EU Parliament Wants to Censor Information About Immigrants

On March 8, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on fighting “racism” in culture, education, media, and sport. The text is a mishmash of ethnic demands peppered with woke language about “uprooting structural racism,” the need to collect “equality data,” and adopting an “intersectional approach to policymaking.”

The resolution was overwhelmingly adopted by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), with 495 votes in favor, 109 against, and 92 abstentions.

The most worrying provision is a demand to censor media containing “stigmatizing” information about “racialized communities . . . for example by targeting migrants as being the source of various economic and social problems and giving disproportionate coverage to crimes committed by migrants.”

Given the disproportionate involvement of Africans and Muslims in crime, welfare use, and underachievement in many western European countries, the EU Parliament is demanding censorship of media that spread factual information.

Consider the following statistics:

• The London Metropolitan Police reported that in 2019, 51 percent of knife crimes were committed by blacks, even though blacks are only about 13 percent of the population. This black over-representation in knife crime is not new, and perfectly mirrors black over-representation in violent crime in the United States.
• French data show that North-African, Sub-Saharan African, and Turkish immigrants to France have higher fertility rates, are more likely to underperform educationally and economically, and are more likely to use social housing than are European immigrants or the native French.
• In Germany, there was a rise in violent crime when Angela Merkel let in one million “refugees.” This culminated on New Year’s Eve 2015–16 when gangs of Middle Eastern men sexually assaulted more than 1,200 German women, including more than 600 in Cologne and about 400 in Hamburg. Police authorities tried to hush up the assaults. The European Commission insisted the they were “not related” to the arrival of “refugees” and warned against a “xenophobic” backlash.
• In Rotherham and other northern English towns, Asian gangs sexually exploited thousands of English girls for years with impunity. Local politicians refused to investigate because doing so would “give oxygen to racist perspectives.”
• People from the Middle-Eastern and North-Africa (MENA) in Denmark have a negative impact on public finances throughout life, using more in welfare and public services and paying less in taxes than either native Danes or Western immigrants.

The Economist titled a graph of the Danish findings “It’s complicated,” although it is not complicated at all:

Similar figures can be found for just about every Western country that collects the statistics.

The EU Parliament also wants national media regulators to have greater power to censor “programs that promote racist content” and wants cuts in public funding to media promoting “hate speech” and “xenophobia.” The media should “eschew practices that perpetuate or reinforce negative stereotypes about ethnic and racial minorities” and should “show members of these communities performing positive roles.”

The MEPs also want censorship of social media, calling for “accountability of digital platforms and social networks” that spread “anti-migrant and anti-minority sentiment.”

The text’s author is Salima Yenbou, a French MEP of Algerian descent, born in the Parisian banlieue of Seine-Saint-Denis, which is notorious for having almost entirely lost its native French population. She is a former Green politician who recently rallied to the centrist globalist movement of President Emmanuel Macron.

Ms. Yenbou defended her resolution:

We need to actively work against racism, so that our daughters and sons no longer have to ask themselves whether they have a place in our societies. To build a better future, we have to know and understand our history. That’s why it’s important for students to learn more about colonialism, slavery, genocide, and all the ensuing phenomena.

She added that we need to “put an end to media that spread racist language about migrants and refugees, and contents that are intentionally or unintentionally racist.” The elimination of unintentionally racist content, whatever that is, would give governments very broad censorship power.

The full text makes many demands:

• Rewrite school curricula to fight “discriminatory stereotypes” and shoehorn in “figures from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.”
• “Lifelong learning” among educators and police to weed out racism.
• Measures to ensure “people from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds take part in cultural events, such as voucher schemes or similar endeavors,” which sounds like subsidies for non-whites.
• “Foster diversity in cultural institutions among both employees and management, by introducing eligibility and award criteria in organizations that receive public funding,” seemingly a call for discriminating in favor of hiring and promoting non-whites.
• EU institutions must ensure “mainstreaming of racial equality throughout EU policies . . . by all [departments].”
• “Promote the languages, culture and history of minorities in school curricula, museums and other forms of cultural and historical expression” and fund “the arts and culture of racialized and ethnic groups.”
• “Take steps to support children from racial and ethnic minorities and precarious socioeconomic backgrounds on their pathways to excellence by helping them get involved in extracurricular activities (e.g. arts and sport) at a high level, enabling them to get into schools that meet their particular needs, providing good-quality education opportunities, and making the necessary funding available.”
• Add trigger warnings to media with “racist” content.

