Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Civil wars all around

By David Archibald  

Venezuela’s coming civil war has been a long time coming, and is still coming. The rot set in early after President Chavez was elected in 1999 as shown by Venezuela’s cattle statistics.
Chavez’s agricultural reforms sent cattle production into a nosedive. But no matter, there was plenty of oil revenue to make good the shortfall with imported beef. Then the oil revenue fell away too, so ordinary Venezuelans now subsist on starchy root vegetables. Recently individual troops have been siding with the protestors, a sign that the civil war is not far off. Despite Venezuela’s troubles, population growth has kept rock-steady at 1.5% per annum. Which means that there is no point in trying to save Venezuela because the country’s large and increasing population, with nothing to do, won’t be able to feed itself at some further future point.
A civil war is in prospect in South Africa in which the ruling African National Congress has promoted the idea of siezing land from the remaining whites, who number 4 million out of a population of 50 million. This shouldn’t be surprising as Nelson Mandela used to sing about killing whites, as does the current South African president, Jacob Zuma. The country’s HIV problem, at 13.6% in blacks and 0.3% in whites, has been kept under control by government-provided anti-retroviral drugs. A societal breakdown which stops that supply will provide a kick-along to the death rate. South Africa will resemble the set of "The Walking Dead" – war-torn and diseased.
There are civil wars underway in Syria, Libya, and Yemen but nobody really cares about what happens to people who are unpleasant most of the time. Far more consequential is what is happening in Europe. Richard Fernandez’s latest piece attracted a comment which included the following interesting anecdote:
According to a Polish friend of mine, his cousin (in the Army, junior officer) notes that they are quietly and slowly introducing a new set of theoretical small to medium unit tabletop exercises: junior officers for the education of. The defensive ones have Russian orbat enemies and use maps of eastern Poland. The offensive ones all have irregular enemies based on vehicle-heavy Islamic State enemies. Oddly, the military vehicles and systems are all German
And the mapping is all eastern Germany.
A friend of mine in the Washington intelligence community provided an interpretation. The Polish Army in eastern Poland is to hold out against a Russian invasion for as long as possible until U.S. forces arrive. The Polish Army in western Poland is to help out in Germany’s civil war, which will be the civil war with the country’s Muslim population. He volunteered that the foremost French military school, at St Cyr, is also preparing for civil war. Of course the EU is aware that civil war is possible so they are trying to even up the odds by banning private possession of rifles, including in Switzerland. And the public mood is shifting towards civil war, as evinced by this hilarious article by Kathy Shaidle. It seems that the European public is coming to the conclusion that they don’t want to put up with bombings forever.
What does this all mean? Venezuela’s civil war will prove, once again, that socialism doesn’t work. South Africa’s civil war will suggest that primitive and post-primitive cultures will have a hard time peacefully coexisting in one country. And the civil war in Europe will say the same thing about Muslims and non-Muslims. On top of all that, China is likely to use the distraction provided by European civil wars to grind the faces of most of its neighbours in the dirt.  Border walls and Muslim bans are going to seen as such sensible policies.

Attack on German Soldiers: Shocking video from Afghanistan emerges

This video from Afghanistan is highly distressing: Jordanian ISAF soldiers assault German soldiers, pointing their weapons at them. They drag them along the pavement and beat one of them unconscious. The recordings, which have been shared with BILD, show that the attack on members of the German armed forces was far more dangerous than previously thought. They also suggest that the seriousness of the attack might have been downplayed – even by the German side.

Fleeing Tyranny or Bringing it with Them?

