thank christ, allah, or whoever the **** you do or don't pray to because if this happens then humanity will have reached an a new kind of low, different from holocaust low but still a step away from progress for humanity.
As far as I know, the UN has so far been accepting what Sarkeesian and Quin have been saying. However, in order to implement something like this, it has to go through the official process, i.e. drafting a resolution, getting sponsors, debate, and voting, which takes a year at the very least. Furthermore, even if the UN did vote to accept such a resolution, it would be impossible to enforce it, as it would have to be ratified by the government of each country. Fortunately, this should be completely impossible in Canada and the US (I don't know much about the laws of other countries on this matter) because their respective constitutions provide protections for the freedom of expression. However, don't be too surprised if it turns up regardless.
No matter what, I'll continue on my merry way as if nothing happened.
If I'm penalized via this sorry excuse for a law, that'll probably whip up enough of a ********* to get it taken apart, atleast here in Denmark. We Danes never really enjoyed this PC ******** . That was always Swedens thing.
Although there are certain things that are not protected, namely hate speech and obscenity, the freedom of expression is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Hate speech and the utterance of threats directly interfere with the protections guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Part 1, Subpart 7.
just because someone calls you a name does not stop you from doing anything, that is why speech cannot interfere with freedom, while it can make you feel bad which is why it is under rights, not freedoms
Iv'e been trying to look around and get a really good feeling on how this actually is, what the reports say, the actual feeling that the UN has towards this and i think I got a good idea on how it actually is.
The only ones actually reporting on this are sources either saying this is a HUGE thing for women's rights, or a CATASTROPHE for the internet. Each of them use vague terms without giving any names, and when they do, they all use the same ones. Except one, the New York Times Magazine, which says the proposal is poorly thought out and poorly written (to the point where the citations they give link mostly to uncredable sources, that lead to 404s, and one that was actually a local file path)
Tried looking for an objective source on this topic, like the UNs website or a source that isn't acting as a doomsayer or a sensationalist. Can't find much of anything at all. Only maybe a short reference to the specific topic, which turned out to be just a small testimony to a larger argument about pushing for international gender equality.
So either:
A) Massive poorly kept SJW conspiracy
or
B) No one there actually cared enough to truly take into account what Sarkeesian said, and the problem actually being discussed is the broader issue which is international womens rights. (specifically speaking about regions where it actually is a problem)
Not as far as I know.
Even if they did, I dont honestly think they would enforce it as stringently as the feminists would want. If they accept it, I think it would be more of a "Hate speech and harassment is also illigal on the internet, just as it is in real life!"-thing, rather than the censorship the feminists would want.
it's already a thing in France, usually they don't bother calling your **** out though unless you're the target of the media/politics i'm talking 'bout the Dieudonné thing
It's not about feminism in particular, but social media censorship is a thing and law against hate speech on the net are pretty strict. they almost only act when it's about anti-semitism and racism though Dieudonné is a french humorist that always been doing politically incorrect jokes since ages, and he was hilarious. and suddenly some PC folks on social media started to say he was anti-semite and **** like that. after that he was banned from a lot of TV show, everybody suddenly never liked him and even people that used to be great friends with him started to spit on him. People said that he really use to say a lot of racist stuff but appart from his skits i never heard anything, and now he doesn't do anything, every little thing he says ******* skyrocket into a big PC circlejerking everywhere, politicians go on TV to tell him to stfu and the police tries to get him in jail.
Should they even...you know, care about stuff going on on the internet? Unless I'm a complete moron the UN is supposed to focus on upholding human rights and peace in the world.
Either way, I hope they simpy say "You know, Sarkeesian...you could just ignore it."
i think the un would need to vote on **** like that and there are some women in this council, women from 3rd world countries. if they get to vote on this **** , they will go ******* ballistic
But we have to treat it seriously. This attacks basic human rights. If we just let this kind of thing slide, then something might happen. I doubt anything will ever come of this, honestly, but that doesn't mean we can just let up and forget about it. Whenever something like this happens in a thing like the UN, we have to strike it down immediately and mercilessly. No exceptions.
i think its to clear up cases in which 1 person or many people harass someone online to the point where they hurt themselves or others. Just like if you told someone to kill themselves to their face, and they actually went through with it. either situation is kinda shaky though, i get its ****** up to tell someone to kill themselves but people make their own choices, but then again charles manson is in prison, for both sets of murders even though he wasnt physically involved in the first. People can be manipulated and convicted to commit crimes (weak people)
for some reason some people take bragging as actual achievements, still, they kind of dont matter since they are internet people, but then they try to change the world with their delusional fantasies, like getting people arrested for not agreeing with them www.infowars.com/man-faces-6-months-in-jail-for-disagreeing-with-feminists-on-twitter/ or for "manspreading"...
The UN also said we would eradicate child mortality, poverty and remove illiteracy this year. That didn't happen, not even in some European countries. This is very UN, make big promises but they cannot tell nations what to do, they give guidance not commands.
Gif @ Title
I'm not from the UK, but I hear non-stop of their attempts to censor the internet and people using it all the damn time. It always backfires immensely.
Late 2010 they tried to regulate it so you had to call in each time just to get porn temporarily enable. Guess how well that went.
Oh please, like anyone is gonna take this seriously.
No amount of guilt tripping and crocodile tears can sway a legitimate organization for a proposal like that.
And I can tell you right now even most feminists would find this ridiculous.
Why?
Because would the public really want to believe a movement is right if you're not allowed by law to criticize it? Would you think a movement is truly good if no other opinion that isn't positive was tolerated? **** no, you'd question the **** out of that and realize there must be something ***** going on in there for them to have such a ******** law.
Does anyone even listen to Anita anymore?
I'm pretty sure almost everyone who doesn't live under a rock knows she's a quack.
75% of my friends are female, 50% of them are feminists, 100% of them agree that Anita is a terrible influence for women and has made people think feminism is just a bunch of women crying mysogony over nothing.
Hell, I've seen feminist and sjw blogs that say to stay away from her, only blind and deaf idiots would still believe her.
The UN can't do **** , and no actual business is going to abide by these "laws" or risk losing major income because they have to ban anybody who says anything not so nice in any context to somebody who claims to be female.
Sarkeesian and Quinn went to the UN, whined like the sniveling little ***** they are, and got a small group (led by a guy who wants it to be made illegal to criticize islam) ate it up. Nobody of any real power is going to do anything, and America has always had a history of telling the UN to **** off anyway.
SJWs do not win. They will never win. There will be a mass revolution across all of the first world before they even get close to "winning".
Everyone listen; I have the power and hold the key to defeating femanayziem,
just don't use the word. Don't even give them the ratings, attention, or the controversy.
Try giving them the silent treatment.
Watch how quickly they devolve.
Zoe Quinn had a hard enough time ******* those 5 guys to give her measley game good reviews- this time she'd have to **** 193 guys to get a UN bill passed.
This is what I don't understand, those american femininazi only stand for a very small group of people, they are the minority and some how they are trying to make rule in democratic law. They don't even have high academic degree, nor they are really rich. They are not elite, not standing for the majority, doesn't have high academic level, have mentioned in many bad rumors about them, their logic is so flawed even my 2nd grade cousin can see the problem of their ideal, and some how they can go to UN and talk about censoring stuff?
"This fight was already over before it begun."
Its pissing into a sea of piss tito, glad to know your safe on the island getaway however....or the pier either works.