UN Migration Pact. Why we didn't sign it

[Sparagmos]

I guarantee you cannot disprove that very intention is stated, as a part of the signing of the pact as an expansion of "hate speech". By the European parliament member I presented in this clip.

56 seconds in as a matter of fact.

He is speaking AGAINST the pact. It’s a straw man. He didn’t write it not is he supporting it.

 

[Sparagmos]

Did you read the GCOM or how I presented my argument?

What is GCOM?

 

[LostMarbels]

What is GCOM?

Global Compact for Orderly Migration

The topic of discussion in this thread. I posted it here in it's entirety with subsequent laws and definitions of terms used.

 

[Sparagmos]

I appreciate the candor. I do not see this as losing anything. I am learning volumes about how this system works in the event of it's approval, and gaining valuable foresight of it's proposed implications. I will fare better off than an individual that has never even read the text of this legislation and is taken unawares.



The law in question doesn't even mention speech. It mentions freedom of expression that can be suspended for mere "incitement of discrimination". Legally speaking, incitement is the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully. Again not even speech. Behavior. Expression.

Terminology of legal documentation is of paramount importance. "that depends on what is, is." Collusion, conspiracy. So on.



Not necessarily is inconclusive and open ended. In a court of law inconclusive is not fact and will not garner a favorable ruling. This is a law that is enforceable by prosecution, and left to the subjective reasoning of whatever interpretation for 'expression' the judge that is sentencing you happens to contrive.

There is no limit or direction as to what this law defines as expression. So that is left to interpretation. How do you defend from that? How do you put together a defense against an undefined, independently subjective reasoning/interpretation that is different from person to person?



Again, I would reiterate their definitions as defined. Not Merriam Webster. Eliminate all forms of discrimination, sounds great, but what is their definition of discrimination? How do you define a form? A form is a particular condition, character, or mode in which something appears.

This sentence is structured by the definitions of Forms, discrimination, and incitement. I threw in racial hatred at the end:

Eliminate all modes, and character in which something appears as prejudicial treatment and uncontrolled behavior that spurs on their racial hatred. Just as easily as creating word soup like that sentence it could be a ruling and an adjudication. Nothing in that law defines I cannot interpret it just the way I did. It is wide open.

You keep saying law. It’s not a law.

 

[Sparagmos]

Global Compact for Orderly Migration

The topic of discussion in this thread. I posted it here in it's entirety with subsequent laws and definitions of terms used.

Yes I did read it. And I can see why you initially posted what you did instead of the actual compact. You’d prefer to manipulate and mislead people than just give them the facts. You actually wanted people to think that the man speaking supported the compact and was describing it.

 

[LostMarbels]

You keep saying law. It’s not a law.

Well you have to either follow along or start at the beginning. I cited the UN international law you are talking about. And it is different from the GCOM.

 

[Sparagmos]

I guarantee you cannot disprove that very intention is stated, as a part of the signing of the pact as an expansion of "hate speech". By the European parliament member I presented in this clip.

56 seconds in as a matter of fact.

That man had nothing to do with writing the pact. His intention is to stop it. Why are you trying to mislead people?

 

[Sparagmos]

Well you have to either follow along or start at the beginning. I cited the UN international law you are talking about. And it is different from the GCOM.

Well your intention is to confuse, so I’m not surprised that I am confused. I was referring to the pact, I dint see a U.N. law brought into the discussion.

 

[expos4ever]

I present whats there. Hey, well you might be able to find out first hand. Last I heard Trudeau was going to sign it.

Here is the first part of the argument I presented.
UN Migration Pact. Why we didn't sign it

Where....does......the......text......promote......anything.....close......to....making......general......criticism....of.....immigration.......illegal?

This is YOUR claim - you need to defend it. There is nothing, nada, el zippo, diddly squat, in the text of the agreement that you posted that supports your absurd claim.

And, by Jupiter's beard, if you insist that I do your homework for you by doing the impossible - finding support for YOUR silly claim - I shall bury you so deep with arguments about burden of proof, you will not know what hit you.

 

[LostMarbels]

Where....does......the......text......promote......anything.....close......to....making......general......criticism....of.....immigration.......illegal?

I have linked it to you. I have told you. What are you looking for?

This is YOUR claim - you need to defend it. There is nothing, nada, el zippo, diddly squat, in the text of the agreement that you posted that supports your absurd claim.

Again, I have linked you to what I posted. You have still not onced addressed the post, only me.

UN Migration Pact. Why we didn't sign it

And, by Jupiter's beard, if you insist that I do your homework for you by doing the impossible - finding support for YOUR silly claim - I shall bury you so deep with arguments about burden of proof, you will not know what hit you.

Bring it.

 

[Sparagmos]

You are in a thread, about an agreement that makes immigration a human right, thusly making it illegal to restrict or speak about it in a negative light... Also, its stated goal is to make immigration a regular occurence that is unregulated other than by the conditions of the agreement. Also, it sets out a complete outline for restructuring civil law to bring your country in compliance with international law, and you want proof the UN pushes for and organizes mass migration.

Except IT DOESN’T.

 

[LostMarbels]

Except IT DOESN’T.

How do you know?

 

[LostMarbels]

Need to make coffee. I think some dudes beard might show up.

 

[Sparagmos]

Should be simple. I provided the actual law in question. Show me where speech is mentioned and or protected. Show me where it is even defined what kind of speech isn't protected.

EDIT* there is a clause of sorts that protect selected media, dignitaries, presidents and the like.

Our constitution protects speech. Every law passed by Congress doesn’t need to reiterate it. And this pact is basically a commitment to strive towards the goals of the pact. Nothing in the pact is enforceable except what our elected representatives would chose to codify. So you can come back with your bogeyman when Congress is actually trying to take away constitutional rights.

 

[expos4ever]

How do you know?

Look: how hard is this? You insist that the text supports your inane assertion. Well, give us the exact wording that makes your case.

Not your distorted interpretation. Loammi has already shown the text if the agreement does not jive with your claim.

 

[Sparagmos]

@expos4ever
You also have to look at definitions. Their terminology may differ from yours, and also their definition of the same term in question. So when you talk about "free speech", it isn't mentioned. Because they enforce the 'freedom of expression'. So you would actualy have to find out how they define 'expression' and even 'freedom' because it is not the same as American freedom of expression. Also, your freedom of expression may be withheld if you are inciting discrimination. Discrimination is any dissenting view, opinion or action that might be viewed as opposing that individual based on where they were born etc etc. To to simply state a person wasn't born in the USA or disallow them entry to the country is a hate crime. Punishable by jail time/prison.

Oh this is funny. You think that laws we passed here inspired by the pact would magically have.... European meanings and not “American” meanings? Marbles you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

 

[LostMarbels]

Oh this is funny. You think that laws we passed here inspired by the pact would magically have.... European meanings and not “American” meanings? Marbles you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

I'm still not sure you're not staring at a flower pot.

 

[Sparagmos]

How do you know?

Because I read it. Duh.

 

[LostMarbels]

Look: how hard is this? You insist that the text supports your inane assertion. Well, give us the exact wording that makes your case.

Not your distorted interpretation. Loammi has already shown the text if the agreement does not jive with your claim.

I have no Idea what you are talking about. Do you have something from someone else to present?

 

[TLK Valentine]

How do you know?

Because we are literate.