Lest you think life’s tough on this side of the Big Pond, herewith comes something out of the ordinary from the other side: Michal Šimečka, a Slovak member of European parliament, proposed that the European Union create a special police force. It would be called ideological police. The motion carried safely, with a majority of Mr. Šimečka’s colleagues voting for it.
By way of introduction: Michal Šimečka is the Vice-Chairman of the political party known as Progressive Slovakia. He was elected Member of the European Parliament in the 2019 election. Journalist Martin Milan Šimečka is his father. The philosopher, writer and anti-communist dissident Milan Šimečka was his grandfather. If only the old guy knew where his grandson was headed, he would be turning in his grave: the old Šimečka suffered at the hands of the communists following the 1968 Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia, and he only got to enjoy freedom that came after the so-called Velvet Revolution of 1989 for less than a year.
What are the ideological police going to do? They will investigate and announce at least once a year their evaluation of all European Union countries. The report will answer deep thinkers’ questions such as: do they maintain the EU’s values and do they base their existence on the law (meaning: are they lawful states, yes or no, whatever that is supposed to mean)?
The idea is to evaluate the countries without any bias and taking sides, the adopted motion states.
By way of explanation, Mr. Šimečka said that countries such as Hungary and Poland aren’t lawful.
Why? Because their governments dare act the way they promised their voters they would. That includes rejection of sundry EU decisions on, for example, enforced immigration of so-called refugee claimants from the Middle East and North Africa, most of them undocumented.
The ideological police reports would propose that whatever the EU deems correct would be enforced. Individual countries would be told to amend their laws or change whatever government offices the EU ideological police find unsuitable. If they don’t do as told, their prime ministers would lose their voting rights in all EU bodies that require voting, and their countries would also lose access to whatever funding the EU is providing to its membership states.
Mr. Šimečka even found an expression that looks official enough: budgetary pre-conditions.
But, oh happy circumstance, the so-called non-government organizations (NGOs) that promote EU values on the territories of countries that would be facing punishment, would continue receiving their grants nevertheless.
The country that hosts them would be sanctioned by the EU, but the NGO that avoids paying taxes to that country, would be flourishing on.
On paper, the EU is filled with quite properly sounding views: respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, maintaining law and order, upholding human rights, including minority rights. Pluralism is a must as a matter of course, while discrimination of any sort is a no-no. What we need is solidarity, tolerance towards others, equality between men and women.
Sounds great, but life has proven that such blanket proclamations can hardly be worse nonsense when applied universally, ignoring all potential exceptions. And once you accept exceptions, there goes universality.
In any case, Mr. Šimečka’s motion, bound to turn into law pretty soon, forbids the membership countries’ citizens to vote as they see fit, for the people they consider guarantors of their countries’ present and future.
The ideological police would be reporting to the European Commission (de facto government), European Council (an advisory gathering) and European Parliament. The current NGOs will be helping, but they won’t suffice: new non-profit groups ought to be formed, in order to monitor the borders between individual member countries.
This equals snitching on their country’s government, using their country taxpayers’ money.
These numbers are the most shameful data of all: 521 members of the European Parliament, that is, about three-quarters of them, voted for the motion, 152 were against, and 21 were scared enough to abstain.
According to explanatory notes to the motion, the EU has been too lenient lately, letting its membership countries do as they pleased, allowing those naughty Poles to try to make Poland great again, and letting those undisciplined Hungarians do similar things to their country.
While in North America …
Yes, we can think of shrugging all of this off: who cares what happens across the Big Pond. If we do, we’re blind.
The New York Times has seen nothing wrong in publishing a piece by Peter Beinart, suggesting the United Nations should step in and take the U.S. over, should the incumbent Donald J. Trump win the presidential re-election.
Certainly, it was published on the Gray Lady’s op-ed (opinion and editorial) pages, and Mr. Beinart is an outside writer, too (editor-at-large at Jewish Currents), and everybody has an unalienable democratic right to be as stupid as stupid gets, but the fact the Gray Lady never challenged Mr. Beinart’s idiocy is telling.
Jewish Currents calls itself a progressive, secular Jewish quarterly magazine and news site that is on the Jewish left. In typical left-wing way, it abuses the word progressive, but that’s another chapter of political debate.
Not so long ago, a guy named Zack Ford, who calls himself a social justice warrior (SJW for short), stated for the record that the only way to “fix” the United States would be for the United Nations to take it over and make it a part of the so-called New World Order.
Ford, who acts as press secretary for the far-left special interest group Alliance for Justice, went on Twitter, suggesting precisely that. He wrote in words that expressly suggested outright violence. How he managed to get around Twitter’s terms of service that prohibit calls for violence remains a mystery.
Ford was, of course, smart enough, to say that no violence was required, a peaceful takeover would do, but considering that many Americans’ reaction to such a move could be predicted with accuracy, Ford’s words were bound to ignite violence.
Reflecting on what’s going on in America these days, Ford used the expression “hot mess.”
Ford himself mentioned on more occasions than one that he receives his funding from George Soros’s bank accounts.
Considering it had been a Soros project to start what is now known as “colour revolution,” and that way too many Americans (of those who take time to think) are opposed to it, no wonder that Zack Ford calls for foreign intervention.
Any semblance to the European Union ideological police is NOT accidental.