On May 31, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube (and by proxy Google), and Microsoft agreed to an agreement authored by the EU which put forth a “Code of Conduct” with serious repercussions on the freedom of speech of those living within the EU. The companies listed were tasked with enacting the policies in the Code of Conduct within 24 hours–meaning they’re already in effect.

Even a quick look at the provisions of the arrangement reveals its nature as one of censorship.

Section 7(a) provides the following:

“The following acts will be regarded as criminal offences punishable as aggravated crimes:

(i) Hate crimes as defined in Section 1(c).

(ii) Incitement to violence against a group as defined in

Section 1(a).

(iii) Group libel as defined in Section 1(b).

(iv) Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or anti-Semitism.”

Of particular interest are parts iii and iv. The two subsections are incontrovertibly vague, arbitrary, overbroad, and capricious, meaning that in the United States Common Law system they would not stand. But under the continental law of Europe, these laws are valid; the EU is an international organization different from others insofar as it has executive power (while organizations such as the UN don’t have the power to enforce any declarations or resolutions produced by members). They leave great room for discretion and malpractice veiled by the moral righteousness of those who are of the same mind as the authors.

The political agenda of globalism and internationalism is not particularly hard to see. The EU is troubled by a serious issue over immigration and refugees, most notably those from the Syrian civil war; there are expected to be tens of millions of refugees from Africa and the Middle East later in the century as climate change wreaks havoc on the capacity of those lands to sustain their populations. The policies of countries such as Germany and Sweden in particular, as well as the UK, have led to massive popular opposition to continued influx of migrants, due to allegations of crime and security concerns. There are political factions, such as the French Front Nationale, the British UKIP (UK Independence Party), and the German AfD (Alternative for Germany) which stand opposed to immigration, and it is precisely these groups and their constituents that will be targeted for expressing their views should they be deemed “group libel” or “xenophobia”. Make no mistake, this agreement literally criminalizes voicing opposition to lax immigration policies.

Examine also 7(b), which provides:

“(b) Juveniles convicted of committing crimes listed in paragraph (a) will be required to undergo a rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance.”

The romanticized language is a thin veil for totalitarianism: children who oppose unbridled immigration will go to forced reeducation camps designed to alter their political orientation to be in line with those of radical liberal policymakers. Revolting.