EU orders British press NOT to reveal when terrorists are Muslims

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
FREE SPEECH CRACKDOWN: EU orders British press NOT to reveal when terrorists are Muslims
MEDDLING Brussels has said the British press should not report when terrorists are Muslims in a slew of demands to the Government to crack down on the media.


A report from the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) found there was an increase in hate speech and racist violence in the UK from 2009 to March 2016.

Blaming the press, ECRI Chair Christian Ahlund, said: “It is no coincidence that racist violence is on the rise in the UK at the same time as we see worrying examples of intolerance and hate speech in the newspapers, online and even among politicians.”

The report makes a whopping 23 recommendations to Theresa May’s Government for changes to criminal law, the freedom of the press, crime reporting and equality law.

And despite the report not analysing coverage of the historic Brexit vote, Mr Ahlund saw fit to comment on the UK's decision to leave the EU.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
If the Brits respond at all, hopefully it will be something along the lines of "go piss up a rope".
 

glhs837

Power with Control
This is literally false.

Cant seem to find a simple list of the recommendations, so what do you base this on? Only thing I can find is this....

The report called for the establishment of a press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report,


Which could lead to the sort of "Sorry, mate, you cant use the M-word in any article concerning terrorism".
 

tommyjo

New Member
got something to back that assertion up

Do you have anything to back up your article??

There is no link to the supposed report in the article. You know why??? Here...let me explain how sh!tty your sources are. (YOU and those like YOU are the reason this country is such a mess...you listening Gilligan? Vrai? and all you who post stories from sh!t sources)

Here is the ECRI site: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/default_en.asp

Here is the ECRI report mentioned in your horsesh!t article: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Library/PressReleases/GBR-PR-V-2016-226-EN.asp

How do I know this is the report? It contains the same quote that is in the article:

“It is no coincidence that racist violence is on the rise in the UK at the same time as we see worrying examples of intolerance and hate speech in the newspapers, online and even among politicians.”

This quote is in the second paragraph of GURPS "news" source. It is the 5th paragraph in the ECRI report.

Now GURPS...here is where checking your sources shows you to be a propagandist hack.

Here is another line in your article:
And despite the report not analysing coverage of the historic Brexit vote, Mr Ahlund saw fit to comment on the UK's decision to leave the EU.
was on

The report was released to the press on APRIL 10, 2016. The Brexit vote was held on JUNE 23, 2016! Your "article" was written on October 5, 2016!!

You are either not very bright GURPS, excessively lazy or just purely focused on pushing out political propaganda to a really ignorant audience of similarly minded far right with tin foil hat wearing freaks.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
How do I know this is the report? It contains the same quote that is in the article:
This quote is in the second paragraph of GURPS "news" source. It is the 5th paragraph in the ECRI report.

so you finished reading the ECRI report Sweet cheeks


http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitorin...C-V-2016-038-ENG.pdf#page=45&zoom=auto,82,785



and for the record it is called drawing a conclusion ..... seeing how 'Hate Speech' was handled In Canada - by like minded bureaucrats
it is not much of a stretch see what will happen in the UK and the rest of Europe - when merely saying 'Muslim' will bring :cds: of racism
 
Last edited:

LC_Sulla

New Member
where in the article does it say specifically what the 23 recommendations were? I'm open to some quotes here.

I don't understand what you are asking.

GURPS wrote, "EU orders British press NOT to reveal when terrorists are Muslims." That is not true according to the linked article. That's all I am saying.
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I don't understand what you are asking.

GURPS wrote, "EU orders British press NOT to reveal when terrorists are Muslims." That is not true according to the linked article. That's all I am saying.

First of all, Gurps did not write the headline of the article - he merely quoted it. Next "Blaming the press, ECRI Chair Christian Ahlund" - the dude at the top of the EU, who thinks he can order any member nation to do what he wishes to be done. GB is still a member of the EU, so he feels GB must comply with his decree.

So are you arguing that his decree to not say such is not an order? It does not sound like any kind of suggestion.

The phrase "should not" in context of law, is pretty much an implied or express order to not do whatever.

Sounds pretty clear cut to me that it is an order, or at the very least an attempt to cow GB into doing what he wishes..
 
Last edited:

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
It's like our own Muslim refusing to say Radical Islam.

Don't know why so many so-called Americans want these a-wipes over here. Like we don't have enough problems without them.
 

LC_Sulla

New Member
First of all, Gurps did not write the headline of the article - he merely quoted it. Next "Blaming the press, ECRI Chair Christian Ahlund" - the dude at the top of the EU, who thinks he can order any member nation to do what he wishes to be done. GB is still a member of the EU, so he feels GB must comply with his decree.

So are you arguing that his decree to not say such is not an order? It does not sound like any kind of suggestion.

The phrase "should not" in context of law, is pretty much an implied or express order to not do whatever.

Sounds pretty clear cut to me that it is an order, or at the very least an attempt to cow GB into doing what he wishes..

I don't mean GURPS authored the headline. But he wrote or pasted it into the title of the post.

Decree: an official order issued by a legal authority. (https://www.google.com/#q=decree)

Recommendation: a suggestion or proposal as to the best course of action, especially one put forward by an authoritative body. (https://www.google.com/#q=recommendation)

I recommend that you think about the difference, but you are under no obligation to do so.

The Department of Health and Human Services recommends these exercise guidelines:

•Aerobic activity. Get at least 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity or 75 minutes of vigorous aerobic activity a week, or a combination of moderate and vigorous activity. ...
•Strength training.

The American Medical Association recommends modest meals in a physician’s office or clinic setting are acceptable if accompanied by educational or scientific presentations. The meal should be incidental to the educational purpose of the gathering.
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I don't mean GURPS authored the headline. But he wrote or pasted it into the title of the post.

Decree: an official order issued by a legal authority. (https://www.google.com/#q=decree)

Recommendation: a suggestion or proposal as to the best course of action, especially one put forward by an authoritative body. (https://www.google.com/#q=recommendation)

I recommend that you think about the difference, but you are under no obligation to do so.

The Department of Health and Human Services recommends these exercise guidelines:

•Aerobic activity. Get at least 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity or 75 minutes of vigorous aerobic activity a week, or a combination of moderate and vigorous activity. ...
•Strength training.

The American Medical Association recommends modest meals in a physician’s office or clinic setting are acceptable if accompanied by educational or scientific presentations. The meal should be incidental to the educational purpose of the gathering.

The EU said GB "should not"...........I don't see that as any kind of "recommendation".

i.e. - what the EU is saying is, "either follow our 23 recommendations or pay the price"

GB should just laugh all the way to the exit from the sinking ship EU.
 
Last edited:

LC_Sulla

New Member
The EU said GB "should not"...........I don't see that as any kind of "recommendation".

i.e. - what the EU is saying is, "either follow our 23 recommendations or pay the price"

GB should just laugh all the way to the exit from the sinking ship EU.

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/default_en.asp

The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) is a human rights body of the Council of Europe, composed of independent experts, which monitors problems of racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, intolerance and discrimination on grounds such as “race”, national/ethnic origin, colour, citizenship, religion and language (racial discrimination); it prepares reports and issues recommendations to member States.

I have nothing further to add to this conversation.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Why are we quibbling over something we've already seen happen in *practice* everywhere? The press everywhere is extremely reluctant to divulge any attack as having been done by a Muslim.
That's already happened here plenty of times, even going so far as to having the media speculate that it might be right-wing extremists or that someone "looked Hispanic" when it turns out, he was Turkish.

We know this so often - I'm reminded of stories from the old Soviet Union that when Russians would read of multiple airplane crashes abroad, they knew that meant a Russian plane had also crashed and they'd learn about it soon.
We already know that when the details are known and not released, we know what it will say.

I don't know what anyone is supposed to conclude from this - and I don't think not revealing it right away does anything to make people less likely to point blame at Muslims.
And I don't know why we waste time trying to label stuff like this. It's as though there were groups of southern rednecks lynching black people, and we argue over whether we should discriminate against ALL Southerners or
tell people most of them are good, or dismiss violence because a single person bombing a church wasn't part of a known group - who cares? It's violent and we put an end to it.
 
Top