you also don't understand what kicking when someone who's down means, we train the besst n never doing that, three world champions
Printable View
you also don't understand what kicking when someone who's down means, we train the besst n never doing that, three world champions
From Communication No. 36/2006 P.S.N. v. Denmark by the CERD:
Quote:
The Committee observes, however, that the impugned statements specifically refer to the Koran, to Islam and to Muslims in general, without any reference whatsoever to any race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. While the elements of the case file do not allow the Committee to analyse and ascertain the intention of the impugned statements, it remains that no specific national or ethnic groups were directly targeted as such by these oral statements as reported and printed. In fact, the Committee notes that the Muslims currently living in the State party are of heterogeneous origin. They originate from at least 15 different countries, are of diverse national and ethnic origins, and consist of non-citizens, and Danish citizens, including Danish converts.
Quote:
The Committee recalls that the Convention does not cover discrimination based on religion alone, and that Islam is not a religion practised solely by a particular group, which could otherwise be identified by its "race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin." The travaux préparatoires of the Convention reveal that the Third Committee of the General Assembly rejected the proposal to include racial discrimination and religious intolerance in a single instrument, and decided in the [Convention] to focus exclusively on racial discrimination.10 It is unquestionable therefore that discrimination based exclusively on religious grounds was not intended to fall within the purview of the Convention.
Extracted from Selected Decisions of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Volume 1 (non-PDF)
oh sources how could you
Thank you. How long does it need take before we acknowledge Fragony's specific prejudice against the Arabs, aka the Other-Side-of-the-Mountaineers (or whatever).
Very good Viking, but that is contradicted by two other verdicts on that page.
Its also contradicted by the definition you posted earlier.
Besides which , in his own words, Fragony dcriminally discriminated agfainst Muslims because some Morrocans are alledged criminals.
So he is a racist criminal under that ruling you posted.
Nope
ErrrrrrrQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
So he is a racist criminal under that ruling viking posted.
Islam is not a race. And not some marrocan youths are criminals, but most are. Mostly small things. Only a few are not.
Can't you read?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
So you are without doubt a racist criminal according to the legislation.Quote:
And not some marrocan youths are criminals, but most are.
nope
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ogne-year.html
Even a Daily Mail link is better than the "discussion" you two are having.
And it proves both of you wrong.
Was there a discussion must have missed only, only saw an asshole calling me names
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LAwJDA_DB0#t=43
Effin hellski!
So the Swedes have to adapt to the to immigrants? Do these idiots want a far-right party elected, because if they do, this is a very good way of going about it.
I'm glad I'm pushing 60 and won't live to see the coming civil war.
I have been trying to use my "argumentation and debate" teaching hat a bit here. Underneath all of the ad hominem parsiflage is a fairly interesting argument. Sadly, too immersed in vitriol at present.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
This is a call for "multiculturalism" in its classic academic definition. That academic argument suggests that if we all try to treat one another as human beings and set aside outdated notions like nationalism and maintaining cultural stability in the face of shifting demographics, we will be able to build a new culture that adapts to change on an ongoing basis and seemlessly blends the beautiful strengths drawn from many cultures into a new whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
That view of multiculturalism works just about as well as the original blend of Marxism. As in, theoretically beautiful, but dead in the water on practical terms.
IA, medicine is good so you are likely with us a while. In addition, that civil war has already begun -- it is just that, as with most modern wars -- we will not get something as crisply defined or resolvable as Roundheads v Cavaliers. It will meander on in low intensity civil disorder with spurts of terrorism until one side or the other's reactionary fringe engineers a repressive government to stop it.
It's a new countrry alright, respect lol, rape capital of EuropeQuote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
But you're all off. Both multiculturalism and conflict are inevitable.
By now, what makes all of it so salient is that all groups have so much history weighing down upon them.
Especially in Sweden multiculturalism is a religion, the backlash of that utopian take on things might just be really harsh in the country of the Stephard Wives and as always those who don't deserve it will pay the price, attacks on immigrants who never wronged anyone comming up, that's inevitableQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Calling a liar a liar is a description.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Calling a racist a racist is a description.
Calling a bigot a bigot is a description.
Calling a criminal a criminal is a description.
It would only bering "calling names" if they were not true statements about you.
Since you proved all of them true then the only person "calling names " is you.
Amazing that, if you change a definition and change the way you count you can get a higher number.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
But hey you have problems with definitions and counting don't you.
If you say so, you can continue to try to provoke me all you want its not going to workQuote:
Originally Posted by Legs
Provoke you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
What on earth are you on about?
I think you are judging others by your own low standards.
I am not going to be provoked if you call me a liar, a racist or a criminal, I have stepped in things that are more interesting than you. And the ground is pretty low.Quote:
Originally Posted by Legs
"We are the Bjørk, resistance is futile!"Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
It's all your fault, when we tried to embrace our culture and asked you to join us, you helped America bring us down.
The result of that are the modern ultra-peaceful movements that want to destroy and eradicate all differences between humans and oppose all movements that want no different humans. :dizzy2:
It may surprise you, but I do agree that the tone of the video is quite strange and at least mildly offensive because it sounds like "So we did all that for decades and now you must adapt!". While I agree that putting differences aside is a good goal, one cannot ignore reality and neither should one be an ass about it.
I also don't see people who embrace macho cultures agreeing with this video.
:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Interesting, because: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism
This suggests that multiculturalism embraces the differences and wants to keep them in peaceful coexistence, i.e. strong cultural stability.Quote:
Multiculturalism that promotes maintaining the distinctiveness of multiple cultures is often contrasted to other settlement policies such as social integration, cultural assimilation and racial segregation. Multiculturalism has been described as a "salad bowl" and "cultural mosaic".[4]
I keep getting confused by all the definitions of multiculturalism, although I always thought it was more or less what you just said.
I think that depends a lot on the circumstances, many people would say the USA are pretty much what you described.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
That's just terrible. If we can't get along then it just proves that humans are as terrible as some say. [insert terrible expletives]Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You already insulted him, what is not going to work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Pretty simple Hus, islam isn't peace, peace is submission. Ssweden choses submisiion
Existing western culture is already accepting of the foundations of multiculturalism, in the form of secularism. With the possible exception of the US, and even there the constitution is revered more than religion, western countries are deeply secular. All that is asked of incomers is that they too should be secular. If they can't accept this first step, there is no next step which is acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Grow up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Legs
It also has many neighbourhoods that are extremely violent by Western standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Aye, there's the rub.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Not a bad line about revering the Constitution more than religion -- though the USA is no longer (sadly) a nation of mostly church-goers. Most of us, in the past, have been personally religious but VERY few of us want any religion connected to governance in any but a ceremonial fashion. We view the substantive separation of church and state as a means of protecting both, along with a protection of the rights of the individual.
Immigration, in pre-WW2 days, was usually a question of assimilation. By and large, the immigrants would adopt the values of the new country over the course of a very few generations and much of the remaining cultural traditions would manifest on a more ceremonial level. Post WW2, assimilation has been less readily accomplished.
Husar, you cite the salad metaphor -- which is at least more likely than the melting pot, since the resultant homogeneity of that metaphor was never possible. But the limitation on that is it isn't just a case of different holiday traditions or having access to different cuisines. The real problem is, absent assimilation or at least cultural hybridity, that some fairly important values are incommensurate -- and that sort of thing does not meld well at all. The salad metaphor works only if all the elements are edible. Where it is a choice of palatability, you simply pick and choose -- but an element in the salad that could cause harm? Different problem.
Provoke?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The intention is not to provoke, merely to illustrate reality.