Friday, November 01, 2013 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Some former European politicians want an EU KGB

Some readers suggested that Europe should have its own "unified" surveillance agency – probably for Europe to resemble the U.S. with its NSA etc. I was terrified by the idea. Unfortunately, you are going to be shown an example of the reasons why I was so terrified.

The Gatestone Institute and LifeSiteNews inform about a new initiative that has made recommendations to the EU Parliament:

Former heads of state call on EU to set up state surveillance of ‘intolerant’ citizens

Former heads of state call on EU to set up state surveillance of ‘intolerant’ citizens
The recommendations were done by a group known as The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation which clumps various former European politicians.

You can read their proposed bill called
A European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance
The document proposes to fight against "intolerance" which covers all forms of racism and anything that was ever unfairly labeled as "racism" but also "homophobia" and even "anti-feminism".

They recommend several kinds of terror against the citizens whom they find ideologically inconvenient. Especially with the word "anti-feminism" – I haven't ever seen this word before – their ideas are stunning. Every decent person agrees that feminism is a totalitarian ideology that – much like communism and Nazism – has no room in the modern Western civilization. What do you want to do with the hundreds of millions of people who agree with this elementary fact? Do you want to employ millions of agents to monitor them? Or to send all the anti-feminists to EU Gulags?

The article in LifeSiteNews shows a former communist apparatchik, Aleksander Kwasniewski, who is very active in that "pro-tolerance" organization. I think that similar individuals should only be walking through the sewerage system. They should surely not recommend anything to anyone, not even to their children whether they should use the toilet paper or not. Aleksander Kwasniewski's arrogance to send proposals of the laws to the European Parliament is just stunning. Similar declarations convince me rather often about some previously overlooked wisdom of the Romanians who probably did the right thing to Nicolae Ceaușescu on that backyard.

Their explanations for the institutionalized terror against people who realize that many of the proponents' ideologies are based on lies and immorality are rather bizarre. In some "explanatory notes", the document argues that they can violate the basic human rights and freedoms as follows:
(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.
First, the point (i) is wrong. Tolerance is not a two-way street; in general, it is an asymmetric relation. If A is tolerant to B, it does not imply that B is tolerant to A. In fact, the adjective "tolerant" without further specifications is used for a person or an institution X that is tolerant to others even if others are not quite tolerant to X. The more tolerant X is in comparison with others, the more "tolerant without further specifications" he or she is (or they are). If someone thinks according to the rule "an eye for an eye", it's OK, widespread, but it's not really a proof of his tolerance. On the contrary, it is an indication that X is trying to be as intolerant as possible given the power balance in X's environment.

Now, some people and institutions are more tolerant than others. Others are less tolerant. But a feature of a modern democratic country is that its government is tolerant. The adjective "tolerant" doesn't mean "only tolerant to those that are tolerant to the rulers". It means "tolerant to all the citizens who obey the law". Tolerant to those who realize that Aleksander Kwasniewski is a despicable pile of political junk, too.

That's why the claim (ii) is incompatible with the basic characteristics of a modern, democratic, civilized state. It does need to be tolerant to the intolerant, too. If it is only tolerant to those whom it likes, it must be classified as an intolerant state. It's the kind of a state they have in North Korea and elsewhere.

More clearly, even if we allowed the state to be "intolerant to the intolerant", it must still respect their basic human rights. They are incorporated into constitutions and similar documents of pretty much all civilized nations of the world (which includes the West but excludes most of the Muslim world – and thank God, I am still allowed to point this self-evident fact out). You can't circumvent these things. If you want to institutionally harass people who realize that feminism and similar ideologies belong to the cesspool of the human history, it is you, and not them, who violates the basic principles of democracy and tolerance.

I have mentioned "feminism" because it's really preposterous to try to outlaw the opposition to this ideology. Well over 95% of Czechs (both men and women) oppose feminism, for example. But to a lesser extent, the proposed criminalization of all the "racist-like" acts is similarly pernicious.

We are told that "[their misconceptions] are especially important when it comes to [inconvenient claims about groups]". Sorry but the freedom is only a nontrivial concept if it allows people to say or do something even if it is inconvenient for others (e.g. other groups). The subset of freedom that would only allow things that everyone likes wouldn't have to be defined by the constitutions. Such freedom exists everywhere, even in North Korea and in Hell. If you're saying something that everyone likes (or no one dislikes), you will clearly be allowed to say it. No country needs laws to allow such things. No country or institution should boast about this limited definition of "freedom" because this sort of "freedom" is a tautology.

I don't think that the European Parliament would adopt any totalitarian regulation of this sort. Comrades like Aleksander Kwasniewski are only boasting that they are still able to walk outside the sewerage system and scream nonsense. But the fact that this toxic totalitarian garbage was allowed to be thrown to the mailbox of the European Parliament and even posted on the pan-European Parliament's website shows how fragile democracy would become if the EU-wide institutions were allowed to overtake some of the basic powers that still belong to the nation states. The creation of an EU KGB and EU Gulags would be one step or two steps away, respectively.

By the way, on a related note of "groups". Germany because Europe's first country (but second to Australia and maybe others) that officially recognized the third sex which (a very tiny group of) i hermaphrodites may write down in their official documents (trans-sexuals are not allowed to do so, however). Czech psychological/sexuological experts seem to agree that it is a bad idea that will stigmatize the group because this is a group whose trouble is that they don't know how things will evolve; their problem is not that they don't want to belong anywhere. Dr Jaroslav Zvěřina adds that he has never heard any expert in this field – not even a German one – to request a similar institution; it seems likely that the idea came from the gay-lesbian activists who assume that the hermaphrodites have similar concerns which is simply not the case. He recommends to educate (and name) the child in one way and change the sex when it's found more appropriate. He points out that it's not even clear which restrooms they will be invited to use. This may sound funny but it is a damn serious issue if you need one – and most people need a restroom at least once in their life.

In the U.S., ObamaCare is a great project. The world's most powerful politician has used billions of taxpayers' money and all the U.S. media to promote his pet project. On the first day, six people enrolled in That's a lot of people, even more people than you can count using fingers of your whole single hand. Congratulations to Barack Obama for having become such an Internet magnet and web wizard. ;-) Congratulations to Doc, Dopey, Bashful, Grumpy, Sneezy, and Sleepy for their success, and good luck to Happy in his attempts to enroll today. During the second day, the enrollment skyrocketed to 248 people. If you haven't seen how perfect the website is, check Jon Stewart's observations on ObamaCare. Hysterical.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (35) :

reader john said...

I think all these climate garbage is a parrtof power struggle. Part of the international capital who doesn't control petroleum want to limit its usage. They are the ones who finance research on hydrogen cars etc. Climate alarmists build ideological foundation of this transformation from petroleum to non-petroleum, almost any of them have no idea what they are really doing.

reader Casper said...

I worry for Alexander Ac. What will happen to him when it is revealed that global warming did not exist? I fear he may become suicidal.

reader Shannon said...

OK... now you are scaring me.
In May 2014 there will be the European elections. If the French Front National wins, the euro-sceptics will get between 25% and 30% sits at the EU parliament. An earthquake ! Imagine that ;-)

reader Soylent Green said...

So, I'm assuming all copies of George Orwell's books have already been burned in the EU? ;-)

reader Luboš Motl said...

Wow, Shannon.

Maybe the group of politicians above wants to put all the National Front folks into prison before the elections? ;-)

reader Luboš Motl said...

Which Orwell? You probably mean Georgina Orwellina who wrote about the daily butchering of thousands of women before the EU brought us all the human rights? ;-)

reader Shannon said...

Lubos, they will do everything they can to "kill" them politically. However the tide is not on their side ;-)

reader Rehbock said...

Satirist and Math prof Tom Lehrer in ?1965 National Brotherhood Week I believe stated point 2 as part of the comedic introduction ....
It was funny then and ridiculous now ...
People intolerant of intolerance. Freedom includes the right to choose to disrespect and say what we believe. The ones who claim to be so tolerant and demand equality for all are not always sincere and often are just hypocrites. . Sometimes it is far worse. The leaders can be stealthy sociopaths exploiting the opportunity. ...

reader Gordon said...

This sort of thing is why I tend to think of Edward Snowden as heroic. "Intolerant citizens"? --code
word for inconvenient citizens who need to be "dealt" with... if you are not totally politically correct, you are, by definition, a terrorist.

reader scooby said...

"Congratulations to Doc, Dopey, Bashful, Grumpy, Sneezy, and Sleepy for their success, and good luck to Happy in his attempts to enroll today."

Haha, brillant!

reader Dave said...

"(i) Tolerance is a two-way street. (ii) There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant."

The problem is that many progressives are entirely intolerant of anyone opposing their views, so there is an inherent contradiction in their way of thinking about these matters.

On the other hand, there probably are situations where one or both of these principles should be applied, but it's hard to develop clear criteria for when that is the case.

reader Dave said...

But to accomplish the goal of promoting liberty and resisting the creep of tyranny, it would have been sufficient for him to reveal just the extent of domestic snooping by the NSA.

His international surveillance revelations were entirely unnecessary for that purpose, because it is domenstic agencies that have the easiest physical and legal access to a resident of a given country.

reader Marauder said...

Dear Luboš,

do you know this masterpiece?


reader John Archer said...

Yeah, right. But you just watch, Luboš. The hundreds of millions of fucking dumbarse* sheep all over europe will STILL vote for the eu and for their own political scum who sustain it. Yet...

THERE IS NO EU DEMOS. Nothing about the eu has ANY legitimacy. It is a monster created by a class of unscrupulous persons who have hijacked democracy in their own nation states and are set on wiping it out everywhere else too. The whole thing needs to be killed off. There's absolutely no room for tolerance in this. None.

Ceaușescu got off easy. This present bunch of evil totalitarian bastards needs hell visited on them. Long and agonising — that's the only way given the sheer scale of what they're up to. We need to go flat out mediaeval on them. ALL of them.

But I guess some readers here won't agree with me.

Well, you stupid fucking cretins, it's bleeding obvious which way this whole eu business is going, and it has been for years. Arthur Salter and Jean Monnet, its architects, knew that the only way to get the whole monstrous thing in place was to give democracy a complete bypass. They were right. So that's exactly how it has been done. And on it goes, right in front of your fucking noses.


I'm impressed that you can write with such restraint about all this, Luboš. Incredible self-discipline. These people are an existential threat to all of us. There is only one response.

For those of you who demur, here's a challenge for you: if you believe the eu is democratic (Doh!), explain EXACTLY how that is. I dare you.

* To be fair to them, most people are far too busy just making a living and raising their families, and so don't have time to find out what's going on. Instead they rely on the media to keep them informed. Big mistake. Also, for the bulk of people, their essential reasonableness works against them in this environment. I know. I was one of them. Of course, I'm still a reasonable person — only a little rabidly so now.

reader Gordon said...

Hmmm, I think you are reading this incorrectly. The sociologists want to study the IPCC to see not how crazy they are, but to document just how reasoned and perfect and conservative they are (sarcasm).

Here is an excerpt from your Nature link:
..."Oppen­heimer and his colleagues argued that the IPCC tends towards caution and errs “on the side of least drama”". If the IPCC errs on the side of least drama, I would like to see what more "drama" looks like.

reader donqpublic said...

Well, rather than sociologists doing a sociology of science, I think an Anthropology of the IPCC is much more appropriate and a field that fits the object to be studied. Further, Anthropology has run out of ancient preliterate tribes to study practicing magic and ritual animal vivisections of entrails for weather predictions. I think a good ethnographic study from an anthropological point of view would be quite valuable in describing myth making and shaman behavior at the IPCC.

reader Shannon said...

That's true. The Euro was an attempt for non-elected technocrats to get into power. The Euro is killing Europe.
When civil servants are in power they only help civil servants. In France none of our politicians in power have ever worked in a private company, they studied to be politicians at the ENA ("the" school), choose their side depending on how quickly they could get into power. Hollande is a perfect example of this breed of useless human trash. Another incredible thing in France is that a civil servant who wants to be elected as a deputy doesn't need to give up his job! So of course he will protect his colleagues... (In the UK and the US they can't, they have to give up their civil servant job before they run for office).
Things are becoming more and more like during the French Revolution. Public Spending/Taxes is God. Civil servants are the Clergy, and the people are the Tiers Etat (Third State).
Only the monster has two heads now: the country's government and Brussels.

reader scooby said...

You're from Brittany aren't you Shannon? Are you wearing your little red hat this weekend? 8)

reader Shannon said...

Haha... I'm too far away but I understand their anger (they have the Commandant Cousteau look... Although I undertand that the red hat is in memory (and a synbol) of a farmers' rebellion against the monarchy in 1675, who wanted to impose new taxes... History repeats itself always.

reader scooby said...

Ha yes the Commandant Cousteau, that's it! Looking at the photos I was reminded of something but could not put my finger on it.

reader Gene Day said...

The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation’s proposed “Framework” and, most especially” its Sec. 7, would be found unconstitutional in the United States. It proposes such an egregious restriction of free speech that it would be impossible for any politician to seriously support it at a national level.

If it is a serious proposal in Europe then something is terribly, terribly wrong.

reader Gene Day said...

I have learned that France has banned fracking. That is stupid beyond belief, Shannon.

reader Gene Day said...

