Imagine that you are a politician who wants to impose on citizens far-reaching and possibly highly unpopular among parts of voters restrictions – specified as freedom of speech. How can we do this to minimize the possible of opposition, or at least be able to argue strong arguments? The way has been the same for centuries: the people will!
It is essential to make the impression that the decision is not made by personal, organization or ideological motivations of politics, but that it is only a transmission belt between the strategy of lawmaking and the people who request certain solutions. This is how it began to work, first of all, erstwhile the crowned rulers said good-bye to the function of the sovereign, and their place was taken by citizens – at least since the anti-French Revolution (not including the various political models existing in ancient times with peculiar emphasis on the Roman republic).
At present, activistic pathology is simply a model example of this. Politicians always have an activist on their hands, who can act as a people demanding specified or another solutions. This is most evident in cities and in the sphere of "ecology". In cities, marginal activist groups dominated fake public consultations, and left-wing presidents or mayors can always announce that they must close further streets for traffic, destruct further parking spaces or grow the area of clean transport as the people demand, and it is known – vox populi, vox Dei. Although I do not know whether this kind of mention to ancient maxim is inactive politically correct.
The same is actual in the area of broadly understood "ecology": the opposition of groups, which are the promils of the citizens of our country, in addition to frequently financed in an opaque way, paralyzes crucial investments. It is adequate to look at how the Frank Bold foundation functions, although highly harmful, but besides highly dangerous, where respective lawyers with an utmost left-wing green agenda have a colossal, completely disproportionate impact on reality. A akin mechanics was launched by the Ministry of Climate and Environment: in the offensive of the deputy minister Nicholas Dorożała against the huntsman for representatives of citizens, a fistful of fanatics focused in pro-animal organizations do.
You may have heard or read about these matters. But I'm going to bet you don't know the EU institutions' civilian panels. In the meantime, they have become a permanent part of the EU's "spiar" and service EU and European Commission policies to justify extremist change. The panels have been held respective times. At sessions – any in Brussels or Strasbourg, any take place remotely – there are about 150 "randomly elected" citizens from all 27 associate States to advise on any very crucial problem. What is this "random choice" – unfortunately we are incapable to find out. Page Citizens' panels do not explain it; it simply states that participants are "accidentally elected". I bet this randomness is as random as erstwhile the celebrated non-alcoholic beer “Bosman” in a commercial with the text “Bosman!”
The panels are held under appropriate supervision and care, and citizens are always rightly afraid about the problem. With the EU's civilian panels, it is like with the organisations of the city activists: it is clear who will be there and what views they will have – they can be "various" ("diversity" is 1 of the key words) provided they are only right. The unusual chance in the conclusions of any panel held so far (a panel on food waste, on the virtual world, on freedom of movement in connection with discipline and on energy efficiency) was not beyond the collection of safe communities.
However, no of these panels had the same possible as the late completed hatred panel. I am not going to go over the issue of combating “the speech of hatred” again. PCh24 readers know perfectly well, I believe, why this tool serves. Just perceive to the announcements of Adam Bodnar or Krzysztof Śmiszek on this issue – and these announcements are only a reflection of the standard European narrative. “Hate”, as we know, only appears on 1 side – on the another there is always only love, which simply sometimes, in order to defy “hate”, must take a somewhat harsh form. And in order for this love to be more, hatred must be censored.
What, then, do European citizens who have bowed to the flood of hatred urge in their final conclusions "accidentally elected"?
First, to introduce you to the temper in which the deliberations were held, a fewer quotes from the entry to the list of recommendations.
Hexistential and ongoing conflicts can lead to the transmission of hatred from generation to generation. all conflict, all war and all geopolitical tension in Europe's complex past have contributed to this cycle. Without active commitment to repair and cure these injuries, the hatred fueled by conflicts continues, which threatens to perpetuate the cycle of hostility and divisions. [...]
The fundamental feature of human nature is the desire to belong to a social group or to be subject to social dynamics in order to have a sense that you are “the same as others.” This desire may sometimes be so strong that it leads to the expression of hatred and intolerance, the attitude of “we versus them” towards “the others.” This dynamic attitude of distrust and hatred has a peculiarly negative impact on people and groups delicate to cultural origin, migration status, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, household position and socio-economic factors. The deficiency of education on various identities, cultures, tolerance, conversations and communication, as well as the deficiency of reliable information on the Internet, can deepen misunderstandings, perpetuate prejudices and lead to hatred.
You already know the degree of the references, right?
So now the most interesting recommendations.
Recommendation number 1: a fresh common European definition of hatred speech.
It is recommended that the European Commission set up a differentiated working group to update and extend the scope of the common definition of "illegal hatred speech" in order to guarantee the criminalisation of the dissemination of this phenomenon. The current definition, adopted in 2008, focuses on racism and xenophobia, but excludes another forms of hate, specified as the ability of [What the hell is that?] and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, gender, age. This outdated word should be amended immediately to reflect the integration values of our modern society.
Recommendation No 2: a common European strategy for reporting hatred crimes.
A clear and uniform procedure for reporting hatred crimes in all EU associate States is recommended. This procedure should be effectively implemented in organisations that are in contact with victims of hatred crimes. All previously proposed and ineffective measures should be reviewed and a simple process should be developed to let victims and witnesses to study all crimes, including online crime.
Recommendation No. 3: A ‘independent’ national hatred control office should be established in each associate State.
It is recommended to set up an independent hatred Control Office in each associate State. A strong institution with legal competence and effective communication is needed, providing people with concrete assistance through an nonsubjective and independent crime reporting system.
Recommendation number 12: No more anonymity on the Internet. The usage of social media is to be linked to the confirmation of identity by a government document.
It is recommended to regulate the principles of anonymity on the net in order to guarantee more effective tracking, prosecution and accountability by the applicable authorities of haters. [...]
An identity authentication strategy should be established at the level of each associate State in which the minimum information essential to identify the individual is collected through a government portal. This solution should be progressively harmonised at EU associate State level.
Recommendation number 14: make a social media censorship strategy based on artificial intelligence. The strategy would work even before sending an entry, which means it would gotta monitor what we are writing, not just what has already appeared.
It is recommended to make a tool based on artificial intelligence to detect illegal hatred speech on social media platforms, ensuring compliance with EU standards.
The EU is already pushing the tool (for now, due to the large controversy that sparks the idea, a case has been removed until 2026) which can be of excellent usage here. It's CSAM, which is government that involves real-time network scanning, officially to detect material containing kid pornography. Well, if there's a strategy like this, why not usage it to fight the “talk of hatred”?
The conclusions of the panel sound like quotes from an article published on the "Political Criticals" portal. And let us have no illusions: even if not all are implemented, the recommendations of the European people (or, more specifically, their "accidentally chosen" representatives, led by Eurocrats) will be utilized by the successors of Vera Jourova to push the extremist censor agenda.
Luke Warches
