Archive for the ‘Islamic supremacy’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Merkel Government Still in Denial

December 20, 2016

Merkel Government Still in Denial, Gatestone Institute, Vijeta Uniyal, December 20, 2016

Islamic State took responsibility for the December 19 Berlin truck-ramming attack that killed 12 people, similar to the July 14 attack in the French city of Nice, and countless car-rammings in Israel. Now Europeans feel what Israelis live with every day.

This month, the police union in the German state of Thuringia issued an open letter to the state’s Interior Minister, describing the crumbling law-and-order situation amid the rising migrant crime: “[You] are abandoning us completely helpless to a superior force… But what changes? Nothing. One instead gets a sense of uninterest.”

Meanwhile, representatives of Arab community were reported telling the police in Ruhr, “The police will not win a war with us because we are too many.”

Chancellor Merkel, Germany’s ruling elites and the media can continue putting a happy face on uncontrolled mass-migration from Arab and Muslim lands, or suppress news reporting on rising migrant crime, but they cannot wish away the country’s deteriorating law and order situation.

It should be evident to even a casual observer that her government still does not care about the victims of its own failed “refugee” policy.

 

Monday’s terrorist attack on a Berlin Christmas market killed at least 12 people and injured 50 others. Islamic State took responsibility for the truck-ramming attack, as recommend by the al-Qaeda magazine, Inspire, and similar to the July 14 attack in the French city of Nice, and countless car-rammings in Israel. Now Europeans feel what Israelis live with every day.

2140Police confer at the site of the December 19 car-ramming attack at a Christmas market in Berlin. (Image source: RT video screenshot)

Earlier this year, Germany was hit by a series of ISIS-inspired attacks and failed terror plots. Despite that almost all the perpetrators were recent Syrian or Afghan migrants, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in the middle of a re-election bid, has stuck to her claim that there is “no connection” between terror attacks in the country and uncontrolled mass migration from Arab and Muslim lands.

Ahead of an election year, Merkel and her coalition partners also want to avoid another mass sexual attack — in Cologne.

Adding insult to injury, the Mayor of Cologne, Henriette Reker, is planning to put on a big show this coming New Year’s Eve in the city’s main square. After an elaborate year-long cover up, the city will be lighting up the crime scene as part of a multi-media show. “The City of Cologne has announced plans for a spectacular multi-media show in the area immediately surrounding the famous Gothic cathedral, close to the main train station,” state-run broadcaster Deutsche Welle reported.

“Cologne will send good images to the world,” says the city’s mayor. The taxpayer-funded spectacle has been named “Time Drifts Cologne.” The “light artist” running the show, Philipp Geist, considers last year’s crime scene “a fantastic place for an art installation.”

Of an estimated two thousand exclusively Muslim men who raped, assaulted and robbed more than 1200 women, almost all the attackers have managed to walk free. Ralf Jäger, Interior Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, admitted recently that “most of the cases will remain unsolved.”

An estimated 1,800 police officers will be on duty in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, compared to just 140 last year. Barricades have been erected in the city center to check the flow of the crowd. The city’s historic cathedral and adjoining area have been placed under a crush barrier. Police will man observation posts and fly helicopters to monitor the crowd, and deploy mounted police and six armoured vehicles for riot-control. “No expense will be spared,” assured the mayor. In an important election year, the government wants to defend the city to the last taxpayer dime.

Even before it can face any real onslaught, however, Merkel’s fortification is showing some serious cracks.

Just days ahead of the News Year’s Eve, the police union in the eastern German state of Thuringia has issued an open letter describing the crumbling law-and-order situation amid the rising migrant crime. “[You] are abandoning us completely helpless to a superior force,” says the desperate note addressed to the Interior Minister of Thuringia. The union claims that politicians have been repeatedly briefed on the deteriorating conditions under which police have been working. “But what changes? Nothing. One instead gets a sense of uninterest.”

Unwilling to acknowledge the breakdown of law and order in face of the rising migrant crime wave, the German media and politicians are going after the messenger.

Their latest target is the head of German Police Union, Rainer Wendt. Wendt’s crime, after a series of rape crimes this December, was to speak the obvious truth. “The criminals are using open borders,” he said.

Ralf Stegner, deputy leader of Social Democratic Party (SPD) and a fervent supporter of Merkel’s “Refugees Welcome” policy, denounced Wendt’s statement as “politically disgusting and stupid as one can get.”

Wendt has also been attacked for questioning the customary kid-glove treatment given to violent and criminal “refugees” by German courts. Sven Rebehn, Chairman of the German Association of Judges, called Wendt, “the Donald Trump of domestic politics” — apparently the biggest insult a German liberal can come up with these days.

The Merkel government can turn the center of Cologne into an impenetrable fortress for a day or two, but the threat is not going away. The problem lies in the Ruhr region that encircles Cologne. “Have foreign clans turned Ruhr region into a No-Go-Area?” asks the leading German newspaper, Die Welt, just days ahead of News Year’s Eve.

Meanwhile, representatives of Arab community were reported telling the police in Ruhr, “The police will not win a war with us because we are too many.”

Chancellor Merkel, Germany’s ruling elites and the media can continue putting a happy face on uncontrolled mass-migration from Arab and Muslim lands, or suppress news reporting on rising migrant crime, as much as they want, but they cannot wish away the country’s deteriorating law-and-order situation.

As the desperate plea of the police union shows, the Merkel government has decided to ignore the plight of law enforcement, at least for now. It should be evident to even a casual observer that her government still does not care about the victims of its own failed “refugee” policy: Germany appears to be heading toward another rough year.

Categories: "Far right" parties, Germany, Germany open borders, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Law enforcement, Merkel
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Sharia Councils: Taking Liberties

December 19, 2016

Sharia Councils: Taking Liberties, Gatestone Institute, Robbie Travers, December 19, 2016

A report by Machteld Zee, a Dutch Academic raised the issue that sharia councils “frustrate women in their requests [for divorce], especially if the husband is unwilling to co-operate,” and she also suggested that women are treated as “second-class citizens.”

Sharia councils, however, can demand that the parties involved in a dispute sign contracts beforehand, demanding that women agree to the results of the arbitration. To force a woman, who has been denied rights to any legal representation, to agree to an illegal or wrongful contract before trial, is a travesty that the British justice system cannot allow to continue.

As Dr Taj Hargey, Imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation argues, “Sharia is not divine law, it is just medieval opinion.”

Is Britain really agreeing to allow women to be sentenced in England, then to be stoned to death elsewhere?

This ruling actually reveals to the husband the process required to have his wife stoned to death. It arguably even encouraging men to have their wives taken abroad and have them murdered. The court has therefore condemned someone to murder solely the words of her husband without allowing her a chance to speak.

How can these groups that not only fail to protect the rights of women but actually undermine them, be considered charitable organisations, funded by British taxpayers?

It is considered a fundamental principle in liberal democracies that individuals should have equality under the law, with equal access to justice, despite race, gender, or religious belief and that the same laws of a single legal system should apply equally to everyone.

To have two simultaneously functioning rules of law, applied on differing judicial bases, would create a challenge of which precedents to follow, or why individuals from different groups should be treated differently. How long before people form one group would claim to be from a different group to be exempt from the first group’s laws? Such a system invites abuse.

Dealing with minorities by differing legal systems rather than creating a more pluralist utopia simply leads to a divided society in which minorities and majorities have justified mutual distrust.

Sadly, these principles which have sculpted a strong judicial system in the United Kingdom for so long are now facing a significant threat.

In Britain, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) recognises and protects women’s rights to equality, and not to be discriminated against in legal proceedings. But the rule of law in Britain is being eroded by the legitimisation of sharia councils. This has occurred under the Arbitration Act (1996), even though their operation in the Britain has been recorded since 1992.

There are valid reasons why sharia councils and sharia itself should not be given any legitimacy under British law.

First, these alternative judicial systems can mislead Muslim women to believe that sharia, and the fatwas pronounced by clerics, are binding and that such a marriage is recognised under UK law. In fact, it is estimated that 70-75% of all Islamic marriages in Britain are not recognized, according to the findings in the Dame Louise Casey report.

Islamic women also might be misled into believing that they have more marital rights than they actually have – a cruel deception that must end. And they further seem misled into believing they are compelled to approach a sharia council, rather than a UK civil court, for a divorce.

Second, these sharia councils often offer themselves as “an alternative,” to people seeking a civil law judgement, but the elders who hold the proceedings do not use juridical standards compatible with existing British legal ones. In cases arbitrated by sharia councils, as opposed to British law, for example, women lack the legal ability to initiate any divorce proceedings without the explicit agreement of her husband, and often women have no legal representation at these trials.

With little ability even to mount a legal defence, there is always the probability that Muslim women are not receiving equal justice under the law.

A report by Machteld Zee, a Dutch Academic raised the issue that sharia councils “frustrate women in their requests [for divorce], especially if the husband is unwilling to co-operate” and she also suggested that women are treated as “second-class citizens.”

sharia councils can also fundamentally attack the rights of women in arbitration, a device meant to be facilitate resolving issues. sharia councils, however, can demand that the parties involved in a dispute sign contracts beforehand, demanding that women agree to the results of the arbitration. To force a woman, who has been denied rights to any legal representation, to agree to an illegal or wrongful contract before trial, is a travesty that the British justice system cannot allow to continue.

Is it really acceptable that these sharia councils are granted authority under the Arbitration Act of 1996 when they treat women in such a way?

Dr Taj Hargey, Imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation argues, “Sharia is not divine law, it is just medieval opinion.”

The right of a woman to be free from abuse should be a paramount consideration. Therefore, a parallel legal system that declines to recognise the law of the land on the abuse of women is fundamentally incompatible with our legal system.

Third, which law? A trial can be considered just in terms of sharia law might well not be considered just under another form of law. Even if women are allowed to attend sharia councils in Britain, their submissions in sharia law are considered worth half of the submissions of a man — not exactly fair.

Fourth, a recent report compiled by Dame Louise Casey suggests that the growth of sharia councils in Britain have increased division and segregation in communities.

What if a woman wishes to appeal the verdict? There is no right to appeal. What if she feels there was irregularity or corruption in the process? As there exists no regulator, Muslim women seem trapped in a system the outcome of which they have to accept, even when there may not even be fleeting chance of justice.

Read this ruling from a British sharia council:

1) Adultery is one of the most heinous crimes in Islamic law, the punishment for which is death by stoning. But as Britain is not a Muslim state such a punishment may not be carried out here. This punishment can only be administered in a Muslim state after due process.

This is cause for concern. This ruling actually reveals to the husband the process required to have his wife stoned to death. It arguably even encouraging men to have their wives taken abroad and have them murdered.

Is Britain really agreeing to allow women to be sentenced in England then to be stoned to death elsewhere? The ruling should instead be considered incitement to violence and reckless endangerment.

The judgement continues to state that, “Allah will punish her for her immorality.” This presumes that the wife is guilty without even hearing her testimony. The court has therefore condemned someone to murder solely the words of her husband without allowing her a chance to speak. This sort of trial has no place in a modern democracy.

It is also hard to hold sharia councils accountable: they do not record their judgements, or transparently display a record of council rulings. Why would an organisation wish not to make its rulings publicly available unless it I trying to hide something?

If cases are arbitrated on any basis that that withhold full transparency or that promotes inequality for women, it is the duty of the state not only to criticise these trials, but to withdraw any legislation that gives these laws legitimacy.

Sharia councils have been known completely to disregard the decrees of civil British courts; some councils are even suggesting that women comply with abusive husbands. More dangerously, sharia councils have even made private statements, supposedly hidden by court decree, concerning individuals in abusive relationships, public. Sharia councils have put these statements on court documents and sent them to the abuser – a practice that has led to death threats, children kidnapped, and even to women being violently raped in retaliation for seeking justice.

1013-1Haitham al-Haddad is a British shari’a council judge, and sits on the board of advisors for the Islamic Sharia Council. Regarding the handling of domestic violence cases, he stated in an interview, “A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife, because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort their matters among themselves.” (Image source: Channel 4 News video screenshot)

To add insult to injury, these unaccountable courts that offer judgements which sometimes incite violence and often disadvantage women, are often registered charities that charge around £800 for a divorce. How can these groups that not only fail to protect the rights of women but actually undermine them be considered charitable organisations, funded by British taxpayers?

Even more problematic is this excessive fee, when Islamic women often coming from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and who perhaps have been discouraged from earning a living outside the home and may therefore have no funds to buy her freedom? Muslim women within abusive marriages can therefore be imprisoned by a process that is unattainable. One might even deduce that perhaps that is the purpose of the fee?

Elham Manea, author of the book Women and Sharia Law, argues that the first Sharia councils were established by Islamists. She also notes that Sharia councils have “been working with a kind of a tacit approval of British establishment. There is a certain kind of hesitancy from British institutions to interfere in what they consider is internal affair to the Muslim community.”

We can no longer be afraid to speak out against a legal system that disadvantages women because of the religion of those who run it, or that criticism may be perceived as hateful.

More alarming is that views on Sharia amongst the UK Islamic community are favourable towards this judicial practice. Sharia is now even being promoted as a solution that should be considered by the British Government. In polls conducted for the Police Exchange: 43% said they supported “the introduction of Sharia Law.” And 16% of British Muslims “strongly support” the “introduction of aspects of Sharia law into Britain”

What aspects of the Sharia do they support? How you can support only “aspects” of Sharia, when Sharia is designed to be followed in its entirety, without concession. Even then, which aspects do they support? Those that instruct that “women are restricted in leaving their homes and driving cars”? Or that “a man may coerce his wife to have sex”? Or the “recommendation of severe punishments for homosexuals?”

48% of the respondents said they would not turn someone they know with links to terrorism in Syria over to the police.

As Denis MacEoin illustrates, Sharia even justifies jihad:

In Sharia Law or One Law for All, I drew attention to another level of sharia rulings that provide fatwas for numbers of British Muslims, in particular of the younger generation. These are online sites: “fatwa banks.” Individuals or couples send questions to the muftis who run the sites, and receive answers in the form of fatwas that are considered authoritative. The questions and answers are preserved in galleries of rulings, which can be browsed by anyone seeking advice. The sites are by no means consistent, differing from one scholar to another. But they do provide an insight into the kinds of rulings that may be given in the sharia councils.

Among the rulings MacEoin details is that “fighting the Americans and British is a religious duty.” Such a ruling, sadly, could be delivered on British soil.

Sharia councils and Sharia both clearly restrict the rights of women, homosexuals, Christians and Jews, and are therefore incompatible with a diverse and tolerant society. They should be granted no legitimacy by the state.

The cessation of Sharia councils in the UK is not Islamophobic, or an “attack on Islamic rights to freedom of expression or belief”. It is the defence of a just legal system that respects diversity but judges all equally. If we are to have a society in which all are equal, then all law must be derived from a single system that applies to all.

Categories: Britain and Islam, British law, Islam - submission, Islam and females, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in Britain, Sharia courts, Sharia law and females
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Dutch Death Spiral

December 11, 2016

The Dutch Death Spiral, Gatestone Institute, Giulio Meotti, December 11, 2016

“It would have been better if the Dutch state had sent a clear signal [to terrorists] via a Dutch court that we foster a broad notion of the freedom of expression in the Netherlands.” — Paul Cliteur, Professor of Jurisprudence, Leiden University.

The historic dimension of Wilders’s conviction is related not only to the terrible injustice done to this MP, but that it was the Netherlands that, for the first time in Europe, criminalized dissenting opinions about Islam.

“I will never be silent. You will not be able to stop me… And that is what we stand for. For freedom and for our beautiful Netherlands.” — Geert Wilders, Dutch MP and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV).

“We have a lot of guests who are trying to take over the house.” — Pym Fortuyn, later shot to death to “defend Dutch Muslims from persecution.”

Before being slaughtered, clinging to a basket, Theo van Gogh begged his assassin: “Can we talk about this?” But can we talk?

A country whose most outspoken filmmaker was slaughtered by an Islamist; whose bravest refugee, hunted by a fatwa, fled to the U.S.; whose cartoonists must live under protection, had better should think twice before condemning a Member of Parliament, whose comments about Islam have forced him to live under 24-hour protection for more than a decade, for “hate speech.” Poor Erasmus! The Netherlands is no longer a safe haven for free thinkers. It is the Nightmare for Free Speech.

The most prominent politician in the Netherlands, MP Geert Wilders, has just been convicted of “hate speech,” for asking at a really if there should be fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. Many newly-arrived Moroccans in the Netherlands seem to have been responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime there.

Paul Cliteur, Professor of Jurisprudence at Leiden University, who was called as an expert witness, summed up the message coming from the court: “It would have been better if the Dutch state had sent a clear signal [to terrorists] via a Dutch court that we foster a broad notion of the freedom of expression in the Netherlands.”

Here are just a few details to help understand what Wilders experiences every day because of his ideas: No visitors are allowed into his office except after a long wait to be checked. The Dutch airline KLM refused to board him on a flight to Moscow for reasons of “security.” His entourage is largely anonymous. When a warning level rises, he does not know where he will spend the night. For months, he was able to see his wife only twice a week, in a secure apartment, and then only when the police allowed it. The Parliament had to place him in the less visible part of the building, in order better to protect him. He often wears a bulletproof vest to speak in public. When he goes to a restaurant, his security detail must first check the place out.

Wilders’s life is a nightmare. “I am in jail,” he has said; “they are walking around free.”

The historic dimension of Wilders’s conviction is related not only to the terrible injustice done to this MP, but that it was the Netherlands that, for the first time in Europe, criminalized dissenting opinions about Islam.

The Netherlands is a very small country; whatever happens to this enclave is seen in the rest of Europe. The Netherlands refused to surrender to the Spanish invasion. It was from Rotterdam, the second-largest Dutch city, that the Founding Fathers left to create the United States of America. It was to the Netherlands that some of the most brave, original European philosophers and writers — Descartes, Rousseau, Locke, Sade, Molière, Hugo, Swift and Spinoza — had to flee to publish their books. It is also the only corner of Europe where there were no pogroms against Jews, and where Rembrandt painted Jesus with the physical traits of Jews.

Take Leiden: “Praesidium Libertatis” (“Bastion of Freedom”) is the motto of the Netherlands’ most ancient university. Leiden was the university of Johan Huizinga, the great historian who opposed the Nazis and died in a concentration camp. Leiden was also the university of Anton Pannekoek, the mentor of Martinus Van der Lubbe, the Dutch hero who torched the Nazi Parliament in 1933.

In Leiden today, you meet brave intellectuals such as Afshin Ellian, an Iranian jurist who fled Khomeini’s Revolution in Iran and who also now lives under police protection for his observations on Islam. Ellian’s office is close to the former office of Rudolph Cleveringa. When the Nazis invaded the Netherlands and called on Dutch public officials to fill out a form in which they had to declare whether they were “Aryans” or “Jews”, everyone but Cleveringa capitulated. He understood the consequences of such commands.

Twelve years ago, the Netherlands was again plunged into fear for the first time since World War II. In Linnaeusstraat, a district of Amsterdam, Mohammed Bouyeri, a Muslim extremist, ambushed the filmmaker Theo van Gogh and slaughtered him, then pinned on his chest a letter threatening the lives of Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Before that murder, Pim Fortuyn, a professor who had formed his own party to save the country from Islamization, was shot to death to “defend Dutch Muslims from persecution.”

2117Twelve years ago, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh (left) was assassinated by an Islamist who pinned on van Gogh’s chest a letter threatening the life of Geert Wilders (right). Today Wilders, the most prominent politician in the Netherlands, lives in hiding under round-the-clock protection.

Fortuyn had said, “We have a lot of guests who are trying to take over the house.”

Since then, many Dutch artists have capitulated to fear.

Sooreh Hera, from Iran, submitted her photos to the Gemeentemuseum Museum in The Hague. One of these works depicted Mohammed and Ali. After many threats, the museum proposed that it would acquire the photos without publishing them and that one day, perhaps, when the situation was calmer, they might show them then. Hera refused: it would have been self-censorship, a sad day for the West. Rants Tjan, director of Museum Gouda, bravely offered to exhibit her censored images, but that event was later cancelled, too. Hera was forced to go into hiding.

Paul Cliteur, a critic of multiculturalism, announced that he would no longer write for Dutch newspapers about Islam, for fear of reprisals: “With the murder of van Gogh, everyone who writes takes a certain risk. That is a scary development. What I am doing do is self-censorship, absolutely….”

Then a columnist, Hasna el Maroudi, from the newspaper NRC Handelsblad, stopped writing, after receiving threats.

The Dutch artist Rachid Ben Ali, irreverent about Islam, no longer satirizes Muslims.

Amsterdam, a city famous for its exuberant cultural life, had already lived through threats to artists: the occupation by the Nazis during World War II.

Several artists still refuse to mention Theo Van Gogh, so as not to “contribute to… divisions”, according to the New York Times. Translation: They are afraid. Who would not be?

In the Oosterpark, a steel sculpture by the artist Jeroen Henneman, dedicated to Van Gogh, is entitled “De Schreeuw” (“The Scream”). But it is a scream you hardly hear in the Dutch society.

What you do hear is the defiant protest after the conviction of a brave MP, Geert Wilders: “I will never be silent. You will not be able to stop me… And that is what we stand for. For freedom and for our beautiful Netherlands.”

Before being slaughtered, clinging to a basket, Theo van Gogh begged his assassin: “Can we talk about this?”

But can we talk?

Ask Geert Wilders, just the latest brave victim of Europe’s Bolshevik thought police.

Categories: Censorship, Europe, Freedom of speech, Geert Wilders, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Multiculturalism, Netherlands, Thought police
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Mainstream Media Still Omits Uncomfortable Truth About Muslim ‘Grievances’

December 7, 2016

Mainstream Media Still Omits Uncomfortable Truth About Muslim ‘Grievances’, PJ Media, Raymond Ibrahim, December 7, 2016

ht-ohio-attack-suspect-lantern-jc-161128_12x5_1600-sized-770x415xt

Do you know the difference between a supremacist grievance and an egalitarian grievance? This is the key to understanding the widely held claim that Muslim grievances are the source of Muslim violence.

Take the latest Muslim attack on U.S. soil. Last week, Abdul Razak Ali Artan — an 18-year-old Muslim refugee from Somalia, who was receiving aid from Catholic charities — rammed his car into a building at The Ohio State University. He then got out and stabbed people with a butcher knife. He was eventually shot and killed by a guard; 13 people were hospitalized.

Why did he do it?

According to the “experts,” Artan — like so many other violent Muslim refugees before him — had grievances. CNN, NBC, the Washington Post, and many others cited a Facebook post by Artan:

I am sick and tired of seeing my fellow Muslim Brothers and Sisters being killed and tortured EVERYWHERE.

Yet despite this claim of ubiquity, he only cited one nation:

Seeing my fellow Muslims being tortured, raped and killed in Burma led to a boiling point. I can’t take it anymore.

The question before us is simple: Was Artan provoked to go on a murderous rampage in America because of grievances concerning the treatment of Muslims in Burma?

For about a decade now, I’ve argued that the “Muslim grievance” narrative is a myth meant to shield Islamic teachings from scrutiny. The “Muslim grievance” narrative goes like this: if Islam is a religion of peace yet Muslims everywhere are behaving violently, then the explanation we must all cling to is that they are really, really pissed off about something being done to them.

Most recently, the Islamic State, instead of disseminating and taking advantage of the “grievance” claim, could not have been clearer as they told the West the truth: no matter what the West does, the true reason ISIS hates and terrorizes us is because we are infidels.

Millions of Muslims — including Artan — do harbor strong grievances against the West and others. The problem is that they define “grievance” in a manner incompatible with liberty.

When most Westerners think of the word “grievance,” they think in egalitarian terms: X has a grievance against Y because Y doesn’t treat X with equality. For example, your boss or your teacher treats you worse — without equality — than other employees or other students. You then have a grievance which most in the West would say is legitimate: because the people of the West were raised on the unique idea of treating others as they would be treated.

This is not the sort of grievance that animates many Muslims – and certainly not those who resort to terrorism.

Rather, they are animated by a supremacist-based grievance: they get angry seeing infidels on an equal footing with Muslims. And they get murderous seeing infidels actually lording over Muslims.

Islamic doctrine, which persuades Muslims into believing they are superior to non-Muslims — to the degree that they are dogs and cattle — imbues Muslims with this sense of entitlement.

For example, in Pakistan, as Christian children were singing carols inside a church, Muslim men from a nearby mosque barged into the church with an axe, destroyed the furniture and altar, and beat the children. “You are disturbing our prayers. … How dare you use the mike and speakers?” explained the enraged Muslims. When a Muslim slapped a Christian and the latter reciprocated, the Muslim exclaimed: “How dare a Christian slap me!” Anti-Christian violence immediately ensued.

Islamic grievances are based on what I call Islam’s “How Dare You?” phenomenon. Remember it the next time media, politicians, and other talking heads tell you that Muslim mayhem and outbursts of violence are products of grievances. Missing from their rationale is the supremacist basis of these grievances.

Consider the Conditions of Omar, a foundational medieval Muslim text dealing with how “infidels” living under Muslim authority must behave, attributed to the second caliph and close friend of Muhammad, Omar.

Among other stipulations, it commands conquered Christians not to raise their “voices during prayer or readings in churches anywhere near Muslims” (hence the axe attack in Pakistan). It also commands them not to display any signs of Christianity — specifically listing Bibles and crosses — and not to build churches.

(See Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, for my translation of “The Conditions of Omar.”)

If the supremacist nature of Islamic law is still not clear enough, the Conditions literally commands Christians to give up their seats to Muslims as a show of respect. By way of analogy, consider when Rosa Parks, a black woman, refused to give up her bus seat to white passengers. Any white supremacist at the time had sincere grievances: how dare she think herself equal?

But were such grievances legitimate? Should they have been accommodated? Similarly, are the endless supremacist-based “grievances” of Muslims legitimate and should they be accommodated?

These are the questions missing from the debate about easily bruised Muslim sensitivities.

One can go on and on with examples from all around the Islamic world:

— In Turkey, a Bible publishing house was stormed and three of its Christian employees tortured, disemboweled, and finally murdered. One suspect later said: “We didn’t do this for ourselves, but for our religion [Islam] … Our religion is being destroyed.”

— In Egypt, after a 17-year-old Christian student refused to obey his Muslim teacher’s orders to cover up his cross, the teacher and some Muslim students attacked, beat, and ultimately murdered the youth.

— These Turkish and Egyptian Muslims were truly aggrieved: As seen, Islam’s Conditions makes clear that Christians must not “produce a cross or Bible” around Muslims. How dare the Egyptian student and Turkish Bible publishers refuse to comply — thus grieving Muslims into murdering them?

— In parts of Indonesia, because it is becoming next to impossible for Christians to build churches, they often congregate outside to celebrate Christmas — only to be attacked by Muslims hurling cow dung and bags of urine at the Christians as they pray.

— In Egypt, the mere rumor that Christians are trying to build, or even renovate, an existing church sets off mass riots and attacks on Christians. The Muslims of Indonesia and Egypt are also sincerely aggrieved: how dare these Christians think they can build or renovate a church when the Conditions forbid it?

In short, anytime non-Muslims dare to overstep their Sharia-designated “inferior” status, supremacist Muslims become violently aggrieved.

From here, one can begin to understand the ultimate Muslim grievance: Israel.

For if “infidel” Christian minorities are deemed inferior and attacked by aggrieved Muslims for exercising their basic human rights, like freedom of worship, how must Muslims feel about Jews — the descendants of pigs and apes, according to the Koran — exercising power and authority over fellow Muslims in what is perceived to be Muslim land?

How dare they?!

Of course, if grievances against Israel were really about universal justice and displaced Palestinians, Muslims would be aggrieved at the fact that millions of Christians are currently being displaced in the name of jihad.

Needless to say, they are not.

Which brings us back to Artan’s “grievances.” Recall his Facebook lament:

I am sick and tired of seeing my fellow Muslim Brothers and Sisters being killed and tortured EVERYWHERE. Seeing my fellow Muslims being tortured, raped and killed in Burma led to a boiling point. I can’t take it anymore.

Note, he is aggrieved because his “Muslim Brothers and Sisters” are being abused. Key word: Muslim. He didn’t care about universal justice.

Otherwise, he would have been expressing his anger at the brutal persecution experienced by a tiny minority in his own home country of Somalia. There, any Somali discovered practicing Christianity is ruthlessly persecuted and sometimes butchered, especially by the popular Islamic organization Al-Shabaab — “The Youth.”

Somali Christians share the same looks, nationality, ethnicity, language, and culture as Artan. They are literally his true “brothers.” Yet their unjust persecution didn’t matter to him; his sympathies belonged instead with a people in distant Burma who have nothing in common with him other than being Muslim.

And it was that fact — that “subhuman infidels” dared to mistreat “superior Muslims” — that so irked the young Somali. Hence why he concluded his Facebook rant with the following sentence — often omitted by the same media that cited his post as evidence of “grievances”:

By Allah, I am willing to kill a billion infidels in retribution for a single disabled Muslim/Musliman.

Incidentally, like Muslim minorities in other nations, Muslims in Burma have long antagonized their Buddhist hosts — through the usual Muslim-on-infidel attacks, murders, rapes, temple burnings, etc. — and their current unenviable lot is in great part due to this fact.

In the words of Wirathu, the leading anti-Muslim Buddhist monk in Burma: “If we are weak, our land will become Muslim.” The theme song of his party speaks of people who “live in our land, drink our water, and are ungrateful to us,” a reference to Muslims. And that “we will build a fence with our bones if necessary” to keep them out. His pamphlets say “Myanmar [Burma] is currently facing a most dangerous and fearful poison that is severe enough to eradicate all civilization.”

In short, the next time you hear that Muslim rage and terrorism are products of grievances — from cartoons to territorial disputes to the treatment of Muslims in distant nations — remember that this is absolutely true. But these “grievances” are not predicated on any rational standards of equality or justice, but on a supremacist worldview.

Categories: Abdul Razak Ali Artan, Islam - submission, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamist grievances, Ohio State University
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Germany: veteran Santa Claus fired for opposing child marriage

November 24, 2016

Germany: veteran Santa Claus fired for opposing child marriage, Jihad Watch, , November 24, 2016

(Please see also, Woolworths in German Town Cancels Christmas — DM)

The Bavarian town of Mühldorf has fired the man who has dressed up as Father Christmas for over 30 years because of the social media post he shared on his Facebook page. Peter Mück has been a staple of the annual Christkindlmarkt, or Christmas market, in the town for over a generation, handing out sweets to local children, The Telegraph reports.

The Santa Claus who sought to protect the well-being of children got sacked in the name of political correctness and fear, but the Mayor of Mühldorf and Socialist party member, Marianne Zollner, tried to spin it differently — and highly illogically. She said:

“I explained to him that this movement, in my view, does not respect the equality and dignity of all people, or our democratic values, and that this attitude was not compatible with the work of portraying Santa Claus.”

If Zollner respected democratic values, and the equality and dignity of all people, she would not have supported firing Peter Muck, who in fact was standing up for the rights, equality and dignity of young girls who are abused and humiliated under the banner of Islamic culture. Marianne Zollner is fearful of Muslim backlash, period.

Interesting that Zoller and the other Mühldorf authorities responsible for sacking Santa would be the first in line to proclaim that Islam is hijacked by a small group of jihadists, child rapists (despite Muhammad’s consummation of his marriage with nine-year-old Aisha) and the likes of the Islamic State. So does it follow, then, that their action in firing this veteran Santa is an essentially open declaration that they are fearful of offending jihadists, child rapists and the likes of the Islamic State? Hardly. Their actions (never their words) do show, however, that they actually deem Muslims overall to be in an dangerous class by themselves, and Westerners must never offend them, out of fear of backlash.

Those responsible for firing Santa Claus in Mühldorf – and all like-minded Westerners — need to confront their obvious fear (phobia) of Muslims and begin to take up the fight for our freedoms, human rights and the rule of law. They also need to recognize that no genuinely peace-loving, pluralistic Muslim will ever support human rights abuses or the victimology narrative of “Islamophobia.” Any caring, thinking individual will share the same concern for the rape of child brides as was shown by the sacked Santa of Mühldorf.

santa

“German Santa Sacked After Sharing Anti-Child Marriage Post Online”, by Chris Tomlinson, Breitbart, November 23, 2016:

A Christmas market Santa Claus was sacked in Germany after sharing a post from the hipster-right Identitarian movement which called for action against the increasing number of child marriages in the country.

The Bavarian town of Mühldorf has fired the man who has dressed up as Father Christmas for over 30 years because of the social media post he shared on his Facebook page. Peter Mück has been a staple of the annual Christkindlmarkt, or Christmas market, in the town for over a generation, handing out sweets to local children, The Telegraph reports.

Mr. Mück was fired because he supported the action of the anti-mass migration hipster-right Identitarian youth movement who were campaigning against the growing trend of child marriages among migrants in Germany. The post which he shared had the slogan, “Child marriage = child abuse” of which he commented, “the core message of which is correct and justifiable for me.”

Mayor of Mühldorf, and Socialist party member, Marianne Zollner explained the reasoning behind getting rid of Mr. Mück, saying: “I explained to him that this movement, in my view, does not respect the equality and dignity of all people, or our democratic values, and that this attitude was not compatible with the work of portraying Santa Claus.”

Since the sacking, the mayor has claimed to have received threats from Germans online who she says accuse her of protecting paedophiles.

Mück claimed for his defence that he had not known about the background of the group who many in the German media have accused of being “undemocratic” and even “neo-Nazi” despite their repeated claims that their peaceful protests are a part of the democratic process.

A prominent figure in the German-speaking Identitarian movement is Martin Sellner who leads the Austrian branch of the organisation. He expressed bafflement as to why the Socialist mayor would punish Mr. Mück for spreading a message the vast majority of Germans agree with including the Federal Justice Minister Heiko Maas.

Speaking exclusively to Breitbart London he said: “These are methods like in the Stalinist DDR (East Germany). The multiculturalist elite is in panic mode and flailing around wildly in a rage of censorship. They have learned nothing. With every citizen they hurt, we are getting new sympathisers.”….

Categories: Child marriage, Germany, Islam and girls, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamophobia
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Europe’s New Blasphemy Courts

November 4, 2016

Europe’s New Blasphemy Courts, Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, November 4, 2016

(Please see also, America’s “Arab Spring” — DM)

Europe is currently seeing the reintroduction of blasphemy laws through both the front and back doors, initiated in a country which once prided itself on being among the first in the world to throw off clerical intrusion into politics.

By prosecuting Wilders, the courts in Holland are effectively ruling that there is only one correct answer to the question Wilders asked. They are saying that if someone asks you whether you would like more Moroccans or fewer, people must always answer “more,” or he will be committing a crime.

At no point would it occur to me that anyone saying he did not want an endless flow of, say, British people coming into the Netherlands should be prosecuted. Nor would he be.

The long-term implications for Dutch democracy of criminalising a majority opinion are catastrophic. But the trial of Wilders is also a nakedly political move.

The Dutch courts are behaving like a religious court. They are trying to regulate public expression and opinion when it comes to the followers of one religion. In so doing they obviously aspire to keep the peace in the short term, but they cannot possibly realise what trouble they are storing up for our future.

 

Europe is currently seeing the reintroduction of blasphemy laws through both the front and back doors. In Britain, the gymnast Louis Smith has just been suspended for two months by British Gymnastics. This 27-year old sportsman’s career has been put on hold, and potentially ruined, not because of anything to do with athletics but because of something to do with Islam.

Last month a video emerged online of the four-time Olympic medal-winner and a friend getting up to drunken antics after a wedding. The video — taken on Smith’s phone in the early hours of the morning — showed a friend taking a rug off a wall and doing an imitation of Islamic prayer rituals. When the video from Smith’s phone ended up in the hands of a newspaper, there was an immediate investigation, press castigation and public humiliation for the young athlete. Smith — who is himself of mixed race — was forced to parade on daytime television in Britain and deny that he is a racist, bigot or xenophobe. Notoriously liberal figures from the UK media queued up to berate him for getting drunk or for even thinking of taking part in any mockery of religion. This in a country in which Monty Python’s Life of Brian is regularly voted the nation’s favourite comic movie.

After an “investigation,” the British sports authority has now deemed Smith’s behaviour to warrant a removal of funding and a two-month ban from sport. This is the re-entry of blasphemy laws through the back door, where newspapers, daytime chat-shows and sports authorities decide between them that one religion is worthy of particular protection. They do so because they take the religion of Islam uniquely on its own estimation and believe, as well as fear, the warnings of the Islamic blasphemy-police worldwide.

The front-door reintroduction of blasphemy laws, meantime, is being initiated in a country which once prided itself on being among the first in the world to throw off clerical intrusion into politics. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been put on trial before. In 2010 he was tried in the courts for the contents of his film “Fitna” as well as a number of articles. The trial collapsed after one of the expert witnesses — the late, great Dutch scholar of Islam, Hans Jansen — revealed that a judge in the case had tried in private to influence him to change his testimony. The trial was transparently rigged and made Dutch justice look like that of a tin-pot dictatorship rather than one of the world’s most developed democracies. The trial was rescheduled and, after considerable legal wrangling, Wilders was eventually found “not guilty” of a non-crime in 2011.

But it seems that the Dutch legal system, like the Mounties, is intent on always getting its man. On Monday of this week the latest trial of Geert Wilders got underway in Holland. This time Wilders is being tried because of a statement at a rally in front of his supporters in March 2014. Ahead of municipal elections, and following reports of a disproportionate amount of crimes being committed in Holland by Muslims of Moroccan origin, Wilders asked a crowd, “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?” The audience responded, “Fewer, fewer.” To which Wilders responded, “Well, we’ll arrange that, then.”

1546By prosecuting Dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders for making “politcially incorrect” statements, Dutch courts are behaving like a religious court. They are trying to regulate public expression and opinion when it comes to the followers of one religion. (Source of Wilders photo: Flickr/Metropolico)

Opinion polls suggest that around half the Dutch public want fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands and many opinion polls going back decades suggest that the Dutch people want less immigration in general. So at the very least Wilders is being put on trial for voicing an opinion which is far from fringe. The long-term implications for Dutch democracy of criminalizing a majority opinion are catastrophic. But the trial of Wilders is also a nakedly political move.

Whether or not one feels any support for Wilders’s sentiments is not in fact the point in this case. The point is that by prosecuting someone for saying what he said, the courts in Holland are effectively ruling that there is only one correct answer to the question Wilders asked. They are saying that if someone asks you whether you would like more Moroccans or fewer, people must always answer “more,” or they will be committing a crime. What kind of way is that to order a public debate on immigration or anything else? People may say, “He wouldn’t be allowed to say that about any other group of people.” And Wilders himself may not say that about any group of people, because he has his own political views and his own interpretation of the problems facing his country.

It is worth trying a thought-experiment: If Wilders or any other politician got up and asked a crowd “Do you want more or fewer British people in Holland,” I may not — as a British person — feel terribly pleased with him for asking the question, or terribly happy with the crowd if they chanted “Fewer.” Although if British expats in Holland were responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime and disorder in the country, some mitigating sympathy for the sentiment may be forthcoming. But at no point would it occur to me that anyone saying he did not want an endless flow of British people coming into the Netherlands should be prosecuted. Nor would he be.

Like the behaviour of the British Gymnastics association, the Dutch courts are behaving like a religious court. They are trying to regulate public expression and opinion when it comes to the followers of one religion. In so doing, they obviously aspire to keep the peace in the short term, but they cannot possibly realise what trouble they are storing up for our future.

Categories: Blasphemy courts, Europe, Europe and Islam, Geert Wilders, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamist freedom
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

As Geert Wilders again goes on trial for “hate speech,” European media campaigns furiously against him

November 2, 2016

As Geert Wilders again goes on trial for “hate speech,” European media campaigns furiously against him, Jihad Watch, , November 2, 2016

Geert Wilders has yet again gone on trial in the Netherlands for “hate speech,” and this time the case against him is especially flimsy: as Europe is roiled by the criminal activity of Muslim migrants, he is being accused of “hate speech” for saying that the massive influx of immigrants from Morocco (from which most of the Muslim migrants in the Netherlands come) has to be stopped.

This trial could very easily backfire on the Dutch inquisitors, and make Wilders more popular than ever with the people of the Netherlands and Europe in general, as they are increasingly fed up with the political and media elites’ forcing them to accept a massive influx of Muslim migrants that ensures a future only of civil strife, bloodshed, and Sharia oppression.

Consequently, those elites are trying desperately to shore up their position. In this DW piece by freelance “journalist” Teri Schultz, Wilders is (of course) “far-right,” that all-purpose and meaningless semaphore that serves only to signal to right-thinking Deutsche Welle readers that Wilders must be opposed and shunned, his positions unexamined. Schultz contacted me to serve as the villain of her piece, being sure to tell her hapless readers that I am “known for extreme anti-Islam views,” to make sure that if any of them are foolish enough to find themselves agreeing with me, they will immediately reverse themselves and get their minds right. The term “extreme” also, since the Western governing class unanimously refers to jihad terrorists as “extremists,” also implies that I am a terrorist. (After the article came out, I challenged Schultz on this; she replied: “I don’t think even you would consider your views ‘mainstream’, do you?” I responded: “Absolutely yes. My views were the broad mainstream in the Western world from 632 AD until the 1960s. What changed? Not Islamic teaching.” To that she said: “Okay. You’d have to argue it with another expert, which I am not. But thanks again for contributing.” Indeed, she is just a mouthpiece for the views the political and media elites want us to hold.)

In any case, Schultz’s article merely reveals the desperation of the ruling class and the self-appointed opinion-shapers. They can call those of us who wish to defend the people and culture of Europe and North America “far-right” and “extreme” every day (and they do), but the public can see with their eyes what is happening. Wilders’ popularity isn’t growing because he is a charming fellow. It’s growing because he speaks the truths that the political and media elites are in a frenzy to obscure. And it’s only going to get worse for them: the Brexit vote and the Trump candidacy (whether he wins or loses) shows that their hegemony is beginning to be challenged. Those challenges will continue, and grow. They will before too long be decisively voted out and repudiated.

teri-schultz74

“Far-right Wilders skips hate speech trial in Amsterdam,” by Teri Schultz, DW, November 1, 2016:

On Monday, the far-right leader Geert Wilders refused to show up for his trial on charges of hate speech and incitement of violence for comments he made against ethnic Moroccans in the Netherlands.

Instead, Wilders let his legal representatives repeat the views that caused the charges to be brought against him: that the country has a “mega Moroccan problem” and that too many Moroccans get welfare benefits and commit crimes. Wilders believes that he has said “nothing wrong” as he is just vocalizing the views of his constituents….

But while judges ponder the legality of Wilders’ views their popularity grows, as evidenced by Wilders’ showing in the polls and the growth of populist, anti-immigrant parties across Europe, such as the far-right Alternative for Germany. In a world where US Republican Party nominee Donald Trump campaigns on building a wall on the US-Mexican border and a plan to block Muslims from coming to the United States, controversial commentators such Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch.org, promote Wilders’ perspective. Known for extreme anti-Islam views, Spencer said Wilders’ comments are not out of line.

“Moroccans don’t have some natural right to immigrate to the Netherlands any more than anyone does to anywhere,” Spencer told DW. “And so if someone expresses an opinion saying they would like to slow the rate or stop that immigration, there is nothing ipso facto hateful about that.”

Moroccans make up approximately 2 percent of the Dutch population. Asked how Wilders could consider that as excessive, Spencer said the concern centers more on the growth rate than the actual number of inhabitants at the moment.

Spencer also said since Wilders himself has shown no tendency toward violence – though the court is considering whether he’s encouraging that outcome – the greater “danger to society” would be for Wilders’ remarks to be deemed illegal hate speech.

But European Parliament lawmaker Cecile Kyenge doesn’t think remarks like Wilders’ can be explained away like that. “There has been a constant stream of concerning comments from politicians across Europe,” she said, “that fall short of the responsibilities they have as public figures and opinion leaders. In recent months, politicians have disseminated false information and engaged in hate speech against minorities for political gain. Actions such as these are all the more damaging when they are propagated by politicians.”…

Though Wilders has been acquitted on hate-speech allegations before, Spencer doesn’t necessarily think he’ll be found not guilty again, because Spencer said the ruling elite is afraid of losing power to him. “I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if he were convicted this time and if they don’t convict him this time, they’ll convict him next time. But eventually,” he predicted, “they might have a situation where they’re convicting the sitting prime minister.”

Categories: "Far right hate groups", Europe, Geert Wilders, Islamic immigration, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Media and Islam, Netherlands
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

“Nothing to Do with Islam”?

October 21, 2016

“Nothing to Do with Islam”? Gatestone Institute via YouTube, October 20, 2016

Categories: Appeasement, Islam - submission, Islam - the religion of war, Islam and conquest, Islamic myths, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terror groups, Media and Islam, Politicians
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Germans Leaving Germany ‘In Droves’

October 20, 2016

Germans Leaving Germany ‘In Droves’, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, October 20, 2016

More than 1.5 million Germans, many of them highly educated, left Germany during the past decade. — Die Welt.

Germany is facing a spike in migrant crime, including an epidemic of rapes and sexual assaults. Mass migration is also accelerating the Islamization of Germany. Many Germans appear to be losing hope about the future direction of their country.

“We refugees… do not want to live in the same country with you. You can, and I think you should, leave Germany. And please take Saxony and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) with you…. Why do you not go to another country? We are sick of you!” — Aras Bacho an 18-year-old Syrian migrant, in Der Freitag, October 2016.

A real estate agent in a town near Lake Balaton, a popular tourist destination in western Hungary, said that 80% of the Germans relocating there cite the migration crisis as the main reason for their desire to leave Germany.

“I believe that Islam does not belong to Germany. I regard it as a foreign entity which has brought the West more problems than benefits. In my opinion, many followers of this religion are rude, demanding and despise Germany.” — A German citizen who emigrated from Germany, in an “Open Letter to the German Government.”

“I believe that immigration is producing major and irreversible changes in German society. I am angry that this is happening without the direct approval of German citizens. … I believe that it is a shame that in Germany Jews must again be afraid to be Jews.” — A German citizen who emigrated from Germany, in an “Open Letter to the German Government.”

“My husband sometimes says he has the feeling that we are now the largest minority with no lobby. For each group there is an institution, a location, a public interest, but for us, a heterosexual married couple with two children, not unemployed, neither handicapped nor Islamic, for people like us there is no longer any interest.” — “Anna,” in a letter to the Mayor of Munich about her decision to move her family out of the city because migrants were making her life there impossible.

 

A growing number of Germans are abandoning neighborhoods in which they have lived all their lives, and others are leaving Germany for good, as mass immigration transforms parts of the country beyond recognition.

Data from the German statistics agency, Destatis, shows that 138,000 Germans left Germany in 2015. More are expected to emigrate in 2016. In a story on brain drain titled, “German talent is leaving the country in droves,” Die Welt reported that more than 1.5 million Germans, many of them highly educated, left Germany during the past decade.

The statistics do not give a reason why Germans are emigrating, but anecdotal evidence indicates that many are waking up to the true cost — financial, social and cultural — of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to allow more than one million mostly Muslim migrants to enter the country in 2015. At least 300,000 more migrants are expected to arrive in Germany in 2016, according to Frank-Jürgen Weise, the head of the country’s migration office, BAMF.

Mass migration has — among many other problems — contributed to a growing sense of insecurity in Germany, which is facing a spike in migrant crime, including an epidemic of rapes and sexual assaults. Mass migration is also accelerating the Islamization of Germany. Many Germans appear to be losing hope about the future direction of their country.

1963

At the height of the migrant crisis in October 2015, some 800 citizens gathered at a town hall meeting in Kassel/Lohfelden to protest a unilateral decision by the local government to set up migrant shelters in the city. The President of Kassel, Walter Lübcke, responded by telling those who disagree with the government’s open-door immigration policy that they are “free to leave Germany at any time.”

This attitude was echoed in an audacious essay published in October 2016 by the newspaperDer Freitag, (also published by Huffington Post Deutschland, which subsequently deleted the post). In the article, an 18-year-old Syrian migrant named Aras Bacho called on Germans who are angry about the migrant crisis to leave Germany. He wrote:

“We refugees… are fed up with the angry citizens (Wutbürger). They insult and agitate like crazy…. There are always these incitements by unemployed racists (Wutbürgern), who spend all their time on the Internet and wait until an article about refugees appears on the Internet. Then it starts with shameless comments….

“Hello, you unemployed angry citizens (Wutbürger) on the Internet. How educated are you? How long will you continue to distort the truth? Do you not know that you are spreading lies every day? What would you have done if you were in their shoes? Well, you would have run away!

“We refugees… do not want to live in the same country with you. You can, and I think you should, leave Germany. And please take Saxony and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) with you.

“Germany does not fit you, why do you live here? Why do you not go to another country? If this is your country, dear angry citizens (Wutbürger), then behave normal. Otherwise you can simply flee from Germany and look for a new home. Go to America to Donald Trump, he will love you very much. We are sick of you!”

In May 2016, the newsmagazine, Focus, reported that Germans have been moving to Hungary. A real estate agent in a town near Lake Balaton, a popular tourist destination in western Hungary, said that 80% of the Germans relocating there cite the migration crisis as the main reason for their desire to leave Germany.

An anonymous German citizen who emigrated from Germany recently wrote an “Open Letter to the German Government.” The document, which was published on the website Politically Incorrect, states:

“A few months ago I emigrated from Germany. My decision was not for economic gain but primarily because of my dissatisfaction with the current political and social conditions in my homeland. In other words, I think that I and especially my offspring may lead a better life somewhere else. ‘Better’ for me in this context is primarily a life of freedom, self-determination and decent wages with respect to taxation.

“I do not, however, want to close the door behind me quietly and just go. I would hereby like to explain in a constructive way why I decided to leave Germany.

1. “I believe that Islam does not belong to Germany. I regard it as a foreign entity which has brought the West more problems than benefits. In my opinion, many followers of this religion are rude, demanding and despise Germany. Instead of halting the Islamization of Germany (and the consequent demise of our culture and freedom), most politicians seem to me to be more concerned about getting reelected, and therefore they prefer to ignore or downplay the Islam problem.

2. “I believe that German streets are less secure than they should be given our technological, legal and financial opportunities.

3. “I believe that the EU has a democratic deficit which limits my influence as a democratic citizen.

4. “I believe that immigration is producing major and irreversible changes in German society. I am angry that this is happening without the direct approval of German citizens, but is being dictated by you to German citizens and the next generation.

5. “I believe that the German media is increasingly giving up its neutrality, and that freedom of expression in this country is only possible in a limited way.

6. “I believe that in Germany sluggards are courted but the diligent are scourged.

7. “I believe that it is a shame that in Germany Jews must again be afraid to be Jews.”

Many Germans have noted the trend toward reverse integration, in which German families are expected to adapt to the customs and mores of migrants, rather than the other way around.

On October 14, the Munich-based newspaper Tageszeitung published a heartfelt letter from “Anna,” a mother of two, who wrote about her decision to move her family out of the city because migrants were making her life there impossible. In the letter, addressed to Munich Mayor Dieter Reiter, she wrote:

“Today I want to write you a kind of farewell letter (Abschiedsbrief) about why I and my family are leaving the city, even though probably no one cares.

“I am 35 years old, living here with my two young sons and my husband in an upscale semi-detached house with parking. So you could say we are very well off for Munich standards…. We live very well with plenty of space and next to a green park. So why would a family like us decide to leave the city? ….

“I assume that your children do not use public facilities, that they do not use public transportation, and that they do not attend public schools in “problem areas.” I also assume that you and other politicians rarely if ever go for walks here.

“So on a Monday morning I attended a neighborhood women’s breakfast that was sponsored by the City of Munich. Here I met about 6-8 mothers, some with their children. All of the women wore headscarves and none of them spoke German. The organizers of the event quickly informed me I will probably find it hard to integrate myself here (their exact words!!!). I should note that I am German. I speak fluent German and I do not wear a headscarf. So I smiled a little and said I would try to integrate myself. Unfortunately, I brought a salami and ham sandwich to the breakfast, to which everyone was asked to bring something. So of course I had even less chance of integrating.

“I was not able to speak German to anyone at this women’s breakfast, which is actually supposed to promote integration, nor was anyone interested in doing so. The organizers did not insist on anyone speaking German, and the women, who appeared to be part of an established Arab-Turkish group, simply wanted to use the room.

“I then asked about the family brunch…. I was advised that the brunch would be held in separate rooms. Men and women separately. At first I thought it was a bad joke. Unfortunately, it was not. ….

“So my impression of these events to promote integration is miserable. No interchange takes place at all!!! How can the City of Munich tolerate such a thing? In my view, the entire concept of these events to promote integration must be called into question…. I was informed that I am not allowed to include pork in my child’s lunchbox!!! Hello?! We are in Germany here! ….

“In summary, I find conditions here that make me feel that we are not really wanted here. That our family does not really fit in here. My husband sometimes says he has the feeling that we are now the largest minority with no lobby. For each group there is an institution, a location, a public interest, but for us, a heterosexual married couple with two children, not unemployed, neither handicapped nor Islamic, for people like us there is no longer any interest.

“When I mentioned at my son’s preschool that we are considering moving out of the city and I told them the reasons why, I was vigorously attacked by the school’s leadership. Because of people like us, they said, integration does not work, precisely because we remove our children. At least two other mothers have become wildly abusive. The management has now branded me “xenophobic.”

“This is exactly the reason why people like me lose their patience and we choose to vote for other political parties…. Quite honestly, I have traveled half the world, have more foreign friends than German and have absolutely no prejudices or aversions to people because of their origin. I have seen much of the world and I know that the way integration is done here will cause others to come to the same conclusion as we have: either we send our children to private schools and kindergartens, or we move to other communities. Well then, so long!!!!!!!!!!!”

Categories: Germany, Germany open borders, Islam - submission, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Miration from Germany, Muslim privilege
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hugh Fitzgerald: May God Save “God Save The Queen”

October 15, 2016

Hugh Fitzgerald: May God Save “God Save The Queen” Jihad Watch, October 15, 2016

queen-elizabeth

A Muslim student at King’s College London, and an officer of its Student Union (3 of its 5 top officers are Muslims), one Mahamed Abdullahi, has called for “God Save the Queen,” Great Britain’s national anthem, to be omitted from the school’s graduation ceremonies. He claims the song is “outdated” and “not reflective of the global values the college espouses.” Abdullahi – who is, by the way, a Danish citizen, though not exactly a Dane – insists that this anthem is dangerous “in the context” of the “increasing far-right nationalism across Europe and the legacy of the British Empire.” His obscenity-filled rant can be read here.

What makes “God Save the Queen” outdated? Has the monarchy fallen out of favor with the people of Great Britain? Or is their interest and enthusiasm for the Queen and the idea of the monarchy perfectly understandable, for the Royals are a human symbol of stability and national identity, in a world more dizzyingly in flux than ever before? Look at the British popular press, which appears to devote half its space to Kate Middleton’s children, and another quarter to the Queen. Clearly the British people have no wish to jettison their monarchy. If there were no royal family on which to focus, popular attention might instead be given, as in the United States, to empty celebrities, such as the Kardashians, or to the mix-n’-match couplings and uncouplings of assorted jolies and pitts.

“God Save The Queen” is mild in its winsome expression of national fervor (compare, for example, the martial theme of La Marseillaise); the first two verses go like this:

God save our gracious Queen!
Long live our noble Queen!
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!

There is nothing conceivably “far right” about these sentiments. I doubt if Mahamed Abdulllahi comprehends the useful role of the constitutional monarch in Great Britain as a focus of national identity, unity, and pride, providing the British with a sense of continuity and stability. What enrages him is the very idea that the British people in this deuteroelizabethan age should permit themselves to have feelings of national pride, and what’s more, to express them. For Abdullahi, that is enough to constitute “far-right nationalism.” When your child pledges allegiance “to the flag and to the republic for which it stands” and wishes “liberty and justice for all,” is he being “far-right”? At a baseball game, do you feel part of a “far-right” crowd because you listen to, or even join in singing, “The Star-Spangled Banner”? Of course not.

Is there any expression of pride in a national identity that Mahamed Abdullahi would find acceptable? I don’t think so. I think that the only kind of “identity” he approves of is that of the supranational umma, or Community of Muslim Believers, and that he obscurely senses that a shared sense of affection and pride in one’s own nation (as expressed in England in many ways, including singing “God Save the Queen) is also, nowadays, a part of the West’s psychological defense against the encroachments of aggressive Islam. For Mahamed Abdullahi, that’s enough to make it “far-right” nationalism.

What about the charge that “God Save the Queen” carries with it the “legacy of the British Empire”? (The anthem itself was first published in 1745, before there was much of a British Empire to celebrate.) Perhaps Abdullahi objects to the fact that many former colonies, once part of that Empire, are now enthusiastic members of the British Commonwealth, keeping up ties to Great Britain, and delighting in receiving visits from Queen Elizabeth II and younger members of the Royal Family. It is not just Canada and Australia and New Zealand that are thrilled, but India, Singapore, Uganda, Nigeria, Jamaica, indeed every country in the Commonwealth (save for Rwanda and Cameroon, but only because they are the latest to join, and the Queen hasn’t yet fit them into her schedule), eager to bask in the reflected glory of a royal visit.

Apparently very few of those actually in the Commonwealth share Mahamed Abdullahi’s sour vision of the “legacy of the British Empire.” Mahamed Abdullahi may have forgotten that even Yassir Arafat once hoped that his future state of “Palestine” would be allowed to join the Commonwealth.

But since he contemptuously dismisses the “legacy of the British Empire” without discussing it, perhaps we should ask: just what was that legacy? First, the English language, which has been perhaps the greatest gift to colonized peoples anywhere, the language that has served as a lingua franca for many different peoples in Africa and in the subcontinent; and the spread of English has allowed them entrée into the worlds of science, technology, business, sport, entertainment, and that same English brings with it, of course, an unrivalled literary heritage. Among the former British colonies in Africa, the spread of English now permits Nigerians to talk to Tanzanians and Kenyans to talk to Ghanaians. And in India, with a multitude of tongues — Hindi, Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, Urdu, Gujarati, and Punjabi being the most widely used – the educated in every state can communicate with each other, and with those similarly educated throughout India, in English. It is the English language that, paradoxically, unifies India.

Second, the British introduced the rule of law, specifically the Common Law, including what had been built up through centuries of cases as contract and property law, and rules of civil and criminal procedure. Third, public works – roads, bridges, canals, railroads – that the British built in so many of their colonies, and that promoted economic development.

Fourth – modern medicine, including vaccinations for many previously untreatable diseases. Fifth – free trade within the Empire, stimulating economic growth. Sixth—universal schooling, from elementary grades all the way up, in many of the colonies, to universities. And seventh, the abolition first of the slave trade, and then of slavery. The slave trade that the British abolished first was that vast and cruel enterprise conducted by Muslim Arabs in East and Central Africa and involving 17 million black Africans, many of them young boys castrated where they were captured and, if they survived the operation (only 20% did), were then brought to the slave markets of Islam, to be sold as eunuchs. It was the Royal Navy that finally stamped out that slave trade, preventing the Arab slavers from landing with their cargo on the Arabian peninsula.

Mahamed Abdullahi has nothing good to say about “legacy of the British Empire,” but we have a right and a duty to remind him of that positive legacy (language, law, public works, medicine, free trade, education), and particularly to remind him that it was the British who ended the brutal slave trade conducted by Muslim Arabs.

Finally, Mahamed Abdullahi claims that the British national anthem is “not reflective” of the “’global values’ the college espouses.” What are those “global values”? Would they include such values as equal treatment of all, including minorities and women, before the law? Would they include the free exercise of any religion or the right to believe in none? Would those “global values” include the right to change one’s religion? Would they include the right of both sexes to equal education?

Would they include the right to criticize religions, even if that offends some believers? Would they include the right of children not to be treated as their parents’ chattel? These are not so much “global” values, in fact, as values originating in the countries of the advanced West, and especially Great Britain and its political offspring, the United States. The university’s administrators, who had initially (and shamefully) shown themselves willing to discuss Abdullahi’s nauseating proposal, have fortunately been forced by public outrage to backtrack. Perhaps they need to be reminded – Mahamed Abdullahi can bring them up to snuff — on the Muslim version of “global values” espoused by such models of religious freedom and legal equality as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, Iraq, the Sudan, and many dozens of other Muslim countries. And then he might also explain what the “legacy” of the Muslim Empire has been for so many different lands and peoples. That should prove most instructive.

And meanwhile, may God save “God Save The Queen.”

Categories: Britain, Britain and Islam, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in Britain
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »