MEP "Criticism of migration will become a criminal offense"

Outlaw Pete

Freedom of speech is under threat in Europe and yet those who voted for Brexit are called 'dumb'.

On December 10th there will be an international congress in Morocco. The participating countries are set to sign an agreement which while not binding is still meant to be the legal framework on which participating countries commit themselves to draft new legislation:

"…one basic element of this new agreement is the extension of the definition of hate speech.

The agreement want to criminalise migration speech.

Criticism of migration will become a criminal offence, and media outlets…that give room to criticism of migration can be shut down."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFTxZ7Xfbvo

The Italian Government have [URL="http://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2018/11/28/italy-not-signing-global-compact-salvini_fde75c34-ea73-4358-bd17-df80c94e5c2d.html]refused[/URL] to participate:

Italian deputy prime minister Matteo Salving said on Wednesday that Italy will not sign the United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration next month.

He said: "Just like the Swiss, who carried forward the Global Compact up until yesterday and then said 'everyone stop', the Italian government will not sign anything and will not go to Marrakech.

"The floor of parliament must debate it. The Italian government will allow parliament to decide.”

Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte warned the migration document tackles issues citizens are divided on.

Mr Conte said: "The Global Migration Compact is a document that raises issues and questions that many citizens have strong feelings about.

"Therefore, we consider it right to put the debate in parliament and subject any final decision on the outcome of that debate, as Switzerland has done.

"So the government will not participate in Marrakech, reserving the option to adopt the document, or not, only when parliament has expressed its opinion.”

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Freedom of speech is under threat in Europe and yet those who voted for Brexit are called 'dumb'.



https://twitter.com/KayaJones/status/1068401850016120832

This sets an alarming precedent. To paraphrase Hall, "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

TheValeyard

That cant be right. Make it illegal to criticise mass migration? What does the rest of the clip say?


Edit: The UN deal is not legally binding, but countries will be placed 'under pressure' to follow it.

Potential-Monke

Saw this last night. Man makes a point, especially with his theory on how immigration and poverty are better tackled. Plus, colourful illustration for those who like it:

languagenerd

I don't know who the speaker in the video is, but none of that is true. He's talking about the Global Compact on Migration, which is a UN initiative, not an EU one, and it doesn't contain any provisions for shutting down media outlets who criticize migration.

The relevant paragraph from the document in question is:

"Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based 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".

So outlets that constantly produce racist or discriminatory content may lose public funding, but they won't be shut down or criminalised.

Outlaw Pete

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

That cant be right. Make it illegal to criticise mass migration? What does the rest of the clip say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFTxZ7Xfbvo

RasTa

You got to be a special type of stupid to believe that tweet.

Gatling

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Edit: The UN deal is not legally binding, but countries will be placed 'under pressure' to follow it.

Expect us to be first to totally agree with it and put it into law like good little EU citizens

People in the comments say it's a non-binding UN initiative, and it's not about criticism, it's about misinformation or something.

I'm too lazy to check.

Stark

languagenerd wrote: »

I don't know who the speaker in the video is, but none of that is true. He's talking about the Global Compact on Migration, which is a UN initiative, not an EU one, and it doesn't contain any provisions for shutting down media outlets who criticize migration.

The relevant paragraph from the document in question is:

"Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based 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".

So outlets that constantly produce racist or discriminatory content may lose public funding, but they won't be shut down or criminalised.

Stop oppressing our freedom of speech with your facts!

Sonics2k

No matter how much I Google this, I really can't find anything authenticating it.

I can see a Politico article which refers to a UN policy which is no way legally binding:

https://www.politico.eu/article/migration-un-viktor-orban-sebastian-kurz-far-right-pressure-europe-retreats-from-pact/

Rather it's more a promise to defund a media outlet that promotes hate speech relating to migrations, so expanding on current hate speech regulations.

pleas advice

All those lads who left Ireland during the recession to go to places like Canada and Australia should have stayed home...

RasTa

Deleted User wrote: »

People in the comments say it's a non-binding UN initiative, and it's not about criticism, it's about misinformation or something.

I'm too lazy to check.

Don't bother, some American pussycat doll said so on twitter so it must be true.

