3 ms·

That makes total sense, assuming dragonwriter is posting it from a diplomatic post. If not, then I'm not sure what your point is.

stale2002 8y ago
Your argument is seriously that it should not be ok for people who are in an embassy to engage in speech? Is that seriously what you believe? Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is to criminalize political speech? This is political speech that we are talking about here. I cannot think of a single thing that is more important to protect than political speech. It is quite literally the most important human right in existence, because if you don't have that right, you lose the rest of them.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Your argument is seriously that it should not be ok for people who are in an embassy to engage in speech? Speech directed at interfering in the politics of th receiving country (or, to a lesser extent, third countries), yes. And it's not just my or ascorbic’s idea, it's fundamental to the entire premise of permitting the special privileges associated with embassies, and incorporated into the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. (Non-diplomatic personnel residing in an embassy for an extended period of time is itself something of a hack not really envisioned by the Convention.) > Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is to criminalize political speech? Not being allowed to remain in embassy is not a criminal sanction.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Imagine if the US started deporting Saudi Arabian persecuted journalists back to Saudia Arabia, if those journalists criticized Canada. (And then Saudia proceeded to murder those asylum deportees. ) This is basically the same exact situation. Just because the US didnt murder the deported asylum seekers, it is still an extreme attack on free speech to deport them, to be murdered by another country, because they criticizing Canada.

stale2002 8y ago

Your argument is seriously that it should not be ok for people who are in an embassy to engage in speech? Is that seriously what you believe? Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is to criminalize political speech? This is political speech that we are talking about here. I cannot think of a single thing that is more important to protect than political speech. It is quite literally the most important human right in existence, because if you don't have that right, you lose the rest of them.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Your argument is seriously that it should not be ok for people who are in an embassy to engage in speech? Speech directed at interfering in the politics of th receiving country (or, to a lesser extent, third countries), yes. And it's not just my or ascorbic’s idea, it's fundamental to the entire premise of permitting the special privileges associated with embassies, and incorporated into the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. (Non-diplomatic personnel residing in an embassy for an extended period of time is itself something of a hack not really envisioned by the Convention.) > Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is to criminalize political speech? Not being allowed to remain in embassy is not a criminal sanction.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Imagine if the US started deporting Saudi Arabian persecuted journalists back to Saudia Arabia, if those journalists criticized Canada. (And then Saudia proceeded to murder those asylum deportees. ) This is basically the same exact situation. Just because the US didnt murder the deported asylum seekers, it is still an extreme attack on free speech to deport them, to be murdered by another country, because they criticizing Canada.