The French retail giant Carrefour is transforming a third of its Supeco shops, its discount brand, into halal supermarkets

Retail giant Carrefour confirmed that three more Supeco shops will be converted to H.Market by the end of April, bringing the total number of shops affected by the change to six. According to a source familiar with the situation, ten Supeco shops will be converted in the next few months and then the entire stock of 33 shops, LSA reported on April 13, 2023.

Supeco, which was launched in 2019, was supposed to become Carrefour’s leading discount brand, but has not lived up to expectations. Since summer 2022, the management forced the tenant-managers of Supeco shops to increase the halal departments. A change prepared from long hand, as reported by a tenant-manager of Supeco. A supply contract was signed between Supeco and H.Market, an independent halal chain founded in 2006 in the Île-de-France region with a total of ten shops.

www.capital.fr / https://www.fdesouche.com/2023/04/14/supeco-lenseigne-discount-de-carrefour-a-la-peine/

India: ‘Will continue work against land jihad, love jihad, I have done nothing wrong’, Kajal Hindustani after coming out of jail

Kajal Hindustani was granted bail. Image Source: Twiter handle of TV9 Gujarati

Hindu activist Kajal Hindustani has said that she will continue to work against land jihad, love jihad, and forced conversions. She made these remarks while addressing the media as she stepped out of the Junagadh jail after she was granted bail.

Kajal Hindustani said, “Even after this much I am firm on what I said. This is why I was not afraid and now I am here in front of you. I had trusted that I will definitely get justice. And I got justice and I am here in front of you all.”

Kajal Hindustani further said, “There are many workers who work a lot for Dharma. As people from the other side commit such things, it is our duty to save our faith. I was doing social work against land jihad, love jihad, and forced conversions. I still do that and I continue to do that.”

She said that she has full trust in the judiciary and is confident that she will get justice, saying that she has not done anything wrong. “I have not done anything wrong and never gone against the constitution. I believed that I would get justice and I got justice and today I am before you all,” she said.

Appealing people to continue working for the cause, she said, ‘Everyone will do their respective work. We have a religion to protect the way others do their work. That is why I must continue to fight land jihad, love jihad, illegal conversions and not sit at home, the work will continue.’

Many supporters welcomed Kajal Hindustani chanting Jai Shri Ram slogans as she came out of jail. She was taken to the residence under tight police security. Two police vehicles guarded her car in the front and back as the convoy moved towards her house. On the way to her house, she was welcomed by people who showered flowers and garlands on her.

On 13th April 2023, Hindu activist Kajal Hindustani was granted bail in the Ram Navami speech case in Una. She was released on a bond of Rs 50,000. She came out of Junagadh jail after five days.

On Sunday, April 9, Hindu activist Kajal Hindustani was arrested by Gujarat’s Una police. This came after a case was registered against her for an alleged ‘hate speech’. 

On March 30, the Ram Navami procession (Shobhayatra) was taken out in Una of district Gir Somnath, Gujarat. Following the procession, an event was organized where Hindu activist Kajal Hindustani was one of the speakers. The Dharmasabha took place at Raavanvadi near Trikon Bagh.

During her speech, Kajal Hindustani raised several issues, including Love Jihad and Land Jihad. The local Muslims deemed her speech controversial and took the entire city hostage. There were reports of stone pelting at various places, and the city was on the edge for two days. In addition to this, the infamous Sar Tan Se Juda slogans were also raised against her. 

During Dharmsabha, Kajal Hindustani said that if Muslim women marry Hindu men, it would benefit them. After her speech, Muslim leaders filed a complaint against her and demanded action. An FIR was registered against Kajal under Section 295A, 153A, and 505 of the Indian Penal Code.

https://www.opindia.com/2023/04/will-continue-work-against-land-jihad-love-jihad-kajal-hindustani/

UK: Teacher tells students they must agree with him…or else

By Eric Utter

A teacher at the Stationers’ Crown Woods Academy, a secondary school (and sixth form) in the Greenwich area outside London, England, recently told his students: “Let me make this very clear.  You don’t have a choice whether or not you learn about LGBT+ in this school.  You don’t have a choice.  It’s one of our values, and if you refuse to do it, that will be dealt with severely.  Why would I not?  Why would I care if anyone in this room wants to love somebody, whether it be a man or a woman?  Why would I care if someone wants to say: ‘Do you know what?  I don’t know if I’m more male or more female.  I’m exploring.’  Why does that matter to me?” 

