Immigration Will Crush European Equal-Treatment Rights

Europe's Nutcracker Problem

Stopping the flood of migrants into Europe is a relatively easy matter.  What is far more difficult is the lack of political will throughout Europe to do it.  In addition there are some complicating factors which mean that permitting migration to Europe is fraught with much, much higher costs, disruption, and negative outcomes than what used to be the case.

These "complicating factors" are philosophical and ideological in nature.  But they make an enormous difference.  The explanations are not hard to find.  It has to do with radical, novel beliefs about intolerance, and a recently manufactured "human right" to be treated equally in the market place.

A window into what is wrong can be found in a published report entitled, Europe: The Problem of Intolerant Equality Laws.  In it, we read the following:

The current EU - equal treatment directives, which are already binding in the entire European Union, contain for the private sector “only” the prohibition of discrimination in the area of employment, in the area of gender and race and ethnicity they cover also the provision of goods and services. The proposed horizontal equal treatment directive does not meet approval for good reasons: the extension of the ban on discrimination in the provision of goods and services in the private sector on the additional grounds of sexual orientation, as well as religion and belief would have dramatic consequences. While this subject matter requires unanimity in the Council of the European Union, it is expected that under the Dutch presidency in 2016, the horizontal directive might advance. It must be noted that while unanimity makes it harder to find consent, it makes it virtually impossible to withdraw the legislation once agreed upon. 

Here we approach the heart of the problem.  When migrants enter a country, the hitherto universal expectation was that the migrant would adopt the culture, customs, beliefs, practices and lifestyle predominant in the host country.  But recent doctrines of human rights in Europe have upended that historical view.  It has, in fact, been turned on its head.

Now it is regarded as discriminatory if the "other" person does not receive what they want, demand, require, and need--including a comprehensive toleration for their beliefs and their habits of life.  Now the migrant can demand that the host country change its culture, beliefs, and practices to conform to the demands of the newly arrived migrant.

It is this nonsense which has made migrants and migration such a threatening prospect for European countries.  The EU establishment and the European elites suddenly find that "right wing extremists" from among their own citizens are rebelling.  "Nein!" is being heard more and more.  The establishment slur that these "Neinies" are right wing extremists, a millimeter removed from full throated Nazism, is itself becoming exposed as false state propaganda.

How have "equal treatment directives" been working out?

The object of discussion is the prohibition of unequal treatment on the grounds of religion or belief, age, or sexual orientation, concerning the provision of goods and services by the private sector.

Depending on the legal details of the directive: Would a Christian printer still be able to decline printing a disrespectful images? Would a Jewish hotel owner have to rent out his assembly conference rooms to a militant Muslim society? Would a homosexual landlord still be able to sublet his house to homosexuals only? Would a private rail traffic company still be allowed to give exclusive discounts to the elderly? Would a Catholic matchmaking agency which is specialised in bringing together people who share the same faith, have to open its doors to people of other faiths? Would a couple, whose daughter had been estranged through the scheming of a radical sect be able to deny a member of that sect to rent an apartment in their house? Would an evangelical graphic designer have to design   an invitation to the celebration of a same-sex union if requested? Would a Christian photographer have to take their pictures, the pastry chef to bring a special cake created for the event? And so on and so forth.

Why would a graphic designer, a photographer and a pastry chef not want to work for the celebration of a same-sex civil partnership? Not because they reject homosexuals. But because they do not want to support such a marriagelike event for religious and conscientious reasons. Jean Jacques Rousseau writes: “I have never thought, for my part, that man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human  power, be forced to do what is against his will.” 

Into this miasmic turgid swamp comes, not the Mongol hordes, but millions of Islamic migrants.  It seems that many of the young migrant men have a view that women are fair game to be hunted  down as objects upon which to satiate their lusts.  The Islamic communities demand the right to practise sharia law; they demand their traditional rights of polygamy and forced marriages.  None can now resist, for resistance--particularly on the part of the Establishment and the authorities--would fly in the face of radical non-discrimination laws which the EU has been busy forcing upon members nations.

Once migrants were expected to adopt the laws and practices of their host country.  Historically most migrants were glad to do so.  Now, the migrants point out that the laws, culture and practices of the host country justify and encourage their insistence upon equal acceptance and institutionalisation of their historical Islamic culture.  Europe is caught in a vice of its own making.

Until Europe repents of its humanitarian folly, it will make no progress upon the issue of migrants.  It will remain caught in a destructive vice screwed down by migrants who have demonstrated their clever abilities to learn quickly and turn this situation to their advantage.  There is a sense in which we have to ask, "Who can blame them"?