UK risks following Nazi example on human rights

How many care?

Do you really buy that?

i’ve seen what’s happened in the UK over the past 5 years.

1 Like

This is what happens when you have a democracy. People voting stupidly for things they really don’t understand, sometimes based on a few minor issues that might benefit them financially, or blindly following whatever there daily newspaper says. Tax cuts all of a sudden just seem like bribery to win votes to carry out your agenda. All because they’re voted in makes it all legitimate. However, I question the legitimacy of it, due to the voters being misguided and generally not comprehending that these people have been educated to think ideologically, which blinds them to what works for what given situation. The system sucks, and in the UK we now have no alternative, as Labour (The peoples party) has bowed into pressure of free-market capitalism and is now nothing but Tory-Lite. I wish we had an SNP like party in the UK that actually has support to try and topple these people.

It makes me sad that all the brilliant social measures that came out of the second world war in Britain is going to be further degraded. I just hope the health system survives.


did you vote ukip?

Green. UKIP are crap

Im not a fan of this. I believe human rights are a shield against injustice for minorities and disabled people alike. :frowning:

Human rights laws became a weapon in Canada. Google ‘Richard Warman’ – one man really managed to play havoc with them. Section 13 of our human rights code was struck down in response, and it was a good thing.


A reported quote by Warman, “It’s really a betrayal of the veterans and all those who contributed in World War II to ignore the ongoing threat from these groups that are seeking to resurrect an idea that should have died 60 years ago in a bunker in Berlin.”

The white supremacist groups that Warman brought before the CHRT are guilty of vile hate speech and discrimination.

Not. Even. Close.

What passes for nazi groups in Canada these days are milquetoast at best. No one they went after ever posed much of a threat. Complete waste of $$$. Anyhow, parliament recognized how hinky it was to have just one person using this law to his own benefit, so it was taken apart.


@velociraptor, the white supremacist groups brought before the CHRT were found guilty not because Warman was acting on his own behalf but for those whose human rights were violated.

Quoting Warman again, “It’s imperative that individuals and groups take steps as strong as they can to defend human rights in Canada,” he says. “Because if they’re not defended, they get undermined. Eventually they get worn down through disuse. I could never bear to see that happen.”

Warman not only defends those who human rights are violated, he defends the laws concerning human rights protection.

The hate speech these men and women organize behind is the same hate speech white supremacists before them won favor with.

They weren’t found guilty in a real court. There was no due process. You only had to prove someone’s feelings ‘may’ have been hurt. There was absolutely no opportunity for the accused to face their accuser. Also worth noting that the complainant in all of these cases reaped considerable compensation in the form of ‘expenses’. He also managed to routinely break the same law he was trying to hook others on in his online conduct. Conduct so odious the CHRC couldn’t run far enough, fast enough from him once the situation became public:

We do have real criminal hate crimes laws in the country, but they are rarely used. People preferred to go to the CHRC tribunals, which were all but rigged, and where the process was the punishment. None of the nebulous prosecutions under Section 13 would have met the standards of a real court.

My own view is that I’m for as much free speech as possible. Instead of shutting down these idiots, hand them a megaphone and let them label themselves. This way we know where the threat is.


@velociraptor, cyberhate is tolerated. There was a difference with Section13.

“Section 13 of the Act makes it a discriminatory practice for a person to communicate by means of the Internet, material that is likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that he or she is identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

The same way Nazi speeches intimidated those who were not racist, the hate speech recorded in the Section 13 cases did more than hurt the feelings of those discriminated against. Hate speech represents the use of hate speech to create a threatening environment.

“likely to expose” ~ Very open to abuse. And it was abused. Badly.

By the way, all the while there were people pretending to be Nazis in Internet forums, real anti semitism was happening all over Canada. The HRCs didn’t go anywhere near it. Certain groups (think ‘religion of peace’) get a free pass with ther disgusting Judenhass. This was stuff so ugly you could have used the criminal code against it.

We do still have hate crime laws in Canada, just not ones that a certain individual can make his own plaything now.


@velociraptor, if I understand right the CHRC does not have jurisdiction over criminal matters, only civil matters. Those who commit/committed criminal hate crimes are tried in Canada under Canada’s Hate Laws.

Even in civil court you have to prove actual injury, damage, or loss. Not that it is likely. Just like we don’t convict people of being likely to rob a bank, rape, or murder someone. A whole lotta legal tradition being pitched out the window with that one word.


If anything human rights need to be strengthened in order to stem the abuse and persecution the UK government directs towards the disabled and poor. Loosen those human rights and you’ll see even more people abused and persecuted.


This is true & happening - Article 22 & 25 (especially) of the Universal Human Rights Act are being broken by the current UK Government - which is why they are under investigation by the UN.

BWWAAAHAAHAAHAAAA!!! Saudia Arabia is a member of the UN’s HRC. See any problem with that?!? Trust their opinion on things?


Who does take human rights seriously? Personally i see this entire World as a foul, corrupt & Evil place - spiritually dark, backward, barbaric, uncivilised, inhumane & a big stinking shite hole. The masses can pretend their lives away & believe whatever mass delusions they like. Does that answer your question?