It matters a great deal to him, apparently.  Otherwise, he wouldn’t threaten to deal with his students so “severely.”

You know that the “educator” is “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion, but he is clearly anti-choice when it comes to whether or not to worship the LGBT community.  And, like many “teachers” today, he will not tolerate diversity of thought.  More and more, teachers tell their students what to think rather than helping them in how to think.  Indoctrination continues to replace education.

Imagine the uproar from Democrats/”progressives”/leftists/Marxists/fascists/academia/the media (all synonymous) if the teacher had said, “Let me make this very clear.  You don’t have a choice whether or not you learn about Christianity in this school.  You don’t have a choice.  It’s one of our values, and if you refuse to do it, that will be dealt with severely.”

The irony is that “wokeism” is itself a religion — albeit a twisted one — many of whose disciples are truly fanatical in their belief.  And in their disdain for agnostics and infidels.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/04/teacher_tells_students_they_must_agree_with_himor_else.html

UK Government May Have Overestimated Trans Population Due to Foreign Migrants

screen grab twitter

Britain’s government may have massively overestimated the number of trans individuals, and residents with a poor grasp of the English language trying to answer a convoluted question on gender identity may be to blame.

The UK’s 2021 census has likely massively overestimated the number of transgender individuals living in England and Wales as a result of the large migrant population in both countries, experts have now said.

According to the Office of National Statistics, 262,000 in both countries claimed in the census that they were transgender, roughly equivalent to 0.5 per cent of the total population.

However, according to a report by The Telegraph, experts now believe that such a figure is inaccurate, with many suspecting that foreign migrants with bad English answering the census claimed to be transgender by mistake.

By compiling the census data, scientists have found that those with a migrant background, as well as those with poor English, were far more likely to claim to be transgender, with the 10 per cent of adults in the country for whom English is not their first language making up nearly one-third of all transgender individuals in the country.

The data — as is — also claims that areas with large migrant populations are disproportionately transgender, and that one in 67 Muslims are also trans, a figure deemed to be unbelievable by experts in a literal sense.

Such massive confusion on the part of the non-native English speakers in the country has been reportedly blamed on how the census asked the public whether they were transgender or not.

Instead of simply asking the answerer whether or not they were trans, the document posed the question: “is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?”, a definition of non-transgender individuals said to have been dreamt up by LGBT+ NGO Stonewall.

While the question may be easy to parse for those who speak English as a first language, and particularly for those who have been regularly exposed to lengthy discussions steeped in modern trans politics language in the mainstream media, the wording has clearly foxed some outside of that group linguistically and culturally.

“The ONS were so focussed on how trans people would respond to that question and if it would hurt people’s feelings and I think, as a result, they didn’t think about the vast majority of people and those who don’t share the same language,” University of Oxford Sociology professor Michael Biggs remarked regarding the government’s apparent gaffe.

“Professional, managerial-class people have had the training on gender language and gender identity,” he added. “But a lot of people working on building sites or cleaning hospitals, for example, those are the people that I think are confused and if ONS had asked: ‘Are you trans?’ It would have been simpler, but the way they have formed the question, you are directed to the wrong answer or at least it’s generated confusion.”

“The question they used is Stonewall’s definition of cisgender and it shows just how influential Stonewall is,” he went on to say.

Such a revelation that it is highly likely there are far fewer trans individuals in England and Wales than previously thought will make it even harder for the government to justify its pro-transgenderism policies.

Despite constantly promising to stem the influence of the ideology when speaking to its voter base, the UK’s ruling Conservative Party has been extremely friendly to transgenderism in practice. The Conservatives boast of having the first openly transgender MP in the House of Commons.

