On the Wing

Flying in the face of widespread left wing extremism!

Racism. A One-way Street in the EU.

Posted by Exile on March 28, 2007

The following text is taken directly from the pages of the EU parliament webside’s press service report, dated 20-03-2007.

Since the German EU Presidency committed itself in January to putting the fight against racism throughout Europe back on the political agenda, MEPs have been working to find common ground on the future framework decision to combat racism and xenophobia, on which negotiations have been stalled in Council since 2005. The latest state of play was the subject of a public hearing in Parliament on Monday, with the issue of holocaust denial featuring prominently.

“Unfortunately, the 2006 report of the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna shows that the number of racist acts increased again last year by between 20 and 45 per cent depending on the Member State,” said Parliament’s rapporteur Martine Roure as she opened the hearing. “These alarming figures show the urgency of achieving a minimum harmonisation in Europe, to include a common definition of racist and xenophobic behaviour to be subject to criminal penalties which are effective, proportionate and have a deterrent effect.” Commenting on the text currently under discussion in Council, she said “the current balance of the text, which specifies charges, allows certain well defined derogations and provides for judicial cooperation should be preserved.”
[…]
“Unfortunately, the 2006 report of the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna shows that the number of racist acts increased again last year by between 20 and 45 per cent depending on the Member State,” said Parliament’s rapporteur Martine Roure as she opened the hearing. “These alarming figures show the urgency of achieving a minimum harmonisation in Europe, to include a common definition of racist and xenophobic behaviour to be subject to criminal penalties which are effective, proportionate and have a deterrent effect.” Commenting on the text currently under discussion in Council, she said “the current balance of the text, which specifies charges, allows certain well defined derogations and provides for judicial cooperation should be preserved.”

Obviously the racism question is getting some attention, but in which direction? The traffic appears to be all one-way. The general feeling one gets, is that it is only acts of racism perpetrated by indigenous European citizens that are of any importance. What of racism being directed at indigenous europeans? This is basically ignored by the EU and apparently does not exist. The article goes on to describe the discussion caused by the publishing of a booklet by Polish-born Maciej Giertych, a free MEP, which is basically denying the Holocaust. The EU is up in arms:

Referring to the framework decision, Ms Roure spoke of the “necessity of including negationism.” She said that she understood the need to respect each Member State’s history and traditions, but “recent events, including in our own institution with Maciej Giertych’s publication suggesting that the Third Reich did no more than shut Jews into the ghettos they had themselves created, show that we must redouble our efforts to ban this type of historical minimisation which is a veiled form of anti-Semitism.” It would be, however, for each Member State to decide how to punish such acts.

Stavros Lambrinidis (PES, EL) said, on the other hand, that “freedom of speech is most important to be protected. There is no question that the Nazi genocide started with words and incitement to hatred but I wonder if sending some people to jail for their words would have saved us from the holocaust or rather would have transformed them into heroes. There should be a clear line to define what should be punished. In democracy, freedom of speech should always be protected, in any circumstances. I come from a country which suffered a dictatorship and I consider it very dangerous to allow anybody to judge what can be said and what cannot”.

Isil Gachet (Council of Europe) said that freedom of expression and banning racist speeches are not in contradiction and that there is a way of making them compatible. She said that article 10 of the European convention on Human Rights guarantees freedom of speech but it also defines limits, which include racist speeches and incitation of hatred or intolerance.

While I have no doubt that Maciej Giertych is on the wrong course and that those 6.5 million people didn’t choose their awful fate, the interesting thing is the invocation of the 10th article of the European Convention on Human rights.
Article 10 concerns itself with freedom of speech. Reading it makes it very clear, that there is no such thing as freedom of speech, as more text is dedicated to denying you that right, than to allowing it.

ARTICLE 10

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

If the EU Parliament is serious about making such claims as denying the holocaust a racist crime, then why are we not exposing and condemning the racism inferred by Islam? More antisemitic than that would be hard to find. Also the racism directed against Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastroans, in fact every religion in the world other than Islam itself?
And why are we not calling it a racist crime when some Imam, somewhere, calls for “Death to America”, or Israel or Denmark or “those that insult Islam”, whoever they may be?
Why are they not being rounded up and tried for racist crimes?
Perhaps the next time a european girl is raped by a muslim (that would be today, at some point), we should push to get it tried as a race-hate crime? Maybe that would set the ball rolling.

Links:
EU press service article.
European Convention on Human rights.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: