Stop This Awful Totalitarian EU Legislation

Today in Luxembourg the EU Council of Ministers are discussing this document, Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia. [pdf] It is an appalling piece of legislation that has to be stopped.

I would just like to pick out my favourite aspects.

(5a) Member States acknowledge that combating racism and xenophobia require various kinds of measures in a comprehensive framework and may not be limited to criminal matters. This Framework Decision is limited to combating particularly serious forms of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law. Since the Member States’ cultural and legal traditions are, to some extent, different, particularly in this field, full harmonisation of criminal laws is currently not possible.

As Tim Worstall points out, that word “currently” just encapsulates the arrogance and desire of the EU to harmonise, harmonise and harmonise. Well I rather like the English common law system thank you very much.

(8) It should be ensured that investigations and prosecutions of offences involving racism and xenophobia are not dependent on reports or accusation made by victims, who are often particularly vulnerable and reluctant to initiate legal proceedings.

Leaving the field open for the EU to initiate proceedings. Now I know that the Police or CPS can already bring charges against people without the supposed victims consent, but I don’t like the idea that the EU will be able to initiate proceedings on this matter. Xenophobia, being a state of mind rather than an action will find itself defined by judges and lawyers, the EU's judges and lawyers. Not a prospect that fills me with confidence.

Article 1
Offences concerning racism and xenophobia

(d) publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising the crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal appended to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite to violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group.

“Grossly trivialising”, hmmm. So bad jokes could come under this remit, of the “My grand dad died at Auschwitz. He got drunk and fell out of a watch tower” type thing could be included. Oh boy.

2. Any Member State may, at the time of the adoption of this Framework Decision by the Council, make a statement that it will make denying or grossly trivialising the crimes referred to in paragraph 1(c) and/or (d) punishable only if the crimes referred to in these paragraphs have been established by a final decision of a national court of this Member State and/or an international court or by a final decision of an international court only.

That little “and/or” will allow national courts to be overruled once a case is taken up to the European Court of Justice.

Article 6
Sanctions for legal persons

1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held liable pursuant to Article 5(1) is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which shall include criminal or non criminal fines and may include other sanctions, such as:

(a) exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid;

(b) temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of commercial activities;

(c) placing under judicial supervision;

(d) a judicial winding up order.

So you can be locked up (1-3 years) and then when you get out you can be barred from working, and to make matters even better you cannot get benefits...

I have a friend whose grandfather was a copper in Antwerp during the war. A run of the mill copper. He was charged with collaboration in 1946, and convicted. After 4 years in prison he faced these penalties. No job, no benefits, and he was allowed to vote for the first time in 1986. Though ashamed his family looked after him throughout the forty years.

Today people (Lib Dems and Labour) are talking about giving prisoners the vote, the self same people are supporting laws that would deny it for “thought crime”.

I know that this legislation is trying to make a future dictatorship less likely. But our common law system has protected us from dictatorship far better than the Napoleonic system seems to have done for the Continent. And frankly I trust it far more than anything concocted to get over German guilt.

So please can I encourage any of you who are reading this to write about this so that people know quite how bad things are getting over here in ‘Free Europe’.

Relapse to Inquisition?

I was struck by how similar some of this to the Inquisition. You can see the difference between common law roots and Roman law roots. The Continent has never really cleaned up its legal act. And this is a definite relapse.

I've always been nonplussed over European judges being allowed to investigate a matter, order arrests, and then sit in judgement at the trial. How can anyone pretend that this is just?

And displaying the accused in a cage in the courtroom? Like that won't affect perceptions of guilt or innocense? Very backward.

But now, this is really getting bizarre. This is essentially law against heresy. No reports or victim complaint necessary for investigation and prosecution?

We haven't seen that since the Inquisition. In fact, the Inquisition was better. There had to at least be a diffimatio. (The Inquisitors took care of that by spreading the necessary rumors themselves though, ahead of time.)