Authorities have also previously expressed the desire to make so-called “conversion therapy” for transgender individuals illegal, a move that many fear will render it illegal for certain medical officials to treat people with medical gender dysphoria.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/04/14/uk-government-may-have-overestimated-trans-population-due-to-foreign-migrants/

The Catholic Civil War over Gender Ideology and Truth

As the nation mourns the murder of three adults and three children at a Christian school in Nashville by a transgender perpetrator, the Catholic Church in the United States fights a civil war over gender ideology.

A recent statement by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the rapid opposition it provoked provide the latest installment of that conflict.

On March 20, a week before the murders, the USCCB issued a “doctrinal note” condemning sex-change surgery, especially for minors, and the use of puberty blockers as “not morally justified.” Immediately, two of the priesthood’s most well-known personalities criticized that document.

The Rev. Daniel Horan, an award-winning theology professor, called the document “nothing short of a disaster: theologically, scientifically and pastorally.” The bishops “not only deny the reality of transgender, nonbinary and intersex persons, but they also compound the harm experienced by already very vulnerable people,” he wrote for the National Catholic Reporter.

The Rev. James Martin, a papal advisor, retweeted a link to the bishop’s document and Horan’s criticism without comment, which is Martin’s subtle way of expressing his own opposition. Martin also is a dedicated LGBTQ activist, as FrontPage Magazine often discussed.

(Interestingly, Martin never tweeted support for the murder victims’ loved ones. He never asked his followers to pray for them. Instead, he tweeted an article advocating more stringent gun control.)

Yet even the bishops disagree intensely. As FrontPage Magazine reported, San Diego Cardinal Robert McElroy demanded “radical inclusion” of LGBTQ Catholics even if they reject Catholic teaching on homosexuality or engage in sexual activity. Within a month, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Ill. called McElroy a heretic unfit for episcopal office while defending the teaching McElroy opposes.

But the current conflict reflects an even greater battle in the Catholic Church concerning the nature of truth. Which matters more, apostolic teaching or personal perspective? Is truth ultimately objective or subjective?

In the USCCB’s recent statement, “Doctrinal Note on the Moral Limits to Technological Manipulation of the Human Body,” the bishops cite both Scripture and various church documents to assert two main points. First, only two biological genders exist, which reflects God’s design for humanity:

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms: ‘Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God.’ “

Second, personal preference provides no legitimate basis to justify sex changes.

“These technological interventions are not morally justified either as attempts to repair a defect in the body or as attempts to sacrifice a part of the body for the sake of the whole,” the bishops stated concerning sex-change surgeries and puberty blockers. “Such interventions, thus, do not respect the fundamental order of the human person as an intrinsic unity of body and soul, with a body that is sexually differentiated.

“Particular care should be taken to protect children and adolescents, who are still maturing and who are not capable of providing informed consent.”

As a result, Catholic health-care providers must not engage in “gender-affirming care,” the euphemism for sex changes through surgery or drugs.

“Catholic health care services must not perform interventions, whether surgical or chemical, that aim to transform the sexual characteristics,” the bishops stated, while using “all appropriate resources to mitigate the suffering of those who struggle with gender incongruence.

“The mission of Catholic health care services,” the bishops concluded, “is nothing less than to carry on the healing ministry of Jesus, to provide healing at every level, physical, mental, and spiritual.”

For Horan, however, the idea of “only two genders that conform to one of two biological sexes” as “a universal and unchanging theological truth” has become “an historically and theologically contested claim,” he wrote.

In the process, this award-winning theologian essentially denies the Catholic doctrine that holds the Bible as divinely inspired:

“Recourse in this document to proof-texted passages from Genesis, for example, are as irresponsible in identifying historical, social and scientific realities today as claiming that the Earth was created in six 24-hour days according to the same superficial reading of Scripture.”

By using a literalist view of creation as a non sequitur, Horan employs the red herring of fundamentalism.

“The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s 1993 document, ‘The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,’ explicitly forbids such literalist interpretation. Such readings of Scripture would not suffice for sound theological work, so why would they be sufficient for alleged scientific claims about human personhood, sex, gender and identity?”

Martin took the same approach on Twitter in 2019, when he admitted that the Bible “clearly condemns” homosexual sex. “The issue,” he added, “is precisely whether the biblical judgment is correct.”

Martin and Horan place a far greater value on science and personal experience than divine revelation. Instead of “listening to the bishops’ misguided instructions,” Horan wrote, “we should instead acknowledge the reality and listen to the experiences of trans, nonbinary and intersex persons.”

Martin agreed by tweeting a Jesuit theologian’s objections and a story about a transgender’s pain from the website of Outreach, a Catholic LGBTQ ministry. Martin, like Pope Francis, is a Jesuit.

Martin, Horan and their ideological allies represent a trend the National Catholic Register’s Jonathan Liedl described while writing about German bishops who plan to participate in an international Catholic synod. Those bishops passed a resolution March 10 to bless same-sex unions in their diocese, despite church teaching, as FrontPage Magazine reported.

“At this most basic level, the theological vision that animates the Synodal Way is characterized by a deep doubt in the ability of Jesus Christ — the definitive Word of God — to reliably reach us today through Scripture and Tradition, as mediated by the teaching authority of the Church,” wrote Liedl, who added that “a secular sense of historical progress and subjective experience” provide the foundation for that new theological vision.

Liedl showed how that foundation influenced a discussion on transgender ideology that became absurd.

“Julianne Eckstein, a theology professor in Münster, argued that because Genesis failed to distinguish between pets and wild animals, which we can do now, we can also go beyond its narrow description of humanity as either male or female,” Liedl wrote. “In the same conversation, a religious sister said that while we don’t know much about human nature, or even God, we do know that God is present in each person, an argument in favor of someone’s subjective sense of self trumping the Church’s authoritative teaching based in Divine Revelation.

“Still another delegate said that only the Tradition of the Catholic Church was holding back acceptance of transgender ideology, and it needed to be ‘destroyed.’ “

Such thinking reflects the increasingly pervasive influence of postmodern philosophy, which relativizes truth by valuing individual experience over facts, reason and history.

But the delegates and their supporters forget that if God created the universe, then God created the science that allows it to exist. Neither that science nor the universe it governs exist without God.

Moreover, according to centuries of doctrine from both Christianity and Judaism, God revealed his nature, character, integrity and commands — which transcend intellectual fashion.

Pope Francis can resolve the conflict quickly and decisively, if he wishes. But as FrontPage Magazine often  reported, Francis seeks to change doctrine subtly and gradually by saying one thing while doing or failing to do something to match his rhetoric.

Catholics are starting to see through Francis’ subterfuge and to realize the implications.

“This poison has not been slowed down by the Vatican,” wrote Bernie, a commenter on The Pillar, a Catholic site. “It has and will spread to other countries, both through votes of national bishops’ conferences and in the minds of Catholics everywhere.”

Steve Mieczkowski, another commenter, specifically pointed to Francis.

“He talks tough at times, but his actions, or should I say inaction, speak louder,” he wrote. “When you meet with the likes of James Martin and don’t set him right, you too have an agenda. Germany, in my opinion, is doing exactly what Pope Francis has set out to do himself; the ushering in of a ‘new’ more politically correct Catholic Church, one focused on meeting secularism where it is instead of seeking change from the secularist.

“The Church should never shun anyone. But when I see Francis stand by silently as the likes of James Martin, and on much grander scale Germany, simply flout their noses as they move forward with an agenda that is totally against doctrine and Church teaching, one can only conclude Pope Francis is giving tacit approval through his inaction.”

A commenter at the National Catholic Register, “PjA,” in referring to the German synod, powerfully summarized the crisis:

“Does the sun have to fall out of the sky and crush people before they realize how truly, truly, truly bad this situation is? Take the 20,000 ft view for a moment. The bishops are literally (not hyperbole) proposing saying that evil is good, and the pope is allowing that, even sometimes helping it (he did appoint them to the synod, knowing who they were).” (Parentheses in original)

“This is worse than the sun falling from the sky. This is the degradation of biblical proportions.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-catholic-civil-war-over-gender-ideology-and-truth/

Climate Change Alarmism Is a Lie that Must Stop

Since 1992 and the Earth Summit in Rio, the West has been living under the spell of a “climate emergency” that is repeatedly renewed but never happened. Since then, the West – and only the West — has set itself the main goal of reducing CO2emissions (and other greenhouse gases, implied in the rest of this article).

It is now 2023, time for a review:

1. CO2 emissions have not stopped growing and will continue to grow.

Since 1992, global CO2 emissions have continued to rise. With China opening an average of two new coal-fired power plants a week and India apparently more determined than ever to continue its development curve, as is the entire non-Western world, global CO2 emissions will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. There is not yet any available, inexpensive alternative to fossil fuels.

This increase in global CO2 emissions would be inevitable even if the West persists in its efforts to reduce emissions: Western reductions are — and will continue to be — more than offset by the increase in emissions in the rest of the world.

2. Will the warming target of the Paris Agreement — “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels” — be met?

Achieving the Paris Agreement target requires drastic reductions in CO2emissions. This has not happened. We are not on track. This global reduction will not happen. Therefore, the Paris Agreement target will not be achieved. This is now a certainty or, in the words of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a projection with a very high degree of reliability.

3. Will the EU’s target of “decarbonisation by 2050” be met?

Even more extreme than the Paris Agreement is the EU’s goal of decarbonisation. As stated earlier, even if the EU ceased to exist, global CO2 emissions would continue to rise. From this perspective, reducing European emissions only makes sense if it is part of an effective global framework, not a national or regional one. “Setting an example” to regimes and countries around the world that often hate the West simply enables those countries to grow stronger, while the countries setting the example weaken themselves by committing themselves to severe economic disadvantage — while having virtually no net effect on the climate. Do we really believe that China, Russia and India will let the West dictate their economic conditions and CO2 emissions? Meanwhile, as they grow, they would doubtless be extremely happy to see the West hobbling itself.

Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the European Commission, probably the most zealous extremist to come to power in Europe since 1945 — whose chief of cabinet is the former leader of Greenpeace’s anti-nuclear campaign — multiplies measures, initiatives and declarations aimed at drastically reducing European CO2emissions — even at the cost of Europe’s economic devastation, at the cost of freedom, and at the cost of causing a cruel increase in Europe’s dependence on China’s rare earth minerals.

The climate knows neither Europe nor Asia. Nothing that Europe and the West accomplish in this field has the slightest meaning if reduction of emissions is not global.

4. Would the economic consequences of even the most pessimistic IPCC global warming scenario matter?

Let us now look at the issue of the economic impact of CO2 emissions.

The climate expert and physicist Steven Koonin, former Under Secretary for Science during the Obama Administration, notes in his latest book, Unsettled that even if the IPCC’s most pessimistic warming scenario were to come true, the global economic impact would be negligible (Unsettled: Dallas, BenBella Books, 2021, chapter 9, ‘Apocalypses that ain’t’, page 179s.)

In its fifth and latest (full) report, the IPCC estimates that a 3° warming — twice the Paris Agreement target — would reduce global economic growth by 3%. Three per cent a year? No, 3% by the year 2100. This amount represents a reduction in global economic growth of 0.04% a year, a number that is barely measurable statistically. That is in the IPCC’s pessimistic scenario. In the more optimistic scenarios, the economic impact of warming will be virtually non-existent. The IPCC, AR5, Working Group II, chapter 10 states:

“For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers…. Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices… and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is largely relative to the impact of climate change.”

In other words, according to the data of the IPCC itself, the economic growth and well-being in Europe and the United States are more threatened by extremist and delusional environmental policies than by global warming. As Jean-Pierre Schaeken Willemaers of the Thomas More Institute, president of the Energy, Climate and Environment Cluster, noted on February 22:

“The EU and its Member States have focused on climate policy, mobilizing enormous financial and human resources, thereby reducing the resources necessary for the development of its industry and weakening the security of energy supply.”

The lesson of all this is simple: Future generations will judge us harshly for allowing extremist environmental activism to enfeeble us in the West, while a hostile East – China, Russia, North Korea and Iran — continue to advance their industrial and military capabilities. Instead of trying to fight CO2 emissions, we would do better to invest in researching ways to make reliable supplies of energy both cleaner and less expensive so that everyone — by choice — will rush to use them.

Global emissions and the accumulated stock of CO2 in the atmosphere will, unfortunately, not be decreasing any time soon, but that is no reason to let the global standing of the West decrease instead.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19580/climate-change-alarmism

Austria: Gang of Syrians raped 18-year-old mentally handicapped girl

Vienna’s Praterstern, Peter Gugerell, PD-self

Even people with mental or physical disadvantages are no longer safe from the sexual assaults of our little darlings. Already in October last year, another gruesome “individual case” occurred at Vienna’s Praterstern, in which two Muslim migrants raped a mentally disabled woman.

Charges have now been brought against the perpetrators, aged only 17 and 22. Both are from Syria. The perpetrators deliberately took advantage of the mental impairment and defencelessness of the 18-year-old victim to lure her into a public toilet and force her to have sex there.

The young woman was first approached in the street to follow the men rather quickly to the station toilet. The younger man then locked the mentally disabled woman in one of the cubicles and sexually abused her there.

Apparently, the 22-year-old loudly demanded that he wanted to have his fun after the 17-year-old had finished with her. In addition, the victim was offered 20 euros for sex in advance, which she refused. According to the public prosecutor’s office, her mental disadvantage, which was caused by a genetic defect, was clearly recognisable.

And in times when even children are becoming dangerous criminals, the involvement of extremely underage children was unavoidable: Two 12-year-olds stood guard at the entrance to the toilet, with one of the boys even snatching the victim’s bag. The abuse lasted barely fifteen minutes before two facility operators became aware and interrupted the rape.

https://www.pi-news.net/2023/04/wien-syrer-missbrauchen-18-jaehrige-geistig-behinderte/

Tory ‘Lord’ Sayeeda Warsi accuses Suella Braverman of ‘racist rhetoric’ for calling out British-Pakistani grooming gangs

Suella Braverman

A senior Conservative peer has accused Suella Braverman of using “racist rhetoric” after the home secretary singled out British-Pakistani men as being of special concern in relation to child sexual abuse cases, the media reported.

Sayeeda Warsi, the first Asian person to chair the Tory party, said Conservatives cannot “use the pigment in their skin as a defence mechanism to say they are not racist”, adding “brown people can be racist too”, The Guardian reported.

Warsi said Braverman’s remarks have “got to stop” and called on Rishi Sunak to send a “really strong message that this kind of rhetoric… has got to stop”.

“I think the prime minister has to get a really strong message that this kind of rhetoric, whether it’s on small boats, whether it’s the stuff she was saying on the weekend which is not based on evidence, not nuanced, not kind of explanatory in any way, it has got to stop.”

She added: “I don’t think any of my colleagues can use the pigment in their skin as some sort of a defence mechanism to say they are not racist. You know brown people can be racist too”, The Guardian reported.

Asked if she was calling the home secretary racist, she said: “I am calling her rhetoric racist. I am.”

Albie Amankona, a Tory campaigner who co-founded the race relations group Conservatives Against Racism For Equality, said on Twitter: “I don’t understand how it’s possible for one person, Suella Braverman, to find themselves almost weekly, at the centre of so much racial insensitivity. I’ve said it before, there is something not right there.”

Warsi’s comments follow letters sent to Sunak calling for him to act over Braverman’s rhetoric, including from the British Pakistan Foundation, which accused the home secretary of seeking to portray all British-Pakistani men in a “divisive and dangerous way”.

https://hindupost.in/world/tory-lord-sayeeda-warsi-accuses-suella-braverman-of-racist-rhetoric-for-calling-out-british-pakistani-grooming-gangs/