Didn’t we have a story yesterday about a white guy who got sent to prison for 18 years for AI cartoon child porn?

This Indian was sentenced to 14 months for real CP images.

Do you see? People acted like I was defending child porn yesterday when I said it was bullshit to send a guy to prison for 18 years for cartoons, but it’s just so obvious that that was an attack on AI, not on child porn.

So many people are emotional faggots.

Why would cartoons be 10 times worse than the real thing? There’s no outrageous emotional explanation for that difference, so I guess these fags will just block it out of their mind and continue calling for decades-long prison sentences for obscene cartoons.

European Conservative:

An Indian man facing deportation from the UK after being jailed for distributing child sex abuse images delayed his removal by arguing it would infringe on his right to “private and family life” under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Daily Mail reports that the man, referred to as “HS” due to a lifetime anonymity order, was sentenced to 14 months in prison in 2021 for distributing child sex abuse images. Additionally, he is under a sexual harm prevention order and is required to register as a sex offender for ten years.

Following his release, the Home Office attempted to deport him in 2022, citing his criminal record. However, HS challenged the deportation on human rights grounds, arguing it would harm his children.

An immigration tribunal initially ruled in HS’s favour, with Judge Jetsun Lebasci deciding that deportation would be “unduly harsh” for his children. This decision was based heavily on an independent social worker’s report, which stated that separation would negatively impact HS’s children. However, the Home Office contested the ruling, leading to an appeal in the upper immigration and asylum tribunal.

Upper tribunal judges Melissa Canavan and Matthew Hoffman expressed significant concerns about the original decision, criticising the social worker’s report for failing to thoroughly consider HS’s offences.

The judges noted that HS had been restricted to only supervised contact with his children due to his criminal background. They highlighted “startling omissions” in the report, including inadequate consideration of the safeguarding risks posed by HS’s convictions.

Comparing this to yesterday’s story of 18 years for cartoons, there are two issues: cartoons are 10 times worse than the real thing and also Indians get light sentences because of their dark skin.

Further, brown people have an eternal right to remain in white countries, regardless of what their behavior is. This fact proves that the goal of brown immigration is not actually to “enrich” white countries, but rather to destroy them. If you were actually attempting to do “enrichment,” you wouldn’t let child porn dealers from India remain on the loose.

The obvious goal of this immigration agenda is to completely destroy the white race and abolish traditional Western Christian culture, once and for all. They already turned people into atheists, turned people against their own ancestors, then they opened up the floodgates.

We could have come back from atheism. That is just a goofy meme belief system which could not be sustained longterm. Anyone can see that the promoters of atheism are mentally ill.

There is no coming back from mass immigration, however. These people have to be removed and they have to be removed quickly, or the white race will cease to exist.

But the masses of whites are neutered poodles. Child pornographers from India are raising their families on welfare while young white men can’t buy homes, and British people will say “well, that seems fair – because of colonialism.”

This is probably an isolated case.

But perhaps a sign of things to come.

People are really getting sick of these windmills.

For me, the top things I’m sick of are, in order:

• Women
• Jews
• Windmills

All three are getting backlash now.

BBC:

Swiss women who won a historic ruling on climate change at the European Court of Human Rights say they feel shocked and betrayed by their parliament’s decision not to comply with it.

The women, known as “climate seniors”, previously took their case to the court in Strasbourg, France, arguing the Swiss government’s inadequate response to climate change – and in particular extreme heat events linked to global warming – was damaging their right to health and life.

The court agreed in April and ordered Switzerland, which has so far failed to meet is targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to do more.

The court’s rulings are binding for member states, and this decision was unprecedented.

Climate activists had hoped it would send a signal to other governments that human rights law could be used to defend citizens who believe their health is being harmed by worsening environmental factors.

However Switzerland’s parliament voted on Wednesday to reject the ECHR’s ruling, suggesting it was not “ignoring” it, as some critics have claimed, but rather that Switzerland did not need to react as it already had an effective climate change strategy.

The debate in parliament was at times emotional, with right-wing politicians criticising what they saw as an overreach by “foreign judges”, and Green Party members describing the tone of the discussion as “shameful” and “populist”.

Switzerland is currently not on course to reach its Paris Climate Agreement goals – which seek to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels – and opinion polls show many Swiss are worried about this.