Gravelly

languagenerd wrote: »

I don't know who the speaker in the video is, but none of that is true. He's talking about the Global Compact on Migration, which is a UN initiative, not an EU one, and it doesn't contain any provisions for shutting down media outlets who criticize migration.

The relevant paragraph from the document in question is:

"Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based 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".

So outlets that constantly produce racist or discriminatory content may lose public funding, but they won't be shut down or criminalised.

“

"stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote....... other forms of discrimination towards migrants”

If that doesn’t worry you you are very foolish.

“Other forms of discrimination” can mean anything they want it to mean.

I know the left loves to shut down those they disagree with, but this open-ended kind of language can be used to shut down anyone, even you.

Sonics2k

hah, it's fake news Pete.

https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1068588896555024384

Try reading the full context properly.

Outlaw Pete

RasTa wrote: »

You got to be a special type of stupid to believe that tweet.

The tweet just quotes the comments made in the European Parliament.

Sonics2k

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The tweet just quotes the comments made in the European Parliament.

So you saw a Tweet that suited your agenda, clearly did no research on it and then ran in to post how the EU is out to censor you and Freedom of Speech is under attack.

This is literally how fake news spreads. Good job.

Gravelly

Sonics2k wrote: »

hah, it's fake news Pete.

https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1068588896555024384

Try reading the full context properly.

“Non binding UN initiative”

Until it is enshrined in law (or even becomes unwritten policy), then we’ll see how non binding it is.
Do you think they came up with this for something to do on a quiet afternoon?

Kivaro

Gatling wrote: »

Expect us to be first to totally agree with it and put it into law like good little EU citizens

With the extreme liberalism being pushed by our current government leaders (Leo, Zappone, Coveney), it wouldn't surprise me if they superseded this "initiative" by making it illegal for us to even think negatively about open border migration. The "thought" police finally coming to fruition.

Bubbaclaus

pleas advice wrote: »

All those lads who left Ireland during the recession to go to places like Canada and Australia should have stayed home...

Economic migrants, every single one of them. We don't mind those migrants though cos they are white and Irish.

SEPT 23 1989

Kite flying exercise

Outlaw Pete

Sonics2k wrote: »

So you saw a Tweet that suited your agenda, clearly did no research on it and then ran in to post how the EU is out to censor you and Freedom of Speech is under attack.

This is literally how fake news spreads. Good job.

How is it 'fake news' if I am directly quoting what the MEP said?

He's talking about the legal framework on which members of the EU are supposed to draft legislation on this issue:

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

Governments are asked 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”.

It may be rejected, and I hope it is, but it is still being proposed and that in itself is something which should be criticized.

Graces7

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Economic migrants, every single one of them. We don't mind those migrants though cos they are white and Irish.

You said it!

NSAman

We have all seen it, The EU signs a non-binding “want” which eventually becomes a want.

“Vote for Jobs” was the line they got Ireland to vote on twice. At that stage no European Army was ever going to happen.. now??

Personally, I do not trust the EU. Its founding principles of the EEC were noble and should have been enough, but the new shape of the EU is worrying at the least.

Anything that tries to criminalize free speech is not to be signed into a “Want”

Potential-Monke

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Saw this last night. Man makes a point, especially with his theory on how immigration and poverty are better tackled. Plus, colourful illustration for those who like it:

this is interesting. I took the few minutes to watch this, he makes his point very well.


The rate of population in developing countries is increasing exponentially.


The west will never be able to make a difference of any significant bearing by hosting millions of people from the developing world. It would be of much greater benefit to these countries if the 1st world contributed via industry and education to developing countries.


The problem is though, that if the developing world were to enjoy the same level of quality of life as the 1st world, we would need approx 7 planet Earths to support this, in terms of resources.


Firstly, the issue of population explosion in the developing world needs to be tackled through education, and in certain countries, more rights for women.



The next issue is the impending food crisis. in 2016, 11% of the world's population went hungry (according to the UN). By 2050 the world's population will have increased to almost 10 billion. Demand for food will be over 50% higher than it is today.




I am straying way off topic here, and this probably belongs to a different thread.

