WTF is going on in France Svarty?

[pErvinalia]

in reality draconian restrictions are not going to happen, no matter how the alarmists rabbit on...

So in Canada, because of the human rights tribunals, you are not allowed to speak out on certain issues. Not 'alarmist' at all, but plain fact.

You've been repeatedly asked to back up this bollocks, and never do.

I await the list of rhetorical questions.

https://aclj.org/human-rights/european- ... h-to-islam

The Regional Court convicted Ms. E.S. for “disparaging religious doctrines” and ordered her “to pay the costs of the proceedings and a day-fine of 4 euros (EUR) for a period of 120 days (amounting to 480 EUR in total), which would result in sixty days’ imprisonment in the event of default.” Although Ms. E.S. provided evidence from the Islamic texts which were consistent with her statements regarding Aisha’s age at the time of her marriage and consummation thereof, the court considered her statements to be “value judgments not intended to promote productive discussion” and not statements of fact.

It doesn't take long to find any.

Your notion that the Human Rights commision/tribunals have no teeth is either naive or stupid.

That's Europe, not Canada. And it's hate speech, not the pronoun bollocks you usually go on about.

[pErvinalia]

I predict that he simply cannot give well-documented lists of criminal sanctions imposed in Canada for saying politically incorrect stuff...

It isn't about criminal sanctions, JimC. If you start a business (say, a news business) in Canada, and say the wrong thing about gender expression (even if from a valid scientific source) then you can be ruined financially by the Human Rights Commission.

And there it is, the usual baseless claim you make.

[JimC]

I predict that he simply cannot give well-documented lists of criminal sanctions imposed in Canada for saying politically incorrect stuff...

It isn't about criminal sanctions, JimC. If you start a business (say, a news business) in Canada, and say the wrong thing about gender expression (even if from a valid scientific source) then you can be ruined financially by the Human Rights Commission.

Look at the way they bullied the Alberta preacher, then backed right the fuck down when a more resourceful individual republished exactly the same words. If you don't want to look, that's ok. You can sit with pErvinalia and insist that the human rights commission has no ability to enforce.

Can you link to any documented examples of people being "ruined financially by the Human Rights Commission"?

Or is it just right-wing bullshit?

[Cunt]

I predict that he simply cannot give well-documented lists of criminal sanctions imposed in Canada for saying politically incorrect stuff...

It isn't about criminal sanctions, JimC. If you start a business (say, a news business) in Canada, and say the wrong thing about gender expression (even if from a valid scientific source) then you can be ruined financially by the Human Rights Commission.

And there it is, the usual baseless claim you make.

My claim is that Human Rights violations can result in financial ruin, or jail.

Not that big a stretch, unless you contend that the Human Rights Commission can't issue enforceable penalties.

[Cunt]

I predict that he simply cannot give well-documented lists of criminal sanctions imposed in Canada for saying politically incorrect stuff...

It isn't about criminal sanctions, JimC. If you start a business (say, a news business) in Canada, and say the wrong thing about gender expression (even if from a valid scientific source) then you can be ruined financially by the Human Rights Commission.

Look at the way they bullied the Alberta preacher, then backed right the fuck down when a more resourceful individual republished exactly the same words. If you don't want to look, that's ok. You can sit with pErvinalia and insist that the human rights commission has no ability to enforce.

Can you link to any documented examples of people being "ruined financially by the Human Rights Commission"?

Or is it just right-wing bullshit?

Nope. I have shown plenty. If you want to look into it further, take in the journey travelled by Ezra Levant in his interaction with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Look at who he defended, why he did NOT get ruined, and why they felt it important to attack a small-town preacher, but avoid attacking a wealthy, conservative lawyer who was well-funded.

If you want to know what is wrong with it, you'll have to look at folks you disagree with.

[JimC]

As I said, no links, empty claims, no prosecutions.

[Cunt]

It doesn't matter to you, does it?

You either believe the Human Rights Commission can do things, or that it cannot.

You either believe that the fines they issue must be paid, or that they can be ignored.

You are completely unwilling to look, but I'll give you a link to a video. You can just watch, or you can look into their legal settlements to see what they actually do.

https://vimeo.com/5189274

[Jason]

So in Canada, because of the human rights tribunals, you are not allowed to speak out on certain issues. Not 'alarmist' at all, but plain fact.

Do you have a link (preferably not a right-wing source) where I can read about these certain issues which are now verboten to speak of?

[pErvinalia]

He doesn't do links. He does 'feelings'.

[Woodbutcher]

Woe, woe, woe feelings...

[Cunt]

So in Canada, because of the human rights tribunals, you are not allowed to speak out on certain issues. Not 'alarmist' at all, but plain fact.

Do you have a link (preferably not a right-wing source) where I can read about these certain issues which are now verboten to speak of?

That sounds like a sucker bet.

Whatever source I bring, you will likely consider right-wing.

How about reading the compact? It says 'Human Rights' so often in that document, that it's probably not as long as it seems.

c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internetbased 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

So who do you suppose will get to choose which 'media outlets' are systematically promoting intolerance, xenophobia, racism and all the other buzzwords?

Is it just barely possible that this is what those tens of thousands of people who object to this are concerned about?

[pErvinalia]

Still no links. Just more rhetorical questions.

[Cunt]

Still no links. Just more rhetorical questions.

No link for you, I agree.

I did post a quote from the actual document in discussion though. You could go read the compact yourself, and then express your informed opinion.

Or keep begging for links you will ignore. One might suit your style better.

[Cunt]

Oh, and the Belgian PM who just got fired...I'm guessing that is ALSO not about this UN thingie everyone is signing (except BadOrangeMan and racists)

It's totally a coincidence...there couldn't be rational opposition to a document with no teeth...why is everyone afraid of the signing of a harmless UN document?

[JimC]

It seems abundantly clear that you simply cannot back up your right wing rhetoric about a leftist plot against free speech with any actual facts, such as examples of prosecutions ...