Lynda, a faithful reader and commentator and friend of mine in Ireland, sent this to me today.
EU Proposal to Monitor "Intolerant" Citizens
by Soeren Kern <
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/author/Soeren+Kern>
October 28, 2013 at 5:00 am
"There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant" — European Framework
National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance, Article 4
"The supra-national surveillance that it would imply would certainly be a
dark day for European democracy." — European Dignity Watch
While European leaders are busy expressing public indignation over reports
of American espionage operations in the European Union, the European
Parliament is quietly considering a proposal that calls for the direct
surveillance of any EU citizen suspected of being "intolerant."
Critics say the measure -- which seeks to force the national governments of
all 28 EU member states to establish "special administrative units" to
monitor any individual or group expressing views that the self-appointed
guardians of European multiculturalism deem to be "intolerant" -- represents
an unparalleled threat to free speech in a Europe where citizens are already
regularly punished
<
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3026/lars-hedegaard-acquitted> for
expressing the "wrong" opinions, especially about Islam.
The proposed European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of
Tolerance
<
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revfr
amework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf> was recently presented to
members of the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee
<
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2b
COMPARL%2bLIBE-OJ-20130916-1%2b01%2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN> of
the European Parliament, the only directly-elected body of the European
Union.
The policy proposal was drafted by the European Council on Tolerance and
Reconciliation
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council_on_Tolerance_and_Reconciliation> (ECTR), a non-governmental organization established in Paris in 2008 by
the former president of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski, and the president of
the European Jewish Congress, Moshe Kantor.
<
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/pics/large/288.jpg>
Lars Hedegaard was acquitted by the Danish Supreme Court in 2012 on charges
of "hate speech" for critical comments he made about Islam.
The ECTR -- which describes itself as a "tolerance watchdog" that "prepares
practical recommendations to governments and international organizations on
improving interreligious and interethnic relations on the continent" --
includes on its board more than a dozen prominent European politicians,
including former Spanish Prime Minister José MarÃa Aznar.
The ECTR first presented its proposal for a Europe-wide Law on Tolerance to
the European Parliament in November 2008 as part of the European Week of
Tolerance that marked the 70th anniversary of the Kristallnacht, a night of
anti-Semitic violence that began the Jewish Holocaust in Germany.
After five years of lobbying in Europe's halls of power, the ECTR proposal
appears to be making headway, as evidenced by the European Parliament's
recent decision to give the group a prominent 45-minute time slot to present
its proposal to the Civil Liberties committee on
September 17.
Also known as the "Model Statute for Tolerance," the ECTR's proposal was
presented as part of the EU's ongoing work towards a new "Equal Treatment
Directive" (ETD) that would vastly expand the scope of discrimination to all
sectors of life in both the public and private spheres.
Critics of the ETD, currently being negotiated within the Council of the
European Union <
http://www.european-council.europa.eu/home-page.aspx>, say
the directive seeks to establish an ill-conceived concept of "equal
treatment" as a horizontal principle governing the relationships between all
and everyone, thus interfering with the right of self-determination of all
citizens.
According to European Dignity Watch
<
http://www.europeandignitywatch.org/reports/detail/article/the-equal-treatm
ent-directive.html>, a civil rights watchdog based in Brussels,
The principles of freedom of contract and the freedom to live according to
one's personal moral views are in danger of being superseded by a newly
developed concept of 'equality.' It would undermine freedom and
self-determination for all Europeans and subject the private life of
citizens to legal uncertainty and the control of bureaucrats. It is about
governmental control of social behavior of citizens. These tendencies begin
to give the impression of long-passed totalitarian ideas and constitute an
unprecedented attack on citizens' rights.
When viewed in the broader context of the ETD, the ECTR document
<
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revfr
amework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf> is so audacious in scope,
while at the same time so vague in defining its terminology, that critics
say the proposal, if implemented, would open a Pandora's Box of abuse,
thereby effectively shutting down the right to free speech in Europe.
According to Section 1 (d), for example, the term "tolerance" is broadly
defined as "respect for and acceptance of the expression, preservation and
development of the distinct identity of a group." Section 2 (d) states that
the purpose of the statute is to "condemn all manifestations of intolerance
based on bias, bigotry and prejudice."
An explanatory note to Section 2 states: "Religious intolerance is
understood to cover Islamophobia" but it provides no definition at all of
"Islamophobia," a term
<
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Islamophobia.pdf> invented by
the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s. If taken to its logical conclusion,
Section 2 would presumably ban all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic
Sharia law, a key objective
<
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3790/oic-brussels-islamophobia> of Muslim
activist groups for more than two decades.
The document also declares that "tolerance must be practiced not only by
governmental bodies but equally by individuals." Section 3 (iv) elaborates
on this: "Guarantee of tolerance must be understood not only as a vertical
relationship (government-to-individuals) but also as a horizontal
relationship (group-to-group and person-to-person). It is the obligation of
the government to ensure that intolerance is not practiced either in
vertical or in horizontal relationships."
According to Section 4 (f) (i) of the document: "There is no need to be
tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom
of expression is concerned." Section 5 (a) states: "Tolerance (as defined in
Section 1(d)) must be guaranteed to any group, whether it has long-standing
societal roots or it is recently formed, especially as a result of migration
from abroad."
Section 6 states: "It goes without saying that enactment of a Statute for
the Promotion of Tolerance does not suffice by itself. There must be a
mechanism in place ensuring that the Statute does not remain on paper and is
actually implemented in the world of reality."
An explanatory note to Section 6 (a) states: "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." Another note adds: "The special protection afforded to
members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups may imply a preferential
treatment. Strictly speaking, this preferential treatment goes beyond mere
respect and acceptance lying at the root of tolerance."
Section 6 (b) demands that every one of the 28 member states of the EU "set
up a special administrative unit in order to supervise the implementation of
this Statute." An explanatory note adds: "The special administrative unit
should preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice (although the
Ministry of the Interior is another reasonable possibility)."
Section 6 (c) calls for the establishment of a "National Tolerance
Monitoring Commission as an independent body -- composed of eminent persons
from outside the civil service -- vested with the authority to promote
tolerance." An explanatory note adds: "The independent Commission will be
empowered to express its views regarding implementation of the Statute by
all concerned. Implementation in this context includes (but is not limited
to) the imposition of penal sanctions."
Section 7 (a) states: "The following acts will be regarded as criminal
offences punishable as aggravated crimes: Incitement to violence against a
group and group libel. "Group libel" is broadly defined as: "defamatory
comments made in public and aimed against a group or members thereof with a
view to inciting to violence, slandering the group, holding it to ridicule
or subjecting it to false charges."
Section 7 (b) states that "Juveniles convicted of committing crimes listed
in paragraph (a) will be required to undergo a rehabilitation program
designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance." Paragraph 7 (e) states
that "victims of crimes listed in paragraph (a) will have a legal standing
to bring a case against the perpetrators, as well as a right to redress."
Paragraph 7 (f) states that "free legal aid will be offered to victims of
crimes listed in paragraph (a), irrespective of qualification in terms of
impecuniosity."
Section 8 states that "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." An explanatory note adds: "It is very
important to start such courses as early as possible in the educational
program, i.e. in elementary school. Yet, these courses must be offered also
at higher levels of education, up to and including universities."
Section 9 (a) states: "The government shall ensure that public broadcasting
(television and radio) stations will devote a prescribed percentage of their
program to promoting a climate of tolerance." Section 9 (b) adds: "The
government shall encourage all privately owned mass media (including the
printed press) to promote a climate of tolerance." Section 9 (c) states:
"The government shall encourage all the mass media (public as well as
private) to adopt an ethical code of conduct, which will prevent the
spreading of intolerance and will be supervised by a mass media complaints
commission."
The document, if adopted by the European Parliament in its current form,
would -- among other problems -- establish a right to a freedom from hurt
feelings at the expense of the freedom of speech and expression. In
practical terms, critics say, the highly subjective definition of terms and
concepts such as "tolerance," "discrimination," "vulnerable," and
"disadvantaged," amounts to a legal straitjacket that would encourage
frivolous litigation aimed at silencing individuals and groups, or at
finding circumlocutions that appear to avoid violating these principles.
"Faith-based groups and schools, adherents of a particular religion or even
just parents who want to teach their children certain moral values would all
be put under general suspicion of being intolerant," according to European
Dignity Watch
<
http://www.europeandignitywatch.org/pl/codzienny/detail/article/double-stan
dards-on-tolerance-promoted-in-european-parliament.html>.
"Even worse, if enshrined as EU policy, such language also could lead to the
possibility that charges are brought on unclear or even without legal
grounds. The chilling result of this would be the dramatic diminution (and
possible disappearance) of the fundamental freedom of expression --
individuals and groups would censor themselves, afraid that they might be
prosecuted for expressing their own personal moral views," the NGO argues in
a statement.
"The authors of this proposed statute -- under the aegis of an international
NGO for tolerance and reconciliation -- have invited the Civil Liberties,
Justice and Home Affairs Committee to endorse it as a legal project. But not
only would an adoption of this statute at the national level of the European
states be a significant step backward," the statement concludes, "but the
supra-national surveillance that it would imply would certainly be a dark
day for European democracy."
Soeren Kern <
http://www.soerenkern.com/> is a Senior Fellow at the New
York-based Gatestone Institute <
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/>. He is
also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de
Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook
<
http://www.facebook.com/Soeren.Kern>.
