"Everywhere I hear the sound of marchin', charging feet, cause summer's here and the time is right for fighting in the street." The words were written in 1968 by Mick Jagger who said he wrote it after an anti-war rally at the U.S. Embassy in London, and he was inspired by the student rioters in Paris in May 1968. At that time protests in various countries of Europe, in the U.S., in Mexico City, in Brazil, were directed against the Vietnam war, but the most spectacular events, the May Days in Paris, sprang from the student led protest movement that began on March 22, 1968 as an anti-war rally at Nanterre University, and became a revolt against the political and academic establishment.
It is tempting to compare those events on its fiftieth anniversary with the remarkable youth organized demonstrations, the March of Our Lives, on March 24, 2018 protesting against gun violence, in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere in the U.S., resulting from the murder of students on February 14, 2018 at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida where 17 were killed by a teenage gunman. The D.C. march attracted an estimated crowd of 800,000 youngsters and supporters, and was accompanied or financed by celebrities such as George and Amal Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, Stephen Spielberg, the Gucci group, pop artists and performers.
In his address on March 25, 2018 at the Palm Sunday service in St. Peter's Square, Pope Francis, without specifically alluding to the Washington demonstration, urged young people not to let themselves be manipulated. "Young people," he directed, "you have it in you to shout. It's up to you not to keep quiet." Certainly, young people in 2018 had done this as they had in May 1968.
Since the writings of Polybius, the Greek historian of the Hellenistic period, the question has been discussed of history as repeating a cycle of events, of regular patterns, of people animated by the same desires and passions. Youth in 2018 and 1968 have expressed those qualities, displaying energy, and a spirit of resistance and defiance, even quasi-revolt. Yet, even admitting that history can be seen as a sequence of causes and effects the two events show we are not doomed to repeat the past.
Both events, 1968 and 2018, began with a particular incident: one, the university administrative actions against student activists at Nanterre University, the new campus in the suburb of Paris; the other the Parkland massacre. Both called for change of some kind, university or more broadly social. Both can be regarded as nation-wide movements.
But there are important differences. May 1968 was concerned at first with a specific issue, rigidity in the hierarchy of the French University, with students wanting more political freedom since political meetings were normally forbidden. However, it became transmuted into a wider more disjointed affair, including calls for overthrow of institutions; 2018, at least so far, is pinpointed at a concrete, single purpose.
The 1968 events had started as the result of a specific action, the detention of student in the anti-war rally, but with provocative slogans, and spreading to the main Sorbonne and other Paris educational units, it transformed itself into a revolt against established institutions, advancing social changes, and protests against capitalism and U.S. imperialism.
May 68 exhibited ideological confusion indicating different left wing political orientations, as well bizarre slogans "imagination in the leadership," and "demand the impossible." In contrast, 2018 is not partisan or ideologically expressed in any real way. Students in France in May 68 were joined by support from factory workers who organized a general strike, the largest in France, and 11 million workers who occupied factories went on strike. No similar action has been contemplated in support of 2018. In May 68, word spread in the streets, while in 2018 social media spread the word in an instant, and the whole world is aware of the issue. Above all, May 68 quickly became violent; March 2018 has been noisy but non-violent.
In May 68, universities and factories were occupied throughout France. Paris was the scene of cobble stones being torn up in the pavements, barricades, street fighting with the police, cars overturned, and stores looted. At one point the turmoil and threats seemed so serious that President Charles de Gaulle on May 29 fled the country, for a day, to go to a French military base near Baden Baden in Germany.
The protest of May 68 was violent but became mixed or even incoherent with the infighting among the student groups, Trotskyists, Maoists, anarchists, surrealists, moderate Socialists. It was not a unified or cohesive group but a number of individual personalities among the various improvised leftists fighting among themselves, even if some vague concept of anti-imperialism emerged. They had no coherent program or structure, but claimed to act in "uncontrollable spontaneity" that gave them impetus without it being canalized. Jean Paul Sartre was impressed with this, with the attempt, as he said, to implement imagination into reality.
Others were more critical. Raymond Aron saw the student participants as actors imitating the French revolutionary past, a kind of "psychodrama," and merely acting in a rehearsal held almost two centuries after the play had been staged. The students were actors imitating the figures of the 18th century French Revolution. Indeed, some student protagonists labelled themselves as Les Enrages, not a unified party but the radical extremists who opposed the Jacobins in June 1793, and who spoke on behalf of the poor.
In May 68 some leaders emerged, the most well-known being Daniel Cohn-Bendit, nicknamed "Danny the Red," because of the color of his hair. Born in France of German parents. a philosophy student at Nanterre, an anarchist if he can be classified, he inspired the movement with his captivating oratory, courage and humor. So far, no single similar figure has emerged in 2018 as similarly inspiring, though some 17 year olds have been eloquent, and expressed rhetoric that has gone beyond the single issue of controlling guns. One speaker went beyond the manifest purpose of the March, not openly by demanding more general social change, and getting rid of politicians, but also by enthusiastically giving the black power salute at the end of his peroration.
May 68 did lead to some social and political changes, including raising minimum wages. It also led to President de Gaulle calling a referendum on April 27, 1969 on government decentralization and for changes in the French Senate. It was rejected by 52% of the voters, and de Gaulle resigned the presidency the next day. It remains to be seen if there will be similar political consequences of the March of Our Lives.
French investigators on Monday quizzed the radicalised girlfriend of the Islamist gunman who shot dead four people last week in southern France, including a heroic policeman killed after taking the place of a hostage. . . police continued to question his 18-year-old girlfriend, who converted to Islam at 16 and had also been on the watchlist of potential radicals.
Paris prosecutor Francois Molins told reporters that said the 18-year-old woman “shows all signs of radicalization.” (that) she shouted "Allahu Akbar" (God is greatest) while in custody but denied any prior knowledge of Lakdim's attack plans. But Molins said the girl posted online a Quran verse “indicating that infidels were promised to hell” just a few hours before the attacks.
A 17-year-old man described as a friend of Lakdim's who was under his sway, is also in custody over the attack. He too denies any involvement, Molins said.
Under France's anti-terrorism laws, the two suspects can be held for up to 96 hours without charge.
Most people are blissfully unaware of the havoc wrought by our misnamed “Social Justice” and “Human Rights” ideology until they are themselves hit by a summons, a legal suit or a ruling in law that deprives them of their peace of mind, robs them of productive time and leaves them substantially out of pocket. It is like being struck by a bolt of lightning while believing oneself to enjoy adequate shelter. My wife and I have been struck by such unexpected intrusions into our lives on three separate occasions over the last few years.
Indeed, the first strike was like a political klaxon alerting us to the perils of telling the truth in a climate of moral evasion and widespread hypocrisy. We received a notice of defamation from a large Muslim organization in response to a candid article my wife had written when she was editor of Freedom Press Canada, an online journal run by my publisher at the time. This was our first experience of lawfare in action. Apprized by legal council that a court case could set us back two or three years and up to a quarter of a million dollars with little to no prospect of winning, we had no choice but to settle. Since we live in a country in which Muslims are regarded as innocent victims of bigotry and anti-Islamophobia legislation is pending, the alternative would have been bankruptcy.
A short while later, my wife found herself once again under siege as the result of a complaint of discrimination brought by a disgruntled student before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. The charges were baseless and plainly refutable by email records and other evidence. The fact that there was “nothing there,” as our lawyer commented, did not deter the HRT from pursuing a hearing. After two years of our living under a cloud of anxiety, the case went to mediation and the charges against Janice were “disappeared.” (The proceedings are described in her recently posted Fiamengo File series.) But the legal fees were astronomical and, since we were not engaged in a Civil Court trial but an HRT tribunal operating according to its own arbitrary laws, the costs were not reclaimable. We asked our lawyer whether we could counter-sue the student for defamation and related damages, but it turns out that, unlike the process in Civil Court, HRT complainants are protected from “reprisal.” “My experience was just a little glimpse,” Janice wrote in an introductory comment to the video, “into how a society becomes totalitarian when it decides to work outside the law (or too often, now, even within the law) to create ‘justice for the weak’ rather than justice for all.”
More recently, we found ourselves once again victimized by the Social Justice cult in the form of its residential tenancy boards. We used to rent out a small apartment whose monthly yield was in effect transferred to our mortgage -- until the tenant decided to stop paying his rent. Generally speaking, the tenancy boards are set up to protect tenants, who are regarded as society’s casualties, members of an oppressed class or prey of a pitiless economic system dominated by businessmen and landlords. After five months of non-payment of rent, several checks bouncing like basketballs, innumerable broken promises, and no indication of anything ever changing, we were forced to hire an eviction agency, supply a ten-day notice, pay for a Writ from the Supreme Court, and finally retain the services of a bailiff.
As if this were not enough, we were shocked to learn that the tenancy laws required us to assume the costs of removing and storing the defaulter’s furniture, which amounted to several thousand dollars more. In the sequel, lost revenue and ancillary expenses, including repairs to the damage caused by the tenant, cratered our resources. If we did not have a credit line that allowed us to meet our mortgage costs, our house would have been repossessed by the bank.
The financial tally of these three events, apart from the years of lost time and continual stress, amounted to a crippling sum we could ill afford. But since we are obviously bigots, racists, homophobes, transphobes, white supremacists, what have you -- readers know the drill -- and part of the one percent to boot, merciless capitalists and oppressors of the weak and helpless, exploiting Muslims, students and tenants with ruthless unconcern, the blow was surely well-deserved.
What we have experienced is merely one small example in a cascading avalanche. I know of seven couples who have endured similar or even more egregious ordeals at the hands of the Civil Courts and Social Justice Tribunals, in one appalling case absorbing a penalty of several hundred thousand dollars. Extensive research into the history of the Tribunals has confirmed the inequitable devastation these outfits wreak -- to take just one instance among a burgeoning number, a Nigerian Christian compelled to pay $12,000 in damages to a Muslim couple about to leave his rental unit. His transgression? Failing to remove his shoes when showing the apartment to a prospective occupant, a violation of Islamic ritual. “We don't have a justice system,” comments one viewer of Janice’s video. “Instead we have a system of laws.” The difference between the two has become increasingly undeniable.
It obviously isn’t possible to calculate the ratio of genuine victims to freeloaders and con men, but in almost every case that I am familiar with, the parasites are in ascendancy. Although there are legitimate claimants to compassion, many of the “disadvantaged” I have met or know of -- thank God not all -- have turned out to be lazy and conscienceless, addicts, swindlers, idlers and leeches, non-contributors to the health and prosperity of the country, most animated by a sense of grievance. It is always society’s fault, never theirs. Responsibility and personal agency are not part of their psychological make-up.
I refer to renters who don’t pay what they owe, students who don’t concentrate on their studies but have plenty of time to pursue groundless suits against their teachers, professional litigants who gain their living from the courts and Tribunals, lawyers and adjudicators profiting off the public dime, welfare recipients who wouldn’t think of applying for a job, people who fake injuries so as to continue living on the public dole, people who take refuge in narcotics rather than struggle to right themselves, members of groups with protected status who drain the public purse, lawfare specialists, women who advance their own agendas against men, often with permanent, life-altering consequences for their targets -- in short, barnacles on the ship of state, wards of the Social Justice mentality.
Though former Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismantled the more abominable measures of the Federal Social Justice Commission, he ruefully admitted to me in a conversation some years ago that he had no jurisdiction over the provincial bodies. Thus our Human Rights Tribunals staffed by Social Justice Warriors are free to continue their depredations against hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying and fundamentally decent citizens, at the price of civic degradation and social decline.
What we are witnessing is a subtle national policy of wealth redistribution under the rubric of Social Justice, a project in which society’s “losers,” the “marginalized” and special interest groups become the fiscal beneficiaries of the entrepreneurial and dynamic classes conscripted to subsidize the tax-exempt non-earners. It is bad magic for the accomplished and the capable, leading, as I wrote in a previous article on the subject, to the empowerment of the lowest common denominator until the entire system, failing a decisive change of course, must inevitably go bust. In the ongoing debate about the relative claims of justice and mercy, mercy will often trump justice, as it occasionally should, but we should remember, too, that real justice can be a form of mercy.
For it is basically immoral to steal from the resourceful to profit those who deliberately live off the sacrifice of others. As philosopher Roger Scruton wrote in The Meaning of Conservatism, “The greatest threat to just dealings between people is the attempt to remake society from above, in conformity with a conception of ‘social justice’.” It is an ideology which leads, as Nietzsche said in Beyond Good and Evil, to a “communal feeling of power” promoted by “socialist dolts and flatheads” wishing to usher in social justice movements that militate against individual autonomy and personal distinction.
As well, we might add, that prevent toiling citizens, through supernumerary taxes and wealth redistribution, from disposing the major share of their income as they see fit.
Whereas Obama’s redistributive economics had America reeling for eight years, this tactic of subversion has been festering in Canada under many different administrations. Of course, runaway social programs have also been eating away at the economic soundness of both countries since the Elysian 1960s and even before. Wealth redistribution is a key element in bringing about an unsustainable social utopia predicated on the levelling of natural differences, aptitudes, motivations and virtues among individuals.
I suspect we will be denounced by liberals and leftists as heartless conservatives, but this is merely a canard. My wife, who for many years donated one fifth of her salary to charity, is anything but a heartless conservative, and I have gone out of my way to help people in distress. We do not reject the social safety net intended to assist the unfortunate who have, as they say, “fallen through the cracks.” But helping measures must be closely and fairly monitored so that the indolent and inept do not gradually displace or usurp the productive and the competent, to everyone’s ultimate disadvantage. A difficult task, to be sure, but worth undertaking. “Social Justice” makes no attempt to distinguish the one from the other.
Unemployment Insurance (now rebranded here as EI, Employment Insurance) is a needed compensatory fallback in a market economy. A limited number of public assistance programs, scrupulously chosen and controlled, are certainly acceptable. However, indiscriminate or gratuitous re-allocation of a substantial part of licit personal revenue by a governing authority on behalf of a perennially dependent socio-economic and cultural stratum is nothing less than a socialist breach of property rights and a statist infringement of democratic principles. It is also economically calamitous. The old saw that development grinds to a halt when there are as many or more people riding in the wagon as pulling it applies with a vengeance.
As Maggie Thatcher brilliantly put it, socialism will fail as soon as it runs out of other people’s money. The egalitarian prepossession, rooted in untenable theory and programmatic envy, blights whatever it touches. And with it goes both the moral and pragmatic foundation on which the lawful well-being of a viable society relies.
An honor killing is the cold-blooded murder of girls and women simply because they are female. Being born female in a shame-and-honor culture is, potentially, a capital crime; every girl has to keep proving that she is not dishonoring her family; even so, an innocent girl can be falsely accused and killed on the spot.
Dr. Phyllis Chesler has been studying the nature of honor killings for the last fifteen years. During that time she has published four studies at Middle East Quarterly and is working on a fifth. While this barbaric custom is tribal in origin, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Islam have not tried to abolish it as a crime against God or humanity.
Honor killings are also a family conspiracy, one in which women (mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers, mothers-in law), as well as men (fathers, brothers, cousins, uncles, grandfathers) play a role. Those girls and women who manage to escape must live in hiding for the rest of their lives as their families will never stop coming after them.
A girl s fertility and reproductive capacity is owned by her family, not by the girl herself. If a girl is even seen as damaged goods, her family-of-origin will be responsible for her care for the rest of her life. This is a killing offense. Her virginity belongs to her family and is a token of their honor. If she is not a virgin, the shame belongs to her family and they must cleanse themselves of it with blood; her blood.
Most Westerners refuse to understand that this crime is not like western-style domestic violence and requires different approaches in terms of prevention, intervention, and prosecution.
Honor killings (or femicide) is part of a shame-and-honor tribal culture as is gender apartheid. It is a human rights violation and cannot be justified in the name of cultural relativism, tolerance, anti-racism, diversity, or political correctness. As long as tribal groups continue to deny, minimize, or obfuscate the problem, and Western government and police officials accept their inaccurate versions of reality, women will continue to be killed for honor in the West.
The battle for women's rights is central to the battle for Europe and for Western values. It is a necessary part of true democracy, along with freedom of religion, tolerance for homosexuals, and freedom of dissent. Here, then, is exactly where the greatest battle of the twenty-first century is joined.
On Friday, March 23, while he screamed “Allahu Akbar,” Redouan Lakdim killed three people in a supermarket in Southwestern France, where he had just taken hostages. First known to the police as a drug dealer, more recently Lakdim became known as a jihadi, an Islamic militant who proclaimed his allegiance to ISIS. He had demanded the release of Salah Abdeslam, the prime surviving suspect in the Islamic State attacks that killed 130 people in Paris in 2015. Yet he was allowed to circulate freely. Why?
All too often, the first reaction to such acts of Islamic terrorism is not horror at the barbaric acts and compassion for the victims, but an obsessive fear that “Islamophobia” will increase. In France, editorials in liberal outlets will once again warn against “conflation” (in French, the expression is “pas d’amalgam”), by which is meant that there should be no automatic identification of acts of terrorism with Islam. Islam is a religion of peace, we are instructed, and terrorists know nothing about true Islam. Liberal publications deny the evidence of the Koranic texts, Islamic principles, and the 1,400- year history of jihadi terrorism, which began with the Prophet Muhammad himself. They also ignore the writings of “modern” jihadists such as Sayyid Qutb, Abdullah Azzam, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the Ayatollah Khomeini, which provide ample justification for holding Islam itself responsible for acts of terror.
Unfortunately, “Islamophobia” has now entered the dictionaries of all modern languages. It is at once a way to deflect any criticism or critical examination of Islam, on the one hand, and, on the other, a means for apologists to play victim. It is also no less than an attempt to stifle the fundamental principles of democracy and one of the glories of Western civilization—freedom of thought and expression. By demanding separate and privileged treatment, Islamists undermine another fundamental Western achievement—the concept of equality before the law, irrespective of race, gender, or religion. Islamists argue that they have been humiliated and victimized by French secularism; thus, their demand that we accept their Islamic laws, which they claim comes from God himself, but which reduce women and non-Muslims to an inferior status. If they prevail, the Islamists will undermine the principle that, more than any other, has resulted in unprecedented peace and prosperity in the West: the separation of state and religion, state and church, or state and mosque.
This brings us to the recent declaration by 100 French intellectuals against Islamist totalitarianism, published in the Paris daily newspaper Le Figaro. “We want to live in a world where no religion lays down the law,” it concludes. Some of the signatories have personal experience of the pernicious effects of new laws designed to protect the tender sensibilities of Muslims, and only Muslims. For example, award-winning historian Georges Bensoussan was acquitted in March 2017 of charges of incitement against Muslims; he had quoted an Algerian scholar who said that “in French Arab families, babies suckle anti-Semitism with their mother’s milk.” Another signatory, Mohamed Louizi, is being taken to court for defamation for having implied that French president Emmanuel Macron had been politically hostage to the Islamist vote. Louizi has an intimate knowledge of Islamists, since he’s a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Several other signers are also ex-Muslims, such as Walid al-Husseini, Boualem Sansal, and myself. We, too, have firsthand knowledge of Islamist ideology. We value the freedom of religion and from religion, which includes leaving or changing one’s faith, or not having any faith. Female signatories, such as Fatiha Boudjahlat and Fawzia Zouari, underline the need to defend women’s freedom to live their lives without interference from fundamentalists. Many signers are distinguished philosophers—Alain Finkielkraut, Luc Ferry, Renée Fregosi, Vincent Descombres, Rémi Brague, Philippe de Lara, Jean-Pierre Le Goff, Damien le Guay, and Yves-Charles Zarka—while others are historians, essayists (Pascal Bruckner), and professors. All are dedicated to secularism and the firm separation of state and religion; all, of course, value the free discussion of ideas, wherever it may lead.
Our worries are founded on facts, not irrational fears. Well-known Islamologist Gilles Kepel has remarked upon the inexorable rise of Islamist propaganda and proselytism in universities, where the ideas of the Salafists and Muslim Brotherhood are often promoted. Thankfully, French authorities have recently shut down 20 mosques and prayer halls that they found to be preaching radical Islamist ideology—hatred of non-Muslims and advocacy of jihad.
The French suburbs are rife with Islamic militants proselytizing among the young, imposing sharia on all (especially women), segregating swimming pools, demanding halal food, and so on. Incidents of anti-Semitism in France have multiplied dramatically, almost all of them perpetrated by Muslims. But if I were to say so in France, I might well be prosecuted for “Islamophobia.”
Our Canadian legal system is failing us every bit as badly as journalism is
Journalists may be held to a less exacting standard than lawyers, though a free press is scarcely less important to democracy than a fair justice system
by Conrad Black
As a party to, in legal parlance, “the matter of Hollinger Inc.,” I received last week, along with dozens of other people, a notice that the “matter” was now concluded: there are no more resources or issues outstanding involving the company and the corporation will be wound up.
This meant that the legal and accounting professions, with the self-satisfied approval of the commercial courts, had not just picked the last meat and flesh off the bones of a once- and long-prosperous company, but had pulverized the bones, put the powder in their champagne, and downed that too. One of the legal beneficiaries of this financial orgy signed off to all his fellow professionals, forgetting perhaps that they were not all fellow bloodsuckers: “T’was a mighty run.” This assertion, nothing but the shameful truth, put me in mind of the question that I frequently ask myself, of whether my disappointment is greater in considering the current state of the legal profession or that of the craft of journalism. I have qualifications in both fields, as a law graduate and frequent contributor to many publications and former media co-proprietor. It is a grippingly close race.
In 2005, my associates and I proposed the privatization of Hollinger Inc., retaining a litigation fund for anyone who wanted to sue us. We very carefully worked out with Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) staff a plan that would take public stockholders out, safely and fairly. The director of the OSC championed our proposal at the public hearing that some of the independent directors requested, petrified (with reason) about the future of their $100,000-a-month directors’ fees. Commissioner Susan Wolburgh Jenah presided at the hearing. However, our chief tormentor in the United States, former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Richard Breeden, “lectured” our local commission, as he proudly told The Globe and Mail. Jenah disregarded the OSC staff and rejected our proposal.
The directors had been implicitly facilitated by then-justice Colin Campbell, of the Ontario Superior Court, even though their fees constituted an emolument of unheard-of extravagance. Campbell had evicted almost all the directors who had any knowledge of the company’s business (newspapers), and expressed comfort in the presence of former junior provincial cabinet minister Gordon Walker, with that $100,000 monthly director’s fee. The new management, led by Newton Glassman and the unfeasible Wes Voorheis, drained the treasury, quarrelled (as such people usually do with each other), and Hollinger Inc. went into bankruptcy two years later.
Accounting firm Ernst & Young collected well over $20 million from Campbell’s appointment of them as inspectors and, later, receivers, performing entirely redundant activities and failing to unearth one misspent cent under our regime. A competent bookkeeper could have accomplished the same task at one per cent of the cost. I collected a historic $5-million libel settlement from Breeden and his fellow authors of the infamous special committee report, and regiments of legal and accounting saprophytes took until last week to transfer to their own pockets the last cent of what had rightfully been the shareholders’ money. Jenah has flourished, despite her role in what knowledgeable observers have described as the stupidest and most unjust decision of modern Canadian securities regulation.
Jenah is associated with a prominent law firm, which represents her as an asset; Campbell is in the arbitration business. I had a considerable legal sleigh-ride in the United States but it ended satisfactorily. I was never accused of wrongdoing in this country and a couple of civil suits were abandoned or settled, and I am spending my golden years laboriously rebuilding my fortunes. Life goes on quite well, but my wife, Barbara, a distinguished writer, editor and former journalist, whom Campbell removed as a director although she was never accused of the slightest impropriety, sent this (and more in the same spirit), to the celebrant of the “mighty run” and his fellow-glutton addressees: “To call you a bunch of jackals would be to defame that noble creature. You managed to suck fees out of a bankrupt company — whose thousands of shareholders you betrayed while lining your own pockets and feasting like vampires until now.” She revisits this in one chapter of her book, which will appear later this year (and will be a page-turner).
This is an extreme instance of the failings of the legal system. But it is symptomatic. There are too many lawyers, too many laws and regulations, and the lawyers who legislate and decree the regulations are, even if inadvertently, constantly expanding the number and onerousness of their authority, forcing the entire adult population and all officially incorporated or registered institutions into ever greater and more costly reliance on the legal profession to comply with the herniating mass of new restrictions and penalties each year.
The whole process is absurdly expensive, clogged, impossibly time-consuming, and filled with people whose financial interest is served by the protraction of all legal questions and most of whom despise and resent their clients as largely less educated than themselves yet holding them in the demeaning position of being the people who pay them. The law is one of the greatest pillars of democratic civilization and it does not now deserve a passing grade, but gets by with cozy and contemptible self-regulation, a 360-degree cartel swaddled in pious claptrap about a society of the rule of law.
Journalists rarely put on the airs of a learned profession, do not enjoy a monopoly, and are not notoriously avaricious. Thus they may be held to a less exacting standard than lawyers, though a free press is scarcely less important to democracy than a fair justice system. There is now little distinction drawn in practice between reporting and comment, and the great majority of journalists are entirely focused on getting and publicizing a story and are very unlearned about the more complicated events they are describing, reducing public information to faddish media opinion.
The whole process is absurdly expensive, clogged, impossibly time-consuming, and filled with people whose financial interest is served by the protraction of all legal questions
Here are two current examples of this: Canadians don’t like Donald Trump, largely because his confident and sometimes boorish manner is un-Canadian. He is in some respects a caricature of the ugly American. But he has been relentlessly exposing the U.S. federal police (FBI) as having been politicized and virtually transformed into the dirty tricks division of the Democratic National Committee. Few now doubt that the former FBI director, James Comey, was fired for cause, and the current director, backed by the impartial inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility, asserts that Comey’s deputy director, Andrew McCabe, was also fired for cause. There are shocking revelations of the Justice Department’s illegal use of the spurious Steele dossier, paid for by the Clinton campaign, and of dishonest conduct in the Clinton email investigation, the propagation of the nonsense that Trump had colluded with Russia, and of criminal indiscretions and lies in sworn testimony by Justice officials. It is an epochal shambles without the slightest precedent in American history (certainly not the Watergate piffle), yet our media slavishly cling to a faded story of possible impeachable offences by the president.
The American refusal to adhere to the Paris climate accord is routinely portrayed as anti-scientific heresy and possibly capitulation to corrupt oil interests. The world’s greatest polluters, China and India, did not promise to do anything in that accord; Europe uttered platitudes of unlimited elasticity, and Barack Obama, for reasons that may not be entirely creditable, attempted to commit the United States to reducing its carbon footprint by 26 per cent, at immense cost in jobs and money, when there is no proof that carbon has anything to do with climate and the United States under nine presidents of both parties has done more for the ecology of the world than any other country. Journalistic failure on this scale, and across most of what is newsworthy, added to an education system that is more of a Luddite day-care network, produces a steadily less informed public, who, while increasingly tyrannized by lawyers, elect less capable public office-holders.
Lenin famously wrote: “What is to be done?” We must ask ourselves the same question but come up with a better answer than he did.
The Football Lads, as the DFLA (Democratic Football Lads Alliance) marched in Birmingham today, where they joined forces with the Justice 4 the 21 campaign. Young or non UK readers may not remember the IRA campaign of bombing on the UK mainland in 1974. They set off a bomb in the Tavern in the Town and Mulberry Tree pub in Birmingham and 21 people were killed. 6 men were convicted, but later released on appeal (although not before they had served a good 17 years imprisonment) but the authorities have never pursued anybody else for the murders. The thinking seems to be that this might upset the 'peace process' - senior men of the IRA like Gerry Adams who know things, and would have had a hand in giving the orders if they didn't make and plant the bombs, have a veneer of respectability men now and are friends of Jeremy Corbyn. The families of the victims want justice for their lost relatives.
The DFLA stand against all forms of extremism and today their focus was on the grooming gangs; Telford is in everyone's mind, and more convictions in Oxford were reported only today. The original FLA also marched - their speakers were Tommy Robinson and Anne Marie Waters.
I didn't go but many of my friends did, and one in particular took photographs and video of the DFLA march and rally. I can't get the video onto You Tube for technical reasons, but there are some stills from them.
The march entered the Square in front of the Town Hall singing Justice for the 21.
The first speaker began by saying that today is to show the government and the establishment that we mean business. He thanked the Blues, Villa and Albion (the three big Football league teams in Birmingham, Birmingham City, Aston Villa and West Bromwich Albion) and admins from up and down the country. From the south coast and London to Newcastle in the far north east.
He thanked Justice 4 the 21 for organising the stage and said 'to all our wives and girlfriends - this will all be worth it' He continued, That you are all standing here, and withour incident, is testament to all the hard work that has been put in. For too many years we have been talked about as working class football thugs. We do stick to our teams, we are a bit tribal, but that is part of being an island race. But Blues, and Villa and Albion have worked together and have become friends.
I won't precis all the speeches.
UKIP MEP Bill Etheridge. He said: “I will stand by you. We will fight for the Justice4the21, fight for the Victims of Telford, Rotherham and Rochdale. We won’t give in until justice is done.”
UKIP MEP Gerrard Batten said: “What cause could be more deserving of legal aid than the Birmingham pub bombings. They need and deserve justice.”
But the last speech was by a lady from Justice 4 the 21 who thanked the police, a local councilor and everybody else for their help today and in the past. One of the groups who support Justice 4 the 21 are Ghurkahs and their families and two young Nepalese girls performed a traditional dance as a finale.
The march then walked to St Phillip's Cathedral where they laid their wreaths in honour of those who died in 1974 as a result of IRA terrorism. You can see the teams and the distance people had traveled today. PNE is Preston North End in Lancashire, a very old club. Millwall, Arsenal and Watford are London clubs, Coventry and Leicester from the Midlands, Middlesborough the North east.
The Birmingham Mail had enough reporters to cover the FLA march and rally, and the left-wing Stand Up to Racism counter protest here.
Child sex gang of seven 'predatory' men who abused girls as young as 13 in a 's*** wagon' with licence plate ending 'SHG' are convicted after jury took 24 DAYS to reach their verdict
I have been trying to keep up with this trial since last year. I could hardly believe when the cause list showed the jury going out, then legal submissions, then they went out again and so on for weeks. I knew there was a reporting restriction but it this was completely outside my experience. However the reporting restriction was lifted this afternoon and the local and national press have the story. From the Daily Mail the Oxford Mail and the BBC
Assad Hussain, 37, of Iffley Road, Oxford, guilty of five counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault, not guilty of one count of indecent assault.
Kameer Iqbal, 39, of Dashwood Road, Oxford, guilty of three counts of rape.
Khalid Hussain, 38, of Ashhurst Way, Oxford, guilty of rape and indecent assault, not guilty of one count of rape.
Kamran Khan, 36, of Northfield Road, Bolton, guilty of indecent assault and false imprisonment, not guilty of rape.
Moinul Islam, 41, of Wykeham Crescent, Oxford, guilty of rape, two counts of indecent assault and supplying cannabis, not guilty of false imprisonment.
Raheem Ahmed, 40 of Starwort Path, Oxford, guilty of two counts of indecent assault and false imprisonment, not guilty of rape.
Alladitta Yousaf, 48, of Bodley Road, Oxford, guilty of indecent assault.
(Top L-R) Khalid Hussain, Alladitta Yousaf, Kameer Iqbal, Assad Hussain (Bottom L-R) Raheem Ahmed, Moinul Islam, Kamran Khan.
Two others who stood trial, Saboor Abdul and Haji Khan, were acquitted of all charges. Two other men involved in proceedings cannot be named for legal reasons.
Those are the bare facts. I don't want to get into the realms of 'witness statement porn' (yes, there is such a thing) but it will do the public no harm to know a little of what these young girls suffered by these specimens.
The group of seven men aged between 37 and 47 were described as 'predatory and cynical' by a judge after being convicted on Friday following a five-month trial, at Oxford Crown Court. The court heard how the gang would often abuse girls aged between 13 and 15 in a 's wagon' with licence plate ending 'SHG'.
A jury of four women and seven men took a record-breaking 107 hours and 31 minutes, over the course of 24 days, to reach their verdict.
During the trial, Oxford Crown Court heard accounts from the victims, all of whom were aged between 13 and 15 at the time, who said they were plied with drink and drugs and took part in sex parties.
Opening the trial in October, Mr Saxby said: 'Each of the young girls we are dealing with shared one very important characteristic, they were vulnerable. Perfect prey for, in the main, young men prepared to exploit them for casual sexual gratification that was easy, regular and readily available.'
One girl was taken to a B&B in Iffley Road and told to have sex with older men, who one of the defendants described as "uncles", he said. Mr Saxby added: "She says she has lost count of the number of 'uncles' she had sex with... After sex she would sit in the shower and scrub herself.
During the trial one victim recounted how she would be pressured into sex at numerous locations across Oxford, between February 1998 and February 2001. She told jurors how Assad Hussain, Kameer Iqbal, Khalid Hussain and Alladitta Yousaf had all indecently assaulted or raped her on various occasions.
Another woman, who was aged 14 at the time, was sexually assaulted by Moinul Islam, the court heard, while at Cronin's B&B in Iffley Road.
In other instances of abuse the girls were plied with drink and drugs as part of what prosecutors called the 'grooming process'. They were made to take part in 'sex parties' at a number of addresses across Oxford involving large groups of men. At one such party, which took place at a flat in London, one girl said that she was forced into sex with Khalid Hussain.
A number of the woman also recalled a black Nissan Serena people carrier in which many sexual abuses are alleged to have taken place, including gang rape. One woman said of the vehicle: 'They would pick the girls, have sex with them, and dump them. Everything happened in that Serena.' The same woman said that the men would 'take it in turns' to have sex with her and that gang rapes would take place after she was plied with booze and drugs.
Another woman told police in 2015 that she was 'mind-f*****' by the group during the ordeal of repeated rapes and sexual assaults.
The men will be sentenced at Oxford Crown Court in June.
Was the presidential election swayed by the use of illegal funding for campaigns or by outside influence? In the United States the issue is arguable and polemical and remains a moot question. Now the issue has become potentially politically explosive in France. We don't need the song to tell us that every moment of the year we love Paris when it sizzles with political scandal. Other countries of course have their own versions of infamous financial and political transgressions, whether in the Congo, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Gabon, Equitorial Guinea, or the U.S., but none of them can ever reprise those in the French capital where the trees are said to be dressed for spring.
The new French issue, concerning Nicolas Sarkozy, former President of France , 2007-2012, is the most spectacular scandal since the 1959 Ballet Roses sex affair involving girls, 15 to 17, taking part in "ballet peformances" that ended in orgies, attended by Andre Le Troquer, then president of the National Assembly, who was charged with an offence against morality. Finance has replaced sex at the center of the new story which is engrossing with its cast of characters, Libyan spies, arms dealers, money launderers, shadowy middlemen, carriers of money brought in suitcases stuffed with cash.
Sarkozy was examined by French police in connection with a probe into alleged financing by Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi for Sarkozy's campaign for president in 2007 which he won. After examination, authorities have brought preliminary charges against him for corruption. If convicted this would not only end ambitions for his political career but also carry a sentence of up to ten years in prison. He has been barred from traveling to a number of countries.
Are these charges against Sarkozy poetic justice? Previous French political leaders have been involved in venal behavior. Particularly dishonorable was conduct that stemmed from the neo-colonial and paternalistic system known as francafrique, with networks and unofficial emisaries, originally devised to influence policies and actions of leaders in former French African colonies after their countries became independent in 1960. Over the years francafrique appeared to change into France a fric, Africa as a source of cash and gifts. President Valerie Giscard d'Estaing received large gifts of diamonds from Jean-Bedel Bokassa, self-proclaimed Emperor of the Central African Republic. It was relevation of these gifts that led to Giscard's failure to be reelected president in 1981. Former president Francois Mitterand was also accused of receiving gifts of diamonds from corrupt African despots, especially from Congo and Gabon.
African leaders are also alleged to have given cash to former president Jacques Chirac and former prime minister Dominique de Villepin for help in funding electoral campaigns. A Paris lawyer and political operator in the shadows, Robert Bourgi, confessed he delivered thousands of dollars in cash from Africans to Chirac and Villepin delivered not only in briefcases, but also in a set of African drums, and sports bag. He complained he got a backache from carrying the money. He claimed five African heads of state, including Mobutu president of Zaire (Congo), and leaders of Ivory Coast and Gabon, paid about $10 million towards Chirac's 2002 election campaign.
Other problems involved behavior within metropolitan France. Former president Jacques Chirac was convicted for misusing funds when he, as Mayor of Paris, 1977-1995, gave 28 "phantom employees" civil service jobs paid for by City Hall for work done for RPR, his political party. Chirac, the first head of state to be convicted since Marshal Petain in 1945, got two years suspended sentence for embezzling public funds, abuse of trust, and illegal conflict of interest. A property dealer and banker, Jean-Claude Mery, collected illegal funds from companies for Chirac and RPR through managing public works contracts, and claimed he gave £500,000 to an aide of Chirac.
On January 30, 2004 Alain Juppe, prime minister, 1995-7, Mayor of Bordeaux , head of the center right UMP party, and presidential hopeful, was found guilty of corruption, and barred fom holding public office for a decade. He had, when Chirac was Mayor, misused City of Paris public funds to pay salaries of political alllies, party workers. The paradox in his case is the fact that he would have challenged Sarkozy for the presidency and probably won.
Nicolas Sarkozy has led a complex colorful life, including marriage to the beautiful Carla Bruni, French-Italian model and songwriter, whom he married in 2008. A soccer fan and cyclist, he has been critically appraised for his "bling bling" high life style, expensive suits, stylish sunglasses, friend of Johnny Hallyday and hip hop rapper Doc Gyneco. But his legal and political problems stem from allegations in a number of cases connected to electoral campaign funding.
One of them is the financing of his campaign, which failed, for president in 2012 when he was defeated by Francois Hollande. Known as the "Bygmalion affair," the charge is that Sarkozy's campaign engaged in a system of false acounting to conceal the very large overspending, more than 11 million euros, mostly on rallies and U.S. like stadium events. The politician Jean-Francois Cope, then leader of Sarkozy's UMP, was forced to resign from his position for involvement in the affair.
Another is the case of Eric Woerth, then minister of labor and treasurer of the UMP, Sarkozy's party, who was accused of getting money 150,000 euros in cash from Liliane Bettencourt, L'Oreal heiress and richest woman in France, in March 2007 to fund Sarkozy's campaign.
Sarkozy had a complex relationship with the bloodthirsty dictator Muammar Gaddafi, the unsavory character, the corrupt archetype of African dictators, held responsible of blowing up in 1988 Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, as well as for other terrorist acts and mass killings. Sarkozy in July 2007 negotiated the release of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian, convicted of infecting Libyan children with HIV. He hosted in December 2007 a five day visit to Paris of the "Brother Leader" who set up a Bedouin tent near the Elysee Palace, the official residence of the president. However, the relationship changed when he and British Prime Minister David Cameron led NATO air strikes to support rebels against Libyan military forces. These strikes led to civil war in Libya, the assassination of Gaddafi and the end of his regime after 41 years, and the beginning of the mass migration of Libyans that has perplexed Europe.
Sarkozy's present difficulties stem from allegations that Gaddafi gave his electoral campaign 50 million euros, more than $60 million, in illicit funds. The case started in March 2011 with a demand made on French TV by Saif Gaddafi, a son of the dictator, that Sarkozy give back the money he got from his father. It became more serious in April 2012 when a businessman and alleged arms dealer named Ziad Takieddine, uncle of Amal Clooney, the Lebanese-British barrister married to film star George, claimed he personally carried five million euros in 200 euro and 500 euro notes in suitcases stuffed with cash in late 2006 and early 2007 to give to Sarkozy's chief of staff, Claude Gueant when Sarkozy was minister of the interior and interested in running for president. .
The case was spurred by the arrest in London of Alexandre Douhri, French-Algerian businessman resident in Switzerland, accused by France of fraud and money laundering, funneling money, said to be 500,000 euros, from Gaddafi to Gueant for Sarkozy's campaign. Douhri is fighting extradition to France.
Sarkozy has launched a counter offensive against his accusers whom he terms the "Gaddafi gang of assassins." However, even if the affair does not reek of camembert, it is significant for rethinking the issue of limits that might be imposed on electoral campaign spending. It is certainly relevant to the U.S. case of McCutcheon v. Federal Electoral Commission of April 2, 2014 decided by the Supreme Court on a 5-4 decision. Sarkozy's problem should lead to further thoughts on the Court's decision to declare that limits imposed on the contributions individuals can make over a two year period to national party and federal candidate committees were unconstitutonal.
Spain: Ten Algerians Arrested For Sexual Abuse of Underage Girls
This is in Breitbart and taken from French newspaper Le Point. I can't find it elsewhere yet, probably because I don't speak a word of Spanish and don't know where to look. The MO sounds VERY familiar.
Ten Algerian migrant men were arrested in eastern Spain this week after they were alleged to have sexually abused three underage girls by luring them to an apartment offering drugs and money. The ten migrants were brought to court on charges of sexual abuse in the city of Alicante, where they are believed to have sexually molested and assaulted three girls aged 14, 15, and 17, Le Pointreports.
All three of the girls, according to the Spanish police, had run away from a boarding school for troubled young people shortly before they met the group of migrant men.
A police statement about the affair stated that one of the girls “was locked up for 24 hours, during which group members assaulted her and sexually abused her repeatedly.”
Trebes - jihadist named as Moroccan petty criminal Redouane Lakdim - his woman was arrested last night.
The death of brave officer Lt Col Arnaud Beltrame overnight brings the death toll in the jihad at Carcassonne and Trebes to four. The jihadist Redouane Lakdim is also dead. The Paris correspondent of The Irish Times has news of further arrests this morning, and a summary of events.
The dead gunman was identified as Redouane Lakdim, aged 25. “A woman close to him, who shared his life” was arrested on Friday night, Paris prosecutor Francois Molins told a press conference in Carcassonne.
“Today’s events are an unfortunate and tragic reminder that the level of the terrorist threat on our territory has not diminished,” Mr Molins said. “The threat has become endogenous. It comes mainly from radicalised individuals who are on our national territory.”
Lakdim fired on a white Opel Corsa in the Aigle housing project in Carcassonne at 10.13am, killing a passenger and wounding the driver. He drove 1.5km to the east, where he fired six more bullets at four CRS riot policemen from a unit based in Marseilles. They were returning from a jog into Carcassonne and were unarmed. One of the policemen suffered a punctured lung and two broken ribs.
The gunman continued 6.5km farther east to the small town of Trèbes, with a population of 5,000. He entered a Super U supermarket “shouting Allahu Akbar and saying that he was a soldier of Islamic State, ready to die for Syria”, Mr Molins said. Islamic State is also known as Isis. “He demanded the liberation of his brothers before shooting a client and an employee of the store, both of whom died on the spot.”
Media reports said Lakdim specifically asked for the liberation of Salah Abdeslam, the only survivor of the 10-member Islamic State unit that killed 130 people in Paris on November 13th, 2016. Abdeslam is awaiting trial in France.
There were about 50 people in the supermarket when Lakdim burst in. Several were taken hostage. A gendarmerie officer, Lt Col Arnaud Beltrame, negotiated the release of the hostages by volunteering to take their place. “When we heard shooting the GIGN intervened,” interior minister Gérard Collomb said. Lt Col Beltrame was hit by three bullets . . . Two other gendarmes from the GIGN were wounded during the assault.
Islamic State’s news agency Amaq claimed credit for the attack. The group lost its strongholds in Mosul and Raqqa last year.
“The man who carried out the attack in Trèbes in the south of France is a soldier of the Islamic State, who acted in response to our appeal to strike the members of the international [anti-Isis] coalition,” the statement said.
Lakdim was reportedly “very active on Salafist websites” and trained for jihad during several trips abroad. It is not yet known if he was in contact with members of Islamic State, or acted of his own initiative. Mr Collomb said Lakdim acted alone and called him a “petty drug dealer”.
Mr Molins said Lakdim was put on the “S” (for “security”) watchlist in 2014 “because of his links with Salafist movements”. He received a one-month suspended prison sentence for possession of illegal weapons in 2011. In 2016, he served one month in prison in Carcassonne for drug dealing.
Lakdim was kept under surveillance by French intelligence services in 2016 and 2017. “There were no precursor signs that he would proceed to terrorist acts,” Mr Molins said.
The neighbours made the obligatory commendation of one of their own Lakdim was described by a neighbour as a "pleasant young man" who lived with his parents and sisters in a flat in Carcassonne, taking the youngest children to school every day. Don't just arrest his woman - take and interrogate his parents, those siblings out of childhood, his numerous 'cousins' and FIND OUT WHAT THEY KNOW.
The extreme right-wing Rassemblement National issued a statement titled “When will the government realise that we are at war?” The attack was carried out by “a foreigner on the ‘S’ list who was also a delinquent,” the party noted. “What was he doing on French territory?”
Or British territory, or Belgian, German, Dutch, Swedish, Spanish, Danish and Finnish territory, or Norway and Italy where plots were foiled. Just to mention western Europe, I should include north America, Australia, Eastern Europe, Israel, much of Africa, much of Asia. What indeed. Jihad, that's what.
The French gendarme who was shot after he swapped places with a hostage being held by a terrorist gunman has died. Interior minister Gérard Collomb announced the death of Lt-Col Arnaud Beltrame shortly before 6am French time on Saturday.
“We will never forget his heroism, his bravery, his sacrifice. With a heavy heart, I send the support of the entire country to his family, friends and colleagues of the Gendarmerie of the Aude,”
Shortly afterwards, President Emmanuel Macron issued a statement saying he was “deeply moved” to learn of the officer’s death from his injuries.
“In offering himself as a hostage to the terrorist hiding in the supermarket in Trèbes, Lieutenant-Colonel Beltrame saved the life of a civilian hostage, and showed exceptional courage and self-sacrifice,” Macron wrote.
He said the hero officer had shown “exceptional sang froid” and demonstrated the finest “military virtues” that merited the “respect and admiration of the entire nation”. “Lieutenant-colonel Arnaud Beltrame died serving the country to which he had already given so much. In giving his life to bring to an end the murderous actions of a jihadist terrorist, he has fallen a hero,”
Beltrame, 44, of the Aude Gendarmerie, originated from Brittany, in western France, and had a distinguished career earning distinctions, commendations and military honours at every step. He graduated from France’s elite military college Saint-Cyr in 1999 with special praise for his “resolutely offensive spirit when faced with adversity”. His superior officers noted that he was prepared to “fight to the end and never give up”.
From Saint-Cyr, Beltrame underwent training for the gendarmerie, including for the special intervention unit the elite GIGN (Groupe d’Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale), whose missions include counter-terrorism and hostage rescue. He earned the military cross in 2007 following a two year posting to Iraq, and later spent four years as part of the Garde Républicaine protecting the Elysée Palace before becoming a special advisor to the secretary general of France’s ecology ministry. He was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel in 2016.
The gendarme had volunteered to take the place of a female hostage . . . Beltrame left his mobile telephone line open, enabling police and special forces outside the supermarket to hear what was going on. When they heard shots, they stormed the store, killing Lakdim, and finding the Lt-Col gravely injured.
Things are getting so bad in Sweden that Swedish hip-hop artist Ken Ring expects a civil war there within the next 20 years. He is also considering moving to Africa, which he believes will be safer than Sweden. The rapper made these comments on the television program Trygdekontoret, broadcast on Norway’s state broadcaster NRK on March 13, 2018.
Ring grew up in Hässelby, a suburb of Stockholm which has recently seen a dramatic escalation of violence. Immigration levels have exploded in the suburb and such a massive influx, with its subset of violent, organized crime, and increased drug trafficking, has meant a transformation of the area.“Today there is an open gang war. My big brother was murdered,” he said.
When asked about why he would move to Africa, where his mother was from, Ring said: “It’s safer there. My son is nine years old and he asked me, ‘Dad, why is it more dangerous in Hässelby than in Nairobi, Kenya?’”
The rapper notes that many of those involved in deadly gang shootings are not recently arrived asylum seekers. Instead, they are second generation immigrants who were born and raised in Sweden. “I think it’s too late — that it’s not possible to change,” Ring stated and added: “Within 20 years we will have an open war on the streets of Stockholm.”
Journalists apparently rarely ever visit the no-go zone suburbs around Stockholm, so they don’t really know what’s going on. And anyway, they are too busy trying to figure out how men can become impregnated with female sperm.
In a new bill, the Swedish government has proposed changes that will “modernize” the rules for assisted childbirth and parenting. According to the new bill this would… "mean, among other things, that a man who gives birth to a child is to be considered a father to the child and that a woman who contributes her sperm to a child's birth is to be considered a mother to the child." The purpose of the proposal is to create "more modern" rules for "situations in which people receive children after either of them or both have changed gender identity."
Exerpts from the Judge, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave's, comments You were not prepared for martyrdom. . . wanted to save his own skin.
Satisfied that the offence of attempted murder was an act of terrorism (That's good - so far)
You were motivated deep seated hatred of this country and desire for revenge against this county and US for the death of your father. No doubt you are a very dangerous and devious individual ...using military efficiency while pretending to be a model asylum seeker.
I sentence you to life imprisonment with min term of 34 years. (and then the inevitable)
You will have plenty of time to read the Koran in prison. The Koran is a book of peace. Islam forbids breaking the law of the land. Islam forbids terrorism. You have violated Islam and the Koran by your actions.
The Diversity Division of Judicial Group of the Ministry of Justice was the one that escaped the cull of 2008. They have done their work well. Judge's may well be of diverse ethnic origins and sexual taste these days, but they are selected and trained according to a conformity of minkthink that even orwell would have thought far-fetched. That educated and intelligent men, women and the fluid continue to lack the independence of conscience to be honest about the nature of Islam and the koran is scandalous. They must be now, some of them at least, be aware of the flaws in that ideology and its unholy manual; I cannot believe otherwise. The longer since my retirement, the more I realise how desperate the government was to get my generation off the scene.