Boris Johnson Resigns in Disgust Over Prime Minister May’s Insufferable Brexit Failure and Acquiescence To EU Globalism….

The Last Refuge, by Sundance, July 9, 2018:

There is trouble ahead for Great Britain as the leaders of the British exit from the European Union (Brexit) quit in disgust over Prime Minister Theresa May’s abhorrent acquiescence to multinational corporations and the EU globalists.  British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson quit today.

Western Media are quick to come to the defense of Prime Minister May due to their financial and ideological alignment with the multinational media organizations and corporations who pull the strings.

EU Council President Donald Tusk quickly raises the idea that Brexit might be called off. “Politicians come and go but the problems they have created for people remain,” he tweeted.  Ultimately, this has been the goal of the multinationals’ all along.  The EU constructed the Brexit negotiations around the basic premise there would be no substantive change to the relationship.  Prime Minister May went along with the corrupocrat scheme, and now the primary voices behind the Brexit negotiation have quit.

(Via Reuters) […]  May’s office said it had accepted Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s resignation on Monday, hours after Brexit minister David Davis, in charge of exit negotiations with the bloc, quit on Sunday night.

The two departures shatter May’s own proclamation of cabinet unity last Friday, when she believed she had, after two years of wrangling, secured agreement on Britain’s biggest foreign and trading policy shift in almost half a century.  (read more)

As an outcome, the UniParty British Parliament (Labour and Conservatives) are thrilled as the voices of the British people are dismissed.  Elitism within the ‘we know better’ crowd rears its ugly head once again.

There’s a familiarity, an almost parallel construct, taking place within the United States congress over international trade negotiations etc.   The U.S. UniParty, filled with politicians who are purchased by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street and the multinationals, are fighting against President Trump the same way the U.K. politicians are fighting against the British people.

American ‘Deplorables’ find common cause and understanding with the British ‘commoners’; both groups fighting against a political class that sees themselves as better than the group they are supposed to represent.   Sickening elitism and globalism on display in both countries.  Underpinning it all is the root of all evil, money.

The timing is interesting.  U.S. President Trump is scheduled to arrive in the U.K on Thursday.  President Trump fully supports the sovereign right of the British people to get out of the European Union; and he supports Brexit.  Conversely Prime Minister Theresa May is aligned with the ruling class against the majority will of her constituents.  There is a prime opportunity for President Trump to speak in support of Brexit and dispatch the elitist sensibilities of the British ruling class.

No doubt the politicians within the U.K. are concerned about the optics of a U.S. President Trump outlining freedom and the voice of the people while the elite ruling class are forced to listen….. This could get very interesting.

***

***

***

***

Also see:

Germany: Muslim Migrant Beheads Baby

Merkel’s response? Muzzle the media.

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, July 9, 2018:

It happened back in April, although it was reported only in the German media; apparently the English-language media didn’t find it newsworthy that a Muslim migrant beheaded his one-year-old daughter on a Hamburg train platform. But the sheer horror of this incident has been compounded now by Angela Merkel’s government, which has reportedly banned further reporting on the incident. Anything to keep as many Germans as possible ignorant and complacent regarding just how devastating the Muslim migrant influx into Germany really is.

“According to eyewitnesses,” says one news report on this incident, “the 33-year-old suspect, Mourtala Madou, beheaded his one-year-old daughter in front of a horrified crowd of commuters at Jungfernstieg station on Thursday April 12, and then stabbed his German girlfriend, the mother of the child. The suspect allegedly stabbed the infant from behind, while she was sitting in her stroller, and then severed her neck. He then allegedly stabbed his girlfriend in the chest before fleeing the scene, dumping the murder weapon in a train station trash can. He was later arrested…. Eyewitnesses can be heard saying that the suspect cut the babies [sic] head off.”

