This quote has been taken out of context. I suggest that people take the time to read the document themselves.

“Section 4. Limitations

The rights guaranteed in Section 3 are subject to the following limitations, applied in a proportionate manner as necessary in a democratic society:

…(a-e)…

(f) Protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Explanatory Notes:
(i) Tolerance is a two-way street. Members of a group who wish to
benefit from tolerance must show it to society at large, as well
as to members of other groups and to dissidents or other
members of their own group.
(ii) There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is
especially important as far as freedom of expression is
concerned: that freedom must not be abused to defame other
groups. ”

So what it actually means that we do not need to be tolerant to intolerant minority groups, a sentiment that I’m sure most people would agree with.

You might also find it interesting to note that other limitations are:

“(a) National or international security.

Explanatory Note:
Tolerance must not be used as a means for the condoning terrorism or
as a cover for those seeking to subvert domestic or international peace
and security.

(b) Ordre public.

Explanatory Notes:
(i) A prime example: it must be understood that demonstrations (in
exercise of freedom of assembly) need not be tolerated when
they are likely to degenerate into riots or infringe on the rights
of others
(ii) Another example is that, given the need to fight crime, persons
may not be allowed to cover their faces in public.
(iii) Ordre public is not confined to issues of crime and violence.
Thus, city planning and zoning rules may override an attempt
to build a place of worship on a particular site.

(c) Public policy.

Explanatory Note:

Tolerance does not mean that a group can segregate itself from society
as a whole, repudiating the need to interface with other groups.

(d) Public morals.

Explanatory Note:
Examples: tolerance does not denote acceptance of such practices as
female circumcision, forced marriage, polygamy or any form of
exploitation or domination of women.

(e) Public health.

Explanatory Note:
Example: the Court of Appeal in England (per Lord Denning) found no
fault with the refusal of a chocolate-making factory to employ a
bearded Sikh in view of a hazard of contamination by bacteria. ”

I’m not looking to get into discussion about other points of the article; I am simply disputing the use of this quotation in this article.

So the EU thinks it has reached the highest level of evolution and does not need “intolerant citizens” to improve its form of government? Its parliament fools only themselves. Its laws are made to be broken, and as demonstrated in Romania, people do not forgive those who enslave them.