FREE SPEECH CRACKDOWN: Europe tells British press NOT to reveal if terrorists are Muslims

And people wonder why Great Britain voted to leave the EU...

MEDDLING Brussels has said the British press should not report when terrorists are Muslims in a slew of demands to the Government to crack down on the media.

A report from the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) found there was an increase in hate speech and racist violence in the UK from 2009 to March 2016.

Blaming the press, ECRI Chair Christian Ahlund, said: “It is no coincidence that racist violence is on the rise in the UK at the same time as we see worrying examples of intolerance and hate speech in the newspapers, online and even among politicians.”

The report makes a whopping 23 recommendations to Theresa May’s Government for changes to criminal law, the freedom of the press, crime reporting and equality law.

Yes, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the dramatic rise in Islamic Extremists attacks over this same time period...it must be a result of the Press's coverage of same.

Here is an interesting part of the recommendation...

In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teeside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations.

EU Says Britsh Press Should Lie When Terrorists Attack

In other words, the EU thinks it would be better if the Press (as a matter of policy, no less) simply lies about who the killers are, and why they did their killing. In this way, the public at large will be misinformed enough not to react to what is really going on.

An informed public might actually put pressure on their political masters to take the actions necessary to keep the general public safe from the wave of violence currently perpetrated by the pink polka dotted people from the planet Pertoonda (alternative explanation inserted as per EU Directive).

Obviously, the Obama Administration has been on board with this way of thinking for a long time...as obvious acts of Islamic Extremist Terrorism get referred to as "workplace violence", acts of a "deranged individual", or similar.

[sarcasm]I think that the Press should also be instructed to:

a) When dogs bite, say that a person suffered puncture wounds of fairly uncertain origin
b) When people get hit and killed by a drunk driver, say that a person became deceased as a result of a kinetic episode not related to a plane crash
c) When someone suffers a heart attack, say that as a result of Republicans not taking stern-enough action against large soft drinks, people are having to go to the hospital for unspecified health interventions.[/sarcasm]

a reply to: mobiusmale

They just can't see that people are seeing straight through their agenda.

How many times on here and social media do people make jokes about "Mental illness" and suchlike after a terrorist incident where the MSM bends over backwards in its efforts not to say it was Islamic?


The EU is a corrupt mess and the sooner we are finally free of them the better.

Well...since you guys Brexited...I guess you can tell them they can wipe their ass with these recommendations.

I envy you...

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
Well...since you guys Brexited...I guess you can tell them they can wipe their ass with these recommendations.

I envy you...

What a lovely thought

Trouble is, we still have a civil service and a bunch of councils infested with brain washed "Common Purpose" types who have no loyalty to anyone beyond the EU and their ilk.

I know...you can write an ATS response to recommendations...you know the one...where a poster just crashes the thread and says "No." and leaves.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Well...maybe you're not there just yet...but on a good road...a road that enables one to extend his middle finger and keep on driving.

it basically says don't blame muslims until its proven, as usual the express snarls at the wrong thing, and the op shows his true colours.

a reply to: stinkelbaum

it basically says don't blame muslims until its proven

it basically says don't blame muslims...ever.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
it basically says don't blame muslims until its proven, as usual the express snarls at the wrong thing, and the op shows his true colours.

I don't think the NSM automatically quote Muslims much nowadays until it's proven or circumstantial . So it's saying what the media do already which is common in all crimes.

No need for the hype imo.

Also, the last main terrorism campaign against the UK was the IRA and although it's been so long, back then bombs going off were the main preserve of the IRA so if they did report it as suspected IRA they would be correct 99.9% of times. Similarly today the only or main group threatening to bomb us are Muslim terrorists so pretty much every attack is 99.9% circumstantial it will be Muslim based.

If the idea is to placate the Muslims who don't bomb and attack people it's a piss weak argument because within a weak the facts and intelligence will likely show it's a Muslim.

Pointless wringing, who gives a flying about what the press print until there is proof? Not printing it doesn't change the fact that once proved they would be right in the first instance anyway.

a reply to: mobiusmale

Do they announce the religious affiliations of every other person who commits a crime?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Well...they usually state the nationality of the perpetrator...if it's known. Since being a Muslim is above any such designation...calling him/her "Muslim" seems appropriate.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
it basically says don't blame muslims until its proven,

it always turns out to be Muslims. The world isn't starting to hate Muslims for no reason. We have a good reason.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: mobiusmale

Do they announce the religious affiliations of every other person who commits a crime?

If they do it in the name of god they do.

Recommendation.

noun rec·om·men·da·tion ˌre-kə-mən-ˈdā-shən, -ˌmen-

Simple Definition of recommendation
: the act of saying that someone or something is good and deserves to be chosen
: a suggestion about what should be done
: a formal letter that explains why a person is appropriate or qualified for a particular job, school, etc.

Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary
Examples: recommendation in a sentence

www.merriam-webster.com...

Q. Does the word mandatory appear in that definition?
A. No.

Q. Has the British government accepted the recommendation?
A. No.

Q. Is this a fake outrage BS news story that actually will have no bearing on peoples lives?
A. Yes.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Well...they usually state the nationality of the perpetrator...if it's known. Since being a Muslim is above any such designation...calling him/her "Muslim" seems appropriate.

So the answer is no?

a reply to: mobiusmale

In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teeside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations.

So what we have is the EU mentioning that a load of Smoggies from Teeside did a study. In the study they found that when a muslim commits a crime and Islam is mentioned there is a backlash and when the religious denomination is not mentioned there is less of a backlash...

And they get paid for this stuff...

Water is, indeed, wet.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: stinkelbaum

it basically says don't blame muslims until its proven

it basically says don't blame muslims...ever.

No it doesn't but I wouldn't expect the Express to use actual facts. If an atheist commits an act of terror, is the fact they are an atheist important UNLESS the terror act had their atheist views as the reason they committed the act? The answer is no. Why do you think Muslims should be any different?

Belief in religious ideology is an opinion of the mind and not a geographical location so how can it be 'racist'?

a reply to: mobiusmale

No matter the justifications censorship of any type is never a good idea.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: mobiusmale

No matter the justifications censorship of any type is never a good idea.

Let's assume you are a male, you are white and you are Christian, let's also assume you are a Methodist - just for the sake of argument. If you commit a crime of sufficient seriousness for it to be heavily reported in the media, which do you think of your (made up) characteristics should be strongly highlighted until the reason for you committing the crime - if you did so - are proven?

Or would you rather all white male Christian Methodists should be considered criminal scum because you (in this made up scenario) may or may not have committed a heinous crime for reasons at that point unknown?

ETA: Just in case the point gets missed, this is at the point of the suspect being identified, once their motives are known/stated, then that is a different matter