Police spokesman Timo Zill said the murders were “very targeted”; eyewitnesses described them as an “honor killing.” In beheading the baby, Madou also utilized a form of killing especially favored by Islamic jihadis, heeding the Qur’anic injunction, “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks” (47:4).

In response, the Merkel government did not open an investigation of honor killing, or of Muslim migrant crime. It did not commission a study of Islamic theology and culture, and the effects of importing a large number of people from a culture of violence into Germany. Instead, “German media has been allowed by the government to report on the murder of the mother, but Angela Merkel’s pro-migrant government banned German media outlets from reporting on the decapitated baby. Germany’s largest newspaper, Bild, report on the death of the mother of four, without mentioning the details regarding the barbaric murder of her child.”

Why the gag order? Clearly the Merkel government, facing a strong challenge from the Alliance for Germany, which opposes its suicidal policies regarding the mass Muslim migrant influx, wants to tamp down dissent. The fewer Germans know just how devastating this influx has been, the better.

How has it come to this, that the German government has to resort to silencing the press in order to prevent the full magnitude of its failure from being known? At this point, there are only two choices: either Angela Merkel is a socialist internationalist who is hell-bent on destroying the very concept of the nation state, as well as that of ethnicity itself, by flooding her nation and the rest of Europe with Muslim migrants, many of whom are violent and some of whom are jihadis, or she is irremediably stupid, stupid to the point of requiring institutionalization, and really believes all the fluff and nonsense about “diversity” and “multiculturalism” that the international Left has regaled us with for so many years now.

Either way, the result is disaster for Germany, Europe, and the world as a whole. If the only way Merkel can stay in power now is to keep the German people ignorant of the actual effect of the policies she has so indefatigably pursued, and that ignorance is enforced by a media blackout, she is risking bringing Germany’s short life as a free society to an end, and bringing back the authoritarianism so favored by some of her predecessors, such as Adolf Hitler. If Germany ceases to exist as a free society, and Britain (which is also teetering on the brink) follows suit, the effect will be catastrophic for other free nations around the world.

Merkel is flirting with doing nothing less than plunging the world into a new Dark Ages. If she had even a modicum of regard for the German people she has sworn to protect and defend, she would acknowledge that her migrant program has been an appalling mistake, and resign. But that is not going to happen. Instead, what lies ahead for Germany is more incidents such as the one that happened in April on that train platform in Hamburg, along with increased civil strife, more jihad terror attacks, more bloodshed, more societal instability, and worse.

Future generations of free Germans will curse the name of Angela Merkel. But if she gets her way, there won’t be any.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His new book is The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

In Germany, the ‘Immigration’ Worm Has Turned

Fed up (Bernd Settnik/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images)

PJ Media, by Michael Walsh, July 8, 2018:

I’m in Berlin at the moment, staying not far from Checkpoint Charlie, through which I passed many times during the Cold War, and not far from the spot where, sledgehammer in hand, I did my small bit to dismantle the Berlin Wall in November of 1989. So much has changed in the nearly 30 years since that memorable moment: McDonald’s and KFC have franchises on either side of the intersection of the Friedrichstrasse and the Zimmerstrasse, where the Wall briefly opened to allow a narrow passage from the American sector’s principal checkpoint across a short block flanked on both sides by the Todesstreifen of barbed-wire and machine-gun free-fire fields. On the western side — actually the southern side, by the compass — the fearsome Wall was gaily painted with graffiti; on the other, it was a blank slate of gray concrete, fully reflective of the Stalinist Leftist orthodoxy of the only captive nation that even remotely tried to make a go of the Marxist economic, social, and moral lie.

Now, three decades after the Wall came down, I’m back in East Berlin talking to old and new German friends — most of them Ossisor East Germans — about the current state of Germany’s overriding social and political issue: the influx of more than one million cultural aliens, mostly from the Muslim ummah and thus by faith and profession profoundly opposed to Western Judeo-Christian civilization. And their answer is… not good for the Merkel administration.

