“While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State.”
The surprising author of this quote is Vladimir Lenin, speaking just before the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. But then again as George Orwell pointed out, under communism, “freedom is slavery.” Orwell also wrote in the same paragraph that “ignorance is strength,” for those in power, especially.
Your strength from ignorance may include not being aware of the work of the European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance. Emanating from the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), it was formed on 7th October 2008 by Aleksander Kwasniewski, former President of Poland and Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress with the aim of being “an opinion making and advisory body on international tolerance promotion, reconciliation and education”.
It is arguably one of the most pernicious, anti-democratic, and authoritarian documents to be published since the European Union’s inception. It is effectively an instruction manual on thought suppression.
On October 16th 2013, Martin Schultz, President of the European Parliament, accepted the document and ominously spoke of the need for “rules, proposals, laws… [to] make tolerance mandatory across the EU.” Schultz then added that the framework should become law in all EU countries.
What detail will lead us on the road to serfdom, and to be vassals of the EU?
One of the core reasons that the document seems to have been constructed is to criminalise Holocaust denial. But what noble concerns the document expresses about such abusive sentiments, it underestimates how far such precedents could stretch into other areas.
Having eyewitness accounts, documentary film, forensic and scientific evidence, fair and free trials at Nuremburg, the overwhelming substantiation of the Holocaust hardly crumbles in the face of interrogation.
A film has recently been restored by the Imperial War Museum. Edited by Alfred Hitchcock and retrospectively called “Memory of the Camps,” it is narrated by Trevor Howard. I warn you it contains the most disturbing images I have ever witnessed.
And Section 7 of the document states that it is also verboten to possess an “Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology.”
I guess as well as neo-Nazis, those who hanker after Stalin or even Hugo Chavez will be feeling a little uncomfortable. And while most of us are probably initially drawn to the criminalisation of such individuals, the reality is that there is a wafer thin line between advocating for the imprisonment of a Chavista, and that of someone like, say, Ralph Miliband. It is partly on this basis that the framework for tolerance falls apart.
You can see it already – and indeed we have seen it, in books and on the big screen – governments loosely interpreting the terms of the legislation in order to shackle dissenters and political opponents. By definition, under the second line of the framework which reads, “Whereas tolerance postulates an open mind to unfamiliar ideas and ways of life”, would the current political establishment try to target UKIP supporters?
The framework states that it aims to:
“Take concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti- Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.” It goes further, to state that, “This formulation does not go into detail within the subsets listed. Thus, religious intolerance is understood to cover Islamophobia, anti-Christianity, etc. Ethnic discrimination is understood to cover anti-Roma (gypsies) activities.”
Already the astute amongst you will realise that this gives the state a pretty wide berth by which to prosecute anyone it happens to dislike. Colour bias? How could you prove it? Anti-feminism? There’s us locked up! Homophobia? On what scale? Would the infamous bed and breakfast owners be behind bars for exercising their religious beliefs? Would the homosexuals who took them to court be joining them, on the basis of “anti-Christianity”? Suddenly this noble exercise has become absurd and unbelievably intrusive.
And then you have the EU’s solutions for all that fall foul of their rules. Section 7, “Penal Sanctions”, states that “Juveniles convicted of committing crimes listed in paragraph (a) will be required to undergo a rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance.” That’s right. Re-education camps.
Also, “The Government shall ensure that: (a) Schools, from the primary level upwards, will introduce courses encouraging students to accept diversity and promoting a climate of tolerance as regards the qualities and cultures of others,” and even worse, “The production of books, plays, newspapers reports, magazine articles, films and television programmes – promoting a climate of tolerance – will be encouraged and, where necessary, subsidized by the Government.”
And that’s just the children. What about the grown-ups?
‘The Government shall ensure that public broadcasting (television and radio) stations will devote a prescribed percentage of their programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance.”
“Training and tolerance awareness courses will be made available to different strata of society, with an emphasis on professional groups.”
We all get to love Big Brother, and the private media will not be left out in the cold either:
“The Government shall encourage all privately owned mass media (including the printed press) to promote a climate of tolerance.”
We are not to be equal in front of the law either:
“To ensure implementation of this Statute, the Government shall {allow} Members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups are entitled to a special protection, additional to the general protection that has to be provided by the Government to every person within the State.”
Again, while the aims may be noble in part, this ‘framework’ will undoubtedly end up being a cudgel to silence people. Holocaust denial today, Stalinists tomorrow, UKIP and immigration sceptics the day after. Will being an EU-doubter be a criminal offence too? Will denying anthropogenic climate change be proscribed?
What makes the EU most terrifying is its lack of democratic accountability: an unelected President, Commission, and Comitology (unelected pen pushers setting policy).
This is why Britain leaving the EU must be seen as a priority.
George Washington, whose great-grandfather was a Brit, said “If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
The post The end of free speech in Europe appeared first on Trending Central.