Whenever you talk to someone who is puzzled why the Brits voted in largish numbers to leave the European Union, you can share this story.

The EU bureaucracy has spawned a committee of underemployed, noxious busybodies to hector member governments on the perceived racism and intolerance that abounds in Europe. This committee, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), has determined that hate is on the rise in the UK and something had better be done about it. Now.

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.

And despite the report not analysing coverage of the historic Brexit vote, Mr Ahlund saw fit to comment on the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

The Brexit referendum seems to have led to a further rise in ‘anti-foreigner’ sentiment, making it even more important that the British authorities take the steps outlined in our report as a matter of priority

In a sweeping statement, he said: “The Brexit referendum seems to have led to a further rise in ‘anti-foreigner’ sentiment, making it even more important that the British authorities take the steps outlined in our report as a matter of priority.”

This is the text of the “recommendation” that the EU wants the UK to implement. Mind you this recommendation is issued with a very casual disregard for Britain’s legal regime, its history, and how the press operates in non-fascist nations.

55. ECRI regrets that a way has not been found to establish an independent press regulator and that, as a result, certain tabloids continue to publish offensive material, as indicated above. ECRI urges the media to take stock of the importance of responsible reporting, not only to avoid perpetuating prejudice and biased information, but also to avoid harm to targeted persons or vulnerable groups. ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety. 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.

56. ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report. It recommends more rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards. It further recommends the authorities to sign and ratify the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime.

This is nothing more than a call for newspapers to be brought under the day-to-day censorship of the government. It is a recommendation for the end of freedom of the press. No amount of “rigorous training” will allow you ot not report the obvious. It is rather difficult to “downplay or reject” Islam as the motivating factor when a young British soldier is beheaded in the streets of Londonistan while the attacker screams Allahu Akbar. As far as safety is concerned, when the body count associated with anti-Muslim violence begins to equal the July 7, 2005 bombings in London then British Muslims have grounds to complain about “backlash.” Until then, they should focus on trying to at least pretend to a veneer of civilization.

As you might imagine, the “Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime” is Orwellian EU-Speak for criminalizing opinion:

For the purposes of this Protocol:

“racist and xenophobic material” means any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as a pretext for any of these factors.
…
Article 3 – Dissemination of racist and xenophobic material through computer systems
…
Article 4 – Racist and xenophobic motivated threat
…
Article 5 – Racist and xenophobic motivated insult

In a non-Alice-in-Wonderland world you would look at this and say, “great idea. We can shut down every single mosque in Britain based on their preaching of hatred.” But that isn’t how the prohibition against racism and racial hatred are applied. Muslims, ever the benign, put upon, harmless, aggrieved victims are singled out for protection while the British population, particularly in Muslim strongholds like Rotherham, is brutalized.

The whole package is offensive to any people claiming the title “free” and proves Brexit was the only logical decision.