Since the end of WWII, the German impulse has been to apologize for… well, just about everything since Arminius wiped out the Romans in the Teutoburg Forest in the year 9 AD. And, to be fair, they’ve had a lot to apologize for. In the western sectors, occupied by the French, the British, and the Americans in the war’s aftermath and united to form West Germany, they quickly got their economic system up and running, restored much of the infrastructure that had been obliterated, and got on with the business of building a social democracy that became a model for the rest of Western Europe. But the restoration of Germany society was in part paid for by the taxpayers of the United States, who supported an enormous military force (upwards of 200,000 military personnel at the time of reunification in 1990) as the U.S. and NATO faced off against the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact nations across Charlie and all over Europe.

The American presence preserved the peace and, eventually, was critical in the West’s victory in the Cold War. But it was bad for Germany in that it gave the Germans the luxury to take the “high moral ground” and abjure their own self-defense while they poured money into social programs. Having been effectively a ward of NATO and America, the Germans unhappily combined their war guilt with the mistaken moral superiority of their newfound pacifism.

The result was that they were completely unprepared for the consequences of their Ossi-raised chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to allow free entry to the “Syrian” “refugees” in 2015, a vast trekking horde of mostly male Muslims of military age from as far away as Afghanistan, who marched on the rich countries of the West, passing through Greece and Hungary and Italy on their way to the greener pastures of France, England, and Germany. Proudly proclaiming a “welcoming culture” and mouthing Merkel’s slogan, “Wir shaffen das” (We can handle this), Germany opened its arms to the “diversity” delusion.

What the Germans expected to welcome were people fleeing oppression, and who would abide by German norms of social civility, which include peace and (especially) quiet, who would quickly learn to converse and interact on a sophisticated level — who would become, in short, exactly like most Germans. What they got was an Islamic rabble wholly uninterested in Germany except how to exploit its hospitality while loudly complaining about it. The molestation of more than a thousand German girls in Cologne by Muslim “refugees” on New Year’s Eve in 2015 was the first indication that North African sexual norms were coming to roost in Germany. And while the government has downplayed “migrant” crimes against the local women, the word still gets out and around.

In Germany, the case of a young Muslim refugee charged with the rape and murder of a teenage girl has captured media attention and rocked Germany’s Jewish community: The victim, 14-year-old Susanna Feldmann, was Jewish. Missing since May 22, the girl’s  body was found June 6 buried in a shallow grave near her hometown of Mainz. The case has rattled Germany, which is beset with worries about crime emanating from the large Muslim refugee population — many of whom are young, single men, frustrated and aimless.

While many facts have come out since the body of Susanna Feldmann was found and the suspect was arrested and interrogated, the incident still feeds populist speculation and anger at German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who in 2015 opened the door to more than a million refugees from the war-torn Middle East on humanitarian grounds. Many are young, single men between 16 and 30 years old — like Ali Bashar,  the 20-year-old former asylum seeker who admitted killing Susanna.

Now the realization is dawning that few, if any, of Mutti Merkel’s kinder are going to turn into Germans or become assimilated into the host culture. The realization has been delayed by the international media’s cultural-Marxist insistence on conflating citizenship with ethnic nationality and declaring there is no difference between them. This may be true in the United States, which is unique among nations, but most definitely is not in continental Europe, where the modern nation-state first evolved; in Germany, the jus sanguinis made possible the prompt repatriations of the Volga Germans — whose families had lived in Russia for hundreds of years — after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, until 1990 when Germany introduced a very limited form of birthright citizenship, children of foreigners born and raised in Germany had no call on German citizenship at all.

It’s not a conclusion most Germans are comfortable with, but as the gap between fantasy and reality widens, inevitable conclusions are being reached. Merkel’s recent climbdown on “immigration” may have temporarily saved her administration, but it’s only a matter of time before she falls, to be replaced with someone who realizes “Wir kann das nicht schaffen.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who staked her legacy on welcoming hundreds of thousands of migrants into Germany, agreed on Monday to build border camps for asylum seekers and to tighten the border with Austria in a political deal to save her government. It was a spectacular turnabout for a leader who has been seen as the standard-bearer of the liberal European order but who has come under intense pressure at home from the far right and from conservatives in her governing coalition over her migration policy.

Although the move to appease the conservatives exposed her growing political weakness, Ms. Merkel will limp on as chancellor. For how long is unclear. The nationalism and anti-migrant sentiment that has challenged multilateralism elsewhere in Europe is taking root — fast — in mainstream German politics.

Ms. Merkel agreed to the latest policy after an insurrection over migration policy led by her interior minister, Horst Seehofer, threatened to bring down her coalition. Mr. Seehofer demanded that Germany block migrants at the border if they have no papers, or have already registered in another European country. Ms. Merkel, who supports free movement across Europe’s borders, has been opposed to any moves effectively resurrecting border controls until Monday night, when she made the deal to stay in power.

Anyone who’s ever spent a week in Germany — and I’ve spent a good deal of my life here — could have known that Merkel’s social experiment in soft-headed egalitarianism was doomed to failure. The Islamic invasion of the West is succeeding in places like France, where it has taken advantage of the French civic dogma of laïcité and the residual anti-Christian sentiment of the French Revolution, first by having the religious trappings of Islam ignored and now, as the Muslim population grows, by forcing the French to take notice of their faith and demanding its open expression in contravention of French law. Meanwhile in Britain, the church founded by Henry VIII in a fit of pique, and currently presided over by a 92-year-woman, looks to be on its last legs except in a strictly ceremonial sense; into this spiritual void has rushed the former colonials of Africa and Pakistan, bringing vibrant Islam with them.

Whether the Germans are made of sterner stuff than the Brits and the French remains to be seen. Certainly, everyone is trying to tread as lightly as possible, tiptoeing around the unpleasant truths while trying to avoid the even-more-unpleasant consequences of Merkel’s folly. At this point, the best that can be hoped for is a halt to further invasion, rapid processing of the alleged “asylum” seekers and speedy repatriation of those found to be unqualified, even under the generosity of the German constitution’s Asylrecht — which has already undergone a considerable rollback since 1993.

It’s important to remember that the Germans have seen this movie before, starring the Turks, who came as Gastarbeiter in the 1960s and, rather than returning home the way the Spanish, Greeks and Italian guest workers largely did, stayed in Germany to evolve a parallel society in which they stayed Muslim and Turkish. But the non-assimilation of a new, restive group of militant Muslims who’ve arrived not in search of a job but of a handout, is a whole new order of magnitude for Germany.

How will they react? With the Wall now gone for longer than it was up, Germans still shudder at the memory and don’t wish for Checkpoint Charlie to reappear in the form of restrictive immigration policies. But that Wall was built by the Communists, and meant to keep the East Germans in, whereas the nationalist movements now sweeping Europe want to keep Islam out — the way they have since the Battle of Lepanto and the Gates of Vienna. The Germans are going to have to decide, and quickly, which side of the Wall they’re looking at it. The future of Europe depends on it.

***

Europe: “The Vision is an Islamic State”

Gatestone Institute, by Judith Bergman, July 2, 2018:

  • “The growing religiousness is not an expression of marginalization. We are talking about people who are well-integrated, but who want to be religious”. — Professor Viggo Mortensen.
  • “The vision is an Islamic state — Islamic society… Muslims will prefer sharia rule. But the vision for twenty years from now is for sharia law to be part of Germany, that sharia will be institutionalized in the state itself”. — “Yusuf”, in a documentary series, False Identity.
  • “I will pick them one by one — I will start with people around me… If every Muslim would do the same in his surroundings, it can happen with no problem… you don’t confront him [the German] with force; you do it slowly… There will be clashes, but slowly the clashes will subside, as people will accept reality.” — “Yusuf”, in a documentary series, False Identity.
  • Europe will still exist but, as with the great Christian Byzantine Empire that is now Turkey, will it still embody Judeo-Christian civilization?

