It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia Sponsors UN Resolution Revoking Freedoms Of Speech, Assembly, And Association

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Double post.
edit on 8-12-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001



You have written a great deal, but you have not been able to prove that the resolution does not say exactly what I say it does, because it does say exactly what I say it does.


Of course it does, just as with all the other things you write, it happens exactly as you write...only too bad the facts are contradicting your writings all the time...but hey, facts don`t matter in the truth, the only thing that matters is what you write.

Already asked for a job in the new Ukrainian "Ministry Of Truth" ?
edit on 8 12 2014 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien


Of course it does, just as with all the other things you write, it happens exactly as you write...only too bad the facts are contradicting your writings all the time...but hey, facts don`t matter in the truth, the only thing that matters is what you write.


Here are exact quotations from the resolution:


Expresses deep concern about the glorification, in any form, of the Nazi movement, neo-Nazism and former members of the Waffen SS organization, including by erecting monuments and memorials and holding public demonstrations in the name of the glorification of the Nazi past, the Nazi movement and neo-Nazism, as well as by declaring or attempting to declare such members and those who fought against the anti-Hitler coalition and collaborated with the Nazi movement participants in national liberation movements;


Are you saying it is not a fact that it says "in any form?" Are you saying it is not a fact that it brands participants in national liberation movements as Nazis?


Expresses concern at recurring attempts to desecrate or demolish monuments erected in remembrance of those who fought against Nazism during the Second World War


Are you saying it is not a fact that monuments to the Red Army and Stalin are not monuments to those who fought against Nazism?


Expresses deep concern regarding the increased number of seats occupied by representatives of extremist political parties in national and local parliaments in a number of countries and regions, as well as the fact that in some countries traditional political parties continue to form coalitions with them;


Are you saying that it is not a fact that this clause would allow any ruling party to declare an opposition party "extremist," and ban it?

Well? What are the facts as you see them?
edit on 8-12-2014 by DJW001 because: Edit to add additional ruminations.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I`m saying you`re overstating to discredit the resolution.

You`re not capable of seeing it for what it is because of your biased view.

It`s about curbing very bad elements in a society to not have kids minds being screwed, and if you`re really against Nazism, you sure would not have kids being exposed to those kinds of things when growing up.
edit on 8 12 2014 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien


You`re not capable of seeing it for what it is because of your biased view.


No, you are the one who cannot see it for what it is because of your bias. This sort of "call it a mother and apple pie bill then add a poison pill so it can't get passed" ploy is used all the time in the United States. Russia is hoping that no-one reads the resolution closely enough to spot the poison pills that force most representative governments not to support it.

Unfortunately, your dislike for the Western political tradition is precisely the disaffection that fascism appeals to. Liberal Democracy is unjust and hypocritical: money trumps justice. Communism is atheistic and corrupt. Surely there must be a third way... a political system that maintains traditional values while being forward looking and revolutionary. Do you know what that third way is called, my friend?



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I wonder if you`re able to see the irony in your posts just like I and others are seeing them ?



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
There is no irony in treating others as you expect to be treated yourself, even if you disagree with them. I think a famous Rabbi in Roman occupied Judea said that once..a reply to: BornAgainAlien



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
There is no irony in treating others as you expect to be treated yourself, even if you disagree with them. I think a famous Rabbi in Roman occupied Judea said that once..a reply to: BornAgainAlien



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

You got that right...if I make posts which people shouldn`t take seriously I also don`t expect serious answers.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001



Russia is hoping that no-one reads the resolution closely enough to spot the poison pills that force most representative governments not to support it.

This is my final reply to you to avoid your unproductive name callings.

You Had Chances to Prove.

You had countless of chances to provide proof to back up your argument that somehow this resolution that the Russians drafted at the UN.

Is somehow a silent undercover bill which according to YOUR OWN WORDS "impose government censorship around the world" Clearer you had a whole month to prove it but didn't.

In Defense of The Ideology?
Its rather comical how you insulted by claiming that i support fascism, yet in your own post. Also.



If you think this post is "Anti-Russian" propaganda, what is this post? You will find my explanation of why I have characterized this "Trojan horse" so-called "Anti-Nazi" resolution as an attempt by Russia make the US and its allies look bad here. And, because the point to this post is to deconstruct disinformation, you can read the actual text of the resolution and make up your own mind by going here and copy/paste "A/C.3/69/L56/Rev.1" into the browser.


resolution as an attempt by Russia make the US and its allies look bad here.

Feeling upset? how McCain and other Euporean Union Officials Greeted Fascist and other nationalists of Ukraine in 2013?

This resolution also exposes a number of issues not by making America look bad. America already did to themselves by its actions and selfish acts in the middle east and Europe.

In Europe and rest of the global they understand the rise and threat of fascism which why i am not surprised that Greece had backed this resolution. I do enjoy reading your comical parts of it though.


Ah yes Liberal Democracy What NONSENSE



Unfortunately, your dislike for the Western political tradition is precisely the disaffection that fascism appeals to. Liberal Democracy is unjust and hypocritical: money trumps justice. Communism is atheistic and corrupt. Surely there must be a third way... a political system that maintains traditional values while being forward looking and revolutionary. Do you know what that third way is called, my friend?

Ah Yes Liberal Democracy such wonders having the same two or three political parties where the poor and the working class always loss.

Is that your idea of an tradition? or is your ideal tradition making sure every nation on earth is a pro western puppet bowing down to the British and American governments if not then their organizations.



In A Place Called Yugoslavia

Once long time ago there was a place called Yugoslavia and it was a communist state, however the Yugoslavian style version of Communism worked.

Yugoslavia was supposed to be a manufacturing wonder in Europe but it seems your Westren Liberal Democracy buddies were getting worried and scared for Germany so Yugoslavia had being taken out.


Communism was supposed an ideology for the working class while they were agaisnt the elites. The same goes for your corrupt Liberal Democracy which has done nothing positive.

Unless you consider immigrants and wave of immigration positive

Thats right buddy, your beloved Liberal Democracy shares the ideal of immigration. Just look at the mess that has done to Europe.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

I linked to the actual resolution and quoted it word for word and already proved it. Why are you ignoring that? It was back on page 2.

I have highlighted exactly where it's mentioned.



as well as by declaring or attempting to declare such members and those who fought against the anti-Hitler coalition and collaborated with the Nazi movement participants in national liberation movements



I can see that part being dangerous. Even if you are not a Nazi if you fought against those who fought the Nazi's you are a terrorist. So Russia's enemies could be labeled Nazi collaborators just because they fought Russia.



6.
Emphasizes the recommendation of the Special Rapporteur that “any commemorative celebration of the Nazi regime, its allies and related organizations, whether official or unofficial, should be prohibited by States”



Similar problem there.



7.
Expresses concern about recurring attempts to desecrate or demolish monuments erected in remembrance of those who fought against Nazism during the Second World War



This would prohibit the removal of Russian/Stalin/Communist monuments.



10.
Condemns without reservation any denial or attempt to deny the Holocaust;


Does not define Holocaust denial, and appears to be thrown in to make anyone voting against the measure look bad. This would not stop denial, as denial is not defined, unlike all the other measures which are well defined. Definitely Russia playing games (or whoever drafted it).

That is only part of it. That is enough to vote NO right there.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter


This is my final reply to you to avoid your unproductive name callings.

You Had Chances to Prove.

You had countless of chances to provide proof to back up your argument that somehow this resolution that the Russians drafted at the UN.


I proved it here. I cannot be held responsible if you refused to click on the link.


Is somehow a silent undercover bill which according to YOUR OWN WORDS "impose government censorship around the world" Clearer you had a whole month to prove it but didn't.


It is not undercover; I provided a link to the actual resolution in my first post, something that none of the Russian sources that falsely call it an "anti-Nazi" resolution do. If you actually read the resolution, as I keep imploring everyone to do, you would understand its true intent. No permanent member of the UN Security Council, with the single exception of China, could possibly allow the resolution to pass in the form it is in, including Russia.


In Defense of The Ideology?
Its rather comical how you insulted by claiming that i support fascism, yet in your own post. Also.



If you think this post is "Anti-Russian" propaganda, what is this post? You will find my explanation of why I have characterized this "Trojan horse" so-called "Anti-Nazi" resolution as an attempt by Russia make the US and its allies look bad here. And, because the point to this post is to deconstruct disinformation, you can read the actual text of the resolution and make up your own mind by going here and copy/paste "A/C.3/69/L56/Rev.1" into the browser.


As I have patiently explained throughout this thread, one of the defining features of Fascism is that it places the needs of the State before the rights of the individual. This resolution specifically does that. For example:


26. Calls upon States to continue to invest in education, in both conventional and non-conventional curricula, inter alia, in order to transform attitudes and correct ideas of racial hierarchies and superiority promoted by extremist political parties, movements and groups and counter their negative influence;


Actual resolution.

In other words, it authorizes the State to determine what the "correct attitude" is to "racial hierarchies." And what do you suppose is meant by "non-conventional curricula?" Brain washing, perhaps? In any event, it specifically calls upon States to infringe upon certain types of speech, assembly and action, without providing a definition sufficiently strict to constrain abuse by the State. By defending this resolution, you are defending a fascist attitude towards individual liberties.

As for myself, I am not defending Fascism, I am defending the right of the individual to express themselves, even if they are clearly wrong. Once again:



I have defended your right to speak out in favor of censorship, even in the face of your personal attacks. Now, please re-read that chunk of my OP you have quoted above. I have explained why I believe the resolution is a "poison pill;" Russia itself would have to veto it for the sake of the Russian ultra-nationalists who supported Putin in Chechniya, and are volunteering now to fight against Ukraine.

Edit to add: Note that the very quotation you cite as being "pro-fascist" actually contains a link to the proof you claim I did not provide!


edit on 15-12-2014 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.

edit on 15-12-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2014 by DJW001 because: Edit to restore original links to quoted posts.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I checked your post i saw nothing were you proved it.




It is not undercover; I provided a link to the actual resolution in my first post, something that none of the Russian sources that falsely call it an "anti-Nazi" resolution do. If you actually read the resolution, as I keep imploring everyone to do, you would understand its true intent. No permanent member of the UN Security Council, with the single exception of China, could possibly allow the resolution to pass in the form it is in, including Russia.


Unlike you and some Anti-Russian,russian phobia i did read the UN resolution there is nothing where in this resolution says that its limiting free speech but of course you and some others have falsely claimed.



Didn't we already do this thread a month or so ago? What this resolution attempts to do is limit free speech. Last time I checked the First Amendment is all a out protecting free speech. So why would anyone be surprised that the US and Canada vote against a resolution that seeks to limit free speech? Also the fact that Russia proposed this kind of shows they could care less about free speech despite what their supporters keep saying.


The American Constitution was made before the German version of fascism i doubt the free speech allows hate speech nor Fascism.

You and your buddies just proved how comical you are on this issue even when your trolling with those images, this board is for grown ups.




Note that the very quotation you cite as being "pro-fascist" actually contains a link to the proof you claim I did not provide!

Nice try, but i already altered you to mods the way you insulted me with the name callings.




even in the face of your personal attacks

You called me a Fascist and someone supports fascists of Gaddafi and Putin that shows how you cant be taken seriously.

At least Gaddafi kept Libya in peace and in check. No doubt you enjoy this chaos thats happening in Libya.




As I have patiently explained throughout this thread, one of the defining features of Fascism is that it places the needs of the State before the rights of the individual. This resolution specifically does that. For example:


Seems to me you cant read to well. Do read it again.

" in order to transform attitudes and correct ideas of racial hierarchies and superiority promoted by extremist political parties, movements and groups and counter their negative influence;

So by according you support extremist racial groups then as well? judging the fact how only three voted agaisnt this resolution.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter


I checked your post i saw nothing were you proved it.


Here, let me spell it out for you: this is exactly, word for word, what the resolution says:


4. Expresses deep concern about the glorification, in any form, of the Nazi movement, neo-Nazism and former members of the Waffen SS organization, including by erecting monuments and memorials and holding public demonstrations in the name of the glorification of the Nazi past, the Nazi movement and neo-Nazism, as well as by declaring or attempting to declare such members and those who fought against the anti-Hitler coalition and collaborated with the Nazi movement participants in national liberation movements;


The actual referendum. [Emphasis mine.--DJW001]
How do you interpret this? It clearly bands people who joined the SS out of ideology with people who assisted the Germans to rid their homeland of the Soviets. "In any form" means that it would prohibit even memoirs justifying the author's choices. "In any form" is simply too broad, as is the definition of "collaboration."


Unlike you and some Anti-Russian,russian phobia i did read the UN resolution there is nothing where in this resolution says that its limiting free speech but of course you and some others have falsely claimed.


How about this?


29. Reaffirms article 4 of the Convention, according to which States parties to that instrument condemn all propaganda and all organizations that are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or that attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to that end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1
and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention, inter alia:

(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, and incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of
persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;

(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and organized and all other propaganda activities, that promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishableby law;

(c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination;

30. Also reaffirms that, as underlined in paragraph 13 of the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence
should be prohibited by law, that all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, or incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts, shall be declared offences punishable by law, in accordance with the international obligations of States, and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression;


The actual referendum. [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Does the wording I have highlighted conform to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, given token mention in the referendum? Here, verbatim, are the relevant passages:


Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Notice the use of the expression "everyone," not "everyone who didn't resist the Soviet Union in the Second World War." If these rights are to be universal, they must apply to everyone. Much as I despise Nazism and all that it stands for, even Nazis must have human rights or they are not universal! Once you insert a wedge into that universality, it is only a matter of time before other political philosophies will be banned. Zionism first, of course, followed by "political Islam," "radical environmentalism," Libertarianism, Anarchism, and so forth.


The American Constitution was made before the German version of fascism i doubt the free speech allows hate speech nor Fascism.


Completely irrelevant; the resolution itself cites the UN-UDoHR.


[At least Gaddafi kept Libya in peace and in check. No doubt you enjoy this chaos thats happening in Libya.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Once Gaddafi renounced state terror and nuclear ambitions, the United States normalized relations with Libya.

edit on 15-12-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Once Gaddafi renounced state terror and nuclear ambitions, the United States normalized relations with Libya.



You have consistently supported fascist dictators from Qaddaffi to Putin
[/quote




the United States normalized relations with Libya

Do you work for the U.S. Department of State as their offical blogger? i am quite sure America has normalized relations with Libya considering the way its ignoring its chaotic state.

Do you call that NORMALIZATION?






Once Gaddafi renounced state terror

America hired Black Water and other mercenaries to do the dirty work for NATO, an supposed defensive according to you.

Even Qatari Mechs.



Surely you can explain whats interests does Qatar have in Libya. By the way mercenaries actions are comparable to terrorists.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Nice desperate try, sorry to burst your bobble but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not call nor stand for hate groups.




If these rights are to be universal, they must apply to everyone. Much as I despise Nazism and all that it stands for, even Nazis must have human rights or they are not universal! Once you insert a wedge into that universality, it is only a matter of time before other political philosophies will be banned. Zionism first, of course, followed by "political Islam," "radical environmentalism," Libertarianism, Anarchism, and so forth.

Once again that a line of defense for fascism, again your defending by comparing them to other political philosophies. This bill that was drafted by the Russians.

Specifically calls for the banning of racial groups and surprisingly your defending them.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

I will ignore your attempt to derail the thread with your arbitrary Gaddafi sideshow and ask you directly: where, specifically, does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights say that it does not apply to hate groups? If it said that it doesn't why would the resolution in question even be necessary?



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I am bumping this thread because the issues raised-- how to lie while telling the truth-- are relevant again. In fairness, the "mainstream" American media do the same thing. The current administration revels in the technique of distorting situations to change the conversation: Nazi marches are a free speech issue, but protesting police violence is disrespecting the flag. See how that works? Also, note the "poison pill" technique that has hamstrung Congress for the past year.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
how to lie while telling the truth


WTF ?
So RT is telling truth ? If not, clarify what statement of them was erreoneous. If you can't, here is my advice :




edit on 11-10-2017 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: -



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: DJW001
how to lie while telling the truth


WTF ?
So RT is telling truth ? If not, clarify what statement of them was erreoneous.



My advice is to read a post before responding to it. RT did not publish the entire text of the resolution, preventing the reader from making their own interpretation. This is because a close reading of the resolution would reveal the poison pill that makes it an attack on freedom of expression. Now go back and read the OP, and remember, this is Dissecting Disinformation, not the Mud Pit.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


The resolution was passed on Friday by the committee, which is tasked with tackling social and humanitarian issues and human rights abuses, by 115 votes against three, with 55 nations abstaining, Tass news agency reported.

The document voiced concern over the rise of racism-driven crimes around the world and the influence that parties with extremist agendas are gaining.

It called for a universal adoption of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Many nations including the US, the UK, China and India, signed the convention but did not recognize a mechanism resolving individual complaints it establishes, which makes the convention unenforceable in their jurisdictions.


If you click the links in the above extract of the article you provided in the OP, you have all the info. So WTF are you talking about ?
Are you suggesting this is a lie because there is not the info you would like to see featured. Can you provide an MSM source covering the same event that didn't lack this ? Becausde providing the list of the outlets that let the info go unoticed is probably too long.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join