Posted tagged ‘Islamic supremacy’

Outrageous Unconstitutional Intimidation of Private Citizens Who Opposed Mosque Project; Thomas More Law Center Steps In

March 30, 2017

Outrageous Unconstitutional Intimidation of Private Citizens Who Opposed Mosque Project; Thomas More Law Center Steps In, Thomas More Law Center, March 28, 2017

(The township’s press release referenced in the last paragraph is dated November 18, 2016. The lawsuit had been filed on March 10th and, four days later, the Department of Justice “notified the Township that the DOJ was going to investigate the ISBR allegations.” The press release also states,

The private lawsuit and Plaintiffs’ issuance of punitive subpoenas on private citizens merely for participating in the land use process raise further Constitutional issues of free speech and privacy concerns. These invasive probes went so far as to require documents sufficient to show endorsements of, donations to, or associations with political campaigns from the local to the national level.

Among various concerns, we anticipate that the actions of the DOJ and Plaintiffs may well dissuade residents from participating in future land use hearings for fear of retribution from an applicant and the government.

Eight months after the suit was filed, the DOJ filed its own suit against the township. The DOJ should ask the court to dismiss the suit filed on its behalf and that filed by the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge. — DM)

ANN ARBOR, MI – If you speak out against building a mosque in your community, you may be slapped with a subpoena demanding all your personal documents, including emails, voicemails, text messages, and social media posts concerning Muslims, Islam, mosques, the Quran, Muslim worship or prayer services, wudu, imams, burkas, hijabs, Sharia, jihad, or anything else associated with or related to Muslims or Islam.

This was part of the harassment and intimidation experienced by scores of private citizens of the small New Jersey town, Bernards Township (also known as Basking Ridge), who spoke out at public hearings against a plan to build a disproportionately-sized mosque on a small piece of residential property.  The mosque project, sponsored by the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge (“ISBR”) and its president, Mohammad Ali Chaudry, was denied by Township officials for not complying with local building ordinances.

On March 10, 2016, ISBR and Mohammad Ali Chaudry sued Bernards Township in federal court, claiming various violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  Shortly after, ISBR had coercive subpoenas served on private citizens whose only involvement was voicing concerns at public planning board meetings about whether the proposed mosque complied with local building ordinances.

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently granted the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, permission to represent, without charge, several of these citizens who desired to quash the coercive and abusive subpoenas.  Westfield, New Jersey attorney Michael P. Hrycak is assisting the Law Center.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented: “ISBR is setting a dangerous unconstitutional precedent by abusing a court process to chill and trample on the First Amendment Rights of private citizens whose only involvement was to speak out against the mosque at public hearings. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has held that speech at a public place on a matter of public concern is entitled to special protection, we will ask the Federal District Court to quash the subpoenas served on our clients as a misuse and abuse of the Court’s process.”

Lori Caratzola, described in the ISBR Complaint as a fervent and frequent objector to the mosque, was a prime target for ISBR’s personal attacks.  She was personally mentioned over a dozen times in their Complaint.  Yet she has remained steadfast in her opposition.  Ms. Caratzola commented:

“Being served with a Federal Court Subpoena to turn over all my personal communications including voicemails, social media, emails, notes wherein I make any mention of anything having to do with Islam is an absolute violation of my First Amendment rights. I was a citizen exercising my right to attend public planning board meetings about a land use application that affected my community.”

She continued:

“Dr. Chaudry’s clear intent was to embarrass, strike fear, silence and cause financial harm to any citizen who dared oppose his nonconforming project.  And if these subpoenas are allowed to stand, it will set a chilling precedent for all citizens who wish to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to free speech and to petition their government.

“I was named numerous times in the Complaint, yet as a non-party, I had no standing to challenge the lies and half-truths told about me.  After the Complaint was filed, mainstream media picked up and repeated these lies and half-truths.”

Caratzola concluded:

“I have lost days, probably weeks, devoting time to trying to find counsel – only to find most attorneys are afraid of challenging an Islamic group in today’s political climate.”

Attorney Karen Lugo, a specialist on constitutional law and zoning issues, echoed Lori Caratzola’s concerns:

“ISBR’s subpoena of private citizens’ communications with local government, as well as all personal email and social media statements related to ‘anything associated with or related to Muslims or Islam’ is in direct violation of speech protections enshrined in the Constitution and in Supreme Court rulings. ISBR’s blatant efforts to chill the free exercise of speech while intimidating local citizens with these subpoenas must not only be denied, but must be rebuked, by the courts.”

Cody Smith, another subpoenaed resident who opposed the Mosque, stated:

“The planning board did exactly what it should have done—set emotions aside and judge ISBR’s application solely on its merits and whether it complied with our local regulations. It’s unfortunate that Dr. Chaudry, the Township’s former mayor, has resorted to an all-out smear campaign and retaliation against residents who exercised their fundamental Constitutional rights of Free Speech in a public forum.”

Soon after ISBR’s lawsuit, DOJ investigators opened another coercive front by attempting to interview the private citizens who opposed the mosque.  Eight months later, the DOJ filed its own lawsuit against the Township.

Astonishingly, the DOJ was dismissive of an apparent conflict of interest between Mohammad Ali Chaudry and the DOJ’s chief investigator, Caroline Sadlowski, both of whom were serving together on the Center for Religious and Cultural Conflicts board at Drew University.

See Bernards Township Press Release here

Palestinians: We Have the Right to Poison the Minds of our Children

March 29, 2017

by Bassam Tawil
March 29, 2017 at 5:00 am

Source: Palestinians: We Have the Right to Poison the Minds of our Children

 

  • The Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas wish to continue teaching children that the conflict with Israel is not over a two-state solution, but the “liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” which means the annihilation of Israel. The goal is for the students to believe that Israel is one big settlement that has no place in the Middle East.
  • Along with Hamas, Abbas and his PA plan to continue inculcating Palestinian children with the idea that they should look to terrorists who kill Jews as their role models. It might be illuminating if the conversation between Trump and Abbas were to be informed by these uncomfortable facts.

In an ironic turnaround, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) is now the object of intimidation and threats made by many Palestinians.

UNRWA is reportedly planning to introduce some changes to the curriculum in its schools in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the Palestinians are rather unhappy about it. They claim that UNRWA has “succumbed” to Israeli pressure to make the changes.

The proposed changes are based on leaks to Palestinians and have not been confirmed by UNRWA. Palestinians claim that they learned about the plans to introduce the changes during meetings with senior UNRWA officials.

According to the Palestinians, the changes are intended to “eradicate” their “national identity” and “history” and distort their “struggle” against Israel.

The Palestinians claim that the new textbooks have replaced the map of “historic Palestine” (including Israel) with pictures of a pumpkin and a bird. Palestinian textbooks often feature maps of “historic Palestine” without Israel. Cities inside Israel, such as Haifa, Jaffa, Tiberias and Ramle, are referred to as “Palestinian cities.” The Palestinian Authority (PA) media also refer to these cities as “Palestinian cities inside the 1948 Land.”

In one fourth-grade textbook, the Palestinians charge, UNRWA has replaced the map of Palestine with a picture of a traditional Palestinian woman’s dress.

The new textbooks make no reference to cities in Israel; they mention only cities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, such as Nablus, Jenin, Gaza City, Jericho and Ramallah.

Unsurprisingly, an UNRWA revision of the Palestinian presumption of Jerusalem as the “capital of the State of Palestine” to Jerusalem as a “Holy city for the Abrahamic religions” did not go over well with Palestinians. In addition, they are angry because the UNRWA textbooks make no mention of the Jordan Valley along the border between Israel and Jordan.

The controversial textbooks have also removed photos of Israeli soldiers patrolling near schools and references to Palestinian prisoners held in Israel for terrorism. Moreover, the new textbooks are missing the previous references to “Palestinian Prisoners’ Day” — an annual event marked by Palestinians in solidarity with imprisoned terrorists.

Palestinians are also protesting the removal of words such as “occupation” and “checkpoints” from the new textbooks.

If true, the proposed changes to the Palestinian textbooks should be welcomed as a positive development towards ending anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian schools, including those belonging to UNRWA. In light of the widespread Palestinian protests and threats, however, it is doubtful whether UNRWA will succeed in making the proposed revisions.

A girls’ school run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees. (Image source: UNRWA)

A recent study into schoolbooks used by UNRWA-run schools found that the texts consistently delegitimize and demonize Israel. The schools do not teach Palestinian children to recognize Israel. The research was conducted by Dr. Arnon Gross, who translated the books, and Dr. Roni Shaked, both from the Harry Truman Research Institute at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

In these currently-used books, Zionism is defined as a colonialist movement that was founded by European Jews in order to gather Jews from all around the world and bring them to Palestine. No mention is made of the religious or historical connection of Jews to the Land of Israel or to Jerusalem. Instead, the UNRWA textbooks teach that Jewish holy sites such as the Western Wall, Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs are Muslim holy sites.

Not surprisingly, vicious rivals though they are, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have joined forces to thwart UNRWA’s planned changes to the textbooks. This is an issue that these two corrupt regimes can agree on: inciting children against Israel and denying its existence.

Ahmed Bahr, a senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip, warned that any changes to the curriculum would “harm the history and national rights of the Palestinian people, as well as their resistance” against Israel. By “resistance,” the Hamas official means terrorism against Israel, including suicide bombings and the launching of rockets at Israel.

According to the Hamas official, UNRWA and the international community need to understand that “the option of resistance is the only and shortest way for restoring Palestine and liberating our land.”

In other words, Bahr wants to go on teaching Palestinian children to continue perpetrating terror attacks, in order to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic empire. In fact, Hamas has long been teaching precisely this in its own schools in the Gaza Strip. Yet Hamas is making it manifest that UNRWA is to follow suit in its schools. Children studying in the UN agency’s schools are to continue learning that Israel is nothing more than a figment of the imagination.

The past few days have seen Palestinians in the Gaza Strip staging a series of protests against UNRWA. They warned the agency against making the changes, which are designed to “distort the minds of Palestinian children” and which “do not comply with the culture of Palestinian society.”

Hamas has refused to allow UNRWA to teach about the Holocaust in its schools. From Hamas’s point of view, the UN agency seeks to “poison the minds of our children by taking steps that only serve” Israel. “UNRWA is trying to justify Israeli crimes against the Palestinians by teaching the so-called Holocaust in the context of human rights in UNRWA-run schools,” Hamas said. This attitude is far from surprising: Holocaust denial has always been an integral part of Palestinian and Arab narratives.

It is easy to see why Hamas and other extremist Palestinian groups would be opposed to changing textbooks that delegitimize and demonize Israel. More difficult to understand is that the Palestinian Authority, whose president, Mahmoud Abbas, says he is opposed to anti-Israel incitement, also came out against UNRWA’s planned changes.

A statement issued by the Palestinian Ministry of Education in Ramallah warned that it would take “punitive measures” against anyone who tries to change or tamper with the curriculum. “Any attempt to change the Palestinian curriculum will be considered an assault on Palestine and an eradication and dilution of our national identity,” the ministry cautioned.

The language used by the PA is strikingly similar to that used by Hamas to threaten an organization that has for decades helped millions of Palestinians to survive. In this regard, the Palestinians are once again biting the hand that has fed them. Ask Kuwait and other Gulf countries that used to give Palestinians billions of dollars before the Palestinians supported Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.

In his meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington in mid-April, Abbas is expected to renew his commitment to combating anti-Israel incitement, according to senior PA officials in Ramallah. One wonders how Abbas plans to account for the PA’s threats against UNRWA regarding the textbooks.

The PA, like Hamas, plans to continue indoctrinating their children through poisonous textbooks that depict Jews as evil occupiers and land-thieves who build “racist walls” and demolish houses for no reason. They also wish to continue teaching children that the conflict with Israel is not over a two-state solution, but the “liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” which means the annihilation of Israel. The goal is for the students to believe that Israel is one big “settlement” that has no place in the Middle East.

Moreover, along with Hamas, Abbas and his PA plan to continue inculcating Palestinian children with the idea that they should look to terrorists who kill Jews as their role models. It might be illuminating if the conversation between Trump and Abbas were to be informed by these uncomfortable facts.

Bassam Tawil is an Arab scholar based in the Middle East.

Mattis says al-Qaeda terrorists “defame Islam”

March 27, 2017

March 26, 2017 6:03 pm

By

Source: Mattis says al-Qaeda terrorists “defame Islam”

The death of Qari Yasin is evidence that terrorists who defame Islam and deliberately target innocent people will not escape justice.”

It seems as if all those with any power or influence anywhere in the Western world, all across the political spectrum, have agreed to back a fiction and pretend that Islam is other than what it is in its canonical text, prophet, schools of jurisprudence, and history all say it is. Does Mattis think that al-Qaeda defames Islam because it deliberately targets innocent people?

Is Mattis actually unaware that al-Qaeda doesn’t consider its targets innocent, and in 1998 published a fatwa claiming that the United States had been “occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places” and declaring that “the ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it”? Mattis may think this a twisting or hijacking or defaming of the Religion of Peace, but actually it is strictly based on Islamic law. All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that when a non-Muslim force enters a Muslim land, defensive jihad becomes the individual obligation of every Muslim (fard ayn) rather than a collective obligation of the entire umma, and need not be declared by anyone. Bulghah al-Salik li-Aqrab al-Masalik fi madhhab al-Imam Malik (“The Sufficiency of the Traveller on the Best Path in the School of Imam Malik,”) says this: “Jihad in the Path of Allah, to raise the word of Allah, is fard kifayah [obligatory on the community] once a year, so that if some perform it, the obligation falls from the rest. It becomes fard `ayn [obligatory on every Muslim individually], like salah and fasting, if the legitimate Muslim Imam declares it so, or if there is an attack by the enemy on an area of people.”

So in calling for the killings of Americans and saying that such killings are a duty, al-Qaeda was working from the Islamic doctrine of defensive jihad. Mattis, and Trump, and all those in power in Washington in both parties should know this: one cannot defeat an enemy one does not understand. What Mattis says here only fosters the ignorance and complacency that has enveloped us as a thick fog for the last sixteen years.

“U.S. strike kills an al-Qaida ‘leader’ in Afghanistan: Pentagon,” Reuters, March 25, 2017 (thanks to Freethinker):

A U.S. counterterrorism airstrike earlier this month in Afghanistan killed an al-Qaida leader responsible for a deadly hotel attack in Islamabad in 2008 and the 2009 attack on a bus carrying the Sri Lankan cricket team, the Pentagon said Saturday.

In confirming the death of Qari Yasin, U.S. officials said Yasin was a senior terrorist figure from Balochistan, Pakistan, had ties to the group Tehrik-e Taliban and had plotted multiple al-Qaida terror attacks. The airstrike that led to his death was conducted March 19 in Paktika Province, Afghanistan.

Yasin plotted the Sept. 20, 2008, bombing on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad that killed dozens, officials said. The victims included two American service members, Air Force Maj. Rodolfo I. Rodriguez of El Paso, Texas, and Navy Cryptologic Technician 3rd Class Petty Officer Matthew J. O’Bryant of Theodore, Alabama, U.S. officials said.

The bus attack in the Pakistani city of Lahore killed six Pakistani policemen and two civilians and wounded six members of the cricket team.

Defence Secretary Jim Mattis said in the statement: “The death of Qari Yasin is evidence that terrorists who defame Islam and deliberately target innocent people will not escape justice.”…

Hamas commander assassinated in Gaza

March 25, 2017

According to a statement from Hamas’ military wing, the terror organization is holding Israel responsible for the attack which claimed the life of one of its commanders; Mazan Fukha was released by Israel in 2011 as part of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange deal.

Elior Levy|Last update:  25.03.17 , 14:00

Source: Ynetnews News – Hamas commander assassinated in Gaza

Unknown assailants gunned down Hamas operative Mazan Fukha Friday night outside his home in Tel al-Hawa, in the Gaza Strip.According to Hamas’ military wing, Fukha, who was released in a prisoner exchange deal for captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, was shot in the head  four times with a silenced weapon by unknown attackers who fled the scene.

Mazan Fukha after his release from Israeli prison

Mazan Fukha after his release from Israeli prison

Fukha, who was deported to Gaza as part of the Shalit deal, was responsible for planning terror attacks in the West Bank.

In a statement, Hamas’ military wing blamed Israel for Fukha’s death and described him as a commander in the organization.

Husam Badran, Hamas’ international spokesman, issued a statement on Twitter, saying, “The occupation is responsible for this assassination. Netanyahu knows this will not pass quietly.”

Hamas gunmen during the funeral procession (Photo: Reuters) (Photo: Reuters)

Hamas gunmen during the funeral procession (Photo: Reuters)

Ismail Haniyeh following news of the assassination (Photo: AFP) (Photo: AFP)

Ismail Haniyeh following news of the assassination (Photo: AFP)

Ismail Haniyeh, Yahya Sinwar and Khalil al-Khayeh accompanied Fukha’s body at Shifa Hospital in the Gaza Strip and later during his funeral procession in Gaza on Saturday, attended by thousands of mourners.

Fukha, originally from Tubas, was sentenced to nine life sentences in 2003 by Israel for his role in the planning and execution of a suicide bombing on a bus near Safed, which killed nine people.

Fukha's funeral procession in Gaza on Saturday (Photo: Reuters) (Photo: Reuters)

Fukha’s funeral procession in Gaza on Saturday (Photo: Reuters)

Mourners in Tubas

Mourners in Tubas

Fukha’s father, who still lives in Tubas in the northern West Bank, also accused Israel of the assassination, saying, “Israeli intelligence officers came to our house many times and gave us messages that Mazen would be liquidated if he continued with his actions.”

Fukha was released from prison in 2011 as part of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange deal and was deported to the Gaza Strip.

After his release, Fukha returned to terrorist activities and helped found Hamas’ West Bank headquarters and manage it from Gaza under the command of Saleh al-Arouri. In addition to Fukha, the operation also included Abd al-Rahman Ghanimat, another terrorist who had been released as part of the Shalit deal.

 Together, the three men helped organize and conduct terror attacks against Israelis from the Gaza Strip.

(Translated and edited by Fred Goldberg)

First published: 25.03.17, 09:56

De Facto Settlement Freeze Only Result of US-Israel Four Day Discussion

March 25, 2017

De Facto Settlement Freeze Only Result of US-Israel Four Day Discussion

Source: De Facto Settlement Freeze Only Result of US-Israel Four Day DiscussionThe Jewish Press | David Israel | 27 Adar 5777 – March 24, 2017 | JewishPress.com

Photo Credit: Kobi Gideon/GPO

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Jason Greenblatt, March 13, 2017.

After four days of talks between the US and Israel on the future of the Judea and Samaria settlement enterprise, the two sides issued a joint statement saying the issues remain “exceptionally complicated” and that the talks have been serious and beneficial. In other words, if they had something new to announce they would have announced it.

The joint statement said that “A principal focus of the discussions was specific measures that could have a meaningful impact on the economic environment in the West Bank and Gaza, allowing the Palestinians to more fully realize their economic potential. The two delegations also discussed Israeli settlement construction.”

Advertisement

President Trump’s negotiator Jason Greenblatt and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief of staff Yoav Horowitz led the talks, which came only a few days following Greenblatt’s visit to Israel and the PA. One thing the two sides have said they agreed on was that, for now, the Netanyahu government will be minding the Trump Administration’s concerns on settlements construction and expansion. Which probably means an unofficial settlement freeze for the foreseeable future – even though everybody connected to the talks is denying it.

In fact, a senior Trump administration official told the Wall Street Journal that “the notion that Israelis have rebuffed proposals…none of it is correct. […] Nobody is asking for a freeze here—the president has made clear he has some concerns in the context of how we can advance…toward a genuine and lasting peace for the Israelis and Palestinians.”

So, it’s a freeze.

Will the West Please Stop Siding with Criminals?

March 24, 2017

Will the West Please Stop Siding with Criminals? Gatestone InstituteKhadija Khan, March 24, 2017

(But, but for Westerners to mention these things, let alone to do anything about them, would be “Islamophobic.” Besides, it’s easier for our “feminists” to demand free birth control, abortions and safe spaces. — DM)

What is agonizing is that people either enjoyed or criticized the joyful act of a teenager, but no one seems to be noticing that this public trial and her forced apologies only mean further isolation for the young Muslim women.

Most horrifying is that it seems that even the West has started to buy into the version of “modesty” that these extremists in the Middle East have been forcing on women.

Why has no one — especially politicized, self-absorbed women’s groups — come to help? Instead, as in the recent Women’s March, they have been advocating for more women’s imprisonment.

It is important for as many people as possible, both in Britain and world-wide, to say how much they love her beautiful spirit and that they totally stand by her right to dance, sing, play or have fun.

The growth in systematic abuse of women, especially by Islamists in the West, requires democratic governments to introduce strong measures to stop this abuse, before abusive mullahs start harassing women of all faiths, to force them to submit to their wishes.

The recent threats and harassment of a British “Hijabi girl” by Islamists in Birmingham, England, merely for a video showing her dance, have re-exposed the ugly face of this autocratic mindset that owes its existence to extremist states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Enslaving women in general and inflicting repressive agendas — such as domestic violence, sexual abuse, segregation, allowing no say in choosing a partner, education or profession, with abysmal living standards often part of the abuse — is just a small measure of the jihad that the Islamists have managed to unleash across the globe.

The video of “Hijabi girl” (her name is not known), happily dancing in public, was recorded and uploaded to the internet by bystanders.

The video led to aggressive shaming and harassment of the girl by the local Islamist “morality police”: men who ranted against her “impious” act and reportedly made her apologize publicly online.

Sobbing, she admitted how supposedly evil and shameless she was to have brought such dishonor to her family and religion.

It is important for as many people as possible, both in Great Britain and world-wide, to say how much they love her beautiful spirit and that they totally standby her right to dance, sing, play or have fun. These are very normal human activities.

Have things come to such a pass that now. even in Britain, only the most courageous can spontaneously express feelings of fun?

What is agonizing is that people either enjoyed or criticized the joyful act of a teenager, but no one seems to be noticing that this public trial and her forced apologies only mean further isolation for the young Muslim women.

To accept this coercion would be just a call on young Muslim girls to be quiet and submit, rather than ever even to think about showing their normal, lighter side. Most horrifying is that it seems that even the West has started to buy into the version of “modesty” that for centuries these extremists in the Middle East have been forcing on women.

The human rights groups seem to have become so apologetic towards the extremist abusers that they now turn their backs on the victims of these abuses — the people who need human rights groups the most. Perhaps they believe that supporting the poor girl would mean offending Muslims or the “symbol of Islam” (hijab) — which means they endorse the extremist version of Islam and the abuses that come with it.

The poor girl was shown no solidarity by any supposed champions of liberal causes. Instead, she was thrown to the hounds and left to face her torment alone.

It is also sad that the girl’s family has probably also given up, possibly due to the threats, and possibly out of fear of these extremists.

The massively destructive, wrong-headed political policies of Western governments — such as keeping silent on the abuses of women by Muslim extremists involving, for example, underage and forced marriages, female genital mutilation (FGM), sharia courts in the UK and accepting the existence of no-go zones where the extremists enjoy impunity and thrive — are also to be blamed for the increase in violations of women’s rights. Politicians and the policy-makers are apparently too scared of being accused of committing some fabricated “Islamophobia” or “infringing on the rights of Muslim citizens”, so they choose to keep their eyes shut to the plight of these women.

>An image from the video “Right to choose: Spotting the signs of forced marriage – Nayana”, produced by the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office. In 2013, 1,302 victims of forced marriage sought help from the British government’s Forced Marriage Unit.

This is not an isolated incident in which a young Muslim girl was victimized by the extremists just for innocently being herself. In Canada, famous video blogger named Froggy, of Pakistani origin, suffered similar harassment. She was also vilified by puritanical extremists for wearing a hijab but living a Western lifestyle by hanging out with young men and uploading videos of teenage fun.

In Darmstadt, Germany, 19-year-old Lareeb Khan was killed in 2015 by her parents when she decided to take off her hijab and pursue a normal life. Her father, Asadullah Khan, claimed that he had killed his daughter to save the honour of his family. He alleged — whether it is true or not we do not know — that the girl was having sexual relations with a boy of whom her family disapproved.

Her mother admitted to being present at the time of Lareeb’s murder, but claimed she could not rescue her due to both fear and illness. Lareeb’s sister, Nida, however, stated that her mother was an accomplice to the crime, and used to thrash her.

In a pathetic attempt at exculpation, Lareeb’s parents claimed that they were victims of the extremist Pakistani state and society. However, they chose, when they were given refuge and protection by a Western state, to impose similar abuses.

Extremists use shaming and harassment as punishment and deterrence for any woman in their communities who tries to break a barrier to regain her life.

This double edged-sword not only silences the victims of the abuse but also sends a message to the other women also not to try to escape their imprisonment.

Why has no one — especially politicized, self-absorbed women’s groups — come to help? Instead, as in the recent Women’s March, they have been advocating for more women’s imprisonment.

The notion that a hijab or a conservative lifestyle is a matter of choice for Muslim women might sound sympathetic to Westerners. It is not. In reality, there is no choice. The supposed choice is, in fact, a one-way street from which trying to exit can cost a woman her life.

These extremist Muslims need to be taught by society itself that they must respect individual freedoms and equality — by law.

Many liberal women, doubtlessly well-intended, seem love to wearing hijabs supposedly “in solidarity”; what they do not understand is that for millions and millions of Muslim women, who dare not say so, it is not a symbol of freedom and “protection” — like a slave-owner “protecting” his property — but of repression and imprisonment. It is forced upon women, now even in the West, and, worse, with the wholehearted complicity of the West.

It is also a time for governments purportedly in favour of human rights no longer to sweep these mafia tactics under the carpet.

It is time for politicians, governments, policy-makers, clerics, human rights groups and “liberals” to stop siding with criminals who commit assault, battery, and even murder, and to start protecting their citizens.

French Elections: Populist Revolution or Status Quo?

March 22, 2017

“If the Macron bubble doesn’t pop, this may portend the realignment, not just of French politics, but Western politics in general, away from the left-right division that has defined Western politics since the French Revolution, towards a division between

by Soeren Kern
March 21, 2017 at 5:00 am

Source: French Elections: Populist Revolution or Status Quo?

  • “If the Macron bubble doesn’t pop, this may portend the realignment, not just of French politics, but Western politics in general, away from the left-right division that has defined Western politics since the French Revolution, towards a division between the people and the elites.” — Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, French political analyst.
  • “This divide is no longer between the left and the right, but between patriots and globalists.” — Marine Le Pen, French presidential candidate.

The presidential election in France officially got underway on March 18, when the Constitutional Council announced that a total of eleven candidates will be facing off for the country’s top political job.

The election is being closely followed in France and elsewhere as an indicator of popular discontent with traditional parties and the European Union, as well as with multiculturalism and continued mass migration from the Muslim world.

The first round of voting will be held on April 23. If no single candidate wins an absolute majority, the top two winners in the first round will compete in a run-off on May 7.

