Welcome to the Net Muslims Forums.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 51 of 51
  1. #41
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,954

    Default

    Europe has started to enshrine Islamophobia into law - history tells us this can't end well

    There will be those who hail today's decision as a victory for Europe's long held secular ideals. However, history tells us that such excuses are always used to justify much more sinister trajectories

    by Sofia Ahmed - 14 March 2017

    Islam and Muslims are no longer welcome in Europe
    . If that message wasn't already clear to most people it has been set in to law today by EU judges. The decision by the European Court of Justice to allow employers to ban staff from wearing the headscarf seems certain to only further marginalize and push Muslim women out of public life.

    What with France's ban on the niqab in 2010, and countries such as Germany wanting to follow suit, the trend of enshrining Islamophobia into law is becoming increasingly common. Proponents of such policies deceptively tell the public these decisions will emancipate Muslim women from the proposed shackles of Islam. Yet, what these laws represent is a discriminatory form of social engineering to try and enforce Muslim women to adopt a secular identity.

    Such discriminatory and openly xenophobic policies contradict Europe's inherent belief that it is a bastion of freedom in an otherwise barbaric and intolerant world. The hypocrisy is galling to say the least - the very European leaders that pit themselves against supposedly misogynistic and regressive societies in the Muslim world have no qualms in applying discriminatory and gendered Islamophobia towards Muslim women in their own countries.

    They conveniently ignore the impact that such legislation is having on the lives of ordinary Muslim women. An inquiry by the Women and Equalities Committee found that Muslim women were three times less likely to be employed. The report highlighted the role of "unconscious bias" in discrimination against women that wear the hijab or have Muslim sounding names.

    A similar report by the European Network Against Racism, which covered eight countries ranging from France to The Netherlands, suggests that the such discrimination in the workplace and it's negative impact on Muslim women is widespread across Europe.

    Economic marginalization is of course not the only obstacle that women must face due to decisions like the one made today. There are much more dire consequences for the average woman on the streets of London or Paris. With reports of a woman in hijab being dragged along the streets of London and another woman attacked and bitten for wearing hijab in Vienna, what kind of message does this sends out to those people that find a piece of cloth offensive enough to attack a woman for it?

    Alarmingly, the decision the EU judges made is strikingly like the anti-Jewish legislation that was passed in Germany prior to the Second World War. The Nuremberg laws specifically targeted a social group by restricting them on an economic level. Jews were banned from professions such as midwifery and law, and state contracts were cancelled with Jewish owned businesses. That is not dissimilar to telling a woman that she is not welcome at a workplace if she decides to identify as a member of a given faith.

    There will be those that hail today's decision as a victory for Europe's long held secular ideals. However, history tells us that such excuses are always used to justify much more sinister trajectories. This new ban is a worrying indication of Europe's hostility towards its Muslims citizens.

    Let us not forget that it was in times of similar social and economic upheaval that Europe's Jews became the scapegoats for all of society's ills. It's increasingly becoming apparent that history might be repeating itself as Muslim women become the new victims of Europe's identity crises ensuing from its social and economic woes.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/europe-islamophobia-headscarf-eu-court-ruling-hijab-a7629531.html

    comments:
    Muslims in western countries need to start moving back before it's too late and what was done to the Jews be done to them.

    EU workplace headscarf ban 'can be legal', says ECJ

    14 March 2017

    Workplace bans on the wearing of "any political, philosophical or religious sign" such as headscarves need not constitute direct discrimination, Europe's top court has ruled.


    But the ban must be based on internal company rules requiring all employees to "dress neutrally", said the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

    It cannot be based on the wishes of a customer, it added.

    This is the court's first ruling on the wearing of headscarves at work.

    The ECJ's ruling was prompted by the case of a receptionist fired for wearing a headscarf to work at the security company G4S in Belgium.

    The issues of Muslim dress and the integration of immigrant communities have featured prominently in debates in several European countries in recent years. Austria and the German state of Bavaria have recently announced bans on full-face veils in public spaces.

    Rights group Amnesty International said Tuesday's ECJ rulings were "disappointing" and "opened a backdoor to... prejudice".


    What's the background to the decision?

    The ECJ was ruling on the case of Samira Achbita, fired in June 2006 when, after three years of employment, she began wearing a headscarf to work.

    She claimed she was being directly discriminated against on the grounds of her religion and Belgium's court of cassation referred the case to the EU's top court for clarification.

    At the time of Ms Achbita's hiring, an "unwritten rule" had been in operation banning overt religious symbols, and the company subsequently went on to include this explicitly in its workplace regulations, the court explained.

    Does the ruling affect other religious symbols?

    G4S's rules prohibited "any manifestation of such beliefs without distinction", and were therefore not directly discriminatory, the court said.

    It said "an employer's desire to project an image of neutrality towards both its public and private sector customers is legitimate" - but national courts had to make sure this policy of neutrality was applied equally to all employees.

    In practice, such a policy must therefore also ban other religious insignia such as crucifixes, skullcaps and turbans, the court confirmed to the BBC.

    But the court was not absolute in its ruling - workplaces still have a duty to show that they have also not enabled indirect discrimination - whereby people adhering to a particular religion or belief are in practice put at a particular disadvantage, unless that is "objectively justified by a legitimate aim" achieved by means that are "appropriate and necessary".


    For instance, the Belgian court ruling on Ms Achbita's case would need to ascertain whether it could have been possible to offer her another post not involving visual contact with customers.

    What if a customer complains about a headscarf?

    That won't do - the court ruled that any ban could not be based on "subjective considerations" such as the preferences of an individual customer.

    "The willingness of an employer to take account of the wishes of a customer no longer to have the services of that employer provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf cannot be considered a genuine and determining occupational requirement," the court said.

    It was referring to another case referred to in this ruling - that of design engineer Asma Bougnaoui, who lost her job at French firm Micropole, after a customer complained that she wore an Islamic headscarf.

    A French court would have to determine whether the company in this case had dismissed Ms Bougnaoui solely to satisfy a customer or in accordance with a wider internal prohibition on religious symbols, the court ruled.

    How has this ruling been received?

    For years, courts across Europe have faced complex decisions on religious symbols in the workplace.

    Jonathan Chamberlain, a partner at UK firm Gowling WLG, told the BBC that Tuesday's ruling reflected "what has been the UK's approach for some years".

    Germany's constitutional court ruled in 2015 a ban on teachers wearing the headscarf across the country's 16 states was unconstitutional. Such a measure was only justified if religious symbols represented a "concrete danger, or the disturbance of school peace".

    John Dalhuisen, director of Amnesty International's Europe and Central Asia program, said the ECJ's decision gave "greater leeway to employers to discriminate against women - and men - on the grounds of religious belief".

    "The court did say that employers are not at liberty to pander to the prejudices of their clients. But by ruling that company policies can prohibit religious symbols on the grounds of neutrality, they have opened a backdoor to precisely such prejudice."

    The Conference of European Rabbis said: "With the rise of racially motivated incidents and today's decision, Europe is sending a clear message; its faith communities are no longer welcome."

    But the British Humanist Association's Andrew Copson said: "We need to take an approach that balances everyone's rights fairly and we are pleased that the European Court of Justice has today appeared to reinforce that principle."

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39264845

    Countries that oppress Muslim Women.


  2. #42
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,954

    Default

    Being a Muslim in Europe

    “It takes me longer to explain it than anything else,” the officer at the UK border of Dover Port quipped, “but I have the power to detain, search and question you for up to six hours, although I’m sure it’s not going to take that long, under Schedule 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act.”

    A peculiar mix of extreme politeness and also racism, so prevalent amongst some sections of British society.

    “Oh, OK,” I replied. “Well, don’t worry, I’m not a terrorist.”

    After establishing that a written record of the impromptu interrogation would be kept “indefinitely”, again with the courteous reason of providing evidence if I ever wanted to enquire as to why I had been stopped, I decided to make such an enquiry right away.

    “So why have I been stopped?” I asked.

    “Well, I saw some stamps from Morocco and Mauritius..”

    “Mauritius? I’ve never been to Mauritius in my life.”

    “I don’t have your passport to hand right now so I can’t quite remember, but I think there were a few Arabic stamps in there,” the officer helpfully elaborated. “Are you a religious man?”

    “I’m a Muslim, if that’s what you mean.”

    “Oh no,” he looked flustered now, “I didn’t want to make any assumptions.” It was reassuring to know that he was so free of any “assumptions”.

    I was polite for the rest of this enthralling conversation, until his last question, which I felt might need further comment.

    “Do you go to the mosque?”

    “Why do you want to ask me that? Shouldn’t you be trying to work out whether I’m a terrorist or not? I don’t understand the relevance, and you need to be careful with these kinds of questions, because it changes from looking for someone who might be a terrorist, to just looking for Muslims.”

    “But sometimes people are being taught extreme views by certain organisations, and they don’t even know!”

    “Okay, so ask me if I’m a member of this or that organisation, but how does “Do you go to the mosque?” help your investigation? If I say yes, do you write down that this guy might be a terrorist? Does it make it more likely? Less likely? There’s no link between someone going to a mosque, and someone being a terrorist.”

    “Well,” the officer replied, “we only get a few minutes to talk to you.” Sorry about that, would love to have stayed. On the bright side, at least it didn’t take six hours.

    It’s funny, but when I think of terrorists I think of groups like the Stern Gang. Not someone who hasn’t been to Mauritius.

    https://jodymcintyre.wordpress.com/2...lim-in-europe/

  3. #43
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,954

    Default

    Muslims should accept European values or go elsewhere – German minister


    Published time: 12 Apr, 201

    Muslim migrants who refuse to embrace European values must realize there are better places for them to reside than in the EU,
    Wolfgang Schaeuble, the German Finance Minister has said.

    Muslims who don’t want to change their ways after arriving in Europe must be told, “you’ve made the wrong decision,” Schaeuble said during a round table discussion in Berlin on Wednesday.


    “There are better places in the world to live under Islamic law than Europe," he said as cited by Reuters.


    Last year, Schaeuble, who is a known long-time ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel, stated that the influx of refugees was “a challenge for the open-mindedness of mainstream society.”



    In a guest article in Welt am Sonntag paper, the 74-year-old politician urged Muslim newcomers to adopt what he called, “German Islam,” based on liberalism and tolerance.


    Almost 1 million migrants from the Middle East and Africa arrived in Germany in 2015, according to the country’s estimates. The numbers spurred social tension and led to numerous anti-government protests against Merkel’s so-called ‘open door' immigration policy.


    The situation also saw the rise of the right-wing and anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which gained foothold in almost all of the country’s 16 state parliaments since the eruption of the refugee crisis in 2015.


    In February, Austrian authorities slammed the country’s Islamic Religious Community (IGGO) for its recommendation that Muslim women should start wearing a headscarf from the onset of puberty.


    “I have to say clearly: we reject an obligation to [wear] the headscarf,” Sebastian Kurz, Austria's Minister for Foreign Affairs and Integration, said.


    Secretary of State, Muna Duzdar, echoed Kurz's comments by saying “such a position is an attack on the freedom and self-determination of women. I reject [headscarves] deeply. It is unacceptable that women and girls are restricted in their freedom and men want to dictate to them how to live and how to dress."


    https://www.rt.com/news/384549-eu-muslims-germany-schaeuble/


    The Push to Ban Arabic Sermons in Europe's Mosques

    Some politicians are calling for more “transparent” services for Muslims.


    4.12.17

    In several Western European countries, some politicians want to force imams to deliver sermons only in the official language: In Germany, imams should preach in German; in Italy, in Italian; in Britain, in English; in France, in French.


    To justify this requirement, two rationales are cited. Some say it will function as a counterterrorism strategy. Others say it will promote the social integration of Muslims. A few appeal to both lines of reasoning.


    Germany’s Deputy Finance Minister Jens Spahn called last month for an “Islam law” that would make imams’ sermons “transparent,” saying that the authorities “had to know what happens in mosques.” He argued that imams should preach in German and that “imported imams lead to social disintegration.” Spahn, who also proposed an official registry for mosques, is a member of the executive committee of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling Christian Democratic Union party.

    Other senior Merkel allies like Julia Kloeckner have joined the push for an Islam law, though a Merkel spokesman said this month that such a law is “not now” on the agenda.


    In Italy, Islam isn’t officially recognized as a religion, even though it has an estimated 1.6 million adherents in the country. (The Italian Constitution requires non-Catholic faith groups to sign an accord or “intesa” in order to be formally recognized, after which the groups gain the right to take days off for holidays, to have their religious marriages acknowledged by the state, and so on.) However, in February, the Interior Ministry agreed to “facilitate the path” toward official recognition in an unprecedented arrangement titled the “National Pact for an Italian Islam.” But the government wanted something in exchange: Muslim organizations had to agree to a registry of their imams, and to a requirement that the imams sermonize in Italian. Interior Minister Marco Minniti described the document as a safeguard “against any form of violence and terrorism.”



    https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...utm_source=twb


  4. #44
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,954

    Default

    Austria passes resolution banning distribution of Quran, use of full-face veil

    Women who wear garments that fully cover their faces in Austria will have to pay fine up to 50 Euro ($A225) from October this year.

    The Austrian government passed a legislation on Tuesday which outlaws distribution of Quran in public and bans the use of full-face veils or burqas, which cover the entire face of women. The provision was backed by both ruling parties in the country.

    Women who wear garments that fully cover their faces will have to pay fine up to 50 Euro ($A225) from October this year. The rules were included in the legislative package, introduced for refugees and asylum seekers in the country to make them suitable for residing in Austria.

    The measure to ban full-face veil was first announced by Austria's coalition government in January as part of wider proposals aimed at countering the rise of the far-right, anti-Islam Freedom Party.

    The legislation also requires all migrants to participate in an integration year, during which they will be taught German and Austrian ethos. The measure taken by the legislators has been denounced by both political extremes. It is not yet clear how the move will affect the migrants in the country.

    Asylum seekers reportedly will also be expected to perform unpaid public work.
    Any person who refuses to abide by the legislation will lose out on benefits given by the government. The government proposal is reportedly designed to make migrants more suited for the Austrian labour market.

    According to the Islamic Religious Community, Islam is the second most widely professed religion in Austria. It is practised by at last seven percent of the population in the country, which constitutes to around 600,000 people.

    Many European countries have a similar ban in place for full-face veils, including France and Belgium. The Netherlands, in 2015, had also introduced a partial ban on full-face veils in the country. German Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2016 had endorsed her party's call to ban the full-face veil
    "wherever it is legally possible."

    http://www.ibtimes.co.in/austria-pas...ce-veil-727183

  5. #45
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,954

    Default

    Belgium votes to ban kosher and halal slaughter in its biggest territory

    European Jewish Congress condemns decision as 'the greatest assault on Jewish religious rights in Belgium since the Nazi occupation of the country in World War II'

    Belgium's Wallooon region has voted to ban kosher and halal meats by outlawing the slaughter of unstunned animals.

    The environment committee of southern Belgium's Walloon Parliament voted unanimously for the ban, which will take effect in September 2019 if the parliament's plenary approves the ban later this month.

    Both Jewish kosher and Islamic halal rituals require the butcher to swiftly slaughter the animal by slitting its throat and draining its blood, a process condemned by animal rights campaigners, who argue it is more humane to stun animals before killing them.

    Similar legislation has been proposed by the parliament in the northern Flemish region.

    The European Jewish Congress has strongly condemned the decision, calling it "scandalous".

    “This decision, in the heart of Western Europe and the centre of the European Union, sends a terrible message to Jewish communities throughout our continent that Jews are unwanted," EJC president Moshe Kantor said.

    "It attacks the very core of our culture and religious practice and our status as equal citizens with equal rights in a democratic society. It gives succour to antisemites and to those intolerant of other communities and faiths."

    He added: “We call on legislators to step back from the brink of the greatest assault on Jewish religious rights in Belgium since the Nazi occupation of the country in World War II."

    A ban on the slaughter of animals without stunning will come into effect in January 2019 in the Flemish region of Belgium, the De Morgen daily newspaper reports.

    Belgium's Muslim community said its religious council has previously expressed its opposition to stunned slaughter and there had been no change in its stance since then.

    "Muslims are worried about whether they can eat halal food ... in conformity with their religious rites and beliefs," the Belgian Muslim Executive said.

    Countries including Denmark, Switzerland and New Zealand already prohibit unstunned slaughter.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...=facebook-post

  6. #46
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,954

    Default

    The Push to Ban Arabic Sermons in Europe's Mosques

    Some politicians are calling for more “transparent” services for Muslims.

    4.12.17
    In several Western European countries, some politicians want to force imams to deliver sermons only in the official language: In Germany, imams should preach in German; in Italy, in Italian; in Britain, in English; in France, in French.

    To justify this requirement, two rationales are cited. Some say it will function as a counterterrorism strategy. Others say it will promote the social integration of Muslims. A few appeal to both lines of reasoning.

    Germany’s Deputy Finance Minister Jens Spahn called last month for an “Islam law” that would make imams’ sermons “transparent,” saying that the authorities “had to know what happens in mosques.” He argued that imams should preach in German and that “imported imams lead to social disintegration.” Spahn, who also proposed an official registry for mosques, is a member of the executive committee of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling Christian Democratic Union party.

    Other senior Merkel allies like Julia Kloeckner have joined the push for an Islam law, though a Merkel spokesman said this month that such a law is “not now” on the agenda.

    In Italy, Islam isn’t officially recognized as a religion, even though it has an estimated 1.6 million adherents in the country.
    (The Italian Constitution requires non-Catholic faith groups to sign an accord or “intesa” in order to be formally recognized, after which the groups gain the right to take days off for holidays, to have their religious marriages acknowledged by the state, and so on.) However, in February, the Interior Ministry agreed to “facilitate the path” toward official recognition in an unprecedented arrangement titled the “National Pact for an Italian Islam.” But the government wanted something in exchange: Muslim organizations had to agree to a registry of their imams, and to a requirement that the imams sermonize in Italian. Interior Minister Marco Minniti described the document as a safeguard “against any form of violence and terrorism.”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...mosques/522000

  7. #47
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,954

    Default

    German anti-terror police uncover hidden paramilitary training camps for far-right extremists

    Guns, ammunition and drugs seized in raids

    6.23.17




    Guns, weapons and drugs have been seized from a network of right-wing extremists operating paramilitary training camps in German forests amid fears of a potential attack.

    Investigators in the state of Thuringia said at least 13 known suspects were part of the group, including some from an “internationally active right-wing movement”.

    The state office of criminal investigation said short and long-range guns, ammunition and other weaponry was uncovered alongside a small amount of drugs.

    Police also seized right-wing propaganda, mobile phones and computers in dawn raids at 14 properties in Thuringia, Erfurt and Göttingen, in Lower Saxony.

    A spokesperson said the operation targeted a “criminal organisation” accused of setting up paramilitary training camps in the region’s forests, adding: “Some of the suspects are believed to be members of an internationally-active right-wing extremist movement, which aims to abolish the social and governmental order of Germany and other European states.”

    The raids were coordinated by Germany’s GSG 9 counter-terror force, supported by police from six states. Authorities did not confirm whether the group was plotting an attack.

    During the searches, a man who was not originally under investigation was arrested for attacking and injuring two officers.

    Another suspect was arrested for using symbols of “unconstitutional organisations” – a phrase frequently used by Germany authorities to refer to Nazi-era memorabilia and symbols including the swastika.

    Officials said the suspect found with “numerous” guns was believed to be a member of the so-called Reichsbürger movement, which claims the current German state is illegitimate and is alleged to have neo-Nazi links.

    Police are now investigating whether to withdraw his firearms licence.

    A Reichsbürger shot a police officer dead during a raid in Bavaria in October, shocking Germany and prompting a government crackdown on resurgent far-right groups.


    Politicians from Germany’s Die Linke party claimed the network uncovered on Friday was linked to the far-right Europäische Aktion (European Action) group, which was founded by a Swiss Holocaust denier in 2008.

    Europäische Aktion’s stated aims include creating a European “confederation” that would abolish the Euro and the EU, force the return of anyone judged to be non-Europeans to their countries of origin, and abolish Germany and Austria in favour of a “Reich” with pre-Second World War borders.

    Its Facebook page, which remains online, propagates neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic and white supremacist ideology claiming the existence of a “long-planned campaign to exterminate the indigenous peoples of Europe” with an “invasion” from Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

    Europäische Aktion’s members are based in Germany, Switzerland and Austria but active in a far wider set of countries including the UK, France, Hungary, Spain and Sweden.


    Die Welt reported that the organisation was intending to dissolve and re-form under a different name to evade investigations by authorities.


    Germany has been shaken by a series of Isis-related terror attacks, as well as the Reichsbürger murder and foiled plots from both Islamists and the far-right.


    Earlier this year, a Bundeswehr soldier was found posing as a Syrian refugee to plot a false flag shooting attack that prosecutors said aimed to turn Germany against migrants.


    A group of extremists from the far-right Oldschool Society group have been put on trial for plotting to attack accommodation for asylum seekers, while a homemade bomb emblazoned with a swastika and symbol of the Nazi SS was discovered earlier this year.


    Thousands of attacks on refugee centres have been documented as part of a rise in political violence by both the right and left wing, amid heightened tensions over the arrival of more than a million asylum seekers in Germany and sex attacks in Cologne.


    On Thursday, the Bundestag voted to cut off state funding for the far-right National Democratic Party (NPD), which narrowly escaped being banned earlier this year.



    The party, viewed by Germany's intelligence agency as racist, anti-Semitic and revisionist, has never won a seat in the federal parliament and has lost all its seats in regional assemblies.


    But it retains representatives on local councils, and so receives about €1m (£880,000) a year from the German government.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...=facebook-post

  8. #48
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,954

    Default

    Muslim schoolgirls from Germany describe racism during Holocaust trip to Poland

    06.27.2017



    Muslim schoolgirls from Germany who visited Holocaust memorials in Poland say they were racially abused by locals during their trip.

    The girls from a school in Berlin described their encounters on Deutschlandfunk radio.

    Four of the girls who were wearing the hijab say they were abused.

    One girl said a man had spat on her in the street in Lublin whilst the police stood their idly grinning.

    Another girl said she was kicked out of a shop for speaking Persian on the phone to her brother.

    She told the radio station: “They came up to me and said ‘can you leave, you’re disturbing the people here’. And I thought: Why? Just because I’m speaking Persian and I’m a foreigner? Yes.”

    A Lublin police statement issued yesterday said “the trip participants did not report any complaints to Lublin police officers”.

    The schoolgirls approached two policemen in English, who “heard from the people translating that there was no problem”.

    The statement added: “The people exchanged polite smiles”.

    It also said local police had examined CCTV footage, but it did “not show any incident involving foreigners”.

    The Muslim schoolgirls said that a market stallholder in Lublin refused to sell them water because they were foreigners.

    In another incident, one girl was allegedly threatened with a knife.

    One girl described that in Lodz “a woman just came up to me and shouted ‘get out!’ and threw her drink over me and my camera – she said ‘get lost!'”

    The girls were among a group of 20 children – mainly Muslims – from the Theodor Heuss Community School in Berlin.

    Poland’s right-wing government has refused to take in Muslim refugees from Syria, stating that they would “struggle to integrate” in the country’s Catholic-majority society.

    Defending Poland’s policy, Science and Higher Education Minister Jaroslaw Gowin said “every nation and people has a right to protect itself from extinction”.

    http://5pillarsuk.com/2017/06/29/mus...rip-to-poland/

  9. #49
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,954

    Default

    Belgium votes to ban kosher and halal slaughter in its biggest territory

    European Jewish Congress condemns decision as 'the greatest assault on Jewish religious rights in Belgium since the Nazi occupation of the country in World War II'

    8 May 2017

    Belgium's Wallooon region has voted to ban kosher and halal meats by outlawing the slaughter of unstunned animals.

    The environment committee of southern Belgium's Walloon Parliament voted unanimously for the ban, which will take effect in September 2019 if the parliament's plenary approves the ban later this month.

    Both Jewish kosher and Islamic halal rituals require the butcher to swiftly slaughter the animal by slitting its throat and draining its blood, a process condemned by animal rights campaigners, who argue it is more humane to stun animals before killing them.

    Similar legislation has been proposed by the parliament in the northern Flemish region.

    The European Jewish Congress has strongly condemned the decision, calling it "scandalous".

    “This decision, in the heart of Western Europe and the centre of the European Union, sends a terrible message to Jewish communities throughout our continent that Jews are unwanted," EJC president Moshe Kantor said.

    "It attacks the very core of our culture and religious practice and our status as equal citizens with equal rights in a democratic society. It gives succour to antisemites and to those intolerant of other communities and faiths."

