Brexit Betrayal III - Protest in Westminster today. Updated 10pm GMT
I was sure we would get Brexit today, this time, as promised. I started to believe when I saw the signs on the motorway three weeks ago. I caught it the nanosecond the sentence moved, but you can take my word that it was a notice to lorry drivers that after Brexit on the 31st October their paperwork from Europe would change and need checking.
There were adverts on the television "On 31st October Britain is leaving the EU"; "Be ready for Brexit". Only this afternoon I picked up the leaflet left in the post office.
But by last weekend we knew we had been betrayed again. And being the polite law abiding people we are there have been no riots, no civil unrest. But instead of the party in Westminster it was a march and rally. I couldn't go due to family committments but friends are there and these are some of their photographs. So far the press isn't covering this - update, a report in the Mail. But did we expect otherwise?
Trafalgar Square, down Whitehall to Parliament
The Liberal Democrats sent in their lorry float "Stop Brexit" It was blocked by the protesters and the Police had to direct it reversing out and then away. And they expect people to vote for them. Lloyd George (he knew my grandfather) would be turning in his grave (his statue is opposite)
That was this afternoon during daylight. I understand that some pro-brexit protestors have gone home. Others are having a drink in the Westminster pubs and that a call has gone round in the Antifa media to find the 'gammon' (a racist slur for white men, usually older white men). Police are on the spot.
Hopefully Antifa will just bluster a bit and then go home for some nice lentils.
The Antifa presence is a night-time action "London is Anti-fascist - anti-fascism is international" meeting by the International Brigade memorial at Jubilee Gardens on Southbank. They intend to stop the far-right mobilising to spread islamophobia and xenophobia in the chaos of Brexit. 'Hem!
I hear that a group of them were challenged at Waterloo station.
Meanwhile back in Parliament Square police are containing and have arrested what are believed to be pro-brexit supporters.
In the past week, two eerily similar polls — one in Germany (available in German only) and one in the United States — made it into the public sphere. Both concerned the pillar of freedom, free speech, and both sadly portend the end of what countless brave souls on both sides of the Atlantic who died on so many battlefields valiantly fought for.
November 2019 marks the thirtieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which ostensibly ushered in the end of the Communist iron grip on Eastern Europe. Following the end of World War II, Communism had brutally separated the free West from the subjugated East, and nowhere was this partition more glaringly obvious than in individual liberty or lack thereof. Thirty years have now passed since that glorious November day. I watched the tearing down of the wall by East Berliners desperately seeking freedom — the freedom to speak, think, move, exist — live on television, having visited East Berlin only a year before. I was ecstatic for the people of East Germany, hoping they would be able to savor their hard-fought freedom as I have done over and over.
The widespread disillusionment that has set in over the past decades pains me. Just a few days ago, the Post-Communists won the parliamentary elections of the state of Thuringia in what was once East Germany, and I am quite certain post-election analyses will show that the block of Post-Communist voters consists of mostly young people who have no recollection or experience of the evil of Communism.
And so it comes as no surprise when a well-known German opinion research institute publishes a poll indicating that “nearly two-thirds of [those polled] are convinced that nowadays one must be very careful regarding the topics about which one can speak freely because there many unwritten laws indicating which opinions are permissible and which opinions are not permissible.” In addition, 58% of those polled no longer feel safe speaking freely in public, with only 17% agreeing that they can voice their opinion freely on the Internet. More than 40% sense that political correctness is overemphasized, while 35% have decided for themselves to voice their opinions only in a private setting.
The German poll is complemented by a — frankly, frightening in its ramifications — US poll: a whopping 51% of Millennials call for fines and even jail time for “hate speech.” In a survey conducted by the Campaign for Free Speech, more than 60% call for restrictions on speech in some way. While the Campaign’s director finds the results “frankly extraordinary,” they are hardly surprising. Speech restrictions coupled with hefty fines and, in some instances, even jail time have become the norm in Europe, with my case being one of countless others. Moreover, the results of both polls are what free speech activists on both sides of the Atlantic have been warning about for at least the past decade: at international forums such as the United Nations and the (perhaps lesser-known) Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, these very speech restrictions have been not only concocted, but also weaponized and successfully applied. In one case in point, at an official OSCE forum in Vienna in 2015, which I attended, we were told that speaking the truth may constitute “hate speech”, because “sometimes truth is difficult.” Secretary General Antonio Guterres of the United Nations calls for stepping up international efforts to suppress “hate speech.”
Calling for jail time for speaking “unauthorized truth” sends a chilling effect without the need (yet) for concentration camps to be re-opened. If we do not stop these dangerous attempts at silencing free speech in Europe as well as the United States, we will find ourselves in a dungeon sooner than we ever thought possible. For those asking why and how we have come so far, why these staggering numbers are calling for the First Amendment to reflect today’s cultural norms (Which norms? Whose norms?), the Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn made the following observation in a 1978 commencement speech:
A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, in each government, in each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. There are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life.
This was true in 1978, and it true today. Go out and fight hard for your rights and your freedom. My friend Eric Metaxas rightly believes that America still has enough freedom left to fight for freedom. But we must take heed of Ronald Reagan’s warning that freedom is not passed down from generation to generation. It must be fought for anew every single day.
The Impeachment Farce Limps Along to Its Anticlimax
All but the most committed Trump haters have grown tired of the spurious investigation and its unvarnished bias against the president.
by Conrad Black
You may read it here first: This sordid, contemptible impeachment ruse is finally disintegrating. It was another fraud, and I predict that this time the polls will move clearly in the president’s favor. There are limits to how often his enemies can get the public and the world to the edges of their chairs with their fantastic accusations. The Economist, a long-respected magazine in earlier times, told us a year ago that the Trump presidency was hanging on the thread of Michael Cohen’s testimony. Most of the U.S. media gave the public to understand for two years that there was a high chance that he would be thrown out once the Mueller investigation established his “treasonous” links to the Russians. Trump appalls many reasonable people by some of his antics and utterances, but his supporters are rock-solid at only slightly less than half the country, and enough to have got him elected. But the vitriolic antagonism of about 90 percent of the media, and the fear and loathing of the political class, which he assaulted in its entirety, have sustained an artificial levitation of morbid expectation that he will be overthrown and removed.
My research and intuition indicate that we have reached a turning point, and that all but the outright Trump-haters are disconcerted, and in growing numbers disgusted, by the cumulative pettiness, nastiness, and dishonesty of the assault on this president. As the longest-serving occupant of the office, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said, “The president is, preeminently, the head of the American people.” This fact is frequently lost sight of in partisan skirmishing, but it is always capable of being asserted if the facts warrant. This president has only, to my recollection, addressed the whole country on a national issue from his office once, and his appearance then was unexceptionable. However ill-considered some of his comments may have seemed (and been), he has not squandered or abused his ability to ascend to that role and has endured these three years of contumely and spurious challenge somewhat equably. He has presumably believed that eventually the effort to portray and convict him as an illegitimate felon would be seen as an outrage.
I believe the country is now sick of it. To be sure, Trump has exhausted even his supporters; it is hard work defending him, and that is why he generally outperforms the polls. But the country is beginning to see that it has been duped. There are a couple of almost hidden traits of the American people that are profound and imperishable and capable of being stirred, and that once aroused are invincible. One is the puritanical conscience of the country. Despite cynicism, hucksterism, all the gaucheries and inanities of banal and often craven political hacks, the plagues of bad taste, and the inundation of public life with money, often in unwholesome interests, almost all Americans fundamentally believe in America and all its legitimate institutions. For reasons as familiar to readers as they are to me, this presidency has not been the beneficiary of this inbred respect for the institutions of national public life. But the instantly confected fraud of an impeachable offense in the president’s relations with Ukraine and its president has now snapped the patience and indulgence of all but the Trump-haters so rabid they should be in straitjackets and padded cells. (There are millions of them, but they aren’t more than about a quarter of the adult population.)
A shabby fraud launched by a partisan whistleblower who is acting on hearsay about an innocuous telephone call whose summary, though perhaps not entirely complete, was immediately released to the public cannot go much farther. It has been kept alive by a Star Chamber in which the president is not represented and the Republican questioning and calling of witnesses is done at the behest of the Democratic leadership. It cannot produce a serious offense that the president could actually be accused of committing, and now it is to be sustained by a dubious vote that will only slightly alter its almost totalitarian one-sidedness. This ghastly farce has been presided over by a pathological public liar, Representative Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), who has outdone even his previous fiasco of failing to produce his “conclusive evidence” of the president’s “treason” with Russia. The country will not tolerate seeing its elected leader defamed and smeared by odious little people who would strip him of his elected office.
It is one thing to resent and disparage some of the president’s foibles, and it is regrettable but inevitable that many are so offended by what they take to be his garishness and bluster that they are prepared to believe negative views of Trump despite his undeniable successes in dealing with the economy, illegal immigration, nuclear non-proliferation, trade, avoidance of Green madness, and intelligent judicial appointments. But the American people will not stand for the president and his wife being booed at a baseball game; they will not stand for morally bankrupt congressmen operating a constitutional desecration of an impeachment inquiry; they will not stand for national political media that denounce the president of the United States for describing as a coward an infamous terrorist who murdered three children as he committed suicide. They will not abide a long-influential newspaper (the Washington Post) that headlined the violent death of the world’s leading terrorist as “Austere Religious Scholar Dies at 48.”
In these wildly unjustified orgies of hate and misinformation, the country will consider Trump describing some of his enemies as “human scum” as the lesser of evils, or even excusable (and accurate). The country wants the president to address national questions with calm and reasonable displays of leadership, as when President Franklin Roosevelt called for the country to be “the great arsenal of democracy,” President Truman revealed the use of the atomic bomb, President Eisenhower deployed elite Army units to integrate schools in Little Rock, Ark., President Kennedy explained the Cuban missile crisis, President Johnson called for the enactment of civil-rights legislation, President Nixon asked the support of the “silent majority” in disengaging from Vietnam, and President Reagan spoke of the astronauts who had died. And now, finally, the majority realizes that the chief culprits for the venomous indignity of the political atmosphere are the president’s enemies. At a certain point, very late and very far down on the behavioral scale, the country demands that the president be treated with the dignity due to the person they have chosen to be not just the leader of the government but the personification of the state, the head of the people, as Roosevelt said. Whatever else he may be, Donald Trump is the rightful president, and those who don’t like it can vote against him next year.
The media terror has gone too far, and the executioners of the innocent are about to be executed by the survivors; this is the pattern of revolutionary movements that frighten and revolt their former partisans. The reassuring thing is that the system is working, as the eminent lawyer Alan Dershowitz has remarked. The executive branch and part of the legislative branch are at loggerheads. I doubt that the House of Representatives can pass an article of impeachment that accuses the president of an offense worthy of his removal from office, not that there is any chance on what is now public that he will be convicted of anything by the Senate. If the Schiff sleaze-cabal can’t get a real charge adopted, there may instead be a pallid attempt at a vote of censure, which will not be taken up by the Senate.
Under any scenario, the wheels are coming off this disgraceful Democratic garbage cart in all directions. Impeachment will fizzle ignominiously while the former administration is arraigned on serious charges from the Russian scandal, and the Democrats will wallow in their squalid failure to produce a feasible candidate for the White House. Normalcy, for which the country longs, is not dead; it is reawakening at last.
M&S is to become first food giant to sell own-label halal ready meals at stores that attract high number of Muslim shoppers
From the Times and taken up by the Daily Mail. Marks and Spencer (a Jewish founded firm whose clothing line branded St Michael used to be banned in Egypt and other countries of the Middle east) has lost its way in the clothing line in recent years but is expanding its food department. Their stuff is very good quality but pandering to both halal and vegan will end in tears.
Marks & Spencer is to become the first major British retailer to sell own-brand halal ready-meals in response to the growing demand from Muslim customers.
From next week halal versions of six dishes, including chicken arrabbiata, chicken jalfrezi and chicken and mushroom tagliatelle, will be on sale in 36 stores from Bath to Wycombe Marsh.
Marks & Spencer was started more than 130 years ago when Michael Marks, a Jewish immigrant, came to the UK and moved from a market stall to set up a penny bazaar in Leeds.
The retailer now has 1,035 stores across the UK making just under £6 billion from food sales. Marks & Spencer confirmed that the animals used in its dishes were stunned before slaughter, following guidelines from the Halal Food Authority. This permits low-voltage stunning such as electrified water baths and electric tongs as long as the meat has been blessed.
At the same time, the company is trying to broaden its range to attract others who want food that meets their own ethical approach with, for example, the Plant Kitchen range catering for the increasing number of vegans.
Simon Pollitt-Khan, the M&S store manager at Temple Fortune in London, said he approached the retailer about the growing demand for halal food. He said: 'There are still very few opportunities to eat different flavoured foods – like Italian or more traditional British dishes – in a convenient halal format.'
The retailer has worked with the poultry business 2 Sisters to isolate a production line dedicated to halal chicken.
A teenage tree surgeon had his hand chopped off with an axe in an ‘appalling’ attack carried out by an armed mob sparked by a road rage row in Rochdale, a court heard.
The victim, then aged just 18, was one of four workmates set upon on Church Road, Newbold, on the afternoon of October 17, 2017 by a gang of up to 20 men.
They had been summoned by Habibur Rahman, 27, who called the victims ‘white b******s’ who were in his ‘country’, Minshull Street Crown Court heard.
One of the mob, Mohammed Awais Sajid, known as ‘Skinny’, came armed with an axe.
Others were carrying knives, machetes, a clawhammer and a knuckleduster…
Sajid, of Kings Road, Rochdale, was jailed for 18 years after being found guilty of section 18 wounding.
He was acquitted of attempted murder in an earlier trial.
There were shouts of ‘f***ing injustice! and ‘police set up’ from a man in the public gallery as he was led down to the cells, while a woman fled the court in sobs of tears.
Rahman, the instigator of the shocking street violence of Milnrow Road, Rochdale, was also found guilty of an assault charge after the court heard he used a knuckleduster to punch one of the other tree surgeons in the face, breaking his nose….
His brother Zillur Rahman, 29, was jailed for three years for conspiracy to commit violent disorder after he admitted making phone calls to summon the gang.
Judge John Potter said the horrific events began at around 4pm when Habibur Rahman manager of his family’s restaurant the Baytree in Blackley, ‘took offence’ at the driving of an elderly woman on Church Road.
“You shouted abuse at her and two tree surgeons passing by intervened.
Rahman screamed at the elderly lady who was driving —no doubt she was going too slowly for his tastes and thus, by his reckoning, she deserved his “shouting abuse” at her. She was an Infidel, after all. Two tree surgeons driving by stepped in as defenders of the defenseless, to halt his verbal assault.
A scuffle took place between Habibur Rahman and one of the tree surgeons.”
Rahman then made it clear that he had been ‘disrespected’ on his ‘territory’ and decided to enact ‘swift retribution’, the judge said.
Rahman was a gang leader defending his turf. Or rather, not defending it, because there was no attempt by the tree surgeons to lay claim to it; having ended the lady’s distress, they promptly went about their business. They were innocent and inoffensive unless you count, as Rahman did, their coming to the elderly lady’s defense as an offense. As Rahman saw it, he was perfectly entitled to scream at the woman; she was in his territory, the “white bastards” had “disrespected” him by daring to interfere when he yelled at her. And they were on his turf, the turf of the local Muslims. That neighborhood, as far as Habibur Rahman was concerned, was a No-Go Area for Unbelievers. Who in hell did they think they were? He’d show them. He had his brother summon by phone 18 other Muslims, none of whom were apparently at work at 4 p.m., which is understandable, given the number of Muslims living contentedly on the dole in the U.K. And they came ready not for a fair fight, but for a massacre, armed with knives, machetes, clawhammers, knuckledusters, and an axe. The Muslims were a gang, but this was not a gang fight, akin to what goes on between the Bloods and the Crips. The tree surgeons were not members of a gang; they were workers, there only to do their job and leave. They instead were the victims of an unprovoked assault with deadly weapons.
The twenty Muslims, with Habibur Rahman at their head, were determined to inflict grievous harm on the four tree surgeons. You don’t bring knives and machetes and an axe if you are only going to rough people up.
You can imagine what those Muslims were thinking. How dare those “white bastards” think they have a right to even be in Rochdale Road, in our territory? What’s this? They’re just doing their job? So what? “It’s their country, too.” No, it isn’t. The U.K. is now our country, it belongs to us, the “best of peoples,” and not to the Infidels, the Kuffar, the “most vile of all created beings.” This is our territory. We can’t – yet – claim the whole country, but we can claim our neighborhood, and within a few years all of Newbold, and much of Manchester itself will be a place where Kuffars will know who is boss. We go to Pakistan and bring back wives, and relatives. And then their relatives come. We have big families. We take the Jizyah Seeker’s Allowance. No one can stop us.
The tree surgeons were tracked to the property they were working on nearby and were quickly confronted by Rahman and a mob that rapidly grew in number.
Habibur Rahman’s first action was to prevent the men from leaving,” said prosecutor Mr Storrie…
The tree surgeons had packed up their tools and were preparing to leave just as Habibur Rahman arrived and parked his Vauxhall behind their vehicle, making it impossible for them to drive away. Meanwhile, his brother had been on the phone, and 18 other Muslims showed up. It wasn’t going to be a fair fight. Even though there were only four “white bastards,” the Muslims were only ready to attack when they vastly outnumbered, five to one, the trapped Infidels, and furthermore, they came armed.
Speaking from his car, Rahman made chilling threats, saying: “I am not going to let them leave.
“They’re going to get what they deserve. They’re going to get stabbed.”
The Muslim mob descended on the four white men, and cornered the youngest of them. One of the Muslims, a certain Sajid, suddenly came out of his car, brandishing his axe, and swung it into the chest of the cornered Englishman, leaving him with shattered ribs and a collapsed lung. Then he swung again, this time aiming at the head. Fortunately, Sajid’s victim put up his arm to protect himself, thus avoiding a probably fatal head wound, but the axe hit his wrist, severing his hand.
In an interview, Rahman claimed he was subjected to racist threats from the four tree surgeons.
But sentencing, Judge Potter said this was a ‘pack of lies’.
Judge Potter’s forthrightness is welcome: a “pack of lies.” Many others, too, in the U.K. and all over the Western world, must be getting heartily sick of Muslim malefactors playing the victim, forever claiming “racist threats.” There were no threats. The tree surgeons, having stopped Rahman’s abuse of that elderly lady driver, simply drove on to their workplace. They had no interest in taking Habibur Rahman on. They had work to finish.
“Racist threats”? There was no evidence presented to back up that claim. This is standard Muslim victimization: “We were being taunted by “racists,” who made “threats” against us. We had done nothing to anyone. We were minding our own business, and when they made those “racist threats,” we were only “fighting back.” Was assembling a mob of twenty men, armed with knives, machetes, clawhammers, and an axe, required to answer “racist threats”?
He said: “The fact that a mob could be mobilised so quickly and so heavily-armed is clear evidence in my judgement that you are each associated with gang activity.”
Judge Potter described the violence as Rahman’s gang ‘asserting control’ over the neighbourhood of Newbold.
Of course. Rahman and his friends all regarded their own neighborhood as a Muslim“territory” within the U.K. Not yet a No-Go Area, but close.
Sajid [the man with the axe] arrived at the scene just as the violence began.
Mr Storrie [the prosecutor] said he launched a ‘devastating attack’ on the youngest of the tree surgeon crew that was ‘to shape irreversibly the events of the afternoon.’
Sajid arrived by car, halting to get out and stride towards the confrontation; he had secreted his weapon down the waistband of his trousers; he removed it and, without the slightest hesitation or inquiry, in his first blow, he struck out at the chest wall of [the victim],” said Mr Storrie…”
His first blow shattered ribs and caused a collapsed lung. He then followed up up with a 360 degree spin of his arm, an act which was doubtless employed to enhance the speed and devastation of the attack. The blow itself was aimed at the victim’s head.
This was a blow intended to kill. That the second one did not do so is only because the victim had raised his arm in time to protect himself, losing not his life but “only” a severed hand.
Judge Potter said none of the group had showed ‘a shred of remorse’ throughout proceedings, refusing to give evidence during two trials….
Sajid was not alone. There were up to 20 Muslim men in that mob, ready to attack with a their machetes, knives, clawhammers, and hoping to mortally wound if they could, these four British men, who had done nothing whatever to any of them, except to prevent Habibur Rahman continuing to heap abuse on an elderly woman driver. They came when summoned to take care of the “white bastards.”
Fortunately, the prosecutor was forceful, and the judge himself no-nonsense in his attitude. It is not always thus. Sajid was sentenced to 20 years. Others received lesser sentences. It is unfortunate, however, that Habibur Rahman himself received a sentence of only 3 ½ years. Did the instigator of the whole business deserve a sentence so much lighter than that of Sajid?
The man whose hand was severed has already had five operations. He will never have more than 60% use of that hand, which likely means he will have to change professions.
And just as not a single one of the Muslims who took part in this atrocity expressed any remorse – why should they, to a kuffar judge in a courtroom full of kuffars, daring to impose kuffar law on them, as they are the “best of peoples” – the Muslims in the courtroom were outraged by the verdict. There were shouts, as noted before, of “f***ing injustice!” and “police set up” from a man in the public gallery as he was led down to the cells, while a woman fled the court sobbing hysterically. Not a single Muslim came forward then, or has done so since, to denounce the gang.
One hopes this incident, in all its horrific detail, is well covered in the media. It is one more ray of reality, allowed to light up the darkness about Islam, and to alert more British people to a fate many more are likely to suffer, if they don’t wake up.
A report published in June 2015 at the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam on antisemitism in professional football (soccer) stated that this disease crossed national boundaries, though its historical origins and manifestations differed from one country to the next. Educational tools developed to fight antisemitic and other discriminatory manifestations in soccer are not used often enough. Indeed, it is bewildering that the scream, “Jews to the Gas,” is often heard today in soccer games in Rotterdam, Arnhem, Leeuwarden in the Netherlands, and London.
Soccer has never been regarded as the sport of kings, nor has it been considered simply as a courteous encounter between friendly rivals. Often games have degenerated into clashes between passionate fan groups who express abuse and commit acts of violence or undesirable behavior against opponents. Rivalries may relate to ethnic, religious, political, national, and class differences. In his 1945 essay, The Sporting Spirit, George Orwell held that sport is an unfailing cause of ill will. International sports mimic warfare, with emotions of hatred and jealousy. They are linked to political and historical rivalries. Nevertheless, it is surprising that soccer games in a number of countries in post-World War II Europe and elsewhere have been the occasion for antisemitism as well as racist abuse and violence.
Racism has been manifested verbally against most black soccer players. However, the problem of antisemitism is more complicated than that of racism as there are few obvious reasons or physical attributes to attract discrimination and prejudice. In general, casting a rival team as Jewish is a device to ridicule or minimize it. In Poland, antisemitic fans display banners with Jewish stereotypes, such as long noses. Fans of Wisla Kratow, (white star), a traditional Polish Catholic club use antisemitic slogans to insult rival Kracovian Kratowm a supposedly Jewish club, though actually predominantly Catholic. In a game between the two teams in 2006, eight people died even before the game began.
In Germany, antisemitic chants and symbols at games are used as insults reminiscent of Germany’s past history. Some far right groups have used antisemitism at soccer games as a useful opportunity to spread their propaganda, and hope to recruit fans to their political cause. One of the most disconcerting devices used by antisemites in Germany and Italy is mockery of Anne Frank who died in Bergen Belsen at the age of 15. Fans of the Roman team Lazio displayed images of Anne Frank searing the jersey of rival team Roma to ridicule the team.
One interesting, if somewhat confusing, development in recent years in Europe is the declaration by some non-Jewish fans that they are Jews, probably responding in defensive fashion against antisemitic manifestations. Their actions have not only been controversial but puzzling since the clubs do not usually have any Jewish players, coaches, owners, or directors. Two well-known examples of this self-identification as a “Jewish club” are fans of Tottenham Hotspur (Spurs) in north London, and Ajax in Amsterdam, some of whose fans in response to opponents portray themselves as “Joden” or “Superjoden.”
The Spurs have had a long rivalry with Arsenal, another north London club, which they consider their main rivalry, though Arsenal by contrast considers Manchester United as its chief enemy. From about the late 1950s, Spurs has been referred to as a Jewish team and its members and supporters are called “Yids” by opponents. The word Yid is derived from the Yiddish word for Jew, but its use in English is derogatory and is usually regarded as offensive. With the increase of antisemitic incidents in the 1970s and 1980s, some Spurs fans, giving themselves an honorary title, defined themselves as a “Yid Army.”
In London antisemitism has been manifested in the stadiums of Chelsea and West Ham, a team in east London, where fans have sung songs praising Adolf Hitler and have given the Nazi salute.
In 2017 a West Ham supporter was convicted for telling a Jewish fan to “stick you head in the oven like the Jew you are.” He escaped with light punishment, with a 18 month suspended sentence and small fine,
On December 13, 2018, Chelsea supporters chanted antisemitic songs at a Europa League game in Belgrade against Brighton and Hove, though its owner was the former Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich who became an Israeli citizen. Again, in February 2019 Chelsea chanted similar songs at a match in Malmo. Abramovich has tried to overcome this hostlity by various proposals, including a substantial contribution to an educational exhibition on the Holocaust at the Imperial War Museum in London.
The second team identified as Jewish is Ajax in Amsterdam, a city which once had a well- established Jewish community, the Jerusalem of the West. Though the club has no particular relationship with the Jewish community nor is the club owned by Jews, some supporters wave Israeli flags and sing Hava Nagila. Opponents of Ajax have used slogans against them such as “Jews to the gas.” Fans of other Dutch clubs such as Leeuwarden, called for Jews to be burned.
Similar remarks have been made by other teams, such as Ado Den Haag of The Hague, the Belgian club Brugge, Vitesse, and All Boys in Buenos Aires, waving Palestinian flags. Den Haag fans were responsible for the damaging with yellow and green paint ( the colors of Ajax) in February 2019 of the statue of De Dokwerker, Dockworker, the Amsterdam memorial to the Holocaust, and for green swastikas painted in the streets.
Germany has witnessed several incidents. Almog Cohen, an Israeli, captain of the club Ingolstadt, based in Koepenick, Berlin, was subjected in March 2019 to messages that he be “sent to the chamber.” Particularly notorious has been the club Borussia Dortmund in a town that has been a center for neo-Nazism. Fans of the NWDO, national resistance Dortmund, on March 9, 2019 observed a moment’s silence at the game for a deceased fan, Thomas Haller, a dedicated Nazi and co-founder of the group called HooNaRa, Hooligans, Nazis, racists, a group to revive Nazism.
Another troublesome German city is Chemnitz, a center of right wing AfD activity. Ultraright fans have a slogan, Germany for the Germans, and use the name NS which is supposed to stand for new society, by ruin reality implies national socialism, Nazism.
Given this sad state of affairs in soccer, it is important that those involved with the game, individuals, clubs, football associations local and national authorities, take action, legal and educational. Sanctions should be imposed on clubs that tolerate racist and antisemitic behavior by their fans, clubs can use cameras and sound sensors in stadiums to identify individuals responsible for misbehavior. The policy of strict liability, introduced in 2005 by the Union of European Football Associations, can be enforced, making clubs accountable for the behavior if their fans. A simple starting point can be the imposition of penalties on soccer clubs and fans similar to those given by referees to players who break the rules of the game. It might be useful for soccer fans to hear, as some in Italy were, to a passage by Anne Frank, “I somehow feel that everything will change for the better, that this cruelty too shall end, that peace and tranquility will return once more.”
Muslim sentenced to 10 days imprisonment for threats to behead Queen of Denmark, King of Sweden and others.
But according to his wife he does have psychosis because he smokes too much dope. The English language sources for this are Russia Today and Arutz Shiva The original Danish source is Ekstra Bladet. which is more detailed.
A Muslim man living in Copenhagen has been locked up after sharing his desire to kill Denmark’s royal family. The man was reported to police by his wife, who feared his heavy use of hashish had made him psychotic.
The 33-year-old was sentenced to 10 days in jail after a Danish court found him guilty of making death threats on the internet. According to Danish media, the man published a series of worrying messages on Facebook, including a post which discussed “cutting the head of Queen [Margrethe II] and the whole [Danish] royal family.” He also made threats against Swedish King Carl XVI Gustaf (the convicted man works in Sweden), as well as Danish politician Rasmus Paludan, who is the leader of an anti-immigrant party.
October 17 at 1 p.m. 14.52, according to the charge, he wrote a text next to a photo of Rasmus Paludan holding a Quran: 'If you are a man, show your face in public, and then you can burn the words of the Qur'an, then I will burn Denmark and all that is in Denmark including you '.
October 18 at 1 p.m. 18.15 came the threat to the queen and the royal family.
Two minutes later, the Facebook post continued: 'I'll give you a week's deadline. If you do not stop, you will stop your life all together and forever you whores. I'm going to kill as many people as there are stars'.
On the same day, half an hour later, the threats continued: 'And I will not let a single disbeliever, in a world war, which I will end in an hour, with God's will ... I see some necks that have matured , and the time has come to pick them and I'm going to pick them '.
Threat to the Swedish King
October 24 at 4 p.m. 8.10 he wrote, according to the charge, the latest threat - now aimed at Swedish police and the Swedish king:
'Last warning to the Swedish police and border police, if I do not receive an answer soon, then, with God's will, I will put down the state and the king, even if I am then forced to sever his head from his body.'
He says the threats look worse translated into Danish than he intended. The 'Queen' was not meant as Queen Margrethe but his ex-wife; other threats were to old acquaintancesin Jordan who have been maligning him. That he isn't particularly religious and his recent growth of beard is merely 'to see what it looks like'. He is appealing the sentence. That whole 10 days.
Another poorly mental health patient with access to sharp knives.
I can't find this incident in Grenoble in any English language news sites. I don't really expect to - it's local news - nothing to see here. Actual stabbing murders in London don't make the provinces, and those in Birmingham and Manchester don't make the south. All part and parcel of life in a big city. Although it wasn't so when I was young and London was the second biggest city in the world.
To paraphrase, on Sunday 27th October a young man aged 19, of Algerian ethnicity and bare chested caused concern in the area around Grenoble Railway station by brandishing two large kitchen knifes while shouting Allah Akbar.
Police Officers of the Anti-Crime Brigade of Grenoble quickly had him on the floor and under arrest. From the video I think they shot him with some kind of stun gun/taser type thing.
He has been taken to a psychiatric hospital. Of course he has. Instructions from the public prosecutors office are awaited.
BBC World Affairs Editor John Simpson Deserves A Rest
by Hugh Fitzgerald
John Simpson has been World Affairs Editor of the BBC for more than 30 years. In this position, he is one of the most powerful mind-molders in the British broadcast media. He has a say on everything: assignment of correspondents abroad (who’s in, who’s out, and where they are to be sent), stories (what to cover, and what not, and whether to treat an event at length or lightly), and of course on how to preserve, or plausibly appear to, the BBC’s stated aim of “impartiality.” Simpson gets along very well with Jeremy Bowen, the Middle East correspondent for the BBC between 1995 and 2000, and since 2005, the BBC’s Middle East Editor. Bowen, who is well-known for his pro-Palestinian sympathies – the BBC Trust has censured him several times for statements he has made in his coverage of the Arab-Israeli dispute – shares the same view as Simpson on Israel and the Arabs: distaste for Israel, and sympathy for the “plight of the Palestinians,” living in wretched refugee camps in Arab countries or in “occupied Palestinian territories” where Israeli soldiers and “settlers” (always described as “armed” and often as “fanatical”) continue to oppress them. And neither Simpson nor Bowen seems particularly worried about the ideology of Islam or the observable behavior of Muslims.
I had occasion some time ago to write about Bowen’s reckless disregard of important facts. As one example of this, I noted that he has been cavalier about the numbers of terrorist attacks that Israelis have had to endure. In an interview Bowen gave to Paul Blanchard, he claimed that “…plenty of Palestinians feel very threatened by settlers, armed settlers, by soldiers, by raids in the middle of the night, by helicopters, you name it. And many Israelis have been hurt by and continue to be worried about attacks by Palestinians, though there haven’t been all that many in recent years.”
What Bowen means by “recent years” is not entirely clear, but in 2015 there were 2,398 terror attacks in Israel (of which the BBC reported 3.2%). In 2016, there were 1,415 attacks (of which the BBC covered 2.8%), in 2017 there were 1,516 attacks – less then one percent of which were reported by the BBC – and in 2018, the BBC covered at most 30.2% of the 3,006 attacks launched. During the first nine months of 2019, the BBC reported 23.6% of the 1,709 attacks which took place.
Given those figures, no fair-minded person would agree with Bowen’s dismissive remark about attacks by Palestinians against Israelis, that “there haven’t been all that many in recent years.” And it was a shock for me, and I assume for you, to find out just how many terror attacks the Israelis have endured since 2015 – more than 7,000 separate attacks – and how the BBC, on which so many around the world depend for their news, chose to report only 1370. And that number reflected a sudden, unexplained, great increase in the last two years, where someone at the BBC decided the under-reporting of terror attacks in Israel was scandalous, leaving the organization open to severe criticism, and thus more of them had to be reported. That is why there was the astonishing upswing from reporting on less than 1% of such attacks in 2017 (15 instead of 1516), to reporting on 30% of them in 2018. Reporting on 30% of terrorist attacks is still not acceptable, but at least it’s not unspeakable.
Which brings me back to Jeremy Bowen’s friend and, as World Affairs Editor since 1988, his colleague and overseer, John Simpson. Simpson’s own coverage, both of Israel and of Islam, like that of Bowen himself, leaves much to be desired. It was Simpson’s attack on the much-maligned Aung Sun Suu Kyi that caught my attention two years ago, and led me to look deeper into his views.
On September 16, 2017, John Simpson, a journalist since 1966 with the BBC, and its World Affairs editor since 1988, upon whom all sorts of awards have been lavished, published in the Telegraph a more-in-sorrow article about Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese Nobel Prize winner who had been imprisoned by the Myanmar military for her opposition to their rule, and her heading a democracy movement in that country.What interested me was not Simpson’s denunciation of her, or his complete disregard of how the Buddhists in Myanmar see the threat of Islam, but a statement he made about how, during World War II, the Rohingya had fought the Japanese. This, of course, puts them in a good light. But what actually happened is that the retreating British forces gave weapons to the Rohingya, on the assumption — or perhaps the promise — that they would use them only against the Japanese. They did not. Instead, they used the weapons in 1942 to massacre tens of thousands of Buddhists, members of the Rakhine ethnic group, in Northern Rakhine State. The Buddhists then retaliated, and thus began decades of inter-communal, and intermittent, violence.
Despite fifty years as journalist specializing in foreign affairs, apparently John Simpson could not be bothered to find this out, though a minute’s Internet searching would have produced that information. He was determined to denounce Aung San Suu Kyi, taking her to task for her refusal to say exactly what the U.N., and the O.I.C., and the BBC, and John Simpson himself, thought she should say. Her failure to condemn her fellow Buddhists outright, because she knew their complicated – not one-sided — history of conflict with the Rohingya, including that 1942 massacre, and the repeated attempts of the Rohingya to join the Northern Rakhine State to Pakistan, beginning in 1946 with an approach made to Mohammed Ali Jinnah even before Partition, and because she understood the Buddhists’ fears, which in part were prompted by the seemingly unstoppable Muslim presence in Europe, and their long memories of how Islam effaced Buddhism in India — all this was beyond Simpson’s knowledge or understanding or sympathy. His mind was made up: Aung San Suu Kyi could only be either a prisoner of the Burmese military or a “monster.” Nuance is not John Simpson’s strong suit.
Had Simpson an inquiring mind, instead of one that was perennially made up early on, and never against the BBC grain, he might have tried to understand, rather than to simply berate, Aung San Suu Kyi. But he could not be bothered. Besides, just because Islam led to the demise of Buddhism long ago, and 75 years ago the Rohingya were on the warpath, why should Buddhists today in Myanmar be so alarmed?
John Simpson once proclaimed at his website that he was “doing my best to make sense of a crazy world.” On the subject of Islam, he has been among its stoutest apologists. When he interviewed Pim Fortuyn, he infuriated that supremely intelligent man with his absurd charges about Fortuyn’s “racism,” and his obstinate refusal to accept Fortuyn’s statement of the obvious, that Islam is not a race; the courtly Fortuyn ordered Simpson and his BBC crew to leave his home after accusing the newsman of “failing to show him any respect.” You can read Simpson’s report on the man he called “Holland’s anti-Islam dandy.” Notice the sneer in his description of Fortuyn’s “high-camp charm” and how the Dutchman “sat in his garden bower like an 18th century dandy whose wig had fallen off.” There’s a lot of this dismissive stuff, and hardly anything about what it was that made Fortuyn so apprehensive about Islam. Fortuyn is only quoted as saying that the Netherlands was already “too crowded,” but he had much more to say about Islam, which didn’t appear to interest John Simpson. Of course, even knowing exactly nothing about Fortuyn’s views on anything other than Islam, Simpson goes right ahead and pastes on Fortuyn that all-purpose epithet “right-wing.” He doesn’t pick up on Fortuyn’s remarks about the treatment of women and homosexuals in Islam; apparently that wasn’t worth Simpson’s while. He was too busy describing Fortuyn — quite unfairly — as a supercilious and dandiacal coxcomb.
Four days after their meeting, Fortuyn was murdered by a man who resented his views on Muslims. John Simpson felt no need to stop and express dismay. Instead, he described Fortuyn as the “archetypical right-winger” (there was nothing to support this assertion unless you think that Fortuyn’s opposition to Islam is enough to make him “right-wing,” and all kinds of well-known left-wingers, including the late Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, have been just as, or even more, anti-Islam than Pim Fortuyn) and ended with this bit of nastiness, very much in the john-simpson vein: Fortuyn, he concludes his “tribute,” is more likely to be remembered for “the hatred he gave rise to than for his own achievements.”
We have had a look at John Simpson’s critical reporting on the Burmese Nobel Peace Prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, and the Dutch intellectual Pim Fortuyn, whose anxieties about Islam Simpson clearly does not share. Though soft on Islam, Simpson is very hard on Israel.
You will not be surprised to learn that John Simpson’s reports on Israel have been consistently, almost comically, unfair. This decades-long anti-Israel bias, with Israel being presented as an aggressive little Sparta, always hell-bent on making trouble for innocent Palestinians, is a staple of BBC reporting, usually on the lines of “the Israeli tail seems to wag the American dog.” In 2001, he described Ariel Sharon as “the architect of the massacre at Sabra and Chatila in 1982.” As everyone knows, it was not the Israelis, but the Christian Phalange, settling scores because of the PLO massacres of Christians in northern Lebanon, who were responsible for Sabra and Chatila. But twenty years after the massacre, John Simpson was still blaming the Israelis. You can find out much more about Simpson’s coverage here. Let it be noted that this anti-Israel bias makes him no different from most of his colleagues at the BBC, such as Jeremy Bowen, or Barbara Plett, who wept openly when she heard that Arafat died, or Lyse Doucet, whose presentation of the Arab-Israeli conflict makes one wonder if she is merely taking dictation in Ramallah. All in all, it’s a hair-raising spectacle, and no matter how well-reasoned and soberly fact-based the torrent of complaints about its Middle East coverage may be, the BBC continues to largely ignore such criticism.
John Simpson has also been greatly impressed with one of the most insidious charges brought against Israel, one that is a favorite of antisemitic websites. This is the claim that in the middle of the Six-Day War, in all the confusion, anxiety, alarm, misidentification, miscommunication, exhaustion, contributing to the well-known “fog of war,” Israeli planes deliberately attacked the ship, the U.S.S. Liberty, knowing it was American, and killed 34 Americans and wounded more than 100, and did so at the urging of the American government. Exactly why Israel would have wanted to attack a ship belonging to its closest ally no one has ever made clear, though that has not stopped conspiracy theorists from conspiracy-theorizing. The most detailed account of the whole affair, including material newly released, is that by the historian Michael Oren, which is well worth a careful read.
John Simpson, however, of the BBC, was so enamored of the story of a conspiracy, so convinced that Israel was guilty of deliberately attacking an American vessel, though he was no better at offering a plausible reason for such an attack than anyone else, that he chose to write an enthusiastic introduction to one of those books about a supposed U.S.-Israel conspiracy to “hush up” the real reason for the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty. John Simpson’s respectful treatment of one of the favorite fantasies of antisemites apparently does not disqualify him from running the BBC World Services. The book for which he wrote the introduction, Operation Cyanide, is by Peter Hounam, a journalist who specializes in many sorts of conspiracy theories, as in his Who Killed Diana, which purported to prove that she was “murdered” by shadowy figures. Here is the summary of this preposterous book, Operation Cyanide: “This hard-hitting investigation shows that on that day in 1967, the world came closer to all-out nuclear war than ever before — this incident made the Cuban Missile Crisis seem tame by comparison. Peter Hounam reveals that the attack was part of a clandestine plan between the US and Israel known as ‘Operation Cyanide,’ designed to ensure victory for Israel in the Middle East. By blaming the attack on the Arab world, retaliation on a grand scale would be justified.”
“This book will shock any reader interested in Middle-East affairs, as it shows that the U.S. was prepared to sacrifice its men and risk nuclear war to ensure victory for Israel.”
This is the kind of thing John Simpson apparently takes seriously. But it’s not his palpable antipathy to Israel that is now most disturbing. Even more alarming is his coverage of Islam or, rather, his failure to have the BBC cover the subject adequately. He is the man who mocked Pim Fortuyn, both before and after his death, and refused to engage with Fortuyn’s justified anxieties about the future of Europe. He is the man who called Aung San Suu Kyi a “monster,” because she doesn’t share his one-sided views on the situation in Myanmar. He is the man who a few days after the bombings in the London Underground and on buses wrote that “Thursday was a terrible day for London; yet we mustn’t forget that much the same number of people died that day in Iraq, and no one dedicated acres of newsprint to them.” And he was all for minimizing the reaction to such attacks, belonging, as he does, to the “that’s-what-the-terrorists-want” school of idiocy, insisting that “If there is journalistic over-kill, there is also security over-kill.” A decade later, he was still at it, attacking the British press for paying too much attention to Muslim terrorism in Europe; “It’s [the press] grotesquely selective actually. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I think the [Paris attacks] don’t matter, it matters hugely what happened in Paris. It’s one of the most important things of this decade. It’s just that you know, 130 people die in other countries and we shouldn’t let ourselves be blinded. If you think the Western media is giving too much attention to Muslim terrorism, John Simpson is the man for you.
John Simpson has been misinforming people now for more than fifty years, on matters big and little, doing his best “to make sense of a crazy world.” His best is not nearly good enough. It’s time for a change. He deserves a rest. And more importantly, so do we.
An editorial from family run local Indian newspaper the Deccan Herald which I think is very sound.
....ISIS’ decline began around 2015 when, under pressure from US, Iraqi, Syrian and Russian forces, it started losing territory. In March this year, ISIS lost the last sliver of territory it once controlled. The so-called ‘Caliphate’ had crumbled. And yet, ISIS remained a potent force, able to inspire jihadists in Europe and Asia to carry out attacks in its name.
Baghdadi’s death is a setback for ISIS. A battle for succession could lead to its splintering. However, its ideology remains alive. Thus whether as ISIS or under a new name, radical Islamists will continue waging jihad. They can be expected to carry out major attacks in the coming weeks and months to prove their potency, keep up the morale of fighters and to impress their funders. It was Baghdadi who called on Islamists in Europe and elsewhere to drive cars into crowds to kill people. Such attacks could increase now. The world must be on guard.
France: “Within five years the situation could become irreversible”
by Hugh Fitzgerald
French Interior Minister Christophe Castaner’s recent revelation, discussed here, that “60 attacks have been foiled since 2013 and every week people are arrested,” recalled some statements of his predecessor Gérard Collomb, who is now mayor of Lyon, and who knows as much as anyone about France’s internal security situation. Collomb gave an interview in February 2018 which was only published in November of that year. Here is an excerpt:
In your heart of hearts, how do you judge the security situation in France?
Collomb: It’s very worrying. What I read every morning in notes from the police reflects a very pessimistic situation. The relations between people are very hard, people don’t want to live together…
To what extent is immigration responsible for this?
Collomb: Enormously so. It’s for that reason that, with Emmanuel Macron, we wanted to change the law…
Your law only attacks illegal immigration. Legal immigration allows more than 200,000 people into the country each year…
Collomb: It’s true. We’re doing it bit by bit. But that remains a problem…
You think there is no more need for immigration in France?
Collomb: “Yes, absolutely.
You were speaking of vivre ensemble [living together] just now. What is happening?
Collomb: Communities in France are engaging in conflict with one another more and more and it’s becoming very violent…
What are you afraid of? Partition? Secession?
Collomb: Yes, I’m thinking about that, that’s what worries me.
How much time do we have before it’s too late?
Collomb: I don’t want to create fear, but I think there’s very little time left.
Collomb: It’s difficult to estimate, but I would say that within five years the situation could become irreversible. Yes, we have five, six years to avoid the worst. Afterwards…
And on that note, after that terrifying aposiopesis, let us turn to an article from around the same time, about Muslim attacks on Jews in France. The author, James McAuley, never mentions the texts and teachings of Islam as a sufficient explanation for such attacks. Instead, he refers to various other conceivable causes, including anger at Israel for its treatment of the “Palestinians,” and one explanation I had not heard before. That is, the supposed lingering resentment of Muslims against French colonialism, and especially against the Cremieux decree (la loi Cremieux), which in 1870 conferred on Algerian Jews, but not on Muslims, French citizenship.
For Rachid Benzine, a scholar of Islam and a well-known French public commentator, these killings [of Jews by Muslims] are best understood in the context of what he calls postcolonial antisemitism. ‘For me, this is a holdover from the colonisation of Algeria, linked to the treatment of Algerian Jews compared with Muslim natives,’he said.”In 1870, for instance, the so-called Crémieux decree secured full French citizenship for all Jewish subjects residing in Algeria, whereas Arab Muslims remained under the infamous code de l’indigénat, which stipulated an inferior legal status, essentially until 1962 [when Algeria became independent].. The legal disparity continued even after Algeria won independence, when hundreds of thousands of former colonial subjects from North Africa continued to arrive in metropolitan France, as citizens. Muslims, however, had to apply to the government for the privilege of citizenship.
But how does “postcolonial antisemitism” differ from the antisemitism that Muslims everywhere have demonstrated for more than 1,200 years before the French colonists ever arrived in Algeria? Rachid Benzine steers us away from the texts, and teachings of Islam, and instead blames France, as the “colonial power,” for causing resentment against Jews among Muslims. It was the French, you see, who by granting French citizenship to Algerian Jews but withholding it from Muslims, caused the animus today among Muslims toward Jews that he calls “postcolonial antisemitism.”
Why did the French grant citizenship to the Jews but not the Muslims of Algeria? There are two reasons. First, the Jews in Algeria were treated by Muslims as dhimmis until 1845, when the French changed their legal status. Even after that date, there were lingering effects of the dhimmi system — not a demand for the jizyah to be paid, but the ineradicable Muslim attitude of contempt for, and sometimes humiliation and persecution of, Jews. By granting the Jews French citizenship, the French state could better ensure their safety. If mistreated in any way by Muslims, Jews could now seek protection, as French citizens, from the French state.
The second reason was that the French sensed, correctly, that the Jews in Algeria, even though Sephardic, looked to Europe as “their” civilization, too. The Jews eagerly embraced French culture, studied the French language, sent their children to France for higher education, and never shared the Muslim antipathy to the French Unbelievers. Even before they were French citizens, they were French in spirit.
No doubt the Muslims in Algeria resented the loi Cremieux, but there is quite a leap from that to the antisemitism exhibited by Muslims 150 years later in France. When those two elderly Jewish women in Paris were stabbed, and then one was set on fire, and the other thrown out of a 3rd-floor window, when a rabbi in Toulouse saw his two tiny children killed in front of him just before he himself was killed, when a young Jewish man was tortured for three weeks by a Muslim gang, then left for dead (and he did, indeed, soon die), when seven Jews were shot to death at a kosher market — do all or any of these killings reflect a “postcolonial antisemitism,” prompted by resentment of the loi Cremieux? How plausible is that?
The dozens of antisemitic verses in the Qur’an, the stories inculcating hatred of Jews in the hadith — for Rachid Benzine, these hardly matter. If Muslim antisemitism today is a result of the French state long ago favoring Jews in Algeria, then what explains all the other brutal antisemitic attacks by Muslims around the world? What explains the murders, by Pakistanis (who have never heard of the loi Cremieux) of that young Jewish couple at a Chabad center in Mumbai? What explains the murders at the Jewish Museum in Brussels? Or the attacks on Jews by Muslims on the streets of Berlin, Paris, London, Malmö? Or the Muslims who at demonstrations all over Europe have been chanting “Hamas, Hamas, all Jews to the gas”? Where does that murderous antisemitism come from?
It comes mainly from the antisemitic verses in the Qur’an, verses which Robert Spencer has usefully compiled, along with excerpts from classic and contemporary Qur’anic commentators. I have posted this material just below:
The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the wellbeing of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); as fabricating things and falsely ascribing them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); claiming that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); loving to listen to lies (5:41); disobeying Allah and never observing his commands (5:13); disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more.
The classic Qur’anic commentators do not mitigate the Qur’an’s words against Jews, but only add fuel to the fire. Ibn Kathir explained Qur’an 2:61 (“They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah”) this way: “This Ayah [verse] indicates that the Children of Israel were plagued with humiliation, and that this will continue, meaning that it will never cease. They will continue to suffer humiliation at the hands of all who interact with them, along with the disgrace that they feel inwardly.” Another Middle Ages commentator of lingering influence, Abdallah ibn Umar al-Baidawi, explains the same verse this way: “The Jews are mostly humiliated and wretched either of their own accord, or out of coercion of the fear of having their jizya [punitive tax] doubled.
Ibn Kathir notes Islamic traditions that predict that at the end of the world, “the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah), and the Muslims, along with ‘Isa [Jesus], son of Mary, will kill the Jews.” The idea in Islam that the end times will be marked by Muslims killing Jews comes from the prophet Muhammad himself, who said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’” This is, not unexpectedly, a favorite motif among contemporary jihadists.
Not just contemporary jihadists, but modern-day mainstream Islamic authorities take these passages seriously. The former Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, who was the most respected cleric in the world among Sunni Muslims, called Jews “the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs.” The late Saudi sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudayyis, imam of the principal mosque in the holiest city in Islam, Mecca, said in a sermon that Jews are “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs.”
Another Saudi sheikh, Ba’d bin Abdallah al-Ajameh al-Ghamidi, made the connection explicit: “The current behavior of the brothers of apes and pigs, their treachery, violation of agreements, and defiling of holy places … is connected with the deeds of their forefathers during the early period of Islam–which proves the great similarity between all the Jews living today and the Jews who lived at the dawn of Islam.”
It’s those ferocious verses, that extraordinary hallucinatory hate that is constantly inculcated by the Islamic texts, that explains Muslim antisemitism, in France and everywhere else. Local conditions vary; some event in the news might slightly ratchet up the antisemitic fury among Muslims, but does not cause it. That antisemitism remains a constant.
Can anyone believe that Muslims in France, so many of them now the privileged recipients of all the largesse the French welfare state can lavish upon them, are still smarting — and are antisemitic — because of a law applied in Algeria in 1870, that fell into desuetude long before they were born? The Muslim hatred of Jews has been drummed into the Muslim Mind for 1,400 years, in both the Islamic texts, and the commentaries on those texts. It does not depend on the loi Cremieux passed in 1870, or on the proclamation of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, or on a decision in 2018 to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem. Some Muslims — thankfully — choose to ignore those texts, because they don’t agree with their message. The handful of Muslim clerics who deplore antisemitism, such as Hassan Chalghoumi of the mosque in Drancy, are as a result themselves subject to death threats. As Ibn Warraq has written, “There are moderate Muslims. Islam itself is not moderate.” But as we know to our sorrow, many more Muslims faithfully believe what the Qur’an and Hadith tell them to believe, about Jews as about everything else. And of those who so believe, some translate their antisemitic beliefs into action, even to the point of committing murder. In France alone, Muslims have killed, often in unusually sadistic ways, and only because they were Jews, Ilan Halimi, the 23-year-old phone salesman who was abducted by a gang of Muslims, tortured for three weeks, and killed in 2006; Rabbi Jonathan Sandler, his small children Ariel and Gabriel, and Myriam Monsonego, all killed in the Toulouse school shooting in 2012; Yohan Cohen, Philippe Braham, François-Michel Saada and Yoav Hattab, who were shot dead in the Hyper Cacher supermarket; Sarah Halimi, who was stabbed and thrown from her apartment balcony last year; and the latest victim, Mireille Knoll, stabbed eleven times before being set on fire. None of these victims had anything to do with the loi Cremieux, or Algeria, or colonialism. They were Jews; Jews are the enemies of Islam, the offspring of apes and pigs; nothing else mattered. They all deserved to die, from the youngest, who was four years old, to the oldest, who was 85.
This is what is missing from so much of the discussion about antisemitism in France. People are looking all over, just like O.J. Simpson, for “the real killer.” What, oh what, could it be? What causes Muslims to want to kill Jews or, for that matter, and slightly less hysterically, Christians, too? Might it be the effects of poverty? But Muslims in France are very well treated, with free or heavily subsidized housing, free education, free medical care, generous family allowances, unemployment benefits, and more. Could it be that the murderers’ brains are drug-addled? The drug trade in France is now mainly in the hands of Muslims, and among those drug dealers was Mohammed Merah’s father, but none of the killers have been addicts. Could the killers have been protesting French foreign policy? But France helped get rid of Qaddafi, who oppressed Muslims, bombed the Serbs to help the Muslim Kosovars, and has dutifully voted against Israel — instead of “abstaining” as many other European nations do — at the U.N. Could it be continued resentment of the loi Cremieux, which gave French citizenship to Algerian Jews in 1870, as Rachid Benzine claims? Don’t be silly.
Should the French, could the French, allow themselves to recognize that the real source of Muslim antisemitism is the ideology — hallucinatory in its hate — of Islam itself? Some have come close. On April 22, 2018, 300 French notables signed a letter in which they called on Muslim religious authorities to “strike to obsolescence” (or “render obsolete”) “those verses of the Quran calling for the punishment and murder of Jews, Christians, and nonbelievers,” so that “no believer can refer to a sacred text to commit a crime.” The signatories failed to realize just how many verses would have to be excised, how central and not tangential to Islam, is the hatred of Unbelievers. Throw those verses out, and what is left of Islam?
The Muslim response to that letter was one of outrage. How dare Infidels tell us which verses in the Qur’an we can keep, and those we must strike?
And 300 signatories was a start, but that leaves approximately 62 million non-Muslim Frenchmen who didn’t sign. It would be a good idea to keep that letter posted permanently online, so that people could add their names, by the hundreds of thousands, or even millions. Everyone has to wake up. Everyone has to take part. Or Collomb will be proven right, to his own sorrow as much as anyone else’s.
Trudeau's hollow victory leaves the real issues facing this country unresolved
He won on momentum, a fading illusion of fashion, faddish platitudes and style, and no first-term accomplishments at all.
by Conrad Black
It would have been difficult to produce a more miserable election result. Congratulations to the prime minister on his re-election, certainly. He was spiritedly attacked, and he persevered to victory despite some serious recent reversals. No part of my disappointment in the late election is based on lack of a cordial regard for Justin Trudeau.
But his victory is hollow, his mandate ambiguous, and his performance on election night was far from reassuring. He won on momentum, a fading illusion of fashion, faddish platitudes and style, and no first-term accomplishments at all. He benefited from a divided opposition that had no panache among the traditional parties. Trudeau’s Liberals received 240,000 fewer votes than the official opposition, ran barely ahead of the separatists in Quebec, and what the prime minister professes to believe is the principal issue in this country is a fiction, which if it did exist, Canada could not influence — climate change. On election night, the NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh, spoke at inexcusable length, and Trudeau butted into Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer’s remarks with unprecedented rudeness as soon as he started. We had all three at the same time on our screens.
Scheer correctly made the point that only one elected majority government in Canadian history was evicted in the following election (that was R.B. Bennett in 1935, after failing to alleviate the Great Depression). Scheer’s point was that he had practically no chance of doing better than he did. This may be correct, but if he had been as forceful an opposition leader as John Diefenbaker or Brian Mulroney, he would have won. Trudeau has proved a better opposition leader than prime minister; Scheer clearly intends to hang on to the Conservative leadership though his performance was unexciting, and hopes to be a better prime minister than opposition leader, quite possible if he can get there. But for now, we have an unaccomplished prime minister dependent on a socialist party that has been substantially rejected (the NDP), facing a worthy but ungalvanizing Conservative leader. Trudeau has a slender mandate, proclaims that the great cause of the day is the nonsense of climate change, and two regions of the county, Quebec and Alberta-Saskatchewan, with some reason, are hearing the secessionist murmurs.
Climate change, to use a phrase of Napoleon’s, has entered the realm of “lies agreed upon.” There may be changes in climate, and if there are, they may be part of a normal cycle or not. If they really are happening abnormally, we are not certain of the cause(s), direction or extent of them, nor is there any certainty that human action has meaningful bearing on them. All the dire and hysterical predictions that unleashed
this worldwide alarm about the climate have been proved inaccurate. Debates between authentic meteorological specialists swiftly descend into incomprehensible arguments about the depth and shape of ocean thermometers and so forth.
Anyone who claims certainty on this subject is a charlatan. Historians of the future will wonder how Western Europe and Canada became so preoccupied with this issue. Of course everyone wants a clean environment, but not at an exorbitant cost in unemployment and reduction of human comfort. The international left, defeated in the Cold War and domestically by such leaders as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, seized upon the environment as a fruitful vantage point from which to continue their assault on capitalism while masquerading as conscientious earth people.
Canada has less than two per cent of the world’s carbon footprint, the ecologists’ universal bugbear, the Emmanuel Goldstein of Orwell’s 1984, always good for “five minutes of hate.” But Canada has one of the world’s cleanest environments and no real influence whatever on the world environment. It’s like the corporate governance movement 20 years ago, that for a time distracted the entire commercial community from the objective performance of corporations. It’s a fad that is being ignored by China and India, the chief polluters, and by the United States and Japan, great industrial powers that have addressed their environmental problems adequately, and Australia, which is the most similar country to Canada in size, resources and history, and which has maintained a rational concern for the environment but has rejected fetishistic economic primitivism. It is distressing that Canadians are so naïve as to buy into this idiocy.
It is distressing that Canadians are so naïve as to buy into this idiocy
In fact, Canada’s greatest problems are capital flows and national unity. There is a torrid drain of investment capital in Canada, as the world stays away and Canadians invest capital elsewhere. Under-appreciation of Canadian federalism will not take long to emerge in Quebec and Alberta. By far the strongest performance by a party leader on election night was from the Bloc Québécois’ Yves-François Blanchet. He had the same stature, mannerisms, haircut, glasses and witty but crisp and direct way of formulating the complexities of Quebec’s status as premier Daniel Johnson (1966-1968), whose slogan was “equality or independence.” Blanchet came from nowhere and almost won more votes than the Trudeau Liberals. (Only twice before has the Bloc won more Quebec votes than the Liberals.) Blanchet expressed his reverence for René Lévesque, Quebec’s first separatist premier (1976-1985), but he is not advocating Lévesque’s “sovereignty-association;” he is advocating sovereignty.
Canada will pay a heavy price for the refusal of Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau to do anything to gain Quebec’s adherence to the Canadian Constitution, a condition Mulroney tried to correct with the Meech Lake agreement and the Charlottetown Accord, and which the federalist former Quebec government of Philippe Couillard tried to address. Harper abandoned constitutional reform when he was unable to abolish the Senate; he and Justin just ducked a difficult issue, but leaders aren’t elected to deal only with easy problems. On Monday night Blanchet left viewers in no doubt that Quebec sought sovereignty, preferably but not necessarily on friendly terms with Canada. He made conciliatory references to the native people and purported to speak for French-Canadians outside Quebec, and demanded Canadian support for Spain’s Catalonian separatists (an outrageous request — it’s no business of Canada’s, including Quebec). Blanchet did not refer to Anglo-Quebec and was unambiguous in his opposition to federalism.
Canada’s greatest problems are capital flows and national unity
As the Montreal (and Terrebonne) economic analyst DeWolf Shaw has forcefully pointed out, economically Quebec has completely outperformed Canada in the past decade; six straight budget surpluses, substantial debt reduction, and a brilliant Hydro-Quebec worth $500 billion (compared with the shambling, quasi-bankrupt Ontario Hydro). The Quebec Caisse de Dépôts et de Placements has net assets of $326 billion for 8.5 million Quebecers, and the Canada Pension Plan has assets of $404 billion for 29 million non-Quebec Canadians. Quebec unemployment is the lowest in the country and the economic argument in Quebec will favour the separatists in the next Quebec referendum, for the first time. Maurice Duplessis and Daniel Johnson were correct that the only way to achieve autonomy (or independence) for Quebec is to unite the nationalists with the conservatives (and not the socialists as Lévesque and Lucien Bouchard attempted), and that is what Blanchet and Premier François Legault appear to be doing.
The only viable counter argument to Quebec’s independence is the vision of the great bicultural world nation of Canada. I don’t believe the current federal leaders can sell that vision, especially when Alberta has been so mistreated it would be economically justified to contemplate secession also. The Quebec Liberal party, a Liberal-Conservative coalition that is the only unambiguously federalist party in Quebec, which had never received less than 31 per cent of the vote, and only three times in its history less than 35 per cent, came in with 24 per cent in last year’s Quebec election (and less than 10 per cent of Quebec’s francophones).
This is where exalting the unifying Big Lie of anthropogenic climate change and ignoring real issues has got us. Yes, congratulations to the prime minister, but he will find out soon enough that he is sitting on a knife-edge, and we are all there with him.
Engraving of the Star Chamber, published in "Old and new London" in 1873, taken from a drawing made in 1836
I’ve got my eyes on you, I’ve set my spies on you, I’m checking on all you do. Not only must Justice be done, it must also be seen to be done.
It’s discouraging how many people are shocked by revelation of information with which they disagree, but how few by political dishonesty or injustice. The political systems and the personalities involved in the U.S. and the UK differ in many ways, but both are based on a priceless principle, the Rule of Law. A vital element of this is Open Justice, together with due process, the commitment to hold trials and official inquiries openly in public. Transparency is fundamental in itself, and as a demonstration for citizens of the fairness of the political and legal system. Exceptions are rare and must be justified by the facts, and be both essential and proportionate. This is most true of issues of national security, a national interest, a subject of political dispute. Inevitability, there will occasionally be tensions between the principle of Open Justice, open discussion, and what are thought to be the requirements of national security which require secrecy. It is understandable that some of the work of intelligence organizations should not and will not be openly revealed. At the same time concerns about national security do not in themselves justify a departure from the principle of Open Justice.
A secret trial or inquiry is not open to the public, nor is it generally reported, and sometimes there may not be an official indictment or legal consent. The accused or those under examination may not able to have an attorney or to confront hostile witnesses. This has happened in UK in the past and in the U.S. Congress at present. The UK went through the process of secret courts with the existence between the mid 15th century and the 17th century of the Star Chamber, a court composed of privy councilors and common law judges, was accountable to no one, became synonymous with oppression and arbitrary abuse of power, and one that ws used to suppress political dissent, or to eliminate opponents. It was abolished in 1640, but its memory affected the U.S. Constitution since the 5thAmendment to the Constitution stated that no one “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Both the 5th and the 14th Amendments state, no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.
On July 14, 1789 the Bastille in central Paris, originally a medieval fortress that became a prison and represented royal authority, was stormed by a large crowd armed with muskets, swords, and other weapons who demanded its surrender. The governor, Bernard de Launay, realizing his troops could not stem the tide, opened the gates. The French Revolution had begun. Ironically, though the Bastille was seen as the locale for the King’s abuse of power, it had in 1789 only seven prisoners, four of them forgers.
More than two centuries later, on October 23, 2019, more than a dozen members of the Republican Party in Congress tried, without muskets or swords, to storm a Congressional Committee room because was hearing, in closed door session, an impeachment inquiry ostensibly into President Donald Trump’s activities in relation to Ukraine. The transparency that should crucial in political discussion and decisions was absent, though as a gesture three members of the Republican party were able to attend the secret hearings.
Irrespective of the value or worthlessness of the hearing, and the truth of accusations or impeachment charges against the President, the fact remains that the Committee process has been secret is troubling, and brings back memories of the former secret trials in the Soviet Union under Stalin. Of course, In Moscow there were open show trials not held in secret, but they took place to make public the “confessions” of “enemies of the people.” Almost all the members of the Bolshevik Old Guard, Kamenev, Zinoviev. Bukharin, admitted to crimes, monstrous crimes, which they did not commit, but were supposedly actuated by boundless hatred and lust of power, by really by the jealousy by Joseph Stalin of potential rivals. However, important secret trials took place. The most notorious was that of Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky, “Red Napoleon,” himself a ruthless military leader, formulator of the theory of deep operation behind the enemy’s lines, who was regarded by Stalin as his most bitter rival. Together with other Red Army officers, he was tried in secret, confessed he was a German agent, and was killed.
According to the so-called Kirov law of December 1, 1934, in cases of terrorist organizations and terrorist acts against the functionaries of Soviet power, cases could be tried without the accused being present, and without ant review of the judgements.
Of course Adam Schiff (D-Cal), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is no counterpart of Joseph Stalin, though he has been culpable on many occasions of what Winston Churchill called “terminological inexactitudes.” Schiff has delusions of adequacy, he is the Torquemada, the grand inquisitor of Capitol Hill, continuing his endless pursuit of evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia. He has stated on numerous occasions he has “significant evidence,” of this collusion but so far has been unable or unwilling to reveal a morsel of that evidence he has kept secret. Schiff is no paragon of virtue. He admitted on October 24, 2019 he had made up parts of the Ukraine phone call in his opening statement as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. His inexactitudes are uttered “part in parody,” and apparently he has no intention of burning people at the stake, as the Inquisition did in Seville.
Schiff, however, has flouted the Rule of Law and due process by holding hearings on impeachment issues in secret, from the public and the media, and fellow members of Congress.
He has said that he will reveal the transcripts of closed down interviews when it will not jeopardize the investigation, but he still refuses to explain what witnesses may be called at any future public hearing.
Democrats in the house want to increase their closed door interviews in their impeachment inquiry, though they may make them public in the near future. Most of the witnesses who have testified Committee have done so behind closed doors in the basement of the Capitol. Moreover, chairman Schiff cans bar Republicans from calling witnesses, and can refuse to allow lawyers for Trump to be present to hear accusations against the President.
The U.S. Congress might profit from attention to a recent British case. An unusual, perhaps unprecedented, attempt was made to hold a completely secret criminal trial concerning two individuals, at first unnamed and referred to as AB and CD, accused of terrorism. Prosecutors for the Crown argued that a secret trial was in the interests of national security. However, the UK Court of Appeal blocked the secret trial. The judges held that the trial was of an exceptional nature, and that the “core” of it must be held in private, but parts must be in public. They expressed “grave concerns” about holding the proceeding in secret and about not revealing the true names of the defendants, Erol Incedal and Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar, charged with preparing for acts of terrorism.
The Court felt there was good reason to halt the prosecution of the case if it were held in open court. Open justice is both a fundamental principle of the common law and a means of ensuring public confidence in the existing legal system. However, exceptions, which are rare and must be justified by the facts, may be appropriate. They would include withholding information on the basis of national security because that was a national interest of the first importance.
The U.S. Intelligence Committee should be conscious of two factors. One is that tensions between the principle of open justice and the needs of national security will be inevitable, but holding a criminal trial or major inquiry in camera is of “grave concern.” The other is the principle of presumption of innocence. It is valuable to recall the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11, “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to a law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.”
The 39-year-old, from Bethnal Green, East London, is said to have been killed with his wife in the final battle for the jihadists' so-called caliphate.
Vile ISIS videos showed Haque beheading and shooting dead prisoners in Syria before he was killed.
‘He died, either in the final battle of Baghouz, or from his injuries shortly afterwards’, a security source told the Mail.
Haque, 39, was a devout follower of hate preacher Choudary since at least 2011. He is also said to have had links to Khuram Butt, ringleader of the London Bridge terror attack in 2017.
In January 2016, he was identified as one of five masked jihadis in an IS propaganda film. The men executed five alleged spies by shooting them in the back of the head in a Syrian desert. Haque resurfaced again in December 2016 when another IS film showed him beheading a terrified captive.
In chilling footage, one terrorist says: "They thought they were safe. But God shamed them, and they will be slaughtered by the knife which will slaughter those like them."
The footage led to him being described as the ‘new Jihadi John’ (Mohammed Emwazi) due to his similarity to the murderer, also from London, who beheaded five Western hostages. Experts believe Haque subsequently took over from Emwazi as one of IS’s chief executioners.
Security experts have warned that his old friend Choudary continues to inspire a network of extremists. They fear he poses a renewed terror threat a year after his early release from jail.
Isis martyrs ‘radicalised as medical students in Galway’
I can only find this in the Sunday Times. I would hope that the Irish press pick it up as the morning goes on. The Connacht Tribune quotes the Times.
Two Galway-based medical students died after joining Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, it has emerged. Both studied at National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG) and are believed to have become radicalised while in the city.
Mustapha al-Hayani, a graduate of NUIG’s medical programme, and Tariq Mohainuteen, a visiting Malaysian student, travelled on the same bus from Galway to Dublin on their way to join the jihadist group Isis in September 2013.
However, the students, who were both members of NUIG’s Muslim Youth Society, fought on different fronts for the jihadists.
Mohainuteen was at NUIG under a programme for young students from Malaysia to carry out the first part of their medical training in Ireland.
During their time in Galway, Hayani served as vice-auditor and treasurer of NUIG’s Muslim Youth Society and Mohainuteen as its liaison officer.
The Sunday Times also reports that the young men attended winter camps organised by the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (Fosis). FOSIS has come under criticism before; the Times reminds readers of the specific criticism from former members that participants were instructed dig graves during the events.
The camps have been linked to family members of militia men who fought in the Syrian civil war, and former attendees have described them as “grooming camps” for would-be jihadists.
The National University of Ireland Galway NUIG told The Sunday Times that it did not comment on the affairs of individual students.