The ECRI Definition of Hate Speech
In June of 2016, a young Muslim walked into a gay bar in Orlando Florida, shouted “Allahu Akbar” and killed 49 people and injured 53 others. Prior to the attack, he called the Orlando Police Department and proclaimed his allegiance to the Islamic State. But to report these facts is “hate speech” as per the European Union. How can this be?
The EU starts out by reaffirming the right to free speech and freedom of expression from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as follows:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
But then comes the “however”:
On page 124 of the ECRI General Policy Recommendation NO. 15 on combatting Hate Speech:
Hate speech is of a more “serious character” when it “……can be reasonably expected to incite acts of violence, intimidation, hostility or discrimination.”
This means if the public is told the Orland attacker was Muslim, it might generate hostility toward Muslims, the prevention of which is more important to the EU than the piled-up bodies. Also, the desire to remove killers from society is considered “discrimination”, or “fear of the other” and thus illegal.
The Muslim groups always howl about the potential of “backlash” after a Jihad attack, and demand police protection for the very Mosques that send the killers into the community.
So, where does this Orwellian suicidal logic come from? Answer: the Shari’a!
“Yusuf Ali: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.”
Resistance to Islamization by the host society is the “tumult”. “Oppression” is defined by Muslims as not living in a society where the Shari’a is dominant. Suppressing resistance to Islamization is more important to Muslims than stopping the killing, (and of course the Muslims are the ones doing the killing!)
This EU definition of “hate speech” is incompatible with the American concept of “Free Speech” as well as common sense. The Global Islamic Movement is using the concept it to paralyze the response to the Jihad it is waging against the West. The EU pamphlet goes on to say:
“Recalling, however, that freedom of expression and opinion is not an unqualified right and that it must not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the rights of others:”
The document goes on to expand “the rights of others” to include protection from “racism, racial discrimination, gender-based discrimination, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, islamophobia, anti-Gypsysim, and intolerance, as well as of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes and the public denial, trivialization, justification or condonation of such crimes.”
The authors never make a good case as to WHY such restrictions are necessary. It is presented as an uncontestable fact. The premise seems to be that people in the OSCE Area are so fragile emotionally that they would have complete nervous breakdowns if someone were to speak to them unkindly. But no one in the EU bureaucracy seems concerned if EU citizens are murdered in Jihad attacks.
FURTHER USE BY GLOBAL ISLAMIC MOVEMENT
“Islamophobia” is the main issue that the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been working to criminalize in the West since 2005. The ECRI now defines Islamophobia as such:
“Islamophobia” shall mean prejudice against, hatred towards or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims. “
Note carefully the definition doesn’t reference an “irrational fear”, the normal definition of a “phobia”: It criminalizes fear of Muslims outright in and of itself. The definition actually criminalizes a human emotion, in this case the the instinct for self-preservation.
The OSCE’s problem is that fear of Islam is rational! Attacks of Islamic Jihad take place on a daily basis and kill thousands. Yet the OSCE strives to make it a punishable crime, which is absurd!
Concerning non-believers, the Qur’an says:
“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know.”
Jihad is meant to “strike terror into the hearts of unbelievers”. Not only are we unbelievers to be terrorized, we are to be punished by the OSCE for being so. What is a poor non-believer to do? Evidently, just keep smiling while the Jihadists take off our heads!
Therefore, using this warped logic, the EU demanded that the British Press stop naming the Jihad attackers as Muslims with a straight face, even though it’s true! The EU’s concern is that the naming of Islam in the articles will increase “Xenophobia” and cause a “backlash” worse than the attacks themselves. But there have been over 1200 Muslim Jihad attacks in 2016  which have killed over 11,000 people with very few “backlashes”. Howling “backlash” appears to be a calculated diversion to transform the aggressors into victims.
Let us see how the Muslim groups would use this. At a Conference in Vienna May 22, 2015 entitled OSCE Security Days a correspondent from a Moroccan TV Show named Leila Ghandi was asked if truth could be hate speech. Her response:
“I believe that the truth can be, not always, truth can constitute hate speech, because sometimes truth is difficult, horrible in itself. …………….. Sometimes when you report on facts and these facts point (to) a community, then it can be the source of hateful speech. So, your question was does that mean that hiding the truth would be a mean (way) to tackle the hate speech. I would answer, sometimes it is. And sometimes we do. By not saying the entire truth.”
From the hadith: Muslim’s version recording that Umm Kulthum added,
“I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife or she with him (A: in smoothing over differences).”
If Jihad is defined as “war against unbelievers” then suppressing the truth about Jihad would further their cause against the West and be permitted under Islamic Law.
But why should the West go along with this suicidal meme? The purpose of a free press is to bring the needed truth to the public! To suppress it is dangerous! In this case, the reality of the existential threat of Islamic Jihad must not be hidden from the public if our civilization is to formulate steps to protect itself and survive. Society might well investigate why these vital facts ARE being suppressed.
What is the relationship between the Muslim Groups in the West and the so-called “free press”? Is there intimidation? Infiltration? Black mail? Financial payoffs? The public needs answers, and quickly.
 European Court Against Racism and Intolerance
 ECRI GENERAL POLICY RECOMMENDATION No. 15 ON COMBATING HATE SPEECH Strasbourg, 21 March 2016
 Quran Sura 2 Ayat 191 Yousuf Ali translation
 “ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 15 on combatting Hate Speech” ECRI Strasbourg 21 March 2016 page.3
 Ibid, page 26
 Qur’an Sura 8, Ayat 60
 “Reliance of the Traveller” r8.2 page 745