BRUSSELS. Powerful organizations specializing in humanism and paid by the EU have embarked on a new offensive to standardize national legislation. Though professional human rights activists often make fools of themselves, they do mean business when they demand a ban on, e.g., criticism of feminism.
Most people have a concept of what feminism is though it may be vague. But anti-feminism is a greater conundrum. Some would say that it might be a negative reaction to a particularly aggressive branch of feminism. Others suggest that it is sheer resentment and contempt for the female sex.
In any event, anti-feminism must be banned and combated according to A European framework national statute for the promotion of tolerance submitted with a view to being enacted by the legislatures of European states. This document has been circulating in the EUs paper-lined labyrinths and will probably be approved by a majority in the European Parliament.
The statute intended to be imposed as law in the member states proposes 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.
Governments must take concrete steps to prosecute persons who make defamatory comments 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.
Groups that are exposed to such evils should enjoy special privileges:
The special protection afforded to members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups may imply a preferential treatment.
In order to keep national parliaments in line, every country must establish 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.
The proposal is drawn up by a panel of experts under the European Council on Tolerance, which is made up of former politicians and government ministers. It is doubtful whether it will ever transcend the halls of the European Parliament for right now national governments are hardly in the mood for more symbolic centralization. There has been inflation in human rights, not least in Great Britain, where the new statute is bound to provoke howls of protest. Prime Minister David Cameron has even held out the prospect that Britain will leave the ECHR, the European Court of Human Rights, which has prevented the UK from extraditing alien criminals on several occasions.
Nevertheless the pressure is kept up by a myriad of human rights sprouts both inside and outside the EU apparatus. The EU Commissions own Agency for Fundamental Rights successor to the infamous surveillance office in Vienna is holding its annual conference on November 12-13, which is bound to become an orgy in top-down tolerance. Three hundred decision-makers and practitioners, i.e., paid activists, will meet to discuss how best to combat certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.
The architects behind the entire EU project view the economic crisis as a new opportunity not to do some soul searching or proceed with caution but to set themselves up as a bold vanguard fighting for centralization and federalism. Their ideological shock troops from the human rights industry have the same idea. Their agenda is to impose uniformity on the member states in matters of immigration, culture, religion, civil liberties and jurisprudence. It is hard to understand that they dare and chances are that their efforts will lead to further polarization to the detriment of their haughty ambitions.