Terror attacks and other offshoots of Islamic extremism have created an atmosphere of mistrust between Europe's natives and thousands of those who entered European countries to seek shelter.
The situation is turning the Europeans against their own governments and against those advocating help for the war-torn migrants who have been arriving.
Europeans are turning hostile towards the idea of freedom and peaceful coexistence; they have apparently been seeing newcomers as seeking exceptions to the rules and culture of West.
In an unprecedented shift in policy after public fury about security, the German government decided to shut down the mosque where the terrorist who rammed a truck into a shopping market in Berlin, Anis Amri, was radicalized before hecommitted the crime.
The mosque and Islamic center at Fussilet 33 in Berlin had apparently also been radicalizing a number of other youths by convincing them to commit terror attacks in Europe and to join the terror group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
The authorities had the mosque under surveillance for a time but did not make a move before 12 innocent civilians were butchered by Amri on December 19, 2016, while leaving around 50 others injured.
The police and counter terror authorities also conducted raids in 60 different German cities and searched around 190 mosques to target kingpins of another group called "The True Religion".
Europeans appear to be seeking an alternative way to control this social disruption.
Many Muslims want to live in segregated areas where they strive to create the kind of culture they left behind before settling in the West. This preference, however, seems to lead to a rise in extremism and is proving counterproductive for the society as a whole.
The newcomers soon start demanding privileges. They ask for gender segregation at work and in educational institutions; they ask for faith schools (madrasas), and demand an end to any criticism of their extremist practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM), forced marriages, child marriages and inciting hatred for other religions. They call any criticism "Islamophobia". They additionally seek to establish a parallel system of justice such as sharia courts.
Hardliners have been delivering sermons across the Europe preaching hatred and intolerance of other religious groups.
Most newcomers also seem reluctant to condemn the terror attacks committed by jihadis or the inhumane activities of totalitarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia or Iran. Most newcomers are also unlikely, on different pretexts, to support any anti-terror or anti-extremism program.
These groups seem only to focus on criticizing the policies of West towards the Middle East and Muslim countries and blame the West for everything wrong with the Muslim world.
The Muslim Council of Britain -- a non-government organization claiming to represent British Muslims, and affiliated with over 500 mosques, charities and schools -- introduced its own so-called counter-terrorism campaign, instead of following the one launched by the government.
In the U.S., the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) also shocked many when its leaders demanded the district attorney of Louisiana cancel an ongoing anti-terrorism training program and accused the organizer of being a "notorious Islamophobe".
"We are not a pro-abortion march, we are a pro-women march," one of the advocates for sharia in the West, Linda Sarsour, stated while addressing a feminist event in Washington D.C.
The event was organized right after President Donald Trump's inauguration and was supposed to criticize his anti-abortion stance and seek equal rights for women.
Sarsour, however, seemed less interested in the cause of these women and sounded hungrier for attention and publicity to market her brand of sharia.
Sarsour , who appears to have been seeking imposing sharia on West – in a plan that would entail taking away most of the rights from these liberal women -- was instead standing next to them as if she were the champion of their rights.
Sarsour,known for desiring to slice off the genitals of girls, merely tweets for general Muslim across the globe.
Sadly, we now have in the West extremists who seem hell-bent on dragging civilization back to repression and violence in the name of sharia.
These hardliners are projecting a dogma that implies the advantages of killing and persecuting apostates, non-Muslim minorities, homosexuals, and inflicting the same brutalities on women and minors as we have been seeing in many Muslim majority countries in Middle East, Asia and Africa – as well as, unofficially but increasingly, in Europe and the West.
The British government recently announced a posthumous pardon for thousands of people who were penalized by the state for homosexual activities decades ago.
In the same Britain, however, more than half the Muslim population still believes that in the U.K., homosexuality should be completely illegal.
The cracks between the Muslim and European cultures seem to be widening even in the most harmonious places.
In Canada, a resolution by a Muslim MP seeking special laws to condemn freedom of speech about Islam, has led to scores of Canadians taking to the streets calling on the government to avoid bending rules in favor of a specific religious group in the country.
Many newcomers to Canada and Europe are demanding similar laws to those from which they claim to be seeking refuge.

Leaked Labour Document Shows Plan to Keep Unskilled Immigration Levels High Even After Brexit

The Labour Party has drawn up secret plans to facilitate mass, unskilled, and seasonal immigration even after Brexit, as well as throwing open the doors to asylum seekers and their families. The party’s election manifesto makes no mention of either policy, promising only to put in place “fair rules and reasonable management of migration”. But a leaked policy document seen by the Daily Mail reveals the party has ambitions to continue the flow of unskilled migration into Britain even after the country leaves the European Union – despite immigration being second only to the sovereignty issue in the list of people’s reasons to vote for Brexit last year.
Specifically, the document shows the party intends to make use of ‘Tier 3’ of the immigration system for the first time.
One of the five original tiers of the immigration system drawn up by the previous Labour Government in 2008, Tier 3, offering visas to unskilled migrants, was never used because the need was met by migration from Eastern Europe.
“We envisage a requirement to make continued use of the current five-tiered visa system, including the currently unused tier applicable to those seeking low-skilled, unskilled or seasonal work,” the document states.
Tier 3 was shut down under David Cameron’s leadership in 2013. In a speech announcing the move, he questioned why it was ever created in the first place. “There was even, extraordinarily, a tier specifically created for those with no skills at all. Now why would you want to create such a tier?’ he said.
Mr. Corbyn has long been opposed to placing caps on immigration. Speaking on Monday, the Labour leader said numbers would probably come down under a Labour administration, but added: “Don’t hold me to that.”
On asylum, the document says: “We would overhaul our discredited current system in order to uphold our obligations to those fleeing war and persecution. Immigration is driven more by economic requirements of both migrant and host far more than it is regulated by systems of permit control. The numbers might go up or down but not as a consequence of these changes. We are not setting false, misleading, divisive targets.”
It further sets out plans to ditch rules which prevent foreign spouses living in the UK unless they can prove they will not be a burden on the taxpayer and would relax rules on claiming asylum in line with its manifesto, which states: “Refugees are not migrants. They have been forced from their homes, by war, famine or other disasters. Unlike the Tories, we will uphold the proud British tradition of honouring the spirit of international law and our moral obligations by taking our fair share of refugees.”
A Labour spokesman confirmed the document is genuine, adding: “After Britain leaves the EU, free movement of labour will come to an end. Labour will introduce fair rules and managed migration, based on the needs of our economy.
“A number of discussion papers have been produced. This is part of one such document. It is not a statement of Labour policy, which is set out in our manifesto.”
But Lord Green of Deddington, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said the document fit a pattern on immigration set by the Labour Party, in which key aims are not revealed to the public beforehand.
“We have been here before. Labour are low key about immigration before they get into power but very different in office. The last time they came to power in 1997 they also promised to reform the system. Within three years immigration had trebled from 50,000 to 150,000,” he said.
“That was even before they opened the gates to Eastern Europe. Later, one of their key advisers admitted in print that ‘It didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000 … was to open up the UK to mass immigration.’
“When they left office in 2010, net migration had reached a quarter of a million a year. It is now back at that level. This leaked document has similar fingerprints all over it.
“Suggestions to increase immigration are intended to be kept secret until after the election. These proposals are very likely to result in losing control over immigration altogether.”

