Tag: Vĕra Jourová

The Evil Empire Reborn


2nd Treatise of Govt. John Locke 1689 quote

Due to limitations on free speech, telling people they must accept the foreign culture of refugees, accept Islamic Sharia in their Justice system and the governance of unelected oligarchical elites over the people; The European Union is becoming more despotic than representatively democratic. An essay by Fjordman believes this is evidence the EU is becoming the new Evil Empire.

 

U.S. President Ronald Reagan angered many in 1983 when he dubbed the Soviet Union the “evil empire.” Yet he was telling the truth. It was an Evil Empire. The European Union is the Evil Empire reborn. It increasingly resembles a political mafia, with threats and blackmail. Yet U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama actively supports the new Evil Empire. He even intervened in the British campaign in 2016 and encouraged Britain to remain in the EU. –Fjordman

 

This essay reminds me of recent posts I made on my primary blog SlantRight 2.0:

 

Multiculturalism Destroying Europe’s Culture – 6/3/16

European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech – 6/3/16

For God, Country, Family and Queen – 6/13/16

Everything But Terrorism – 6/13/16

 

Now to the new Evil Empire.

 

JRH 6/15/16 (Hat Tip: Tundra Tabloids)

Please Support NCCR

***********************

The Evil Empire Reborn

Fjordman logo 

By Fjordman

Posted by Baron Bodissey

Posted on June 9, 2016 9:25 pm

Gates of Vienna

 

If you appreciate this essay by Fjordman, please consider making a donation to him, using the button at the bottom of this post.

 

Evil Empire Reborn - euss rimmigrants

Modern Multicultural European Union

 

The Czech politician Vera Jourová is the European Union’s Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality in the Juncker Commission. In October 2015, Commissioner Jourová indicated that the EU will clamp down even harder on so-called “hate speech” directed against immigrants:

 

“If freedom of expression is one of the building blocks of a democratic society, hate speech on the other hand, is a blatant violation of that freedom. It must be severely punished. As some of you noted, over the past few weeks, we have witnessed a lot of solidarity towards refugees. But we have seen a surge of xenophobic hate speech. Some of you advocated enrolling the help of online intermediaries such as Google or Facebook to take down hate speech from the web. Other participants rather underlined promoting the use of counter-narratives. You also highlighted the need for clearer procedures to prosecute those who spread hate speech online. I was pleased to hear media and Internet providers’ experiences and to hear their commitment to work with us. I fully agree with you on these lines of action. As was said this morning, Internet knows no borders. I intend to bring together IT companies, business, national authorities and civil society around the table in Brussels to tackle together online hate speech.”[1]

 

These statements were not empty words. On May 31, 2016, the European Commission — the unelected “government” for over half a billion people from the Black Sea to the North Sea — together with the major companies Facebook, Twitter, YouTube (owned by Google) and Microsoft unveil a code of conduct. This includes a series of commitments to combat the spread of racism and xenophobia in Europe. EU Commissioner Vera Jourová in partnership with these major Internet companies unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online.[2]

 

Stalin centered in EU flagStalin Embedded in EU Flag

 

Free speech advocates have warned that the definition of “hate speech” is so vague the EU could end up with the power to get postings critical of the Brussels project removed from the Internet forever in what constitutes a “frightening path to totalitarianism”. The former UKIP MEP Janice Atkinson blasted: “It’s Orwellian. Anyone who has read 1984 sees it’s very re-enactment live.”[3] The Internet firms must work with EU officials to build a “network” of “trusted reporters” who can flag up instances of ‘hate speech’ to be removed within 24 hours. The EU’s definition of “hate speech” is so vague that it could potentially include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself. The analyst Soeren Kern warns that the EU has declared war on Internet free speech.[4]

 

Free Speech Gagged - EU

EU Free Speech Gagged

 

The EU authorities have previously demonstrated that they consider so-called “Islamophobia” to constitute hate speech and racism. These new EU regulations will presumably make it even more difficult for Europeans to voice their opposition to Muslim immigration and the Islamization of their countries. American websites such as Jihad Watch or Gates of Vienna still enjoy some free speech protection from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If they had been based in the EU, they would now have run the risk of being banned outright. There is a chilling totalitarian impulse behind these censorship efforts.

 

While the EU clamps down harder on alleged Islamophobia, the Islamic terror threat in Europe has never been greater. Repeated attacks and Jihadist massacres in Copenhagen, Paris, Brussels and elsewhere prove this. Some of this terror threat is directly caused by the immigration policies and open borders promoted by the EU.

 

In early June 2016, a plot by the Islamic State (IS) to murder many people in Düsseldorf, Germany was revealed. A suspect in police custody has admitted to the authorities that ten Muslim terrorists were supposed to be involved in the plot to murder Europeans with bombs and guns.[5] A number of Islamic Jihadists have entered Europe as alleged “refugees” with the flow of migrants in 2015 and 2016. This is now a documented fact.

 

The massive influx of more than one million illegal immigrants in the Mediterranean in 2015 caused great internal tensions within the EU. While some came from Libya and headed towards Italy, a striking number of the predominantly Muslim migrants came in boats from the Turkish coast, heading for Greece and the rest of Europe. The authorities in the Muslim NATO country Turkey have cynically exploited this flow of migrants to squeeze concessions of out European authorities. This behavior essentially amounts to demographic warfare. It is certainly not the behavior of a friendly, supposedly allied country.

 

The European Commission has in 2016 given conditional backing for Turkish people to gain visa-free travel inside Europe’s passport-free Schengen area. Yavuz Baydar, a liberal Turkish journalist, said Turkey had all the power because it could break off the migrant deal at any moment. He said EU leaders let the Turkish government “play them like a yoyo.”[6] Turkey has taken the EU hostage, with migrants used as blackmail.

 

The EU’s ruling oligarchs indicate that millions of Muslims from Turkey may soon get easy, visa-free access to Europe.[7] In reality, the number of Muslims will probably be higher than this. Most of Turkey is geographically a part of the Middle East. The country borders Syria, Iraq and Iran. Once Turks have free access to the EU, the sale of Turkish passports and people smuggling from other Islamic countries to Europe will likely increase.

 

Turkey will soon have a larger population than Germany. Several million people of Turkish and Kurdish origins already live in Germany, plus rapidly increasing numbers of other Muslims. Hundreds of thousands of Afghans and others entered Germany just in 2015.

 

Armenian Genocide

Armenian Genocide

 

Anatolia, currently known as Turkey, was populated by Christians a thousand years ago, especially Greek-speaking Christians. Constantinople, now called Istanbul, was for centuries the largest city in Christian Europe. When Turks came from Central Asia, they began a thousand-year-long campaign of Jihad and ethnic cleansing. The result is that there are very few Christians left in Anatolia today. The genocide of Christian Armenians between 1915 and 1917 was just one part of this. A century later, Turkey still refuses to recognize the Armenian genocide.

 

Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his AKP party have largely dismantled the secular reforms instituted by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Erdogan has pushed Turkey in a more authoritarian and aggressively Islamic direction. Why do we still treat the Turks as allies? Turks have been enemies of European civilization for over a millennium, apart from a few decades during the Cold War.

 

Erdogan speech

Recep Tayyip Erdogan Speech

 

Will the EU cave in to Turkish blackmail? It is insane to pay for aid in stopping hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants, and in exchange for this give millions of Muslims easier access to Europe. Any rational leader would not do such a thing. Unfortunately, it has been a long time since Western European leaders acted in the rational interests of their nations. EU leaders have for years developed the habit of caving in to Muslim demands.

 

In early June 2016, British Prime Minister David Cameron said there would be a recession, years of uncertainty and weaker trade in the event of Brexit. “Add those things together — the shock impact, the uncertainty impact, the trade impact — and you put a bomb under our economy,” he said.[8] Peace in Europe could be at risk if Britain votes to leave the European Union, PM Cameron previously warned.[9]

 

Margot Wallstrom

Margot Walström

 

Apparently, if you don’t surrender your freedom to a group of bureaucrats in Brussels, all kinds of disasters and plagues will rain down from the heavens. In 2005, the Swedish EU Commissioner Margot Wallström warned Europeans that they should support the EU Constitution or risk a new Holocaust.[10]

 

Prime Ministers must stop listening so much to their voters and instead act as “full time Europeans,” according to the powerful Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. Elected leaders are making life “difficult” because they spend too much time thinking about what they can get out of EU and bowing to public opinion. Mr. Juncker has warned the British people that they will be treated as “deserters” if they leave the EU.[11] That is a shockingly aggressive statement from a top EU oligarch to the citizens of a previously free nation. In most conflicts, deserters are dealt with harshly, and often executed.

 

The unelected Juncker has also publicly insulted Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, ironically calling him a “dictator.”[12] Orban defends European civilization and the interests of his own nation. That is what his supporters and free citizens elected him to do. Juncker brags about using lies and subterfuge to force further EU integration upon European citizens, whether they want this or not.[13] Jean-Claude Juncker is so arrogant and insufferable that he turns thousands of people against the EU every time he opens his mouth. If Britain leaves the EU, Mr. Juncker’s extreme arrogance and authoritarian mindset will surely have contributed to this outcome.

 

EU birds-wire & UK bird leaves

EU Birds on a Wire – UK Birds Leave

 

The ruling EU elites are afraid that a Brexit could lead to a domino effect, causing other countries to leave the EU. Almost half of all Italians would vote to leave the EU if given the opportunity, according to one poll.[14]

 

If the British vote to leave the European Union, this would be a tremendous blow to the EU. The British resisted Napoleon’s attempts at subjugation in the nineteenth century. They also led the fight against Hitler in the twentieth century. It would be perfect historical symmetry if the British dealt a crushing blow to an increasingly dangerous and totalitarian EU in the twenty-first century.

 

However, Britain is no longer the same country as it was 200 years ago, or even 50 years ago. London now has a Muslim mayor. It is increasingly hard to find an actual Englishman is the English capital city. The Great Displacement of the native population through mass immigration continues at full speed, in the UK as in the rest of Western Europe. Muslim immigrants routinely gang rape white girls in towns across England. In a healthy Britain, the campaign to leave the EU should have won by a landslide.

 

I have spent a lot of time analyzing the EU. Whatever hopes I might have had in the early 1990s that it was a positive project have long since evaporated. A decade ago, my conclusion was that the organization is flawed beyond repair.[15] Perhaps the EU will be remembered as the alleged “peace project” that once again plunged Europe into conflict. This was my view already before the debt crisis in the Eurozone, and before the more recent migration crisis. Since then, things have deteriorated even further. The EU actively causes tensions within the North and South, East and West of Europe.

 

Africa is projected to grow with over one billion people in the coming 30 years. That is more than twice the population of the entire European Union today. If the Islamic world and Africa were to send a quarter of a billion migrants to Europe merely in the next decade, the population of these regions would still continue to grow. The EU responds to this unsustainable population explosion at its southern doorstep by making it easier to migrate from African countries to Europe.[16]

 

EU Flat Line

Flat Line EU

 

Europe has probably never throughout its entire, turbulent history been weaker than in the early decades of the twenty-first century. Europe is now the sick man of the world. Other countries can simply dump their failed cultures and unsustainable population growth in our lands.

 

The EU elites act in a nearly dictatorial manner. They ignore widespread popular opposition and open the continent up for millions of Muslims. The same EU elites want to punish formerly independent European nation states that refuse to take in Muslim immigrants.[17]This happens at a time when a disturbing number of immigrants harass Europeans in their own streets or plot murderous attacks in various European cities.

 

Forcing Muslims on European local communities while Muslims harass Europeans is not merely wrong. It is evil.

 

U.S. President Ronald Reagan angered many in 1983 when he dubbed the Soviet Union the “evil empire.” Yet he was telling the truth. It was an Evil Empire. The European Union is the Evil Empire reborn. It increasingly resembles a political mafia, with threats and blackmail. Yet U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama actively supports the new Evil Empire. He even intervened in the British campaign in 2016 and encouraged Britain to remain in the EU.[18]

 

EU Skull Dragon

EU Skull Dragon

 

The EU has become the anti-European Union, a cultural wrecking ball that is destroying European civilization. Through a toxic mix of stupidity, cowardice, lust for power and ideological fanaticism, European ruling elites promote suicidal immigration policies that are destabilizing much of the European continent. The organization does not solve any of Europe’s fundamental problems. It makes some of them worse, and adds new ones.

 

Of the EU’s key institutions, the European Parliament is the only one that is directly elected by the peoples of Europe. Current Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) should get paid for the period in which they have been elected, but not more. All institutions of the EU should be formally dismantled and abolished as soon as possible. That includes the European Commission, the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the European Court of Auditors.

 

Europeans need to get rid of the EU, before the EU inflicts irreparable damage on European civilization.

 

Notes:

 

  • eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5765_en.htm European Commission — Speech Commissioner Jourová ‘s concluding remarks at the Colloquium on Fundamental Rights — Tolerance and respect: Living better together. Brussels, 2 October 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DONATE TO FJORDMAN: Go to the Gates of Vienna post then scroll all the way to the bottom until you see a photo like the one below. THEN click the photo and you will go to a Fjordman PayPal account.

donate to fjordman logo 

For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

 

_________________

Gates of Vienna

 

History of the Counterjihad

+++

Blog Editor: a bit of info on Fjordman

 

Info from when Fjordman’s anonymity was exposed due to the Norwegian terrorism of Anders Breivik:

 

… Among other studies Fjordman has been an anti-Jihadist writer warning of the dark side of the religion Islam. …

 

…

 

At any rate the man I consider one of the most scholarly of non-Muslim intellectuals willing to shed political correctness is being scrutinized by the Norwegian police for inciting Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik to execute his Norwegian Massacre.

 

…

 

Breivik put together this 1500 page or so manuscript of which very little was actually original. Breivik borrowed from numerous notable anti-Jihadist writers to extrapolate a warped vision of Crusader Christians modeled after his interpretation of the Knights Templar. Breivik’s warped version of Christianity was to be the uniting symbolism to bring in a New European Order that would force Muslim immigrants to leave. The problem with Breivik’s New European Order was his plan adopted terrorist tactics against the ruling elite or to make the ruling elite to look bad to inspire ordinary Europeans to rise up to throw Liberal-Multiculturalist ruling elites out. Thus Norway experienced the slaughter of seventy or so Norwegians of young and old as part of a plan to terrorize the New European Order into existence.

 

…

 

I learned in an Andrew Bostom article that the police interviewed and confiscated his computer. It looks to me like the persecution of free speech is beginning to take on a police state motif in Norway. Hmm … It could be Breivik’s massacre might actually lead to a test of free speech between free speech limiting Multiculturalists and the few Liberty-minded European Conservatives that exist. …

 

The one tragedy you should be aware before you read about Fjordman interviews with the police and a Norwegian media outlet is that Fjordman is no longer an anonymous writer. Because of police investigations Fjordman gave an interview to Verdans Gang in which he publicly reveals his actual name believing the police investigation would eventually reveal it anyway.

 

MY Literary hero Fjordman is Peder Jensen. —Fjordman the Victim

  8/11/11

 

Another SlantRight post:

 

…

 

The writer and author Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen, better known as Fjordman, is a European treasure and a near extinct rarity unfortunately. I have admired and followed him for many years.

 

He’s been an inspiration to me personally as a writer and essayist. In fact, his book Defeating Eurabia was the catalyst for my own book No Apologies which will be released on Amazon for the Kindle this spring.

 

Fjordman has paid the price for having the courage to stand up for what is right and true. It is incredible, that in today’s Europe, one can hardly dare to stand up ones culture and country without undergoing intense scrutiny, harassment, and sometimes even persecution from the authorities. Not to mention risking death at the hands of the Muslims hordes who those same authorities have allowed to overrun the borders and flood the continent in their millions.

 

…

 

… After the 2011 Norway attacks by Anders Behring Breivik (see Is Anders Behring Breivik the Nordic Che Guevara?) Peder was ‘outed’ as Fjordman (a dangerous thing in Europe), lost his job, came under intense scrutiny from the government, and had his personal computer confiscated by the police. He is currently in exile from his native Norway and has paid the price for speaking out for the truth.

 

… — Meet Fjordman: Europe’s Most Infamous Anti-Islamist Writer; By DAVE THE SAGE; 2/11/15

 

European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech


Voltaire on Free Speech & Rulers

Intro to ‘European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech’

Edited by John R. Houk

May 3, 2016

 

I just finished an anti-Multiculturalist post inspired by the Gatestone Institute that focused on the EU hammering Counterjihad journalist Ingrid Carlqvist (of Sweden) and a bit of fund raising – “Multiculturalism Destroying Europe’s Culture”. As I was doing my daily Internet surfing I discovered another Gatestone Institute article by Soeren Kern exposing the fact that the big dogs of Social Media are in complete agreement with the European Union on squelching Free Speech exposing the dark side of Islam which is currently showing up Muslim refugees and immigrants.

 

The Social Media giants spoken of in the article:

 

 

 

 

  • Microsoft: Bill Gates and Paul Allen are the original names connected to Microsoft, but then Steve Ballmer became the shot caller for the computer giant amassing billions of dollars in fortune (as in over $20 billion with a “B”). Apparently Satya Nadella the big dog now. Microsoft influence in Social Media is its fingerprint on PCs and the Internet. Here’s a decent synopsis of their influence:

 

… Microsoft are almost expected to have an enviable social media presence. They have led the way to the future, so social media is an important aspect of their strategy as a trailblazing company that creates and innovates. They have created web browsers, operating systems, office applications and web services almost dominating the internet and giving people the ability to be immersed into a technological world. (How Microsoft Uses Social Media [CASE STUDY]; By CASEY FLEISCHMANN; LinkHumans.com)

 

Interestingly the owners of YouTube which is Google, are not talked about by Soeren Kern. Google was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while they were Ph.D. students at Stanford University:

 

After the company’s IPO in 2004, founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt requested that their base salary be cut to $1. Subsequent offers by the company to increase their salaries were turned down, primarily because their main compensation continues to come from owning stock in Google. (Google; Wikipedia; page was last modified on 31 May 2016, at 22:47.)

 

Apparently “Google” is now an amalgam multiple corporations with a publically held corporation at the top being Alphabet:

 

Silicon Valley – and Wall Street – have a new king. Alphabet, the company formerly known as Google, looks set to become the world’s largest publicly traded company …

 

…

 

Commercially, when we say Alphabet, we really mean Google. The old company still represents the vast majority of Alphabet’s revenues, and almost all of its major businesses (including search, maps, YouTube, advertising and Android) still sit under Google and its new chief executive, Sundar Pichai. The rest of Alphabet may represent the bets on the industries of the future but for today, it’s Google that pays the bills. (How Alphabet became the biggest company in the world; By Alex Hern; The Guardian; 2/2/16 03.08 EST)

 

Wikipedia on Alphabet Inc.:

 

Alphabet Inc. (commonly known as Alphabet, and frequently informally referred to as Google) is an American multinational conglomerate created in 2015 as the parent company of Google and several other companies previously owned by Google.[5][6][7][8][9] The company is based in Mountain View, California and headed by Google’s co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, with Page serving as CEO and Brin as President.[10] The reorganization of Google into Alphabet was completed on October 2, 2015.[11] Alphabet’s portfolio encompasses several industries, including technology, life sciences, investment capital, and research. Some of its subsidiaries include Google, Calico, GV, Google Capital, X, and Google Fiber. Some of the subsidiaries of Alphabet have altered their names since leaving Google—Google Ventures becoming GV, Google Life Sciences becoming Verily and Google X becoming just X. Following the restructuring Page became CEO of Alphabet while Sundar Pichai took his position as CEO of Google.[5][6] Shares of Google’s stock have been converted into Alphabet stock, which trade under Google’s former ticker symbols of “GOOG” and “GOOGL”.

 

The establishment of Alphabet was prompted by a desire to make the core Google Internet services business “cleaner and more accountable” while allowing greater autonomy to group companies that operate in businesses other than Internet services.[6][12] (Alphabet Inc.; Wikipedia; page was last modified on 1 June 2016, at 13:41.)

 

In the 21st century, money is power. People this is a lot of power pushing Multicultural ideology to the detriment of Western culture in Europe and America.

 

JRH 6/3/16

Please Support NCCR

*****************

European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech

 

By Soeren Kern

June 3, 2016 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the European Union’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the EU itself.

 

  • Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours — as “Orwellian.”

 

  • “By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people… into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.'” — Douglas Murray.

 

  • In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation.

 

The European Union (EU), in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, has unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe.

 

Proponents of the initiative argue that in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, a crackdown on “hate speech” is necessary to counter jihadist propaganda online.

 

Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the EU’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.

 

Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours, and replaced with “counter-narratives” — as “Orwellian.”

 

The “code of conduct” was announced on May 31 in a statement by the European Commission, the unelected administrative arm of the European Union. A summary of the initiative follows:

 

“By signing this code of conduct, the IT companies commit to continuing their efforts to tackle illegal hate speech online. This will include the continued development of internal procedures and staff training to guarantee that they review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.

 

“The IT companies will also endeavor to strengthen their ongoing partnerships with civil society organisations who will help flag content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct. The IT companies and the European Commission also aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives [emphasis added], new ideas and initiatives, and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.”

 

Excerpts of the “code of conduct” include:

 

“The IT Companies share the European Commission’s and EU Member States’ commitment to tackle illegal hate speech online. Illegal hate speech, as defined by the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law and national laws transposing it, means all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin….

 

“The IT Companies support the European Commission and EU Member States in the effort to respond to the challenge of ensuring that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally. The spread of illegal hate speech online not only negatively affects the groups or individuals that it targets, it also negatively impacts those who speak out for freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination in our open societies and has a chilling effect on the democratic discourse on online platforms.

 

“While the effective application of provisions criminalizing hate speech is dependent on a robust system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech, this work must be complemented with actions geared at ensuring that illegal hate speech online is expeditiously acted upon by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this respect, a notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately substantiated.

 

“The IT Companies, taking the lead on countering the spread of illegal hate speech online, have agreed with the European Commission on a code of conduct setting the following public commitments:

 

  • “The IT Companies to have in place clear and effective processes to review notifications regarding illegal hate speech on their services so they can remove or disable access to such content. The IT companies to have in place Rules or Community Guidelines clarifying that they prohibit the promotion of incitement to violence and hateful conduct.

 

  • “The IT Companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.

 

  • “The IT Companies and the European Commission, recognising the value of independent counter speech against hateful rhetoric and prejudice, aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives, new ideas and initiatives and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.”

 

The agreement also requires Internet companies to establish a network of “trusted reporters” in all 28 EU member states to flag online content that “promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct.”

 

The EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, Vĕra Jourová, has defended the initiative:

 

“The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech. Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalize young people and racists use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected. I welcome the commitment of worldwide IT companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.”

 

Others disagree. The National Secular Society (NSS) of the UK warned that the EU’s plans “rest on a vague definition of ‘hate speech’ and risk threatening online discussions which criticize religion.” It added:

 

“The agreement comes amid repeated accusations from ex-Muslims that social media organizations are censoring them online. The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain has now begun collecting examples from its followers of Facebook censoring ‘atheist, secular and ex-Muslim content’ after false ‘mass reporting’ by ‘cyber Jihadists.’ They have asked their supporters to report details and evidence of any instances of pages and groups being ‘banned [or] suspended from Facebook for criticizing Islam and Islamism.'”

 

NSS communications officer Benjamin Jones said:

 

“Far from tackling online ‘cyber jihad,’ the agreement risks having the exact opposite effect and entrapping any critical discussion of religion under vague ‘hate speech’ rules. Poorly-trained Facebook or Twitter staff, perhaps with their own ideological bias, could easily see heated criticism of Islam and think it is ‘hate speech,’ particularly if pages or users are targeted and mass reported by Islamists.”

 

In an interview with Breitbart London, the CEO of Index on Censorship, Jodie Ginsburg, said:

 

“Hate speech laws are already too broad and ambiguous in much of Europe. This agreement fails to properly define what ‘illegal hate speech’ is and does not provide sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression.

 

“It devolves power once again to unelected corporations to determine what amounts to hate speech and police it — a move that is guaranteed to stifle free speech in the mistaken belief this will make us all safer. It won’t. It will simply drive unpalatable ideas and opinions underground where they are harder to police — or to challenge.

 

“There have been precedents of content removal for unpopular or offensive viewpoints and this agreement risks amplifying the phenomenon of deleting controversial — yet legal — content via misuse or abuse of the notification processes.”

 

A coalition of free speech organizations, European Digital Rights and Access Now, announced their decision not to take part in future discussions with the European Commission, saying that “we do not have confidence in the ill-considered ‘code of conduct’ that was agreed.” A statement warned:

 

“In short, the ‘code of conduct’ downgrades the law to a second-class status, behind the ‘leading role’ of private companies that are being asked to arbitrarily implement their terms of service. This process, established outside an accountable democratic framework, exploits unclear liability rules for online companies. It also creates serious risks for freedom of expression, as legal — but controversial — content may well be deleted as a result of this voluntary and unaccountable take-down mechanism.

 

“This means that this ‘agreement’ between only a handful of companies and the European Commission is likely in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (under which restrictions on fundamental rights should be provided for by law), and will, in practical terms, overturn case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the defense of legal speech.”

 

Janice Atkinson, an independent MEP for the South East England region, summed it up this way: “It’s Orwellian. Anyone who has read 1984 sees its very re-enactment live.”

 

Even before signing on to the EU’s code of conduct, social media sites have been cracking down on free speech, often at the behest of foreign governments.

 

In September 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard on a live microphone confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on what he was doing to prevent criticism of her open-door immigration policies.

 

In January 2016, Facebook launched an “Online Civil Courage Initiative” aimed at Facebook users in Germany and geared toward “fighting hate speech and extremism on the Internet.”

 

Writing for Gatestone Institute, British commentator Douglas Murray noted that Facebook’s assault on “racist” speech “appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy.” He wrote:

 

“By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel’s policies) into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.’ This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.

 

Facebook has also set its sights on Gatestone Institute affiliated writers. In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation. Abu Toameh wrote:

 

“It’s still a matter of censorship. They decide what’s acceptable. Now we have to be careful about what we post and what we share. Does this mean we can’t criticize Arab governments anymore?”

 

In June 2016, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.” In an editorial, Gatestone wrote:

 

“After enormous grassroots pressure from Gatestone’s readers, the Swedish media started reporting on Facebook’s heavy-handed censorship. It backfired, and Facebook went into damage-control mode. They put Ingrid’s account back up — without any explanation or apology. Ironically, their censorship only gave Ingrid’s video more attention.

 

“Facebook and the EU have backed down — for now. But they’re deadly serious about stopping ideas they don’t like. They’ll be back.”

 

Facebook Censorship & Ingrid Carlqvist

This week, the EU, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe. The next day, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.”

 

 

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos/Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.

 

_______________________________

© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

 

Blog Editor: If GI asks me to remove this post I will comply. If you wish to share anything other than a link you had better GI permission.