The Dire Cost of Europe’s Multiculturalism
Sacrificing a continent on the altar of utopian ideals.
The extent to which the multiculturalist European Union (EU) elites will go to suppress free speech in the interest of promoting non-European immigration is astonishing and alarming. It means that Middle Eastern Arabs and South Asian Muslims are immune from prosecution and deportations, despite committing rapes on native European children and adult women. When a sane voice is raised, as in the case of Netherlands Geert Wilders, it is penalized.
If elections were to be held now (General elections are scheduled for March 15, 2017) in the Netherlands, Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders might very well win a majority in the Dutch parliament and might be elected as Prime Minister. Opinion polls notwithstanding, Wilders had to endure a trial in Amsterdam for allegedly inciting hatred and racial discrimination. The Dutch court found Wilders “guilty” of inciting discrimination against Dutch Moroccans that according to The Guardian (December 9, 2016) “is expected to intensify the debate about migration in the Netherlands.”
Geert Wilders was “guilty” of asking at a 2014 Freedom Party rally whether the crowd wanted “fewer or more Moroccans in the Netherlands.” Wilders called the trial a “politically motivated travesty.” Wilders was neither fined nor given prison time by the judges. What the trial does however show, is the stifling of free speech in the EU countries, and in this case, the Netherlands, particularly, when it does not comply with the elites of the EU cherished ideals of multiculturalism and its advocacy of free immigration.
Soeren Kern, in a Gatestone Institute article, quoted a high-ranking official in Frankfurt, Germany as reported by German newspaper Bild, “There are strict instructions from the top not to report sexual offenses committed by (immigrant) refugees. It is extraordinary that certain offenses are deliberately not being reported and the information is being classified as confidential.”
Boris Johnson, former Mayor of London and a leading voice for Brexit, argued (Economist June18-24 issue) that “Napoleon, Hitler, and other various people tried this out (forcefully unifying Europe-JP), and it ended tragically. The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods.” One of those coercive methods has been to limit, if not forbid, anti-immigration speech.
The elitist of the EU have seen a rise in nativist protest movements throughout the European continent. The voiceless people of the states of the European Union have been forced to adopt multiculturalism and political correctness as their new civil religion, and their dissenting voices are now being squashed by a series of measures that amount to the curtailment of free speech.
The European Commission, a powerful and unelected EU’s executive branch, announced last year plans to combat “illegal online hate speech.” The same European Commission unveiled a code of conduct that will ensure that online platforms do not offer opportunities for “illegal online hate speech to spread virally.” Unsurprisingly, it is the European Commission that will determine what constitutes “illegal online hate speech” and not the people’s elected representatives in the individual European countries that make up the EU.
A press release headline issued by the European Commission (EC) in Brussels on May 31, 2016, read “The European Commission and IT companies announce Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speech,” The EC explanatory paragraphs read: “In order to prevent the spread of illegal hate speech, it is essential to ensure that relevant national laws transposing the Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia are fully enforced by Member States in the online as well as the offline environment. 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 reviewed 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.”
These provisions of the EC against hate speech have done little to prevent the rise of anti-Semitism in the EU countries, nor has it criminalized the anti-Semitic nature of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement, which singles out the Jewish state. It does, however, seek to stifle the anti-immigrant movement, which is trying to alert Europeans of the coming Islamization of Europe. In addition, the EC decision will adversely impact on the civil liberties of over 500 million Europeans.
The net impact of recent “speech” laws enacted by European governments has been magnified by private censorship on anti-immigrants speech. For example, most news organizations have stopped showing images of Mohammad, although no such self-censorship has been made regarding caricatures of other religious figures. In September, 2012, French actress and animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot was fined several times for comments she made about how Muslims are undermining French culture. In Britain, a 15-year old girl was arrested for “burning a Koran at school and posting footage on Facebook.”
While Germany is on its way to committing demographic and cultural suicide with the admission of millions of Middle Eastern and African migrants, Sweden is already there. The people of Sweden are allowing its radical leftist governing parties and its equally pandering press to expedite their national demise. The Gatestone Institute reported (December 22, 2014) that before the scheduled March, 2015 elections, the current Social-Democrat and Greens party coalition government enacted “a measure far less publicized, that came into effect that Christmas (2014). The measure was designed to make it easier to prosecute those who offend immigrants, immigration policies, LGBT people and politicians online.”
According to Gatestone “even immigrants themselves do not seem to be allowed to challenge immigration policy or immigrant culture. Last year a Somali-born female journalist, critical of immigrant culture, was intimidated to such an extent by the Swedish journalistic establishment that she decided Mogadishu (Somalia) was a safer place for her than Sweden.”
Only in Sweden does the government take out loans to make welfare payments to migrant Muslim gang-rapists. While the government and its compliant leftist press blew out of proportion an attack on migrants, it had been silent on the rapes by mainly Arab and African Muslim migrants on Swedish women. The U.K. Daily Mail reported (March 4th, 2016) that “What is worrying is that if the Stockholm Station story has been blown out of proportion, it could have artificially fueled pro-migrant sentiment and made ordinary Swedes less ready to voice their worries about mass migration. Fears of a cover-up have been fueled by an investigation published by a flourishing online Swedish news outlet Nyherer Idag, showing that Swedish authorities hid from the public sexual assaults by immigrant gangs on scores of teenage girls at a popular Stockholm music festival booth last year and in 2014.”
Needless to say that in the EU states, anti-immigrant voices are stifled by archaic laws that are undemocratic to say the least. Europe’s EU bureaucrats are moreover suppressing free speech in the interest of promoting disastrous immigration policies. Europe has traded Christianity and pride in its civilizational accomplishment for the falsehood and insanity of multiculturalism.