Sometimes it’s the little things that are most telling. In Switzerland it has long been customary for students to shake the hands of their teachers at the beginning and end of the school day. It’s a sign of solidarity and mutual respect between teacher and pupil, one that is thought to encourage the right classroom atmosphere. Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga recently felt compelled to further explain that shaking hands was part of Swiss culture and daily life.
And the reason she felt compelled to speak out about the handshake is that two Muslim brothers, aged 14 and 15, who have lived in Switzerland for several years (and thus are familiar with its mores), in the town of Therwil, near Basel, refused to shake the hands of their teacher, a woman, because, they claimed, this would violate Muslim teachings that contact with the opposite sex is allowed only with family members. At first the school authorities decided to avoid trouble, and initially granted the boys an exemption from having to shake the hand of any female teacher. But an uproar followed, as Mayor Reto Wolf explained to the BBC: “the community was unhappy with the decision taken by the school. In our culture and in our way of communication a handshake is normal and sends out respect for the other person, and this has to be brought [home] to the children in school.”
Therwil’s Educational Department reversed the school’s decision, explaining in a statement on May 25 that the school’s exemption was lifted because “the public interest with respect to equality between men and women and the integration of foreigners significantly outweighs the freedom of religion.”It added that a teacher has the right to demand a handshake. Furthermore, if the students refused to shake hands again “the sanctions called for by law will be applied,” which included a possible fine of up to 5,000 dollars.
This uproar in Switzerland, where many people were enraged at the original exemption granted to the Muslim boys, did not end after that exemption was itself overturned by the local Educational Department. The Swiss understood quite clearly that this was more than a little quarrel over handshakes; it was a fight over whether the Swiss would be masters in their own house, or whether they would be forced to yield, by the granting of special treatment, to the Islamic view of the proper relations between the sexes. It is one battle – small but to the Swiss significant – between o’erweening Muslim immigrants and the indigenous Swiss.
Naturally, once the exemption was withdrawn, all hell broke loose among Muslims in Switzerland. The Islamic Central Council of Switzerland, instead of yielding quietly to the Swiss decision to uphold the handshaking custom, criticized the ruling in hysterical terms, claiming that the enforcement of the handshaking is “totalitarian” (!) because its intent is to “forbid religious people from meeting their obligations to God.” That, of course, was never the “intent” of the long-standing handshaking custom, which was a nearly-universal custom in Switzerland, and in schools had to do only with encouraging the right classroom atmosphere of mutual respect between instructor and pupil, of which the handshake was one aspect. The Swiss formulation of the problem – weighing competing claims — will be familiar to Americans versed in Constitutional adjudication. In this case “the public interest with respect to equality” of the sexes and the “integration of foreigners” (who are expected to adopt Swiss ways, not force the Swiss to exempt them from some of those ways) were weighed against the “religious obligations to God” of Muslims, and the former interests found to outweigh the latter.
What this case shows is that even at the smallest and seemingly inconsequential level, Muslims are challenging the laws and customs of the Infidels among whom they have been allowed to settle. Each little victory, or defeat, will determine whether Muslims will truly integrate into a Western society or, instead, refashion that society to meet Muslim requirements. The handshake has been upheld and, what’s more, a stiff fine now will be imposed on those who continue to refuse to shake hands with a female teacher. This is a heartening sign of non-surrender by the Swiss. But the challenges of the Muslims within Europe to the laws and customs of the indigenes have no logical end and will not stop. And the greater the number of Muslims allowed to settle in Europe, the stronger and more frequent their challenges will be. They are attempting not to integrate, but rather to create, for now, a second, parallel society, and eventually, through sheer force of numbers from both migration and by outbreeding the Infidels, to fashion not a parallel society but one society — now dominated by Muslims.
The Swiss handshaking dispute has received some, but not enough, press attention. Presumably, it’s deemed too inconsequential a matter to bother with. But the Swiss know better. And so should we.
There’s an old Scottish saying that in one variant reads: “Many a little makes a mickle.” That is, the accumulation of many little things leads to one big thing. That’s what’s happening in Europe today. This was one victory for the side of sanity. There will need to be a great many more.
If a thing goes without saying it goes even better if it is said. It has long been clear that Islamic Sharia law was incompatible with conventions on human rights regarding the place of women in the legal order and in all spheres of private and public life. Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights in a decision of July 31, 2001 that the “institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime were incompatible with the requirements od a democratic society.”
Everyone genuinely concerned about the issue of gender equality and the fundamental rights of women will be pleased with the announcement by Theresa May, British Home Secretary, on May 25, 2016, that the British government is to launch a full official independent review of the application of Islamic sharia law in England and Wales, and of the role of Sharia courts and Muslim arbitration tribunals.
May is concerned that women have been victims of discriminatory decisions taken by Sharia courts. The review will focus on a number of issues, primarily the treatment of women in divorce, domestic violence, and custody cases. It will not be a review of the whole of Sharia law, which is the basis of guidance for Muslims who stay true to their religion.
In Britain today there are thought to be 85 Sharia courts or councils which rule in family and inheritance disputes between Muslims who agree to be bound by the decisions. Sharia law is based on the Koran, and the rulings since the 7th century by fatwas of Islamic scholars. Many of those rulings are concerned with prayers, fasting, donations to the poor, and the nature and degree of punishment, whether cutting off hands or death of women by stoning for adultery, for offenders. The most controversial concern the ill treatment of and the discrimination against women.
The review ordered by Secretary May is to be carried out by a panel chaired by Professor Mona Siddiqui , Professor of Islamic and Interreligious Studies at the University of Edinburgh, a specialist in Islamic law, and will include family law experts and a retired High Court judge, and advised by two Imans said to be religious and theological experts.
The essential basis of the review is to assess if sharia law has been and is being misused or exploited in a way incompatible with British law and is discriminating against certain groups especially women, and if it is causing harm in communities. The Home Office of the British government asserted there was evidence that some Sharia courts and councils were acting in a “discriminatory and unacceptable way.” In particular, British officials were concerned with the courts legitimized forced marriages and issuing divorce settlements that were unfair to women. This contradicts British law, as well as international law, which provides rights and security for all citizens.
Secretary Teresa May had already in March 2015 spoken of Muslim women being left penniless after they were “divorced.” Worse, they were forced to remain in abusive relationships because Sharia councils had decided that an Islamic husband has a right to chastise his wife. Part of the problem is that Muslim women may be unaware of their rights to leave violent husbands.
Many of the difficulties facing Muslim women were discussed in a book, Choosing Sharia? by a Dutch scholar Machteld Zee who gained unprecedented access to and attended hours of divorce hearings and marital disputes at London’s Sharia Council and the Birmingham Central Mosque Sharia. Her detailed analysis of seven cases is disturbing with their evidence of overwhelming discrimination against women.
Zee concluded that judges were not mean, they were acting on the basis of Islam, that women are dependent on husbands and clerics. Her conclusion was that Islamic women are in a situation of “marital captivity,” and are not protected from domestic violence. Men are dominant in the relationship and benefit from Sharia court decisions and from the strong cultural pressures and the tight knit Islamic communities that uphold masculine superiority, and which condone violence against women.
The wider issue is the compatibility of Sharia court decisions with British law, values, policies, and principles. On one hand, a Sharia judge has asserted that divorces granted in British courts are worthless to Muslims. More to the point, the ECHR in 2001 said that Sharia law is incompatible with liberal democracy.
What is most important is that the Muslim leaders are not addressing the rights of women. It hardly need a full inquiry to ascertain that it is illegal for any arbitration tribunal, especially Sharia courts, to act in a manner that constitutes discrimination, harassment, or victimization on the grounds of sex.
Nevertheless, It is therefore welcoming that in addition to the new review of Secretary May , that a bill has been proposed in March 2016 by Baroness Cox in the British House of Lords making it illegal for an administrative tribunal to do anything that constitutes such discrimination. If passed, the bill would ensure that Sharia courts issue rulings that are compatible with the British Equality. Women’s rights groups must make sure that they do.
The Obama administration has the power to sanction key Russian arms sales to Iran, but has so far abstained from exercising this right under U.S. law, prompting some in Congress to question whether the administration is “acquiescing” to the arms sales in order to appease Iran, according to conversations with sources and recent congressional correspondence to the White House exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
President Barack Obama has the authority under U.S. law to designate as illegal Russia’s contested sale to Iran of the S-300 missile system, an advanced long-range weapon that would boost the Islamic Republic’s regional military might.
However, the administration has declined for weeks to clarify its stance on new sanctions, despite expressing opposition to the sale. Administration officials have further declined to answer questions from the Free Beacon and other outlets about whether the president will consider taking action in the future.
The administration’s hesitance to act has prompted a new congressional inquiry, the Free Beacon has learned, and has sparked accusations that the White House is not exercising its sanction authority in order to prevent Iran from walking away from last summer’s nuclear deal.
Rep. Steve Chabot (R., Ohio) sent an inquiry to the White House about the matter more than a month ago. The White House has not responded.
“Given the series implications for the United States and our allies in the region, I respectfully request that you quickly determine that Russia’s transfer of S-300 surface-to-air missile systems advance Iran’s efforts to acquire ‘destabilizing numbers and types of advances conventional weapons’ and impose the necessary U.S. sanctions once the Russian delivery takes place,” Chabot wrote to the White House on April 7, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Free Beacon.
Chabot outlined concern “that without such a determination the United States may be viewed as acquiescing to this transfer” of a major defensive weapons system to Iran.
Chabot told the Free Beacon on Thursday the administration has not responded to multiple inquiries about the potential designation.
“Despite multiple inquires to the U.S. Department of State, I still have not received a response on Russia’s S300 surface-to-air missile system transfer to Iran,” Chabot said. “This apparent dismissal leaves me wondering what exactly the Administration is hiding. I am really asking a simple question – is the introduction of a sophisticated weapon system into Iran, that has not been there previously, going to elicit the appropriate U.S. sanctions response? I am not sure why the Administration has found it so hard to come to a determination. The S300 is one of the most advanced anti-aircraft missile system’s in the world and significantly bolsters Iran’s offensive capabilities and stands as a serious hurdle to our efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear armed state. This is absolutely a destabilizing conventional weapon system.”
When contacted for comment, a State Department official told the Free Beacon that the administration has not made a final determination about whether the S-300 sale would trigger additional U.S. sanctions.
“We’re continuing to closely follow reports concerning the delivery of the S-300 defensive missile system from Russia to Iran?,” the official said. “We have not made a determination as to whether this delivery, if and when complete, would trigger any actions under U.S. authorities.”
“These systems would significantly bolster Iran’s offensive capabilities and introduce new obstacles to our efforts to eliminate the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. I believe existing U.S. sanctions should be used to deter Russia from transferring this or other dangerous weapons systems to Iran,” Chabot said.
The sale is technically permitted under current United Nations resolutions governing weapons sales. However, the Obama administration has the right to veto certain arms sales at the U.N. Security Council. The administration has not committed to doing so.
U.S. law also grants the president the right to designate such sales as illicit and therefore open to sanctions.
The Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992 grants the president authority to sanction the sale of “advanced conventional weapons” to Iran by any nation.
“U.S. law provides your administration with the authority to apply U.S. sanctions in response” to the sale, Chabot explains in his letter. “For example, the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act and the Iran Sanctions Act provide authority for you to sanction individuals or countries that you determine are aiding Iran’s efforts to acquire or develop ‘destabilizing numbers and types of advanced conventional weapons.’”
Sanctions would kick in if the president decides that such a sale would destabilize the Middle East and shift regional balance.
“Iran’s acquisition of these systems would embolden Tehran to adopt a more threatening regional posture and to pursue offensive activities detrimental to regional stability in the belief that the systems would deter retaliation,” according to Chabot.
Reporters as well as lawmakers have attempted for weeks to get an answer from the administration about whether the president would make such a determination.
One foreign policy adviser who works closely with Congress on the Iran issue told the Free Beacon that the administration can no longer waffle on the issue.
“The administration tried to look the other way, but got called out for it by Congress. Then they spent a month and a half hoping that the whole thing would go away,” the source said. “Now I don’t know what they’re going to do, since it’s obvious that they’re letting Iran import advanced weapons in violation of U.S. law just to preserve the nuclear deal.”
Rita Panahi, Herald-Sun Columnist, Draws Attention to Muslim Contempt For Infidel Law
Ms Panahi, who appears to be a Muslim For Identification Purposes Only (her parents fled Iran for Australia not long after Khomeini seized power) makes some very useful points in this little article that focuses on something that has been happening not only in Australia but in many other Infidel lands: Muslim defendants - and / or their attendant mohammedan cheer squads - refusing to observe the custom of standing when the Judge enters the court.
'We Can't Stand For Blatant Disrespect For Our Courts and Society.
"The lack of respect on display at Melbourne Magistrates' Court last week illustrates the disdain that some citizens have for our laws and institutions.
'More than a dozen supporters of the five men (that is: five Muslim men, some of them converts to Islam - CM) charged with terrorism-related offences refused to stand for a female magistrate because Allah forbids it.
Of course, male magistrates and other senior representatives of the Law have been similarly disrespected by Muslims in Infidel courts. - CM
'Apparently, abiding by the custom of rising for a magistrate "would make her equal to God" and their prophet Muhammad demands that "they stand for no-one but Allah".
'The magistrate condemned the behaviour as "absolutely disrespectful" (as indeed it was - CM) but allowed the men to stay in court to observe proceedings.
Wrong! They should have been hit with Contempt of Court and punished accordingly. Esmerelda: you were a court reporter; I think you might have a few words of commentary on this, from a background of far greater experience of such things than I have. - CM
'Outside court the supporters claimed that their act of disobedience was motivated by the teaching of the prophet and that in a free democracy "the court should respect our religious beliefs".
'I wonder what the prophet Muhammad had to say about accepting handouts from Kafirs? Or engaging in haram behaviour with women you are not married to, or maintaining a bank account from which you receive or pay interest.