If the election were held today, independent “progressive” candidate Emmanuel Macron, who has never held elected office, would become the next president of France, according to several opinion polls.

A BVA market research poll for Orange released on March 18 showed that Marine Le Pen, the leader of the anti-establishment National Front party, would win the first round with 26% of the votes, followed by Macron with 25%. Conservative François Fillon is third (19.5%), followed by radical Socialist Benoît Hamon (12.5%) and Leftist firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon (12%).

For the first time, the two established parties, the Socialist Party and the center-right Republicans, would be eliminated in the first round.

In the second round, Macron, a 39-year-old pro-EU, pro-Islam globalist (platform here), would defeat Le Pen, a 48-year-old anti-EU, anti-Islam French nationalist (platform here), by a wide margin (62% to 38%), according to the poll.

Macron, a former investment banker, was an adviser to incumbent Socialist President François Hollande, one of the most unpopular presidents in modern French history. A long-time member of the Socialist Party, Macron served in Hollande’s cabinet for two years as economy minister until August 2016, when he resigned to launch his rival presidential bid to “transform France.”

Macron, whose core base of support consists of young, urban progressives, has tried to position himself in the political center, between the Socialists and the conservatives. His meteoric rise has been propelled by a scandal involving Fillon — who is the subject of a criminal investigation over allegations that he used government money to pay his wife and children more than €1 million ($1.1 million) for jobs they never did — and because the Socialists fielded Hamon, a nonviable candidate who has promised to pay every French citizen over 18, regardless of whether or not they are employed, a government-guaranteed monthly income of €750 ($800). The annual cost to taxpayers would be €400 billion ($430 billion). By comparison, France’s 2017 defense budget is €32.7 billion ($40 billion).

Macron’s ascendancy comes amid heightened worries over security. More than 230 people have been killed in attacks in France by Islamic radicals during the past two years. The latest attack, on March 18, involved a 39-year-old French-Tunisian jihadist who proclaimed that he wanted to “die for Allah,” and was shot dead after he tried to seize a soldier’s weapon at Orly Airport in Paris.

Shortly after the attack, Le Pen accused Macron and the rest of France’s political establishment of “cowardice in the face of Islamic fundamentalism.”

In an apparent effort to bolster his national security credentials, Macron on March 18 announced a surprise proposal to restore compulsory military service. He said he would require men and women between the ages of 18 and 21 to serve one month in the armed forces.

“I want each young French person to be able to experience military life, however brief,” Macron said. “This is a major project of society, a real republican project, which should allow our democracy to be more united and the resilience of our society to be increased.” Macron, if elected, would become the first president in modern French history not to have performed military service.

Observers say that Macron’s national service proposal — which copies Le Pen’s proposal to reintroduce compulsory military service for a period of at least three months — is an attempt to siphon votes away from Le Pen and Fillon, both of whose campaign platforms call for a strong national defense.

Macron’s proposal, which will require an estimated €15 billion ($16 billion) upfront, and another €3 billion ($3.2 billion) each year to maintain, has been met with derision because of its exorbitant cost and dubious contribution to national security. Le Monde reminded its readers that France spends a similar amount (€3 billion annually) on nuclear deterrence.

Fillon’s spokesman, Luc Chantel, said the proposal was “absurd and unrealistic” and added:

“Either it is a measure designed to discourage students from quitting school, and this is not the mission of the army, or it is training for the defense of France, and one month is a joke, it is a discovery camp.”

Some of Macron’s other policy positions include:

  • European Federalism: Macron has repeatedly called for a stronger European Union. At a January 14 political rally in Lille, he said: “We are Europe, we are Brussels, we wanted it and we need it. We need Europe because Europe makes us bigger, because Europe makes us stronger.”
  • Single European Currency: In a January 10 speech at the Humboldt University in Berlin, Macron, speaking impeccable English, said: “The truth is that we must collectively recognize that the euro is incomplete and cannot last without major reforms. It has not provided Europe with full international sovereignty against the dollar on its rules. It has not provided Europe with a natural convergence between the different member states. The euro is a weak Deutsche mark, the status quo is synonymous, in 10 years’ time, with the dismantling of the euro.”
  • Migration Crisis: Macron has repeatedly praised German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door migration policy, which has allowed more than two million mostly Muslim migrants into Germany since January 2015.

    In a January 1, 2017 interview with Süddeutsche Zeitung, Macron accused critics of Merkel’s open-door migration policy of “disgraceful oversimplification.” He said: “Merkel and German society as a whole exemplified our common European values. They saved our collective dignity by accepting, accommodating and educating distressed refugees.”

    In a February 4 rally in Lyon, Macron mocked U.S. President Donald Trump’s pledge to build a wall with Mexico: “I do not want to build a wall. I can assure you there is no wall in my program. Can you remember the Maginot Line?” he said, referring to a failed row of fortifications that France built in the 1930s to deter an invasion by Germany.

  • Islamic Terrorism: Macron has said he believes the solution to jihadist terrorism is more European federalism: “Terrorism wants to destroy Europe. We must quickly create a sovereign Europe that is capable of protecting us against external dangers in order to better ensure internal security. We also need to overcome national unwillingness and create a common European intelligence system that will allow the effective hunting of criminals and terrorists.”
  • Islam: Macron has said he believes that French security policy has unfairly targeted Muslims and that “secularism should not be brandished to as a weapon to fight Islam.” At an October 2016 rally in Montpellier, he rejected President Hollande’s assertion that “France has a problem with Islam.” Instead, Macron said: “No religion is a problem in France today. If the state should be neutral, which is at the heart of secularism, we have a duty to let everybody practice their religion with dignity.” He also insisted that the Islamic State is not Islamic: “What poses a problem is not Islam, but certain behaviors that are said to be religious and then imposed on persons who practice that religion.”
  • National Defense: Macron supports NATO, and has pledged to increase French defense spending to reach 2% of GDP by 2025 — a level to which all NATO members agreed in 2006. At the same time, Macron believes in the need to create an “autonomous” European defense capability, also known as a European Army, which would duplicate military capabilities which already exist within NATO.

An Ifop poll for the Journal du Dimanche published on March 18 found that French voters are divided into “two quasi-equal blocks” about Macron’s honesty and his ability to govern. According to the survey, only 46% of French people believe he will be “able to guarantee the safety of the French people.” More than half (52%) of respondents said they were “worried” about Macron, while 52% said they doubted his honesty.

In an interview with BMFTV, Laurence Haïm, a Canal+ reporter who was accredited to the White House and who recently joined Macron’s team, described Macron as the “French Obama.” She added: “I think that in today’s world we need renewal, from someone young, who is not a politician. He wants to make the democratic revolution.”

So what is driving Macron’s political ascendancy? French analyst Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry explains:

“The best way to look at Macron is as a kind of anti-Le Pen, or, to stretch the bounds of logic even further, a ‘populist from the top.’ If Le Pen is anti-establishment, Macron is the incarnation of the French establishment, a graduate of ENA, the top civil service school that trains the country’s elites, and a member of the Inspection des Finances, the most elite civil service track. His only experience in the private sector is through the revolving door as an investment banker. And yet, Macron sounds off populist rhetoric: His candidacy, he says, is about sweeping out a corrupt system (even as he is supported by the vast majority of the French establishment).

