The United Nations Global Compact on migration will make it a criminal offense, punishable by prison, for citizens and media outlets to criticize open borders and mass immigration.  Then try this on for size, you UN nut cases, what about a Civil War against You.


New UN global pact will make it illegal to criticize open borders

Speaking at a press conference in the European Parliament, de Graaff warned: “One basic element of this new agreement is the extension of the definition of hate speech. The agreement wants to criminalize migration speech. Criticism of migration will become a criminal offense. Media outlets that give room to criticism of migration can be shut down.”

Infowars.com reports: “In fact, it will become impossible to criticize Merkel’s welcome migrants politics without being at risk to be jailed for hate speech,” he added, noting, “Countries who import the third world will become the third world.”

 The MEP also pointed to the rise in rapes and violent attacks that have been recorded in numerous western countries since the mass migration of millions of people from mainly Islamic countries since 2015.

 The UN’s global compact on migration is not legally binding, but governments will be under pressure to follow its dictates.

 Hungary’s populist government has warned that the deal would establish a “human right to find a new place around the globe”.

 Australia became the latest country to publicly announce it will refuse to sign the pact, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison asserting the deal would, “undermine Australia’s strong border protection laws and practices” and encourage illegal immigration.

 He added that the pact does nothing to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants with respect to the provision of welfare and benefits.

 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also said he will refuse to sign the deal. The United States pulled out of the compact last year, asserting that border powers should remain under the control of sovereign nations. The Swiss government has also indicated it will not sign up to the pact, as have Austria and Hungary.

https://newspunch.com/un-pact-illegal-criticize-open-borders/

Views: 55

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

How much longer do we have until they attempt to run this down our throats?

 Need this.........thank you.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

OMG!!! Ruth Bader Ginsburg Voted Best Real-Life Hero At MTV Awards

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday was crowned the best real-life hero at the MTV Movie & TV Awards.

The 86-year old judge — whose 2015 biopic The Notorious RBG help cement her as a cultural icon among Liberals — beat out tennis star Serena Williams, WWE wrestler Roman Reigns, and comedian Hannah Gadsby to take him the award.

Though it wasn’t a clean sweep for Ginsburg last night.

The RGB documentary lost the “Best Fight” category for “Ruth Bader Ginsburg vs. Inequality” to “Captain Marvel vs. Minn-Erva.”

The justice was absent from the ceremony in Santa Monica, California.

Last December, Ginsburg had surgery to remove cancerous growths on her left lung. She was released from the hospital in New York four days later and recuperated at home.

Earlier this year, Ginsburg missed three days of arguments, the first time that’s happened since she joined the court in 1993. Still, she was allowed to participate using court briefs and transcripts.

Ginsburg has had two previous bouts with cancer, in 1999 and 10 years later.

Flashback: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Pregnant Woman Is Not A ‘Mother’

Celebrated liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in an opinion released Tuesday that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.”

“[A] woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother’,” Ginsburg wrote in a footnote, which in turn responded to another footnote in the 20-page concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in the Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. case.

As Breitbart News’ legal editor Ken Klukowski reported, the case concerned a law signed by then-Governor (now Vice President) Mike Pence of Indiana in 2016, which required that the remains of an aborted fetus (or baby) be disposed of by cremation or burial. The law also prohibited abortion on the basis of sex, race, or disability alone.

The Court upheld the first part of the law, but declined to consider the selective-abortion ban until more appellate courts had ruled on it.

In his lengthy opinion — which delighted pro-life advocates, and distressed pro-choice activists — Thomas wrote that “this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.” He traced the racist and eugenicist beliefs of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and warned that the Court would one day need to wrestle with abortion as form of racial discrimination.

In a footnote, Thomas attacked Ginsberg’s dissenting opinion, which argued the Court should not have deferred to the legal standard used by the litigants in the lower courts, but should have subjected the Indiana law to a more difficult standard instead, since it impacted “the right of [a] woman” to an abortion.

Ginsburg cited no legal authority for her claim that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.” The claim that a fetus is not a child is central to pro-choice arguments.

SPECIAL VIDEOS

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service