The answer to that, Ms Panahi, is simple. Accepting handouts from kafir can be rationalised as receiving the Jizya. Sexual exploitation of non-Muslim females is routine within the dar al Islam; they are 'possessions of the right hand'. Hundreds of Hindu and Christian females in Pakistan are seized, raped, sometimes pimped and sold off as prostitutes, sometimes 'married' and kept as concubines, every year. And nobody turns a hair. That is what infidel - de facto Dhimmi - females are for. Think of what is done to the non-Muslim Indian and Filipina maids, in Arabia. Nobody cares. They are there to be used and abused. And as for sexual use of the 'uncovered meat' in the Dar al Harb... well... if the mohammedan thinks he can get away with it, he can rationalise sex with infidel females as enjoyment of war booty. And as regards bank accounts that earn interest? - There is a concept to cover that sort of thing - Muruna. Muslims are allowed to do all sorts of unislamic things if it's possible to rationalise those accommodations as means to an end, the end being the expansion of the Muslim presence and Muslim power. - CM
'It seems some 'devout' Muslims who steadfastly refuse to assimilate are rather selective about what parts of the Koran they follow.
Long, long ago, David Hume observed that expediency appeared to be a major feature of Islam. "No steady rule of right seems there [in Islam] to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers." And since the end-goal of Islam is total world domination, anything that involves dominating and domineering over the kuffar is permissible. - CM
'Respecting Australian laws and ucstoms, such as standing for a magistrate or judge, should be non-negotiable.
Yes. - CM
'Any attempt to placate recalcitrant hotheads (sic: dangerous fanatics - CM) by giving in to their unreasonable demands, will only lead to greater shows of disrespect and non-compliance.
Rita speaks from experience. Her family - who were lax Muslims, and quite content with the strongly secularised state of society under the late Shah - witnessed the process by which the sharia pushers (Shiite variety), led by Khomeini, took over Iran. - CM
'Islamists who exploit the freedoms of this nation to follow their twisted ideology (sic: there is nothing twisted about it, unless one were to rewrite this sentence as "Muslim true believers who exploit the freedoms of this nation to impose the mores of their totalitarian death cult" - CM) have the gall to demand we respect their belief system while they deride Western values of equality and democracy.
'Their bigoted ideology doesn't deserve our respect; it's one that seeks to subjugate women, nonbelievers, homosexuals, and anybody else who doesn't subscribe to their warped world view.
Do you still identify in some sense as a Muslim, Ms Panahi? Because I think this needs to be put more plainly. These guys are following Islam; their belief system is totally recognisable as historic Islam, from any period of Muslim history one might care to name. Let's rewrite your last paragraph.
"Islam doesn't deserve respect. It seeks to subjugate women, non-believers, homosexuals, and anybody else who refuses to Submit." - CM
'What happened in Melbourne last week is not an isolated incident. There have been multiple instances of Muslim defendants failing to abide by the most basic custom of rising for a magistrate.
'It has happened with such regularity that the NSW government proposed new laws earlier this month to make failure to stand for a judge punishable by up to 14 days jail and a $1100 fine.
'Less than a week after the new offence of "disrespectful behaviour in court" was tabled in Parliament, a habitual offender refused requests to stand for Judge Jane Culver in the Parramatta District Court.
'Milad bin Ahmad-Shah Al-Ahmadzai, who has consistently refused to stand for Judge Culver throughout his trial, was appearing on audiovisual link from Goulburn jail, when he turned his back on proceedings and began to pray.
'The judge eventually left the bench in frustration, and the sentencing was postponed.
'Al-Ahmadzai may be only 25 but has thus far failed to stand up for multiple judges in his criminal career, claiming that he is "not at all at the behest of any authority other than Islam".
'Two years ago he refused to stand as he pleaded guilty to threatening to slit the throat and break the neck of an ASIO officer.
'Six months later, in front of another judge, he again refused to stand as he was arraigned on charges of aggravated breaking and entering.
'You'd think the continued non-compliance would lead to further legal strife for Al-Ahmadzai, but when the matter was referred to the NSW Attorney-General, the legal advice intimated that refusing to stand for a judge did not meet the threshold of contempt of court.
'It turns out that the Islamist has far greater legal issues to contend with, after being found guilty in March this year of a brutal attack against a man outside a gay club.
'The victim, Michael Rooke was beaten and shot three times as he attempted to crawl away from his attackers; astonishingly, he survived, but one can only hope that it'll be some time before Al-Ahmadzai is released from prison.
Whether Al-Ahmadzai was born in Australia or whether he came here as a migrant, it is plain that he has absolute contempt for everything and everyone in Australia that is not-Islam, and that his Australian citizenship is merely a sort of tactical convenience. At some point, laws need to be changed in order to deal with these deadly Fifth Columnists of the Ummah in our midst. - CM
'Islamists refusing to stand for magistrates and judges is not a new phenomenon.
'We saw it 10 years ago when 13 Melbourne men (that is, '13 Melbourne-based Muslims' - CM) were ordered to stand trial for plotting terrorist attacks, and a number of them refused to stand, firstly in the Melbourne Magistrates' court, and later in the Supreme Court.
'Incredibly, Justice Bernard Bongiorno allowed the men - including former aviation engineer and terror group leader Abdul Nacer Benbrika who was planning to kill as many kafirs as possible by bombing the MCG (Melbourne Cricket Ground) on grand final day - to not stand. Benbrika was facing a maximum 25 year prison term but was eventually sentenced to 15 years jail with a non-parole period of 12, and remains committed to violent jihad.
The laws are going to have to be changed so that creatures like Benbrika can be removed from the country and returned to the Muslim land from which they or their parents originally came. - CM
'Incidentally, one of the men in court last week is Benbrika's son-in-law. His brother is a hate preacher who was among the supporters in court who refused to stand for the magistrate. What a destructive circle of hate and ruin.
And why do we continue to put up with them? It was stupid to let them in in the first place; it is stupid to permit them to remain. The laws will have to be changed so that such as they can be stripped of citizenship and deported. I just don't see any other way out of this mess that we have gotten into. - CM
'We know that radical Islam is incompatible with Australian values.
Correction: Islam is incompatible with Australian values. Ms Panahi, I would invite you - if you still call yourself Muslim - to reflect upon the character and career of Magdi Cristiano Allam, and screw up your courage to ditch Islam altogether. - CM
'Refusing to stand in court may be considered trivial by some, but it speaks of an attitude that msut not be borne or ignored.
Yes. - CM
'There is nothing to be gained, and plenty to be lost, by tolerating abhorrent attitudes in the interests of cultural or religious diversity".
Yes. If we continue to appease the Muslims we will end up losing our country and our freedom and quite probably our very lives.
Post scriptum: I encourage anyone who reads this to click on the link and read the many Comments to Ms Panahi's article. They show that there are not a few Aussies who have a very clear understanding of exactly what is going on. - CM
'Canberra Man Charged With Rape of Sex Worker Says Brother Is To Blame".
'Lawyers for a Canberra man (that is: 'A Canberra-resident Muslim man' - CM) charged with threatening and raping a sex worker have told the ACT Magistrates Court it was a case of mistaken identity, and his brother is to blame.
Gee, see how these Muslims love each other.. One bro pointing the finger at another. - CM
'Mohammad Alabbasi, 20, was arrested at his home in Kaleen and faces five charges including robbery, detaining a person, and rape.
'He has been refused bail by Chief Magistrate Lorraine Walker.
'According to a police statement of facts, the alleged victim arranged over the phone to meet with a man at an apartment within the Astin Apartments on Northbourne Avenue on Tuesday afternoon.
'The man had booked a half-hour session, and identified himself as "Ali".
'Shortly after the woman let him inside the apartment, he produced a box cutter, threatened her, and demanded cash.
It would be interesting to know the exact substance of the threats - I would assume threatening to slit throat or behead - and the amount of cash demanded. - CM
'The alleged victim pleaded with the man that she had no money, and ran for the door, but he slammed it shut before she could escape.
'The man told the victim, "Well, let's just have sex then", and proceeded to rape the woman before leaving.
Mohammedans do not keep 'deals' that they make with Infidels. The 'deal' between a prostitute and her customer is that she provides sexual services and he, having received those services, hands over an agreed-upon sum of money. This Mohammedan made a verbal agreement then trapped and threatened the woman, demanded that she hand him money, and then used her for sex, against her will, without paying her. He is a thief, a fraud and a liar as well as a rapist. And in all of that he is a small-scale replica of the 6th century warlord, caravan robber, slave-trader, treaty-breaker and rapist whose name he bears. - CM
'The woman immediately contacted a friend, who then contacted police.
'Police traced the mobile number used to make the original booking to Alabbasi, and attended his Kaleen address on Wednesday night.
'He was charged with attempted aggravated robbery, forcible confinement, two counts of sexual assault without consent, and sexual assault in the third degree.
And every item on that charge sheet is something that was done by the original so-called 'prophet' Mohammed, the warlord, caravan-robber, rapist and slave-trader whom all pious Muslims are taught to view as an excellent example of conduct. - CM
'Police also seized clothing at his home, matching that worn by the man described by the victim.
'Alabbasi's lawyer told the court that his client claimed he drove his brother to and from the Northbourne Avenue address.
'During questioning from prosecutors, Constable Benjamin Stewart told the court both Alabbasi and his brother were suspects in a similar incident in March.
Hmmm. So they have 'form'. Question: what of the forensics? Even if the rapist used a condom, surely there should be fingerprints and/ or traces of DNA left at the crime scene, sufficient to determine which of the two mohammedan thugs did the deed. - CM
'He [Constable Stewart] said the victim from that offence was planning to leave the ACT due to concerns for her welfare.
In other words, the Brothers Alabbasi and/ or other members of the Mohammadan Mob have been making threats? - CM
'Alabbasi will be back in court on May 18'.
Thus much, the ABC. And now for Megan Gorrey of the 'Canberra Times', with rather more detail.
'Kaleen Man Charged With Raping, Threatening Sex Worker Denied Bail".
'A Kaleen man, who allegedly threatened a sex worker with a box cutter, before repeatedly raping her in an inner city apartment, has been denied bail.
'Mohammed Alabbasi, 20, claimed his brother had committed the alleged attack on the woman after he borrowed the phone to arrange a meeting with a sex worker earlier this week.
What does the brother say? Neither this report nor the ABC report tell us what the brother says or said on the subject. - CM
'Alabbasi did not enter pleas to two charges of sexual intercourse without consent, third degree sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and attempted aggravated robbery using force, when he fronted the ACT Magistrates Court on Thursday.
'Court documents said the female sex worker was working from an apartment in Braddon when she received a phone call from a man, who identified himself as "Ali" (hmmm; is an "Ali" the Mohammedan equivalent of what western prostitutes refer to as a " john"? - CM), requesting a half an hour service on Tuesday.
'The pair met in the apartment block's foyer before they went back to the woman's room, where she briefly asked him about payment before he abruptly said he needed to wash his hands.
'When he emerged from the bathroom a few minutes later, the woman told him the appointment would cost $350 and he started searching through his pockets.
'She then noticed he did not have his wallet on him.
'The man then allegedly pulled a box cutter from his pocket and waved the blade in the woman's face as he repeatedly demanded cash (what amount? - CM) and said, "Just give me the money and I'll go".
'The woman managed to escape and run to the apartment door, before the man allegedly slammed the door shut, blocked it (locked it? - CM) and pushed the woman into a wall.
'As he held her there he continued to wave the box cutter in hfer face, demanding money before he said, "Well, let's just have sex then."
'Court documents said the man then raped her, and the woman later told police she was hyperventilating and felt dizzy and nauseous.
'She pretended to faint, so the man would leave, but he told her to "keep going", court documents said. He sexually assaulted her twice more before he left the apartment.
'The woman immediately phoned a friend, who reported the incident to police.
'She provided police with a description of the alleged offender and later underwent a medical examination.
'Police searched Alabbasi's home on Wednesday and seized a mobile phone that matched the number in the woman's phone. In an interview with police, Alabbasi admitted the phone was his, but said his brother had borrowed it on Tuesday to look for a prostitute using the website Cracker.
'He said his brother had exchanged texts with a woman and the defendant had waited in the car while his brother went to meet her at a Braddon apartment.
Now, where is this brother? What is the brother's story? Bear in mind the little item from the ABC report in which one of the cops notes that Alabbasi and his brother are suspects in a similar attack on a prostitute that took place in March. - CM
'Alabbasi was arrested on Wednesday and his Legal Aid duty lawyer applied for bail.
'The court heard he was a recent immigrant and on a bridging visa.
So: he doesn't have Aussie citizenship! Thanks be for small mercies. Can somebody please explain to me why a man like this should be even considered for a permanent residency, let alone citizenship, in future? This man and his brother are now implicated in two rather nasty, grubby, sneaky attacks on Aussie 'working girls'. Do we need the likes of this Alabbasi? We have plenty of common-or-garden crooks of our own, already; we don't need to boost their numbers by importing those who are not merely crooks but belong to an entire cult devoted to the slavish adulation and emulation of a mass-murdering rapist, slave-trader and warlord.
'He had family ties in the ACT, where he had lived for a couple of years.
I don't care two pins for his 'family ties'. The brother, to repeat, is a suspect in a previous crime of similar nature. We don't need people like this. We don't want them. We shouldn't be required to admit them in the first place, or to keep them once they've got in through the gate. Gates open both ways. Deport! Deport! Deport! Surely there would be forensic evidence - dna, hair, clothing fibres, fingerprints - that can nail this bastard; jail him for the maximum period set down by law for the offences with which he has been charged, then, sentence served, return him to wherever it was in the Dar al Islam that he came from in the first place. His brother, too. If the rest of the family don't like the idea of being separated from him, they can leave, too. - CM
'Chief Magistrate Lorraine Walker said she was not concerned that the defendant would fail to appear in court if bail was granted.
I would be. Mohammedans don't keep agreements with infidels. But on the other hand, if he were to "flit" all the way back to the Dar al Islam, that would be, all things considered, a good outcome, so long as he never returned. - CM
'But she was concerend about the serious nature of the alleged offences, and the strenght of the evidence before the court.
'She acknowledge Alabbasi's claims that his brother was the offender, but his phone linked him to the incident.
'Ms Walker denied bail.
'The case returns to court later this month".
Meanwhile, one hopes that word will be spread quickly amongst the ladies of negotiable affection, in Canberra, and elsewhere; stick to Infidel customers. Mohammedans will very probably lie, cheat, threaten, and take the goods without payment. - CM
When my wife, the late Dr. Betty Roger Rubenstein, and I were in Japan when I was president of the University of Bridgeport (ca 1998), somebody told the Mayor of Hiroshima that I was the author of After Auschwitz. The mayor invited Betty and me to visit Hiroshima, which we did. I suspect that there was some politics involved as some of the officials we met at Hiroshima saw the American nuclear attack on their city as the Japanese Auschwitz, I did not want to argue with my hosts. I saw Auschwitz as a genocidal attack n people who had already surrendered. In reality, the puropose of the attack on Hiroshima was to compel the Japanese to surrender. Once they surrendered, they were in no further danger from the Americans. I hope President Obama is mindful of the difference between Hiroshima and Auschwitz when he speaks at Hiroshima.
Auntie Does Dawa, or, Islamopuffery On Stilts: ABC Reports on Muslim Fashion Exhibition in Australia
Doing the dawa-artists' work for them by representing the Mohammedan female gang uniform, or to put it more vulgarly, slave rag, as just soooo amazing and all those be-hijabbed Muslimahs as sooo modern and hip and 'just like us', except of course, so much more virtuous than the slutty infidel tarts whose garb, being non-Islamic, is - whatever it might happen to be - ipso facto not 'modest'.
You will observe, whilst reading this article, that the word "Muslim" appears in the headline and eight more times in the course of a relatively brief report. I would suggest then going back and perusing the other article I have just reproduced and commented upon, an article describing the arrest and charging of a Sydney-resident Muslim man who was involved with a large Muslim plot to conduct a mass-murderous ghazi terror raid aimed at Australian government workers.
Ask yourself why Islam should be discreetly airbrushed out of one report and glowingly placed front and centre in the other.
And ask yourself a further question: why do we not see any breathless reports doing free publicity for, inter alia, a "Jewish clothing exhibition" or a "Hindu clothing exhibition" or a "Buddhist clothing exhibition" or a "Sikh clothing exhibition" or a "Christian (or, to be more specific, Amish, or Catholic, or Orthodox, or Anglican) clothing exhibition"?
And let's also ask ourselves why it is women's clothing, only, and not men's, that features in this exhibition of "Muslim" fashion. Somebody should protest in the name of gender equality! Where are the male mannequins sporting bushy sharia-compliant henna-dyed beards (no moustache, though), and sharia-compliant trousers hemmed up to be the regulation height above the ankle, and made up to display splendidly-developed zebibahs, and various interpretations of Muslim male headgear - the fez, the turban, the kefi - and of course, no silk shirts permitted, and no gold chains.
"Modesty Meets Modern Fashion in Muslim Clothing Exhibition On Display in Canberra".
Modesty, Modern, Muslim. Nice bit of alliteration, there, from whoever concocted the headline. Note the subliminal message - that Modesty = Muslim Female Dress. Ergo, if you are female and not wearing Muslim costume, you are not Modest. - CM
'A travelling exhibition showcasing Muslim fashion in Australia has opened at the National Archives in Canberra.
'The show, from Sydney's Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, showcases local designs that marry a modest (sic - more precisely, "sharia-compliant" - CM) aesthetic with fashion forward trends.
'Australian fashion designers have tapped into an international market of women who want fashionable clothing that still adheres to Muslim tenets of modesty.
Tenets that apply only to female Mohammedans. As for the dirty infidel females... that's a different matter. The sharia says that a female non-Muslim sex slave, a Muslim male's 'possession of the right hand', be she a Yazidi or Assyrian Christian ten-year-old snatched from her family, can be naked from the waist up. Such girls, seized and then sold like cattle by Islamic State jihadis piously emulating the example of Mohammed, are indeed often stripped from head to toe.
But I don't think our mohammedan fashion exhibition is going to show us the sorts of dress, or undress, that are inflicted on the female infidel victims of Muslim slave raiders and rapists, whether in Africa or in the Middle East, or on the female underaged girls - to the tune of thousands - who were (and are) 'groomed' and pimped and terrorised and brutalised by Muslim rape gangs all over the UK.
I wonder what would happen if a Resistance organisation were to spoof this "Muslim clothing exhibition" by setting up a counter-exhibition that displayed the assorted states of dress, or rather, undress, routinely imposed on female Infidel captives and sex-slaves by Mohammedan slave-raiders and merciless mohammedan masters, both past and present?Or that illustrated the special mohammedan meanings of 'modest' and 'immodest', or 'clothed' and 'naked', by showing on the one hand, a row of models wearing hijab (from the headbag all the way through to the burka), labelled "Modesty" and on the other, a wide variety of Infidel females, all dressed (by infidel standards) very modestly indeed, but all bluntly labelled "Uncovered Meat"? - CM
'The global market for Muslim fashion is worth more than $200 billion, with the most customers in Turkey and Indonesia.
I would like to know how this compares to the global market for non-Muslim fashion. And observe that formerly-superficially-secularised Turkey and somewhat-kafirized Indonesia are the polities trotted out for inspection (let's ignore the fact that both Turkey and Indonesia are bidding fair to become steadily more sharia-compliant in the near future). - CM
'Curator Glynis Jones said high-fashion Muslim attire was one of the largest growth areas in the global fashion industry.
'She said Australian Muslims (that is: "Australia-resident Muslims" - CM) were adapting fashion to suit them.
"Garments that express their faith (sic: "that declare their membership in and allegiance to the Ummah, or Mohammedan Mob, the Allah Gang" - CM) but also allow them to explore the nuances of fashion and trends", she said.
Shall we ask the kidnapped, enslaved, and force-'converted' girls of Chibok what they get to wear or not wear when their Muslim captors rape them? We can't ask one of them, a Christian lass called Monica Enoch, though; because she stubbornly and courageously refused to convert to Islam her Muslim captors put her in a hole in the ground and threw rocks at her until she was dead. - CM
'The Australian designs on show in the exhibition include everything from casual wear to formal designs and swimwear.
'The exhibition also spotlights influential Muslim fashion bloggers lilke Delina Darusman-Gala.
'Female fashion bloggers sharing their styles and thoughts online have encouraged many young Australian Muslims to express their individuality through their attire.
'Visitors to the show have the chance to browse through Muslim fashion magazines (let's not mention those other Muslim magazines, for example Dabiq and Inspire, the ones aimed at devout young Muslim men, containing instructions on how to improvise the means for killing and terrorising as many Infidels as possible, as brutally as possible - CM) and street style images as well as look at local designs in detail.
'The show also profiles several high-profile Australian Muslim women, to get their views on life, career, faith and fashion.
'The exhibit, "Faith, Fashion, Fusion", is on show at the National Archives of Australia until September 4."
And thus concludes our latest exercise in what I can only call Islamopuffery, a deadly confection of equal parts syrup and cyanide, or arsenic and icing sugar.
To get the taste out of our mouths, let's have a reality check from Sir Winston Churchill in The River Wars (original unexpurgated edition).
"...The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.... No stronger retrograde force exists in the world...".
Sydney: Yet Another Muslim Man Arrested For Plotting Jihad, but the ABC Avoids Stating the Flaming Obvious
This little report, filed by the ABC's police reporter Jessica Kidd, describes the arrest of a Muslim man who was plotting mass-murderous Jihad, yet manages to entirely avoid the J-word, the M-word and the I-word. It does however mention the name of the plotter's lawyer which reveals that, like the plotter himself, he is an active member of You Know What, being named after You Know Who.
"Sydney Man Farhad Said Charged Over Alleged Terrorism Plot Targeting Government Buildings".
That should have been something like "Sydney-Based Muslim Man, Farhad Said, Charged Over Jihad Plot Targeting Government Employees'. - CM
'A 24 year old Sydney man (sic: "Sydney-based Muslim man" - CM) arrested on terrorism charges is understood to be linked to alleged plots targeting government buildings.
Not the buildings. The people inside the buildings. I don't think he was interested in attacking the buildings when they were empty. Rephrase - "plots targeting government employees", or "plots targeting government workers" or "plots targeting public servants". Or, let's cut right to the chase, "linked to alleged plots to murder Infidel public servants". The government workers are targeted because they are not Muslims; because no Infidel state is viewed, by a pious Muslim, as having any right to continue to exist. It must be destroyed or forced to Submit to Islam; it must be replaced by a Sharia-compliant despotism where Muslims, and Muslims only, rule... absolutely. - CM
'The Bankstown man, Farhad Said, has been charged with one count of conspiracy to conduct an act in preparation for a terrorist act.
Most Muslims in Sydney currently reside in its western and south-western suburbs. Bankstown is one of those. It is not as heavily Islamised as, say, Auburn and Lakemba where Muslims now form a plurality. But it is well on the way. According to the 2011 census
26.2 percent of residents in Bankstown identified as Muslims. Of the remainder, 21.5 percent were Catholic, 8.6 percent were Eastern Orthodox (meaning that the combined Christian presence accounted for at least 30 percent of the suburb's population), 12.2 percent were Buddhists, and 8.7 percent identified as atheists. (I have not been able to find out what acccounts for the other 20 percent). In its wiki entry it is described as "one of the most multicultural areas in the country". However, given that between 2001 and 2011 the Muslim percentage grew rapidly, the reality is that - if nothing is done to reverse the Mohammedan influx - Bankstown, like so many other areas in western and non-western Infidel countries at the moment, is on its way to becoming yet another dismal Mohammedan monoculture, with members of all other faiths - and no faith - steadily driven out. Now, back to our Jihad plotter. Got Muslims? - got Jihad. Bankstown is nearly 30 percent Muslim, they are feeling locally powerful and emboldened? - Jihad plots are guaranteed. - CM
'He was arrested by counter-terrorism police outside his home this morning, as part of Australia's biggest counter-terrorism operation.
So far. But I wouldn't be surprised if in a month or six months or a year we were being told about another such operation, even bigger. I can only hope that ASIO, the AFP and our metropolitan police are enough on the ball that we won't be hearing about 'Australia's biggest terrorist attack'. - CM
'It is alleged Said is connected with a number of men already facing charges of possessing documents designed to facilitate a terrorist act.
He had a pile of Qurans? - CM
'Federal investigators have previously alleged the group was planning to target government buildings such as the headquarters of the Australlian Federal Police and the Garden Island Naval Base in Sydney.
It wasn't the buildings. It was the personnel in the buildings who would have been attacked, in an open act of war carried out by persons intending to achieve Total World Domination - social, political and ideological - for the Ummah, or Mohammedan Mob, the Religion of Blood and War, the de facto Empire of Islam. - CM
'Said's case has been briefly mentioned in a Sydney Court, where he did not appear.
'His lawyer, Muhammad Tehseldar, told the magistrate, "I'm not in a position to apply for bail".
And there, way down in the article, the name of the lawyer, is the one and only real hint that this case has anything to do with You-Know-What. This jihad plotter's lawyer is named... Muhammad. I do wonder just how many Mohammedans, all over the Western world, have been busily studying up on Infidel law, all the better to promote the Cause of Islam. - CM
'The arrest by the Joint Counter Terrorism team is part of the ongoing Operation Appleby investigation.
'Police are reassuring the public that there is no new threat to the community.
'The Joint Counter-Terrorism team have charged 14 people in relation to Operation Appleby, since September 2014...
That's just this particular plot, fortunately foiled in the course of the past two years. And so far 14 'people' have been arrested and charged. All of them Muslims. There have been other plots, and other 'people', not a few, all of them Muslims, Muslims, Muslims, here in Australia, in the years since September 11 2001. Not a few trials, and not a few dangerous jihad-minded Muslims currently sitting in our jails (and putting the strongarm on infidel fellow prisoners to join the Allah Gang), besides those who didn't plot to raid government buildings and murder public servants, or behead the Prime Minister, or attack sports fans at the Sydney Cricket Ground, or soldiers at the Holsworthy Army base, but instead indulged in crimes such as extortion, the wholesale manufacture and/ or distribution of illegal drugs, assault (including the attempted murder of a gay Aussie Infidel outside a club) and (two different gangs, one composed of Lebanese Arab Muslims, the other of Pakistani Muslims) serial gang rape of infidel girls. But it's still, so we are told repeatedly by the earnest Defenders of Islam, just a tinyminorityofextremists who have nothingtodowithIslam... Suuuuure, pull the other leg, it's got bells on. Because, in the same time period, how many Aussie-resident Christians, or Buddhists, or Jews, or Hindus, or atheists, have had to be arrested on charges of, for example, plotting to attack and murder public servants? In the same time period, for example, has any Aussie Buddhist or Hindu gone to his local shrine, picked up a gun there, and then marched down the road to the nearest cop shop and assassinated the first police employee who happened to walk out the door? Answer: none. But a Muslim has done just that: gone to a mosque, there received a gun from another Muslim, and then walked up the street to the Parramatta police HQ and murdered an unassuming Sino-Australian police accountant. - CM
The review forms part of the government’s counter-extremism strategy and will be carried out by a Home Office-appointed panel chaired by Prof Mona Siddiqui and including family law experts and a retired high court judge. The panel is to be advised by two imams who are religious and theological experts.
May said the review would look into whether, and, if so, the extent to which sharia law was being misused or applied in a way that was incompatible with the rule of law in Britain. It would also assess ways in which sharia law may be causing harm in communities.
