Richard North, writing on his EU Referendum blog, draws attention to a communique following a joint meeting yesterday of the two Council of the European Union working groups on terrorism – the Terrorism Working Party and COTER. The release explained that:
Representatives of the Norwegian authorities informed the meeting about the events and the ongoing investigation. This was followed by a debate which included experts from EU member states, representatives of several EU bodies and institutions (Europol, European External Action Service, European Commission) as well as the office of the EU Counterterrorism coordinator. Delegations seized the opportunity to express condolences and solidarity with Norway and the Norwegian people.
This is an all-too-predictable self insertion into the fallout of the massacre in Norway in an effort to make the EU appear relevant and strengthen its control over member states. Although this meeting is quite noteworthy as Norway is not a member of the EU. It seems to suggest that this horror will also be seized upon by the EU to add weight to its effort to court Norway and enjoin Oslo to put EU membership on its to-do list.
But reading between the lines this communique is deeply disturbing as what we are seeing is the groundwork being laid for an assault on our freedom. The clue is there in the last paragraph (relevant section in italics) which reads:
The issue of ‘lone-wolf terrorism’, represented by terrorists that are self-radicalised (e.g. through the internet) with no obvious attachment to any terrorist organisation, seems to require increasing attention. The experts also agreed that in confronting the threat of a terrorist attack, regardless of its underlying motivation, the effective exchange of information is vital. The importance of strengthening response capacity was another issue that was highlighted.
Alarm bells should be ringing already because the whiff of censorship of dissent is in the air. There is a mood for it among those who advocate big government and its agendas. It is inconceivable that those who have the power to legislate these things beyond our control are not accumulating a raft of justifications for shutting down free speech and only permitting views and opinions that fit in with their worldview.
In the piece above we have the clear reference to internet centric radicalisation. In the last week there have been similar assaults on the notions of free speech and openness that have arisen from very separate topics. There was Thomas Hylland Eriksen writing in the Guardian who said Anders Breivik has been ‘brainwashed’ by websites and that if he had:
instead been forced to receive his information through a broadsheet newspaper, where not all the stories dealt with Europe’s loss of confidence and the rise of militant Islam, it is conceivable that his world would have looked slightly different.
Indeed. He would have been brainwashed with the state sanctioned approved truth instead, and the topics that don’t pass official muster are censored out of existence.
Then there was Professor Steve Jones’ report commissioned by the BBC Trust into its science coverage, where the esteemed snail geneticist and doyen of the corporation openly argued that the BBC gives too much air time to people who are sceptical of the ‘consensus’ on global warming. The thinking is that their views should be struck from the airwaves because they might strike a chord with other people, who in turn might choose to reject the position adopted and pushed by government and its media friends. As this blog said at the time:
We are witnessing the most successful and far reaching attempt yet by the liberal left to censor the news and information delivered to the public and indoctrinate us with their selective worldview – and do it with our money.
Watch them come for the blogs next.
They are already on their way.
Their mission is to deny us access to information, views, opinions and commentary they have not created and they do not sanction. It is a dangerous leap forward on the path to a totalitarian form of control. But maybe they are their own worst enemies. For we have just seen what happened when one dangerous man in Norway felt his views and wishes were being ignored by his government. He tried to assassinate the Prime Minister then set about murdering his supporters in the Labour Party youth organisation.
Does the EU not realise, do national governments not realise, that restricting freedom of speech and the ability to share views and opinions – no matter how daft some might seem to others – will not dissolve the threat? It will result in duplication and replication of the very extremism exhibited by Anders Breivik and a consequent escalation in violent acts.
The censorship that seems to be under consideration or construction to control ‘extremism’ will not passify the people, instead it will turn frustration and resentment into real anger, and it will only drive more people to adopt an extremist path trodden by Breivik. And we all know how that turned out.