The UN Declaration of Human Rights holds #19 as the right to freedom of expression.
Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act says a person "is guilty of an offence if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".
The language "insulting", "alarm", and "distress" here concern me greatly. I fear my country plays loosely with these phrases to enforce any kind of inhibition of speech it deems necessary. After all, it could be considered inconceivable to ask an individual to avoid causing insult, alarm, or distress (read: offence) to any and all people who hear their public speech. I fear that many cases of expression would be deemed a violation of this law if considered by a jury, however it is only the cases that those in power feel the most grossly offensive that get brought to prosecution.
Very recently in the UK there have been two instances of this reprehensible use of law:
Firstly the Arrest and prosecution of Mark Meechan who played a grossly offensive joke in teaching his girlfriend's dog raise its paw (contextually as a roman salute) as a response to him saying "gas the Jews?". I recognise that under certain contexts this is a definitive case of inciting violence, but context matters, and in this case he was evidently (evident to any informed party) making a joke. In fact, he was sentenced not for inciting violence, but for being grossly offensive. Meanwhile there are many times comedians (for example, Frankie Boyle), have made jokes even more reprehensible than those that Mr Meechan has made.
Secondly I would like to bring your attention to a young Canadian woman named Lauren Southern who has been Banned from entering the UK (as a commonwealth citizen nonetheless) after being detained under the anti-terrorism act. The reason for her ban from entry? Distribution of racist material. Except the material was not racist. She holds video footage of the date the actions they refer to. She ran a social experiment in which she distributed flyers claiming that Allah was a gay God, and had a stand where she held this claim. It was shut down shortly by the police for being a public disturbance. The reason she did this was to see the difference in reaction when Allah is claimed to be gay, and when Vice released an article claiming the same of Jesus: vice.com/en_uk/article/8gkgj4/was-jesus-gay-702. Ultimately with this case there are Two elements of foul play: firstly the discriminatory nature upon which the law is enforced, and secondly that in fact Lauren did nothing racist whatsoever. In fact the implication that Islam is confined to a race is concerning on its own.
Ultimately, the UK seems to be unsure of where it stands with its enforcement of hate speech, but one thing is for sure: they are using the law to inhibit free speech that does not incite violence, and that I feel is completely contradictory to the Human Right set out by the UN to freedom of expression.
Leo Anderson
Fuck brits go drink some tea during your daily prayers asshole.
Luke Perez
Fuck the UN. Who decided they are so high and mighty?
Matthew Cook
Right FUCK the UN first, then fuck brits.
Oliver Hall
Here's the issue "Human Rights" is the avenue being used to usurp the Free Speech rights because of """feelings""". The UN adopted the EU's Hate Speech laws which now trump the original charter because they also control the internet thanks to obama.
Cameron Russell
don't you believe in human rights?
Brody Bailey
Yeah fuck the brits also. They have always been the Jews lapdog
Andrew Nguyen
HAAA! FUCK OFF no, you dumb whore
Jace Hernandez
UN Declaration doesn't have direct effect in English law. Our right to free expression is in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into our law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 10 reads:
>1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? HOWEVER:
>2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
tl;dr: it's fucking worthless
Julian Campbell
oh its Mudhammad
Brody Nelson
>don't you believe in human rights? I don't believe in -zionists over everyone else- rights, and that's what these "Human Rights" claims are always about
so basically: >everybody has the right to free speech and that free speech should be protected by law >except when the law says that they wont protect free speech tehee baka
Eli Jones
Most of the "human rights" in the Convention have similar clauses, remember that when faggots go on about how vital it is. In fact if you read to the end of the UN Declaration you'll find these gems: >Article 29.
>(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. >(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. >(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
>Article 30.
>Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Again, the whole Convention is worthless virtue-signalling
Ian Murphy
>Fuck the UN. Who decided they are so high and mighty? There was a war about it. You'll notice the five permanent members of the Security Council are the victorious powers in that war. It's a relic of the 1940s.
Aaron Sullivan
I wonder what it would take for there to be a revolution/civil war in a first world country these days. I wonder if it's even possible.
if not this, then nothing. It will be too late to organise if anybody ever got to the point where they wanted to
Brody Ortiz
>The UN Declaration Stopped right there. >just kumbaya my shit up “All victims of human rights abuses should be able to look to the Human Rights Council as a forum and a springboard for action.” - Ban Ki-moon >pic related, just fuck my rights up
the whole point of these poorly drafted laws is that they can apply it to anyone they like, try making the same complaint about being racially abused by a black person, see how you get on
It is an ends to a means. Globalist conversion, and, it has worked. All but the US have succumbed to UNs bullshit. You bongs need to throw off the yoke.
Laws are meant to be breached. When you make laws impossible to follow, you have dirt on everyone and can blackmail them.
Only solution is to go Galt. The faster your government dies, the less damage it'll cause its people.
Joshua Russell
>All but the US have succumbed to UNs bullshit
>In the United States, over 528 cities are members of ICLEI, an international sustainability organization that helps to implement the Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 concepts across the world. The United States has nearly half of the ICLEI's global membership of 1,200 cities promoting sustainable development at a local level. The United States also has one of the most comprehensively documented Agenda 21 status reports. In response to the opposition, Don Knapp, U.S. spokesman for the ICLEI, has said "Sustainable development is not a top-down conspiracy from the U.N., but a bottom-up push from local governments". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21#United_States Watch your backs, burgerbros
Joseph Hughes
>The UN Declaration of Human Rights holds #19 Who cares? It is nothing but a piece of paper some shitlibs singed so they can believe they made the world a better place.
For fucks sake these people "declared" a "right democracy" (#21 Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives) , this is nothing but shilling for the current western establishment and trying to enforce some (barely working) standards, which kinda once worked in the west, on to the entirety of humanity.
"Human rights" is an absurdity, I don't know why anyone would even care about this, because obviously barely anyone does.
There is nothing to "believe" in. I also could write "1+1=3" on a piece of paper, that doesn't give it any meaning and validity, even if I got to every world leader to sign it.
Henry Diaz
>I also could write "1+1=3" on a piece of paper, that doesn't give it any meaning and validity, even if I got to every world leader to sign it You could bomb them if they insisted 1+1=2, pic related. Almost every time "the international community" bombs niggers, it's to protect their "human rights", it's just an insult to people's intelligence.