A Dutch government report published in June showed that Muslims in the Netherlands are becoming more religious. The report, based on information from 2006-2015, is a study of more than 7,249 Dutch nationals with Moroccan and Turkish roots. Two thirds of the Muslims in the Netherlands are from Turkey or Morocco.

According to the report, 78% of Moroccan Muslims pray five times a day, as do 33% of Turkish Muslims. Approximately 40% of both groups visit a mosque at least once a week. More young Moroccan women wear a headscarf (up from 64% in 2006 to 78% in 2015) and large majorities of both groups eat halal (93% of Moroccan Muslims and 80% of Turkish Muslims). 96% of Moroccan Muslims say that faith is a very important part of their lives, whereas the number is 89% for Turkish Muslims. The number of Dutch Moroccan Muslims who can be described as strictly adhering to Islam has increased from 77% in 2006, to 84% in 2015. For Turkish Muslims, the numbers have increased from 37% to 45%. There are few secular Muslims — 7% among Turkish Muslims, 2% among Moroccan Muslims.

In Denmark, the trend of Muslims becoming more religious was apparent as early as 2004, when a poll showed that Muslims were becoming more religious than their parents, especially “young, well-educated and well-integrated women”. At the time, Professor Viggo Mortensen said, “The growing religiousness is not an expression of marginalization. We are talking about people who are well-integrated, but who want to be religious”.

A more detailed Danish poll from 2015 showed that Muslims had become more religious since a similar poll taken in 2006: In 2006, 37% prayed five times a day, whereas the number had gone up to 50% in 2015. In 2006, 63% believed that the Koran should be followed to the letter; in 2015, it was 77%. Brian Arly Jacobsen, a sociologist of religion from the University of Copenhagen, was surprised by the results. “With time we would expect [that Muslims] would become more like the rest of the Danes, who are not particularly active in the religious sphere,” he said. Jacobsen thought that a possible explanation might have been the 20-30 new mosques that were built in the decade preceding 2015.

The trends expressed by these polls are corroborated by studies and polls showing that many Muslims in Europe want to live under sharia law. According to a 2014 study of Moroccan and Turkish Muslims in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Sweden, an average of almost 60% of the Muslims polled agreed that Muslims should return to the roots of Islam. 75% thought there is only one interpretation of the Koran possible, and 65% said that Sharia is more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live. A 2016 UK poll showed that 43% of British Muslims “believed that parts of the Islamic legal system should replace British law while only 22 per cent opposed the idea”. In a 2017 study, which included a poll of 400 Belgian Muslims, 29% said they believe the laws of Islam to be superior to Belgian law, and 34% said they “would definitely prefer a political system inspired by the Quran”.

According to a 2014 study of Moroccan and Turkish Muslims in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Sweden, an average of almost 60% of the Muslims polled agreed that Muslims should return to the roots of Islam, and 65% said that Sharia is more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live. Pictured: Friday prayers at the IZW Mosque in Vienna, Austria. (Photo by Thomas Kronsteiner/Getty Images)

The more than two million predominantly Muslim migrants that have arrived in Europe in recent years are only reinforcing the trend of growing Muslim religiosity on the continent. A 2017 study of predominantly Afghan asylum seekers in the Austrian city of Graz showed that the asylum seekers, mostly men under the age of 30, were all in favor of preserving their traditional Islamic values with 70% going to the mosque every Friday for prayers. The women were even more religious, with 62.6% praying five times a day, notably more than the men (39.7%). In addition, 66.3% of the women wore a headscarf in public. Half of the migrants said that religion now plays a larger role in their daily lives in Europe than it did in their native country, and 51.6% of the interviewees said that the supremacy of Islam over other religions was undisputed.

The tendency of many Muslims to become more religious once they arrived in Europe was also on display in a new documentary series, “False Identity,” by Arabic-speaking journalist Zvi Yehezkeli, who went undercover to report on the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe and the US. In Germany, he encountered two young Muslims from Syria, who came to Germany via Kosovo, where they received help from a “British Islamic organization”. They had left Syria as secular Muslims, but on the way to Germany they lived for a year in Pristina, Kosovo, where, according to Yehezkeli, “Muslim Brotherhood organizations are active in helping refugees while turning them into devout Muslims. Ahmed and Yusuf arrived [in Germany] already praying five times a day”.[1]

According to Ahmed:

“When I left Syria, mentally I felt more relaxed. The Islamic charity organization played an important role in this. Look, the first time you meet them they start helping you. You sit, you stare at them, they pray in front of you and here I am a Muslim, studied the Quran, yet don’t pray. Suddenly I find myself alone asking, Why shouldn’t I pray like all others?”

Yehezkeli asked them what their dream is. “The vision is an Islamic state — Islamic society,” said Yusuf, “Muslims will prefer sharia rule. But the vision for twenty years from now is for sharia law to be part of Germany, that sharia will be institutionalized in the state itself”.

In contrast to the growing religiousness of Muslims in Europe, Christians are becoming less religious. In a study of young Europeans, aged 16-29, published in March and based on 2014-2016 data, the author, Stephen Bullivant, a professor of theology and the sociology of religion at St Mary’s University in London, concluded:

“With some notable exceptions, young adults increasingly are not identifying with or practicing religion… Christianity as a default, as a norm, is gone, and probably gone for good — or at least for the next 100 years”.

According to the study, between 70% and 80% of young adults in Estonia, Sweden and the Netherlands categorize themselves as non-religious. Between 64% and 70% of young adults consider themselves non-religious in France, Belgium, Hungary and the UK. The most religious youths were to be found in Poland, where only 17% of young adults defined themselves as non-religious, followed by Lithuania with 25%.

Young Muslims like Yusuf and Ahmed from Syria say they want to spread Islam by converting Europeans, also known as dawa. They are themselves perfect examples of having been at the receiving end of dawa — becoming devout Muslims through the Islamic organization in Kosovo and now engaging in dawa themselves. “I will pick them one by one — I will start with people around me. They will listen. If every Muslim would do the same in his surroundings, it can happen with no problem,” said Yusuf. Asked if the Germans might resist dawa, he said:

“You don’t confront him [the German] with force, you do it slowly… There will be clashes, but slowly the clashes will subside, as people will accept reality. There is no escape; every change involves clashes”.

Given young Europeans’ lack of a religious identity and the vacuum left by the departure of Christianity from the lives of the majority, one has to wonder how sturdy their ability will be to withstand such attempts at proselytizing. Europe will still exist but, as with the great Christian Byzantine Empire that is now Turkey, will it still embody Judeo-Christian civilization?

Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

The Netherlands Approves Burqa Ban

Gatestone, by Soeren Kern,

  • “People’s faces should not be hidden in society, for it is our faces that give us our identity and our fundamental means of communication with others.” — Geert Wilders, Party for Freedom (PVV).
  • Dutch Interior Minister Kajsa Ollongren said the new law represents “a fair balance” between “the freedom to dress as one wishes” and “the general interest of communication and security.” She also said that far from violating fundamental rights, the ban will enable Muslim women “to have access to a wider social life” because if they do not cover the face “they will have more possibilities for contact, communication and opportunities to enter the job market.”
  • The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) twice has ruled that burqa bans are legal, making it unlikely that the Dutch ban could be overturned in court.

The Dutch Senate has approved a law that bans the wearing of “face-covering clothing” in public buildings, including hospitals, schools and government offices, as well as on public transportation.

Although the ban does not extend to public streets, the law authorizes police to ask individuals to remove face-covering clothing to establish their identity.

Those found flouting the ban — which includes Islamic veils and robes such as burqas (which cover the entire face) and niqabs (which cover the entire face except for the eyes), as well as balaclavas and full-face helmets — will be subject to a fine of 410 euros ($475).

The new law, previously adopted by the Dutch House of Representatives in November 2016, was approved on June 26 by 44 to 31 votes in the 75-seat Senate.

In a statement, the government, which has not yet said when the law will enter into effect, explained its purpose:

“In a free country like the Netherlands, everyone has the freedom and space to behave and dress as he or she desires. Sometimes, limits can and must be imposed on that freedom. In the case of face-covering clothing, this applies in particular if mutual communication is impeded or safety is jeopardized.

“Mutual communication whereby people can look each other in the face is so important that uniform rules have now been laid down by law. This makes it clear to everyone what is and is not allowed in those situations.”

A Muslim activist group called “Stay away from my Niqab!” said the ban is unconstitutional. In an open letter sent to Dutch lawmakers, the group, which has more than 5,000 followers on Facebook, asked:

“Why is it not realized that this law leads to people being isolated from society? This ban leads to women who wear face-covering clothing, who like to participate in society, no longer to be able to do this effectively because they now have a restriction on education, license applications, travel with public transport, visiting a doctor and much more….

“Is the constitution no longer applicable to women with face-covering clothing? What about the right that everyone is free to dress how he/she wants, regardless of race, gender, religion or belief?

“What about Article 6 of the Constitution which sets out freedom of religion and belief? Is there a problem in which everyone does not have the right freely to confess their religion or belief, individually or in community with others?”

The group’s spokeswoman, Karima Rahmani, added:

“We feel that we are being wronged with a repressive measure, which is why we trying to make our voices heard. It is getting harder and harder to be on the street with a niqab. I myself have been threatened with death, and other women have even been physically attacked.

“There is a lot of talk about me, but no one comes to me to ask: ‘Why do you actually wear that niqab?’ It is part of my religion and I want to be free to make that choice. It is a spiritual experience that I personally experience.”

The Council of State, an independent advisor to the government on legislation, said that the ban was unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional. In a November 2015 report, it said that the Dutch Cabinet had been guided too much by “subjective feelings of insecurity” that “do not justify a ban.” It added:

“The Council of State points out that the bill primarily seems to have been motivated by objections to wearing Islamic face-covering clothing…. Insofar as face-covering clothing (for example a burqa) is worn to express a religious clothing prescription, this falls under the constitutionally-protected freedom of religion. The ban proposed by the government does not, according to the Council of State, justify restricting the right to freedom of religion.”

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), however, twice has ruled that burqa bans are legal, making it unlikely that the Dutch ban could be overturned in court.

Pictured: A person wearing an Islamic full-face covering in The Hague, Netherlands. (Image source: Patrick Rasenberg/Flickr CC by-NC 2.0)

In July 2017, for example, the ECHR upheld a Belgian ban on wearing the burqa in public spaces. It said that the government had been responding “to a practice that it considered to be incompatible, in Belgian society, with social communication and more generally the establishment of human relations, which were indispensable for life in society…essential to ensure the functioning of a democratic society.” In July 2014, the ECHR upheld France’s burqa ban, accepting the French government’s argument that it encouraged citizens to “live together.”

The Dutch government has repeatedly insisted that the ban is not about restricting religion but about promoting communication and public safety. It has described the new law as “religion neutral” because it is not limited just to the burka and niqab, but also includes the balaclava and full-face helmet.

Dutch Interior Minister Kajsa Ollongren said the new law represents “a fair balance” between “the freedom to dress as one wishes” and “the general interest of communication and security.” She also said that far from violating fundamental rights, the ban will enable Muslim women “to have access to a wider social life” because if they do not cover the face “they will have more possibilities for contact, communication and opportunities to enter the job market.”

A complete ban was originally proposed in December 2005 by Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Geert Wilders, who argued that burqas and niqabs are barriers to the integration of women in the Netherlands: “We must ban the burqa. People’s faces should not be hidden in society, for it is our faces that give us our identity and our fundamental means of communication with others.”

The Netherlands is the sixth European country to approve a burqa ban, after France, Belgium, Bulgaria, Austria and Denmark. Bavaria in Germany, Catalonia in Spain, Lombardy in Italy and Ticino in Switzerland also have imposed regional burqa bans, while Norway has tabled a law to ban burqas in public schools. Latvia has proposed a burqa ban, but it has not yet been enacted.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.

Is Sweden Going to Flip?

Gates of Vienna, by Dymphna, June 27, 2018:

The Baron has speculated before that when the tide turns in Sweden it will be a relatively sudden and massive flip. As he says, that’s a feature of high consensus cultures. If he’s right, one can only hope it plays out the same way in Minnesota, much of whose DNA is Nordic.

Dr. Turley’s latest video is instructive for those who haven’t been following the alternative news. For you and me, it’s just joyful affirmation of something we already knew. What he doesn’t mention is the severe persecution the Sweden Democrats suffered for years while under the heel of the leftist thugs – e.g., the ngo, EXPO.

***

Also see:

‘Destiny Day’ for Merkel as Allies Set to Issue Migration Ultimatum

Lintao Zhang/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Virginia  Hale, June 18, 2018:

German media has described Monday as the ‘day of destiny’ for Angela Merkel and her position as leader, with the Chancellor set to be issued an ultimatum over asylum rules.

The coalition between the Merkel-led Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its conservative Bavarian allies is in crisis over the long-serving Chancellor’s insistence that Germany’s borders stay open.

Christian Social Union (CSU) leader and interior minister Horst Seehofer, a vocal critic of Merkel’s immigration policy, has warned he will give Merkel two weeks to arrange a deal with other EU leaders over migrants who have already applied for asylum elsewhere, or else shut the borders to newcomers who have previously registered in other European nations.

But Merkel, who has led Germany since 2005, has so far flatly rejected the proposal, claiming that turning aliens away at the border would contravene supposed EU values and undermine freedom of movement within the bloc.

Both party leaders are expected to address the media on Monday afternoon after CSU and CDU officials hold separate talks in Berlin and Munich, while CSU secretary general Markus Blume told reporters that Seehofer’s ‘migration masterplan’ had the party’s total backing.

Publication of this so-called masterplan has been postponed, but local media reports that the interior minister’s document has the potential to further strain relations between the Union parties, containing anti-mass migration proposals such as slashing asylum seekers’ cash payments and replacing them almost entirely with benefits in kind.

The period during which migrants receive only the most basic level of welfare would also be extended from 15 months to 36 months under the plans.

The talks come as local media reported Hans-Eckhard Sommer, a Bavarian ally of the Interior Minister known to have a ‘tough dog’ approach to illegal immigration, will take over as head of the Federal Office of Migration and Refugees (BAMF).

Seehofer fired former BAMF boss Jutta Cordt on Friday after it emerged that the agency, which is responsible for processing asylum applications in Germany, was embroiled in a ‘bribes for residence decisions’ scandal.

While Merkel’s enthusiasm for mass migration from the third world – which has been marked by much of the now seemingly obligatory pro-’bridges’ and anti-’walls’ rhetoric in recent years – has enjoyed strong support from establishment media across the West, polls show Germans are not convinced.

On Friday, AFP reported 62 per cent of Germans surveyed backed Seehofer in wanting to see what the international media agency described as “undocumented asylum seekers” turned back at the border, while a massive 86 per cent said they wanted to see faster deportations of migrants whose asylum claims have been rejected.

U.S. President Donald J. Trump highlighted the situation on Monday afternoon, asserting that “the people of Germany are turning against their leadership”, in a tweet which described the Chancellor’s decision to open the border to the third world as a “big mistake”.

***

***