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’ citizensThe recommendations were done by a group known as The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation which clumps various former European politicians.
Former heads of state call on EU to set up state surveillance of ‘intolerant’ citizens
You can read their proposed bill called
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.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.
(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.
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 healthcare.gov. 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.