Monday 23 September 2013

Orwellian Double-Speak in Europe




New Thought Police Warmly Welcomed at  “Civil Liberties” Committee

Posted on | September 20, 2013 
By J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
European Dignity Watch has an interesting report on a recent meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE), in which a lobby group called the “European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR)” was given a 45-minitues slot to present a policy proposal that is called the Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance.


The group’s approach towards “tolerance” appears to be rather simple: it claims to be promoting “tolerance”, which is vaguely defined as “respect for and acceptance of the expression, preservation and development of the distinct identity of a group”. With regard to potential critics it says: “There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant (….) especially (…) as far as freedom of expression is concerned”.

It comes as no surprise, then, that the paper contains a lot of proposals how to limit, or even to completely eliminate, the freedom of speech of all potential critics of any of the groups whose acceptance the ECTR wants to promote.
The purpose is to pre-emptively immunize contemporary ideologies, such as feminism, homosexualism, gender ideology, immigration policies, etc. against criticism. The statement that “tolerance must be practiced not only by Governmental bodies but equally by individuals” suggests that the paper envisages that censure and thought control should be extended to the private sphere of citizens.

The proposal is yet another example for the Orwellian technique of turning the meaning of words in to their opposite. In Orwell’s novel, “peace” means war and “freedom” means slavery. In the European Parliament, “tolerance” means intolerance.

I am just wondering: are the Members of the Parliamentary Committee acting in full conscience of what was proposed to them? Or have they just been misled by a nice text of which they did not grasp the full meaning?

No comments: