New Refugee Deal Goes Into Force in Europe

Migrants from Pakistan wait to enter Moria camp for migrants and refugees on the Greek island of Lesbos on March 21, 2016. PHOTO: STR/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Migrants from Pakistan wait to enter Moria camp for migrants and refugees on the Greek island of Lesbos on March 21, 2016.
PHOTO: STR/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

By CounterJihad, March 21, 2016:

A new deal between Turkey and the European Union aims to limit the refugee flood pointed at Europe.  Refugees who do not apply for asylum, or whose requests are denied, will be returned to Turkey.  However, the European Union has promised to accept an equal number of refugees as those it deports to Turkey from Greece.  The deal also promises to make travel easier for Turkish nationals into Europe, and some financial payouts.

The number of refugees, principally from the civil war in Syria, has reached levels not seen since the Second World War.  The flood shows no sign of slowing.  Understanding that they will be dealing with refugees for some time to come, people across the Western world have been debating what to do.  In spite the short-term deal, there is no indication that a consensus is forming on the long term problem.

One argument stands on the fact that it is vastly more expensive to care for refugees the further West they travel.  Estimates are that it costs ten times as much to care for a refugee within Europe proper than it does in states bordering Syria, where the cost of living is much cheaper.  A similar figure applies to refugees brought to America, a fact being discussed by the legislature in South Carolina:

Kevin Bryant, a Republican from Anderson, S.C., noted that the Palmetto State has welcomed almost 850 refugees from all over the world since 2010.  “Why should we bring one refugee here when we could spend the same money and help 10 in their part of the world?” Bryant told the Associated Press.

Others, especially in Canada, believe that refugees have a right to be resettled at any cost.  Indeed, the government is planning to use taxpayer money to build mosques across the country for the use of refugees.  The money would be taken out of the Defence Department’s budget, thus cutting military spending in favor of resettling refugees in Canada.

Critics in Europe say that costs are not limited to money alone.  They point to the chaos that the refugee crisis has brought.  Sweden has 53 “no-go” areas controlled by Muslims where police are not permitted to enter, according to a report by Danish journalist Jeppe Juhl.

Muslim leaders have rejected these kinds of arguments.  In America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ national spokesman said that such concerns are, if “not illegal,” at least “un-American.”  CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist financing trial, but remains deeply involved in America’s debates over government policy toward Muslims.

In Europe, the Central Council of Muslims in Germany claims that the chaos caused by migrants proves that Islam is not a problem.  “The Muslim faith is irrelevant to these drunken men who do such disgraceful things,” according to the council’s leader.  Thus, though the men are Muslims, their failures are individual rather than a function of their faith.  But this does not explain the no-go zones that crop up in Islamic areas across Europe.

While the debate continues, refugees live in filth and squalor in many makeshift camps.  This is especially true for women and the children abandoned with them.  Reckless smugglers have flourished in the face of government disagreement.

***

Islam and Police

unnamed (9)

By Counter Jihad, March 15, 2016:

In Rotherham, England, three men have been facing trial for leading an Islamic cell that arranged the rape of children for sixteen years.  Police are finally out in force in Rotherham, after having ignored the cell for those sixteen years in spite of repeated reports from citizens.  They are out in force now to resist “Islamophobia.”  How big a problem is Islamophobia in Rotherham?  Police reports say that relevant complaints fell in frequency last year in spite of the trial.

In the city of Paris, where two major attacks by Islamic terrorists last year killed dozens and led to worldwide condemnation, police are under fire for having targeted Muslims visiting radical Imams.  Police say the man leading the protests against them not only visited a known radical but “recently traveled to a part of Brussels where several of the attackers in the Nov. 13 Paris assaults had lived, and that he had five cellphones and four USB memory sticks in his possession.”  Muslims say this is an abuse of the emergency powers, and that police were “mean” and “scornful” in conducting the raid.

Now social media provides a new way for Muslims in Europe to shame the police into giving way.