The inquiry was expected to be completed by 2017.
The Home Office said there was evidence that some sharia councils were working in a “discriminatory and unacceptable” way, contrary to the teachings of Islam, such as seeking to legitimise forced marriage or issuing divorces that were unfair to women. So they go into the review with preconcieved ideas which may impede a clear assessment.
Siddiqui, a professor of Islamic and inter-religious studies at the University of Edinburgh, said: “It’s a privilege to be asked to chair such an important piece of work. At a time when there is so much focus on Muslims in the UK, this will be a wide-ranging, timely and thorough review as to what actually happens in sharia councils.”
The Home Office stressed that it would not be a review of the “totality” of sharia law, which is a source of guidance for many Muslims in Britain.
It would examine the role of particular groups and Islamic authorities, and the role of sharia councils and Muslim arbitration tribunals. The panel would also look at divorce, domestic violence and custody cases.
The panel includes the retired high court judge Sir Mark Hedley, the family law barrister Sam Motaz, and the family law lawyer Anne Marie Hutchinson QC. They will be advised by Imam Sayed Ali Abbas Razawi, a lecturer in philosophy and theology, and Imam Qari Asim, who is chief imam at Leeds Makkah mosque.
The USA has a new CVE (Countering Violent Extremism) strategy. It is a typically curious document. I wonder in fact if the key to it does not lie in the foreword by John Kerry, which is accompanied by a photograph of the Secretary of State looking strangely stoned.
Although in that foreword Secretary Kerry claims that ‘our challenge is dynamic’, he seems to have got that all the wrong way around. Certainly America’s enemies are dynamic. But on the evidence of this document the US government is quite supremely blissed-out.
For instance, readers will be unsurprised to learn that in this 12-page document purporting to deal with one of the great security issues of our time, the word ‘Islam’, let alone ‘Muslim’, does not appear once. Why should it when, as this strategy says:
‘Violent extremists speaking a variety of languages, born of many races and ethnic groups, and belonging to diverse religions continue to recruit, radicalize, and mobilize people — especially young people — to engage in terrorist acts.’
It could happen to any of us, you see. Last weekend I walked past a beautiful Anglican church in an English market-town. Only looking back on this now do I realise how close I came to being radicalised. What turn might my life have undergone if I had entered in? There would probably have been a recruiter right there and then – probably high church. Within weeks they would have shoved a thurible into my trembling hands, showing me how to work it even in the heat of battle. What misery might I then have wreaked? It really makes you think.
The brightest and best of the US government go on:
‘Violent extremism is not necessarily tied to a particular religion, ideology, or set of political beliefs, although there is consistency in the extreme ideology propagated and exploited by various terrorist organizations including Da’esh over recent years to justify their violence.’
Aha! But what would that consistency consist of? Alas, we never get to find out.
‘To be effective, CVE efforts must be guided by ongoing research and analysis of the context, drivers, and most effective interventions against violent extremism. The nature and range of possible drivers of violent extremism can vary significantly from individual psychological factors to community and sectarian divisions and conflicts.’
As the White House CVE conference last year showed, and this document proves, there is now a whole industry devoted to this kind of stuff. It is, to use another acronym, almost all BS. There is no point convening conferences, setting out strategies or writing forewords when the only objective of such conferences, strategies and forewords is the avoidance of the only salient issue.
The kindest interpretation of all this is that at this stage the Obama administration has its feet up. There it is, just sitting it out for a few more blissful months of pointless power, inhaling deeply.
Anti-Zionism’s links with anti-Semitism - RTE subscribes to Livingstone Formulation in Labour Party Controversy
RTE, the public service broadcaster of the Irish Republic, has the capacity to immensely influence the views and moral stances of the Irish nation as seasoned commentator (and one-time senior RTE insider) Eoghan Harris has often pointed out. Due to a virtual broadcasting monopoly, the way in which RTE treats contentious issues of major social concern, such as terrorism, migrant waves, the resurgence of European anti-Semitism, etc., arguably has a greater impact on the thinking of the Irish Nation than equivalent broadcasting institutions in other countries, such as the United Kingdom’s BBC, that compete with a strong private sector.
RTE’s audience reach extends beyond the Irish Republic, with media saturation in Northern Ireland, and its radio and television channels are viewed quite widely abroad, particularly in the UK mainland.
King Newt strikes Jerusalem
The controversy over Ken ‘Newt’ Livingstone’s suspension from the British Labour Party, for defending Naz Shah, an MP accused of anti-Semitism, raged in the UK last month. Livingstone was suspended for an odd apologia of Shah’s actions – he claimed that Hitler supported the Zionist movement until he “went mad” and instituted the programme of mass Jewish extermination. Livingstone has since doubled-down in his attack on the Jewish State by claiming Israel’s creation was a “catastrophe”.
Livingstone’s comments were without any historical basis but he would attempt to back-up his claims with the use of bigoted ahistoric sources cited by neo-NAZI types in the shadier side of the Internet. His assertion that Israel should not have been created “because there had been a Palestinian community there for 2,000 years,” was similarly ahistorical, fitting the PLO’s old propaganda-narrative that Jesus Christ was the first Arab-Palestinian shahid (martyr). He also holds Israel responsible for the military aggression of the Arab-Islamic world, and the creation of ISIS, whilst conflating the risk of a nuclear-Iran with Israel’s arsenal.
The fracas has been given little attention to-date on RTE. Their sole article on the topic (‘Livingstone defends Hitler comments in Labour row’, 30th April 2016) was peculiar because it only featured Livingstone’s perspective and that of his defenders. The article also included Livingstone’s obviously fallacious strawman of Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments concerning Haij Amin al Husseini’s role in the Holocaust — the Israeli prime-minister never suggested that Hitler supported Zionism.
Broadcast coverage was similar. The story only featured passing mention on television, in an afternoon ‘RTE News Now’ bulletin on the April 28th, when the news of Livingstone’s suspension first emerged but was not featured in RTE’s lengthier prime news programmes later that same day. By contrast, the election of Labourite Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London, received substantive coverage on radio and television throughout the May 6th/7th period, and featured more strongly in online content.
The lack of coverage on RTE is rather peculiar. British political events tend to feature quite prolifically in RTE news schedules due to the close connections between the two States. Moreover, Livingstone is a politician of some renown in Ireland. He was the first senior British political figure to openly engage in talks with Sein Fein-IRA, and one of the very few to have advocated loudly for the Republican group’s cause. While head of the Greater London Council, he talked prolifically with the terror group during an intensive period of its London bombing campaign, for which he earned a considerable degree of notoriority — principally hatred.
Livingstone also earned a lot of affection within the London-Irish community of yore by pandering to an exaggerated and unworthy victimhood. Indeed, Livingstone once charged that “What Britain did in Ireland was worse than what Hitler did to the Jews.” It is worth noting that Livingstone’s views would have also been percieved as extreme in Ireland! While many sympathesised with the very poor treatment of the Catholic populace in Ulster, few would have agreed with his expressions of support for the IRA. Sein Fein only found electoral pre-eminance in Ulster after the Good-Friday Agreement, and only obtained electoral success in the Republic in more recent years.
Labour’s electoral woes matter more?
Perhaps RTE’s most notable input on Livingstone anti-Semitism controversy came when Marian Finucane, a veteran RTE journalist and presenter of repute in Ireland, discussed the issue in the second hour of RTE Radio One’s ‘Marian Finucane Show’ on Sunday the 1st May 2016. Enda Brady, an Irish correspondent with UK broadcaster ‘Sky News’, was invited onto the show to provide some insights into the on-going row. However, the discussion was rather more revealing for its misleading and oddly slanted appraisal of the controversy.
The contributions to the radio slot focused far more on the impact that the controversy would have on the British Labour Party’s electoral ability, than on the actual anti-Semitic content of the remarks that led to the very controversy. This peculiar focus may have led some listeners to wonder if there was any real substance to the criticism of Livingstone’s remarks, beyond that of mere historical inaccuracy.
In a brief commentary to introduce the issue, Brady stated:
“Basically a row over comments Ken Livingstone had made earlier in the week defending a Yorkshire MP called Naz Shah. She had shared something on Facebook. She had shared a post calling for Israel to be relocated to the United States… Ken Livingstone waded in and attempted to defend her, and in doing so kept digging, making the situation just awful for Labour.”
Finucane: “Just coming up to elections?”
Brady: “Yes, local elections here on Thursday, and you know the focus should be on, you would imagine from a Labour perspective, the focus should have been on fighting a Conservative Government, and austerity, and cuts, and what have you to public spending, and yes Labour riven by internal strife and division, and a rather unpleasant nasty row over allegations of anti-Semitism. […]
But yes it’s a mess, and you just think the Conservative Party, David Cameron, everyone else, they must just be watching this with their mouths open”
Finucane: “Manna from heaven.”
Brady: “Yes precisely…”
Finucane and Brady would go on to discuss how the controversy could undermine Sadiq Khan’s prospects in the London mayoral election, with Brady adding:
“Again he’s [Khan] being embroiled in this as well, and just by association, questions being put, you know ‘are you anti-Semitic as well?’ It just looks terrible for Labour. It really, really does, with day after day of headlines, and of course I guess its been a comparatively quiet news cycle, this has just been leading every single bulletin for five six days.”
The questions surrounding Khan related to his own personal associations with extremists, rather than merely his being a member of the Labour Party. Senator Kevin Humphrys, a member of the Irish Labour Party, described the remarks as “wrong”, but similarly focused on the damage it would cause to the British Labour Party vote.
There was a vague reference to a broader concern about anti-Semitism within the Labour Party but there was no mention of the many egregious comments by other Labour members, which would have assisted in framing a discussion to which Irish audiences have limited media exposure.
To cite a few examples of the scale of this problematic behaviour: Gerry Downing’s suggestion that Marxists address what he termed “the Jewish Question”, descriptions of Hitler as the “Zionist God”, charges that Israel uses the Holocaust as “a financial racket in the West”, media reports that Labour secretly suspended fifty Labour members for issues connected with anti-Semitism, and the resignation of a Oxford University Labour Club chairman spurred by the endemic anti-Semitism of its members. To Brady’s credit, he did however note that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s critics point out his poor performance in dealing with the issue.
It should be noted both Brady and Finucane briefly mentioned the hatred exhibited toward Jewish people in France, with Brady describing it as a “massive issue”. Finucane also noted that anti-Semitism is an unacknowledged problem, and disagreed with Livingstone’s view that Hitler supported Zionism. Ultimately however, it was a missed opportunity to discuss an issue that the Western mainstream media often seeks to avoid.
Naz Shah’s unfortunate ‘Facebookery’
Finucane’s radio segment reported that Naz Shah posted a Facebook entry stating that the conflict would be solved if Israel was moved to the US. Later the discussion strayed into flippant territory:
Finucane: “There’s a lot to be said for keeping away from Facebook.”
Sinead O’Carroll (News Editor with Journal.ie): “Absolutely, this started with a politician making a very flippant point on Facebook.”
Such opining infers that Shah did not really mean anything of substance when writing the post. Neither Finucane, nor the other contributors, explained why this particular post is thought by many to be offensive. Shah’s ‘transportation’ Facebook post was not intended to be a constructive idea (however bizarre) — another contributor later suggested that anti-Zionism is not necessarily anti-Semitic. Shah posted a kind of mocking info-graphic that suggested Israel was to blame for all of the troubles of the Middle East (presumably including Islamist terrorism spreading Westward), and that the existence of the Jewish State somehow made the world unhappy. By inference, the post recommends ethnically cleansing the Middle East of its Jewish people, much of whom were forced, by persecution, to flee to Israel from other regions of the Middle East in the first instance.
Finucane and O’Carroll present the post as little more than a ‘blonde moment’ but Shah added a comment that reinforced the message of the infographic, and the contributors also failed to note that she has a record for making other problematic comments in the past.
Shah has also posted critical content about “Jews”, compared Israel’s policies to those of Hitler, and promoted an article that likened Zionism to al Qaeda, which charged that the movement had caused Jews to act in negative ways, akin to neo-Nazi claims of normative Jewish behaviour, with respect to control of politics, the media etc. in European societies, and offered a solution to the “Jewish Question in Europe”. Shah was a relatively senior politician. She is an MP, was private secretary to the Shadow Chancellor, and more remarkably, a member of a committee combating anti-Semitism in Britain, so critics, both within and outside the Labour party, were fully entitled to raise concerns about bigotry.
By the time of the discussion on the Finucane Show, news had also emerged that Shah’s aide, Mohammed Shabbir, had engaged in overtly anti-Semitic messages, inferring that Orthodox Jewish people were engaged in child abuse, prostitution, used the neo-Nazi term “Zio”, suggested Israel created ISIS to serve as a pretext to invade Syria, compared Israel to NAZI Germany, etc. These views echoed some of Shah’s comments, thus raising further questions about her beliefs.
RTE’s Livingstone, I presume
At the end of the discussion, Finucane stated that she had been suprised when she found out that Livingstone was involved in a row over anti-Semitism
“I have to say I was very surprised — I certainly wouldn’t have anticipated that Ken Livingstone would be in any way anti-Semitic.”
Livingstone, who has been a guest on Finucane’s show previously, has intermittently caused a quite substantive level of controversy over many expressions that displayed a strong disregard and dislike of Jewish people. And has expressed strong support for the likes of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an individual who not only supports Arab-Palestinian terrorism, but has openly expressed genocidal sentiments toward the Jewish people.
After the odd focus on Labour’s election worries, and some expressions of generalised concern about anti-Semitism in Europe today, the discussion strayed into contentious territory when Finucane stated:
“The tricky bit is that just because somebody says that they disagree with Israeli policy in Gaza, it does not mean they are anti-Semitic, and those lines have to be clarified. And they’ve kind of got blurred I think in this debate as well.”
Brady: “Yes I think that’s a fair point but I think in modern politics the speed the reaction of labour to clamp down on all of this, a lot of people here will feel very sore.”
Shah posted the offending infographic during the Gaza war so Finucane appears to be arguing that the comment was not in itself anti-Semitic. However, Shah did not merely criticise Israeli policy in Gaza. Shah took issue with Israel’s very existence. Another guest, Gerard Howlin, a former Fianna Fail Party advisor, agreed but also drew attention to the fact that anti-Zionism often coincides with anti-Semitism:
“There is this thing between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. And of course they aren’t always the same. You can be perfectly anti-Zionist without being in any way anti-Semitic, and that should be very much acknowledged. You can be critical of Israel in particular without being in any way anti-Semitic. But of course Zionism is a response to anti-Semitism originally.”
Finucane advanced the argument that criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic, and that the debate confused or conflated anti-Zionism (as inferred by her defence of Shah’s existentially anti-Zionist views) with anti-Semitism, as further indicated by Howlin’s response. By inference, such a position would suggest that the views of the two main players in the controversy — both Shah’s and Livingstone’s — were not necessarily anti-Semitic. Therefore, it seems that Livingstone was quite entitled to defend Naz Shah since the MP did not express views that were inherently anti-Semitic. Such argumentation would lead to the conclusion that if her views are not inherently or necessarily anti-Semitic then, in effect, they should ultimately not to be regarded as anti-Semitic because such accusations are no longer deemed to be fair (in view of the supposed power of the accusation that may be reputationally damaging) or morally legitimate, and so the charge is presented as a vicious ploy.
The stance endorsed on the ‘Marian Finucane show’ constitutes a category error, because it forms a fallacious conflation of two divergent categories of argumentation. There is of course an area where the two categories coincide because anti-Zionism must by definition be critical of the existence of the State of Israel, and efforts to defend its existence. Yet there are circumstances where criticism of Israel does not originate from anti-Zionist positions. Anti-Zionism is a different category of argumentation that is advanced by those possessing trenchant anti-Israel positions. Anti-Zionism is necessarily extremist because anti-Zionists advocate for the dissolution of the sole principally-Jewish State in existence, regardless of its borders and compromises it has attempted to make with Arab-Palestinian society.
Perhaps unwittingly, Finucane may have advanced a strawman’ argument created by anti-Israel advocates, not least by Livingstone himself (for whom David Hirsh coined the term ‘Livingstone Formulation’), who wish to attack those defending Israel in debate. Such advocates present opponents defending Israel (from what is seen as unjustified criticism) as being disingenuous and attempting to silence all criticism of the Jewish State by using the “anti-Semitism card” to trump legitimate debate.
However, it does not appear that anyone has ever argued that all substantive criticism of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic. This cannot be a normative pro-Israel position because it is not uncommon to find criticism of the Jewish State emanating from those who do support Israel in a substantive and meaningful way (in contrast to Peter Beinart, J-Street, et al, who only claim to support Israel but adopt staunchly anti-Israel positions). Rightly or wrongly, many who genuinely support Israel express reservations about Israeli government policy.
Anti-Zionism is necessarily anti-Semitic
There is a strong material link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, both in more traditional and the newer forms, the latter of which manifests most overtly as an intensive and aggressive demonisation of Israel, which is notably singular in its treatment. This reality leads to another question: ‘Is anti-Zionism necessarily anti-Semitic or is it possible to be anti-Zionist without holding anti-Semitic beliefs or being discriminatory by holding the Jewish collective to a different standard to that of other peoples?’
Anti-Zionism is notable for white-washing anti-Semitism. It disregards the oppression that Jewish people experienced in the Christian and Islamic worlds for over a Millennia, which arose with hatreds that continue to exist, albeit in a modified form in the Western World which normatively adopt the language of humanitarianism. It often re-writes the oppression Jews experienced in the Islamic world.
Anti-Zionism disregards the ancient cultural link between Israel and the Jewish People, which may only continue with Jewish self-determination, given the continued rejection of Jewish religious rights within Arab-Islamic societies throughout the Middle East, and the likelihood that a Jewish presence in the region would cease to exist in a would-be Palestinian Nation, as it has ceased throughout almost all of the rest of the Middle East. Trenchant anti-Semitism is normative at all levels in Arab-Palestinian society, of a form that incites violence, terrorism and genocidal sentiment. Rather, anti-Zionists portray wholly improbable results to their advocacy, claiming (in contravention to all available evidence) that peaceful democratic and pluralistic scenarios would result, rather than a further purging of the Middle East.
Anti-Zionists do not accept the two-state solution. They unjustly blame Israel for Arab-Palestinian rejectionism. Ultimately, peace cannot be made with Israel — rather this nation must be compelled to surrender all and effectively abandon the aim of Jewish autonomy, or be cleansed ethnically — the Jewish people should all “go back to Europe”, even if they are Mizrahi purged from Arab nations.
While people can hate a nation for a variety of reasons, hatred that motivates criticism of Israel is typically anti-Semitic, because it directly or indirectly focuses on the Jewish character of the State, which can often be seen in those people who form negative obsessions about a distant nation, which they problematize, often by holding it to absurdist double-standards. They do so while wholly ignoring (or sometimes defending) the manifest wrongdoing of Israel’s regional opponents. Such posturing effectively denies the Jewish State’s right to defend its own citizens.
Indeed, if Israel’s existence is a fundamental wrong visited on another people, then it must necessarily follow that the military defence of Israel’s physical integrity, particularly from attacks by its enemies seeking to remedy supposed wrongs that resulted in the Jewish State’s creation, must also be wrong.
As a consequence, it is difficult not to conclude that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism that singles out one particular ethnicity of the world’s diverse tapestry, as not deserving of autonomy in its homeland, whilst simultaneously denying the dangers of anti-Semitism that gave rise to Zionism.
These advocates often engage in hysterical demonising language, and sometimes classically anti-Semitic imagery. They project insidious forms of wrongdoing on their opponents, such as arguing that those who disagree are part of a ‘Zionist cabal’ engaging in ‘hasabara’. Anger of an unusual intensity toward other perspectives is common in those advancing anti-Israel stances, whether it be in discussions in the media or on marches, and indeed it is common to see anti-Israel activists disrupting or preventing pro-Israel speakers from expressing themselves, whilst commonly claiming that supporters of Israel silence their own arguments at various levels in political, media and academic domains.
True to form
RTE’s treatment of the Livingstone controversy provides an illustrative example of their failings when dealing with issues that do not sit very easily with the normative political culture found at the Broadcaster. Unlike most of her colleagues at RTE, Marian Finucane does deserve some credit for having the presence of mind to allow space for other perspectives on the Israeli-Jewish/Arab-Islamic conflict, besides the common anti-Israeli stances that pervade the media. Similarly, Brady and her guests were largely sympathetic to the difficulties Jewish society faces in Europe today. However, there are limitations, arguably due to RTE’s staunch political culture, where those on the left always have to be the good guys. Red Ken, and so many others in the anti-Israel movement, professes to care about racism and deny being anti-Semitic so it must be thus! Such a level of trust and faith is not displayed toward the political right.
This bias, a kind of cognitive schtoma, thoroughly taints RTE’s political coverage, where opponents of the recently defeated Fein Gael-Labour government were never meaningfully scrutinised, so leading to an unprecedented degree of political instability, and the grave consequences of the leftistcause celeb of abolishing the new water-charges regime was rarely analysed by the media as a whole despite the longstanding failure to adequately fund Ireland’s ancient water infrastructure, which has led to grave economic and public health issues, and etc., etc.
While it is fair to say that most people in Ireland do not particularly care all that much about the Jewish-Israeli/Islamic-Arab conflict, there is still an unthinking insistence that those loudly lambasting Israel possess only the very best of motives. Such people tend to insist their activism is motivated by humanitarianism but their activism in relation to other conflicts, such as the Assad slaughter in neighbouring Syria, is conspicuously absent, as one well known critic of the movement has noted. Supposed Jewish wrongs matter a lot more.
For a long time RTE has played no small role in advancing and reinforcing such perceptions, which neatly fit the Broadcaster’s reflexively anti-US/pro-Islam posturing. Thus, the recent migrant waves are typically described as “refugees”, and the spate of Islamist attacks on European soil are borne of economic disadvantage and Western Islamophobia and/or racism rather than anything remotely associated with intolerance borne of religious ideology. The absolutist uniformity of RTE’s narratives can be startling — the same on-message NGOs are trotted out for interviews and sound-bites, with nary a murmur of dissent ever afforded the briefest of airtime.
This blindness extends to the levels of coverage afforded to a given topic. RTE audiences are much more likely to hear about the enthusiasm British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has for Motown’s style of music, than last year’s concerns that he held anti-Semitic views after defending an anti-Semite of some notoriety, giving support to an anti-Israel Holocaust denier, etc., etc.
And when such unfortunate matters come to a head, and so demand to be addressed, we may expect just one perspective. Therefore, we only hear voices in defence of Livingstone’s actions. But even when the ‘right’ or ‘good’ team wins out, it is difficult to find balanced coverage. For example, RTE presented several unopposed voicesdefending Labour’s newly elected London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, with inferred charges of Islamophobia against competitor Zac Goldsmith and the wider Tory Party, even though it is widely known that Khan repeatedly shared a platform with an ISIS supporter, has assisted other unsavoury characters, and has described moderate Muslims as… “Uncle Toms”!
RTE, like the UK’s BBC, the US’ NPR/PBS programming, Norway’s NRK, et al., are more than conventional media sources. They are institutions constructed to serve the public of a given nation, funded in an enforced manner by the self-same public, with licence fees or a portion of the national tax spend. Thus there is every right to expect the highest of journalistic standards, which in turn can foster fair and informed debate, particularly as such institutions often have an especially powerful role in broadcasting. However, public service broadcasting has almost become a by-word for slanted unduly politicised commentary of a form typically reinforcing left-wing narratives.
If there is truth to the old saying, that “being on the left means never having to say you’re sorry,” then it may be presumed that public service media advocacy of certain political narratives play a significant role in the notable deficits of public scrutiny across their associated segments of the political spectrum.
The powerful, influential poem of W.B. Yeats, The Second Coming, composed in 1919, is subject to different interpretations. Written after the horrors of World War I but not specifically referring to it, the poem suggests the decline of European civilization and proclaims that things fall apart and that the center cannot hold.
If this is too strong and too pessimistic an assertion, recent political developments in Europe, notably the presidential election in Austria on May 22, 2016, evoke the thought that political moderates especially social democrats, believers in pluralism, in rational diversity of opinion and freedom of expression, rejection of dogmatism, mistrust of power, and minimal use of coercion are becoming an endangered species.
It is not true that the best lack all conviction but in the first round of the Austrian presidential election on April 24, 2016 the Austrian political center, even though the two mainstream parties held together and worked to halt the advance of Norbert Hofer, the candidate of the far right Freedom Party, received only 22 per cent of the vote. But in the second final round “mere anarchy was not loosed upon the world” with the defeat of Norbert Hofer, the candidate of a party full of passionate intensity.
Europe, and indirectly the U.S. has received a wake up call. Hofer, a less confrontation figure than most of the other leaders and many members in his party, only lost by the narrowest of margins, 49.7 per cent, compared with the winner, Alexander Van der Bellen, the 72 year old economist and candidate of the leftist Green party who got 50.3 per cent.
A fact that should disturb and may alter the approach of mainstream politicians in Europe and the U.S. is that almost 90 per cent of Austrian manual workers voted for Hofer. This denotes a problem, if not a crisis, in Europe, and soon to be tested in the U.S., for the success of moderate leftist political parties. The traditional industrial working class, with a changing life style and concern for “identity” of their country, may be less supportive of centrist politics, left or right. Moderate leftists are chagrined with their parties which have necessarily modified their ideological programs in coming to terms with the vagaries of the free market, reducing public investment, making cuts in state services and in social programs, and most of all being unable to deal with difficult current problems of migration and Islamist terrorism.
To a limited extent a few extreme leftist groups, disillusioned by failures of moderate social democratic parties have emerged to challenge the political center. The left wing, populist Podemos in Spain was formed by academics in March 2014 largely as a protest against inequality and corruption in the country and because of fear of a European debt crisis. It is now the second largest party in the country in terms of membership. In the December 2015 parliamentary election it got 21% of the vote, 69 of the 300 seats, and is the third largest party in the parliament.
In Greece, the far left and anti-austerity Coalition of the Radical Left, named Syrzia, founded in 2004, is the largest party in parliament, winning 36% of the vote, and 149 of the 300 seats at the January 2015 election. The leader of the party Alexis Tsipras, Prime Minister since September 2015, has been primarily concerned with the Greek debt, and the referendum on a bailout agreement, but has been forced to deal with the migration crisis.
However, far more important than these far left parties is the increasing strength of the far right parties that exist in all the 28 countries of the European Union, and which must be distinguished from the mainstream moderate or center-right parties. It is worth looking briefly at a few of them to assess the problem.
Poland has the Law and Justice party, populist, national conservative, anti-free trade, believer in law and order. It is the largest party in both houses of the Polish parliament, with 234 of 460 seats in the lower house, and 62 of 100 in the Senate. Its leader has called for getting rid of “illiberal indoctrination.”
Finland has The Finns party, populist, nationalist, the third largest in the country with 18 % of the vote, and one stressing law and order.
Sweden has the Sweden Democrats, a party with roots in a former Fascist party is a far right, ethnic nationalist, anti-immigration party. In the last election it obtained 13% of the votes, and 49 of the 349 seats, in parliament.
Hungary has the Fidesz populist, anti-free trade, anti-immigration party. With two thirds of the seats in parliament its leader, the forceful and energetic Viktor Orban, is currently prime minister. Orban’s policy, now more centrist than far right, is one of opposition to Islamization, and in favor of what he terms “illiberal democracy.”
But Hungary also has the more extreme party Jobbik, Movement for a Better Hungary, formed in 2003, conservative, radically national, and Christian party, to protect Hungarian values and interests. Its stress is on public order, national self- defense, and Hungary for the Hungarians. Though leaders deny it, it is antisemitic, racist, and homophobic. Not surprisingly, it believes that Jews orchestrated World War II, and that they control the international media. At the April 2014 election it got 1 million votes, 20% of the total and is the third largest party in Hungary.
France has the National Front (FN), generally considered to be a far right, nationalistic, anti-immigrant party. It has grown in strength, gaining 25% in the EU Parliament election in 2014, and 28% in the French regional election in December 2015. Its ambitious leader Marine Le Pen obtained 6.4 million votes at the presidential election in 2012, and will be a challenging candidate in the next presidential election.
Italy has the Lega Nord (Northern League) a regional party founded in 1991 as a federation of parties in northern and central Italy. It is essentially interested in a federal Italy with regional autonomies. It takes a tough stand on illegal immigration, especially from Muslim countries, and on terrorism. It wants to erase Roma (gypsy) settlements. Matteo Salvini , the leader of the party, calls for the expulsion of African migrants. He has praised the “good work” of Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini.
In Greece the Golden Dawn, a far right party, ultranationalist, Eurosceptic, anti-Semitic, racist, xenophobic, and violently anti-immigrant, uses Nazi symbols such as the swastika and the Fascist salute. In September 2015 it obtained 7 per cent of total votes, winning 18 of the 300 seats in Parliament, making it the third largest party.
In the Netherlands, the Party for Freedom (PVV) under the charismatic Geert Wilders, economically liberal, but hostile to the EU is primarily concerned to stop Muslim immigration. Wilders has stated, “I don’t hate Muslims, I hate Islam.” For him, the Koran is a “fascist book,” that he compares to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
He argues all Muslim immigrants should be paid to leave and opposes construction of new mosques. In September 2012 PVV obtained 10 % of the vote for the House of Representatives, a decline from 15% in 2010.
Why is this far right surge happening? There are a host of problems. All the parties express concern about economic grievances and insecurity, unemployment, especially the 20 % among the youth in the EU, and underemployment, criticize the EU, the bank credit problem, “globalization” and the competition of China, are troubled by loss of ethnic and cultural cohesion, are discontented with the political, social and economic establishment.
Above all it is the threat of Islamist terrorism, and the accompanying fear of Muslim immigration. The dilemma is whether the political center, especially left of center parties, facing the problem that their traditional base, an industrial working class and middle of the road progressives are disenchanted with it, has the strengthen to deal with Islamist terrorism and thus remove the main appeal of far right parties. For the rational moderates this is worth thinking of, not merely a fancy.
The most astounding thing about this year of political surprises in the United States is how slowly even eminent commentators have recognized the radical change in national political opinion. Essentially, 75 to 80 percent of the Republicans and approximately half of the Democrats want a complete change of leadership and policy from the last 20 years. To appreciate what a revolution in popular sentiment this is, consider the shift from the boom year of 1928 to the Depression year of 1932 (in which there were over 25 percent unemployed and no federal relief for them): Herbert Hoover went from a victory of 58 percent to 41 percent over Alfred E. Smith to a defeat of 57 percent to 40 percent at the hands of Smith’s successor as governor of New York, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt was hardly an outsider like Donald Trump.
About half of the Republicans, led by Donald Trump, seek a move toward the pragmatic center, with both conservative and liberal policy elements mixed together: the triumph of good sense efficiently enacted. About a third of the Republicans, led by Ted Cruz, wish to move rigorously to the right. Only a threadbare 20 or 25 percent of Republicans were prepared to give the status quo in that party represented by the Bushes and the Romneys and most of the congressional leadership another chance. The change sought by the half of the Democrats led by Bernie Sanders is sharply to the left and it has dragged the Democratic center, represented by the Clintons, leftward into the ambiguous and ineffectual zone of the Obama administration. Even Mrs. Clinton, ironically, given how hard she worked to sell herself as a moderate, has moved a long way to the left to try contain the Sanders insurgency.
Because Mr. Trump came out of the starting blocks more quickly than Senator Sanders and was a newcomer to electoral politics (and probably also because of the vague leftish ideological biases of most of the national media), the attention given to Trump — as the media kept piercing what they took to be the ephemeral bubble of electoral irritation he represented — tended to downplay the impact of the Cruz and Sanders campaigns. Thus we had months of the excruciating retreat of the national media as it laid down one threshold after another that Mr. Trump could not possibly cross, until he had, almost effortlessly it seemed, crossed them all, and secured the Republican nomination.
Even then, he had to demonstrate his high level of education and revive the word “presumptive” (likely) to describe his status, which the media (linking the word mistakenly to “presumption” in the self-important sense) then took up as if it were a statement of overconfidence. As he won the nomination of his party in what must rank, wherever he goes from here, as one of the most astonishing achievements in the entire political history of the United States, the deniers and traditionalists retreated into fatuous speculation about a third-party challenge. Reports persisted for an unconscionably long time of an impending debacle along the lines of the overwhelming defeats of Barry Goldwater in 1964 and George McGovern in 1972.
The national media were just as late in detecting the profound division among the Democrats as they had been in addressing the scale of the Trump insurrection. The national political media are suffering from a more acute stage of sclerosis than the political class itself. With a little thought, this need not be surprising. The media don’t have to face the voters, and essentially talk to each other. Senator Marco Rubio, a popular Florida senator and able public speaker, acknowledged as he bowed out of the race on March 15, having lost by almost 20 points to Mr. Trump in the Florida primary, that the winner on the night had seen a “tsunami coming that the rest of us missed.”
He, at least, as someone who had to pay a price for the Trump-led tidal wave, partially realized the proportions of it. Almost the entire media waffled on for another six weeks proclaiming that the Trump phenomenon was about to evaporate, and that in the extreme unlikelihood that he was the Republican nominee, the party would split in half and he would suffer the greatest defeat of any presidential candidate in history. Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell reassured his colleagues that if Trump were nominated they would drop him “like a hot rock.”
Only after Trump clinched the nomination in Indiana, where, as Senator Cruz said, his campaign had “left it all on the field,” did the media really notice that Senator Sanders had defeated Mrs. Clinton that night. They still don’t seem to have noticed that in Indiana, which tends by only a narrow margin to be a Republican state in presidential elections, Trump gained almost as many votes as Clinton and Sanders combined. To some extent, reluctance to recognize the Sanders phenomenon is excusable. He is, after all, even more improbable a candidate than Donald Trump. Trump is just pulling the Republicans back from a far-right reaction to the bland ineffectuality of Romney and the trigger-happy insouciance of George W. Bush. Romney is really a consultant and he faced in all four directions on every major issue and there is a natural desire for more decisive leadership.
Trump managed to sell himself as being both decisive and not at all complicit in the terrible mistakes of the last 20 years. But, as the conservatives complain, he is not really one of them. He is, in fact, in policy terms, a moderate, possibly even an Eisenhower Republican. He has as little electoral experience as General Eisenhower had had (though both had learned a good deal about politics). Trump is, of course, a more raucous personality, and building fine buildings and operating casinos and golf courses and the Miss Universe contest do not rival the world-historic status of candidate Eisenhower, who had led the Western Allies to victory over Nazi Germany and founded the most successful alliance in history, NATO. I am not comparing their prestige as candidates. But in policy terms, Mr. Trump is somewhat more liberal than was President Eisenhower, especially in matters of civil rights and health care.
But as I have written here before, Senator Sanders is a self-styled socialist and has a long background on the left. Not too much should be made of what anyone does in his late teens, but his sojourn in a Stalinist kibbutz in the late Fifties, even after the Soviet government and Communist Party had denounced Stalin and removed his corpse from Lenin’s tomb and placed it outside the walls of the Kremlin, raises concerns. This seems not to have been discussed by the media, even those steeped to their investigative eyeballs in Trump University and the vagaries of the Atlantic City casino business.
No politician can be held directly accountable for the views of those who support him, and the very unprepossessing man that I saw as the obligatory Sanders representative on a CNN political panel one night last week, who declared Henry Kissinger (whom Trump had just met) and Hillary Clinton to be war criminals, in Vietnam and Iraq respectively, may have overstated the Sanders message. The media, led by such rabid mudslingers as Bob Woodward, accused Trump of fomenting violence when he condoned one of his followers who punched a foul-mouthed heckler. The reaction from the national media was much more muted last week after violence flared between Sanders and Clinton followers in Nevada. The national political media are milling about like worried sheep, still trying to bleat with authority.
Whatever happens from here on, the people have sent the message to the political class that they are extremely dissatisfied and that over 60 percent of the country feels that only a complete change in personalities and a radical change in policy will put the United States back on the path of national greatness. About 25 percent want to move to the left even of Obama; 25 percent to the center, well to Obama’s right; and 15 percent well to the right of any president since Coolidge. Trump, in the center of these cross-currents, is the only one of the three revolutionaries who has a chance of election, and should win, as I have written here for three months.
But it is not clear what will improve the quality of the political press, of the reporters and the commentators, though most of the reporting is usually also comment. I have never understood why the consensus for so long amongst the politicians and the political media was that the immigration issue could just be punted forward indefinitely, under the specious disguise of “comprehensive immigration reform” that never came. There has not been a real recovery from the worst recession in 75 years and the inflation that would normally be generated by doubling the national debt in seven years and vastly increasing the money supply has been avoided only by the deflationary pressures on many industries. The measurable prosperity of the middle class has flatlined for 15 years.
Trump is the closest the country now has to the personification of public impatience with absurd nostrums about global warming being America’s greatest threat and transgender washrooms a national issue. Politicians who failed to notice this will be seeking different employment. But there does not seem to be a similar rod on the backs of the political media, and they are a large part of this problem.
Leytonstone tube stabbing: Taxi drivers admits trying to stab commuters
A SOMALIAN taxi driver has admitted trying to stab four people during a frenzied attack in front of horrified commuters at Leytonstone Tube station. But Muhaydin Mire, 30, denied beating a 56-year-old man unconscious and hacking at his neck during the same attack at the east London station on December 5 last year.
Appearing at London's Old Bailey via videolink from prison, the former Uber taxi driver denied one count of attempted murder but admitted four counts of attempted wounding during a frenzied five minute attack.
Wearing a blue jumper and grey tracksuit bottoms, he sat with his hands clasped in his lap and stared straight ahead during the hearing.
Mirem, who is of Somalian origin, spoke only to confirm his name and enter his pleas.
Prosecutors claim the attack was an act of terrorism.
The court heard how Mire, of Sansom Road, Leytonstone, punched to the ground the man he is accused of attempting to murder. He repeatedly kicked the man before taking hold of the victim's head and cutting a 5in (12cm) wound in his neck, it is alleged.
Judge Nicholas Hilliard, the Recorder of London, adjourned the case until next Tuesday May 31 and the trial is expected to last two weeks.
Muslim Fan: Jesse Hughes is ****ing Stupid to Blame Bataclan Massacre on Islam
I saw this letter from Ismael El Iraki in the Independent at lunchtime but couldn't post immediately. But all afternoon I have been thinking about Islamic's need for victimhood. And how even a fellow victim has to be accused of islamophobia if he refuses to submit to the narrative that 'Islam is a religion of peace'. But now that I am home I see that James Delingpole has written in Breitbart, saying what I was thinking, although perhaps a little more forthrightly.
Ismael El Iraki was at the Bataclan club the night Muslim terrrorists slaughtered 90 rock music fans who were watching the Eagles of Death metal. He is a rock music fan. He says the only thing he loves more is his wife. But that isn't true. Like with all Muslims Islam and Islamic supremacy must come first, last and everything.
His open letter was published on his facebook page and quickly taken up by the Independent and other newspapers.
I just finished reading your tacky Taki interview and to tell you the truth, my heart is bleeding. (You will recall that the lead singer of the Eagles of Death Metal was less than flattering about Islam, having seen so many people,some of them personal friends slaughter before his eyes).
I love your music, your concerts mostly (such fun, wild shows) and man, I never thought that you would become one of those spreaders of fear. Fox News, Trump, all those guys. You always felt like a maverick, a rebel: we now know that you are not. We (and by that I mean the rebels, the mavericks, the rock crowd) always loved and defended you because you were a lovable fool and kind of a dumb f***, like the Three Stooges or Tex Avery's wolf. You now proved your stupidity to be f***ing dangerous.
I live and breathe rock 'n' roll, and I could not look more Muslim if I tried. But apparently, the big bad Muslim conspiracy missed me. Damn, they forgot to warn me. They also forgot to warn Djamila, and all the other Arabs who got shot and killed that very night. They forgot to warn my fellow Moroccan Amin, who was shot that very night. (But, on his own admision he looks like a Muslim, and he got out alive and pretty much unscathed ...)
I will not dignify you by narrating how I behaved that night. I have and always will refuse to do that publicly: I believe that the people I helped that night did not care that I was an Arab, nor did I care which origin they where or which imaginary friend they bow to.
What pains me most is that you do not even realize that a huge number of us who managed to get out alive of this horrible ordeal owe our lives to a Muslim guy. His name is Didi and he opened the left front door most of us got out of. . . HE WENT BACK IN. He turned back, and headed back in to save more people. He opened the upstairs exit and let a number of people out through there.
He was a fucking hero....You, who are not a hero. . . your comments are not OK. How is insulting heroes OK?
You say: “Islam is the problem”. I say: “All you f***ing bigots and your fairytale s*** stories are the problem. Racism and refusal to recognize one another as complex (more complex than ethnicity or race can explain) human beings is the problem.
I hope you can realize how wrong that shit you spread is, hope you can see all the wrong that you are doing.
What is the correct response when you’re a rock star, nearly 90 of your fans have been murdered in front of your eyes by Jihadist terrorists, and you yourself have had to go to hospital to have removed from your face the embedded teeth and skull splinters of the girl just in front of you who had her head blown apart by a hollow-nosed bullet?
Well, thanks to the music press, the Guardian and the organisers of at least two rock festivals in France we know that the correct answer, the only answer, goes something like this:
“Islam is a religion of peace. That’s why I know in my heart that this atrocity had nothing to do with Islam. The fact that the gunmen were shouting Allahu Akhbar as they machinegunned the audience – in those moments when they weren’t pausing to torture the poor guys in wheelchairs or finish off the wounded – was entirely coincidental. Also, I would like to pay especial tribute to those Muslim members of the security staff who, instead of joining in with the killers, acted with amazing generosity by opening the exit doors so that some of the audience could get away…”
Unfortunately, Jesse Hughes of Eagles Of Death Metal didn’t give the correct answer regarding his experiences at the Bataclan massacre in Paris in November last year. He doesn’t want to prettify what happened; he does think it was caused by a clash between a kind of surrender-monkey Western liberalism and militant Islamic ideology.
If you haven’t read the interview in Taki Mag with Gavin McInnes that prompted this, you really must. It’s mainly an extremely graphic account of what happened that night at the Bataclan gig from the perspective of a guy standing on the stage.
The mainstream press – and the music press – had every opportunity to extract this information from Jesse Hughes. As he tells his interviewer, he’s not holding back because he finds the experience cathartic. But weirdly till this interview in a conservative journal, no one did: almost as if it didn’t fit in with the post-Paris narrative that ‘yes, it was awful, but let’s not dwell on it because we should move on.’
Hughes, clearly, doesn’t think we should move on. There are questions which remain unanswered – not least the role of the Muslim security staff, some of whom he says were clearly in on the plan (a claim Bataclan’s owners have furiously denounced).
But his bigger beef is with the denialism, wishful thinking and kumbaya mentality that make the West so vulnerable to such attacks.
Amazingly – well, actually, entirely predictably – the author of that letter to the Guardian appears to be more upset by Hughes’s failure to mouth liberal pieties than he does by the fact that a group of his co-religionists thought it would be a good idea to murder 89 of the people next to him at a gig.
...that security guard: why haven’t we heard his story more? Well it’s because, as he admits in an interview with National Public Radio, he’s afraid that someone involved in the attack might come and bump him off. This would suggest that Hughes’s bleak analysis of the situation is closer to the ground truth than El Iraki’s fluffy ‘rock can heal the world’ idealism: that there really is a war going on here and that throwing up your hands and wishing all the nasty stuff would go away is not an option.
Sure it may make college-educated, safe-space-reared Guardian-reading types feel better about themselves by showing how much they disapprove of Jesse Hughes’s views on Islam. But since when did shooting the messenger solve a problem?
I have linked to the Independent as I found that first. The comments there show that the tide is turning.
On May 22, Jonathan Easley published a fine article in The Hill on Dr. Walid Phares’ work with the Trump campaign. Dr. Phares, an expert on Middle Eastern affairs, has naturally been contacted by many Muslims, both here and abroad to gain some understanding about how a future Trump administration may deal with their home countries once he is elected as America’s 45th President. The headline of Mr. Easley’s piece was slightly misleading, “Trump Camp quietly courts Muslims,” as it implied the Trump campaign had directed Dr. Phares to reach out to Muslim groups in the US, even though Dr. Phares corrected this misperception both in that piece itself as well as in later interviews.
Never one to let facts get in the way of a good yarn, Saif Alnuweiri, a young Qatari immigrant (on a student visa?), former fact checker for the New York Times and currently an intern with the National Memo, jumps in with both feet, calling Dr. Phares a “former Christian Militia Commander” in his hysterical title drawing on an old and discredited article by Hezbollah propagandist As’ad Abu Khalil in the far left magazine Salonfrom 2011. Even that execrable screed did not describe Dr. Phares as a “Christian Militia Commander.” Like the birth of Athena, this idea seems to have sprung from the head of Mr. Alnuweiri whole. Joe Conason, take note. Though the sole purpose of the National Memo these days seems dedicated to trafficking in the most absurd anti-Trump conspiracies, the title of this article is clearly defamatory – the rest of it, however, is just silly.
Alnuweiri sneers at Dr. Phares’ assertion that Muslims in America may be concerned about American policy toward their home countries citing a survey put out by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) which cites “Islamophobia” as American Muslim’s primary concern. He also asserts that Dr. Phares “has close ties to several known Islamophobes.” Undoubtedly, that list will have to be lengthened considerably due to the fact that fully half of the entire electorate supports Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the country. We’re all Islamophobes now.
And Alnuweiri is dismissive of Dr. Phares’ assertion that Mr. Trump may refine his Muslim ban proposal, though that is the obvious next step. For example, President Trump might suspend our refugee and visa programs from the 57 Muslim nations with the exception of Christians and other minorities who face persecution in Muslim lands. Naturally, we can thank the thousands of hard-working Muslims who have made this proposal inevitable.
As Mr. Alnuweiri ends his piece by airily dismissing the only serious proposal to deal with Muslim terrorism in the US, but I humbly submit that until such time as a mind-reading machine to detect incipient jihadism is developed, our country has no choice but to carefully exclude members of the group from among whose members those Jihadis continually spring. Anyone truly serious about America’s national security must concede the wisdom of Mr. Trump’s approach. And no, it is not unconstitutional.
The fact that Hillary Clinton decries this proposal as “un-American” reveals her flippant disregard for the safety of the American people. She would rather sacrifice American lives than be seen as “Islamophobic.” Mr. Trump puts the safety of American citizens first, regardless of the numerous politically correct firestorms which have tried, unsuccessfully, to sink his candidacy.
This is one reason why he will become our next President.
Religious belief is no excuse for refusing to shake a teacher's hand, Swiss regional authorities ruled Wednesday, reversing one school's controversial decision to grant exemptions for Muslim pupils wary of touching the opposite sex.
Parents or guardians of pupils who refuse to shake a teacher's hand in the northern Swiss canton of Basel-Country could now face fines of up to 5,000 Swiss francs ($5,000, 4,500 euros), regional education authorities ruled.
"A teacher has the right to demand a handshake," they said in a statement.
The decision comes after a national uproar over revelations last month that a middle school allowed two brothers, aged 14 and 15 with Syrian nationality, not to shake their teachers' hands after they complained that doing so was counter to their religious beliefs if the teacher was a woman.
That decision -- made independently by the school in the northwest Therwil municipality without involvement of the canton's authorities or local officials -- triggered an outcry across Switzerland, where the tradition of students shaking their teachers' hands as a sign of respect is deeply entrenched.
Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga, who was among the many senior officials and public figures who weighed in on the matter, insisted on Swiss public television last month that "shaking hands is part of our culture". Explaining Wednesday's ruling, authorities said "the public interest concerning gender equality as well as integration of foreigners far outweighs that concerning the freedom of belief of students."
The cantonal authorities pointed out that if the two students at the heart of the controversy once again refuse to shake hands, "the sanctions called for by law will be applied," it said.
The public focus on the case has already landed the family in difficulty, after media revealed they were seeking to become Swiss. Cantonal authorities last month announced that naturalisation proceedings had been put on hold...On Wednesday, authorities said one member of the family, whose identity was not revealed, had received a warning over "incitement to violence", which could have consequences for the naturalisation process.
The Obama administration is taking steps to aid and please Iran far beyond U.S. commitments under last summer’s nuclear accord, according to experts, who warned Tuesday during testimony on Capitol Hill that the White House is becoming “dangerously close to becoming Iran’s trade promotion and business development authority.”
The Obama administration’s efforts to boost Iran’s economy and resurrect its financial sector are not required under the comprehensive nuclear agreement, yet the White House is undertaking this role to soothe relations with the Islamic Republic, nuclear experts told the Senate Banking Committee.
Iran continues to threaten to walk away from the nuclear deal unless the U.S. administration agrees to further concessions beyond the deal, sparking accusations that Iran is effectively “blackmailing” the White House, according to sources who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.
Since the nuclear deal was implemented, “the Obama administration has missed the opportunity to push back against Iran’s legitimization campaign,” according to written testimony submitted to the Senate committee by Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “Instead of insisting on an end to Iran’s continuing malign activities, the administration is now dangerously close to becoming Iran’s trade promotion and business development authority.”
The administration’s actions “go beyond” its commitments under the nuclear deal, according to Dubowitz.
The Obama administration has made further concessions to Iran on several key fronts since finalizing the deal, including on ballistic missile testing and access to the U.S. dollar.
The administration’s continued concessions to Iran have sparked congressional investigations and accusations that Congress and the American people were intentionally misled about the contents of the agreement.
The White House has also pursued an aggressive push to force U.S. states to drop sanctions and divestment campaigns targeting Iran. While the nuclear deal requires the administration to encourage such behavior, some have questioned the White House tactics, which have been described as bullying.
“The administration’s actions to date raise serious questions,” Dubowitz said. “Will the White House try to force individual states to lift their divestment measures, even as the termination criteria for the legislation have not been met? Congress should pay particular attention to any actions by the federal government that go beyond simply informing states and local authorities about the nuclear deal.”
In another instance of the administration going beyond its commitments under the nuclear deal, senior officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, have begun touring Europe to encourage business with Iran.
The nuclear deal requires the United States to not negatively interfere with legal Iranian business pursuits. However, it does not require the administration to advocate internationally on the regime’s behalf, according to Dubowitz.
“There is a big difference, however, between not interfering with the normalization of trade and commercial relations and actively advocating for banks and companies to enter the Iranian market,” he said in his testimony.
Omri Ceren, managing director of The Israel Project, which has worked closely with Congress on the Iran issue, told the Free Beacon that the administration is expected to make further concessions to Iran.
“No one is really surprised that the Iranians are blackmailing the United States for ever-more concessions,” Ceren said. “That was inevitable.”
“What’s striking, even to policy analysts who closely track the Iran debate, is how no one on any side is bothering to keep up pretenses,” he added. “The Iranians threatened to walk away from the nuclear deal unless they got more relief, and so Secretary Kerry and his colleagues launched global tours to drum up business for Tehran, even though U.S. law forbids Americans from facilitating overseas transactions for Iran.”
Matthias Küntzel, Germany and Iran: From the Aryan Axis to the Nuclear Threshold
This publication is an English translation of a book which was first published in German in 2009, with an epilogue penned by the author in May 2014. Germany and Iran: From the Aryan Axis to the Nuclear Threshold focuses on German-Iranian relations from the time of Kaiser Wilhelm (1859-1941) to the present, culminating in a treatment of the Iranian nuclear program and Germany’s shameful role in shielding it from sanctions. Matthias Küntzel is uniquely qualified to write this book. The subject of his doctoral dissertation was the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and he has published extensively on Germany’s position vis-à-vis nuclear proliferation. Küntzel is also a student of Islamist ideology and its disturbing incorporation of extreme Jew-hatred as a central doctrine. This book presents important new findings based on the author’s research in German and American archives.
Küntzel begins with Kaiser Wilhelm’s policy of cultivating Muslim allies in a bid to cause trouble for Germany’s enemies: Britain, France, and Russia, each of which ruled over large numbers of Muslims. Traditionally suspicious of Russia and Britain, the dominant powers to its north and south, respectively, from the outset, Iran was very receptive to German overtures. Germany’s loss in World War I did not cool Iranian ardor for all things German, and in the interwar years, Germany became Iran’s main supplier of industrial technology and technical expertise.
“The coming to power of Adolph Hitler,” Küntzel writes, “in no way hindered these expanding ties. On the contrary, not only was the Shah delighted, but a large section of the Iranian intelligentsia and business community also sympathized with National Socialism.” (23) In late 1934, at the urging of the Iranian ambassador to Berlin, the Shah banned the name “Persia” and insisted that the name “Iran” or “land of the Aryans” be used exclusively. Hitler reciprocated by exempting the “Aryan” Iranians from the Nuremberg racial laws. To this day, German visitors to Iran are reminded enthusiastically by Iranians that Germany and Iran share “a common Aryan heritage.” (27)
On August 25, 1941, Soviet and British troops invaded and occupied Iran, which provided the vital land bridge across which American-made war materiel was shipped to the USSR. This invasion reinforced Iranian mistrust of Britain and Russia, and of the Americans who aided those two countries and became their ally and did nothing to diminish the already strong Iranian sympathy for Germany. Küntzel cites the reporting of German journalist Christiane Hoffmann and others to the effect that in the twenty-first century, many Iranians still express “unconcealed admiration…for Hitler.” (7) While many Iranians accepted jobs with the British and Americans who were moving cargo to the USSR, many others assisted German agents in efforts to sabotage the Allied efforts in Iran.
After the Second World War, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, West Germany quickly re-established commercial ties with Iran, and with great success. Once again, Germany became Iran’s most important trading partner. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 that brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power did not stop West Germany from jealously protecting and fostering its trade relations with Iran. Küntzel describes in scathing detail the repeated failure of successive West German governments to impose any meaningful sanctions restricting trade with Iran; indeed, he points out that, for decades, Germany facilitated its trade with Iran by means of export credit guarantees, even as Iran held U.S. diplomats hostage and became the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism. Similarly, Germany repeatedly resisted any effort by the U.S. to impose tough sanctions on Iran, generally siding with Iran, China, and Russia against the U.S. An American reading this book is left wondering: With friends like Germany, who needs enemies?
Most damning of all is Küntzel’s documentation of the German ruling elite’s almost complete indifference to the antisemitic rhetoric of Iranian leaders, such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (president of Iran from 2005 to 2013). Unlike his countrymen, Küntzel recognizes and is appropriately horrified by the clearly genocidal implications of Iranian words and policies vis-à-vis Israel. How could the Germans, of all people, be so blind? Economics alone cannot explain it, since Iran has never represented more than a small fraction of German exports.
A clue can be found in the biography of the left-wing Green Party politician Joschka Fischer, who would become Foreign Minister under the Social Democratic Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Fischer was a firebrand student activist in the 1960s and 1970s who, like many on the left, was anti-Western and pro-Third World. In 1979 he “hailed Khomeini’s uprising not only for striking a blow against Westernization in Iran, but also as a call to arms against the Western way of life as a whole.” (123) As Foreign Minister, Fischer would become one of the staunchest European opponents of the Bush Administration and its war in Iraq. In September 2004, Foreign Minister Fischer made this astonishing statement: “We Europeans have constantly advised our Iranian partners in their own well-founded interest to view us as their protective shield.” (210) K?ntzel interprets this statement as follows: “Europe as the shield between Iran and America: not to protect the United States from the Islamists, but the Islamists from the United States. Such a metaphor could only occur to someone who sees America as the adversary and the Khomeinist revolution as meriting protection.” (210) (A sobering thought: Barack Obama appears to have a biography and a world view quite similar to that of Joschka Fischer.)
Küntzel poses the question: Why has Germany apparently chosen to take an Iranian nuclear bomb in stride rather than accept a break in German-Iranian relations? One possibility is that Germany’s foreign policy elite thinks it is in Germany’s interest to maintain an alliance with a nuclear Iran because it would also mean the destruction of American hegemony in the Middle East. That is “multipolarity at any price.” (227) A second possibility is that German policy makers are not really thinking clearly but viewing Iranian nuclear policy through rose-colored glasses and drifting along with the general anti-American bias of the German populace that sees the United States as a greater danger to world peace than Iran. What really matters, from this point of view, is that the Americans not be allowed to start another war in Middle East: Iran must not become a second Iraq. (229)
Whether one accepts the first theory or the second is irrelevant: “in both cases Israeli security interests are overridden, in both cases there is a refusal to draw the necessary conclusions from Nazi history; in both cases the Iranian opponents of the regime are ignored.” (230)
Küntzel’s book demonstrates a deeply disturbing truth, namely, that if Iran should acquire nuclear weapons and use them to commit a second Holocaust against the six million Jews of Israel, then Germany – the nation that committed the first Holocaust – will have played a central role in paving the way for the Iranian perpetrators.
Like vintage wine, high-flown sentiment should be kept for special occasions rather than brought out on every possible occasion, especially when it consists mainly of humbug, as it usually does. We are surrounded by it, in fact, mentally suffocated by it. I picked up a pencil the other day and this is what was inscribed on it:
About this pencil: Lacquer-free renewable cedar casing, recyclable aluminium ferrule, enviro-green degradable eraser and certified non-toxic imprint inks.
It was a nice pencil and the rubber at the end of it worked quite well, which is not always the case with rubbers at the end of pencils, which leave a smudge rather than an erasure. But the high-flown sentiment irritated me, for it was expressed with the kind of imprecision that made verification impossible. That things should be renewable, recyclable and degradable did not mean that they were actually renewed, recycled, or degraded (in the sense of returning to the environment in a non-polluting way): only that they could be. The world could be strewn with these pencils, buried in them, and the words on them would still be true.
Take the aluminium ferrules at the end of the pencil (that held the rubber in place): how many of them actually were recycled? I should be rather surprised if many people went to the trouble of disposing of those ferrules in a way that caused or enabled them to be recycled. As with presents, it is the thought that counts.
The information on the side of the pencil was designed not to inform us, or even to exhort us to do anything, but to make us feel virtuous for having bought so environment-friendly a writing implement. No more than making the correct choice of pencil was required of us: buy it and you were automatically helping to save the planet. The Cedars of Lebanon are conjured by the words.
Actually I bought the pencil because it was comparatively pleasant to chew. Ever since childhood I have had the bad habit of chewing my pencils and I remember the days when the paint used to come off in nasty little flakes between my teeth and create an unpleasant sensation in my mouth. Sixty years ago the paint on pencils was probably rather toxic as well; I was mildly reassured that the imprint ink was certified non-toxic, though there was no indication of who had certified it as such. At least I won’t suffer from pencil-poisoning.
CNN broadcast a one hour special yesterday called “Why they hate us” discussing why adherents to the most authentic interpretations of Islam hate the United States.
Overall, the broadcasted presentation by Fareed Zakaria was good; actually, very good. Perhaps one of the best one hour presentations in quite a while. The content was engaging, the historical references were well presented and well outlined…. until a fatal flaw. The common, disconcerting and uncomfortable fatal flaw.
In what can only be viewed as an effort to downplay the scope of the threat, Fareed Zakaria claims the existence of only 100,000 jihad-minded Islamic followers world-wide. Fifteen minutes later he presents the 2014 terror victim outcome of 30,000 dead in a single year from Muslim Terrorist Attacks; most victims also Muslim – as if that matters.
Zakaria would have the viewing audience believe that 100k world-wide adherent followers, could inflict 30,00 fatalities. Common sense, not prone to co-dependency, would refute such an obtuse argument.
Later, in closing, Zakaria claims that isolating (or profiling) the larger Muslim community, because of the behavior of the jihad-minded minority, only leads to greater radicalization.
This too is an argument fraught with intellectual dishonesty. Why? Because we’ve been trying the open arm approach for fifteen years and it’s not working.
Donald Trump’s proposal to temporarily halt any Muslim immigration is abhorred by Zakaria in his closing statement fraught with political correctness and cultural Marxism:
[…] How can we bring an end to this?
There’s really only one way: Help the majority of Muslims fight extremists, reform their faith, and modernize their societies. In doing so, we should listen to those on the front lines, many of whom are fighting and dying in the struggle against jihadis. The hundreds of Muslim reformers I’ve spoken to say their task is made much harder when Western politicians and pundits condemn Islam entirely, demean their faith, and speak of all Muslims as backward and suspect.
But here’s another way to think about this. In America, African-Americans make up about 13% of the population, yet they comprise about 50% of homicide offenders, according to a Justice Department study. Now we understand — I hope we understand — that when we see a black man on the street, we cannot and must not treat him as a likely criminal. It would be dehumanizing, unfair and racist. In America, of all places, people should be treated as individuals and not as stereotypes from a racial, ethnic or religious group.
I would propose Donald Trump is correct; his proposal is exactly intended to help Muslims “reform their faith”. The difference between Donald Trump’s proposition and the preferred liberal approach is entirely a matter of expectation. Donald Trump forces confrontation to occur on moral terms understandable to modern society. The progressively minded Zakaria is completely wrong:
After decades of culturally-dominating politically correct drum-beating, sold by a generally leftist mainstream media numbing the average psyche from accepting common sense, it might take a few minutes for the prudent position of Donald Trump to sink-in.
However, once you get beyond the trained instinct of hysteria, and focus on the substantive request, to: “shutdown Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” – it actually makes a great deal of sense.
Such a position is really not the least bit controversial, and that’s exactly what makes it so brilliant on many levels.
Of course, if you are not willing to accept the concept of Islamic Jihad – and/or if you are unwilling to accept that Islamic Terrorists have been specifically targeting America for the past decade – well, in that instance Trump’s position might seem controversial. However, for the rest of us, it makes a great deal of sense.
The really exceptional part of Trump’s proposal is that it is the only consideration that might actually force non-Jihadist U.S. Muslims to confront the problem within their religion/association. That aspect makes Donald Trump’s plan rather unique.
In broad terms Donald Trump is reintroducing the concept of “societal shame” as a tool to combat anti-social behavior. If that shame creates isolation, so be it – a culture cannot be forced into a melting pot, they must make the decision themselves.
After decades of the progressive left pushing an ideology of shame as a bad thing, mostly because of the leftists severe aversion to the accompanying concept of guilt, Trump is throwing a bucket of ice-cold water on the ‘everyone-gets-a-trophy-crowd’.
Of course there is a commonality behind Islamic Extremists; that commonality is their adherence to authentic Islam – the degrees of separation within Muslim identity.
Conflating authentic Islam -as supported by a larger aggregate community that refuses to confront it- with the Christian extremists within the Westboro Baptist Church is just silly. The Westboro Church isn’t trying to kill non-Christians, and their controversial activity is resoundingly rebuked by the larger Christian community. There is no moral or intellectual equivalence there.
Neither is Catholic Pope Francis using St. Peter’s Square as a publicity draw for the beheading of non Christians.
Nor is it extremist elements within the Amish community trying to hide terrorist cells within local Amish communities; and Mr. and Mrs Jorgenson are not being willfully blind to Isaac the bomb-maker’s presence inside their church.
If it were the Amish, we’d be having a similar proposal about a prudent pause on Amish immigration – and virtually guaranteed without even one tenth the controversy.
But it isn’t. It’s Islam.
It is the adherent elements within the Muslim community doing this, carrying out Islamic Jihad; and they are specifically capable of carrying out their plan due in part to the “willful blindness” within various U.S. Mosques. And before anyone takes issue with the use of “Muslim Community” you should probably research the Holy Land Foundation federal trials, there is a significant element of co-dependent jihadism that’s been going on for quite a while.
Cartoons don’t kill people. Islamic ideologues, who interpret their religion to demand they kill cartoonists, are killing people.
Donald Trump is drawing a very bold line in the sand not because he wants it, but rather because it’s necessary, even urgent.
Perhaps if people would actually watch the un-aired portion of the December 2015 CBS interview with Trump, specifically about terrorism, they’d have a much better idea where he is coming from (See: 05:18 for discussion about “going too far“?)
What you see in that interview is Donald Trump having clear eyes as to the threat. Trump is a master at getting through the BS that is actual political correctness, and directly putting his words on the bottom line.
? “Human rights violations? ISIS is chopping people’s heads’ off, and drowning them in cages right now Jake, it’s medieval”. (Jake Tapper – link)
Donald Trump’s call to: (1) pause Muslim Immigration; (2) reassess the threat matrix; (3) make some changes to the vetting process; (4) reevaluate the security risk, and (5) “figure out what is going on“, is not only non-controversial – it’s prudent and wise.
We’ve already been told the FBI can’t keep up with the current volume of threat from domestic Islamic Extremists already imported. Why would we take any additional risk and stretch them out even further? Again, common sense.
Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik had been working on their plan to attack San Bernadino for what now appears to be “several years”. As specific details come out they apparently were in a network of communication with ISIS type Islamists – and their families were certainly aware that “something” was going on.
….It is beyond obtuse to believe otherwise.
Grandma making dinner while a pipe bomb lay on the kitchen table – and the White House wants us to believe there was no familial knowledge; while Zakaria wants Americans to ignore the familial knowledge. Seriously?
Let’s insert some reasonable common sense here regardless of how uncomfortable it is.
….And while we are discussing common sense, let’s not forget the current administration’s approach toward combating Islamic terrorism post Paris attack:
How did that approach work out?
Perhaps we should ask the people of Brussels.
“We’re being led by stupid, stupid people” ~ Donald Trump
‘Selfie-girl’ at anti-Muslim protest apologises for anti-Semitic remarks
Zakia Belkhiri, a teenager (she's actually 22 and I think she had an up-hill paper round) who won praise after posing in front anti-Muslim protestors in Belgium while taking selfies, has issued an apology after journalists unearthed a number of anti-Semitic comments posted on her social media accounts.
Belkhiri was widely praised after photos emerged last week showing her standing in front of far-Right Flemish nationalist group called Vlaams Belang as they protested at the Muslim Expo in Antwerp. A group of protesters had gathered outside the expo, which celebrates Muslim lifestyle, art and culture, with signs including messages such as “No headscarves” and “Stop Islam”.
The photos of her selfies, taken by Jurgen Augusteyns and published by Vice, were shared by thousands of supporters around the world.
However, it has since emerged that Belkhiri has posted several anti-Semitic remarks on her social media channels.
In one 2012 tweet she wrote: "Hitler didn't kill all the Jews, he left some. So we know why he was killing them."
And in a 2014 Facebook post she said of Jews: "I hate them so much."
Her apology went down so badly that her selfies have been lampooned (left) by being superimposed on survivors of the holocaust and islamic terrorist attacks.
“You meant that Zionist Jews deserve to die?" one Twitter user replied.
Belkhiri, who has since deactivated her social media presences, has been contacted for a comment.
PEOPLE have slammed a new development in Melbourne, calling it “a ghetto of Islam”. A block in Melton South will be transformed into housing targeted at the Islamic community, with 75 separate lots and a mosque built in the middle of the neighbourhood.
It’s called Iqra Village and is said to become Victoria’s largest faith-based housing.
Developer Amanar Rahman, one of four listed directors of Rahber Developments, said the $2.4 million parcel was carved up to buyers who wanted to live with other Muslims. “It’s basically a community project that we have done in a halal way.”
Islamic Council of Victoria general manager Nail Aykan said he believed the planned development was the first of its kind in Melbourne “at this scale”. “It’s a great vision that we’re all neighbours, we all go into affordable housing and we do something that’s holy,’’ Mr Aykan said.
News AU is trying to put a positive slant on it.
But the development is not a Muslim-only community and it will certainly not be gated. While it will be rich with Islamic culture, it’s only targeted at Muslim families who might want to live around others with the same values.
Australian Federation of Islamic Councils treasurer Keysar Trad (he has form) told A Current Affair Muslims were just creating a neighbourhood free of discrimination and free of misunderstanding.
“This particular venture is an indication there’s a feeling out there that there’s perhaps less acceptance of Muslims,” he said. “A project of this nature will allow people to be able to develop a local place of worship or a local school without too many objections from neighbours. They won’t be getting in anybody’s way, it’s something within their local community..."
However there is a cloud of the halal horizon
Homebuyers originally bought the subdivided lots under sharia law, which prohibits borrowing money where interest is payable, so the venture was financed by several investors.
The company was wound up earlier this month over a $400,000 debt to the Australian Taxation Office.
Mr Rahman conceded Rahber’s precarious financial position jeopardised plans for the mosque. Two separate Supreme Court cases launched by buyers disputing money owed have been settled and dismissed. A similar Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal bid by two investors seeking damages over claims of being misled was also thrown out this month.