The Left’s Unilateral Suicide Pact: After the Manchester bombing, liberals once again avoid the obvious—that Islamic terror in the West is an immigration problem.

Reprinted from
Liberal ideology conceives of “safe spaces” in the context of alleged white patriarchy, but there was a real need for a “safe space” in Britain’s Manchester Arena on May 22, when 22-year-old terrorist Salman Abedi detonated his nail- and screw-filled suicide bomb after a concert by teen idol Ariana Grande. What was the “progressive” answer to yet another instance of Islamic terrorism in the West? Feckless calls for resisting hate, pledges of renewed diversity, and little else.
A rethinking of immigration policies is off the table. Nothing that an Islamic terrorist can do will ever shake the left-wing commitment to open borders—not mass sexual assaults, not the deliberate slaughter of gays, and not, as in Manchester last week, the killing of young girls. The real threat that radical Islam poses to feminism and gay rights must be disregarded in order to transform the West by Third World immigration. Defenders of the open-borders status quo inevitably claim that if a terrorist is a second-generation immigrant, like Abedi, immigration policy has nothing to do with his attack. (Abedi’s parents emigrated to Britain from Libya; his immediate family in Manchester lived in the world’s largest Libyan enclave outside Africa itself.) Media Matters ridiculed a comment about the Manchester bombing by Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt with the following headline: fox news host suggests ‘open borders’ are to blame for manchester attack carried out by british native.
Earhardt had asked how to prevent “what’s happening in Europe, with all these open borders, they’re not vetting, they’re opening their borders to families like this, and this is how they’re paid back in return.” Pace Media Matters, a second-generation Muslim immigrant with a zeal for suicide bombing is as much of an immigration issue as a first-generation immigrant with a terrorist bent. The fact that second-generation immigrants are not assimilating into Western culture makes immigration policy more, not less, of a pressing matter. It is absurd to suggest that Abedi picked up his terrorist leanings from reading William Shakespeare and William Wordsworth, rather than from the ideology of radical Islam that has been imported into Britain by mass immigration.
The Washington Post, too, editorialized that “defenders of vulnerable immigrants and asylum seekers, who in Britain as elsewhere in the West remain the targets of populist demagogues, could take some comfort from the fact that the assault apparently did not originate with those communities.” Well, where did the assault originate from—Buckingham Palace?
Since liberals and progressives will not allow a rethinking of open borders policy, perhaps they would support improved intelligence capacity so as to detect terror attacks in the planning stages? Nope. The Left still decries the modest expansions of surveillance power under the 2001 Patriot Act as the work of totalitarianism. Former New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly sought to gather publicly available information about dense Muslim neighborhoods in New York in order to monitor potential radicalization; his discontinued initiative is still denounced as anti-Muslim oppression. Internet companies protect encrypted communications from government access, to the applause of civil libertarians and the mainstream media. The National Security Agency’s mass data analysis, done by unconscious computer algorithms, is still being challenged in court.
What about using ordinary police powers to try to hinder terrorism? Islamic terrorists in Europe have moonlighted as crooks, engaging in drug dealing, robberies, vandalism, and theft. The U.S. should have zero tolerance for any criminal activity committed by aliens: break the criminal law and you’re out of here. Deporting alien criminals is both an anti-crime and an anti-terrorism strategy. Yet mayors and police chiefs in sanctuary jurisdictions across the country continue to release alien criminals back into the community from jail in defiance of requests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold the criminals briefly for removal proceedings.  The New York Police Department defied every ICE detainer request it received in the first four months of 2017, instead releasing 179 alien criminals back into the streets, according to the New York Post.
So what does the progressive and liberal bloc offer? Treacly bromides, combined with fatalism about the necessity of adjusting to future attacks. A day after Manchester, the Washington Post admonished:
As nations across the West have learned, it is not possible to prevent all such terrorist attacks, especially when they are staged by homegrown militants. What is possible is a response that focuses on uniting rather than dividing a diverse society. That’s what was happening in Manchester on Tuesday, as thousands of people of all races and faiths gathered for a vigil in the city’s Albert Square. “I’m not here as a person with brown skin or someone born Muslim,” a man named Amir Shah told a Guardian reporter. “I’m here as a Mancunian.” If that spirit prevails, the terrorists will have failed.