Muslims in Europe are striking back on social media. They are publicly shaming police officers who allegedly use racial profiling techniques for stops and searches, posting detailed exchanges with said officers, and sharing photographic evidence of the damage done after what they describe as wrongful raids.

French journalist Driss Abdi took to Twitter to denounce what he called racial profiling at Munich Airport. “Racial profiling in Germany? Only one stopped exiting the plane, I guess I’m a bit too brown #racism #police,” he tweeted, alongside a photograph of a female police officer who appeared to be checking his data at the airport.

This tactic is likely to work.  The Muslim Brotherhood’s influence on Western governments mean that the French like the British are taking advice on how to deal with Muslim populations that presses the police to turn a blind eye.  Even in America, the Boston police commissioner went to a mosque that has produced a dozen terrorists and proclaimed that“ We’re all Muslims deep down.”  ISIS disagrees:  they just published a kill list of Minnesota cops.

Even Israel and India, two nations that have suffered intense Islamic terrorism, there is pressure from on high to increase Muslim representation within the police forces.  There is pressure to reduce surveillance, not to speak critically, and to regard the local population as the real threat — a threat against Muslims.

It is as if the terrorist attacks never happened, when in fact they have happened over and over worldwide.  Security cannot be improved if we cannot think and speak the truth.

The Glazov Gang-Dr. Mark Durie on “Our Fear of Islam.”

Front Page:

Mark discussed, “Our Fear of Islam,” analyzing the different psychological mechanisms the West is now engaged in its surrender to a totalitarian ideology, which includes the “Tend and Befriend” response.  The dialogue also involved a focus on Islamic female genital mutilation and the world’s denial about its Muslim theological foundations:

Council On American-Islamic Relations: Its Use Of Lawfare And Intimidation

download (94)This book is a comprehensive view into the origin, purpose, and operational activities of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as it is constituted in both the United States and Canada. It includes almost 150 documented cases of frivolous lawsuits, extortion, intimidation and subversion undertaken by CAIR, all aimed at silencing its critics and advancing its agenda.

Citizens For National Security, the book’s author, with the help of research done by Deborah Weiss, exposes CAIR’s intent by its conduct, and concludes that its mission is to stifle criticism of Islam; blind the American and Canadian people, their politicians, law enforcement and intelligence organizations to the threats to their societies posed by radical Islam; to dismantle their national security procedures; and, to Islamize corporate America. In effect, waging “lawfare” against the U.S. and Canada, and their institutions and constitutional freedoms.

****************

Dozens of lawsuits used to hide ‘Islamic realities’ 

WND, 11/23/2013,  by MICHAEL CARL:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which according to FBI evidence was founded by the Egyptian-based, Saudi-funded Muslim Brotherhood, has filed more than 150 lawsuits over a two-year period that have been aimed at stifling speech – all with the goal of hiding “Islamic realities,” according to a think tank’s report.

CAIR has been described by authorities as a front group for Hamas to promote Islam in the U.S.

It was the Florida-based national security think tank Citizens for National Security that released the report, “Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation” to every member of Congress.

CFNS co-founder William Saxton said the study focuses on CAIR’s practice of “lawfare” to silence critics and force corporations, private citizens and charitable organizations to pay large sums of money to settle lawsuits out of court.

Saxton said the two-year task force project found CAIR has filed more than 150 lawsuits with the intention of silencing critics.

“CAIR has a pattern of behavior and a specific campaign of intimidation to stifle free speech. By stifling free speech, they’re hoping to prevent the public from seeing Islamic realities,” Saxton said.

Peter Leitner, also a co-founder for CFNS, confirmed other Islam analysts’ findings that the Muslim Brotherhood established CAIR to engage in “misinformation.”

“CAIR is the operational part of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. As such, and as part of Hamas, they’re the domestic side of an international terrorist group. What they’re doing is psychological operations,” Leitner said.

“Their mission to do misinformation and psy-ops is for the purpose of supporting jihadist movements in the United States and Canada,” Leitner said.

Contacted by WND, CAIR declined to respond to a request for comment.

Some of CAIR’s activities came to light during the Holy Land Foundation terrorism funding trial.

Leitner says CAIR hopes to stay one step ahead of the public.

“More people in the U. S. know about CAIR and their connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. But they’re hoping that not enough people will recognize who they are until the Muslim population in the U. S. can grow big enough to be politically powerful enough,” Leitner said.

Leitner said CAIR’s “masquerade is to divert attention from the Islamic threat in the U. S. by oversensitizing law enforcement and intelligence officials.”

“To make that happen, they’ve infiltrated their agents into the various national security agencies,” Leitner said.

CAIR intimidates the government agencies into providing “trainers” for law enforcement, he pointed out.

“They want to provide sensitivity training to misdirect people’s attention away from the real threat,” he said, and “stifle free speech among critics of Islam via lawsuits and further threats of legal action.”

Leitner explained that the Muslim Brotherhood begin infiltrating universities and colleges in the U.S. in 1962 through the Muslim Students Association, beginning with Palestinians and later through Pakistanis.

A significant portion of Muslim Brotherhood funding comes from outside the U.S., Leitner noted.

The money, Leitner says, is used to fund an entire network of Islamic groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. Along with stifling free speech, Leitner points to a second major purpose.

Groups such as the Muslim American Society, Muslims of the Americas and Jam’at al-Fuqua, which began in 1980, have infiltrated the culture enough that American converts to Islam have formed their own groups.

“John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban, is an example of one of their converts. We all know he ended up in Afghanistan fighting against U. S. troops,” Leitner said.

Leitner added that the method employed once influence has been gained is disinformation.

“Their greatest work is to create a grand illusion of a peaceful religion to distract attention from what their real plan is,” Leitner said.

He also says the lawfare tactics ares fundraising mechanism.

He cited a fight with Nike.

“They threatened to boycott if Nike didn’t change their logo because ‘it looked like’ the Arabic name for Allah at a great distance,” Leitner said.

CAIR forced Nike to apologize to the Islamic community, globally recalled the shoes in question, cooperated with CAIR in a redesign of logos and images and donated $50,000 to the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Washington, D.C., for playground equipment.

The report has details on CAIR’s 150 lawsuits or cases against government agencies, corporations and private foundations.

“CAIR even went after the producers of ‘South Park’ for how they portrayed Muhammad. They’ve gone after cartoonists, TV producers and tea party groups,” Leitner said.

Leitner said the sheer volume of CAIR’s legal actions prompted U. S. law enforcement agencies to dig into CAIR’s extended relationships and connections. Once the FBI and city police departments began to investigate, they found CAIR had connections to the network of the “blind sheik,” Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Leitner said CAIR takes advantage of constitutional freedoms “to deny us our freedoms.”

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., a frequent advocate for persecuted Christians, affirmed that his committee  research shows that CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated terrorist organizations pose a real security threat.

“The threat is real and I serve on the committee that has jurisdiction of the FBI. We’ve put language in a bill that will completely prevent the FBI from involving themselves with CAIR,” Wolf said.

“An example of the depth of the threat comes from the Somali al-Qaida-affiliate al-Shabaab. Imams recruit for al-Shabaab from Somali groups in Minneapolis. Not only that, they’re telling Somalis not to cooperate with federal authorities who are investigating the Somali mosques,” Wolf said.

The FBI has become more cautious in its dealings with CAIR, he said, as has his committee.

“I know we’ve been very careful interacting with any group that is involved with CAIR,” Wolf said. “I refused to go to any group that has connections to CAIR.”

Also see:

Muslim father deeply offended by Easter egg hunt flyer depicting bunnies

Majed Moughni holds the offending article (photo: Ryan  Garza/Detroit Free Press)

Majed Moughni holds the offending article (photo: Ryan Garza/Detroit Free Press)

by Allen West:

And here’s yet another reminder of how stupid that “coexist” bumper sticker truly is. Hat tip to Gateway Pundit for reporting that a Muslim father is upset because his children were traumatized by a… well, a flier for an Easter egg hunt. Oh, the horror of getting an invitation to join other American children in a time-honored tradition of hunting for colored Easter eggs. Really scary huh? As reported in the Detroit Free Press, some Muslim parents are concerned about public schools in Dearborn handing out flyers to all students advertising an Easter egg hunt, saying it violates the principle of church and state separation.

A flyer with the highly inflammatory “Eggstravaganza!” was given to students this week at three elementary schools in the Dearborn Public Schools district, which has a substantial number of Muslim students. The flyer described an April 12 event at Cherry Hill Presbyterian Church in Dearborn featuring an egg hunt, relay race, and egg toss, and included images of eggs and a bunny.

“It really bothered my two kids,” said parent Majed Moughni, who is Muslim and has two children, ages 7 and 9, in Dearborn elementary schools. “My son was like, ‘Dad, I really don’t feel comfortable getting these flyers, telling me to go to church. I thought churches are not supposed to mix with schools.’ ” Moughni said he’s concerned about “using school teachers paid by public funds … to pass out these flyers that are being distributed by a church. I think that’s a serious violation of separation of church and state.”

First of all, the flyer was approved by the school district. Second, it was an invitation to an event that was not religious or church-related, only took place at churchs ground. Thirdly, I believe Mr. Moughni fails to realize that his religion, Islam, is a totalitarian ideology which has no separation between mosque and state. Islamic Sharia law dictates every aspect of a Muslim’s life and decrees the most heinous of punishments, such as stoning for women — and not with chocolate or marshmallow peep stones, but real ones.

It seems this burgeoning Muslim community in “Dearbornistan” actually believes it can coerce the remaining non-Muslims there to live in fear and cower to their intolerance. Sorry, sir. Ain’t happenin’.

Maybe Mr. Moughni can explain why the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) — an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist funding case and subsidiary organization of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood — is suppressing the first amendment right of free speech and free expression in the showing of the documentary “Honor Diaries” which we have featured here.

This is how it happens America. There are those who enact the Islamic principle of the hijra — “migration” — in order not to assimilate but infiltrate and eventually dominate the host country culture. We see it happening across the Atlantic Ocean in Europe. It becomes a spreading cancer that uses the host country’s freedoms and principles to turn it upon itself — as Mr. Moughni attempts to use “separation of church and state” as an argument.

Read more 

Muslims: Halal Lunches in School are a Constitutional Right

halal-slaughter1-450x300Front Page, By Daniel Greenfield:

First Bill de Blasio provided special privileges to Muslims by adding Muslim, but not Hindu or Buddhist holidays, to the school calendar. During the Democratic primaries, he promised Muslims that he would bring Halal meals to city schools.

Now the Muslims are making their demands known. In a city with the largest Jewish population in the country, Kosher meals are not served in city schools. But as usual, Muslims are special and their sense of entitlement knows no bounds.

Marge Feinberg, another spokeswoman for the city’s Department of Education, added that the schools’ menus include vegetarian dishes. “Our kitchens and our kitchen staff are not equipped for specialty meat requirements,” she said. “We have a variety of non-meat options for children.”

But for labor leader Maf Misbha Uddin, the District Council 37 treasurer and founding president of Alliance of South Asian Association of Labor (ASAAL), halal food is not an issue of demand or will, but of religious freedom.

“I feel that serving halal food in school is our constitutional right since the constitution has ensured equal rights for all religious groups and ensured the observance of religion without any obstacle,” said Uddin, whose five children grew up in the city and never ate school lunches because halal menu choices were unavailable.

To no one’s surprise, Mustafa has no idea how Freedom of Religion works. It means freedom from government compulsion in areas of religion, a concept Muslims who push for theocracy everywhere they live simply refuse to understand.

It doesn’t mean a government entitlement to religious practice. That’s not freedom of religion, it’s theocracy.

All the stories about Muslim kids “going hungry” in school are nonsense. There are plenty of non-meat options for them. I went through school without having meat served. Having meat served is a luxury.

More problematically, many Halal certifying organizations are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood or other terrorist and hate groups.

