You won't find anything in the malicious communications act about prosecuting people for jokes video recorded and shared online (
nazi saluting pug) or repeating song lyrics (
19 year old prosecuted for posting rap lyrics online)
Both of these cases show the law is quite selective in its approach.. . the rap song in question isn't banned or proscribed in the UK and big comedians like Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr, I would suggest, have made 'offensive' jokes that have been similarly shared on the Internet.
So your issue is with UK law and the way it is interpreted...?
I think the worry is that this pact is going to bulk up laws that don't have a proper definition of the offence apart from vague references and feelings.. We know that these laws are already being misused here already. As I typed in the thread earlier if, for example, I didn't want anymore immigration to this country then some people would say that is racism. We've already seen it, hell, we've already seen the pro-EU people saying Leave people are racist when all the european immigrants are white! It would be like a Carry On film if it wasnt so serious.
This is a non binding framework to try and harmonise migrant protection. Countries that don't already have laws covering the points mentioned can use the framework to build their own laws. The UK has laws covering basically everything already, so it's doubtful the compact would make any difference there, but for migrants in places like Saudi Arabia, and developing countries it may well provide them significant protection.
For example:
a) Enact, implement or maintain legislation that penalizes hate crimes and aggravated hate crimes targeting migrants, and train law enforcement and other public officials to identify, prevent and respond to such crimes and other acts of violence that target migrants, as well as to provide medical, legal and psychosocial assistance for victims
The UK already has laws and processes covering this.
b) Empower migrants and communities to denounce any acts of incitement to violence directed towards migrants by informing them of available mechanisms for redress, and ensure that those who actively participate in the commission of a hate crime targeting migrants are held accountable, in accordance with national legislation, while upholding international human rights law, in particular the right to freedom of expression
We already do that.
And it's worth pointing to the last (highlighted) part. Any laws still need to allow freedom of expression. Obviously the line will be debatable, but that's a debate lawmakers in individual countries already have to deal with, so again, any issue is with UK law and it's interpretation.
c) 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
The UK already has standards the media and advertisers have to adhere to.
d) Establish mechanisms to prevent, detect and respond to racial, ethnic and religious profiling of migrants by public authorities, as well as systematic instances of intolerance, xenophobia, racism and all other multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination in partnership with National Human Rights Institutions, including by tracking and publishing trends analyses, and ensuring access to effective complaint and redress mechanisms
The UK already does this.
e) Provide migrants, especially migrant women, with access to national and regional complaint and redress mechanisms with a view to promoting accountability and addressing governmental actions related to discriminatory acts and manifestations carried out against migrants and their families
The UK already has this. Courts, appeals courts and tribunals.
f) Promote awareness-raising campaigns targeted at communities of origin, transit and destination in order to inform public perceptions regarding the positive contributions of safe, orderly and regular migration, based on evidence and facts, and to end racism, xenophobia and stigmatization against all migrants
The UK and charities already do this to an extent.
It's also worth pointing out the highlighted part - regular migration, as opposed to irregular migration (illegal migration). So arguably this section is about persuading people to get the right paperwork to migrate, rather than do so illegally. Doesn't seem unreasonable at all, and something most people should be able to get behind.
g) Engage migrants, political, religious and community leaders, as well as educators and service providers to detect and prevent incidences of intolerance, racism, xenophobia, and other forms of discrimination against migrants and diasporas and support activities in local communities to promote mutual respect, including in the context of electoral campaigns
The UK and charities already do this.
So this non binding agreement has nothing to do with trying to stop people arguing against immigration, rather protecting legal migrants from harm (both by citizens and governments), persuading migrants to migrate legally and to try and stem the tide of fake news about migrants. If laws start restricting peoples legitimate right to freedom of expression then that's an issue for the governments making laws in response to the agreement.
Are you now hiding behind your limited liability or what?