    He added: “We call on legislators to step back from the brink of the greatest assault on Jewish religious rights in Belgium since the Nazi occupation of the country in World War II."

    A ban on the slaughter of animals without stunning will come into effect in January 2019 in the Flemish region of Belgium, the De Morgen daily newspaper reports.

    Belgium's Muslim community said its religious council has previously expressed its opposition to stunned slaughter and there had been no change in its stance since then.

    "Muslims are worried about whether they can eat halal food ... in conformity with their religious rites and beliefs," the Belgian Muslim Executive said.

    Countries including Denmark, Switzerland and New Zealand already prohibit unstunned slaughter.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/belgian-region-walloon-bans-kosher-halal-meat-islam-jewish-a7723451.html

  10. #50
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,954

    Default

    Spain: Nazi given community service after explosives found at home

    Published September 6, 2017



    A hardcore Nazi who posed with heavy weaponry shooting anti-fascist signs and built up an arsenal of guns and explosives is a free man today having been handed a community service sentence — as opposed to the 11 years in jail for terror offences that had been requested by prosecutors.

    Miguel Antonio Reguera González was given the slap on the wrist, reduced from his original, already lenient, four-year sentence after a seven-year legal wrangle and despite being proven to have illegally possessed weapons, ammunition and material and explosive devices has not served a single day in prison.

    The Leon Cacabelos resident was reported to the Civil guard in 2010 by Bierzo Antifa after he and some fascist friends uploaded a number of videos showing them firing various weapons in public spaces.

    The self-styled “Rambo del Bierzo” were open in both the videos and on social media about their love for Adolf Hitler and Nazism, and Reguera was known to play white supremacist music loudly in his local neighbourhood. In his home he has plastered the walls with Nazi imagery, flags and symbols. He was a known member of local fascist cabal National Democratic Youth.

    But following his initial arrest and the seizure of his arsenal, which included automatic weapons, incendiaries and even tank shells, it wouldn’t be until 2014 that his case was heard and he spent those years living normally with no precautionary measures taken to protect the public.

    He was accused by the prosecution of illegally holding tank ammunition, illegal arms possession and possession of explosive substances and the formal hearing took place on November 23rd 2015, five years and nine months after his original arrest. He was sentenced to four years, less than half the standard sentence recommended by prosecutors.

    Throughout the trial Reguera was backed by far-right groups in and around the town, with particularly strong backing from hardline rightist Cacabelos priest Jesús Álvarez, who used Mass to mobilise his parishioners in support of the gun-toting Nazi. The pastor, who is close friends with powerful people in the right-wing PP.
    Community service for a terror conviction

    Five months later the court issued a note on the sentence, saying that, given the extended nature of the court case, Reguera deserved “consideration” for the “undue delay.” In an effort to make it up to the convicted gun-wielding Nazi bomb collector, the court suspended his sentence for three years and replaced it with a ten-month community service order.

    Cacabelos City Council expected to take over the management of the case, as is usually done with other prisoners. Some media even pointed out that he might be seen out sweeping the streets as part of his sentence. But the General Secretariat of Penitentiary Institutions had other ideas.

    Thus, in a letter dated June 16th, 2016 Reguera was given over to do his community service work for the benefit of the Community Caritas of Cacabelos, under the care of one pastor Jesús Álvarez — the same ultraconservative priest who had spent years trying to get him off the hook.

    https://freedomnews.org.uk/spain-naz...unity-service/




    Comments:

    Two words for getting so light, "white privilege"

  11. #51
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,954

    Default

    How the EU conceals far-right acts of terrorism against Muslims

    We now have proof from Europol itself that the bulk of far-right terrorism against refugees and minorities in Europe is almost systematically and deliberately excluded from statistics
    The double standards which structure the media coverage, the research and policies on terrorism are now well-known. They are visible daily, empirically verifiable, and amply documented.

    To summarise, the reality of terrorism is systematically and doubly distorted. First, what we consider "terrorism" is usually reduced to focus only on those acts by non-state actors like al-Qaeda or Islamic State (IS) group. By itself, this enormously distorts reality as state terrorism is by far the worst kind of all.

    But then terrorism is further restricted as it is attributed - through various narratives and representations - solely to "Islamic Jihadism".

    The result is a grossly biased, distorted and, above all, perfectly inaccurate perception of the phenomenon – which seems to be the goal.


    ‘Terrorism’, a variable geometry word

    The excellent and incisive American academic Juan Cole has concisely and humorously drawn up the list of these double standards which we can readily observe.

    White terrorists are generally not terrorists but simple "murderers" or "criminals", while their Arab and/or Muslim counterparts are immediately perceived and categorised as "terrorists".
    Similarly, the former are always presented as isolated individuals with no relation whatsoever to any other person or group, while "jihadists" are inevitably part of a group, if not a vast planetary "Islamist" plot, even when it is clear that the attacker is a perfectly isolated individual, a loner cut off from everything.