New Yorkers should not be forced to subsidize Muslim terrorism by Islamist pressure groups using their kids as human shields. Those kids aren’t starving in a corner somewhere as their lying parents would have you believe, they’re stuffing their faces with pizza and french fries.

“Islamic extremists” put a price on your head? That means you can’t give a speech in this American government building

Washington Post, BY EUGENE VOLOKH:

The discussion of the American flag case reminded me of a much less noticed decision from a few weeks ago, Agema v. City of Allegan (W.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2014).

David Agema (a Michigan state representative) and some other people organized a Jan. 26, 2012 event that included as a speaker Kamal Saleem. Saleem runs Koome Ministries, which aims to teach about what it sees as “radical Islam’s true agenda.” Plaintiffs say Saleem “has a unique perspective on the internal threat to America posed by Sharia law and radical Muslims as he was once a Muslim involved in terrorist activities who has since transformed himself and converted to Christianity.”

76326277_640To hold this event, plaintiffs rented a room at Alleghan High School for $90. They also asked the local police department to provide two officers as security. Then,

Shortly before the event was to take place, a woman approached the police officers at Allegan High School and “stated that Kamal Saleem had a $25 million dollar bounty on his head.” An Allegan police officer talked with Jones, Saleem’s bodyguard, who did not deny that a bounty existed. “Jones further stated that there had been death threats directed toward Kamal Saleem from Islamic extremists in the past.”

While the event was still in progress, Chief Hoyer ordered Plaintiffs to shut down the event. Other events were occurring simultaneously in other locations within the Allegan High School building while Saleem was speaking.

Plaintiffs argued that “comply[ing] with the demands of hecklers based on the viewpoint of the speaker and the content of the speech” unconstitutionally allows “the heckler’s veto” to trump the “Constitutional freedoms of Plaintiffs.” (“Hecklers” is used here broadly to refer not just to the person in the audience who shouts out immediate threats, but to anyone who threatens to attack a speaker.)

But the court concluded that the stopping of the event was constitutional. The high school classroom, the court concluded, wasn’t a “traditional public forum,” such as a street or a sidewalk, or a place that “the government has intentionally designated a place … as a public forum.” Rather, it was a “nonpublic forum” — government property that hasn’t been deliberately opened for speech:

Here, there are no allegations that the school was open for use by the general public; rather, permission to rent the school was secured from the building principal, and there is no allegation that permission was granted as a matter of course to all who sought it. “This type of selective access does not transform government property into a public forum.”

The First Amendment rule in nonpublic forums is that speech restrictions are constitutional if they are “reasonable and [are] not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view.” And, the court said, this restriction was reasonable:

Plaintiffs allege in their First Amended Complaint that the January 26, 2012 event was stopped due to “death threats” from “Islamic extremists” while other events were occurring at the high school …. [Whether or not] public officials mistakenly assessed the credibility of the risk or the imminence of danger, Plaintiffs’ allegations, taken together, do not support the conclusion that the decision to stop the event was nonetheless unreasonable. “[T]he government does not need to wait ‘until havoc is wreaked to restrict access to a nonpublic forum.’”

Now I sympathize with the high school principal, who is trying to prevent harm to the people visiting his school. And while the Supreme Court has held that the government generally may not suppress speech on sidewalks or parks in order to prevent attacks on the speaker, it’s possible that these cases don’t apply when it comes to speech in a “nonpublic forum,” such as a government building. (But see Robb v. Hungerbeeler (8th Cir. 2004) and Chicago Acorn v. Metropolitan Pier and Exposition (7th Cir. 1998), which suggest that the cases do indeed apply even to nonpublic forums.)

Nonetheless, consider what incentives this sort of decision creates. If you don’t like a speaker, make death threats against him. Then, if you can somehow let American government officials know about those threats, the officials will kick the speaker out of the places that it rented to him for his speech. (Nor is the principle in the case limited to high school buildings — school wasn’t in session, and the government could raise a similar security objection for any government building where other people are present, or perhaps even a building whether this is the only event taking place.)