Home » Breaking News, Criticism, Eurabia, Europe, Manipulation, Multiculturalism, Suppression » EU Set to Monitor “Intolerant” Citizens


EU Set to Monitor “Intolerant” Citizens

 
 
 
 
 
submit to reddit

Controlling social behavior: Proposal could ban criticism of Islam, feminism!

A frightening proposal currently being considered by the European Parliament would direct governments to monitor citizens deemed “intolerant” and could even lead to a ban on all criticism of Islam and feminism.

The European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance (PDF), which was drafted by the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), an NGO based in Paris, was presented to the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties committee last month and is thought to be on the verge of implementation.

According to the Gatestone Institute, the Statute represents an “unparalleled threat to free speech” and would have the impact of “effectively shutting down the right to free speech in Europe” by banning “all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law, a key objective of Muslim activist groups for more than two decades.”

The main purpose of the Statute is aimed at eliminating “anti-feminism” and “Islamophobia,” according to the document, which means that any criticism of feminist political doctrines or the Muslim religion would be considered hate speech.

Section 4 of the document states that, “There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned.” In other words, stamping out “intolerance” trumps the free speech rights of millions of European citizens.

“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,” warns civil rights watchdog European Dignity Watch.

The proposal dictates that “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.”

This basically mandates that the free speech rights of European citizens need to be revoked in order to secure the “additional” rights of minority groups to not be offended by “intolerant” remarks, which include holding such groups to “ridicule,” a definition which would presumably outlaw satire.

The framework calls for the doctrine to be implemented by “a special administrative unit” in each of the EU’s 28 member states that would “operate within the Ministry of Justice” and have the power of “penal sanctions.” In addition, a “National Tolerance Monitoring Commission” would also be created to “promote tolerance.”

“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,” states European Dignity Watch. “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.”

The proposal also caters for the re-education of individuals deemed intolerant. “Juveniles convicted of committing crimes….will be required to undergo a rehabilitation program designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance,” states the document.

Schools from elementary level upwards will also be mandated by governments to “introduce courses encouraging students to accept diversity and promoting a climate of tolerance as regards the qualities and cultures of others.”

The proposal also calls on citizens to be brainwashed into “tolerance” via mass media, with governments ensuring that television networks “devote a prescribed percentage of their program to promoting a climate of tolerance.”

The program is not only an alarming threat to free speech but is also deliciously ironic in light of complaints by major EU powers about NSA monitoring of citizens and world leaders.

Given the EU’s history in this context, it’s highly probable that they will adopt the recommendations wholesale. Back in 2001, the EU announced that it had the power to outlaw criticism of itself when the European Court of Justice ruled that the EU could, “lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures.”

Source

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  



RELATED ARTICLES

Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.
  • Zharkov

    Intolerant citizens gave the world the Magna Carta, the French Revolution, the US Declaration of Independence, liberty, freedom, and of course, the EU itself.

    So the EU thinks it has reached the highest level of evolution and does not need “intolerant citizens” to improve its form of government? Its parliament fools only themselves. Its laws are made to be broken, and as demonstrated in Romania, people do not forgive those who enslave them.

  • Longun45

    There is only one possible outcome.

  • Sim

    Section 4 of the document states that, “There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned.” In other words, stamping out “intolerance” trumps the free speech rights of millions of European citizens.

    This quote has been taken out of context. I suggest that people take the time to read the document themselves.

    “Section 4. Limitations

    The rights guaranteed in Section 3 are subject to the following limitations, applied in a proportionate manner as necessary in a democratic society:

    …(a-e)…

    (f) Protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

    Explanatory Notes:
    (i) Tolerance is a two-way street. Members of a group who wish to
    benefit from tolerance must show it to society at large, as well
    as to members of other groups and to dissidents or other
    members of their own group.
    (ii) There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is
    especially important as far as freedom of expression is
    concerned: that freedom must not be abused to defame other
    groups. ”

    So what it actually means that we do not need to be tolerant to intolerant minority groups, a sentiment that I’m sure most people would agree with.

    You might also find it interesting to note that other limitations are:

    “(a) National or international security.

    Explanatory Note:
    Tolerance must not be used as a means for the condoning terrorism or
    as a cover for those seeking to subvert domestic or international peace
    and security.

    (b) Ordre public.

    Explanatory Notes:
    (i) A prime example: it must be understood that demonstrations (in
    exercise of freedom of assembly) need not be tolerated when
    they are likely to degenerate into riots or infringe on the rights
    of others
    (ii) Another example is that, given the need to fight crime, persons
    may not be allowed to cover their faces in public.
    (iii) Ordre public is not confined to issues of crime and violence.
    Thus, city planning and zoning rules may override an attempt
    to build a place of worship on a particular site.

    (c) Public policy.

    Explanatory Note:

    Tolerance does not mean that a group can segregate itself from society
    as a whole, repudiating the need to interface with other groups.

    (d) Public morals.

    Explanatory Note:
    Examples: tolerance does not denote acceptance of such practices as
    female circumcision, forced marriage, polygamy or any form of
    exploitation or domination of women.

    (e) Public health.

    Explanatory Note:
    Example: the Court of Appeal in England (per Lord Denning) found no
    fault with the refusal of a chocolate-making factory to employ a
    bearded Sikh in view of a hazard of contamination by bacteria. ”

    I’m not looking to get into discussion about other points of the article; I am simply disputing the use of this quotation in this article.

Copyright © 2009 The European Union Times – Breaking News, Latest News. All rights reserved.