    A white and/or Christian terrorist will never be presented as typical of whites or Christians.
    On the other hand, an Arab will always be representative of the hypothetical flaws of the society to which he supposedly belongs. A Muslim who attacks other people shouting “Allahu Akbar” is therefore automatically regarded as emblematic of the “disease of Islam”, its so-called “innate violence”. All Muslims and their spiritual authorities, imams and others, will thus be asked to “denounce” his act, “to make their voices heard”, “to fight the violence brewing within them”.

    In contrast, the Christian religion, Christians in general, and their authorities never ever have anything to do with "Christian terrorism", as expressed by the murders of doctors and nurses who practice abortions, or the attacks against clinics and family planning centres – acts that have been quite widespread over a long period of time in the United States, so much so that they have become banal and no longer surprise anyone.

    Guilt and collective responsibility therefore apply only when the terrorist is a Muslim. By the way, that expression "Christianist terrorism"? Unlike "Islamist terrorism", it does not exist.


    In addition, jihadists are always described as perfectly sane and in control of their actions; while others, especially those who kill or seek to kill Muslims, are usually presented as lunatics, maniacs and clinical cases that fall primarily within the field of psychiatry.

    Most importantly, attacks by far-right extremists are never linked to a collective culture, certain dominant discourses, an ideology (anti-immigrant, Islamophobic, racialist, nationalist or other) despite the fact that those are constructed and propagated consistently by ideologists such as the writer Bat Ye’Or, with her insane “theories” on Eurabia and Europe’s "Islamisation"; blogs like Riposte Laïque or Fdesouche, major media outlets such as Valeurs Actuelles, Islamophobic intellectuals like Éric Zemmour or Renaud Camus, and influential political figures such as Donald Trump, Geert Wilders or Oskar Freysinger.

    These ideologies, speeches, media and political leaders are never, at least legally, seen as responsible for anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant terrorism, while we consider "Salafism", "radical Islamism" (or simply "political" Islamism), or even Islam as a whole, as being the sources, origins or “antechambers” of jihadism – ideologies that must then be eradicated, including by expelling those who propagate them ("radical" imams), and closing places of worship on the basis of mere suspicions and without any proof.

    The use of the word "terrorism" and the terms associated with it ("radicalisation", "extremism", etc) is therefore always highly selective
    . Its characterisation and treatment by our states responds to a variable geometry, and its criteria change randomly according to the attackers and the victims.

    An emblematic case in point: Dylann Roof


    Examples are legion. One of the most glaring is that of Dylann Roof, a 19-year-old American who, on 18 June 2015, killed nine black people in their church in Charleston, South Carolina, right in the middle of the mass in order to trigger, according to documents found at his home, “a war of races” in the United States.



    Roof, a white supremacist who is classic in his ideology and culture, belonged to the Southern Christian Confederate movement. In his home, the investigators found loads of documents, pamphlets, flags, photographs, and supremacist and neo-Nazi manifestos, including his own website "The Last Rhodesian", where he proudly posed with the symbols of these movements and explained his motives and models, such as Apartheid and segregationist South Africa.

    Despite all this, including his own confession about the racist and racial motivation of his killings, the US authorities and most of the major Western media refused to talk about a terrorist act. Obama described the killing as a “senseless shooting”. Major media outlets, both in Europe and the US, deployed a wealth of linguistic inventiveness (and hypocrisy) to avoid having to describe Roof for what he quite evidently was – a white Christian supremacist terrorist – and instead portrayed him as a murderer, an extremist, and even, for the New York Times, a hellish visitor!

    Even more incredible in this undertaking of collective denial is the refusal of the head of the FBI himself, James Comey, to talk about terrorism while this attack corresponds in every way to his own agency’s definition. It could even be a textbook case.

    It is easy to imagine the difference in the media, police, political and judicial treatment if, instead of a white Christian supremacist and his black victims, the murderer had been a Muslim Arab who had executed nine white people in their church shouting “Allahu Akbar” before the police found videos and texts of allegiance to IS in his home!

    Dylann Roof was tried and sentenced to death in 2017, but for murder and “hate crimes”, not for terrorism, although this is what he is guilty of.

    This is an example of how our media, police, political and judicial institutions deny and evacuate - including from official statistics - forms of non-"Islamist" terrorism, even among the most serious ones. Meanwhile, ideologies, opinion leaders and groups like the Tea Party, who create and nurture this kind of terrorism, can continue on while the authorities lash out at jihadism and its so-called "sources" in Salafism, "radical" mosques, the Muslim Brotherhood, and others.

    Despite the lies, the ‘jihadist’ threat is still decreasing

    Despite its alarmist rhetoric (used, of course, to justify its budget), the latest Europol report, “European Union Terrorism. Situation and Trend 2017”, shows that as for previous years, this terrorist threat with which we frighten our populations actually kills very little and that nothing, no cause of mortality, violent or not, kills less than that in Europe: 142 victims in 2016 out of the 28 EU countries’ 510 million inhabitants. We wish all other causes of violent death, from accidents to homicides, were at such a low level.

    We also see how our leaders, media, pseudo-experts in terrorism and talking heads on television lie to us on both the scale and trends of this threat. While everyone, every day, hammers home the message that it has never been so high and that it keeps getting worse, the reality is the exact opposite, as stated by the Europol report: “The total number of 142 attacks is a continuation of a downward trend that started in 2014 when there were 226 attacks, followed by 211 in 2015."

    Not only is the number of successful attacks low, but the proportion of “jihadist” attacks in relation to the total is similarly low (13 out of 142). And the so-called jihadist attacks have also been declining, both in number - from 17 in 2015, to 13 in 2016 - and victims -from 151 in 2015, to 142 in 2016.

    You will never hear a politician telling you such a thing. You will never see these proven facts make the headlines of newspapers and magazines, fearmongering being so essential to rulers as a way of governance, and paranoid hysteria around terrorism so useful to some people.

    Even more interesting: while we are told that the jihadist threat is now affecting everyone and that no country is immune, we find out that only three out of the 28 EU member states (France, Belgium, and Germany) have suffered one or more such attacks on their soil, whether successful or not, during the period under review (Europol report, page 49).

    The vast majority of the EU, 25 countries out of 28, have not suffered any, even taking into account the failed or defeated attacks, despite the Syrian situation and the war against IS, which for two years have greatly exacerbated the threat.

    How the EU excludes terrorist acts against Muslims, migrants and refugees from its figures


    More importantly, a careful reading of the report tells us in just one paragraph, another thing that is truly flabbergasting, and confirms what has been suspected for some time: member states (with one exception, the Netherlands) do not consider “violent assaults by right-wing extremist individuals and groups […] targeting asylum seekers and ethnic minorities in general” to be terrorist acts!

    They therefore do not include them in their figures, statistics, press releases and reports. The same applies to Europol, which builds on the data provided by these member states. Breathtaking.

    The justification expressly given by the authors of the report can be found in a footnote, which itself refers to the methodological appendix. Here after some digging, one finds the famous definition of "terrorism" which, supposedly, justifies why these types of attacks are not taken into consideration.



    Second surprise: the definition – which is also the definition adopted by the EU member states – does not justify in any way such a selective exclusion of “violent assaults by right-wing extremist individuals and groups […] targeting asylum seekers and ethnic minorities in general”. On the contrary.

    Indeed, we can read that a terrorist act consists of “intentional acts which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation when committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population, or unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act, or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation".

    Yet that is the exact definition, point by point, of these “violent assaults by right-wing extremist individuals and groups […] targeting asylum seekers and ethnic minorities in general”!

    We therefore know that for the EU authorities and member states, ploughing into a crowd shouting “Allahu Akbar” is indeed terrorism, but burning alive Syrian refugees by setting fire to their reception centres (which happens regularly in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere), for example, is not.

    The exclusion of such attacks against refugees and minorities from the ‘terrorism’ category is totally unjustifiable. It results indeed in camouflaging the reality and the scale (which is increasing, contrary to the diminishing ‘jihadism’) of terrorism against these groups and populations. It also completely distorts the statistics, speeches, and public perceptions of the phenomenon.

    This deliberate choice is even more serious and unjustifiable given the context: a vertiginous surge of this type of attacks, recognised by Europol itself: “Refugees and ethnic minorities in the EU are facing increased violence”, and this wave of crimes is meant to “seriously intimidate sections of the population”. This constitutes, according to its own definition and that of the EU, one of the motivations and sufficient criteria for classifying a crime as a "terrorist act".

    Notwithstanding, the report argues that they “do not qualify as terrorism or violent extremism and are therefore not reported by member states and consequently not included in the figures”. Appalling.

    All the more so as a little further down the report (again in a small footnote readable only with a microscope), one finds the following: “An average of nearly 10 attacks a day were carried out on refugees in Germany in 2016, according to Germany’s Interior Ministry, as reported in open source media”. In other words, for that year alone, almost 3,500 attacks against the refugee population were committed, and as many potential terrorist acts excluded from the statistics.

    One can only imagine – since we cannot know it for lack of accessible data – the astronomical number of attacks against the other ethnic minorities, or perceived as such, aside from refugees, and what the Europol reports or others and the speeches on the "terrorist threat" in our societies – its main targets and victims, its attackers, ideologies, inspiring personalities – would look like if all this was included and passed on by the member states and their agencies.

    However, worse than this, there is distortion and denial: far-right Islamophobic, racist, anti-immigrant and anti-refugee terrorists are thus not only exempted from being labelled "terrorist" but – which is even more serious – they are also let off the hook from being investigated and from undergoing court proceedings that are launched against suspects and culprits when a violent crime, assault or murder is regarded as a terrorist act.

    This terrorism, of which the mere figure above on Germany suggests that it might well be the most widespread of all, is at the same time protected from the attention, special measures, and public policies it could be subject to like "jihadism" is.

    We now have the proof from Europol itself that the bulk of, if not all, far-right terrorism against refugees (Muslims and others) and ethnic minorities in Europe is almost systematically and deliberately excluded from the figures, statistics, speeches and public reports of the EU member states. This, in turn, means that these terrorists are protected from the anti-terrorist policies that could target them as hard as their jihadist counterparts.

    http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/...lims-298795357


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •