Criticizing Migration Could Become Criminal Offense Under New UN Plan

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: fernalley

Canada has lots of space. They can live in North American Siberia. How many of those tropical migrants will move to the Arctic Circle? Greenland needs people, is Denmark signing?

They all usually stay in major centers close to government support and lawyers.I thought Canada is in trouble with the UN for blowing past it's greenhouse emmisions but at the same time how do you reduce your carbon footprint and import millions more to a cold climate country.
Looks like Denmark is out

At a press conference Wednesday, Kurz cited concerns over sovereignty issues in the Global Compact, because it claims that mass migrant floods across borders are “inevitable, necessary, and desirable

Why is Trudeau such a UN bootlicker?

originally posted by: Painterz
For those who actually wish to deny some ignorance today, here's an interesting breakdown on which tabloid newspapers tell the most lies about the EU, and how many stories have been thoroughly debunked:


www.economist.com...

Just because the tabloids have spread a lot of crap doesn't mean everything they say is fake.

The UN is using ad hominum to push their way with everyone. Over the last say ten years they have gotten a lot worse. I would say it is who is running the show there. In this case, they are actually trying to take away people's rights to complain about the migrants. Even if the migrants are causing problems in their communities. That has been happening throughout Europe for a year or so now, suppression of the truth is mandatory if it goes against the policies of the EU

Canadian Article:

torontosun.com...

This UN compact is unprecedented and truly radical. It seeks to make immigration a universal human right.

And it gets even worse. Alongside describing a world with no borders and no meaningful citizenship, the document includes a particularly disturbing section about the media.

One of the “guiding principles” is a “whole-of-society approach” to promoting mass migration, including the role of the media.

It calls upon governments to “promote independent, objective and quality reporting… 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.”

So much for a free press.

The UN wants governments to actively intervene in the media and pick and choose which journalists are worthy of promoting, based on a radical ideology and far-left worldview.

Is this what the Liberal government’s new $595-million media slush fund seeks to do?

The prime minister and his top officials are known for name-calling and attacking anyone who disagrees with their dogma on immigration, diversity and multiculturalism.

originally posted by: KungfuStu
Any link to this agreement? I googled around and everything seems to link back to this tabloid, as much as I like to shake a fist in the air over PC nonsense as far as I can tell this is complete BS.

New Zealand Article:

www.scoop.co.nz...

In signing the UN’s global Compact for Migration on Dec 10 this year, the PM will agree to restrict and control the media, and cede sovereignty to the UN.

Paragraph 33(c) starts with the generic encouragement to “promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets” and finishes with “in full respect for the freedom of the media,” which all sounds lovely.

It is in the middle section, however, where we find the insidious commitment to UN control of media. In this section, signatories will engage in “sensitizing and educating media professionals,” as well as “stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets.”

“sensitizing and educating media professionals,”
“stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets.”

New Conservative was the first to stand staunchly against the increasing restrictions on free speech, and we stand staunchly opposed to the entire pact, designed to enforce migration, with the added addendum of ceding sovereignty to the UN.

It is not the state's role, or the UN's role, to control, coerce, ‘sensitise’ and manipulate the media. It is the media’s role to monitor and challenge the government, and they cannot do that when the government is committed to restricting their funding if they do not agree with the government’s education in relation to migrant related issues and terminology. Any criticism of migration (read criticism of refugee policies) by the media or anyone will be deemed Hate Speech.

a reply to: KungfuStu

Denmark Article:

www.trykkefrihed.dk...

The Global Conduct for Safe Migration Act is an attack of free speech and freedom of the press

The new Marrakech agreement however, is furthermore expanded with the aim that governments in the countries concerned - including Denmark - will commit themselves to promoting a certain (positive) attitude toward migration with regards to media coverage, and even gives instructions on how to report on migration and the language (wording) to use. Media that do not, according to the Government, comply with the "ethical standard" imposed, or which, according to the government, expresses "intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination against migrants" must be deprived media support. This is clearly stated in the 17th aim of the agreement on page 24:

”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”

And now, on the eve of the signing of the 2nd Marrakesh agreement, the government intends to commit itself to interfering with the work of the press by removing media support from those who do not toe the line.

We have a free press, which is a crucial part in order to maintain a free and open democracy. The government should not presume to be a judge of the media’s political standpoint, nor should they be able to withhold media support from them on the basis of attitudes or entirely legitimate news angles about the flow of migrants.

The proposed agreement is completely unheard of and contrary to the core values ​​and freedoms that form the basis for us to be able to call ourselves a free and open democracy. If we attack and undermine freedom of expression, we remove the prerequisite for the gaining of knowledge in order for us to form an opinion – and to freely share that opinion.

Really, I wouldn't have much of an issue with free migration if religion didn't exist and we had a world government that didn't suck and wasn't ran by murderous power junkies. Dream on with that.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Well, this does show that the UN is against any form of national sovereignty which is already established,

Think about what the words mean.

"United"

"Nations"

F the UN

They are not the boss of me

Question:

How does the UN, if this proposal is even a thing, intend to enforce this?? Anger the US sufficiently, and the UN will, rather suddenly, find itself homeless.

The UN is rapidly, or will be soon, going the way of the League of Nations. Toothless. Useless.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I would say this is grounds to withdraw funding from the UN if this becomes a serious thing.

Is this the same group that put the House of Saud in charge of equal human rights?

a reply to: infolurker

The UN are the face of the global corporate government. They are the global policy coordinators and implementers, but not the drivers. Those people tend to stay behind the curtain.

Why were they formed in the first place if they were not born to play that role?

originally posted by: Chance321

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: ketsuko
I would say this is grounds to withdraw funding from the UN if this becomes a serious thing.

Don't hold your breath. The U.N. has done far worse and yet... here we are.

True, but then we've never had a President quite like Trump before. Hopefully he might be the one to finally kick them out of the US.

Awh... bless your heart.

How about the pro-child soldier policy that Denmark has towards recruiter gangs in Africa, South America and the Balkans. ... the time is nigh for investigation on money directly and indirectly supporting child soldiers , coming from EU countries ...