Why the European Equal Treatment Directive is Creating an Offensive Environment
Civitas, 27 October 2009
In last week’s positively surreal broadcast of BBC tv’s Question Time, deputy prime minister Jack Straw blathered on about how Parliament had boldly preserved freedom of expression in Britain by deliberately refraining from making Holocaust denial a crime. In yesterday’s Times, Straw was joined by his cabinet colleague, Foreign Secretary David Miliband, blathering on about how wonderful for Britain is its membership of the EU and how Euro-sceptics should stop whinging and learn to love the wonderful new international power bloc that it will finally become after ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
Meanwhile, the fundamental right of freedom of expression in this country is about to be severely curbed by a brand new directive from Brussels which has crept up on us all with all the customary stealth its edicts typically do.
The directive in question is the Equal Treatment Directive. It is due to go before the Council of Ministers next month for final ratification, having been approved by the European Parliament in April 2008.
Initially, it was primarily concerned to ensure disabled people would not be discriminated against when accessing ‘goods and services’, but it was seized on by ‘diversity’ merchants and its scope dramatically extended.
In its current form, it is drafted to make it a criminal offence for anyone to ‘harass’ another by, among other things, ‘creating an… offensive environment.’
If someone complains against someone else for having created an offensive environment, it will be left to the person about whom the complaint has been made to establish that he or she did not did not make the environment offensive to the complainant. Should they fail to do so to the satisfaction of the courts, they will be liable to unlimited fine.
Basically, it will be a charter to curb all criticism on secular or religious grounds of other people’s life-styles and faiths. In the interests of protecting diversity and minorities, essentially everyone is to be silenced.
I personally feel deeply offended by this new proposed directive, regarding it as creating an ‘intimidating, hostile, and offensive environment’.
Should it be approved by the Council of Ministers when it goes before them and so becomes law, will I be able to take them to court for harassment under its terms?
Somehow, I doubt it, although I fear that it won’t be long before someone is on my case, unless I cease to complain about the directive.
For some really chilling information about it, read the piece about it by Paul Belien on the Hudson Institute’s blog and watch the video clip in which law professor William Wagner explains why the new directive promises to be such a threat to liberty.
I think this is among the most important info for me. And i’m satisfied reading your article. But should statement on few basic things, The website taste is wonderful, the articles is in point of fact excellent :D. Excellent process, cheers.
I can only assume the author doth jest, with mock ignorance.
Any model is as good as its ability to describe the evidence. In this case, there is no evidence at all that those creating these laws care deeply or feel particular empathy for the causes they defend – otherwise we would find Harman living amongst the diverse suburbs of a Northern City. If indeed equality was a goal, then we would see laws applied equally to all. (With the surest knowledge that anyone who required defence would receive it, irrespective of colour, creed, religion….). If prejudice was indeed believed an evil, then surely the best way to counter this would be through encouraging debate and careful collection of a whole array of facts, which sought to both prove and disprove the hypothesis under discussion, and test the weight of each side.
No, the only evidence I see is that an unholy interest group has formed between ambitious segments of the public sector and minority groups, who are effectively their weapon and shield on missions of self-propogation. This is not to deny that the latter group may need support, only to note that they don’t receive that support for reasons of altruism.
I find it surprising that we have not seen more appropriate responses to claims of being offended: Like, “prove it” or “i don’t believe you”.
Perhaps we have gone to far to be afforded the right to such a response however, which leaves one tactic left:
It is the creation of a self-declared humanitarian-libertarian religion. It has a creed of free self-expression for all beliefs and all people, without fear of censure. Uniquely, it is a religion to which can be a member alongside other religions. It’s God is simple “truth”.
So, guilty unless proved innocent it would seem.
They will never create an ‘offence’ free world no matter how hard they legislate.
Folks should just accept that at times you will be offended in this world and be secure enough in your own identity and beliefs to rise above it.
Christians have been dealing with offensive comments about them and their faith and yet I can’t think of one single case of a Christian scuttling off to the law courts, or calling the police.