Two interesting news stories, one from Prague and the other from Edinburgh, were sent in for the news feed on Thursday. Although they concern two totally different topics, they are connected by their relevance to the proposed new EU law for the enforcement of “tolerance”.

First, an update on that odious would-be law. Last week we posted a translated article from Germany about an ominous document known as The European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance, which has been presented to the European Parliament.

Last Wednesday a commenter named Jon Danzig registered a firm dissent concerning our presentation of the issue:

‘The European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,’ was produced by The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation. This is a non-governmental organisation that has nothing to do with the European Union and doesn’t have any power to draft or introduce EU law.

The document was simply presented to the Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee. However, this matter is NOT being discussed or considered by the European Parliament. This is NOT going to be European Union law.

I hope a correction will be published.

My blog about Europe: http://www.eu-rope.com

There will be no “correction”, since my take on the possibility that the “tolerance” law might be enacted by the European Commission and approved by the European Parliament is a statement of opinion, rather than an assertion of fact. I’m entitled to my opinion, and Mr. Danzig is entitled to his. Both are equally “correct”.

Henrik Ræder Clausen made the following response to Mr. Danzig, also in the comments:

Jon, the article doesn’t state that the document is under discussion in the European Parliament, merely that it has been published by the EP, which is technically correct. You may check the precise URL for verification.

As is well known, the European Parliament does not have the authority to actually propose law. Initiating law is the exclusive prerogative of the Commission, which may well take up this proposal and use it as a basis for new European law. The language of it sure suggests that it is intended to become law, sooner or later. The fact that the EP has considered it already does not lessen that possibility. The assertion in the article that it is ‘likely’ to become European law is the opinion of the editor here, and given that we already have dreadful EU law like the Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia, it does not come across as implausible that this proposal will go through, in one form or another. Possibly modified by the Parliament based on ground work by the Commission.

I do not believe any correction of the article is needed. Your opinion stands in the comments as published, and as such constitutes a fine example of citizens discussion matters of importance to our future.

As for you ‘guarantee’ that this will not become European law, I certainly would not bet the future of my children and grandchildren on it. For if the Union continues down the path it is threading, I may need to teach them how to be a good dissident rather than a loyal Union Citizen adhering to the mandatory tolerance prescribed.

Now back to the news stories from Prague and Edinburgh.

It seems that the cultural enrichment of Prague has reached the stage where female students are insisting on their right to wear the hijab when attending classes, a process much more familiar to cities further west. Up until recently the Czech Republic seemed immune to the multicultural madness that results in such demands, but it has now become so PC-infected that a story such as this one can appear in the Prague Daily Monitor:

Prague, Nov 18 (CTK) — It is unfortunate that a Prague secondary nursing school rejected the request of its two students, Muslim girls, who asked for a permission to wear a headscarf in their classes, Tomas Brolik writes in weekly Respekt out yesterday.

The two girls then left the school on their own to study elsewhere. There was no drama, no extreme emotions, yet the case led to the first “hijab affair” in the Czech Republic, Brolik says.

He notes that the school head Ivanka Kohoutova politely rejected the request, arguing that the school rules permit a covered head neither for students nor for teachers.

But school rules are no wall of concrete and changing them would not be a display of cowardly concession to fundamental Islam, but merely standard responsiveness, Brolik writes.

He says using the school rules as an argument seems misplaced because the two girls did not ask for anything extreme. Some Muslim women simply consider it unbecoming not to wear a headscarf. Similarly, European women would feel unbecoming without a skirt, Brolik adds. [emphasis added]

Ah, yes. These Muslimas are not extreme, you see, so their demands are reasonable, and should be met. There aren’t very many Muslims in Prague yet, so a hijab here, a footbath there — that’s all the Czechs will need to worry about.

For a while. When the number of Muslims reaches, say, 8% of the population, the rules of the game will change. There will be no alternative to halal food in public schools. Swimming baths will offer gender-segregated bathing sessions. “Sharia zones” will be established in certain neighborhoods, and no-go areas will become a feature of urban life.

Continue reading →