Giulio Meotti : Europe: Making Itself into the New Afghanistan?

Europe: Making Itself into the New Afghanistan?

by Giulio Meotti
April 21, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10208/europe-afghanistan

• "Those (migrants) who come to seek freedom in France must participate in freedom. Migrants did not come to seek asylum in Saudi Arabia, but in Germany. Why? For security, freedom and prosperity. So they must not come to create a new Afghanistan," said Algerian writer Kamel Daoud. Right. But it is the European mainstream that is letting them turn our cultural landscape into another Afghanistan.
• The West used to be proud of being the land of the free. European museums, instead, are rapidly submitting to Islamic correctness. The exhibition "Passion for Freedom" at the Mall Gallery in London censored the light box tableaux of a family of toy animals living in an enchanted valley.
• "The Louvre will be dedicating a new section to the artistic heritage of Eastern Christians", then President Nicholas Sarkozy announced in 2010. But the project was scrapped by the museum's new management, with the approval of President Hollande's culture ministry. So today, the Louvre has a section dedicated to Islamic art, but nothing on Eastern Christianity.

Maastricht, in the Netherlands, is the picturesque city that gave its name to the famous treaty signed in 1992 by the twelve nations of the European Community at the time, and which paved the way for the foundation of today's European Union and the single currency, the euro.
Maastricht, however, is also the home of "Tefaf", the most important art and antiques fair in the world. The art work "Persepolis" by the Italian artist Luca Pignatelli was already scheduled when the commission ordered it removed. The work, built in 2016, combined a Persian Islamic rug and a female head. "We are all humbled and speechless", Pignatelli declared, pointing out that his work had initially aroused the enthusiasm of the commission. The fair's explanation was that Pignatelli's work was "provocative".

The officials of fair presumably did not want to offend Islam and possible Muslim buyers with Pignatelli's combination of the mat (used by Muslims for prayer) with the woman's face. "We are shocked, this is the first time this has happened and I think it is legitimate to talk about it", Pignatelli said. "If in Rome it can happen that you decide to veil art works to avoid offending foreign visitors, well, I do not agree". The reference is at the Italian government decision to veil the antique Roman statues to avoid offending Iran's visiting President Hassan Rouhani.

If Europe wants a future, it should be less ideological about Maastricht's treaty and more against Maastricht's capitulation to fear. The brave Algerian writer Kamel Daoud said:

"Those (migrants) who come to seek freedom in France must participate in freedom. Migrants did not come to seek asylum in Saudi Arabia, but in Germany. Why? For security, freedom and prosperity. So they must not come to create a new Afghanistan".

Right. But it is the European mainstream that is letting them turn our cultural landscape into another Afghanistan. The Taliban have killed artists and destroyed art works. The West used to be proud of being the land of the free.
European museums, instead, are rapidly submitting to Islamic correctness. The exhibition "Passion for Freedom," at the Mall Gallery in London, censored the light box tableaux of a family of toy animals living in an enchanted valley. Entitled, "ISIS Threaten Sylvania", it was eliminated after the British police referred to its "inflammatory" content. Previously, the Tate Gallery in London banned a work by John Latham that displayed a Koran embedded in glass.

The brave work of the artist Mimsy, "ISIS Threaten Sylvania", which satirized the brutality of ISIS, was removed from London's Mall Galleries after the British police defined it "inflammatory." (Image source: Mimsy)

Another British artist, Grayson Perry, admitted that he censored himself out of fear that he might end up like Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker slain by an extremist Muslim, Mohammed Bouyeri, for having made a film about women under Islam. "I have censored myself," Perry said. "The reason I have not gone all out in attacking Islamism in my art is because I have real fear that someone will slit my throat".

The Victoria and Albert Museum in London first showed, then withdrew, a portrait of the Prophet of Islam, a work of devotional art image of Muhammad. The photographer Syra Miah, a British native whose family came from Bangladesh, saw her work withdrawn from an Art Gallery in Birmingham after protests by a group of Muslims. The photo portrayed a half-naked woman, mentally ill, who lives under a bus stop in Bangladesh.

The Museum of Cultures of the World in Gothenburg, Sweden, opened with an exhibition entitled "AIDS in the Era of Globalization". In it, the artist Louzla Darabi exhibited a work, "Scène d'amour", that depicts a woman having sex with a man whose face cannot be seen. A verse from the Koran is written on it in Arabic. Less than three weeks after the inauguration of the exhibition, the museum removed the painting.
The Hergé Museum in Louvain, Belgium, was planning an exhibition to pay tribute to Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists; that event, too, was cancelled.
French President François Hollande eliminated a section of the Louvre Museum dedicated to the Eastern Christians, who in the last two years have been decimated by the Islamic State. "The Louvre will be dedicating a new section to the artistic heritage of Eastern Christians", then President Nicholas Sarkozy announced in 2010. But the project was scrapped by the museum's new management, with the approval of Hollande's culture ministry.
Marie-Hélène Rutschowscaya -- former head of the Louvre's Coptic section and one of the world's leading scholars on Eastern Christianity -- denounced the move. "The dramatic events we are currently seeing in the Middle East and Eastern Europe should instead spur us to do more to promote lasting cultural ties," Rutschowscaya wrote in her letter to Hollande. So today, the Louvre has a section dedicated to Islamic art, but nothing on Eastern Christianity.
Perhaps the Iranian ayatollahs were right in asking the Capitoline Museums in Rome to veil the nude statues during President Rouhani's visit. Perhaps the Islamic fundamentalists are wrong, the West is not as free as it claims. Perhaps we should apologize to the Taliban for criticizing their destruction of the great Buddhas of Afghanistan. According to the West's new cultural sanctimony, today these statues might be considered "blasphemous" too.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

 https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10208/europe-afghanistan
=======================

Judith Bergman : Europe: Let's End Free Speech!

Europe: Let's End Free Speech!

Are European Countries Now Police States?

by Judith Bergman
November 17, 2016 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9311/europe-free-speech

• According to New Europe, in Leeuwarden, "about twenty opponents of the plans [to establish asylum centers] in the region received police visits at home." In other words, the Netherlands are engaging in state censorship, thereby raising the question: Is the Netherlands now a police state?
• In the town of Sliedrecht, police came to Mark Jongeneel's office and told him that he tweeted "too much" and that he should "watch his tone": his tweets "may seem seditious". His offense? One tweet said: "The College of #Sliedrecht comes up with a proposal to take 250 refugees over the next two years. What a bad idea!"
• In September 2015, Die Welt reported that people who air "xenophobic" views on social media, risk losing the right to see their own children.
• While ordinary European citizens risk arrest and prosecution for "xenophobic" remarks, a German EU Commissioner, Günther Oettinger, called a visiting Chinese delegation of ministers "slant eyes" ("Schlitzaugen"). European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has promoted Oettinger to be in charge of the EU budget.
• Clearly, the law is not equal. EU Commissioners can make "xenophobic" remarks and get a promotion; European citizens, for exercising their right to free speech, are arrested and prosecuted.

In Europe, is the enemy now the governments? Evidence is mounting that expressing even a mild opinion that runs counter to official government policy can land you in prison, or at least ensure a visit from your friendly local Kafkaesque police. Has Europe effectively become a police state?

Several European governments are making it clear to their citizens that criticizing migrants or European migrant policies is criminally off limits. People who go "too far," according to the authorities, are being arrested, prosecuted and at times convicted.

In the Netherlands, the police visited people who naïvely made critical comments about asylum centers on Twitter in October 2015. In the town of Sliedrecht, police came to Mark Jongeneel's office and told him that he tweeted "too much" and that he should "watch his tone": his tweets "may seem seditious". His offense? The town had held a citizens meeting about a refugee center in the region, and Jongeneel had posted a few tweets. One said: "The College of #Sliedrecht comes up with a proposal to take 250 refugees over the next two years. What a bad idea!" Earlier he had also tweeted: "Should we let this happen?!"

He was not the only one. In Leeuwarden, according to New Europe:

"...about twenty opponents of the plans [to establish asylum centers] in the region received police visits at home. It also happened in Enschede, and in some places in the Brabant, where, according to the Dutch media, people who had been critical of the arrival of refugees and ran a page on social media on the topic were told to stop".

A spokesperson for the national police explained that ten intelligence units of "digital detectives" monitor Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in real time, looking for posts that go "too far," so that they can visit with people to tell them "what effect a post or tweet on the internet can have." In other words, the Netherlands are engaging in state censorship, thus raising the question: Is the Netherlands now a police state?

In the United Kingdom, Scott Clark was arrested in February 2016 for writing on the Facebook page of the Scottish Defense League that Syrian refugees would "see the nasty side to us." According to a news report, he referred to sexual assaults on women in Cologne, Germany on New Year's Eve by men of Arab or North African appearance as justification for his online comments, in which he also wrote, "If anything happens to any young girl I will personally spit in the face of councilors who pushed and pushed to get them housed here..." He also wrote, "There's defo an Islamic invasion. Defo something going down. Just witnessed 15 Syrians in the local boozer... I opposed their arrival from the start."

Inspector Ewan Wilson from Dunoon police office told the Guardian:

"I hope that the arrest of this individual sends a clear message that Police Scotland will not tolerate any form of activity which could incite hatred and provoke offensive comments on social media."

In Germany, a married couple, Peter and Melanie M., were prosecuted in a criminal trial for creating a Facebook group that criticized the government's migration policy. According to news reports, the page stated, "The war and economic refugees are flooding our country. They bring terror, fear, sorrow. They rape our women and put our children at risk. Make this end!"

At the trial, Peter M. defended his remarks online and said, "One cannot even express a critical opinion of refugees without getting labelled as a Nazi. I wanted to create a discussion forum where you can speak your mind about refugees..." He said that in his role as an administrator of the group, he removed pro-Nazi or radical remarks, but since Facebook had deleted the page, he could not present the evidence to the court.
In his verdict, the judge said, "The description of the group is a series of generalizations with a clear right-wing background." Peter M. was sentenced to a nine-month suspended prison sentence and his wife to a fine of €1,200 with the judge adding, "I hope you understand the seriousness of the situation. If you sit in front of me again, you will end up in jail."

In Germany, being critical of migrants and the government's migrant policies can have other draconian consequences. In September 2015, Die Welt reported that people who air "xenophobic" views on social media, risk losing the right to see their own children. There need not even be a criminal offense for a court to consider the child's welfare to be endangered and to restrict the parents' right to see his or her child or to order "an educator" present during a meeting between parent and child, who can "intervene as required." It is also possible to forbid certain actions, expressions or meetings in the presence of the child. As a last resort, the court can take the child out of the parent's care entirely.

According to Eva Becker, Chairwoman of the Working Group on Family Law in the German Bar Association (DAV), "The decisive factor is a healthy understanding of people." Becker estimates that it would not be enough to consider the child's welfare endangered, if a parent said that he would rather not have any Syrian migrants living in his neighborhood.
On the other hand, if a father or a mother makes comments that contain verbal threats against refugees in the presence of the child, he or she would "clearly exceed the critical limit."
It is not even relevant whether those comments are criminal according to German law. Even a comment that is not punishable under German law can push a parent over the "critical limit." It is not crucial whether the act is criminal, but whether it "influences" the child in a way that endangers its welfare. If a court establishes that the child's welfare is at risk, the parent may have his or her rights of access to the child initially limited.
Actions, rather than talk, are considered even more incriminating. According to Becker, it is one thing to talk disparagingly with acquaintances about asylum seekers in the presence of the child, but much worse to take the child to "xenophobic" demonstrations.

Becker never defines what is meant by "xenophobic." 

It seems implied that the talk is of one-way xenophobia, not Islamic xenophobia against non-Muslims, for example, but no attempt is made at a definition, although this is clearly the most crucial part of the matter.

While ordinary European citizens risk arrest and prosecution for "xenophobic" remarks, it is an entirely different matter for those at the top echelons of the European Union.
In a speech in Hamburg in October, Germany's EU Commissioner for digital economy, Günther Oettinger, called a visiting Chinese delegation of ministers "slant eyes" ("Schlitzaugen"), an expression that is generally considered racist. Oettinger did not even bother to apologize, but told Die Welt that it was important to see his comments in a "larger context."
The European Commission also refused to apologize for, or investigate, Oettinger's remarks (which were apparently also disparaging of women and homosexuals). Commission Chief Spokesman Margaritis Schinas told incredulous reporters that, "We have nothing to add." Asked if there would be an investigation into the remarks, he said, "We do not have an FBI at the Commission."
As recent as October 28, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker promoted Oettinger to the highly coveted and powerful position of vice-president with responsibility for the EU budget.
Clearly, the law is not equal. EU Commissioners can make "xenophobic" remarks and get a promotion; European citizens, for exercising their right to free speech, are arrested and prosecuted.

While European citizens are arrested and prosecuted for exercising their right to free speech, an EU Commissioner such as Günther Oettinger (left) calls a visiting Chinese delegation "slant eyes" and is rewarded with a promotion by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker (right).

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

============

Giulio Meotti : The West's Politically Correct Dictatorship

The West's Politically Correct Dictatorship

It Has Blinded Us to the Real Danger: Radical Islam

by Giulio Meotti
December 6, 2016 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9491/politically-correct-dictatorship

• The brave work of the artist Mimsy was removed from London's Mall Galleries after the British police defined it "inflammatory."
• In France, schools teach children that Westerners are Crusaders, colonizers and "bad." In their efforts to justify the repudiation of France and its Judeo-Christian culture, schools have fertilized the soil in which Islamic extremism develops and flourishes unimpeded.
• No one can deny that France is under Islamist siege. Last week, France's intelligence service discovered another terror plot. But what is the priority of the Socialist government? Restricting freedom of expression for pro-life "militants."
• Under this politically correct dictatorship, Western culture has established two principles. First, freedom of speech can be restricted any time someone claims that an opinion is an "insult." Second, there is a vicious double standard: minorities, especially Muslims, can freely say whatever they want against Jews and Christians.
• There is no better ally of Islamic extremism than this sanctimony of liberal censorship: both, in fact, want to suppress any criticism of Islam, as well as any proud defense of the Western Enlightenment or Judeo-Christian culture.
• Twitter, one of the vehicles of this new intolerance, even formed a "Trust and Safety Council." It brings to mind Saudi Arabia's "Council for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice."
• Under this political correctness, the only "win-win" is for political Islam.

It might look like a golden age for free speech: more than a billion tweets, Facebook posts and blogs every day. But beneath this surface, freedom of expression is dramatically retreating.

Students at the City University of London, home to one of Britain's most respected schools of journalism, voted to ban three newspapers from its campus: The Sun, Daily Mail and Express. 
Their "crime", according to the approved motion, is to have published stories against migrants, "Islamophobic" articles, and "scapegoating the working classes that they so proudly claim to represent." City University, supposedly a place dedicated to openness and questioning, became the first Western educational institution to vote for censorship, and ban "right wing newspapers."

The filmmaker David Cronenberg called this self-censorship, after the massacre at Charlie Hebdo: "a weird, serpentine political correctness." It is one of the most lethal ideological poisons of the 21st century. It is not only closed-minded and ridiculous, it makes us blind to the radical Islam that is undermining our mental and cultural defenses.

The countless attacks by Muslim extremists testify that the multicultural world to which we have been led is a fiction. Political correctness simply encourages the Islamists to raise the stakes to win the war they are advancing. The resulting tension has been fed by the Western elites with their sense of guilt for "colonialism" in the Third World.

"ISIS Threaten Sylvania" -- an art exhibition featuring cute little stuffed animals picnicking on a lawn, and unaware of other cute little stuffed animal terrorists carrying assault rifles on a knoll just behind them -- is the work of the artist known as Mimsy (she hides her identity). The protagonists of this series of light box tableaux are a family of stuffed animal dolls that inhabits an enchanted valley. Gunmen, dressed like the Islamic State henchmen, strike the innocent inhabitants of the valley, at school and on the beach, at a picnic or in a gay pride parade. It looks like an updated version of Maus by Art Spiegelman, a graphic novel depicting Nazi cats and Jewish mice during the Holocaust.

Those wishing to see this artistic panel at the Mall Galleries, in London, will now have to console themselves with the work of Jamie McCartney, "The Great Wall Vagina," nine meters of female genitalia, less important and less provocative.
The brave work of Mimsy, after the British police defined it "inflammatory," has been eliminated from the program of this London cultural event. Its organizers informed the gallery owners that if they wanted to put it on display, they would have to shell out £36,000 ($46,000) to "secure the venue" for the six days of the exhibition.

The brave work of the artist Mimsy, satirizing the brutality of ISIS, was removed from London's Mall Galleries after the British police defined it "inflammatory." (Image source: Mimsy)

Under this politically correct dictatorship, Western culture has established two principles. First, freedom of speech can be restricted any time someone claims that an opinion is an "insult." Second, there is a vicious double standard: minorities, especially Muslims, can freely say whatever they want against Jews and Christians.

And so it came to pass that the most famous Spanish football team, Real Madrid, removed the cross from its crest after a commercial deal with Gulf emirate of Abu Dhabi. The Christian symbol was quickly ditched to please the Islamic Gulf sponsors.

Perhaps soon the West will be soon asked to change the flag of the European Union -- twelve yellow stars on a blue background -- because it contains a Christian message in code. Arsène Heitz, who designed it in 1955, was inspired by the Christian iconography of the Virgin Mary with a crown and twelve stars on her head: what a heartless "Western Christian supremacist" message!

Political correctness is also having a huge impact on big business: Kellogg's withdrew advertising from Breitbart for being "not aligned with our values" and Lego dropped advertising with Daily Mail, to mention just two recent cases.
It should not cause alarm if companies want to decide where to advertise their products, but it is very alarming when it happens due to "ideology." We have never read about companies abandoning a newspaper or website because it was too liberal or "leftist." If the Arab-Islamic regimes were follow these views, why should they not ask their companies to stop advertising in Western newspapers that publish articles critical of Islam, or which publish pictures of half-naked women?
Libraries on US campuses are now putting "trigger warnings" on works of literature: students are advised, for example, that Ovid's sublime Metamorphosis "justifies" rape. Stanford University even managed to exclude Dante, Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare and other giants of Western culture from the academic curricula in 1988: supposedly many of their masterpieces are "racist, sexist, reactionary, repressive." This is the vocabulary of Western surrender before totalitarian Islamic fundamentalism.

France has removed great figures, such as Charlemagne, Henry IV, Louis XIV and Napoleon, from schools, to replace them, for instance, with studying the history of Mali and other African kingdoms. At school, children are taught that Westerners are Crusaders, colonizers and "bad." In purportedly justifying the repudiation of France and its Judeo-Christian culture, schools have fertilized the soil in which Islamic extremism develops and flourishes unimpeded.

It is a question of priorities: no one can deny that France is under Islamist siege. Last week, France's intelligence service discovered another terror plot. But what is the priority of the Socialist government? Restricting freedom of expression for pro-life "militants." The Wall Street Journal called it "France's War on Anti-Abortion Speech." France already has one of the most permissive and liberal bodies of legislation on abortion. But political correctness makes one blind and ideological. "In four and a half years, the Socialists have reduced our freedom of expression and attacked public freedoms," commented Riposte Laïque.

In the US, academia is rapidly closing its doors to any debate. At Yale, professors and students these days are very busy with a new cultural emergency: "renaming." They are changing the name of buildings to erase all traces of slavery and colonialism -- a revisionism out of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.
Everywhere in the US and in the UK, an air of hostility is spreading against opinions and ideas that could cause even a hint of distress in students. The result is the rise of what a writer such as Bret Easton Ellis called "Generation Wuss".
The jihadists surely grin at this Western political correctness, since the result of this ideology will be the abolition of the Western critical spirit and a surreal reeducation of the masses through the annihilation of our history and a hatred of our truly liberal past.

Bristol University in the UK just came under fire for attempting to "no-platform" Roger Scruton for his views on same-gender marriage. Meanwhile, British universities are giving a platform to radical Islamic preachers. In the politically correct universe, conservative thinkers are more dangerous than ISIS supporters. London's former mayor, Boris Johnson, called this dystopia "the Boko Haram of political correctness."

Students and faculty at the Rutgers University in New Jersey cancelled a speech by former US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Students and professors at Scripps College in California protested the presence of another former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who, according to the protesters, is a "war criminal."

A New York University professor, Michael Rectenwald, who attacked political correctness and the coddling of students, was recently booted from the classroom after his colleagues complained about his "incivility". The liberal studies professor was forced to go on paid leave. "It's an alarming curtailment of free expression to the point where you can't even pretend to be something without authorities coming down on you in the universities," Rectenwald told the New York Post.

There is no better ally of Islamic extremism than this sanctimony of liberal censorship: both, in fact, want to suppress any criticism of Islam, as well as any proud defense of the Western Enlightenment or Judeo-Christian culture.
Censorship is happening not only in the liberal enclaves on the coasts of the United States, but also in France. The Eagles of Death Metal -- the American band that was performing at Paris' Bataclan Theater when ISIS terrorists murdered 89 people there on November 13, 2015 -- were banned by two music festivals: Rock en Seine and Cabaret Vert. The reason? Jesse Hughes, the band's frontman, gave a very politically incorrect interview:

"Did your French gun control stop a single f*cking person from dying? I think the only thing that stopped it was some of the bravest men that I've ever seen charging head-first into the face of death with their firearms. I think the only way that my mind has been changed is that maybe until nobody has guns everybody has to have them. Because I've never seen anyone that's ever had one dead, and I want everyone to have access to them, and I saw people die that maybe could have lived, I don't know."

After the jihadist massacre at Orlando's Pulse gay nightclub, Facebook enforced the pro-Islamic injunction and banned a page of the magazine Gaystream, after it had published an article critical of Islam in the wake of the bloodbath. Gaystream's director, David Berger, had heavily criticized the director of the Gay Museum in Cologne, Birgit Bosold, who had told German media that gays should be more frightened of white bigoted men than of Islamic extremists.

Jim Hoft, a gay journalist who is the creator of the popular Gateway Pundit blog, was suspended from YouTube. Twitter, one of the vehicles of this new intolerance, suspended the account of Milo Yiannopoulos, a prominent gay critic of Islamic fundamentalism -- but probably not the accounts of Islamic fundamentalists who criticize gays. Twitter even formed a "Trust and Safety Council." It brings to mind Saudi Arabia's "Council for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice." Could it be an inspiration for the liberal mullahs?

Yes, it might have looked like a golden age for free speech. But under this dictatorship of political correctness, the only "win-win" is for political Islam.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

=================

Judith Bergman : Europe's Out-of-Control Censorship

Europe's Out-of-Control Censorship

by Judith Bergman
April 6, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10123/europe-censorship

• If Facebook insists on the rules of censorship, it should at the very least administer those rules in a fair way. Facebook, however, does not even pretend that it administers its censorship in any way that approximates fairness.
• Posts critical of Chancellor Merkel's migrant policies, for example, can be categorized as "Islamophobia", and are often found to violate "Community Standards", while incitement to actual violence and the murder of Jews and Israelis by Palestinian Arabs is generally considered as conforming to Facebook's "Community Standards".
• Notwithstanding the lawsuits, Facebook's bias is so strong that it recently restored Palestinian Arab terrorist group Fatah's Facebook page, which incites hatred and violence against Jews -- despite having shut it down only three days earlier. In 2016 alone, this page had a minimum of 130 posts glorifying terror and murder of Jews.

Germany has formally announced its draconian push towards censorship of social media. On March 14, Germany's Justice Minister Heiko Maas announced the plan to formalize into law the "code of conduct", which Germany pressed upon Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in late 2015, and which included a pledge to delete "hate speech" from their websites within 24 hours.

"This [draft law] sets out binding standards for the way operators of social networks deal with complaints and obliges them to delete criminal content," Justice Minister Heiko Maas said in a statement announcing the planned legislation.

"Criminal" content? Statements that are deemed illegal under German law are now being conflated with statements that are merely deemed, subjectively and on the basis of entirely random complaints from social media users -- who are free to abuse the code of conduct to their heart's content -- to be "hate speech". "Hate speech" has included critiques of Chancellor Angela Merkel's migration policies. To be in disagreement with the government's policies is now potentially "criminal". Social media companies, such as Facebook, are supposed to be the German government's informers and enforcers -- qualified by whom and in what way? -- working at the speed of light to comply with the 24-hour rule. Rule of law, clearly, as in North Korea, Iran, Russia or any banana-republic, has no place in this system.

Maas is not pleased with the efforts of the social media companies. They do not, supposedly, delete enough reported content, nor do they delete it fast enough, according to a survey by the Justice Ministry's youth protection agency. It found that YouTube was able to remove around 90% of "illegal" postings within a week, while Facebook deleted or blocked 39% of content and Twitter only 1%. The German minister, it seems, wants more efficiency.

"We need to increase the pressure on social networks... There is just as little room for criminal propaganda and slander [on social media] as on the streets," said Maas. "For this we need legal regulations." He has now presented these legal regulations in the form of a draft bill, which provides for complaints, reporting and fines.
There also appears to be no differentiation made between primary-source hate speech, as in many religious tenets, and secondary-source hate speech, reporting on the former.

According to the draft, social media platforms with more than two million users would be obliged to delete or block any criminal offenses, such as libel, slander, defamation or incitement, within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint. The networks receive seven days for more complicated cases. Germany could fine a social media company up to 50 million euros for failing to comply with the law; it could fine a company's chief representative in Germany up to 5 million euros.
It does not stop there. Germany does not want these measures to be limited to its own jurisdiction. It wants to share them with the rest of Europe: "In the end, we also need European solutions for European-wide companies," said Maas. The European Union already has a similar code of conduct in place, so that should not be very hard to accomplish.

Facebook, for its part, has announced that by the end of 2017, the number of employees in complaints-management in Berlin will be increased to more than 700. A spokeswoman said that Facebook had clear rules against hate speech and works "hard" on removing "criminal content".

If Facebook insists on operating under rules of censorship, it should at the very least aim to administer those rules in a fair manner. Facebook, however, does not even pretend that it administers its censorship in any way that approximates fairness. Instead, Facebook's practice of its so-called "Community Standards" -- the standards to which Facebook refers when deleting or allowing content on its platform in response to user complaints -- shows evidence of entrenched bias. Posts critical of Merkel's migrant policies, for example, can get categorized as "Islamophobia", and are often found to violate "Community Standards", while incitement to actual violence and the murder of Jews and Israelis by Palestinian Arabs is generally considered as conforming to Facebook's "Community Standards".
Facebook's bias, in fact, became so pronounced that in October 2015, Shurat Hadin Israel Law Center filed an unprecedented lawsuit against Facebook on behalf of some 20,000 Israelis, to stop allowing Palestinian Arab terrorists to use the social network to incite violent attacks against Jews. The complaint sought an injunction against Facebook that required it to monitor incitement and to respond immediately to complaints about content that incites people to violence. Shurat Hadin wrote at the time:

"...Facebook is much more than a neutral internet platform or a mere 'publisher' of speech because its algorithms connect the terrorists to the inciters. Facebook actively assists the inciters to find people who are interested in acting on their hateful messages by offering friend, group and event suggestions ... Additionally, Facebook often refuses to take down the inciting pages, claiming that they do not violate its 'community standards'. Calling on people to commit crimes is not constitutionally protected speech and endangers the lives of Jews and Israelis".

In 2016, Shurat Hadin filed a separate $1 billion lawsuit on behalf of five victims of Hamas terrorism and their families. They are seeking damages against Facebook under the U.S. Antiterrorism Act, for Facebook's having provided material support and resources to Hamas in the form of Facebook services, which Hamas then used to carry out their terrorist activities. The US has officially designated Hamas a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" which means that it is a criminal offense to provide material support to such an organization.

Notwithstanding the lawsuits, Facebook's bias is so strong that it recently restored Palestinian Arab terrorist group Fatah's Facebook page, which incites hatred and violence against Jews -- despite having shut it down only three days earlier. In 2016 alone, this page had a minimum of 130 posts glorifying terror and the murder of Jews.

It is only a small step from imposing censorship on social media companies to asking the same of email providers, or ordering postal authorities to screen letters, magazines and brochures in the event that citizens spread supposed "xenophobia" and "fake news". There is ample precedent for such a course of action on the continent:
During the Cold War, people living behind the Iron Curtain had their private letters opened by the communist authorities; those passages deemed to be out of line with the communist orthodoxy, were simply blacked out.
Who would have thought that more than a quarter of a century after the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989), Western Europe would be reinventing itself in the image of the Soviet Union?

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

=======================

Judith Bergman : Germany's New Propaganda Bureau

Germany's New Propaganda Bureau

Big Brother is Watching YOU!

by Judith Bergman
January 18, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9771/germany-censorship-propaganda

• A married couple, Peter and Melanie M., were prosecuted and convicted in July 2016 of creating a Facebook group that criticized the government's migration policy. Also, in July 2016, 60 people suspected of writing "hate speech" online had their homes raided by German police.
• None of the above seems to be enough, however, for the president of the Bundestag, Norbert Lammert, from Angela Merkel's CDU party, who believes that what Facebook is already doing against "hate speech" is not enough. According to the CDU politician, there is a need for more legislation.
• The German government's view of what constitutes "hate speech" is highly selective and appears limited to protecting the government's own policies on immigration from legitimate criticism.
• When massive antisemitism swept large German cities in the summer of 2014, for example, no such anti-racist zeal was manifest on the part of the German government. On the contrary, there were instances of authorities practically facilitating hate speech. In July 2014, Frankfurt police let mainly Muslim "protesters" use their van's megaphone to belt out slogans of incitement in Arabic, including the repeated chanting of "Allahu Akbar" and that Jews are "child murderers".
• Firebombing a synagogue, on the other hand, is simply an "act of protest".

Officials in Germany's Interior Ministry are urging Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière to establish a "Defense Center against Disinformation" (Ab­wehr­zen­trum ge­gen Des­in­for­ma­ti­on) to combat what they call "political disinformation," a euphemism for "fake news."
"The acceptance of a post-truth age would amount to political capitulation," the officials told Maizière in a memo, which also disclosed that the bureaucrats at the Interior Ministry are eager to see "authentic political communication" remain "defining for the 21st century."
One wonders whether by "authentic political communication," the officials of the Interior Ministry are referring to the way German authorities scrambled to cover up the mass sexual attacks on women on New Year's Eve a year ago in Cologne? At the time, German police first claimed, surreally, on the morning of January 1, 2016, that the situation on New Year's Eve had been "relaxed." Cologne Police Chief Wolfgang Albers later dryly admitted, "This initial statement was incorrect." Alternatively, perhaps they are referring to the decision of Germany's public broadcaster, ZDF, not to report on the attacks until four days after they had occurred? Even a former government official, Hans-Peter Friedrich, Chancellor Angela Merkel's Interior Minister from 2011 to 2013, accused the media at the time of imposing a "news blackout" and operating a "code of silence" over negative news about immigrants. How is that for "authentic political communication"?

"Considering the [upcoming] federal elections we must act very fast," the officials urged in the memo, citing the need to combat "fake news."
In other words, the Interior Ministry's bureaucrats fear that Chancellor Angela Merkel will lose the elections in September 2017, and are willing to do whatever it takes to prevent that scenario, even if it means using (even more) federal authority to crack down on free speech by inventing an official state propaganda bureau. The current debate on "fake news" is a convenient excuse.

Germany has, of course, been cracking down on free speech for quite a while now. Already in September 2015, Merkel said, "When people stir up sedition on social networks using their real name, it is not only the state that has to act, but also Facebook as a company should do something against these statements".

Under a government program, which has enlisted the help of the German non-governmental organization, the Amadeu Antonio Foundation, led by Anetta Kahane (who has turned out, in a fine twist of irony, to be a former Stasi agent and informer) German authorities are monitoring how many supposedly "racist" posts reported by Facebook users are deleted within 24 hours. Justice Minister Heiko Maas has pledged to look at legislative measures if the results turn out to be "unsatisfactory". The program is scheduled to run until March 2017.

A married couple, Peter and Melanie M., were prosecuted and convicted in July 2016 of creating a Facebook group that criticized the government's migration policy. Their page stated, "The war and economic refugees are flooding our country. They bring terror, fear, sorrow. They rape our women and put our children at risk. Make this end!"

Also, in July 2016, 60 people suspected of writing "hate speech" online had their homes raided by German police.

None of the above seems to be enough, however, for the president of the Bundestag, Norbert Lammert, from Merkel's CDU party, who believes that what Facebook is already doing against "hate speech" is not enough. According to Lammert, there is a need for more legislation. A law to bring social networks under penalty of fines if they fail to erase "hate messages" and "false news" has just been announced by Volker Kauder, leader of the parliamentary group in Merkel's current Bundestag and CDU/CSU faction, and Thomas Oppermann, Chairman of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) parliamentary group.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has also recently called on companies such as Facebook to address "false announcements" on the Internet, saying he felt that the Europeans were increasingly becoming "sensitive to who is fluttering around them and who is telling them the truth."
All of this, naturally, has Merkel's strong support. She told the Bundestag in a speech on November 23:

"I support efforts by Justice Minister Heiko Maas and Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière to address hate speech, hate commentaries, devastating things that are incompatible with human dignity, and to do everything to prohibit it because it contradicts our values".

Those "values" are clearly circumscribed: The German government's view of what constitutes "hate speech" is highly selective, and appears limited to protecting the government's own policies on immigration from legitimate criticism.

When massive antisemitism swept large German cities in the summer of 2014, for example, no such anti-racist zeal was manifest on the part of the German government. On the contrary, there were instances of authorities practically facilitating hate speech. In July 2014, Frankfurt police let mainly Muslim "protesters" use their van's megaphone to belt out slogans of incitement in Arabic, including the repeated chanting of "Allahu Akbar" and that Jews are "child murderers".

In another such instance, a German court found that the firebombing of a synagogue in Wuppertal by two German Arabs and a juvenile accomplice was not anti-Semitic, but rather "an act of protest" to "bring attention to the Gaza war." The men were convicted of arson.

In Germany, it is criminal to bring attention to the problems that come with the government's migration policies, or to criticize those policies, because this constitutes "hate speech." Firebombing a synagogue, on the other hand, is simply an "act of protest."
Perhaps, once the "Defense Center against Disinformation" is set up, such "acts of protest" will be labeled, "Officially Approved Un-Fake Communication."

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

==============

Robbie Travers : The "Fake News" Censorship Industry

The "Fake News" Censorship Industry

by Robbie Travers
January 21, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9802/fake-news-censorship

• Name a single person or organisation you trust to control your speech. Whom would you trust to control what you can read, or make decisions on what is true and what is false for you? Whom do you trust to police what you think?
• The German government thinks it knows exactly who should be the arbiter of truth and what articles you should be allowed to post. Itself!
• This would lead to a monopolisation of the media industry. One or two large platforms would dominate the public debate; fringe voices would be ignored or cast aside.
• Who is to police the police? Facebook, caught out, already had to dismiss those compiling their trending stories, when it was revealed that they had a runaway political bias and were routinely suppressing (conservative) material with which they did not agree.
• The whole censorship industry is open to abuse; presumably, that is what censorship is for in the first place.

Name a single person or organisation you trust to control your speech. Whom would you trust to control what you can read, or make decisions on what is true and what is false for you? Whom do you trust to police what you think?

The German government thinks it knows exactly who should be the arbiter of truth and what articles you should be allowed to post. Itself!

After a bill was proposed by German lawmakers, which threatened fines of up to 500,000 euros ($522,000) for publishing "fake news," Facebook decided to use an organisation called Correctiv, described as a German fact-checking non-profit organisation, to decide whether reported stories are "real" or "fake."

This system would then encourage individual Facebook users to report other users' posts to Correctiv. Facebook would then have Correctiv label any of the articles "fake news," as they see fit.

Even then, this proposed response by Facebook was not harsh enough for some German lawmakers, who want articles deemed to be fake by the government to be removed within 24 hours, or else fine Facebook 500,000 euros. That move would undoubtedly lead to individuals abandoning Facebook for other social networks, or more probably, Facebook abandoning them. German attempts to police the Facebook could end up useless; to many, the plan looks suspiciously like a money-making stratagem.

A centralized "speech police" would also create a monopolisation of the media industry. One or two large platforms would dominate the public debate; fringe voices would be ignored and cast aside.

If there is an organisation created to adjudicate "truth," how does one criticise the organisation? Surely an organisation with no mechanism to be criticized or left with the "honour system" to criticise itself should raise alarm bells.

News sources dismissed by governments may often speak the truth. What if they are right? Valuable news may come from outside the mainstream media.

At a time when the established media are not particularly trusted to begin with, how could censorship not harm faith in the news even more? In the event of any dispute, smaller companies would not be able to afford expensive lawyers to fight the German government. How long until the war chests of social media users empty, compared to the virtually inexhaustible resources of the German state?

Furthermore, how do all these policing networks ensure the neutrality of their staff, who are supposedly determining the accuracy of articles? Who is to police the police?
Facebook, caught out, already had to dismiss those compiling their trending stories, when it was revealed that they had a runaway political bias and were routinely suppressing (conservative) material with which they did not agree.

Facebook's "Trending News Team" banned people exposing jihadists, but allowed pages glorifying anti-police violence and pages promoting anti-Israeli terrorism. That is quite a track record.

Individuals, without even inciting violence, have been wrongly censored by Facebook. A former Gatestone writer, Ingrid Carlqvist, saw her account suspended; Gatestone writer Douglas Murray's articles were censored from Facebook; and this author had his Facebook blocked for questioning Black Lives Matter. All the banned authors challenged politically correct revisions of events.

The whole censorship industry is open to abuse; presumably, that is what censorship is for in the first place. What is to stop individuals from stigmatizing an article multiple times? Algorithms and sophisticated computer programs could silence articles, as well. New information comes along, which changes statistics or facts that were believed to be accurate at the time. All it takes is a single complaint of "fake news" to tarnish a true article with that label -- putting a stain on a journalist either out of political motivation, malice, or simply by mistake. Even algorithms make mistakes. People would start to wonder what they could report that would not be considered "fake news". Is that the kind of press the free world wants?

The German government could start fining, as "fake news," political opinions it finds "inconvenient" -- a perfect way to close down discussion.

No government should be deciding what is worthy and what is unworthy of being published. News organisations often publish stories that governments might think is not in the national interest. It is much too easy to declare a story "fake" because it might not suit a political interest. That is the method used by dictatorships; it is correctly called authoritarian abuse.

The best way to counter fake news is to let people speak freely, check the facts, then present a counter-argument. The marketplace of ideas will decide its fate.

Robbie Travers, a political commentator and consultant, is Executive Director of Agora, former media manager at the Human Security Centre, and a law student at the University of Edinburgh.

=======================

Stefan Frank : Germany's New 'Ministry of Truth' War against Free Speech

Germany's New 'Ministry of Truth'

War against Free Speech

by Stefan Frank
January 24, 2017 at 5:30 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9822/germany-ministry-of-truth

• It seems that all ideas suspected of being "populist" -- or simply those ideas without the blessing of the elites -- will now be banned in Germany. This restriction applies to criticism of the government (especially regarding immigration and energy policies), of the EU, of Islam, of government officials and of the media.
• As in communist dictatorships, the more obvious the failings of the government, the more aggressively the establishment attacks those who speak out about them.
• Large companies such as Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile), BMW, Mercedes-Benz and the supermarket chain REWE obeyed straightaway and promised to place Breitbart on the blacklist immediately, and never to advertise there again.
• A plucky little pizza delivery service responded to the blacklisting demand by declaring that it was "not the morality police". The company was denounced by Der Spiegel as "inept", and after "protests from customers", it ended up capitulating, as the newspaper reported with much satisfaction.

The elites and intellectuals are apparently now counted among the German minorities in need of protection.
Toward the end of last year, Germany experienced a previously unheard-of boycott campaign – funded by the German government, no less -- against several websites, such as the popular "Axis of Good" ("Achse des Guten"). The website, critical of the government, was suddenly accused of "right-wing populism".
The German government's efforts at thought control seem to have begun with the victory of Donald J. Trump in the US presidential election -- that seems to set the "establishment" off. Germany's foreign minister and the probable future federal president, Frank-Walter Steinmeier -- one of the first to travel to Iran after the removal of sanctions there to kowtow to the Ayatollahs -- called America's future president a "hate preacher".
Germany's newspapers were suddenly littered with apocalyptic predictions and anti-American fulminations.
For hard-core Trump-haters, however, a witch hunt by itself is insufficient; they want activism! Since November, Germany's left-wing parties have had a strong increase in membership, as reported by Der Spiegel. At the same time, the federal government evidently decided, at least regarding the federal elections taking place in 2017, that it would no longer count on journalists' self-censorship. The German government, instead of merely hoping that newspapers would voluntarily -- or under pressure from the Press Council -- refrain from criticising the government's immigration policies, decided that it, itself, would inaugurate censorship.

The Federal Government's "Ministry of Truth"

To this effect, as reported by Der Spiegel, the Federal Interior Ministry, intends to set up a "Defense Center against Disinformation ("Abwehrzentrum gegen Desinformation") in the fight against "fake news on social networks". "Abwehr" -- the name of Nazi Germany's military intelligence agency -- is apparently meant to demonstrate the government's seriousness regarding the matter.
"It sounds like the Ministry of Truth, 'Minitrue,' from George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984", wrote even the left-leaning daily, Frankfurter Rundschau.
Frank Überall, national head of the German Association of Journalists (DJV), bluntly stated: "This smells like censorship."
It seems that all ideas suspected of being "populist" -- or simply those ideas without the blessing of the elites – will now be banned in Germany. This restriction applies to criticism of the government (especially regarding immigration and energy policies), of the EU, of Islam, of government officials and of the media.
The Federal Agency for Political Education -- the information agency of the Interior Ministry – is quite open about it: "Anti-elitism", "anti-intellectualism", "anti-politics" and "hostility toward institutions" are the "key characteristics of populism".

"Fat, Stupid White Men"

Toward the end of 2016, one of the biggest German media scandals in recent memory erupted when Gerald Hensel, undoubtedly a member of Germany's elite, tried to introduce a new form of internet censorship with the help of a team of media agencies and political players. Until recently, Hensel was "Director of Strategy" at Scholz & Friends, one of Germany's two big advertising agencies. The firm counts among its clients multinational corporations such as General Motors, the German federal government and the European Commission; so one might say the company is close to the state.
Apparently in anger over Trump's election victory, Hensel demanded: "Let us freeze the cash flow of the right-wing extremist media!" He had previously written a strategy brief declaring debate to be useless; instead, the political enemy -- the "populists" – needed to be fought, even with questionable methods:

"The liberal center must, especially in these new digital and information-based wars, take off the kid gloves. We have to turn the tables and learn about populism, particularly on the Internet... Thus, we have to respond in a more wide-spread digital manner and with explicitly less sympathy to those people who want to force their own future on us -- and do this long before the next federal election... Political storytelling, targeting the political enemy, influencers, forums, rumours..."

"Measures," he added, have to be taken against the "new right" – measures that:

"are 'Below the Line' and also digital. We need 'good' troll factories in our fight against Frauke Petry, Beatrix von Storch, Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen and the fat stupid white men behind them. Ideally, as quickly as possible. Starting in 2017, they will continue to dismantle the EU and thus our future and that of our children."

Advertising Agency as Thought Police

Toward the end of November, Hensel appealed to his colleagues in various advertising agencies, under the banner of "no money for the right", to boycott all those who fit the description of his bogeyman -- because they were "hostile towards the EU," or because they might even harbour sympathies for Donald Trump. He was jumping on a bandwagon. A witch hunt was already under way against the American website Breitbart, due to the closeness of its former executive chair, Steve Bannon, to Donald Trump. Without providing any kind of proof, countless German newspapers and broadcasters claimed that Breitbart was "racist", "sexist", "xenophobic", "anti-Semitic" and "Islamophobic", and a "hate site". The state-owned German television station ARD described Breitbart as an "ultra right-wing" platform for "white supremacy". Other journalists followed suit.

Those Not Reading Newspapers are Suspect

Hensel went one step farther. In the style of a prosecutor during the Inquisition, he called to break the "dominance of right-wing micro media". He seems to consider particularly dangerous and subversive, anyone who reads articles that do not originate from one of Germany's media empires:

"While I may satisfy my thirst for information with my subscriptions to ZEIT or Le Mode Diplomatique, the brave new-right freedom-fighter likes to stay informed via online media such as the Axis of Good or Breitbart News."

This alone raises several suspicions. Hensel, whose website (which since December can only be accessed with a password) is graced by the display of a Soviet red star, likes to eliminate his opponents swiftly. Breitbart, for example, is deemed fascist ("salon-fascists"). Why? Because the blog -- and here he, supposedly for simplicity's sake, quotes an article from the Süddeutsche Zeitung -- "covers all the topics of German right-wing populism"; Breitbart reports about "the migrant and refugee policies of the German federal government, as well as of supposed criminal acts conducted by migrants and Islamic activities."
Hensel's solution? Boycott!

"There is freedom of speech in my stupid little world. Undoubtedly, websites such as Breitbart News and the Axis of Good... are legal media. Nevertheless, one could ask brand names whether they... are aware that their banner ads appear on these particular websites and represent their brand there."

This type of "asking", of course, roughly corresponds to the mafia "asking" the pizzeria owner if he has fire insurance.

(Image source for Hensel: Internet Archive screenshot)

Alliance for Censorship

Hensel also considerately provided detailed instructions for his readers. Those employed by an enterprise should check whether the websites that he deemed "right-wing" are registered on a blacklist. Employees of advertising agencies should form a team, with Hensel and other authoritarians, for internet censorship:

"If your career in a media agency has propelled you a little higher up the hierarchy, you might be able to bring up the topic at the next media get-together with colleagues. 2017 is an election year. You, dearest colleagues, clearly have a part in determining who receives our advertising dollars."

Hensel also suggests that consumers put direct pressure on companies or approach them via social media, to dissuade them from advertising on "hate publishers" and "destroyers of the future".
This manifesto was only published on a private blog -- one that barely anyone had ever heard of before. But the power of which Hensel boasted -- the networks in the advertising agencies and editorial offices -- is real. On Hensel's command, big newspapers and websites reported on the operation with much sympathy, along with the hashtag #NoMoneyForTheRight.

Companies Submit to Pressure

Large companies such as Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile), BMW, Mercedes-Benz and the supermarket chain REWE obeyed straightaway, and promised to place "Breitbart" on the blacklist immediately and never to advertise there again. Der Spiegel cited Hensel's "resistance" (!) and pilloried one business that did not follow suit: A plucky little pizza delivery service that responded to the blacklisting demand by declaring that it was "not the morality police". The company was denounced by Der Spiegel as "inept", and after "protests from customers", it ended up capitulating, as the newspaper reported with much satisfaction.
Breitbart will cope with missing out on a few hundred dollars of advertising revenue from Germany. Hensel, however, was successful in his attempt to motivate his ad agency colleagues against German websites such as the Axis of Good. Within a few days, none of them advertised there anymore. Advertising revenue, equally important for websites as it is for newspapers, came to a halt. Hensel had achieved his goal.

State-Financed Boycott

For this campaign, Hensel also received support from the group Network Against Nazis ("Netz gegen Nazis"), which receives financing from by Germany's federal government, the German Football Association and the newspaper Die Zeit, and which, until recently, also counted Scholz & Friends among its supporters. In the tried and true Orwellian fashion of calling things their opposite, the definition of "Nazi", for Network Against Nazis, encompasses anyone who is "Islamophobic" or "hostile toward the media".
Shortly after Hensel's call for boycotts, the Axis of Good was place on a list of "popular right-wing blogs" by Network Against Nazis -- together with the liberal publisher Roland Tichy and the evangelical civil rights activist Vera Lengsfeld (who is a thorn in the side of communists, because she fought against the East Germany's dictatorship in the 1980s). The Amadeu-Antonio Foundation, which runs the Network Against Nazis website, receives almost a million euros per year from the federal government. Not surprisingly, it demonstrates its gratitude with character assassinations of critics of the government.

"The Trend of Denouncing People as Right-Wingers"

Within a short time, Hensel had put together a kind of mafia, bent on economically ruining whoever rejected his ideological commands, by using libel and slander to scare away their customers.
As the Frankfurter Allgemeine daily newspaper commented:

"It is very fashionable right now to stigmatize people and denounce them as 'right-wing' if they do not share your views. Companies want nothing to do with that label, and, as you can see on Twitter, they quickly change direction if they are aggressively made aware that they support the wrong side with their ads (which are often automatically activated and run on the internet)."

In response to the boycott campaign against it, the Axis of Good showed how a business can defend itself: the editors raised a public alarm about Hensel's campaign in a series of reports and commentaries. Thousands of readers complained on the Facebook page of Hensel's employer, Scholz & Friends, which, after its initial support, began to distance itself from its employee's campaign and finally severed ties with him.
According to Hensel's version, his campaign was "so successful" that he wanted to take his employer "out of the line of fire".

"My former employer and I became the victims of a massive hate storm consisting of countless of tweets, emails and comments on social media... This is a systematic campaign."

Propaganda Offensive ahead of the Federal Election

Of course, it was Hensel himself who initiated a systematic campaign, including dirty tricks, which were waged with an eye to the government's apparent plans to consolidate the population ideologically. As research by the Axis of Good has revealed, Hensel's boycott operation was closely tied to the plans by the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs to conduct an advertising campaign in support of an open-door immigration policy in 2017. For this, an advertising agency was necessary, as reported in September by an industry journal:

"As revealed by a Europe-wide announcement, the Federal Minister of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth is looking for an agency to advertise the brand 'Living democracy! Actively against right-wing extremism, violence and inhumanity'."

Ad agencies were invited to submit their suggestions by the middle of December. The Axis of Good concluded:

"There is a suspicion that this [boycott] operation was a hurried pilot project for the bid for the million-euro project by Schwesig's Family Ministry. A free trial run for the so-called 'advertising pitch'."

Regarding the question of how much economic damage was caused to the Axis of Good by the boycott campaign, Henryk M. Broder, the website's publisher, told Gatestone:

"It is significant, but how big it really was, we will only know in a few months. After all, it is not the companies themselves that stopped advertising, but the agencies. The damage for Scholz & Friends could be even bigger, but they do not talk about it."

The Hamburger Abendblatt daily referred to Hensel's campaign as an "attack on the freedom of the press," adding: "It seems as if the shot from the activists backfired."
As in communist dictatorships, the more obvious the failings of the government, the more aggressively the establishment attacks those who speak out about them.

Stefan Frank, a journalist and writer, is based in Germany.

=================