by Chauncey Tinker – 22 Sep 2018
[Hat-tip to Seymour Clare for some of the info.]
Some of you are probably wondering what on earth is the OSCE, and what does it matter? The OSCE is the “Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe” and includes 57 countries, so the title is rather misleading as many non-European countries are also involved, it includes the UK, Canada, and the US. It is funded by those 57 countries, and so if you are a taxpayer in one of those countries it is funded by you. It had a budget of EUR 137 million in 2018, and it apparently employs 3,460 people.
The issues it addresses include:
arms control, terrorism, good governance, energy security, human trafficking, democratization, media freedom and national minorities.
The organization was formed in the 1970s apparently (it has its origins in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe of 1975 in Helsinki) and seems to have done some good work in the past particularly during the last days of communism. It has been in the spotlight recently in connection with the election in Hungary. From Reuters:
Hungary election lacked level playing field, benefiting ruling parties: OSCE
A criticism is made of government funding of what appeared to be election posters (although the one shown as an example was just a picture of migrants with a STOP sign), similarly in the UK’s Brexit referendum the government openly took sides by sending out pro-EU literature at the taxpayers’ expense. Another criticism is made of pro-government media bias, again we are familiar with media bias in the UK, and of course when the bias is coming from a state broadcaster that is a legitimate concern. It would not be surprising however if different conditions existed in parts of Europe, for example there aren’t many people who hold pro-migration views perhaps in some countries? Is it reasonable to expect some bias in the media towards the general views of the population? Is it reasonable to expect a lack of pro-migration media bias if only a relatively small number of people in the country hold such views?
What certainly warrants closer inspection is the criticism of what is termed “intimidating and xenophobic rhetoric”. What exactly does this mean? Looking at the “final report” we see this in the About page (the ODIHR is the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights):
Within the field of tolerance and non-discrimination, ODIHR provides support to the participating States in strengthening their response to hate crimes and incidents of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance.
(Incidentally ODIHR is apparently pronounced “oh dear”).
Further on in the report:
Hostile, intimidating and, at times, xenophobic rhetoric featured prominently in the campaign. On one occasion, the ruling coalition’s prime ministerial candidate vowed to take “vengeance” on the opposition after the elections. In another speech, the same candidate made veiled threats against thousands of civil society activists, whom he labelled as “an army of mercenaries”. Such rhetoric, together with pervasive negative campaigning, including leaked recordings, restricted space for substantive debate and voters’ ability to make an informed choice
The first sentence had a footnote:
On 7 March, the prime minister’s chief of staff uploaded a video in which he lamented the demise of “White Christians” in a Vienna neighbourhood. A video posted by the Fidesz member of parliament Tamas Deutsch claimed that a district of Brussels had been “flooded” by 35-40,000 migrants from North Africa at the expense of “Christian Francophones”. The video was shared by the prime minister on social media on 18 March. Several days prior to the elections, the government ran a paid advertisement online, featuring the same message, but also images that depicted scenes of what purported to be migrant violence.
By all means take a closer look at the report yourself (link given above), but to my mind this is reading as signifying that the ODIHR/OSCE disapproves of the Prime Minister of Hungary’s staff drawing attention to migrant violence and objecting to an influx of large numbers of non-European people into Europe. Is this really any of the OSCE’s business is the question that springs to my mind. If the people of a country don’t want 10s of 1000s of people of other races and cultures flooding into their country well surely that is their democratic business and not the OSCE’s. I was really expecting to see something considerably more substantial to justify this phrase “intimidating and xenophobic rhetoric“, but the above was the only reference to xenophobia that I could find in this final report.
Has this contributed to the climate in the EU now calling for sanctions against Hungary? I suspect that is highly likely. From Breitbart:
EU Parliament Votes to Enact Article 7 Opening Up Potential Sanctions Against Hungary
A video shared by Vlad Tepes blog gives you an idea of some of the language being used at the OSCE (12 minute clip):
OSCE Session 6 implementing cultural Marxism over European law and culture
The session begins with a short speech by a woman with the label “Moderator”, and this is followed by a speech by another woman with the label “Introducer” which seems to be designed to set the tone of the meeting. The “Introducer” is herself introduced as the “Director of the Centre for Intersectional Justice” Dr Emilia Roig. Of course anybody who has any awareness of the “social justice” movement in academia will be familiar with the word “Intersectional“, it is an ideology that is bound up with the cultural Marxism movement.
(@1:56) Dr. Roig opens her speech:
“Every day in Europe we see groups of people claiming entitlement to certain privileges and also claim the right to define the confines of European identity. The most recent example are the massive demonstrations of neo-Nazis in Germany in Chemnitz and other cities
By now it’s pretty clear that the claims of “massive demonstrations of neo-Nazis” in Chemnitz were fake news, there were just large numbers of mostly ordinary people protesting against recent murders committed by migrants. Possibly there were some genuine neo-Nazis mingling with the crowds, but to describe the demonstrations as purely being composed of neo-Nazis is certainly a gross mis-characterization. Far-left infiltrators have also been accused of making Nazi salutes to put the crowds in a bad light. (I’ve included a couple of videos from Vlad Tepes’s blog about the demonstrations at the end, these shed more light on the protests).
The Introducer goes on to object to the activities of Generation Identity who tried to prevent migrants crossing the border in the absence of any border security. In my mind, her use of the phrase “claim the right to define the confines of European identity”, coupled with her objection to protests against mass immigration, amounts to nothing less than an attempt to challenge the right of Europeans to defend the borders of Europe from mass immigration.
She also refers at length to “anti-Muslim” racism. She claims (@8:45) that Muslim women wearing the hijab are a group who’s rights are “particularly under threat” in Europe because she claims that restrictions on “religious dress” mean they are being “indirectly” discriminated against in employment, education, services, and public space and she claims this is also a case of “intersectional discrimination”. (It takes quite a bit of effort to understand what she is talking about in places because her speech is heavily peppered with these intersectionality jargon phrases). Notice that she switches from referring to the hijab to referring to “religious dress” which could include for example face-covering dress such as the burqa and niqab. She also refers to an Open Society report (@9:19) titled “Restrictions on Muslim Women’s Dress in 20 EU Member States”.
An organization who’s purpose was supposed to be to ensure free and fair elections seems to be not just exceeding their remit here but actively interfering with the democratic process, such interference is surely the very thing they are supposed to prevent. Through this organization, the majority of the 56 countries are effectively ganging up on one and telling it that it is wrong to object to mass immigration. That is my reading of the final report, and the language in the video also contributes strongly to the impression that the OSCE is now an organization that is no longer committed to free and fair elections and in fact now has a political agenda of its own. I therefore recommend that taxpayers in participating countries should object strongly to the continued funding of this organization by their governments.
Another couple of videos from Vlad Tepes. The first shows an interview with a Pakistani (?) migrant who says he spent quite some time mingling with the crowds and says that the worst he encountered was a few “stares”, and that he thought the protestors had legitimate concerns:
Wonderful interview with Pakistani German on the people of Chemnitz during this set of events
The lies of the media are challenged in this video recorded at the demonstration as well:
The good people of Chemnitz confront the lying press
From the website of our contributor Jillian Becker re. the OSCE:
Equality and inclusiveness in terrorism
The OSCE website:
The Gates of Vienna website have written a large number of articles about the organization:
The OSCE and the Counterjihad
From The Guardian:
Hungary election: OSCE monitors deliver damning verdict
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
What do you think? Please leave a comment below.