No, the terrorists will have failed if they can no longer slaughter children. They don’t care if a terror attack is met with candlelight vigils; they care if border restrictions and law enforcement make it impossible to destroy lives.
The flip side of the Post’s “terrorists will have failed if we light candles” conceit is the ubiquitous meme that the “terrorists will have won” if we modify our intelligence strategies or immigration policies in any way. The New York Times editorialized after the Manchester bombing: “It is important to recognize this attack for what it is: an attempt to shake Britain—and, by extension, the rest of Europe and the West—to its core, and to provoke a thirst for vengeance and a desire for absolute safety so intense, it will sweep away the most cherished democratic values and the inclusiveness of diverse societies.” This response is narcissistic. The attack was an effort to kill British girls and their parents, period. The terrorists win every time they pull off such massacres. They are not monitoring the legislative process and plotting how to move the needle on Western security protections in a way contrary to their own self-interest. If a society were exclusively Christian, Jewish, or even Muslim, it would be just as much the target of attack by ISIS or al-Qaida as a more “diverse” society.
Moreover, how would the New York Times distinguish a terror attack that seeks to “sweep away . . . the inclusiveness of diverse societies” from one that was merely intended to kill? Any terror attack carries some chance (albeit an increasingly de minimis one) that it will result in a tightening of immigration or security policies, but that does not mean that such tightening is the goal of the attack.
Perhaps aware that the “candlelight vigil” strategy for fighting terrorism may seem a little wan, progressives make passing reference to actual security measures, but couched in such broad terms as to be almost meaningless. And they are only faking it, because those security measures would violate core tenets of progressive ideology.
Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum, for example, invokes the usual weak remedies: she calls for “community solidarity, things like the mass vigil that took place in Manchester on Tuesday night, or the offers of tea, blankets and bedrooms extended to people stranded by the attack.” But then, so as not to sound too soft, she also suggests “better policing . . . as well as the forthright teaching of British values in British schools.” If “better policing” means more surveillance of, or interaction with, suspicious individuals, good luck with that. One can already hear the cries of “racial profiling.” As for the “forthright teaching of British values in British schools,” where does Applebaum think we are—the 1920s? Forthright teaching of Western values went out decades ago as an anti-minority, anti-immigrant violation of multicultural relativism.
Even more hypocritically, the New York Times intones that “maximum vigilance is needed, and . . . public spaces must be made as safe as possible.” Never mind that the Times led the fight against NYPD Commissioner Kelly’s neighborhood-mapping program that tried to maintain “vigilance” against nascent radicalization. Never mind that the Times rages against any police effort to increase the safety of “public spaces,” whether via pedestrian stops or Broken Windows policing.
The contrast between the Times’s attitude toward domestic policing and its attitude toward Islamic terrorism is striking. When it comes to terrorism, the public should “recognize that more attacks will very likely occur, despite our best defenses,” the Times says. It is also “critical that immigrants, especially Muslims, are not stigmatized.” If the Times were talking about police shootings of black males, it would never counsel acceptance of the alleged inevitability of more shootings. As for not stigmatizing an entire group for the actions of a few, when it comes to the police, there has been no shriller a stigmatizer than the Times. It has crusaded against cops in the most inflammatory terms, accusing the police of systemic bias against blacks. Unlike a terrorist, an officer almost never initiates an interaction with a civilian with the intention to kill, unless he is confronting a suspect who poses a deadly threat. True, a few individual officers have made horribly wrong judgments about a suspect’s threat level. But those misjudgments do not occur out of homicidal animus. Regarding Islamic terrorism, the Times intones that “Understanding is critical” and inveighs against “whipping up divisive ethnic, racist and religious hatreds.” The Times has never tried to “understand” why officers are more likely to use force in high-crime, gang-ridden areas or why officers try to restore order there (answer: because the law-abiding residents of those anarchic neighborhoods beg them to do so).
Applebaum warns against “politicizing” the “natural” emotions triggered by the attack—“horror, anger, sadness, fear, revulsion.” Why shouldn’t those emotions be politicized? Every left-wing cause, especially the anti-cop crusade, is the result of politicizing an emotion. When it comes to terrorism, however, a country is apparently not allowed to say: “Enough is enough, the status quo is not working, we need to rethink the policies that have allowed this mayhem to flourish.” Mob justice, of course, is abhorrent, and any changes of law must follow the normal deliberative process. But the public should not have to resign itself abjectly to future attacks.
Islamic terrorism in the West is an immigration problem. Until we have the law enforcement and intelligence capacity to detect terror plots, immigration policy has to change, both in Europe and in the U.S.  European security forces are unable to track the militants in their populations, so large are their numbers. The United States must not end up in the same situation. We need lower immigration levels and much tighter screening. The Manchester bombing vindicated President Donald Trump’s March 2017 executive order briefly limiting travel to the U.S. from half a dozen ISIS- and al-Qaida-riven countries, including Libya, while the administration reviews security screening in those countries. Yet three days after Manchester, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down that order, claiming that it “drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.” This judicial crusade against Trump’s travel pause cripples the executive’s ability to protect the country from attack, by exporting phantom constitutional rights to the world.  Progressives’ passivity in the face of Islamic terrorism is not a consistent philosophy. It is rather the outcome of their commitment to open borders at any cost. That ideology has taken too many lives and must be overcome.

Germany: 100,000 Asylum Cases Re-Checked After Soldier Passes as Syrian

Germany’s top security official says he’s ordered the re-examination of up to 100,000 decisions granting asylum to migrants after uncovering mistakes in a smaller probe undertaken after a German soldier was able to pass himself off as a Syrian refugee in a bizarre far-right plot. Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere told reporters Wednesday that checks of 2,000 applications revealed no other cases like that of Franco A., who managed to pass himself off as a Syrian refugee in 2015, get a place at a refugee home and receive state financial aid. Authorities allege he was part of a far-right plot to assassinate political figures and blame refugees. But de Maiziere said other errors were uncovered and he’s ordered 80,000 to 100,000 decisions to be re-checked.

Eritrean ‘Ikea Killer’ Claiming Compensation for ‘Disparaging’ Facebook Comments

The Eritrean man who murdered a mother and her son in Ikea as “revenge” for the Swedish state having rejected his asylum application is claiming damages for “defamatory” posts about him on Facebook.

In August 2015, Abraham Ukbagabir grabbed a packet of kitchen knives in Ikea and tested them for sharpness before stabbing to death a 55-year-old woman and her 28-year-old son.
At the migration office in Sweden, just hours before launching the attack for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment, Ukbagabir heard that his application for asylum would be rejected.
“I regard it as a crime against me, when everybody else is allowed to stay in the country except me,” the killer said during the trial.
“To show that I was treated unfairly, and in order to feel at peace, I attacked.”
It emerged earlier this year that the 37-year-old migrant’s lawyer requested his client should be transferred to his native Eritrea after Ukbagabir received threats, and was reportedly beaten multiple times by other inmates.
But documents seen by Expressen reveal the African is now seeking compensation for comments posted on social media which he says have threatened his safety.
“He is supposed to be dead, not just injured”, an unnamed man wrote on Facebook last winter in a post relating to Ukbagabir, for which he has now been charged with libel.
In other posts, the anonymous 45-year-old “wrote disparagingly of the killer’s skin colour”, and had wondered how hard it could be to “break the neck” of the African migrant.
“The post was such that one could expect Ukbagabir be exposed to more violence, as a result,” said the prosecutor.
“And an aggravating factor that must be taken into account is how the motive for the crime was to violate the plaintiff’s race or colour.”
Dubbed the ‘Ikea murderer’ by the press, the Eritrean is demanding 5,000 Swedish krona (£450 GBP) from the accused as compensation for the Facebook posts.

Report: Islamists from Across Europe Moving to UK for ‘Freedom’ to Practice Radical Islam

A growing number of radical Muslims are flocking to move from France to Britain, where generous welfare payments, lack of scrutiny from the authorities, and the ease with which families can practice strict Islam have earned the UK a reputation as a halal paradise for Salafists who are unable to secure visas for Saudi Arabia.

French newspaper L’Obs reports that Small Heath, a neighbourhood of Birmingham where 95 per cent of residents practise Islam, is one of the most popular spots for French Muslims seeking a new home where women can wear the full face veil. The garment has been banned since 2010 in France.
“Daesh [ISIS] isn’t here, and no one is looking at you,” explained Dounia, a woman of Moroccan origin who moved to Small Heath from France with her husband Karim and his four children a year ago.
Life in the area is “cool” for Muslims, she said, telling L’Obs how there are single sex gymnasiums and pool schedules with segregated swimming, that shops contain prayer rooms and how, in hospitals, women can ask to be seen by a female doctor.
Another reason the pair settled in Small Heath was to “blend in with the masses”, Dounia said. A big draw of the UK for Muslims seeking to leave France, L’Obs reports, is the lack of scrutiny in comparison to France and other countries in Europe, where security services often closely monitor Salafists.
Earlier in May, Karim, a 30-year-old Muslim convert, spoke at his 10-year-old daughter’s school to explain that the family moved to Britain seeking “freedom”.
“The children were not aware that [in France] girls are not allowed to wear the veil at school, or that there are no halal dishes in the canteen. They were shocked,” he told L’Obs.
And the threat of Brexit accelerated the Salafist exodus to Britain, according to Hussein, who stated that there are around 100 families living in Small Heath who have moved from France, “at least 300 in Birmingham”.
The migrant, described by L’Obs as a “pillar of the community” in Birmingham, said other UK “hotspots” prized by Salafists such as Luton, Leicester, and a number of suburbs in London have seen similar movements.
Britain has received an influx of Salafists from across Europe, reports L’Obs, noting Salafists from across Europe, especially from “Paris, Roubaix, Marseilles, Bordeaux … Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain”, have migrated to the UK. The magazine tells readers that for Muslims in the UK: “Life is cheap, unemployment is low and mosques and madrasas are plentiful.”
Young Muslims who have made the move from France to Britain find themselves missing family members, their neighbourhood, and aspects of France such as “the climate and the cheese”.
But, as Hassan explained to L’Obs, each migrant has his own anecdote as to why Britain’s Islam-friendly environment means ‘they have no regrets’.
“When a Muslim friend has suffered a racist insult, he has complained about it and the manager has been fired,” he said. “We would have no chance of that happening in France.”
“In France it is impossible to tell your boss that you have to pray, but here, you can do it everywhere.
“At Ikea, at the factory … It is the manager who comes to propose it to you,” Hassan added.
Not everything in Small Heath is rosy according to Selma, an English convert to Islam, complaining that far right groups have held protests in the area before.
“But it’s a minority,” she said, and highlighted how even state schools “encourage the practice of rigorous Islam”.
“It is the teacher who calls up to make sure the little girls don’t forget to wear their headscarves,” she told L’Obs.
And schools played a large part in Hussein’s decision to move to Britain with his family, too, reporting they fled “the homosexual propaganda” in French state schools.
“We were rejected in France, and it was reciprocal, we built ourselves in religion, and we find ourselves here because we are accepted.”
“I wanted my wife to be able to wear the veil, and for the children to get an education in keeping with our values,” he said. “This gay marriage. How can we accept that?”
Asked why Sharia-seeking Salafists in France move to Britain rather than a Muslim country, Paris emigrant Hassan told L’Obs that whilst a move to Saudi Arabia would be “ideal”, the country makes it difficult for families to get work or visas.
“We are caught in the crossfire, Europe does not like us, but we are not really welcome [in the Gulf states] either,” he said. “They say to you, ‘Go home, brother. You have nothing to do here.’”
But for Salafists wanting to live in accordance with strict Islamic teachings, “there is nothing easier for [Muslims with European passports] than to settle in Britain” where there is “a generous welfare package, public services delivered free, plenty of available work, and all with no visa or residence permit required”. according to L’Obs.
“Hijra is the call to emigrate to a land that’s welcoming to Muslims,” Hussein told the French weekly. “For us, it is.”

UK Government Hosts Europe’s Largest ‘Jew Hate Event’ Allegedly Linked to Terror

A Government building in Westminster is hosting the “biggest ever in Europe” pro-Palestinian event, organised by a group allegedly linked to anti-Semites, Islamists, and terror groups.

Palestine Expo 2017 is due to take place just yards away from Parliament in the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, which is owned by the Government and operated by an agency of the Department for Communities and Local Government. The building was reportedly one of those considered as a venue to host Parliament itself when the Palace of Westminster is closed for renovations.
Although presented as a family-friendly introduction to Palestinian history and culture, the event will host Islamist and anti-Israel speakers and has been described as a “Jew hate event” by Jewish groups.
The event, to be held on the 8th and 9th of July, has been organised by the Leicester-based Friends of Al-Aqsa (FOA), which claims it is “concerned with defending the human rights of Palestinians and protecting the sacred al-Aqsa Sanctuary in Jerusalem”.
The group, however, is allegedly linked to the Hamas terror group, has supported Islamists funded by Iran’s Khomenist regime, and openly publishes the work of Paul Eisen, described as a Holocaust denier by left-wing papers such as The Guardian.
The group’s founder and chair, Ismail Patel, was a supporter of the late French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy has been pictured with Hamas leaders.
At a 2009 rally, Mr Patel told the crowd: “Hamas is no terrorist organisation. The reason they hate Hamas is because they refuse to be subjugated, occupied by the Israeli state, and we salute Hamas for standing up to Israel […] to the state of Israel: you no longer represent the Jewish people.”
Hamas is a fundamentalist, anti-Semitic militant group widely classed as a terror organisation, most notably by Israel, the U.S., and the European Union (EU).
There are also widely published claims that FOA has further links to Hamas via Patel’s work with the British Muslim Initiative (BMI), links to Khomenist Iran due to support for the Islamic Human Rights Commission, and links to the pro-Caliphate Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood due to support for the charity Interpal. According to UK Media Watch:
“‘Friends of Al Aqsa’ is one of the more extremist Islamist organizations at work in Britain today. It supports the Muslim Brotherhood-linked charity “Interpal” (proscribed by the US Treasury) and advertises it on its website.
“It collaborates with the Khomenist Iranian-funded faux human rights organization known as the Islamic Human Rights Commission in organizing events such as Al Quds day at which public support is expressed for the Iranian proxy militia Hizbollah.”
In line with these concerns, Jewish Human Rights Watch has written to the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, calling on them to “cancel the Jew hate event”, which they also say is linked to Hamas and claim could be in breach of the Equalities Act.
The event is playing host to Tariq Ramadan, a famous Egyptian-Swiss Islamist philosopher who is the grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna.

Also on the bill is outgoing National Union of Students (NUS) president Malia Bouattia, who was condemned for “outright racism” by MPs and was found to have made potentially anti-Semitic comments by an internal report.

Terror Suspect Wanted to Join Islamic State, Gun Down ‘Jewish Football Fans’

A Somalia-born man has appeared in court accused of plotting to obtain automatic weapons and kill Jews in Stamford Hill, North London.

Aweys Faqey, 37 was charged under the Terrorism Act following his arrest last week. Dutch national Mr. Faqey was detained at Stansted Airport as he was readying to board a flight to Istanbul, Turkey. Mr. Faqey had  four mobile phones and £841 in foreign currency in his possession.The court was told that Mr. Faqey was interviewed for five days by counterterrorism police before his court date, but replied “No comment” to all questions.
Thomas Halpin for the prosecution told the court: “The investigation came alive during the search of a laptop in another terrorist investigation and the communication between the defendant and Abdirahman Hassan transpired.
“He is a Kenyan man who is currently in custody in Kenya awaiting trial for terrorist offences. In essence the communication between both men was that the defendant expressed a desire to go to Syria and fight jihad.”
The court heard extracts from alleged online chat logs, which claim Mr. Faqey wanted to obtain automatic weapons and commit a terrorist attack on Jewish people in north London.
One message allegedly said: “It could have been better if AK47, M16 and BKM can be found. They could have been taken to Stamford Hill and people leave from the game.
“On Saturday a lot of Jews gather over there. It is an area of the UK where they are a majority, it’s full of people.”
Mr. Faqey has a wife and five children in the Netherlands and another wife and child in Kenya. He has resided in the UK since 2013.
Scotland Yard said his arrest had no connection to the Manchester attack.
Mr. Faqey was remanded in custody to appear at the Old Bailey on June 9.

Half of Migrant Children Who Arrive in Sweden After Age Seven Fail School Year at Age 16

Migrant children who come to Sweden after the age of seven are drastically falling in Swedish school standards since 1998 with only half being able to pass in 2014.

The results come from a new study by the Swedish Expert Group on Public Finance (ESO) who say that test scores of children from migrant backgrounds have greatly deteriorated since 1998.
In 1998, around 70 per cent of migrant children passed grade nine – the last mandatory year of “secondary school”, signifying an important stage in Swedish pupils’ educational development. That number has gone down to only 50 per cent in 2014, according to Sweden’s Teacher’s Union paper Lärarnas Tidning.
The report claims that for migrant children who come to Sweden before the age of seven there is little change from the previous year’s results, but those who come after age seven are performing worse and worse.
Hans Grönqvist, associate professor of economics at Uppsala University and one of the authors of the report, said: “Those who have arrived in recent years have been considerably older on arrival, which means they have less time to achieve the objectives of the school.”
The authors of the study also say there are performance differences based on the geographical origin of the children, with African migrants performing the worst.
Another category of students who have struggled to meet the Swedish school requirements has been the ever increasing number of unaccompanied underage migrants. According to the figures, only 20 to 30 per cent of underage migrants meet the Swedish school standards in the subjects of Swedish, English, and mathematics.
Grönqvist explained why the unaccompanied asylum seekers performed so poorly saying: “These groups stand out in the sense that they have a very high average age at arrival in Sweden. Among the unaccompanied, the average age is just under twelve, while it is 8.5 years for the foreign-born group as a whole.”
The large influx of migrant children has also been seen as one of the reasons that Sweden has fallen in the international PISA scores which rank school systems in various countries. Of 34 countries surveyed, Sweden has dropped to 28th in mathematics, 27th in reading, and 27th in science.
The OECD wrote: “The gap between immigrants and native-born remains a challenge: almost one in two immigrant students (48%) perform below the baseline level in maths, compared with 22% for native-born students.”
In the heavily migrant-populated city of Malmo in southern Sweden, where 42 per cent of the population have foreign backgrounds, 17 per cent of the teachers in the city quit last year to move elsewhere.  Many, including the teachers’ union, have said some schools have become dangerous for teachers due to widespread violence and criminality.

Italian Populist Leader Slams EU and NGOs ‘Funding and Planning’ Migrant Crisis

The leader of Italy’s populist Northern League party has described the migrant crisis as an “invasion” that is being orchestrated by Brussels after European Union (EU)-backed NGOs were accused of working with people smugglers.

