by Douglas Murray
- The German Chancellor has shown no interest in the strengthening of Europe’s external borders, restoring the internal ones, the creation of an effective system to monitor or verify the identity of asylum seekers and repatriation of persons who have lied in order to enter Europe. Rather, the Chancellor wanted to know how the founder of Facebook could help to limit the freedom of expression of Europeans on FB and other social media.
- Then, on May 31, the European Union announced a new code of conduct on freedom of expression online, which will apply from four major IT companies, including Facebook and YouTube,
- It was clear from the start that Facebook has a problem with definitions, as well as a political bias in deciding on these issues. In that way Fb defines the ‘racism’? What is your definition of ‘xenophobia’? And starting from this, what is the definition of ‘hate speech’?
- Of course the European Union is a government – for more unelected – therefore, its will not only avoid to answer those who criticize but also to criminalize their opinions and prohibiting the contrary views, it is very bad, and It places it on the same level of government of a country that prohibits or criminalises the opinions of those who blames him.
Nine months later by how Angela Merkel and Mark Zuckerberg have tried to solve the European migration crisis. Of course, to recognize that this crisis was caused by one of the doors open to immigration from the Third World politics would be for Merkel a good way to groped to solve the problem.
But German Chancellor no German has shown no interest in the strengthening of Europe’s external borders, restoring the internal ones, the creation of an effective system to monitor or verify the identity of asylum seekers and repatriation of persons who lied to get into Europe.Rather, Chancellor Merkel was interested in Facebook.
Sitting next to Mark Zuckerberg, Frau Merkel wanted to know how the founder of Facebook could help to limit the freedom of expression of Europeans on FB and other social media. While chatting with the CEO of Palo Alto , at a United Nations summit in September 2015 (and unaware of open microphones), she asked him what he was doing to prevent the publication of comments on Facebook against its migration policy. “You’re working on?” the he asked. “Yes,” replied Zuckerberg.
In the following months, we learned that it was not mere chatter exchanged for lunch. In January this year, Facebook launched its ‘initiative for online civil courage’ , pledging one million euro in favor of non-governmental organizations able to counteract the “racist” comments and “xenophobic” published online. The company also promised to remove ‘the messages of incitement to hatred’ and expressions of “xenophobia” by the Facebook site.
It was clear from the start that Facebook has a problem with definitions, as well as a political bias in deciding on these issues. In that way Fb defines the ‘racism’? What is your definition of ‘xenophobia’? And starting from this, what is your definition of ‘hate speech’? As to the political prejudice, because Facebook had already considered the idea to delete comments in favor of “open borders”? There are many people in Europe who think that in the world there should be no borders and that anyone who wishes is free to live in the Old Continent. Because people who express opinions like that of Facebook (and they are many) have not been censored and their post removed? These views are not “extreme”?
One of the issues with this set of questions – a problem that is clearly not occurred to him to Facebook – is that the answers may vary from country to country. Any political scientist knows that there are laws that apply in some countries but not in others. Contrary to the opinions of many “progressives” Transnational, the world does not have a set of universal and even less universal customs laws. Laws against incitement to fall largely within the framework of customs and traditions.
Therefore, it is unwise to impose on a country the policy of another country without at least to have a thorough knowledge of the traditions and laws of that country. Every society has its own history and is involved in many ways the most sensitive issues. For example, in Germany, France, the Netherlands and some other European countries there are laws already in force on publication of Nazi documents and dissemination of material that enhances (or present) Adolf Hitler and denying the Holocaust. German legislation prohibiting any photographic reproduction of Hitler might seem ridiculous in London but not in Berlin. Of course, it would take a very secure London himself to impose a policy that modifies this German law.
To understand the things that are prohibited or that should be prohibited in a society you should have tremendous confidence in the knowledge of the taboos and history of that country, as well as the rules and laws governing freedom of expression. Prohibit the worship of idols Communists, for example, it might seem sensible, tasteful and even desirable in one of the many countries that have experienced communism, to limit the suffering of the victims and prevent the revival of an ideology that. Yet, a universal prohibition of images or texts that exalt the communist murderers of ten million people would turn into criminals even those thousands of Westerners – especially Americans – who love to wear T-shirts with the image of Che Guevara or who continue to cultivate their adolescent fantasy that Fidel Castro is an icon of freedom. All free societies must allow to express the widest range of opinions. But they will have different ideas about where does the legitimate expression and incitement begins.
So, it would be presumptuous of Facebook and others develop a unilateral policy on the fight against what instigates hatred, if there was – and is – an obvious political bias from the start.Therefore, it is particularly regrettable that this movement of struggle against the speeches that incite hatred has found manforte on 31 May, when the European Union announced a new code of conduct on freedom of expression online, which will apply from four large companies IT, including Facebook and YouTube.
Of course the European Union is a government – for more unelected – therefore, its will not only avoid to answer those who criticize but also to criminalize their opinions and prohibiting the contrary views, it is very bad, and It puts him on the same level of the government of a country that prohibits or criminalises the opinions of those who blames him.
These issues have nothing abstract and affect us all as proven – as if proof were needed – from Facebook’s decision to suspend the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, the experienced Swedish Gatestone . Last year, Sweden, with the arrival of migrants has increased the population of 1-2 percent. Also this year is estimated to have a similar rate of population growth. As anyone knows who has studied the situation, this is a company whose original model is ready to shatter (according to the most positive interpretation) because of his progressivism “generous.”
Countries with welfare models like Sweden can not accommodate so many people do not have serious economic problems. And companies that have no experience of integration can not absorb a large number of people arriving constantly. How can testify who travels to Sweden, this country is subject to an enormous and growing tension .
The awareness of such a change takes place through negation. The EU, the Swedish Government and the vast majority of the Swedish press have no desire to hear the criticism that raises a policy from them implemented or encouraged; the consequences will one day feel to their goal, but they want to postpone that day, preferably indefinitely. So instead of turning off the fire that they set, they decided to attack those who accuse them of being arsonists. In such a situation, is not only a right but also a duty of free people to report the facts, even if other people may be deaf. Only a country that slips into autocracy and chaos, with a ruling class that intends to shirk its responsibility, the potential to reduce to silence those few people who report that they can see clearly in front of them.
People have to take sides – now and in a hurry – in favor of freedom of expression before it is removed the right, it should support journalists like Ingrid Carlqvist and denounce those powers who want to silence us. Unfortunately, is not an exaggeration to say that our future depends on it.