“It would be only slightly churlish to say that the parts of the system Macron wants to do away with are the democratic ones; witness his full-throated support for the EU in a country that has rejected it at the polls. Macron supports various liberalizing reforms, and Angela Merkel’s welcoming policy towards migrants. He is, of course, a social liberal. In a country that takes culture very seriously, he has argued that there is ‘no such thing’ as French culture; rather, there are many cultures with which the French perform a kind of synthesis. His biggest donors seem to be French tax exiles residing in London and Brussels.

“In other words, he is the mirror image of the political realignment that is transforming Western politics. If the familiar motley crew of populists — Trump, Le Pen — are the candidates for those who lost out from globalization, then Macron is the candidate of the winners. In both cases, they seem to make old left-right divisions obsolete. If the Macron bubble doesn’t pop, this may portend the realignment, not just of French politics, but Western politics in general, away from the left-right division that has defined Western politics since the French Revolution, towards a division between the people and the elites.

Le Pen agrees. At a rally in Lyon on February 5, she said:

“The old left-right debates have outlived their usefulness. Primaries have shown that debates about secularism or immigration, as well as globalization or generalized deregulation, constitute a fundamental and transversal divide. This divide is no longer between the left and the right, but between patriots and globalists.

“The collapse of traditional parties and the systematic disappearance of almost all of their leaders shows that a great political re-composition has begun.”

At that same rally, Le Pen launched a two-pronged attack on globalization and radical Islam. She also promised French voters a referendum on remaining in the European Union in order “to allow us to recover our four sovereignties: monetary, economic, legislative and territorial.”

She went on to articulate exactly what is at stake for France in this election:

In all respects, this presidential election is unlike previous ones. Its outcome will determine the future of France as a free nation and our existence as a people.

After decades of errors and cowardice, we are at a crossroads. I say it with gravity: the choice we will have to make in this election is a choice of civilization.

The question is simple and cruel: will our children live in a free, independent, democratic country? Will they still be able to refer to our system of values? Will they have the same way of life as we did and our parents before us?

Will our children, and the children of our children, still have a job, a decent wage, the possibility of building up a patrimony, becoming an owner, starting a family in a safe environment, being properly cared for, to grow old with dignity?

Will our children have the same rights as us?

Will they live according to our cultural references, our values ​​of civilization, our style of living, and will they even speak our French language, which is disintegrating under the blows of political leaders who squander this national treasure — for example, by choosing a slogan in English to promote the candidacy of Paris to host the 2024 Olympic Games?

Will they have the right to claim French culture when certain candidates for the presidential election, puffed up by their own empty-headedness, explain that it does not exist?

I ask this important question because, unlike our adversaries, I am interested not only in the material heritage of the French, but I also want to defend our immaterial capital. This immaterial capital is priceless because this heritage is irreplaceable. In fact, I am defending the load-bearing walls of our society.

The choice for French voters is clear: Le Pen is the anti-establishment change candidate and Macron is the pro-establishment status quo candidate.

In the current French presidential election campaign, Marin Le Pen (right) is the anti-establishment change candidate and Emmanuel Macron (left) is the pro-establishment status quo candidate. (Image source: LCI video screenshot)

Le Pen is offering voters an historic opportunity to reassess relations with the European Union, reassert national sovereignty and stanch the flow of mass migration from the Muslim world. By contrast, Macron is offering voters increased European federalism, the transference of yet more national sovereignty to the European Union, and the further multiculturalization of French society.

If polls are any indication, French voters appear to be more comfortable with the status quo. The populist revolution that began in June 2016 when British voters decided to leave the European Union, and cross the Atlantic in November when Americans elected U.S. President Donald J. Trump, will not be spreading to France in 2017.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

 

Urgent Messages to the Muslim World

March 22, 2017

Urgent Messages to the Muslim World, Gatestone InstituteNonie Darwish, March 22, 2017

A dangerous message is being sent to the Muslim world by the West: There is nothing that moderate Muslims or anyone else should fear from radical Islamic terrorism! Look at us Western governments! We are bringing in refugees who cannot be vetted even if they are ISIS infiltrators. In fact, we in the West are so goodhearted that we are encouraging many organizations to operate legally in the West under the banner of the Muslim Brotherhood — even organizations that are sympathetic to the terrorist group Hamas and that are pledging to overthrow us!

The West, by taking all the Syrian refugees, is emptying Syria of any kind of resistance to the Caliphate (ISIS). The West’s compassion, by taking in the refugees escaping ISIS, will end up leaving only the radicals to rule unopposed in Syria and Iraq. This, in US foreign policy, is not compassion; it is gross negligence and reckless endangerment.

“Tough love” is badly needed when dealing with the Muslim world. We must say: No, we cannot accept your jihadist aspirations. We cannot accept you forcing your way of life on the world; your way of life is unacceptable to us. Before you send your refugees, you must end your “us against them” jihadist culture. The civilized world no longer finds your aspirations for an Islamic Caliphate tolerable.

The first reaction of the U.S. after 9/11 should have been to stop visas from all majority-Muslim countries, except for those of utmost importance. But our politicians’ hands were tied — not by fear of a backlash from Islamic countries, which probably expected a U.S. boycott, but by fear of a backlash from the Western media and Western progressives.

The decision to keep Muslims, refugees and others pouring into the US after 9/11 was wrong and has not done Islam and Muslim reformers a favor. Here is why:

The chaos and bloodshed in the Muslim world, even in the most moderate of Muslim nations, such as Turkey, is between Muslims who want to enforce Islamic sharia law, totally and upon everyone by a theocratic government, and those who want less sharia by installing military rule. The West does not understand that the only form of government that can stand up to a totalitarian Islamic theocracy is a military one and no other. Who could imagine that a military junta could be considered the only savior from Islamic tyrannies that require everyone to live totally, 100%, under the laws of sharia?

When former U.S. President Barack Obama honored the Muslim Brotherhood with his first major speech as president, who were his guests of honor in the first rows? Leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. The less-radical Islamist military form of governments in the Middle East were left out and thus weakened. Then Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who had a murky relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, got the message. He did not attend. With Obama’s move, the balance of power between the two combative forces over control of government immediately favored the Muslim Brotherhood. It officially, for the first time since its founding in 1928, took control of the Egyptian government after the 2011 chaos of the “Arab Spring.” A year later, 22 million Egyptians had to undergo a bloody counter-revolution to bring back the type of government Egyptians have always favored over an Islamic theocracy.

When former U.S. President Barack Obama gave his first major Presidential speech in Cairo, in 2009, his guests of honor in the first rows were leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. The less-radical Islamist military form of governments in the Middle East were left out and thus weakened. (Image source: White House)

Now, another, dangerous, message is being sent to the ordinary citizens of the Muslim world by the liberal West: There is nothing that moderate Muslims or anyone else should fear from the possible infiltration of radical Islam! Look at us, Western governments! We are bringing in refugees who cannot be vetted even if they are ISIS infiltrators. Although the Muslim Brotherhood is illegal and considered a terrorist organization in several Muslim countries, we in the West do not mind them at all. In fact, we in the West are so kind-hearted and welcoming that we are encouraging many organizations to operate legally in the West under the banner of the Muslim Brotherhood — even organizations that are sympathetic to the terrorist group Hamas and that are pledging to overthrow us! See how we are courageous, self-confident and free of “Islamophobia”!

By embracing the Muslim Brotherhood as not dangerous to free societies and by bringing in refugees from terror-infested areas of the Middle East, we are sending a message to moderate Muslims in the Middle East: Citizens in the West are not even bothering to protect their free system from being conquered by sharia-lovers, so perhaps the dreams of the Caliphate are not that bad after all.

The West, by taking all the Syrian refugees, is not just sending the above “unintended” message; it is also emptying Syria of any kind of resistance to the Caliphate (ISIS). The West’s compassion, by taking in the refugees escaping ISIS, will end up leaving only the radicals to rule unopposed in Syria and Iraq.

A US foreign policy that recommends absorbing unvetted Muslim refugees has been advocated as compassion, but in fact it is gross negligence and reckless endangerment to U.S. citizens, Western freedoms and democracy.

There are unintended consequences to rescuing all Muslim refugees:

  • We are telling Muslim reformists, wrongly, especially in the Middle East, that there is nothing to fear from ISIS infiltration.
  • By not declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terror organization we are yet again legitimizing and empowering it.
  • By not showing the proper angry response to Islamic terrorism, the West is not perceived as gracious, but as weak.

By taking in Islam and its refugees without proper vetting, the West is not doing either Islam or Muslims any favor: for the reformists, it is shutting out any hope of reform.

Tough love is badly needed when dealing with the Muslim world. We must say: No, we cannot accept your jihadist aspirations. We cannot accept you forcing your way of life on the world; your way of life is unacceptable to us. Before you send your refugees, you must end your “us against them” jihadist culture. The civilized world no longer finds your aspirations for an Islamic Caliphate tolerable.

If the West has the courage to do that, perhaps one day history will attribute the reformation of Muslim world partly to strength and conviction of Western resolve against tyranny and human suffering.

51 Nonprofits in Brussels Migrant District Suspected of Having Terror Links

March 21, 2017

Police have uncovered 51 groups with suspected terrorist ties in migrant-dominated Molenbeek, Brussels, a new report has disclosed.

by Virginia Hale

20 Mar 2017

Source: 51 Nonprofits in Brussels Migrant District Suspected of Having Terror Links – Breitbart

 

Police have uncovered 51 organisations with suspected terrorist ties in the migrant-dominated Molenbeek district of Brussels, according to a new report into anti-terror measures.

Belgium’s Interior Minister Jan Jambon promised to “clean up” the now-notorious municipality, which has a reputation for being a jihadi safe-haven, after authorities discovered the Brussels commune acted as a hub for many of the suspects involved in the Paris and Brussels terror attacks.

The confidential report revealed that under the Channel Plan, police have carried out door-to-door checks on more than 8,600 houses and 22,668 inhabitants — a quarter of all Molenbeek residents — in the last year, in a bid to tighten security.

Under the Channel Plan, which began a year ago and added 300 officers and €39 million to the force, police have produced a list of 72 terror suspects — 26 of whom live in Syria or Iraq and 46 who live in Belgium.

Of Belgium-based jihadists identified, 20 are incarcerated while the other 26 are “closely monitored” by authorities. However, the report revealed that only five of the terror suspects listed are being accompanied by deradicalisation staff.

In total, 6,168 people in Molenbeek are being monitored.

The Channel Plan also had police review the 1,617 NGOs and nonprofit groups situated in the district, with the report revealing police found at least 51 of these had links to terrorism and radical Islam and uncovered a further 102 which were associated with crime.

But deputy mayor of Molenbeek, Ahmed El Khannouss, is among voices who have condemned the “clean up” of the district, branding the Channel Plan “wicked and unjustified”.

“We thought we had overcome such practices [as inspecting mosques] since the Second World War when people were singled out for their religion — a thing which led to one of the worst ignominies of history,” he wrote in an open letter to Mr. Jambon.

The Union of Mosques of the Brussels Region (UMRB) and the Platform of Muslims of Belgium (PMB), too, attacked the programme, writing: “[Police] checks have been carried out with unjustifiable brutality. The prejudices and generalisations we see are not only harmful to our community but society as a whole.”

The groups argued that mosque inspections result in Muslim groups in Belgium feeling “stigmatised” and like they are the victim of “hatred and rejection” from non-Muslims in Belgium.

However, in February, a report by Belgium’s Coordination Unit for Threat Analysis (OCAD) warned radical Islam is spreading in the nation to the detriment of moderate Islam, and empowering extremist and jihadist groups.

Will the Dutch Protect their ‘Decadence’ from Islamic ‘Redeemers’?

March 19, 2017

Will the Dutch Protect their ‘Decadence’ from Islamic ‘Redeemers’? Gatestone InstituteGiulio Meotti, March 19, 2017

The Dutch and the Europeans should be proud of what Islamic fundamentalists call “decadence”, but they also must be ready to fight to defend it. “Safe spaces” are not enough. The world does not provide them. Otherwise, they will all end up in one of the “safe houses” that Geert Wilders’s puritanical tormentors have obliged him to spend his life in. “I am in jail”, he has said; “They are walking around free”.

********************************

“Erasmus… came to Holland because it was a haven for freedom of thought.” — Han ten Broeke, candidate for foreign minister in Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s government.

The Islamic supremacists in the Netherlands see themselves as redeemers, rescuing the West from Fortuyn’s “decadence”: drugs, prostitution, gay life, a blasphemous press. But will the Dutch establishment be able to defend these freedoms?

You can be gay, decadent and willing to fight for your freedoms. If you are just gay and decadent, you are doomed.

General elections in the Netherlands are over, but now begins a much bigger campaign: who will defend the famous Dutch freedoms?

Only in the Netherlands is it conceivable that a politician such as Geert Wilders, a brave maverick who for 13 years, 24 hours a day, has lived under police protection; held rallies while wearing a bulletproof vest; moved from one secret location to another one and was guarded as if he were an Asian potentate. The country has already had two political assassinations related to Islam: the politician Pim Fortuyn, and the filmmaker, Theo van Gogh. Another Dutch MP at the time, Ayaan Hirsi Ali — whose name, with Wilders’s, was next on the hit-list pinned with a knife to van Gogh’s corpse — ended up fleeing to the United States. Only Wilders’s protection, generously provided by the Dutch government, has so far avoided a third political murder.

The Netherlands has already had two political assassinations related to Islam: the politician Pim Fortuyn (left), and Theo van Gogh (right), a filmmaker. (Image sources: Van Gogh – Wikimedia Commons; Fortuyn – Forza! Nederland video screenshot)

In the Netherlands, the philosopher Baruch Spinoza became the prophet of tolerance, Karl Marx investigated capitalism and John Locke penned his “Letter on Tolerance”. The mainstream media has claimed that Wilders’s rise and the new “populist” shift of Prime Minister Mark Rutte (who, in January, told immigrants to “act normal or leave“) has been a betrayal of that Dutch tolerance. Exactly the opposite is true.

It is from this tolerance that hard Dutch liberalism gets the will to fight against intolerance. Tolerating the intolerant does not sound like the way to have tolerance continue. This is how the Dutch multiculturalists turned their great legacy upside-down. The Dutch see themselves as “Enlightenment fundamentalists“, upholding the values of Enlightenment — even in the Islamic world.

The question now is: will the Dutch defend these freedoms or instead gradually dismantle them? Dutch Minister of Justice Piet Donner recently suggesting introducing Islamic sharia law into the Netherlands by democratic means.

The “hard liberal” Dutch tradition goes back to Pim Fortuyn, a homosexual proud of the supposed “decadence” of his country, its tolerance, and the freedoms it offers. As the late British journalist Alexander Chancellor wrote:

“The Muslim fanatics berate the West for its decadence, and many in the west guiltily agree that they have a point, but Fortuyn did not think so. He crusaded on behalf of what many would regard as decadence, and was so concerned for its survival”.

Fortuyn considered permissiveness the heart of Western culture. He was a “hard liberal”, militantly defending the post-9/11 Judeo-Christian, Western values against Islamic intolerance, in the same way as Oriana Fallaci, Bat Ye’or, Michel Houellebecq and Geert Wilders have been trying to do.

After last week’s Dutch elections, it is time for the Netherlands to rediscover Pim Fortuyn’s legacy and ideas. A flamboyant, shaven-headed homosexual who taught sociology, Fortuyn wore elegant Italian suits, lived in a palatial home in Rotterdam and wrote a great book entitled, “The Islamization of Our Culture“. He promised resistance against Islam, “a cold war against Islam“, as he called it in an interview in Rotterdam’s Dagblad.

“You have said”, the newspaper Volkskrant reported in an interview, “that foreigners snatch all our blonde women, and then turn around and call them ‘whores'”. “No”, Fortuyn calmly corrected him. “I said Islamic men do that. That’s quite different, sir, than ‘foreigners'”. Then, the Volkskrant asked, in what would become the defining moment of Pim Fortuyn’s life, “why the hate toward Islam?”. “I do not hate Islam”, Fortuyn said. “I find it a backward culture. I’ve traveled a great deal in the world; and wherever Islam rules, it is appalling”.

The Islamic supremacists in the Netherlands see themselves as “redeemers,” rescuing the West from Fortuyn’s “decadence”: drugs, prostitution, gay life, a blasphemous press. Will the Dutch establishment be able to defend these freedoms?

“Decadence” can become lethal for a country when it turns into hedonism, devirilization, the decline of education, and loss of historical memory. By “decadence”, however, Islamic supremacists seem to mean all Western freedoms, not just Dutch permissiveness. But these freedoms are what we should be proud of. And these are what we must be ready to fight to protect. Fortuyn did, and he paid the ultimate price: his own life. Theo van Gogh also did with his film on the submission of women under Islam. After van Gogh was slaughtered by Mohammed Bouyeri, the film immediately disappeared from public view.

The Dutch Left also needs to rediscover its roots. A debate about integration was started in the Netherlands not by the “xenophobic” right wing parties, but by Paul Scheffer, a respected academic belonging to the Labour Party, who in 2000 wrote an essay entitled, “The Multicultural Disaster” — before Fortuyn and Wilders had ever entered the picture. Scheffer wrote of a lenient Dutch people whose multicultural policies had failed to promote the Dutch culture in immigrant communities. Unfortunately, the Dutch Left took the opposite path and that is why it was severely beaten in the election last week.

Mark Rutte’s party also has a lot to learn from this hard liberalism. It was the liberals who put into practice many of Fortuyn’s ideas: banning the burqa, which many Muslims call a way of “protecting” their women, but others call a symbol of Islam dominating women. Prime Minister Rutte’s reaction against the Turkish Republic’s interference in Dutch life would be unthinkable in other European countries: Rutte, fearing Wilders’ rise, stood for his country’s independence and refused to bow to Islamist pressure to allow Turkish President Erdogan’s ministers to address a rally in Rotterdam.

In France, in fact, the authorities allowed Turkish rallies, and thereby showed a submissive mentality to political Islam. Rutte and the Dutch would be wise continue on their road, which is what allowed Rutte to retain his government. Fiscal conservatism may be important, but Western values are, too.

After Fortuyn’s murder, Wilders set himself as the “defender of liberalism“: on gender equality, separation of church and state, and personal autonomy. Unlike many liberals in the United States and Canada, however, Wilders is not willing to surrender these freedoms to Islam. Liberals and feminists in the United States refuse to stand for women’s rights in the Muslim world. They never raise the question of the separation of mosque and state. Instead, they blamed the carnage that the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo suffered in 2015 on freedom of expression.

Did the Dutch “hard liberals” ever think about Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s brave battle for female rights under Islam, Theo van Gogh and other Dutch journalists, or the crusade Wilders has been leading to protect the country from Islamist intolerance?

Why are the LGBT militants not condemning the crimes of Islam, as Pim Fortuyn did? The editor of an LGBT magazine in Bangladesh was just hacked to death by Islamists; how come no one from the LGBT community in the West condemned or spoke out about it? Why are gay activists keeping silent about homosexuals being murdered by Islamists after, in Florida, a Muslim terrorist butchered 50 of them?

You can be gay, decadent and willing to fight for your freedom. If you are just gay and decadent, you are doomed.

Han ten Broeke, a candidate for foreign minister in Rutte’s government, recently justified the Dutch ban of Turkish ministers by noting that Erasmus came to the Netherlands “because it was a haven for freedom of thought”. This Erasmian tolerance remains very strong at the heart of the Dutch identity, but the presence, among them, of non-European, illiberal Muslims keeps testing the limits of it. The Dutch libertines and libertarians in line with Fortuyn and Wilders do not seem willing to commit suicide, unlike the liberals of Middlebury College in the US, who seem busy trying to lynch any conservative who stops by their campus.

The Dutch and the Europeans should be proud of what Islamic fundamentalists call “decadence”, but they also must be ready to fight to defend it. “Safe spaces” are not enough. The world does not provide them. Otherwise, they will all end up in one of the “safe houses” that Geert Wilders’s puritanical tormentors have obliged him to spend his life in. “I am in jail”, he has said; “They are walking around free”.