[charlchi]

> Misguided on a number of fronts -> 'hate speech' is defined differently in each country but usually requires an incitement to violence, or direct violent threats, before a prosecution takes place.

This is very untrue and you clearly have not researched what has happened in the actual written law or in the correspondence between various EU governments, NGO's and big tech companies the past few years.

And I'll add just in case this isn't clear, inciting hateful action against people should(edit: whoops) be illegal. But banning all forms of discrimination whatsoever is going too far.

[pjc50]

> actual written law or in the correspondence between various EU governments

You could cite it yourself, you know.

[charlchi]

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEG...

> ... hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin;

Define "hatred". This is extremely vague. Again, I suggest you to do some of your own research in this regard. There are thousands of documents freely available on UN, EU or related organisations websites that very clearly outline what the goals are of these types of laws and what has been done in this regard.

I will refer you though, to one such document, in which there is an interesting section that quotes someone as saying that the only way for migrants and minorities to be integrated into European society will be through "forced assimilation" and what I would define as a complete destruction of European national identities:

> first and foremost the notion of what it means to be the member of a certain European nation (e.g. being French, German, Spanish, etc.) has to change. Europeans cannot define themselves anymore through the colour of their skin and/or their religion. They have to realise the excluding nature of these signifiers and come up with others that can really work as umbrellas that all can fit under. European values could be a great starting point. The respect for human rights, democracy, liberalism, secularism, etc. are all ideas and ideals that are inherently inclusive and independent of ethnic background, religious beliefs or skin colour. Obviously, immigrants and members of minority communities also have to subscribe to these ideas and - due to cultural differences - that will also be hard work on their part (and on the part of European societies). However, there are hardly any other options to create healthy and unfragmented European societies through integration that is not forced assimilation.

I will leave you to draw your own conclusions about what "forced assimilation" means.

Edit: Document in which this phrase can be found: http://www.inach.net/wp-content/uploads/Annual-Report-2018-1...

If you are unfamiliar with this environment I suggest you read the entire document and not just the part I quoted.

[pjc50]

That statement stands specifically in opposition to "forced assmimilation", which is a term that normally refers to things the minority are forced to do to conform - mandatory conversion of Jews to Christianity, that kind of thing.

The important bit has to be "Europeans cannot define themselves anymore through the colour of their skin and/or their religion" - that is, something like the American ideal. It is not necessary to be white or of a particular religious denomination to be American; the whole point of the "melting pot" is that it's open to everyone who chooses to have that identity.

What they are arguing is that "French" can no longer continue to require "white, Christian" for someone to be considered French.

[La1n]

You know the second part you are quoting isn't actually published by the EU? It's published by two people who got funding by the EU. This program supports many things in the domain of Rights, Equality and Citizenship, including;

Analytical activities (studies, data collection, development of common methodologies, indicators, surveys, preparation of guides…)

When researchers are supported by a group, that does not mean it was approved by them or made by them. It seems you are trying to spread misinformation to me, or do not look into the sources you provide.

[charlchi]

> you know the second part you are quoting isn't actually published by the EU

What's your point? Firstly, it's still EU funded, which by the way, many of these parent organisations like the UN and EU do some of their most important work through child organisations exclusively so I don't see your point. Secondly, if you look at the list of the people involved, there are actors from Facebook and the SPLC:

http://www.inach.net/wp-content/uploads/9.BIOs-conferentie.p...

> It seems you are trying to spread misinformation to me, or do not look into the sources you provide.

I'm confused.

If I was an EU taxpayer, I would want to know that my tax money is going towards funding these types of organisations and conferences where people say the type of things they do.

[Alma_Elma]

> inciting hateful action against people shouldn't be illegal.

excuse me?

edit: apparently it was a freudian typo and got fixed.

[jacobush]

Saying it was a freudian type is sort of a jab at him anyways..