Yet more evidence that the term ‘hate speech’ is fast becoming a euphemism for any form of lawful discourse that progressives happen not to like for purely ideological reasons – as reported by Thomas O’Reilly for the European Conservative, the European Parliament is investigating a Flemish MEP for hate speech after he referred to EU asylum policy as a form of “organised replacement” at a plenary debate.
This is the fourth such investigation the parliamentary authorities have opened in relation to utterances proffered in the Chamber by Right-wing MEPs in the past year.
Tom Vandendriessche of Vlaams Belang, who has represented the Flemish separatists since 2019, made the comments at a Strasbourg debate marking the start of the Belgian presidency of the European Council earlier this week.
In reference to the hotly debated EU Migration Pact, Vandendriessche declared that the purpose of the pact and most EU policy on the matter was to “attract more migration”, in response to comments made by Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson on the need for Europe to accept additional migrants from the Global South.
“She wants to bring an additional one million migrants to Europe, on top of the many millions we already have,” Vandendriessche went on to say in Dutch, saying that this is the very definition of replacement migration.
Despite the function of the debate being to encourage ‘debate’ (the clue, if you look carefully, is in the descriptor), outraged progressive MEPs subsequently protested to the Maltese President of the Parliament, Roberta Metsola, who in turn swiftly announced that she would launch an investigation into Vandendriessche’s words and examine if they broke Parliament’s rules of conduct.
If found guilty by Parliamentary authorities of using hate speech, the Flemish MEP could face a fine or even suspension of his voting rights under the Parliament’s Rule of Procedure.
Commenting on the investigation, Mr. Vandendriessche told the European Conservative: “This EU is increasingly becoming an EUSSR where the opposition is persecuted for telling the truth.”
Last year, a trio of Left-wing female MEPs demanded an urgent investigation into three Right-wing colleagues, alleging that during a debate on women’s rights in the Chamber, they committed ‘hate speech’ when describing transgender women as the “biggest threat to women”, and positing a link between a rise in violence against women across Europe and what they said was the growing influence of Islam.
At the time, President Metsola quickly confirmed that parliamentary authorities would “look into it”.
EU Matrix, a leading Brussels-based analytical research agency, has predicted Left-wing parties risk losing seats across Europe to the Right in 2024, making a Right-wing majority in the EU Parliament a distinct possibility.
The anticipated rightward swing reflects a broader trend across national elections in Europe, where voters in countries such as Italy, Finland and Greece have increasingly elevated more Conservative and hard-Right parties.
Dr. Frederick Attenborough is the Communications Officer of the Free Speech Union.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
One would assume that hate speech must at least contain some, well, hate, ie, strongly emotional derogatory remarks about someone or some group of people. But that’s apparently optional nowadays and the label really just means expressing an opinion or even just stating some facts the porkressive left really disapproves of. Why not simply ban all other parties as hate parties? After all, different parties exists because people have differing opinions on pretty much everything and if that’s – by definition – hate, non-porkressive left parties obviously cannot be legitimate.
Porkressive – I hope you don’t mind if I appropriate that!
No. I like word- / soundplays like this because I think they’re often very descriptive. I’m glad whenever someone actually understands them instead of believing them to be either typos or some sign of insanity.
Yet the EU seems to get nothing but praise in most of your comments. Are you now doing a “Starmer”?
You’re mistaking my desire to remain factually accurate with ‘praise’.
You “praise” the EU often. Which is like me praising Nazi’s for building some nice motorways.
I certainly don’t. But this doesn’t mean that I think that the idea you seem to have of it is accurate. I’ve occasionally (on at least two occasions) used the following Sun Tzu quote in such contexts:
If you know neither yourself nor the enemy, all of your battles will end in defeat(1). If you know yourself but don’t know the enemy, each of your victories will be followed by a reverse(2). If you know yourself and know the enemy, you’ll have no reason to fear for the outcome of a hundred battles(3).
My opinion on popular (in England) EU criticism is that it’s mainly futile because it’s either at stage 1 or 2. Eg, a lot of what’s directed at the EU should really be directed against the member state governments who control it.
I have no personal ties of common allegiance with people from Estonia, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Portugal or any of those countries. But people in those countries are not my enemy. I just don’t want them having any say in what happens in the UK. We have enough problems with the squirming parasite politicians we already have without having to contend with another pack of them from 27 other countries. The best government is the one that governs the least, but the EU micro manages every aspect of people’s life.
Yes ”hate speech” appears to be another fluid concept whereby the goal posts keep on shifting, now that the whole world has done a ‘180’ and everything we thought of as common sense is decidedly nonsensical and topsy turvy. I feel like ‘hate speech’ is just another garbage slur or baseless accusation, much like ”misinformation/fascist/conspiracy theorist”, flung around by Lefty Woketards at us ”far-right” rednecks, when we do or say something which displeases them, like speak up for our basic rights or question their unethical agendas they relentlessly push.
I shared the story about the Belgian MEP the other day so I’ve nothing further to add, but on the theme of migration, what do people think of this?
”Illegal boat migrants have reportedly been quietly given the right to work in Britain by the so-called Conservative government of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, in a move critics warn will only serve to further incentivise illegals breaking into the country.
Almost 16,000 asylum seekers, including many who crossed the English Channel illegally in small boats launched by people smuggling networks on the beaches of France, have been permitted to work in Britain, according to data revealed under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws by The Telegraph.
This comes despite government policy stating that asylum seekers should not be able to work in the country while their claims are being considered.
However, according to the paper, the Home Office — the government branch tasked with managing immigration — has allowed some migrants to work in certain sectors of the economy allegedly facing shortages of workers, such as in agriculture, construction, and healthcare.
“This is a disaster. Once the traffickers can advertise jobs and free board, even more will want to come. Rwanda is completely irrelevant in comparison to this,” Mr Farage said.
The chairman of the Migration Watch UK think tank, Alp Mehmet added: “How can we take seriously the Government’s professed commitment to stopping the boats when such a ploy is under way?”
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/01/21/disaster-illegal-boat-migrants-given-right-to-work-in-britain-despite-government-policy-report/
“However, according to the paper, the Home Office — the government branch tasked with managing immigration — has allowed some migrants to work in certain sectors of the economy allegedly facing shortages of workers, such as in agriculture, construction, and healthcare.”
What people will not realise is that in order to work these people will have been given National Insurance numbers (NINO) which means they will also have “Indefinite Leave to Remain.” In other words it is nigh on impossible to kick them out.
Once these ingratiates have a NeeNo (NINO) they have access to the full range of State Benefits.
Luvley Jubbly.
They also have to be competent humans. I posit that as they are the dross of their home countries, they have no skills, knowledge or competence that we need. It is also somewhat ironic that people from Africa may end up working in the fields of Western countries. History rhymes.
We are fighting a resurgence of communism across the west. That vile, evil, warped ideology did not die in 1989/1990, it just went underground and bided its time. Because we did not hold trials of the communists who were in charge and ran that system in eastern Europe, there was no public reckoning (I think this was a deliberate cover up by communists within the system in the west) and publicity of its evils and its crimes against humanity. Therefore many people simply do not know how awful communism is. We have not learned from history and so are now doomed to suffer its lesson again.
All hard right means here is people who don’t want as much immigration.
So those who want and promote more immigration must be hard left then.
Do they ever get called hard left, though? Or lax immigration policy hard left policy?
Seems, maybe just to me, that women are disproportionately represented in all this kind of puerile, self-aggrandising, school-playground-esque, totalitarian bollocks.
Yes they are. Women are emotional, anxious and attracted to any male who looks like he might win over the current crop of males. My theory is that women are potential traitors to their tribe because they always will mate with the winners (because they are too weak to fight back and so are biologically adapted to simply surrender to the winners- another reason why women should never be on the front line in any military).
It also could create conflict within the army, with competing love rivals etc.
I’m afraid you’re right. Women tend to be less analytical than men; more driven by emotion; want to be “part of the group” and will adjust their behaviour to do it; and want to be seen as “nice.”
I’m female, but am a Myers-Briggs ISTJ, which is a more common personality type in men.
Keep saying hurtful things to the communist crybabies, Mr Vandendriesche. You have my complete support.
I don’t believe in any deity but I pray every day that a massive right wing victory floods the EU with right minded MEPs. The EUSSR must die.
It seems to me that the term “hate speech” actually means “truthful speech.”
Good to see that the Flemish MEP has recognised that the EU is just a marginally more benign version of the USSR.
We used to think this kind of tyranny only happened in communist places like the USSR and China and we all were so grateful we did not have to live in such regimes. The clever communists developed new tactics for their tyranny though and their language and policies are designed to make it sound like freedom is the goal, equality is the goal, diversity is the goal, and all of their talk and actions are shrouded in the language of benevolence. Communist tyranny is alive and well now in the EU and they realise that no one will accept them as communists so they changed their name to something nicer—–Liberal Progressives. —–Who could object to anything being Progress? But progressing to what? The answer is more and more government and less and less freedom. —–Bit by bit like how you boil the Lobster.
The EU is dead, it just doesn’t know it yet.
As with all oppressive regimes, when faced with descent become more oppressive.