New bill: Imprisonment for civilians celebrating terror attacks.

[Skull Pilot]

While the state remained horrified due to the terror attack in Jerusalem yesterday (Sunday), which claimed the life of 4 soldiers, in East Jerusalem and Gaza residents celebrated with fireworks, and offered sweets to children. The new bill asks to bring to court and punish with inprisonment, those who publically celebrate and support terrorism. The bill was initiated by MK Michael Oren, who claimed the situation has become "unbearable".

According to the bill, those with blue ID who will celebrate or show support of terror publically, will be brought to court, with possibility of Imprisonment punishment. This new bill will cover all residents with blue IDs, so according to it, punishment will imply imply all sides of the conflict, like in case of the "Hate Wedding", in which far rightwingers celebrated the dead of Ali Dawabshe(victim of Duma attack) while repeatedly stabbing his photograph, during a wedding dance.

"The bill will put and end to all these 'celebrations'," MK said, "Bad enough that people celebrate these horrible attacks at home, but if they encourage and support terrorism publically, let them pay for it."

הצעת חוק: עונש מאסר יוטל על תומכי טרור שיחגגו אחרי פיגוע - וואלה! חדשות

-------

yeah who gives a fuck about freedom of speech anyway

Only in the crazy west freedom of speech is more important than the peace and security of residents. Freedom of speech doesn't imply when there is a call to harm certain public, just because.

agreeing with some sort of action is not a call to harm anyone

In the middle east it is.

Doesn't matter. You either believe free speech is a right or not. You seem to be on the not side

 

[Phoenall]

Israel was born out of Terrorism

If it was it was islamonazi terrorism

 

[montelatici]

The Irish around the world, including in Northern Ireland and in the UK would celebrate IRA bombings of British interests. I don't think the British ever made celebration of the bombings a crime.

 

[Phoenall]

While the state remained horrified due to the terror attack in Jerusalem yesterday (Sunday), which claimed the life of 4 soldiers, in East Jerusalem and Gaza residents celebrated with fireworks, and offered sweets to children. The new bill asks to bring to court and punish with inprisonment, those who publically celebrate and support terrorism. The bill was initiated by MK Michael Oren, who claimed the situation has become "unbearable".

According to the bill, those with blue ID who will celebrate or show support of terror publically, will be brought to court, with possibility of Imprisonment punishment. This new bill will cover all residents with blue IDs, so according to it, punishment will imply imply all sides of the conflict, like in case of the "Hate Wedding", in which far rightwingers celebrated the dead of Ali Dawabshe(victim of Duma attack) while repeatedly stabbing his photograph, during a wedding dance.

"The bill will put and end to all these 'celebrations'," MK said, "Bad enough that people celebrate these horrible attacks at home, but if they encourage and support terrorism publically, let them pay for it."

הצעת חוק: עונש מאסר יוטל על תומכי טרור שיחגגו אחרי פיגוע - וואלה! חדשות

-------

yeah who gives a fuck about freedom of speech anyway

Because it is not freedom of speech, it is incitement to violence and murder

 

[Phoenall]

I never saw any Irish celebrating the bombings of any British interests, they knew they would be beaten to a pulp if they did

 

[Lipush]

While the state remained horrified due to the terror attack in Jerusalem yesterday (Sunday), which claimed the life of 4 soldiers, in East Jerusalem and Gaza residents celebrated with fireworks, and offered sweets to children. The new bill asks to bring to court and punish with inprisonment, those who publically celebrate and support terrorism. The bill was initiated by MK Michael Oren, who claimed the situation has become "unbearable".

According to the bill, those with blue ID who will celebrate or show support of terror publically, will be brought to court, with possibility of Imprisonment punishment. This new bill will cover all residents with blue IDs, so according to it, punishment will imply imply all sides of the conflict, like in case of the "Hate Wedding", in which far rightwingers celebrated the dead of Ali Dawabshe(victim of Duma attack) while repeatedly stabbing his photograph, during a wedding dance.

"The bill will put and end to all these 'celebrations'," MK said, "Bad enough that people celebrate these horrible attacks at home, but if they encourage and support terrorism publically, let them pay for it."