PlaneSpeeking

Mass unchecked immigration is a bad idea.
Those crossing the Med are economic migrants not refugees..
Trump is a f**king moron but that Skittles analogy was spot on.
Genuine refugees are better helped by funding camps near their homes. With education and safety for children.


Just getting than in before I'm not allowed. We used to joke the left would only allow free speech as long as they agreed with it.

No joke now.

greencap

my straight banana bullsh1t detector is beeping.

two pages in and no more reliable source than 1 kind of anti-eu mep.

a reminder that even flat earth loons like the dup can get someone into a parliament.

doesn't mean what they spout is ever of any substance.

4068ac1elhodqr

'Declaring migration as a human right'?

Have always fancied living in one of the world's most dense/populated cities, Toyko looks swell on the TV box, I won't take up too much space.
Am a real fan of sushi, their ever so reserved ladies, karoke into the wee hours, and am handy enough at karate. Can't speak more than a few words though, but there's an App for that.

Anyway, can someone call dear Geoffrey the chauffeur, to get over to the nearset airport.
Will I just explain that the UN/EU are supportive of my notion, over at the ryanair desk for free tickets?

Do not criticise this idea above, it's not allowed.

Outlaw Pete

greencap wrote: »

a reminder that even flat earth loons like the dup can get someone into a parliament.

Flat Earth loons? It's an agreement finalized by UN member states scheduled to be adopted at a conference on December 10th in Morocco.

Here's more information:

The UN's Global Compact for Migration sets out non-binding guidelines for an integrated approach to international migration. DW looks at the agreement and at why some nations are vehemently against it.

The United Nations' Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration marks the first time the world body has ever agreed on a list of global measures to tackle the risks and challenges involved in migration for individual migrants, and at the same time to maximize benefits for the countries taking in immigrants.

The agreement comes as huge numbers of people across the world, often driven by conflict and poverty, are leaving their countries of origin to seek refuge elsewhere.

But not all countries agree with the compact's basic tenets and have been vocal in their opposition.

The text of the agreement was finalized by UN member states on July 13, 2018, and is scheduled to be adopted at a December intergovernmental conference in Marrakesh, Morocco.

The compact is based on the recognition that the entire world needs to cooperate if current and future massive migration flows are to be managed in a humane manner, while still taking account of the values of state sovereignty.

The compact comprises 23 objectives for the management of migration at local, national, regional and global levels.

They include:

• minimizing "adverse drivers and structural factors" that force people to leave their home countries
• ensuring that all migrants have adequate documentation and identity papers
• making objective information available on all stages of migration
• promoting an "evidence-based public discourse"
• saving lives and coordinating international efforts for missing migrants
• creating conditions to allow migrants to contribute to sustainable development in all countries
• cooperation on a safe return and readmission of migrants to their home countries if necessary
• The compact does not stipulate any mandatory number of migrants to be accepted by a country.

The guidelines also call for combating trafficking and the "integrated, secure and coordinated" management of borders.

Why do some countries object?
According to the UN, the agreement as a whole takes into account "legitimate concerns of states and communities" and the fact that the repercussions of migration for respective countries and regions may differ according to their demographic, economic, social and environmental situations.

However, these assurances, and the fact that the compact is not legally binding, have not been enough to convince several UN members, including the United States, Austria and Hungary, who say they will not sign the agreement.

Governments in these countries have voiced several objections, among other things saying the compact mixes up the rights of asylum-seekers with those of economic migrants.

The US under President Donald Trump also argues that multinational agreements in general, and this one in particular, go against the sovereign power of individual governments.

States may agree to join the agreement at a later date even if their political climate is currently opposed to it.

Refuting the objections
In a bid to counter false information spread on the internet about the compact, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU party has published a list of questions and answers to reassure "concerned citizens." They can also be seen as refuting the objections made by the countries that are refusing to sign.

Phoebas

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The tweet just quotes the comments made in the European Parliament.

By a right wing MEP in Greet Wilders' party and chair of an anti immigration, Eurosceptic party in the EP.

Pete, what youre doing here is just rabbiting an 'opinion' of someone in your own bubble and trying to sell it as if it was some kind of actual policy because the words were uttered by an MEP.

You need to try harder with your fake news.

Sonics2k

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

How is it 'fake news' if I am directly quoting what the MEP said?

He's talking about the legal framework on which members of the EU are supposed to draft legislation on this issue:



It may be rejected, and I hope it is, but it is still being proposed and that in itself is something which should be criticized.

Because the MEP took it woefully out of context, and again there is no change to Freedom of Speech.

It's a proposition for a non-binding agreement to update the policy on hate speech and the public funding of media outlets, namely those who lie about migration policies to put it simply.

If this were an actual legally binding law that prevented people from talking about legitimate concerns about mass immigration, I would 100% back you up because Freedom of Speech is probably the most vital thing in the western world, but it's not.

Il Fascista

Sonics2k wrote: »

.

It's a proposition for a non-binding agreement to update the policy on hate speech and the public funding of media outlets, namely those who lie about migration policies to put it simply.

What does lying about migration have to do with hate speech?

languagenerd

Gravelly wrote: »

languagenerd wrote: »

I don't know who the speaker in the video is, but none of that is true. He's talking about the Global Compact on Migration, which is a UN initiative, not an EU one, and it doesn't contain any provisions for shutting down media outlets who criticize migration.

The relevant paragraph from the document in question is:

"Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based 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".

So outlets that constantly produce racist or discriminatory content may lose public funding, but they won't be shut down or criminalised.

“

"stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote....... other forms of discrimination towards migrants”

If that doesn’t worry you you are very foolish.

“Other forms of discrimination” can mean anything they want it to mean.

I know the left loves to shut down those they disagree with, but this open-ended kind of language can be used to shut down anyone, even you.

I take your point about open-ended language and how it could be re-interpretted down the line. It's something of a hazard of international legal documents that need to cover all the nuances of all the languages it will be translated into. But nothing in this document allows for the criminalisation of criticizing migration. That sentence alone in a UN compact can't do that, and we don't have laws that would allow it to. "Discrimination" already has a legal interpretation in most countries, so it would be based on that.

Overall, I think this document is fairly balanced - it calls multiple times for objective and factual records of migration, better documentation and more evidence in the public discourse around migration, as well as a commitment to trying to reduce the reasons why people leave their home country. Surely that's something we all want and need, regardless of our views on migration (which don't always fit a neat for/against left/right divide)?

It's irresponsible and untrue to state that the EU is banning criticism of migration. It isn't. Incendiary soundbites to suit one agenda rarely serve the public good. We need to talk about migration but we need to do it with truth and full information.

NSAman

Sonics2k wrote: »

Because the MEP took it woefully out of context, and again there is no change to Freedom of Speech.

It's a proposition for a non-binding agreement to update the policy on hate speech and the public funding of media outlets, namely those who lie about migration policies to put it simply.

If this were an actual legally binding law that prevented people from talking about legitimate concerns about mass immigration, I would 100% back you up because Freedom of Speech is probably the most vital thing in the western world, but it's not.

I could be flippant and say that is most EU governments.

Lies and counter lies are dangerous in ALL situations. Having a non-binding “want” is showing the direction in which the EU want to go with this. It IS worrying based on the history of the EU.

I agree with you totally in that free speech should never be restrained. People should always be allowed to say whatever they think, but should always be able to take criticism on what their beliefs are. That is a two way street that allows both sides to grow and understand each other’s point of views. Pointing out BS is a fundamental in any debate and should not be stifled in any way. Stopping it by way of legislation means both sides become entrenched and causes more harm than good.

Zorya

Sonics2k wrote: »

Because the MEP took it woefully out of context, and again there is no change to Freedom of Speech.

It's a proposition for a non-binding agreement to update the policy on hate speech and the public funding of media outlets, namely those who lie about migration policies to put it simply.

If this were an actual legally binding law that prevented people from talking about legitimate concerns about mass immigration, I would 100% back you up because Freedom of Speech is probably the most vital thing in the western world, but it's not.

I saw this yesterday. Knew it was ascribed to a ''far right anti EU MEP''. This of course makes everything that travels out of his mouth a lie. Even if it is simply another point of view.

Updating policies on hate speech is a dangerous enough knife edge to walk. For example we now have removed blasphemy laws here, making Christianity in particular fair game (I am not a Christian, btw) but the ECHR has just supported punishment for blaspheming Islam. That's problematic.

One person's ''lie'' is another person's perspective. Do you just want to have politcially sanctioned and funded media available to you? I prefer to have the witterings of madmen and loons, along with the justifiable dissenters from majority truthspeak, available to me.

Outlaw Pete

Sonics2k wrote: »

Because the MEP took it woefully out of context, and again there is no change to Freedom of Speech.

It's a proposition for a non-binding agreement to update the policy on hate speech and the public funding of media outlets, namely those who lie about migration policies to put it simply.

If this were an actual legally binding law that prevented people from talking about legitimate concerns about mass immigration, I would 100% back you up because Freedom of Speech is probably the most vital thing in the western world, but it's not.

Good, I'm hope so. There have been many articles on this today though, I am far from alone in showing concerns.

If that MEP has misrepresented what the agreement could result in, fair enough, but with people being convicted of hate crimes for posting videos of their dog giving a Nazi salutes in recent times, crap like this wouldn't surprise me in the least.. we're not that far from things as it is.

Wibbs

Jesus if something like that ever gets passed into law I'm going straight to gaol.

greencap

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Good, I'm hope so. There have been many articles on this today though, I am far from alone in showing concerns.

If that MEP has misrepresented what the agreement could result in, fair enough, but with people being convicted of hate crimes for posting videos of their dog giving a Nazi salutes in recent times, crap like this wouldn't surprise me in the least.. we're not that far from things as it is.

but if this should all blow over, and turn out to be more of the semi-tinfoil 'europe will be a caliphate' style nonsense which has been doing the rounds for the last 5 years, the question is what is the negative consequence to the people spreading mis-information?


is there any? ... or do they just continue spreading panic and misinformation, and kind of forget about all the times they were spouting utter cobblers.

and then go back to eating cheetos?

oh yes, and the nazi pug thing took place under UK laws which have been on the books for decades. kind of hard to pin that one on the UN/EU/NWO/Rotschilds/Soros/

Sonics2k

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Good, I'm hope so. There have been many articles on this today though, I am far from alone in showing concerns.

If that MEP has misrepresented what the agreement could result in, fair enough, but with people being convicted of hate crimes for posting videos of their dog giving a Nazi salutes in recent times, crap like this wouldn't surprise me in the least.. we're not that far from things as it is.

He has absolutely misrepresented it. Listen to what he says compared to what the resolution actually states. Its non-binding, not an EU directive (as the Twitter you originally posted states) and doesn't criminalise anything. It states to defund or stop publicly funding a media group that does push a new addition to hate speech.

As for what happened to Count Dankula, that whole thing was an absolute fiasco and should never, ever have happened to him. He was clearly making a joke and hopefully it can be overturned.

Grayson

Zorya wrote: »

I saw this yesterday. Knew it was ascribed to a ''far right anti EU MEP''. This of course makes everything that travels out of his mouth a lie. Even if it is simply another point of view.

Updating policies on hate speech is a dangerous enough knife edge to walk. For example we now have removed blasphemy laws here, making Christianity in particular fair game (I am not a Christian, btw) but the ECHR has just supported punishment for blaspheming Islam. That's problematic.

One person's ''lie'' is another person's perspective. Do you just want to have politcially sanctioned and funded media available to you? I prefer to have the witterings of madmen and loons, along with the justifiable dissenters from majority truthspeak, available to me.

Hate speech is illegal here. That's for all religions. So if I say christians/muslims/jews are scum and we should go hurt them, it's wrong. The blasphemy law simply made it an offence to say anything that offended a religion. So I couldn't say that muslims/jews/christians believe in a sky fairy. (although no-one was ever charged for blasphemy).

You need to realise the difference between the two

Freedom of speech here isn't absolute and that's a good thing. Words have power and can be very harmful. That doesn't mean that we censor the truth, it just means that you can't say anything which will incite violence against a particular group. If you think that's a bad limitation then I think you have your priorities messed up.

What's messed up about this thread is that the OP posted an MEP lying. That guy should be censured by his party and the EU but he won't be. And if he was, despite the fact that he was lying, people here would say that his freedom to lie from a position of authority is what matters and it's just people who disagree with him shutting him down.