“You can’t any longer speak about immigration but about an invasion organised, funded and planned by Brussels with the complicity of Rome,” Matteo Salvini said Monday, according to ANSA.
On Twitter, Mr. Salvini also suggested Europe is “funding shipwrecks, mafia and Islamic terrorism” and called for border checks to be “moved to North Africa”.
Several NGOs and charities, some EU-funded, are now under investigation for allegedly exploiting migrants and colluding with people smugglers and the mafia. Some groups have been accused of arranging to meet migrant boats just a few miles off the African coast and taking bribes from criminals.
Italian prosecutors are already investigating one group and Trapani prosecutor Ambrogio Cartosio in May claimed that some NGOs were “perhaps” financed by traffickers and were potentially seeking to “destabilise the Italian economy”.
Other NGOs, such as the EU-backed S.O.S. Mediterranee, are not accused of criminality but have been criticised for running a “taxi services” from near the African coast and effectively encouraging illegal crossings.
According to ASNA, Mr. Salvini placed some blame on the Italian government, calling the ruling Democratic Party (PD) “an accomplice to this invasion along with the [left-wing] cooperatives and the pseudo-aid associations”.
Adding: “The calls from Brussels and Strasbourg for respecting the migrant programme are ridiculous.
“I’m waiting for elections so that Italy can defend its borders again. Give me the interior ministry for three months and you’ll see what order and efficiency I bring back from north to south all over Italy.
“I won’t wait for Strasbourg, nor Brussels or Merkel.”
In the first three months of 2017, Italy experienced a 30 per cent jump in immigration compared with the same period of 2016, despite the prior year’s record-breaking figures.
According to official reports, during 2016, only 2.65 per cent of those immigrating into Italy were awarded asylum as refugees, with the vast majority staying on in the country as illegal, undocumented immigrants.

UK: The Lessons of Manchester

Here we are again. According to the analysis of the newly elected Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, the Manchester suicide bomber "was a terrorist, not a Muslim" -- despite all evidence to the contrary. After yet another mass casualty terrorist attack, elected leaders seems unable to attribute any of these attacks to the supremacist ideology that caused it: radical Islam.
At what point does an individual cease to be a Muslim and start to become a terrorist? Is there a definitive moment? Why can an individual not be a Muslim and a terrorist. Especially if that individual says he is?
Or is this just a racism of lowered expectations?
Refusing to name the problem also takes power away from Muslim reformers who are seeking to remove violence and bigotry from Islam, as well as other religious demands under which they would prefer not live -- such as the lack of free speech, lack of separation of powers, subjugation of women and death penalty for apostasy.
Also, how come no one makes a distinction between religion and violence with any other faith? During the Inquisition, no one would ever claim that Torquemada was not a Christian. Why should this distinction apply only to radical Islam?
Perhaps it is just easier to put short-term political futures ahead of national security, and short term political gains ahead of addressing harsh political truths. That attitude only imperils the rights and Judeo-Christian values we may prefer to keep.
No one wants to blame the entire Islamic community for the actions of a few of its members -- just as all Germans were not Nazis -- but why can one not call Islamic terrorism exactly that and still emphasize that not all Muslims are terrorists?
Many would have it that in the wake of massive bombings and other terrorist attacks -- from America's 9/11, to London's 7/7, multiple attacks in Paris, Nice, Toulouse, Berlin, Westminster, Copenhagen, Brussels, Orlando, Manchester, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and so on -- that the major crime is "Islamophobia" and not the attacks themselves. Worse, the silence of so many Muslims in the wake of those attacks does not help to dispel an impression of indifference. "Qui tacet consentit": He who is silent consents.
Britain's leader of the Labour Party opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, stated the attacks were the fault of the West:
"Many experts... have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home. An informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people, that fights rather than fuels terrorism."
So, the conquests of Persia, the Byzantine Empire, the Middle East, North Africa, Greece, northern Cyprus, Spain and most of Eastern Europe do not count? Only our wars count? Who is doing the counting?
What "foreign intervention" prompted the fatwa of a multi-million dollar bounty on the head of Salman Rushdie for writing a novel? What "foreign intervention" provoked bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania before 9/11? What "foreign policy" prompted the bombing of a Yemeni hotel in 1992? What prompts Islamists to kill thousands of fellow Muslims and Yazidis -- what offence did their foreign policy commit?
While Corbyn seems to be saying that Britain's foreign policy is the reason the United Kingdom is being targeted by Islamists, this view seems to be at odds with what the Islamists themselves have said. The Islamic State's propaganda magazine, Dabiq explained, perfectly clearly:
"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
That is pretty succinct. Who might know better what Islamists think, Corbyn or Islamists? Our foreign policy is not the problem; our values are. We are seen, it seems, as degenerate, gender-unsegregated, music-loving, idolators. Western nations and their citizens refuse to become Muslim, accept Allah and bow to the demands of Islamic law, sharia. End of story.
As long as Western nations remain man-made democracies and not divinely-made Islamic States, these nations will be the major target for Islamists.
There seem to be two choices: either become more like Islamists, adopt sharia, and continue not to address the coercion out of fear that we might be further attacked -- we will be anyway -- or to confront the threat, now, before it becomes larger and costlier to contain, in lives and treasure.The entire aim of terrorism is to achieve political change by using violence to intimidate. Do we really want to change our way of life just to appease terrorists, allowing them to win?
Corbyn presents a choice of fighting against Islamism and thereby making ourselves into targets, or failing to do so in order to appease Islamists and thereby surrendering to a religious autocracy. As Islamists highlight that, regardless of our policies, they will attack us unless we embrace Islam, defending what we value would seem the better choice. It is time for Europe's leaders to face up to the reality.