The Civil Service Act was implemented in the US specifically to get politics out of unelected government jobs. It is working pretty well.

reader John Archer said...

It's effectively the same here too. Go to Oxford. 'Read' bollocks so you can spend all your time socialising and practice becoming 'important'. Get a degree in some fuckwit innumerate and completely useless subject, PPE being the favourite. On to a job as a parliamentary 'researcher'. Do the time. Suck arseholes crawling and wheedling your way into being appointed as the candidate for the Thick Cunt Class Party in some constituency you've never even heard of let alone been anywhere near and end up with a nice sinecure where you can rob the public blind on fake expenses and allowances and piss off early each day, that's if you even bother to fucking turn up. A few non-exec directorships ("contacts, dear boy") and 'consultancy positions' where you can use your 'influence' to assist in the right result, nice pension too, and you're set for life. Just the ticket.

And representing your constituents?

"What that trash? No, we don't represent them. We can forget their needs and interests. We're the bosses now, the county's 'leaders'. WE TELL THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO — GET THAT STRAIGHT RIGHT NOW. WE ARE THEIR MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORS. WHY? BECAUSE WE SAY SO. THAT'S WHY. NOW SHUT UP AND GO AWAY."

It isn't just their heads I'd cut off. I'd take my time about it too. If I were so inclined, that is. If.

Jesus, those bastards have a lot coming to them.

Stock up on nitric acid and pliers.

reader RAF III said...

Only if you don't consider the IRS. EPA, HHS, FCC, FEC, ATF, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, Dept. of Education, Dept. of the Interior, Agriculture Dept., Dept. of Defense, Treasury Dept., ...
But other than that - pretty well.

reader Dave said...

This thing keeps getting better and better:

reader Andrei Patrascu said...

"Similar declarations convince me rather often about some previously overlooked wisdom of the Romanians who probably did the right thing to Nicolae Ceaușescu on that backyard." Although I was not alive during most of his "reign"... Yeah, we definitely did the right thing... and yes, european supra-national "securitate" is a bad idea... usually I don't comment on this kind of articles but I got to say it...

reader Rehbock said...

1. Seriously wrong yes.
2. Unconstitutional in US yes.
3. So too unconstitutional are most of the laws in effect in US at least the US that I learned law in.
4. Except that unlike laws of physics the Constition is what our Supreme Court says. Our constitution has been mostly destroyed long ago.

reader Dave said...

Freedom of speech is generally generally kept somewhat weaker in a number of other Western countries than in the US, and deliberately so.

A number of writers have been sued or hauled in front of various commissions in places like Canada, France, etc., whose same works were never challenged in the US, because they could not be.

Of course, politicall correctness can in many cases take care of the "problem" in the US as well, but overall freedom of speech is probably still stronger here. For now.

reader papertiger0 said...

Alex wlll be fine. We've been softening him up for this turn of events for years, so it should be a cushie transition.

He'll just study why bugs don't give a darn about global temperature, instead of the other thing.

reader TomVonk said...

Guess who voted massively for Hollande and his socialist gang ?
Brittany !
Brittany is not to be confused with Vendee which opposed the "infernal squads" of the French Revolution untill the ultimate genocide.
Brittons just got what they voted for and their red hats of today were symbols of the same scum that they helped to power yesterday.
Actually one should consider that Brittany is angry because the government is not socialist enough for their taste.
Nothing to be happy about for those not of the communist obedience.

reader TomVonk said...

Problem with the National Front is that they are authentic national socialists.
Their stance on societal and cultural issues is nationalist and it is on this side that we find anti-european (anti EC) policies.
But their economical proposals are genuinely socialist and this word is to be understood in Marx sense (e.g the communism is just a transient stage before the end of history is realized by the final implementation of the socialism).
So while one could look with some sympathy on the national side of the medal, the socialist side is horryfying and would lead to a catastrophe of incredible proportions.

reader Shannon said...

Well our Breton Queen Anne de Bretagne (when Brittany was independent) was kind of forced to marry Louis XII king of France. Women didn't have choice in those days.Then Brittany became de facto part of France's kingdom. Today Europe is a way for Bretons to give the finger to Paris and go directly to Brussels. Bretons have always hated having to depend on Paris.

reader Gerd said...

Wir Europäer fordern den Austritt aus der EU!

reader Jon Danzig said...

The document was simply presented to the Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee. However, this matter is not being discussed or considered by the European Parliament. This is NOT going to be European Union law.

My blog about Europe: