Posted tagged ‘Europe’

SPECIAL REPORT : Ezra Levant (The Rebel Media) in Europa

March 3, 2016

SPECIAL REPORT: Does Ezra’s fact-finding trip to Europe reveal Canada’s future?

Published on Feb 29, 2016

Ezra Levant spent the week on assignment in Europe for TheRebel.media. In his first show back in Canada, Ezra gives an overview of what he saw –Is it a glimpse at Canada’s Islamified future? MORE: http://www.therebel.media/ezra_s_euro…

Special report: Inside Muslim majority neighborhoods of Malmo, Sweden

Published on Mar 1, 2016

Ezra Levant of TheRebel.media continues his series on the effects of Muslim mass migration on Europe, this time with interviews with Muslim men in Malmo, Sweden. However, the conversation that troubled him most was one with a non-Muslim, native Swedish woman. MORE:

What happens when Muslims in Cologne are asked about New Year’s rape riot?

Published on Mar 2, 2016

Ezra Levant continues his fact-finding mission in Europe by visiting Cologne, Germany, including the city’s Muslim majority neighborhood. MORE: http://www.therebel.media/special_rep…

(H/T Vederso )

Moderate “European” Islam: Stemming Terror with Band Aids

March 1, 2016

Moderate “European” Islam: Stemming Terror with Band Aids

by Judith Bergman March 1, 2016 at 4:00 am

Source: Moderate “European” Islam: Stemming Terror with Band Aids

  • The project of a “French Islam” has failed abysmally. A 2,200-page report, “Suburbs of the Republic,” concluded that Muslim immigrants in France were increasingly rejecting French values and identity, and instead immersing themselves in Islam. The report warned that Islamic sharia law was displacing French civil law in many parts of suburban Paris.
  • The pattern of “importing” imams with no knowledge of the local language and customs is the same all over Europe.
  • Qatar and Saudi Arabia, where the official form of Islam is Wahhabism, are the main financiers of mosques in Europe. Wahhabism discourages Muslim integration in the West, but actively encourages jihad against non-Muslims. Qatar has financed mosques in France, Italy, Ireland and Spain, among other places, thus spreading Wahhabism across the continent.

Last week Austria ordered the first foreign-funded imam to be expelled when his visa expires. The decision was made under the new provisions of an anti-radicalization law, which Austria passed one year ago under considerable controversy. The main aim of the law is to counter extremism by requiring imams to speak German, and to prohibit foreign funding for mosques, imams and Muslim organizations in Austria. It also stresses that Austrian law must take precedence over Islamic sharia law for Muslims living in the country.

“We want a future in which increasing numbers of imams have grown up in Austria speaking German, and can in that way serve as positive examples for young Muslims,” said Integration Minister Sebastian Kurz, who helped draft the law. Another 65 imams are expected to be deported in the coming weeks, after being informed that their visas will not be renewed. The decision to deport the foreign imam has — predictably — been deemed unconstitutional by Austria’s Constitutional Court, which finds the law discriminatory because it targets only Muslims.

In a similar vein, the Belgian government recently earmarked €3.3 million to be able to pay the wages of 80 new imams in order to “help stimulate a moderate European form of Islam,” reported the Flemish daily newspaper De Standaard last week. Justice Minister Koen Geens said that official recognition of mosques forms “part of our strategy to promote a more integrated form of Islam,” one intended to counter radicalization, violent extremism and terrorism. He added: “A recognized mosque is a sign of an integrated Islam. In the fight against radicalization, it is important that young people don’t drift into the arms of radical mosques. This also provides us with more interlocutors.”

Last year, the news outlet Antwerpen revealed that a young Moroccan imam who had preached in the officially recognized “moderate” mosque, the Dome in Borgerhout, had gone to Syria with two other men to join the jihadists. Youssef El G. — the imam in question — had not been monitored, because the mosque was considered moderate. The police said his departure came as a surprise.

Encouraging Muslims toward a more moderate “European” Islam is an old idea, but has not yet succeeded in practice anywhere in Europe and its specific nature remains largely undefined.

In France, the concept of a “French Islam” was put to the test in 2003, when Nicolas Sarkozy, then interior minister, created the French Council for the Muslim Religion (CFCM) to help address issues such as imam training, mosque building and regulating halal slaughter. The purpose was to encourage a homegrown, liberal version of Islam. “What we should be afraid of is Islam gone astray, garage Islam, basement Islam, underground Islam. It is not the Islam of the mosques, open to the light of day,” Mr. Sarkozy said at the time.

The project of a “French Islam” has failed abysmally. Already in 2011 a 2,200-page report, “Banlieue de la Republique” (Suburbs of the Republic), commissioned by the influential French think tank L’Institut Montaigne — directed by Gilles Kepel, a well-known political scientist and specialist in the Muslim world — concluded that Muslim immigrants in France were increasingly rejecting French values and identity, and instead immersing themselves in Islam. The report also warned that Islamic sharia law was rapidly displacing French civil law in many parts of suburban Paris.

The report showed how radical Muslim leaders in France, who are promoting the social marginalization of Muslim immigrants in order to create a parallel Muslim society ruled by sharia law, are exacerbating the problem. The report described a proliferation of mosques and prayer rooms in the suburbs. The religious orientations of the mosques were already heavily influenced by the national origin of the founder or president of a given mosque, in other words, not nearly close to any “French” Islam, regardless of what that concept might actually contain.

Indeed, according to Reuters, only 25-30 percent of practicing imams in France are French nationals. Many do not speak French and have no knowledge of French law or customs. According to Abdelali Mamoun, an imam of Alfortville, just outside Paris, of the roughly 2,500 mosques in France, 800 are Moroccan, 600 Algerian and 400 Turkish-linked. The Grand Mosque in Paris, for example, was assigned to Algeria’s trusteeship by the French government in 1957. Since 1982, Algeria has been responsible for funding the Grand Mosque. Only between 30% and 40% of the mosques in France are independent, says Mamoun. He defines independent mosques as institutions that set out to serve all Muslim communities, that are not sponsored from abroad and do not have imams imported and paid from abroad.

The Grand Mosque in Paris was assigned to Algeria’s trusteeship by the French government in 1957. Since 1982, Algeria has been responsible for funding the Grand Mosque. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

Nevertheless, France still holds onto the idea of a French “moderate” Islam. In March 2015, in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and the concern about the influence of radical foreign imams on Muslims in France, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls announced that France would finance double the number of university courses on Islam — from six to twelve — to stop the influence of foreign funding on the training of French imams.

Valls said he wanted more imams and other religious figures, such as prison chaplains, who have been trained abroad to “undergo more training in France, to speak French fluently and to understand the concept of secularism” that is a core pillar of French Republican values. “The only response to the dangers that we face is the French Republic,” Valls said. “This means the acceptance of the secular state, improving education, universities, understanding and intelligence… But there will be no laws, decrees or government directives to define what Islam means,” Valls said. “The French state will never attempt to take control of a religion.”

After the Paris attacks in November 2015, Anouar Kbibech, president of the French Council for the Muslim Religion, said it would fight extremists by creating a permit to preach for imams, as well as a new religious body to fight jihadist propaganda. The certificate would be given to those imams who promote a “tolerant and open Islam.”

“The time for action has come. The Muslims of France will play their part,” said Kbibech. Actually, the time for action was over more than a decade ago, in 2003, at the founding of the CFCM. By now, any action is probably too little, much too late.

The pattern of “importing” imams with no knowledge of the local European languages and customs is the same all over Europe. Qatar and Saudi Arabia, where the official form of Islam is Wahhabism, are the main financiers of mosques in Europe. Qatar has financed mosques in France, Italy, Ireland and Spain, among other places, thus spreading Wahhabism across the continent. Wahhabism is a version of Sunni Islam that discourages Muslim integration in the West, but actively encourages jihad against non-Muslims. The former emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, vowed a few years ago to “spare no effort” to spread the fundamentalist teachings of Wahhabi Islam across “the whole world.”

In October 2014, General Jonathan Shaw, a former commander of British Forces in Iraq, who retired as Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff in 2012, told The Telegraph that Qatar and Saudi Arabia were primarily responsible for the rise of the extremist Islam that inspires Islamic State terrorists by funding the global spread of radical Islam. “The root problem is that those two countries are the only two countries in the world where Wahhabi Salafism is the state religion – and Isil is a violent expression of Wahhabist Salafism,” said Gen. Shaw.

In December 2015, German vice-chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said that the Saudi regime is funding extremist mosques and communities that pose a danger to public security. “We have to make clear to the Saudis that the time of looking away is over… Wahhabi mosques all over the world are financed by Saudi Arabia. Many Islamists who are a threat to public safety come from these communities in Germany,” the vice-chancellor said. In addition to the mosques it has already built, Saudi-Arabia offered to build an additional 200 mosques for the benefit of the mass migration of Muslims into Germany, one for every 100 migrants and refugees entering the country.

The question that invariably arises is whether European governments genuinely believe in the possibility of a moderate “European Islam” in the face of the failure that attempts to bring about such a concept, still largely undefined, have met with thus far.

Considering the massive Muslim radicalization with which the continent is faced, much of it homegrown — the head of Europol said last week that the terror threat in Europe is the highest in over a decade — trying to foster a hazy concept of a “moderate” European Islam at this late point is like trying to stem a tidal wave with a band-aid.

In some European countries, the most basic concepts of how Islamic radicalization works are seemingly not even understood by the relevant judicial authorities. Denmark’s State Prosecutor recently decided that imam Hajj Saeed will not be prosecuted for his statements in a sermon where he incited Muslims to wage war against Jews, and said that the Western “infidel” civilization has led non-Muslims “to an abyss of deprivation and corruption and has reduced them from being human to being at the level of animals.” Saeed incited war against Jews at a mosque associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir in Copenhagen on February 13, 2015 — in the very same sermon that the terrorist Omar Abdel Hamid El-Husseini attended the day before he murdered two people in separate terrorist attacks at the local synagogue and at a café.

The Danish State Prosecutor, in her decision, writes that the imam’s statements,

“…were part of a sermon about interfaith dialogue. It is my assessment that the statements regarding war against Jews must be understood in that context and as a historical reference to the reaction of the prophet Muhammed in a particular historical situation. It therefore cannot be assumed that this was a direct encouragement to attack Jews. I therefore do not find that there is sufficient evidence to find the imam guilty of breaching § 266b and I do not find that further investigation will bring such evidence.”

The sermon had been organized by Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical organization that works for the re-establishment of the caliphate — not for “interfaith dialogue.”

When investigations against imam Hajj Saeed began in March 2015, after a private Danish citizen filed a complaint, Hizb ut-Tahrir told Danish journalists that the complaint against the imam was baseless: “The sermon refers to a historical context and it is taken out of context… He has not incited to violence or murder. He is just referring to a historical event.” Conspicuously, Hizb ut-Tahrir’s “explanation” ended up being exactly what the state Prosecutor decided in the end.

It is noteworthy that several European governments have finally come to the realization that foreign funding of local mosques and imams is counterproductive to the security of their states and that it is essential that this foreign funding and training of foreign imams stop. Based on previous experience, however, the hope that a “European Islam” will be fostered is a vain and rather utopian one. In Belgium, the existence of a state-recognized “Belgian mosque” did not stop the “moderate” imam in question from traveling to Syria to join the jihadists there.

Judith Berman is a journalist based in the Middle East.

The Next Syrian Refugee Crisis: Child Brides

February 27, 2016

The Next Syrian Refugee Crisis: Child Brides, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Abigail R. Esman, February 26, 2016

1371UNICEF graphic

The Moral Cost of Appeasing Iran

February 24, 2016

The Moral Cost of Appeasing Iran, Gatestone InstituteMohshin Habib, February 24, 2016

♦ The leaders of both France and Italy set aside their values to appease the president of Iran.

♦ In France, protesters demanded that President François Hollande challenge the Iranian president about his country’s human rights abuses. France’s leadership, however, raised no questions of that sort. Instead, Mr. Rouhani was welcomed as a superstar.

♦ According to a 659-page report by Human Rights Watch, Iran’s human rights violations under Mr. Rouhani’s governance have been increasing. Social media users, artists and journalists face harsh sentences on dubious security charges.

♦ In November, the Iranian Supreme Court upheld a criminal court ruling sentencing Soheil Arabi to death for Facebook posts “insulting the Prophet” and “corruption on earth.”

Right after signing the Iran nuclear deal with itself — Iran still has not signed it, and even if it did, the deal would not be legally binding — members of the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) have been showing their eagerness to establish improved relations with their imaginary partner.

Last month, after the lifting of international sanctions, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, went on a five-day trip to Italy and France.

Officials from the host countries were so enthusiastic to welcome the Iranian president, it was as if they were unaware of Iran’s multiple violations of The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) — which Iran did sign in 1968. They also seemed unaware of Iran’s expansion into Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, as well as Iran’s continuing role in sponsoring global terrorism.

Although both the leaders of France and Italy seemed eager to appease the president of Iran, in Paris, thousands of demonstrators gathered on the streets to protest Mr. Rouhani’s visit, and staged mock executions to highlight Iran’s dire human rights violations. In 2014, for instance, at least nine people were executed on the charge of moharebeh (“enmity against God”).

Even today, dozens of child offenders remain on death row in Iran. According to Iranian law, girls who reach the age of 9 and boys who reach the age of 15 can be sentenced to capital punishment. A recent report by Amnesty International called Iran one of the world’s leading offenders in executing juveniles. Despite the country’s ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child — which abolishes the use of the death penalty against offenders under the age of 18 — the UN estimates that 160 minors remain on death row.

The Iranian delegation, according to The New York Times, had asked Italian officials to hide all statues leading to the grand hall of the Capitoline Museums — where a news conference between Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and the Iranian president took place — to avoid any “embarrassment” for Rouhani, who casts himself as a moderate and reform-seeker. So on the first stop of Mr. Rouhani’s European visit, statues were encased in tall white boxes. In addition, “The lectern, was placed to the side — not the front — of an equestrian statue of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, apparently to avoid having images of the horse’s genitals appear in news photographs.”

As any kind of image is haram (forbidden) in Islam, any form of statue is considered idolatry.

Many Italians expressed their outrage over the decision to censor the statues. They accused the government of betraying Italian history and culture for the sake of economic interests.

An Iranian women’s rights organization, My Stealthy Freedom, condemned the Italian government’s decision. In a post on their Facebook page, the group wrote:

“Italian female politicians, you are not statues, speak out. Rome covers nude statues out of respect for Iran’s president in Italy and Islamic Republic of Iran covers Italian female politicians in Iran. Dear Italy. Apparently, you respect the values of the Islamic Republic, but the problem is the Islamic Republic of Iran does not respect our values or our freedom of choice. They even force non-Muslim women to cover up in Iran…”

In France, protesters demanded that President François Hollande challenge the Iranian president about his country’s human rights abuses. France’s leadership, however, raised no questions of that sort. Instead, Mr. Rouhani was welcomed as a superstar.

Big business deals were signed. France’s car-maker Peugeot and Iran’s leading vehicle manufacturer, Khodro, are engaged in a €400 million partnership. France’s energy giant, Total, signed a Memorandum of Understanding to buy crude oil from Iran. Total will reportedly begin importing 160,000 barrels of oil per day starting on February 16. Twelve days after the West lifted economic sanctions, Airbus announced that Iran Air had agreed to purchase 118 new planes. The deal is estimated at $25 billion.

Prime Minister of France Manual Valls hailed his country’s trade agreements with Iran. “France is available for Iran,” he said.

During a recent visit to Tehran, Germany’s Foreign Minister, Frank Walter Steinmeier, asked the Iranian president to keep Germany in mind as a future stop on his next trip to Europe.

Meanwhile, according to a US State Department report, Iran has pledged to continue its assistance to Shiite militias in Iraq. Many of these militias have poured into Syria and are now fighting alongside the Assad regime. Rouhani’s government also continues to support its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah, and Palestinian militants in Gaza.

For many years, the Iranian president has kept up close ties with leaders of Hezbollah, including Abbas Moussavi (the former leader of Hezbollah who was killed in 1992) and Hassan Nasrallah. In March 2014, Mr. Rouhani publicly pledged support for Hezbollah.

Rouhani’s Defense Minister is a former Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) officer, Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehghan. He commanded IRGC forces in Lebanon is Syria during Hezbollah’s founding years from 1982-1984.

Last September, Dehghan said that Tehran will continue arming Hezbollah, Hamas and any group that is part of the “resistance” against the U.S. and Israel. Iran, he explained, considers America to be the Great Satan.

“Hizbullah,” Dehghan stated, “does not need us to supply them with rockets and arms. Israel and the U.S. need to know this. Today, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah have the capability of producing their own resources and weapons themselves. Nevertheless, we shall not refrain from supporting them.”

As well as Dehghan, almost all of Rouhani’s appointments are either former members of the IRGC or other revolutionary institutions, such as Iran’s Judiciary and Intelligence Ministries.

Iran’s human rights violations under Rouhani’s governance have been increasing. A 659-page report published by Human Rights Watch concludes that Iranian authorities have repeatedly clamped down on free speech and dissent. “In a sharp increase from previous years, Iran also executed more than 830 prisoners.”

806Since Hassan Rouhani (right) became the president of Iran, the surge in executions has given Iran the world’s highest death penalty rate per capita.

Social media users, artists and journalists face harsh sentences on dubious “security” charges. In May 2014, four young men and three unveiled women were arrested after a video showing them dancing to the popular song “Happy” went viral on YouTube. They were sentenced to up to a year in prison and 91 lashes on several charges, including “illicit relations.”

In November, the Iranian Supreme Court upheld a criminal court ruling sentencing Soheil Arabi to death for Facebook posts “insulting the Prophet” and “corruption on earth.”

Newsmax Prime | Raymond Ibrahim and Nonie Darwish discuss the latest US airstrike in Libya

February 22, 2016

Newsmax Prime | Raymond Ibrahim and Nonie Darwish discuss the latest US airstrike in Libya, Newsmax TV via You Tube, February 19, 2016

Denmark Criminalizes Free Speech – Selectively

February 19, 2016

Denmark Criminalizes Free Speech – Selectively, Gatestone InstituteJudith Bergman, February 19, 2016

♦ According to the court decision, pointing out the totalitarian and cruel aspects of Islam itself is now a criminal offense, considered “insulting and demeaning” to Muslims in Denmark and therefore constituting “racism.” In effect, this means that the court is conflating what might possibly constitute blasphemy with racism.

♦ Conversely, when a Danish imam called Jews “the offspring of apes and pigs,” he was officially reported to the police for breaching § 266b, but no legal charges were ever filed against him.

♦ In Denmark, apparently, it is a crime to criticize Islam and “Islamists,” but calling Jews the “offspring of apes and pigs” and inciting their murder in a mosque (and calling non-Muslims in general “animals”) can be done with impunity.

Last week, a Danish district court ruled that what a Danish citizen had written on Facebook in November 2013 violated the Danish criminal code.

In response to a debate about the local activities of a radical Islamic organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which works for the re-establishment of the Islamic caliphate, he wrote: “The ideology of Islam is as loathsome, disgusting, oppressive and as misanthropic as Nazism. The massive immigration of Islamists into Denmark is the most devastating thing to happen to Danish society in recent history.”

According to § 266b of Denmark’s criminal code, it is prohibited and punishable by fine or prison publicly to threaten, insult or demean a group of persons because of their race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.

The man was fined 1600 Danish kroner (approximately $240), which makes it unlikely that he will be allowed to appeal the sentence: the fine is so small that an appeal to the Higher Court requires special permission.

The Danish district court found that the man’s statements about Islam were “generalizing statements” that were “insulting and demeaning towards adherents of Islam.”

The district court reached this conclusion despite the defendant’s testimony, according to which he specifically wrote “the ideology of Islam” in order to make a distinction between the religion of Islam and the ideology of Islam. The defendant explained that, “‘Islamist’ is a normal term for extremist groups, who commit crimes against humanity and do the most terrible things, whereas Islam is a peaceful religion.”

The district court decided to disregard “the defendant’s explanation that a distinction should be made between the ideology of Islam and the religion of Islam”.

The court reasoned that

“the statements that the defendant has made should be seen in the societal and historical context of the fall of 2013, and in this context the court sees the statements about ‘the ideology of Islam’ as pertaining to Islam generally and not only the extreme part of Islam. In this regard, the court has furthermore emphasized that the quoted statements were written on 29 November 2013 at 17.13 and that at 17.27 on the same day — as pointed out by the defense — the defendant wrote in the same [Facebook] thread that “Islam wishes to abuse democracy in order to get rid of democracy.”

For the incredulous reader, it should be pointed out that the court presumably meant that in 2013, Islamism as an ideology had not manifested itself through terrorism in Denmark and Europe in the same way as it has today, a few years later. This is, of course, nonsense, as pointed out by the defendant’s lawyer, Karoly Nemeth: “I believe the court is expressing a lack of historical understanding. The ideology of Islam has existed for over 1,000 years,” he said.

According to this court decision, then, pointing out the totalitarian and cruel aspects of Islam itself is now a criminal offense, considered “insulting and demeaning” to Muslims in Denmark and therefore constituting “racism.” In effect, this means that the court is conflating what might possibly constitute blasphemy with racism. Despite this decision being wrong in every single aspect, the court did, however, get one thing right: It refused to distinguish between Islam as an ideology and Islam as religion. The prosecutor, Bente Schnack, said it did not make a difference whether the defendant spoke of the ideology or the religion of Islam. “It is pretty difficult to tell the difference,” she said.

While the court’s decision was widely criticized in Denmark, two leading professors of Danish criminal law agreed with it. One professor, Gorm Toftegaard Nielsen, said that, “§ 266b is about subjecting a group of people to hatred by threatening, insulting or demeaning them. When you group Islamists with Nazis, then it is not a compliment.”

The following question, of course, inevitably arises: Since when is public debate supposed to be restricted to complimenting each other?

The professor continued: “When he [the defendant] says ‘the massive immigration of Islamists,’ it can easily be interpreted as meaning that those people are as immoral as Nazis… It is not nice to compare those two groups. But that is what he does indirectly and that amounts to subjecting a group to hatred.”

What the Danish district court did was what the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation has long sought: the establishment of Islamic “blasphemy laws,” making criticism of a religion a criminal offence. The UN Human Rights Commission’s Resolution 16/18 does exactly that, although it is non-binding — except presumably for the countries that want it to be. Infractions, as in Denmark now, are punishable by law. The UNHRC Resolution, originally known as “Defamation of Islam,” was changed in later versions — it would seem for broader marketability — to “Defamation of Religions.”

Conversely, in October 2014, when Mohamed Al Khaled Samha, a Danish imam from the Odense mosque, called Jews “the offspring of apes and pigs,” he was officially reported to the police, and local Danish police began an investigation of the imam with a view to charging him for breaching § 266b, but as far as Gatestone Institute has been able to ascertain, no legal charges were ever filed against him. (Incidentally, this imam was among the group of imams who traveled to the Middle East presumably to stir up anti-Danish sentiment in the aftermath of Jyllands-Posten newspaper’s printing of the Mohammed cartoons). In his sermon, Samha also said, “”Palestine has been and will remain the land of Islam. It is the land of the great battle, in which the Muslims will fight the Jews, and the trees and the stones will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.'”

In July 2014 another Danish imam, Abu Bilal Ismail, from the Grimshøj mosque, prayed for the death of Jews at a sermon in a Berlin mosque. “Oh Allah, destroy the Zionist Jews. They are no challenge for you. Count them and kill them to the very last one. Don’t spare a single one of them,” Ismail said. This, too, was officially reported to the Danish police, who never acted against that imam, either.

Instead, it was German authorities who criminally charged him. In December 2015, he was sentenced to a €10,000 fine for inciting hatred against Jews as well as non-Jewish groups in Germany. The Berlin court found that Ismail targeted “Jews with hatred, as well as all other non-Muslim groups living in Germany.”

The German court also said that the Lebanese-born cleric had shown deep contempt for the United States and Europe in his sermon, and that his assault on European civilization and Zionists had met the definition of incitement. The verdict said that Ismail considered Jews as “criminals who kill prophets and children, and Jews are worse than wild beasts in the world of the jungle,” and that “Allah should kill Jews.” Since Ismail had already been convicted in Germany, and a person cannot be punished twice for the same criminal act, the Danish police decided not to press charges.

In another, ironic, development regarding the use of § 266b of the Danish penal code, the state Prosecutor decided that Hajj Saeed, who incited against Jews in the Masjid Al-Faru mosque in Copenhagen, on February 13, 2015 — the very same sermon, in fact, that the terrorist Omar Abdel Hamid El-Husseini attended the day before he murdered Dan Uzan at the Copenhagen synagogue — will not be prosecuted for his statements. In his sermon, Saeed said that the Western “infidel” civilization has led non-Muslims “to an abyss of deprivation and corruption and has reduced them from being human to being at the level of animals”. He incited Muslims to wage war against Jews:

“Our prophet Muhammad had Jewish neighbors in Medina. Did he talk about closer ties, harmony and dialogue with them — in the same way as the UN and those who call for reconciliation between what is true and what is false? Or did he tell them to worship Allah? When they broke their promise and did not accept his calling, well, you know what he did to them… He declared war against the Jews.”

Danish police investigated the imam and recommended that the state prosecutor indict him under the same provision of the penal code, § 266b, for inciting hatred and threatening a particular group of people because of their ethnicity — in this instance because they were Jews. The state Prosecutor, for reasons that are unknown at this point, evidently thought otherwise.

Ironically, the mosque in question, Masjid Al-Faru, is connected with Hizb-ut-Tahrir; and the imam, Hajj Saeed, is considered to be one of the organization’s “rising stars” in Denmark.

In 2002, in fairness, the spokesman at the time for Hizb ut-Tahrir, Fadi Abdullatif, was sentenced for violating § 266b, when his organization handed out flyers against Jews with the words, “And kill them, wherever you may find them and banish them from where they banished you.”

1476Members of the Islamist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir demand a worldwide Islamic Caliphate during a demonstration in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2006. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Epo)

After the February 2015 terrorist attacks in Copenhagen against the synagogue, where Dan Uzan was murdered, and the Krudttønden café, where film director Finn Nørgaard was murdered, Hizb ut-Tahrir told Muslims not to condemn the terrorist attacks, but instead “put things in their right context.”

In Denmark, apparently, it is a crime to criticize Islam and “Islamists,” but calling Jews the “offspring of apes and pigs” and inciting their murder in a packed mosque (and calling non-Muslims in general “animals”) can be done with impunity.

Spring could bring a fresh surge of refugees. But Europe isn’t ready for them.

February 16, 2016

Spring could bring a fresh surge of refugees. But Europe isn’t ready for them. Washington PostGriff Witte and Anthony Faiola, February 16, 2016

LONDON — After an unparalleled tide of asylum seekers washed onto European shores last summer and fall, the continent’s leaders vowed to use the relative calm of winter to bring order to a process marked by chaos.

But with only weeks to go before more favorable spring currents are expected to trigger a fresh surge of arrivals, the continent is no better prepared. And in critical respects, the situation is even worse.

Ideas that were touted as answers to the crisis last year have failed or remain stuck in limbo. Continental unity lies in tatters, with countries striking out to forge their own solutions — often involving a razor-wire fence. And even the nations that have been the most welcoming toward refugees say they are desperately close to their breaking point or already well past it.

The result, analysts say, is a continent fundamentally unequipped to handle the predictable resurgence of a crisis that is greater than any Europe has faced in its post-Cold War history.

“It’s a very dangerous situation,” said Kris Pollet, senior policy officer at the European Council on Refugees and Exiles. “Anything can happen.”

On Thursday, European leaders will have one last opportunity to reckon with the crisis before the pace of new arrivals inevitably begins to climb again in the spring. But few have any expectations that this week’s summit will succeed where countless others before it have failed.

“Europe can deal with this if it wants to. But there needs to be a political breakthrough. And I’m not optimistic,” Pollet said.

Without one, he said, “it’s going to be chaos. That’s clear.”

The scale of disorder and political disruption could be even greater than what Europe faced in 2015.

The numbers themselves are already of an entirely new magnitude: Although arrivals are down from the height of the crisis last fall, the number of people who crossed the sea to reach Europe in the first six weeks of the year — around 75,000 — is 25 times what it was during the same period last year. More than 400 have drowned along the way.

On the Greek islands, the most common European landing spot for people fleeing war and oppression in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa, thousands have arrived even on days when the rough winter seas have been churned by gale-force winds.

But once the asylum seekers have landed in Europe, the continent still has no coherent system for managing the flows. Just three out of an intended 11 “hot spots” — locations in Italy and Greece where those deemed likely to receive asylum will be separated from those expected to be denied — were up and running at the start of the week. A quota system that was intended to evenly distribute 160,000 refugees across the continent has similarly foundered: Fewer than 500 people have taken part. Countries in eastern and central Europe, meanwhile, have boycotted the program.

With countries improvising their own responses to the mass migration, the most basic tenet of Europe’s post-Cold War identity — that national leaders should act collaboratively to reach continent-wide solutions to common problems — is being called into question as never before.

At most immediate risk is Europe’s decades-old system for borderless travel, the Schengen zone. European leaders have warned that it could come crashing down within months, and it has already been riddled by an array of new fences, military patrols and identification checks where once there was free movement.

Greece could be the first casualty of Schengen’s decline, with the rest of the European Union threatening to kick the cash-starved nation out of the free-movement club unless authorities in Athens can get better control of the nation’s sea border with Turkey. Last week, the E.U. gave Greece a three-month deadline to do so.

But some do not want to wait that long. Eastern European countries including Poland and Hungary are attempting to form an anti-refugee front ahead of this week’s Brussels summit, seeking to combine forces on a plan that would effectively trap refugees in Greece and allow them to travel no farther into Europe.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who on Monday called Europe “defenseless and weak” in stopping what he regards as an Islamic invasion, has called for the construction of razor-wire fences along Greece’s northern borders with Bulgaria and Macedonia.

Such a barrier is already going up on the Greek-Macedonian border, a major transit point for those heading farther north. Even governments regarded as reasonably pro-refugee say that border will soon need to be sealed.

On a visit to the Macedonian capital Friday, Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz said that his country is rapidly nearing the limit it has set for asylum seekers this year — less than half the total of last year — and that Macedonia should be ready to “completely stop” the flow of migrants in the coming months.

On Tuesday, Austria announced a plan to limit new arrivals, part of what is now being called a “domino effect” of measures from Greece through the Balkans and into Western Europe meant to deter migrant flows. In a news conference, Interior Minister Johanna Mikl-Leitner said Austria was preparing to set up 12 new checkpoints along its southern border and impose a daily, perhaps even hourly, quota on migrant flows. Austria will also follow Sweden in denying entry to anyone without a valid travel document.

“If fences are necessary, additional fences will be built as well,” Mikl-Leitner said.

Those comments only add to the pressure on German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose nation has taken more asylum seekers than any other in Europe but who faces growing demands to live up to her pledge to dramatically reduce the flows.

She heads to Brussels this week with an urgent need to break the political gridlock. One possibility would be to form what some are calling a new “coalition of the willing” — or a list of nations, probably in northern Europe, willing to take in asylum seekers who qualify for resettlement directly from Greece and Turkey.

She is also putting stock in a new NATO effort to combat people-smugglers in the Aegean Sea, while pushing Greece to more rapidly ramp up its hot spots for registering and processing asylum seekers. Meanwhile, she is continuing to press Turkish leaders to live up to their end of a bargain in which the E.U. agreed to pay Ankara 3 billion euros ($3.34 billion) in exchange for Turkish cooperation in cracking down on smuggler networks.

But with arrivals already far outpacing those in the same period last year, Germans are running out of patience with Merkel. At home, she faces a falling approval rating and a conservative backlash against her steadfast refusal to close Germany’s borders, even after it took in more than 1 million people last year.

The refugee crisis “is a Gordian knot Merkel has to cut. But she tied her political future to it, and there’s no way back for her,” said David Kipp, an associate at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.

If Merkel fails in her attempts to cajole European leaders into cooperating, refugee advocates say there could be grave consequences — not only for the continent but also for the millions of people seeking an escape from the wars that have consumed Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other conflict zones.

“Our fear is that there will be a domino effect where countries say, ‘We’ve had enough,’ ” said William Spindler, a spokesman for the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. “Refugee flows are a reality. As long as you have conflict, you will have people fleeing for their lives.”

And at the moment, more people are doing so globally than at any time since World War II — some 60 million. The number trying to enter Europe is a relatively small fraction.

Heaven Crawley, who chairs the study of international migration at Britain’s Coventry University, said Europe should be able to handle the number of people reaching its shores. Syria’s neighbors, she noted, have coped with much higher proportional totals.

But, she said, the continent has been plagued by internal division, as well as a focus on keeping people out — rather than honestly reckoning with what should happen once refugees arrive.

“It’s a crisis of Europe’s own making,” she said. “If Lebanon and Jordan can manage it, why can’t the richest region in the world? It’s politics.”

Between Putin and Obama

February 7, 2016

Between Putin and Obama, Israel Hayom, Boaz Bismuth, February 7, 2016

The tide has turned in Syria: Aleppo, the rebel stronghold, is on the verge of falling to President Bashar Assad’s army. Hezbollah’s Shiite militias, the Iranian army and the massive Russian air strikes have been the difference.

In contrast to the rebels, Assad can count on his partners. On the Syrian dictator’s side, backed by Russia, action is being taken. On the rebel side, backed by the Americans, there has been a lot of talking. This perhaps explains why in January 2017 U.S. President Barack Obama will exit the White House, and Assad will still be in power. We can add this legacy to the American president’s splendid list of achievements.

And we haven’t even mentioned the millions of Syrian refuges, the terrible migrant crisis in Europe (leading to the rise of far-right parties across the continent), and the escalation of hostilities between Shiites and Sunnis. It’s not a short list.

Since last Monday, Aleppo has been under heavy attack from Assad’s forces. The gains on the ground have been considerable. Russia’s intervention has tipped the balance of power. No one can say this was unexpected. Washington, meanwhile, continues to grumble. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry lambasted Moscow on Friday for the large number of dead Syrian women and children. Moscow isn’t exactly heeding his criticism. Washington still fails to understand that instead of talking, maybe it would be better to take action already. In August of 2013, however, after Assad had attacked his own people with chemical weapons for the 14th time, the Americans did nothing (red lines, remember?). Why should things be any different today?

Washington, you will say, has worked hard to find a diplomatic solution. This is a good time to remind everyone that the peace talks in Vienna have again hit a dead end. The talks aren’t likely to succeed for a number of reasons, namely that the two main players — Saudi Arabia and Iran — have reached a point of open hostilities, thanks to American foreign policy. Instead of cooperating to resolve the Syrian crisis, these two regional powers are closer than ever to a full-fledged military conflict. Riyadh is threatening to send ground forces into Syria to support the rebels. The commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has already vowed that any such intervention would result in immense casualties for the Saudis. This is where things stand.

Over the weekend Turkey’s foreign minister discussed opening his country’s borders to the steady stream of refugees, but the crossings remain as shut as they were in September, 2014, when thousands of Kurds tried to flee the border town of Kobani. The European Union is trying to remind the Turks that they were given $3 billion for the expressed purpose of absorbing these 2 million refugees. But who expects agreements to be kept in today’s Middle East?

Who does have faith in agreements?

The refugee issue is becoming the hot button topic of the Syrian civil war. “The markets solved the economic crisis, the voters will solve the refugee crisis,” a French lawmaker said a few days ago. In the meantime, as Assad solidifies his power the far-right parties in Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Holland, and of course in France, are all growing in strength. It appears that everyone outside the Obama camp is thriving. And here is yet one more legacy to tell the grandchildren about.

The End Of The Multiculturalist Consensus In Europe

February 5, 2016

The End Of The Multiculturalist Consensus In Europe, Daily Caller, Michel Gurfinkiel, February 3, 2016

(Please see also, Latest Poll: Merkel in Free Fall, Germans Sensible; 76% of AfD Supporters OK with Genuine Refugees.  — DM)

One wonders why America, a nation of immigrants, can be suddenly so receptive to Donald Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric. The best answer, so far, is that immigration does not seem to work any more the way it did, at least for certain groups of immigrants.

A similar situation has arisen in Europe. In 2009, the American journalist Christopher Caldwell famously characterized the changes that a massive non-European, non-Judeo-Christian, immigration was forcing over Europe as a “revolution.” We may now be on the brink of a counter-revolution, and that can be as violent and far-reaching as revolution itself.

Last year’s massacres in Paris (the attacks on satirical cartoonists and a kosher supermarket’s customers in January 2015, then the November 13 killing spree) were a tipping point : the French – and by extension, most Europeans — realized that unchecked immigration could lead to civil war.

Then there was the Christmas crisis in Corsica, a French island in the Mediterranean. On December 24, a fire was activated at an immigrant-populated neighborhood in Ajaccio, the capital of Southern Corsica. As soon as the firemen arrived, they were attacked by local youths, Muslims of North African descent. Such ambushes have been part of French life for years. This time, however, the ethnic Corsicans retaliated; for four days, they rampaged through the Muslim neighborhoods, shouting Arabi Fora! (Get the Arabs out, in Corsican). One of Ajaccio’s five mosques was vandalized.

Then, there was the New Year’s crisis in Germany and other Northern European countries. On December 31, one to two thousand male Muslim immigrants and refugees swarmed the Banhofvorplatz in Cologne, a piazza located between the railway Central Station and the city’s iconic medieval cathedral. As it turned out during later in the evening and the night, they intended to “have fun”: to hunt, harass, or molest the “immodest” and presumably “easy” German women and girls who celebrated New Year’s Eve at the restaurants and bars nearby, or to steal their money. 766 complaints were lodged. Similar incidents took place in other German cities, like Hamburg, Frankfurt and Stuttgart, as well as in Stockholm and Kalmar in Sweden, and Helsinki in Finland.

Here again, the local population reacted forcefully. Support for asylum seekers from the Middle East plummeted – 37 percent of Germans said that their view of them has “worsened,” and 62 percent said that there are “too many of them.” The Far Right demonstrated against immigration in many cities, but liberal-minded citizens were no less categorical. Le Monde, the French liberal newspaper, on January 20 quoted Cologne victims as saying, “Since 1945, we Germans have been scared to be charged with racism. Well, the blackmail is over by now.”

Indeed, postwar Europe, and Germany in particular, had been built upon the rejection of Hitler’s mad regime and everything it stood for. Nationalism, militarism, authoritarianism, and racism were out. Multinationalism, pacifism, hyperdemocracy, and multiculturalism were in. This simple, almost Manichean, logic is collapsing now – under the pressure of hard facts. Or rather the Europeans now understand that it was flawed in many ways from the very beginning, especially when it came to multiculturalism, the alleged antidote to racism.

What Europeans had in mind when they rejected racism in 1945 was essentially antisemitism. Today, the “correct” antiracist attitude would be to welcome non-European immigrants en masse and to allow them to keep their culture and their way of life, even it that would contradict basic European values. Hence last summer’s “migrants frenzy,” when the EU leadership in Brussels and major EU countries, including Angela Merkel’s Germany, decided to take in several millions of Middle East refugees overnight.
European public opinion is now awaking to a very different view. And the political class realizes that it must adjust – or be swept away.

European public opinion is now awaking to a very different view. And the political class realizes that it must adjust – or be swept away.

The Schengen regime – which allows free travel from one country to the other in most of the EU area – is being quietly suspended; every government in Europe is bringing back borders controls. The French socialist president François Hollande is now intent to strip disloyal immigrants and dual citizens of their French citizenship (a move that precipitated the resignation, on January 27, of his super-left-wing justice minister, Christiane Taubira). He is also hiring new personnel for the police and the army and even considering raising a citizens’ militia. Merkel now says that immigrants or refugees who do not abide by the law will be deported. Even Sweden, currently ruled by one of Europe’s most left-wing cabinets, has been tightening its very liberal laws on immigration and asylum.

Most Europeans agree with such steps. And wait for even more drastic measures.

 

 

Facebook’s War on Freedom of Speech

February 5, 2016

Facebook’s War on Freedom of Speech, Gatestone InstituteDouglas Murray, February 5, 2016

♦ Facebook is now removing speech that presumably almost everybody might decide is racist — along with speech that only someone at Facebook decides is “racist.”

♦ The sinister reality of a society in which the expression of majority opinion is being turned into a crime has already been seen across Europe. Just last week came reports of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on social media.

♦ In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings and frustrations. Remove the right to speak about your frustrations and only violence is left.

♦ The lid is being put on the pressure cooker at precisely the moment that the heat is being turned up. A true “initiative for civil courage” would explain to both Merkel and Zuckerberg that their policy can have only one possible result.

It was only a few weeks ago that Facebook was forced to back down when caught permitting anti-Israel postings, but censoring equivalent anti-Palestinian postings.

Now one of the most sinister stories of the past year was hardly even reported. In September, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook at a UN development summit in New York. As they sat down, Chancellor Merkel’s microphone, still on, recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was.

At the time, perhaps the most revealing aspect of this exchange was that the German Chancellor — at the very moment that her country was going through one of the most significant events in its post-war history — should have been spending any time worrying about how to stop public dislike of her policies being vented on social media. But now it appears that the discussion yielded consequential results.

Last month, Facebook launched what it called an “Initiative for civil courage online,” the aim of which, it claims, is to remove “hate speech” from Facebook — specifically by removing comments that “promote xenophobia.” Facebook is working with a unit of the publisher Bertelsmann, which aims to identify and then erase “racist” posts from the site. The work is intended particularly to focus on Facebook users in Germany. At the launch of the new initiative, Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, explained that, “Hate speech has no place in our society — not even on the internet.” She went to say that, “Facebook is not a place for the dissemination of hate speech or incitement to violence.” Of course, Facebook can do what it likes on its own website. What is troubling is what this organization of effort and muddled thinking reveals about what is going on in Europe.

1455

The mass movement of millions of people — from across Africa, the Middle East and further afield — into Europe has happened in record time and is a huge event in its history. As events in ParisCologne and Sweden have shown, it is also by no means a series of events only with positive connotations.

As well as being fearful of the security implications of allowing in millions of people whose identities, beliefs and intentions are unknown and — in such large numbers — unknowable, many Europeans are deeply concerned that this movement heralds an irreversible alteration in the fabric of their society. Many Europeans do not want to become a melting pot for the Middle East and Africa, but want to retain something of their own identities and traditions. Apparently, it is not just a minority who feel concern about this. Poll after poll shows a significant majority of the public in each and every European country opposed to immigration at anything like the current rate.

The sinister thing about what Facebook is doing is that it is now removing speech that presumably almost everybody might consider racist — along with speech that only someone at Facebook decides is “racist.”

And it just so happens to turn out that, lo and behold, this idea of “racist” speech appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy.

By deciding that “xenophobic” comment in reaction to the crisis is also “racist,” Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel’s policies) into “racist” views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as “racist.” This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.

Because even if some of the speech Facebook is so scared of is in some way “xenophobic,” there are deep questions as to why such speech should be banned. In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings and frustrations. Remove the right to speak about your frustrations, and only violence is left. Weimar Germany — to give just one example — was replete with hate-speech laws intended to limit speech the state did not like. These laws did nothing whatsoever to limit the rise of extremism; it only made martyrs out of those it pursued, and persuaded an even larger number of people that the time for talking was over.

The sinister reality of a society in which the expression of majority opinion is being turned into a crime has already been seen across Europe. Just last week, reports from the Netherlands told of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on Twitter and other social media.

In this toxic mix, Facebook has now — knowingly or unknowingly — played its part. The lid is being put on the pressure cooker at precisely the moment that the heat is being turned up. A true “initiative for civil courage” would explain to both Merkel and Zuckerberg that their policy can have only one possible result.