Zorya

greencap wrote: »

. kind of hard to pin that one on the UN/EU/NWO/Rotschilds/Soros/

That's what happens - any opinion that is not acceptably liberal and progressive is dismissed as the rantings of maniacs who think evil Georgy Soros is funding the NWO.

Thankfully that spin is getting tired now as more people take a reasoned look at what passes for policy.

southstar

Kivaro wrote: »

With the extreme liberalism being pushed by our current government leaders (Leo, Zappone, Coveney), it wouldn't surprise me if they superseded this "initiative" by making it illegal for us to even think negatively about open border migration. The "thought" police finally coming to fruition.

illegal to think....wont effect you too much then ....and the wilful stupidity goes on.

Snake Plisken

The FG gimps better not sign this!

MarkHenderson

With each passing day I trust the EU less and less. It started out a good ideal but its becoming more and more evident we are headed down the wrong path with its vision.

MarkHenderson

Snake Plisken wrote: »

The FG gimps better not sign this!

FG and any other Irish government will do as the EU tell them.

yesto24

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Economic migrants, every single one of them. We don't mind those migrants though cos they are white and Irish.

That's maybe true.


But more likely because they got a visa for the country they went to so were there legally.

But you keep you racist fantasy alive.

And before you ask yes every "undocumented" Irish, also called illegal immigrant, in the USA should be kicked out.

Outlaw Pete

Phoebas wrote: »

You need to try harder with your fake news.

It's not 'fake news' what the hell are you on about. You sound like Trump there.

The Hungarian Foreign Minister has spoken out against the agreement also:

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, in announcing his country will vote “no” on the UN agreement in Marrakesh in December, told the media that the “goal of the UN Global Compact for Migration is to legalize illegal immigration, which is totally unacceptable and violates the sovereignty of member states, including that of Hungary.”

The foreign minister said the UN is “making the same mistake as the European Union, which wants to base its own migration policy on mandatory resettlement quotas.” The UN pact “is more dangerous, however, because it is a global initiative, meaning it will have a greater effect than [European] policy, and represents a risk to the whole world.”

Szijjarto said the Hungarian government’s main issue with the compact is “whether or not it is mandatory, and in view of the fact that the document contains the word ‘obligation’ on eighty occasions, the claim that it only includes recommendations is a false one.”

“A legally not binding document would not prescribe the establishment of national action plans, and accordingly it is ‘clearer than day’ that, just like the originally voluntary mandatory quota, the Global Compact for Migration will become a point of reference, mandatory, and the basis for international judicial decisions,” Szijjarto said.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended the UN Migration Compact, saying there should be “no compromise” on global mass migration and condemned opposition as “nationalism in its purest form.”

Now it may turn out that those criticizing it are incorrect and Merkel is right but quit calling it fake news, there's nothing fake about the UN Global Compact for Migration nor the opinions being expressed about it. Incorrect, perhaps. Fake, no.

Odhinn

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's not 'fake news' what the hell are you on about. You sound like Trump there.

The Hungarian Foreign Minister has spoken out against the agreement also:



Now it may turn out that those criticizing it are incorrect and Merkel is right but quit calling it fake news, there's nothing fake about the UN Global Compact for Migration nor the opinions being expressed about it. Incorrect, perhaps. Fake, no.

Not the most reliable source, given that states current government.

Phoebas

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's not 'fake news' what the hell are you on about. You sound like Trump there.
.

This is clearly fake:

Freedom of speech is under threat in Europe

It's a non binding compact, from the UN, not the EU, that hasn't been adopted and even if it was is non binding and doesn't threaten free speech anyway.

Outlaw Pete

Okay, so you think that I and others are wrong about what the agreement could spell but even if you are right (and again, I hope you all are): wrong =/= fake.

Grayson

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's not 'fake news' what the hell are you on about. You sound like Trump there.

The Hungarian Foreign Minister has spoken out against the agreement also:



Now it may turn out that those criticizing it are incorrect and Merkel is right but quit calling it fake news, there's nothing fake about the UN Global Compact for Migration nor the opinions being expressed about it. Incorrect, perhaps. Fake, no.

I've been trying to find where that quote came from and all I can find is breitbart.