הצעת חוק: עונש מאסר יוטל על תומכי טרור שיחגגו אחרי פיגוע - וואלה! חדשות

-------

yeah who gives a fuck about freedom of speech anyway

Only in the crazy west freedom of speech is more important than the peace and security of residents. Freedom of speech doesn't imply when there is a call to harm certain public, just because.

agreeing with some sort of action is not a call to harm anyone

In the middle east it is.

Doesn't matter. You either believe free speech is a right or not. You seem to be on the not side

Incetement and public endangerment is not freedom of speech.

 

[aris2chat]

there is a point where free speech moves to hate speech and should be curtailed.

 

[RoccoR]

Lipush, Skull Pilot, et al,

With great freedoms comes great responsibilities.

Doesn't matter. You either believe free speech is a right or not. You seem to be on the not side

Incitement and public endangerment is not freedom of speech.

(COMMENT)

Just as it is illegal to yell "FIRE" in a crowded public place, so it is, that there is no right to use libel, obscenity
or to incite a riot --- or --- advocate the forceful overthrow of the government. And you be very careful in the use of the word "bomb" in an airport or on a plane. Just as their are prohibitions on attacks triggered by race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation."

Well, Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), is in part, the International Prohibition against advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Rocco conveniently forgets Article 1 of the covenant he refers to.

"Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. "

Israel, with its military occupation prevents the Palestinians from achieving self-determination, under occupation Resolution 2787 applies.

 

[Skull Pilot]

yeah who gives a fuck about freedom of speech anyway

Only in the crazy west freedom of speech is more important than the peace and security of residents. Freedom of speech doesn't imply when there is a call to harm certain public, just because.

agreeing with some sort of action is not a call to harm anyone

In the middle east it is.

Doesn't matter. You either believe free speech is a right or not. You seem to be on the not side

Incetement and public endangerment is not freedom of speech.

celebrating is not inciting public danger it is agreeing with the outcome of an event

 

[Skull Pilot]

Lipush, Skull Pilot, et al,

With great freedoms comes great responsibilities.

Doesn't matter. You either believe free speech is a right or not. You seem to be on the not side

Incitement and public endangerment is not freedom of speech.

(COMMENT)

Just as it is illegal to yell "FIRE" in a crowded public place, so it is, that there is no right to use libel, obscenity
or to incite a riot --- or --- advocate the forceful overthrow of the government. And you be very careful in the use of the word "bomb" in an airport or on a plane. Just as their are prohibitions on attacks triggered by race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation."

Well, Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), is in part, the International Prohibition against advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Most Respectfully,
R

and once again agreeing with the outcome of an attack and yes even celebrating it are not the same as inciting that attack

 

[Lipush]

Only in the crazy west freedom of speech is more important than the peace and security of residents. Freedom of speech doesn't imply when there is a call to harm certain public, just because.

agreeing with some sort of action is not a call to harm anyone

In the middle east it is.

Doesn't matter. You either believe free speech is a right or not. You seem to be on the not side

Incetement and public endangerment is not freedom of speech.

celebrating is not inciting public danger it is agreeing with the outcome of an event

Celebrating when a terrorist kills civilians in Israeli Palestinian conflict equals saying that they would have done the same given the opportunity, which means they're potential stabbers themselves which means they are dangerous and in need of investigating.

 

[fanger]

The security cabinet decided Sunday to use administrative detention orders, or detention without trial, against suspects who identify with the Islamic State group. The measure was at a meeting of the security cabinet following an attack in Jerusalem that claimed the lives of four soldiers, a senior official said.

Security sources told the ministers at the meeting that the measures were already taken in response to the attack. The measures included a blockade of the Palestinian Jabal Mukkaber neighborhood, adjacent to the site of the attack, from which the attacker is said to have driven the truck.

