The Key Points

The primary concerns of this petition are the increasingly politically polarised education system, which adopts increasingly Marxist principles that pose a threat to freedom of expression and speech.

This is only worsened by recent EU law, that provides a "flexible" definition of the term Hate Speech, allowing for the criminal conviction of those whom under national law, would not be considered criminals. Such a law can be used in order to imprison political dissenters from, and remove their right to express opinions against, the state and against the EU itself.

The third concern is with the recent 'Fake News' narrative that has lead to strict sanctions being placed on Russia for the apparent hacking of US officials' government email addresses, despite several official news reporters, i.e. CNN, stating that the evidence was lacking.

The final point of concern is the mass adoption of migrants into Europe, with a lackluster vetting and checking process, the lack of rejection of unwanted economic migrants, and the increasing radicalisation of the Muslim population in the west due to this mass migration and no compulsory cultural integration education being provided for such migrants.


The Main Petition

This petition is an expression of public opposition towards the political polarisation of the New Media, censorship and the creation of an increasingly hostile and unsettled citizenry. It is also leading to a mainstream political narrative that marginalises those with politically differing opinions, and actively shames and attacks them to advance a Marxist narrative and world view.

Facebook and Twitter have implemented policies which impose a ‘fake news’ list, in which news that is not considered to be biased in a pro-leftist way, or that is not benign, is marked or removed from the website.

Since most of the population in the West use social media as a news distribution service in addition to a means of talking to others globally, this is an attack on freedom of speech and a deliberate attempt to create a bias in the narrative towards Leftist ideals.

There are still, despite legislative efforts to silence their opinions, many people that disagree with the idea of, for example, gender identity beyond male, female and transsexual, and with the idea that marriage should be heterosexual, and hold these opinions respectfully.

Regardless of if the common narrative and the legislative body decides in favour of gender identity laws, every citizen has the right to be wrong and to hold regressive ideas. This is covered under freedom of speech and expression laws.

The citizen’s right to be wrong only stops once they take to or initiate calls of violence towards an individual or group. Such action and incitation of violence is already illegal under every EU member country’s law, and no additional legislation is needed.

Additionally, the legislation that has been passed by the EU creates a nebulosity and ill-defined definition of the term ‘hate speech’ as well as creating a political bias within the apparently politically neutral organisation, whom their claimed goals are supposed to be trade regulation and disaster response.

With such vague legal definitions, it is impossible to know what counts as hate speech and what does not under an official definition. The primary concern the signees and myself have is based around the fact that the new legislation is based around what the victim feels is hate speech. Under this legal definition, anything can be considered hate speech.

This is a dangerous precedent to set, as sentences for crimes that can lead to serious criminal sentences will be dispatched for actions that by all virtue, and by national law, should not be considered crimes. Emotional appeal up until the passing of said legislation has only been a factor in determining guilt or innocence in a legal case, but the precedent that has been created by passing said legislation is that of assumed guilt until innocence is proven.

A comic written by the IGLYO, an organisation funded by the EU, attempts to show examples of what qualifies as hate speech, and fails provide a solid clarification, as the examples leave the reader with more questions than answers.

It is also worth pointing out the desperate situation one finds one’s self in, when definite legal definitions must be sought from a comic. This legislation and the comic has been listed below in the Resources section of this petition.

Given the forced change of political tides against freedom of speech, with the normalisation of violent political protest, the seldom vented migrants taken in via mass immigration policies, whom share ideas that are not compatible with our own and have not had the opportunity to be formally integrated into our society, we are seeing unrest on an unprecedented scale.

This is a petition to call for a re-assessment of social, political and university policies that are leading to the radicalisation and violence of the citizenry, and are injecting Marxist ideals that are antithetical to Western society into schools, as well as leading to the increasing adoption of violent terrorists.

History shows what both Marxist principles and Islamist ideologues, when allowed the room to flourish, lead to – death, war, starvation and violence. This is a comment on ideology, not on the people whom practice or hold said beliefs respectfully within our society.

To re-iterate, this is not a petition calling for the banning of any ideology or group, but a petition calling for a mass assessment of the kinds of social policies that are being made that are pro-Marxist and are overtly sympathetic towards Islamic, radical notions of jihad and the establishment of kefirs (slaves to Islam) once their population within countries reaches a critical threshold.

A society’s most important goal is self-preservation, and both discussed ideologies, and the increasing censorship are detrimental to societal development. Ideas should be discussed fairly and openly, without fear of violence or vitriol.

 

To summarise

The goal of this petition is to encourage the reader to consider a re-assessment of ideals and legislation that is Pro-Islamic, Pro-Marxist and anti-Freedom of Speech, to once again reopen the discussion on a legislative level, that there are indeed a majority whom are opposed to such legislation.

We are asking for a parliamentary debate on the topic of Islamic indoctrination, the migrant crisis and how to prevent another similar crisis, and a discussion of the re-emergence of Marxist ideals in universities, the workplace, and in everyday life that are in direct opposition to the principles of freedom, liberty and free expression.

We are asking for stricter international standards for vetting and processing migrants to better their success within our societies and lesser the cases of violence and sexual assault, as well as the removal of repeat offenders from our country.

We are also asking for the government to protect against, and seek to repeal EU law that would mean sanctions on both freedom of speech itself, and those whom seek to utilise this right.

We thank you for your time.

 

Resources

Hate Speech Code of Conduct: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/hate_speech_code_of_conduct_en.pdf

Homophobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the EU Member States: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/397-FRA_hdgso_report_part2_en.pdf