2050.

I'm afraid that if Trudeau isn't turfed out next year his vision will become reality and Canada will cease to exist as anything we currently know. He's the greatest threat and enemy this country has ever faced.

[scribblet]

There obviously is a cone of silence from our media anyway, on this, hard to believe that they are all in agreement with it.  If the other western countries are rejecting this does this mean that Canada will have to take in their quota also?

Here’s what our immigration minister said about it:

“The Compact’s goals are, after all, ambitious. The first is clear: to ease the pressure on countries that welcome and host large numbers of refugees, currently mainly in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. Frontline countries like Turkey, Lebanon, Uganda or Bangladesh have argued that the impact of hosting hundreds of thousands or even millions of refugees is significant, especially as it’s often after a sudden influx

[Army Guy]

Now this should be an election issue, Why would we as a nation sign on to something that threatens our sovereignty , along with our own constitution, our freedoms, then again we have never really been big on those things anyways . No wonder citizens are voting for the extreme right with all this crap going on.....Was this even discussed in chambers, or is this just some air brain idea of Justin's to just sign us up without any discussion or study..... 

[-TSS-]

Our puppet-politicians here in Finland are going to sign this treaty. Meanwhile quite a numer of countries are refusing. Our cultural-marxist MSM is telling us that this is not a real contract and it is not going to bind us to anything.

Yes yes, all the time and effort has been spent just for fun to prepare a treaty which binds nobody. Unfortunately some people actually believe that.

 

[TTM]

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

Edited December 2, 2018 by TTM

[DogOnPorch]

This is the act of a traitor to his fellow countrymen. 

Right-up this POS PM's alley.

[scribblet]

So, criticism of migration will become  an extension of hate speech so will prosecuted as such.  Though the pact is supposedly non-binding, it does  establish the groundwork for an Orwellian type crusade to bind in stone, mass migration as a human right which would be legally,  above any type of  criticism.   Sure they say it's not binding, but if it is as benign as the liberals would have us believe then why are so many countries refusing to sign on.    

I agree with the U.S. that  argues such multinational agreements subverted the power of individual governments to control national borders.

The U.N. Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner posted on its website  a speech given Andrew Gilmour. The title of the speech alone shows they are not even trying to hide itheir agenda:     “Words Matter: Role and Responsibility of the media in shaping public perceptions about migrants and refugees and promoting inclusive societies.”   A primer on how to spread propaganda really.  

[TTM]

6 minutes ago, scribblet said:

1. So, criticism of migration will become  an extension of hate speech so will prosecuted as such. 

2. Sure they say it's not binding, but if it is as benign as the liberals would have us believe then why are so many countries refusing to sign on.    

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

[DogOnPorch]

Quote

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.

 

Translation: trust us, we know what's good media and what's bad media...and be clear...we'll decide....oh...with all due respect to...(laughing)...freedom of speech. (laughing harder)

[scribblet]

The whole concept is to ‘help’ us “to distinguish free speech from hate speech” and   media reporting that is not sufficiently on board with their plan cannot be tolerated.   

De Graff from in his speech says, one basic element of this new agreement is the extension of the definition of hate speech, which means criticism of mass migration can be prosecuted.

Andrew Gilmour: "Words Matter: Role and Responsibility of the media in shaping public perceptions about migrants and refugees and promoting inclusive societies."

 “It is clear to us all that many media outlets are deliberately failing to promote the concept of common humanity,”   and says that  mass migration is a basic human right.

All nice words which add up to stifling free speech https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1052923/UN-migration-agreement-Angela-Merkel-EU-criticise-migration-hate-crime

[TTM]

38 minutes ago, scribblet said:

The U.N. Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner posted on its website  a speech given Andrew Gilmour. The title of the speech alone shows they are not even trying to hide itheir agenda:     “Words Matter: Role and Responsibility of the media in shaping public perceptions about migrants and refugees and promoting inclusive societies.”   A primer on how to spread propaganda really.  

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.

Edited December 2, 2018 by TTM

[DogOnPorch]

Designed to make us strangers in our own homes.

 

[scribblet]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

Designed to make us strangers in our own homes.

 

Exactly.   I don't trust the U.N. one iota and all of those words are designed to appear benign but are not which is why most countries are now backing out of it.   

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, scribblet said:

Exactly.   I don't trust the U.N. one iota and all of those words are designed to appear benign but are not which is why most countries are now backing out of it.   

 

Oh...and you can leave anytime. Ask the Brexit guys...

[TTM]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Oh...and you can leave anytime. Ask the Brexit guys...

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

[DogOnPorch]

It's pure insanity: signing-off on this. But sanity isn't the question, apparently.

Letting unchecked immigration from failed states into the West...at Western taxpayer's cost. 

Designed to make you poor.

 

Just now, TTM said:

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

 

I do...and the UK can't leave even though the people voted to leave...

[TTM]

5 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Exactly.   I don't trust the U.N. one iota and all of those words are designed to appear benign but are not which is why most countries are now backing out of it.   

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

[scribblet]

1 minute ago, TTM said:

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

I'm sure he does, but what is happening with Brexit and the EU is indicative of what will happen with the U.N. and any agreement with them we sign onto  

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, TTM said:

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

 

You're just a shill for the globalists, hombre.

[scribblet]

Just now, TTM said:

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

From what I've read, it's more than perception, and obviously many other western countries 'perceive' the same thing...    

[TTM]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

I do...and the UK can't leave even though the people voted to leave...

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

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, scribblet said:

From what I've read, it's more than perception, and obviously many other western countries 'perceive' the same thing...    

 

Yup....if the USA isn't joining us, we should really ask ourselves why rather than saying "Orange Man Bad" and signing on the dotted line.

[TTM]

2 minutes ago, scribblet said:

From what I've read, it's more than perception, and obviously many other western countries 'perceive' the same thing...    

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

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, TTM said:

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

 

The UK...where I've had the pleasure of living-in for a time...is full of globalist shills that want the same fascist agenda you subscribe to. Some of them even speak English.

Edited December 2, 2018 by DogOnPorch