The security cabinet also resolved to demolish the home of the driver of the truck as soon as possible and to reject requests by the attacker's family for family reunification with relatives who live in the territories. It was also decided that the body of the attacker would not be returned to his family.
Speaking from the site of the truck-ramming attack at the promenade in Jerusalem's Armon Hanatziv neighborhood, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "We know the identity of the attacker. All signs point to the attacker being a supporter of the Islamic State." The driver of the truck is reportedly a resident of East Jerusalem.
Netanyahu also asked that reports be verified that there were Arabs at the site of the attack who expressed satisfaction over it and asking that legal proceedings be pursued against them.
read more: Following Jerusalem attack, Israel seeks detention without trial of suspected ISIS supporters

 

[fanger]

agreeing with some sort of action is not a call to harm anyone

In the middle east it is.

Doesn't matter. You either believe free speech is a right or not. You seem to be on the not side

Incetement and public endangerment is not freedom of speech.

celebrating is not inciting public danger it is agreeing with the outcome of an event

Celebrating when a terrorist kills civilians in Israeli Palestinian conflict equals saying that they would have done the same given the opportunity, which means they're potential stabbers themselves which means they are dangerous and in need of investigating.

The soldiers are military Targets

 

[fanger]

As the sun begins to sink over the Mediterranean, groups of Israelis gather each evening on hilltops close to the Gaza border to cheer, whoop and whistle as bombs rain down on people in a hellish warzone a few miles away.

Old sofas, garden chairs, battered car seats and upturned crates provide seating for the spectators. On one hilltop, a swing has been attached to the branches of a pine tree, allowing its occupant to sway gently in the breeze. Some bring bottles of beer or soft drinks and snacks.

On Saturday, a group of men huddle around a shisha pipe. Nearly all hold up smartphones to record the explosions or to pose grinning, perhaps with thumbs up, for selfies against a backdrop of black smoke.

Despite reports that millions of Israelis are living in terror of Hamas rockets, they don't deter these hilltop war watchers whose proximity to Gaza puts them within range of the most rudimentary missiles. Some bring their children.

In the border town of Sderot, which has been struck by countless missiles from the Gaza Strip in recent years, one family gathers on a top-floor balcony, draped with an Israeli flag and banner of the army's legendary Golani Brigade. A house with a war view may even command a premium price these days.
Israelis gather on hillsides to watch and cheer as military drops bombs on Gaza

 

[miketx]

Sounds kind of police state to me.

 

[aris2chat]

Only in the crazy west freedom of speech is more important than the peace and security of residents. Freedom of speech doesn't imply when there is a call to harm certain public, just because.

agreeing with some sort of action is not a call to harm anyone

In the middle east it is.

Doesn't matter. You either believe free speech is a right or not. You seem to be on the not side

Incetement and public endangerment is not freedom of speech.

celebrating is not inciting public danger it is agreeing with the outcome of an event

and the outcome of terrorism and massacres?????

Handing out sweets to celebrate?

inciting more violence?

 

[fanger]

 

[fanger]

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I feel sorry for you. You are just so close, I find it almost heartbreaking to tell you are wrong.

Rocco conveniently forgets Article 1 of the covenant he refers to.

"Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. "

Israel, with its military occupation prevents the Palestinians from achieving self-determination, under occupation Resolution 2787 applies.

(COMMENT)

To show you how close you were, I enclose this link. The first reason you are wrong is that General Assembly Resolution 2787 (XXVI) (the Resolution you cited) DID NOT become a "covenant" or "legal treatise."

• 1 General Assembly Resolution 2787 (XXVI) 6 December 1971.....

• 2 General Assembly Resolution 2787 (XXVI) 6 December 1971.....

• 3 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ... (CCPR)

§ Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by
§ General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
§ Entry into Force 23 March 1976
​

Now, you are confused. PART I Article 1 of the Covenant (Treaty Law) --- That would be Item #3 --- say: If you go to the right side column, you will find the links to Human Rights Laws. You will notice that with the exception of the UDHR (which is also technically not law), there are no General Assembly Resolutions that did not go into force.

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
​

Item #2, is the resolution to advance the CCPR

You will note that what made it into law is entirely different! I listed the Items in the order in which they received their last action.

I rarely try to intentionally mislead the people in the discussion. I'm giving that same level of respect to every other member.

Most Respectfully,
R