Further observations in the text:

• “Racist stereotypes have a tendency to continue over generations.” I wonder why?
• “The collection of good-quality data is one of the most effective ways to analyze social problems – both quantitatively and qualitatively – and is instrumental for devising, adapting, monitoring and developing evidence-based public policy responses to those problems.” Will data on violent crime, welfare use, and tax contributions be racially disaggregated?
• “Access to education and educational attainment is an issue for racialized communities throughout Europe,” which acknowledges underperformance by Africans and Muslims, a problem European or East-Asian immigrants do not have.
• “Racism exists in all areas of our daily life.”
• “European societies are home to increasing cultural diversity and a growing share of foreign-born populations and their descendants,” in short, the Great Replacement is taking place.
• “Racism is deeply embedded in society and intertwined with its cultural roots, heritage, and social norms.”
• “Notes the immense contribution made by diverse communities to Europe’s cultural and linguistic diversity.” A truly beautiful tautology.
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) has a discriminatory impact.
• Schools have a key role in “debunking prejudices and stereotypes, and promoting tolerance, understanding, and diversity.”
• “Particular elements of European history, including colonialism, slavery and genocide, in particular the Holocaust, together with other manifestations of racism, continue to have a lasting impact on today’s society.” These events should be “contextualized” and their “links to the present” highlighted.
• We should “eradicate bullying on racial grounds.” The authors were not thinking of the explosion of black-on-white and Muslim-on-white bullying in European schools.

The general point is obviously to demoralize Europeans by delegitimating their identity, denigrating their historical achievements, and blaming them for the contemporary failures of multiculturalism.

The authors claim that “disinformation often targets minorities and instigates social unrest; whereas an independent and pluralistic media that promotes balanced narratives serves to foster inclusive societies.” Furthermore, children should be taught “to make them aware of the negative impact of intolerance and developing their critical thinking skills.”

Europeans are to be brainwashed into not recognizing the clear disadvantages of African and Islamic immigration — in terms of crime, welfare use, and identity — while the régime sings the praises of “critical thinking” and “media pluralism”!

MEPs want “critical thinking” and “pluralism” that support only one viewpoint: multiculturalist, blank-slatist, and globalist. This claim of intellectual openness while being deeply authoritarian is the hypocrisy at the heart of contemporary liberalism.

The EU Parliament further warns against nationalists who “seek to divide our societies.” In fact, this division has already been achieved by the loss of our societies’ homogeneity.

Today, barely half of children in Belgium are born to native Belgian parents, one-third are probably of African or Muslim origin. The trends are similar across Western countries. Not since the Völkerwanderung brought on by the collapse of the Roman Empire has Europe witnessed such wholesale replacement of native populations.

In a democracy, citizens should have the right to know how their society is changing. Indeed, our people should be able to decide what we want our society to look like in 10, 20, or 100 years. The so-called “European” Parliament does not want Europeans even to have the right to know what is happening to their nations, much less discuss it.

This document, staking out the Parliament’s position, is typical of the EU’s woke shift in recent years. Until recently, the EU did scarcely any egalitarian work on race and recruitment into the European civil service, which still uses race-blind IQ tests. The small number of “racialized minorities” within the EU bureaucracy has caused consternation among HR managers.

The EU has faced some backlash from citizens and national governments for its woke turn. The EU Commission had to withdraw “inclusive language guidelines” that banned words such as “Christmas” and “man-made” in public communications. EU bureaucrats had also advised against using “Mary and John” as an example couple, preferring “Malika and Julio.”

While the EU Parliament’s resolution is non-binding, it suggests what is to come. The EU recently decided to ban Russian media across the bloc, a precedent that could be used against any dissident media. Europeans must defend dissident media, spread the word on the consequences of African and Islamic immigration, and demand that their elected officials stand up for free speech across our continent.