The Alpine climate is especially sensitive to global warming, and studies show that their glaciers, which are crucial to Europe’s water supply, could be gone by the end of the century if temperatures continue to rise.

But the Swiss are also very proud of their system of direct democracy. They are used to making decisions themselves, and the “foreign judges” jibe resonates with them.

Last weekend, voters backed government proposals to generate more electricity from renewables. Despite environmental groups’ claims that the measures are still not enough to meet climate goals, opinion polls show a majority of voters reject the ECHR’s involvement, and think Switzerland is already doing enough to protect the environment.

Other countries – notably the United Kingdom – will be looking closely at Switzerland’s rebuff of the rights court. The UK government’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda has led to pushback from the Strasbourg court, and some British voters now say the UK should leave the body.

In Switzerland, such a move is very definitely not on the cards – or not yet.

Although parliament has suggested compliance with the ECHR’s climate ruling is not necessary, the final decision on whether to abide by it is up to the Swiss government, which is expected to announce its verdict in August.

The ECHR did not tell Switzerland exactly what it had to do to tackle climate change, it simply said it had to do more.

It was a bad move to put Greta Thunberg as the face of this movement, because everyone in the world hates her. This whole “angry retarded child is you master now” thing has always polled badly.

Remember when that kid “David Hogg” (crisis actor) was out there telling everyone about gun control, and even people who were against guns were like “well, I don’t support this at all.”

People were changing their views because they were so offended that the media was putting an angry retard child up to tell them what to do.

If Greta Thunberg or David Hogg were going around saying “the Holocaust didn’t happen, the gas chambers were fake,” I’d start questioning my beliefs.

89% of Romanians voted for a constitutional amendment to ban faggot “marriage,” but the referendum didn’t meet the minimum attendance threshold. Elections don’t have minimum thresholds, but those are fine for some reason.

National Post:

Romania has failed to enforce the rights of same-sex couples by refusing to recognize their relationships, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) said on Tuesday in a ruling which will force policymakers to expand protections for the LGBT community.

Socially conservative Romania decriminalized homosexuality in 2001, decades later than other parts of the European Union, but still bars marriage and civil partnerships for same-sex couples.

The ruling, which says the government has breached the European convention on human rights, comes after 21 Romanian same-sex couples filed challenged with the court in 2019-2020.

The couples argued Romania’s failure to recognize them as families discriminated against them in various instances including healthcare decisions, joint medical insurance, property and employment rights only afforded to married couples.

The Romanian government has three months to decide whether it wants to ask the European court to refer the case to its top chamber.

“The ruling comes with an enforcement mechanism … so that the Romanian state must account for what it is doing to recognize and adopt a form of legal protection for same-sex families,” Iustina Ionescu, the human rights lawyer who argued the case, told a news conference.

Iustina Ionescu. All fat white women in the world are basically the same person at this point.

Three legislative proposals to change civil unions to include same-sex couples filed between 2016 and 2019 have not yet made it through parliamentary approval committees, the court said, while four similar draft laws had been rejected by 2020.

…

A survey commissioned by LGBT rights group ACCEPT in 2021 found that 71% of Romanians said that legal recognition of civil marriage for same-sex couples would not have any impact on their lives, while only 43% were in favor of it.

I guess 71% of Romanians never heard about the slippery slope.

It’s real, well-lubed, and leads straight to your 8-year-old’s anus.

Literal death by cow fart.

BBC:

More than 2,000 women are taking the Swiss government to court claiming its policy on climate change is violating their right to life and health.

The case is the first time the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) will hear a case on the impact of climate change on human rights.

It follows six years of unsuccessful battles through the Swiss courts.

Temperatures in Switzerland are rising faster than the global average and there are ever more frequent heatwaves.

The Swiss women – who call themselves the Club of Climate Seniors and have an average age of 73 – say climate change is putting their human rights, their health and even their lives at risk. Their evidence to the court includes their medical records.

They want the ECHR to order Switzerland to work harder at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the campaigners, Elisabeth Stern, told the BBC: “Due to climate change, we have more heatwaves and older women suffer more. They die more often during these heatwaves than they otherwise would.

“Some people say, why are you complaining, you’re going to die anyway. But we don’t want to die just because our Swiss government has not been successful in coming up with a decent climate policy.”

