Are we actually becoming Intolerant while claiming to be Tolerant

I believe that the more you push people by political means to create a more utopic all tolerant society, the very opposite shall occur. Take the EU for example, "There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant" " European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance, Article 4. We can see straight away a dark and sinister politically controlling framework taking place in contemporary society. According to European Dignity Watch, a civil rights watchdog based in Brussels, The principles of freedom of contract and the freedom to live according to one's personal moral views are in danger of being superseded by a newly developed concept of 'equality.' It would undermine freedom and self-determination for all Europeans and subject the private life of citizens to legal uncertainty and the control of bureaucrats. It is about governmental control of social behavior of citizens. These tendencies begin to give the impression of long-passed totalitarian ideas and constitute an unprecedented attack on citizens' rights. When viewed in the broader context of the ETD, the ECTR document is so audacious in scope, while at the same time so vague in defining its terminology, that critics say the proposal, if implemented, would open a Pandora's Box of abuse, thereby effectively shutting down the right to free speech in Europe. According to Section 1 (d), for example, the term "tolerance" is broadly defined as "respect for and acceptance of the expression, preservation and development of the distinct identity of a group." Section 2 (d) states that the purpose of the statute is to "condemn all manifestations of intolerance based on bias, bigotry and prejudice." An explanatory note to Section 2 states: "Religious intolerance is understood to cover Islamophobia" but it provides no definition at all of "Islamophobia," a term invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s. If taken to its logical conclusion, Section 2 would presumably ban all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law, a key objective of Muslim activist groups for more than two decades. The document also declares that "tolerance must be practiced not only by governmental bodies but equally by individuals." Section 3 (iv) elaborates on this: "Guarantee of tolerance must be understood not only as a vertical relationship (government-to-individuals) but also as a horizontal relationship (group-to-group and person-to-person). It is the obligation of the government to ensure that intolerance is not practiced either in vertical or in horizontal relationships." According to Section 4 (f) (i) of the document: "There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned." Section 5 (a) states: "Tolerance (as defined in Section 1(d)) must be guaranteed to any group, whether it has long-standing societal roots or it is recently formed, especially as a result of migration from abroad." Section 6 states: "It goes without saying that enactment of a Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance does not suffice by itself. There must be a mechanism in place ensuring that the Statute does not remain on paper and is actually implemented in the world of reality." I put to you that what I have placed above as argument for my case proves that tolerance in society is a politically social engineering tool, thereby taking away an individuals freedom of moral choice. It would also render the media impotent to report on such things as Religious Issues and issues concerning groups who work towards their own nefarious ends. Society cannot be tolerant if the right of an individual by democratically afforded freedom is taken away. Tolerance is a moral issue, not a political or religious one. 21st Century society, is becoming more intolerant. Whether this is due to the high degree of political and Religious interference or a collapse of moral values is an issue that must be asked and addressed.