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.

 

Racist Freedom Of Speech Should Racists Be Rounded Up And Jailed? War On Racism?

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
I think if there was a law against racism we may see a real racist war emerge.

A war on racism and racists being deemed terrorists I think we may be headed in that direction for better or for worse.

I dont see a down side to wiping out racism once and for all.


It's sad I have to say this before I dare respond but ...

Being a Racist is about as low as a human being can sink. Racism is the product of defective minds and they should be scorned by society.

Having said that, to end Free Speech to deal with it is and exercise in insanity. The repercussions of that would be horribly destructive. Who decides what speech is allowed or what the punishment is for engaging in speech deemed wrong by the current crop of people in power?

I find it odd that you don't see a downside to the elimination of Free Speech. Remember, once you let that Genie out of the bottle, your speech may become a target at some point.

Education is the answer, not more Big Brother speech and thought control that will lead to a society where speech is controlled by whoever is in power.




posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

Im racist, have a doctorate and likely own you in all other quantifiable elements of this life. Trust me, I'm not the only one. But keep calling us stupid on the net. Good game.



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Rounding up racists and jailing them wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but it would have to be enforced equally straight across the board. Start with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, and the like, and yeah - I am all for it.

Well, not really. It would be nice to put the race baiters behind bars to stop them from inciting hate crimes and racial division. But there is freedom of speech and that can not be taken lightly, even when it is speech that is unflattering to the ear and hateful in nature.

In order to curtail one, you must equally curtail all. And that is no solution I am comfortable with.



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
I think if there was a law against racism we may see a real racist war emerge.

A war on racism and racists being deemed terrorists I think we may be headed in that direction for better or for worse.

I dont see a down side to wiping out racism once and for all.


It's sad I have to say this before I dare respond but ...

Being a Racist is about as low as a human being can sink. Racism is the product of defective minds and they should be scorned by society.

Having said that, to end Free Speech to deal with it is and exercise in insanity. The repercussions of that would be horribly destructive. Who decides what speech is allowed or what the punishment is for engaging in speech deemed wrong by the current crop of people in power?

I find it odd that you don't see a downside to the elimination of Free Speech. Remember, once you let that Genie out of the bottle, your speech may become a target at some point.

Education is the answer, not more Big Brother speech and thought control that will lead to a society where speech is controlled by whoever is in power.


I think we need some hate speech laws to take on racism, which can be likened to verbal assult.



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

You don't seem to be answering any questions, just repeatedly saying the same thing. Okay, we got it, you want to silence others who do not think the way you do. Speech laws will not take on racism, they will promote fear and that is all.

Do you really think that making the people live in fear will make them care about one another more? No, how could it? The world you want to live in includes no room for friendships, or love for fellow man at all. You suggest a world filled with fear, one that is as terrifying as it is depressing.

People would not, could not grow as human beings in the stifled world that you want to bring about. We are only at our best when we have something to teach each other and something to learn from one another as well. You want one side only to shine. One side to say the outcome of it all.

How far will it go. Will it be simply if you say you don't like black people then off with your head? How far down the rabbit hole would you allow it to go? I prefer brunette men, should I be shamed by blonde men because of it? I have a friend who prefers only blondes, should he be stoned to death for hurting the brunette's feelings? What about my white friend who prefers only to date Asian woman? Should all other woman feel slighted over his preference? My brother in law is black, his mother hates white people. I say she should be allowed to live her life as miserably as she likes. She has an opinion, she is the one who has lost out because of it. What would you say should be done with her?

Do you know why friendships are so valuable to me, to you, to anyone right now, whether interracial, different religions etc... It is because, they are chosen. Through all differences and the similarities friendships are chosen by the people in them and not by outsiders forcing it on them. Would you like to be forced to be my friend? How about hers, or his, or theirs? Things forced on us instead of chosen chosen have no meaning, none at all. If you think that you can force true friendships and happiness on people, you are wrong.


Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and you my friend are on a serious power trip. You say you are not a Nazi, but if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, well it might just be a Nazi. I hope that you are just young and not understanding of what it is that you are saying. Racism hurts people but not as much as having their humanity choked out of them.
edit on 21-6-2015 by brandiwine14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
We already have some Hate Speech laws in the USA, I am thinking there will be alot more of these laws in the near future. Laws are passed state to state and people remain somewhat oblivious to them, not knowing there may be a law against hate speech in your state. I do wonder if people will begin to lash back at the laws which do not allow hate speech. I doubt anyone will do much of anything about the hate speech laws which currently exist under the national radar so to speak.



www.article19.org...

Hate speech
Hate speech – the advocacy of hatred based on nationality, race or religion – occupies an exceptional position in international law.

Generally speaking, the right to freedom of expression extends to unpopular ideas and statements which “shock, offend or disturb.” Nevertheless, a number of human rights treaties, including the ICCPR, not only permit states to prohibit hate speech but actually require them to do so.

In addition, one particular form of hate speech – incitement to genocide – is one of only a few types of acts recognised as a crime under international law, akin to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Incitement to genocide

In the wake of the Second World War, the Nuremberg Tribunal was established to try those most responsible for the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime.

In its judgment in the case against Julius Streicher, the Tribunal effectively held that incitement to genocide is a crime under international law, punishable even if the act in question was at the relevant time and place not illegal under the local law.

Streicher had been the publisher of the viciously anti-Semitic newspaper Der Stürmer, which had energetically encouraged the German people to persecute and exterminate Jews. Although the legitimacy of the Nuremberg Tribunal has often been debated on the grounds that it applied ‘new’ law retrospectively, the principles it established are today generally recognised both in customary law and in a number of international instruments.

More recently, the crime of ‘direct and public incitement to genocide’ has been one of the key charges laid against defendants in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, established by the UN in 1994 in response to the genocide of the country’s Tutsi minority.

In its jurisprudence, the Tribunal has elaborated somewhat on the definition of the crime. In The Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza, & Ngeze, it stated that the defendant’s intent must be established, and that “[t]he actual language used in the media has often been cited as an indicator of intent.” However, it is not necessary to show “any specific causation ... linking the expression at issue with the demonstration of a direct effect.”

Incitement to genocide is also a crime under the Statute of the newly- established International Criminal Court.

Duty to prohibit hate speech in domestic law

The inherent dignity and equality of every individual is the foundational axiom of international human rights. It is, therefore, perhaps not surprising that international law condemns statements which deny the equality of all human beings. Article 20(2) of the ICCPR requires states to prohibit hate speech:

Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

There is little debate internationally that restrictions on hate speech can be justified. Nevertheless, Article 20(2) has proven highly controversial and is variously criticised as being overly restrictive of free speech or as not going far enough in the categories of hatred it covers.

Article 20(2) does not require states to prohibit all negative statements towards national groups, races or religions but, as soon as a statement “constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence,” it must be banned. Some states, notably the USA, have taken the view that only incitement which is intended to cause imminent violence justifies restricting such a fundamental right.

One important motivation underlying this position is the fear that a broader ban on inciting “discrimination or hostility” will be abused by governments or will discourage citizens from engaging in legitimate democratic debate, for example on questions regarding religion and minorities. Owing to such concerns, several established democracies, including Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and the USA, have entered reservations to Article 20(2).


edit on 21-6-2015 by FormOfTheLord because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   
A person who supports the removal of the rights of those who he doesn't agree with will find his rights have also been taken away.



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
A person who supports the removal of the rights of those who he doesn't agree with will find his rights have also been taken away.



Believe whatever you want, I think hate speech is on the decline and that is for the better in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: roadgravel
A person who supports the removal of the rights of those who he doesn't agree with will find his rights have also been taken away.



Believe whatever you want, I think hate speech is on the decline and that is for the better in my opinion.


If it is on the decline then why do rights have to be removed.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord




There is a unity amidst the division which has yet to be seen by the masses, I think it will appear in its own time, and will come into its own rights of passage, eventually emerging victorius as a sovereign counsiousness or a new world counsiousness.

Its just a matter of time. .. . . .


i hope you are right. right now i don't see it. the attitude americans seems to have is one of entitlement. the i got mine who cares if you get yours. if americans can't turn to eachother as a united people then america is in trouble.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: supremecommander

Go learn to read.

I said the UK. That is how it is here. You cannot be calling people racists for being white and caring about our own culture.

Perhaps you do not care for white Europeans but I do and so do the rest of us and we care for our future and we care that our governments have foisted upon us unwanted unsustainable immigration.

If you don't like that tough. I am sure if it was some other culture that was threatened with extinction you would be shouting about it.

Your comment also demonstrated the reality of mine, of people like you hating white people and wanting some sort of apology for slavery (slavery that started in Africa by Africans and still happens there).

There was slavery in the UK of white people for hundreds of years but we aren't bleating at Scandinavians for an apology.

yaledailynews.com...


Even if one ignores the statistical noise presented by the inclusion of millions of outliers, Europe faces a serious problem. Without a major shift in the current fertility trends, industrialized Europe will see its native population decline by about three-fourths over the 21st century. No civilization has ever recovered from such a population decline, and never before has such a decline been entirely voluntary.


en.wikipedia.org...


Before 1066[edit]
From before Roman times, slavery was normal in Britannia, with slaves being routinely exported.[3][4] Slavery continued as an accepted part of society under the Roman Empire and after; Anglo-Saxons continued the slave system, sometimes in league with Norse traders often selling slaves to the Irish.[5] In the early 5th century the Romano-Briton Saint Patrick was captured by Irish raiders and taken as a slave to Ireland. St. Brigit, a patron saint of Ireland, was herself the daughter of Brocca, a Christian Brythonic Pict and slave in Ireland who had been baptised by Saint Patrick. Early Irish law makes numerous reference to slaves and semi-free sencléithe. A female slave (cumal) was often used as a unit of value, e.g. in expressing the honour price of people of certain classes.[6] From the 9th to the 12th century Dublin in particular was a major slave trading center which led to an increase in slavery.[7] In 870, Vikings besieged and captured the stronghold of Alt Clut (the capital of the Kingdom of Strathclyde) and in 871 took most of the site's inhabitants, most likely by Olaf the White and Ivar the Boneless, to the Dublin slave markets.[7] Maredudd ab Owain (d. 999) paid a large ransom for 2,000 Welsh slaves,[7] which demonstrates the large-scale slave raiding upon the British Isles. Vikings traded with the Gaelic, Pictish, Brythonic and Saxon kingdoms in between raiding them for slaves.[7]

The legacy of Viking raids can be seen in the DNA of the Icelandic people. Recent evidence suggests that approximately 60% of the Icelandic maternal gene pool is derived from Gaelic people and later by Norse–Gaels from Scotland and Ireland, which is much higher than other Scandinavian countries, although comparable to the Faroe Islands.[8]

Some of the earliest accounts of the Anglo-Saxon English comes from the account of the fair-haired boys from York seen in Rome by Pope Gregory the Great. In the 7th century the English slave Balthild rose to be queen of the Frankish king Clovis II. Anglo-Saxon opinion turned against the sale of English abroad: a law of Ine of Wessex stated that anyone selling his own countryman, whether bond or free, across the sea, was to pay his own weregild in penalty, even when the man so sold was guilty of crime.[9] Nevertheless, legal penalties and economic pressures that led to default in payments maintained the supply of slaves, and in the 11th century there was still a slave trade operating out of Bristol, as a passage in the Vita Wulfstani makes clear.[10]

Norman England[edit]
According to the Domesday Book census, over 10% of England's population in 1086 were slaves.[11][12] In 1102, the Church Council of London convened by Anselm issued a decree: "Let no one hereafter presume to engage in that nefarious trade in which hitherto in England men were usually sold like brute animals."[13] However, the Council had no legislative powers, and no act of law was valid unless signed by the monarch.

The influence of the new Norman aristocracy led to the decline of slavery in England. Contemporary writers noted that the Scottish and Welsh took captives as slaves during raids, a practice which was no longer common in England by the 12th century. However, by the start of the 13th century references to people being taken as slave stopped. While there was no legislation against slavery in Ireland and Wales,[14] William the Conqueror introduced a law preventing the sale of slaves overseas.[15] Historian John Gillingham opined that by about 1200 slavery in the British Isles was non-existent.[14]

edit on 22-6-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 02:27 AM
link   
As far as I know, if you hurt someone because of their race, you already get locked up.
If you deny someone a job based on race you get prosecuted and can also be sued.
If you deny goods or services then the same applies.

If you are going to criminalise thoughts, rather than actions, then pretty soon the courts will be full of people who don't like gingers, fatties, anorexics, folks with beards etc.

It'll only end when everyone is in nick.
edit on 23pMon, 22 Jun 2015 02:28:23 -050020152015-06-22T02:28:23-05:00kAmerica/Chicago30000000k by SprocketUK because: Fat thumbs and phone keypad.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I think there are already very many hate speech laws which arent being enforced properly.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: rupertg
Your bigotry towards bigots amazes me.

On a serious note

I wonder what the Native Americans think of all this.



The ones who were Shermanized after the civil war?



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord
Racism is an integral part of the Success of Man. without racial competition, we would have failed 10s of 1000s of years ago .

Nothing has changed, nor will it ever change in the degree that everyone will ever be satisfied with. Especially with a divide and Conquer mentality the 1%s have enjoyed for so long.

Race as birds of a feather, shall all flock together, which naturally breeds Racism and Competition across the board.

Its just our natural programming to survive ethnically. The Human Condition



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
I think we need some hate speech laws to take on racism, which can be likened to verbal assult.


In some cases I agree. I just worry about taking it too far.

I'm all for more aggressive laws to deal with hate crimes. Lock them up and throw away the key. I think we can agree in that regard.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

I know you meant the UK. And I compared your crying about your precious euro white purity to the same racist ideology that inspired a nutjob to kill innocents. So what's your problem?

And good sir, I do not hate anyone. Do not project your racism onto me. I am merely laughing at your victim mentality.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth


Perhaps you do not care for white Europeans but I do and so do the rest of us and we care for our future and we care that our governments have foisted upon us unwanted unsustainable immigration.


So, let me ask you then, what is the 'sustainable' kind of immigration?

Does it matter where the immigrants come from? Or just that there aren't too many of them? Cause I agree that any nation has to have a sustainable policy for immigration. But that term may not mean the same thing to everybody.

~Tenth



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Here in the UK some years ago the labour party allowed an influx of immigration to the UK from basically anywhere though the EU directives are partly to blame, the PM of the day should have said no to certain policies.

The UK is a small island, comparative in size to Oregon. There is a welfare system which includes free housing, money to those needing it, and free NHS healthcare to all. There are silly rules that basically means the UK has become the go to nation for immigrants because there are silly rules that allows basically anyone the right to welfare just because they are here, citizens or not. There is substantial research warning against overpopulation in the UK but it was ignored. It worsened. There are shanty towns in Calais France across the English channel of migrants waiting to sneak into the UK, they hijack lorries, all sorts, because they want the welfare of the UK. Often they arrive at Italy and sneak into Switzerland etc on trains and are sent back. The first place they land is supposed to deport them. It is happening all round Europe but the UK has probably fared the worst because of it's appeal, in fact the French PM yesterday mentioned just that.

The effect of migrants on the UK population has meant that house rental prices have increased, there are increased dodgy landlords, lower wages, people trafficking, slavery, less welfare money to spend on people like the pensioners that fought the wars for our security, there are less jobs as all those of lower paid positions are taken by migrants that work for less, there are overqualified EU migrants taking less pay to do the same jobs as the money here is worth more than theirs, there are migrants claiming child and tax benefits for children and relatives in other lands that have never even been to the UK, there are migrants that travel to the UK for a day on false ID, set their welfare then travel back to where they are from and having regular money banked from the UK, there are less resources, there is a housing shortage crisis, hospitals on alert because they cannot cope, people being kept on trolleys for days in corridors while there are people from around the world using the NHS as free healthcare, there is pressure on GP's, people cannot get regular doctor appointments, same for dentists, the entire infrastructure is strained. There aren't enough schools despite continual building.

Therefore it is UNSUSTAINABLE. The EU has now agreed on military action.

The definition of unsustainable


unsustainable
ʌnsəˈsteɪnəb(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
not able to be maintained at the current rate or level.
"macroeconomic instability led to an unsustainable boom"
2.
not able to be upheld or defended.
"both remarks are unsustainable"


populationmatters.org...


By Rosamund McDougall
Co-chair of the Optimum Population Trust 2002-2005, joint Policy Director 2006-2009,and former financial journalist.
This paper showed with clear facts and figures the impact of unsustainable migration levels on UK population growth, and
proposed policies to reduce net inward migration. It was written in 2003, with various items updated by the author until
2008. Many of the policies recommended here (from 2003-2006) have become government policy. Net migration continued
to climb until 2011. Population growth is also affected by changes in fertility rates and longevity, which have been
addressed in other OPT papers. In 2011 the Optimum Population Trust adopted the campaign name Population Matters


www.telegraph.co.uk...


First, it is worth rehearsing the figures. Immigration has greatly benefited the UK, but it is at unsustainable levels. In 1997, net immigration totalled 50,000 a year. In 2010, the figure was 250,000. Although that is now falling – thanks, in part, to the acceptance of the Cross Party Group’s proposals – the most recent number remains high, at 163,000. The Office for National Statistics projects that our population will reach 70 million (from 63.2 million now) in 15 years. To level our population off at 70 million would require a net immigration level of 40,000 a year.
To put that in context, to accommodate an increase to 70 million – including five million immigrants and their children – we would have to build the equivalent of another Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield, Glasgow, Bristol and Oxford. Of course, such a prospect is simply unaffordable. And that’s without even considering whether society can integrate newcomers at anything like that rate.


www.bbc.co.uk...


The number of foreign students let into the UK is "unsustainable", immigration minister Damian Green has said.




French MP blames Britain's 'black jobs market' for Calais migrant problem as 'New Jungle' camp home to 3,000 Africans gets permanent electricity and water supplies

The controversial 'New Jungle' shanty town is currently home to 3,000 migrants, mostly from sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, who hope to enter Britain illegally by storming lorries parked close to the port before they are loaded onto ferries and cross the Channel.

A leading French MP has blamed Britain's 'black jobs market' for attracting thousands of migrants to Calais, saying there is a 'problem with the English' that allows people to work in the UK without identity papers.

Former employment minister Xavier Bertrand challenged David Cameron to tackle the issue and accused him of hypocrisy because England 'have a cheap labour market because illegal immigrants are paid so much less'.

'It's not an 'a la carte' EU where you can choose only the bits of it you want...We need to say very clearly to people who arrive in Europe that there are no more jobs or welfare benefits here.'

EU foreign ministers have formally approved the launch of the first phase of a military operation to target people smugglers in the Mediterranean, officials said.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... s-accusing-Italy-failing-deal-refugees-fleeing-war-torn-countries.html#ixzz3dt1dmVsA


www.telegraph.co.uk...

Britain's hospitality is being abused
Telegraph View: Britain's immigration system remains open to exploitation. The Government has to restore the public's faith in it


www.telegraph.co.uk...


ANGELA MERKEL agrees with David Cameron that there is a “necessity” to address the “abuses” of Britain’s benefits system by immigrants.

The German Chancellor backed the Prime Minister’s bid to reform the welfare system but refused to endorse the “full-on treaty change” he has demanded.



edit on 23-6-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: supremecommander

Your comment is racist.

I never mentioned ''white purity'' anywhere.

Nor is there a white victim mentality.

Insert ''black'' for ''white'' on your comment and post that on ATS, you would get banned before you know it.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join