As for prosecuting naughty jokes, we haven't seen that since the Spanish Inquisition.

The next step down that slippery slope is morphing "suspicion of heresy" into a prosecutatble ... what? "Offense"?

That's what it amounted to. What somebody else does to you (in suspecting you) is something YOU are guilty of. Don't laugh. That's how far this stuff goes.

The next step is locking you up because suspcion means that you might commit heresy. In other words, you can be punished for a crime you didn't commit yet.

Don't laugh. There is a call in Great Britain to have Hare Psychopathy Checklist administered to everyone so that all psychopaths can be locked up. (Most never commit a violent crime, though they do much terrible grief and harm as predators.)

But the Inquisition was better about jurisdiction. It did understand the concept. The EU doesn't acknowdge the existence of jurisdiction.

Apply it !

Just a few hours ago, I witnessed the following : I was standing in line for checkout in an Aldi shop, and the female clerck wanted to give the thicket and the change into the hands of a young Muslim of about 30 years old.  He quickly withdrew his hands and made an arrogant sign that she should put ticket and cash on the counter.   She complied and later muttered that " he must have thought that I am diseased or so".

I explained to her that some Muslims think that their religion does not allow them to touch a woman, that High Muslim Clericks refused to shake hands of the Queen of the Netherlands.

She did not know a thing about it. 

I wonder if this would constitute a severe discriminiation towards women, punished by the sentences mentioned in this article.

Are you sure that this new legislation is not targeted AGAINST muslims ? :-)



EU proposal to bring Sharia divorce law to Europe

More insanity:

Luxembourg (dpa) - A European Union proposal that would allow the laws of non-EU countries to be applicable in divorce cases ran into fierce opposition from Sweden on Thursday.
Liberal Sweden strongly resists the plan, which it says could force EU member states to dissolve marriages on the basis of foreign law, including traditional Islamic law, or Sharia.

"It is not acceptable that the planned rules would lead to Swedish courts having to apply foreign law," a Swedish diplomat told reporters at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg.

Germany is pushing for new rules under which international couples, prior to marriage, would be able to set out in a contract which country's laws will reign in a divorce court.

Germany currently holds the rotating EU presidency.

Indeed, awful legislation

When I read for the first time about this "proposal" yesterday in the Financial Times, I was not surprised.  After all, much of 'Old Europe' already has this kind of legislation, for they have been lulled into complacency by the postwar Pax Americana.  'New' (Eastern) Europe does not have this kind of pernicious legislation yet, for the recent communist past is still too fresh in enough people's minds there.   So, now the EU Council wants to expand its thought control, and criminalise SELECTIVELY certain opinions, to the whole of Europe.  They are not yet approaching China in terms of economic growth rates - and unlikely ever will - but they are sure moving 'China's way' in terms of unfreedom of (political) speech.   Another strong indicator that the world's next major 'fault line' will be between the China-Eurabia axis versus the democratic alliance of India+USA+Japan+Australia.

One would almost feel sorry for the Brits.  After all, over the past century or so, there have been 4 major challenges to what Churchill called (in 1943) "common conceptions of what is right and decent, a marked regard for fair play, especially toward the weak and poor, and a stern sentiment of impartial justice and above all a love of personal freedom".   These 4 challenges were (1) Prussian militarism, (2) nazi-fascist aggression, (3) Soviet Communist agression in the Cold War, and (4) the islamist jihad against the west today.   The first three challenges were, in the end, succesfully overcome, by the moral and physical resources of the 'Anglosphere'.  And, there is little doubt that the English-speaking peoples will also defeat jihadism in the end. But, they will probably not rally sufficiently, before future atrocities will better reveal the extraordinary cruelty and ambition of the various jihadist sects.  It looks, however, that in this fourth struggle for civilisation's survival, the Anglosphere will have to meet the challenge without the Brits, due to competing 'identities' in that former great power.