www.ditl.org

They could pass a law saying we all have to wear ladies lingerie on Tuesdays, but I still wouldn't follow it. This allows me to reiterate that not all laws should be followed.

Tsukiyumi wrote:They could pass a law saying we all have to wear ladies lingerie on Tuesdays, but I still wouldn't follow it. This allows me to reiterate that not all laws should be followed.

And here I was, doing it voluntarily.

*AHEM* Anyway... the language used in this is typical UN GA bull patties. It is completely subjective, and therfore unenforceable, which is par for the course for the modern UN: pass a resolution to appease certain elements, but make sure the resolution has no teeth, or even logic, so nobody really has to worry about it. The language says nothing about criticism, just defamation and incitement. Why bother saying anything at all?

And this is news....how?

Well, news in the way that they found even better ways to make themselves look fucking stupid.

They want to make it illegal to incite hatred. This is fucking stupid.

It's not illegal to actually hate. No country I know of says the mere act of hating is a crime. Yet they want it to be illegal to incite this legal thing in others? What kind of sense does that make?

If this was a law then the writer of TNG would be in jail. After all everyone hates Wesley Crusher, since they created him they're inciting hatred...

And as for B&B...

GrahamKennedy wrote:They want to make it illegal to incite hatred. This is f***ing stupid.

It's not illegal to actually hate. No country I know of says the mere act of hating is a crime. Yet they want it to be illegal to incite this legal thing in others? What kind of sense does that make?

I think the intention is to make it illegal to incite hate with the intention of getting people to cause harm to *insert group*. Of course this not being a resolution before the SC, it's non-binding and we can continue on our merry way. Not like anyone other then the West listens to this stuff anyways.

Cpl Kendall wrote:I think the intention is to make it illegal to incite hate with the intention of getting people to cause harm to *insert group*.

Then they could have phrased it as "incitement to violence" rather than than the nonsense they actually produced.

Not like anyone other then the West listens to this stuff anyways.

Unless the decree is in the country in question's favour.

Captain Seafort wrote:
Then they could have phrased it as "incitement to violence" rather than than the nonsense they actually produced.

Indeed and IIRC that is the wording of the Canadian hate speech legislation.

Unless the decree is in the country in question's favour.

Pretty much.

Since I hate about everyone... This would cause trouble.

Yeah, does inciting hatred against the majority of humanity count?

Tsukiyumi wrote:Yeah, does inciting hatred against the majority of humanity count?

I'm thinking yes.