The European Climate and Health Observatory says that projected increases in average temperature are likely to have “serious impacts on public health” across Europe, particularly among elderly people.

In the last 20 years, heat-related mortality in people older than 65 in Europe has increased by more than 30%, it says.

The number of old people worldwide has exploded in the last 60 years, and is still growing fast. This is where you get all those “record deaths” from heatwaves and other climate phenomena.

The Swiss government does not deny that climate change can affect health – but says it cannot be tied specifically to older women’s health.

If the women are successful, the case could set a precedent for every one of the European court’s 46 member states.

World temperatures are rising because of human activity, and climate change now threatens every aspect of human life.

You see how this works. The government creates this groups of “citizens” who are fanatically supportive of some agenda the government wants to push.

No one was ever thinking about global warming before the government started pushing this global warming agenda. The weather really has not gotten any hotter during the lifetime of anyone who is currently alive. Moreover, meteorologists don’t tend to believe in global warming. So the United Nations had to create this “science” of “climatology,” and then use the media and governments to push it down everyone’s throats.

The governments rile up the people with these agendas, then the people are so retarded they think they are their own agendas, because of the emotional way they are sold. So the government has its own population demanding it do the things it wants to do.

It’s really obvious and straightforward if you’re looking for it. However, people are stupid, and they just assume that everything is exactly the way it is presented to them.

It’s 2022, and a faggot just failed at hurting Christians.

I’ll toast to that.

In fact, I’m just going to go ahead and chug the whole bottle.

The Guardian:

A man has lost a seven-year legal battle against a Belfast bakery that refused to make him a cake emblazoned with the message “support gay marriage” as the European court of human rights ruled that his claim was inadmissible, prompting disappointment from gay rights groups.

On Thursday the ECHR, by a majority decision, said it would not reconsider the decision of the UK supreme court, which had overturned a £500 damages award imposed on Ashers bakery, which is run by evangelical Christians.

Ashers refused to produce the cake, featuring the Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie, in 2014 for Gareth Lee, who was a supporter of the campaign to legalise same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. Same-sex marriage was legalised in Northern Ireland last year.

This is the gay cake some other bakery made for them

Before the supreme court judgment in 2018, after its first hearing in Northern Ireland, a Belfast county court and a court of appeal had ruled that the company discriminated against Lee, who is gay, on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The ECHR said the claim was inadmissible because the applicant had not expressly invoked his rights under the European convention on human rights at any point in the domestic proceedings and had relied solely on domestic law.

It said: “The supreme court found on the facts of the case that the applicant was not treated differently on account of his real or perceived sexual orientation, but rather that the refusal to supply the cake was because of the defendants’ religious objection to gay marriage.

“What was principally at issue, therefore, was not the effect on the applicant’s private life or his freedom to hold or express his opinions or beliefs, but rather whether Ashers bakery was required to produce a cake expressing the applicant’s political support for gay marriage.”

Lee said he was frustrated that the Strasbourg court did not adjudicate on the “core issues” because of what he termed a “technicality”. He said: “None of us should be expected to have to figure out the beliefs of a company’s owners before going into their shop or paying for their services.

“This case has put a spotlight on the challenges faced by LGBT+ in Northern Ireland. I will continue to support all law that protects and gives rights to all people equally.”

Gareth Lee, faggot

His solicitor, Ciaran Moynagh of Phoenix Law, also expressed disappointment at the decision, calling it a missed opportunity to address the substantive issues raised, and said they would consider whether to launch a fresh domestic challenge.

John O’Doherty, the director of the Rainbow Project, Northern Ireland’s foremost organisation for LGBTQ+ people, said: “While today’s decision brings this case to a close, there remains a number of questions around what protections exist for LGBTQIA+ people when accessing goods, facilities and services following the supreme court decision in October 2018.”

Stonewall’s CEO, Nancy Kelley, said the ECHR’s decision was “a backwards step for equality. Human rights belong to people, not businesses. No business should discriminate against their customers, and no discriminatory behaviour should be held up by equality law. Our thoughts are with Gareth Lee, who deserved more support from the European courts after seven years of working towards equality.”

The Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ), a Belfast-based human rights group, was one of several third-party intervenors in the case. Its deputy director, Daniel Holder, said the ECHR’S ruling on inadmissibility left individuals and organisations campaigning on gay rights “vulnerable to a commercial business refusing to provide services like printing posters, leaflets, setting up websites etc, through claiming an exemption to non-discrimination laws on the basis of ‘it’s not you it’s your message’.”

There are 3 pro-fag NGOs mentioned in the article, and a lot more unmentioned.

This in Northern Ireland, a place with under 2 million people and where the majority of the population actually has normal views on the matter.

All of this non-stop propaganda is paid for from outside of the region, by people (Jews, technically) who’ve never even set foot there and never will.

And this is somehow a normal thing that you’re not allowed to say anything about.

That’s called democracy, goy, and you’d better get used to it.

The BBC’s always asking the hard-hitting questions that the British taxpayer wants answered

Ramming your penis into another man’s anus, ejaculating into his poop and then licking your own semen out of his ass is a fundamental human right. But it goes further: it is also a fundamental human right that everyone in society says that this is normal, and celebrates it.

Also, you have to give your children to homosexuals.

RT:

Moscow has rejected a new order from Europe’s top civil liberties court that would require it to recognize LGBT+ marriages, after a joint complaint from three same-sex Russian couples was upheld by judges in Strasbourg on Tuesday.

In the ruling, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) determined that Russian law, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, breached the right to private and family life enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights in respect to the claimants. As a result, the decision, issued by a panel of seven judges drawn from nations across the continent, obliges the country to legislate for recognition of LGBT+ marriages. The Court also awarded €2,200 in costs to the claimants.

The case relates in part to the immigration status of one foreign citizen, who moved to the town of Sosnogorsk in the Komi Republic region of northern Russia to co-habit with his partner and their son. When his application for a new residency permit was rejected in 2013 over incomplete paperwork, he complained that requiring him to leave the country and re-enter on temporary visa terms would cause disruption for his family and breach his fundamental rights. These rights, the ECHR found, were ignored because his relationship is not formalized in Russia.

However, one member of the panel, Cypriot judge Georgios A. Serghides wrote a dissenting opinion, attached to the ruling, in which he said that “I am unable to contribute to opening Pandora’s box by giving the impression that the Court may allow applicants to disobey or disrespect laws, regulations and equitable principles and thereafter try to have their behaviour condoned and seek the protection of the Court.”

Responding to the court’s decision later on Tuesday, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said that implementing such legal changes was out of the question. “According to our constitution, it is impossible,” the official declared.

Constitutional amendments passed after a nationwide vote last year have a specific clause committing the state to protecting “the institution of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.” In addition, the package of changes affirms the principle that Russian law must take precedence over decisions made by judges abroad, despite it being a member of the ECHR.

Defending that position, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that “the requirements of international law and treaties, as well as decisions of international bodies, can act on the territory of Russia only to the extent that they do not entail restrictions on the rights and liberties of man and citizen, and do not contradict our constitution.”

It makes zero sense that Putin is still taking any of this seriously.

Since before the USSR even fell, it has been obvious that these “international bodies” are just an outright conspiracy, all following along with the social engineering plots of the World Economic Forum, etc. Klaus Schwab himself is a United Nations man.

This is now as obvious as the fact that all of these phases of homosexuality are the road to accessing children.

Related: “We’re Coming for Your Children” Gay Choir Issues More Threats Against Your Sons

Forty-three countries are a part of the ECHR, and not a single one had even a public debate about whether they should join or not, or what they get from joining. Most people couldn’t even describe what it is. 

Some prisoners should be allowed to vote in elections, MPs and peers are due to say today in a report that has sparked fury.

One Tory MP branded the findings “spineless and morally confused”.

The row follows the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling that banning convicts from voting is unlawful.

In 2011, MPs called overwhelmingly to keep the ban but the Government promised to respond to the court’s rulings.

MPs and peers report today on three options favouring the vote for prisoners serving 12 months or less – in line with magistrates’ maximum sentence – and for all to be entitled to register up to six months before release.

MP Dominic Raab said: “This report proposes the most politically spineless and morally confused of all the options. It would give the vote to terrorists, rapists and paedophiles.”

Prime Minister David Cameron has made clear he does not want to extend votes to prisoners, telling the Commons it would make him “physically ill”.

However the report notes that Britain is under a “binding international law obligation” to comply with the ECHR ruling. It warns that defying it would be “completely unprecedented” and have “grave implications”.

Read More