Month: March 2024

An Afghan migrant who slaughtered three prostitutes in Vienna last week, including beheading two of them, cited the Quran and Jihad as a motivation for his attack.

“Prostitutes are under the guise of Satan,” said Ebadullah A. while confessing his crime during the police interrogation. “I read in the Quran that I should engage in jihad.”

The case, which has shocked Austria, is turning into another high-profile crime involving a foreigner. The cruel attack saw Ebadullah A. walk into an Asian massage parlor close to closing time on Feb. 24, where three women refused to have sex with him. He flew into a rage and began stabbing the women with knives he had brought with him to the clandestine brothel. Investigators said they were greeted with a horror scene when they arrived. The three women were stabbed a total of 98 times, making it difficult for investigators to identify them.

Two of the three women were completely beheaded in the attack. Investigators say the man bought his knives at a supermarket shortly before committing the triple homicide.

Police arrested the man with these murder weapons on his person; they were forced to use a taser to disarm him.

A fourth employee at the scene, who heard her fellow co-workers being murdered, was able to escape the brothel but is reportedly traumatized by the incident and undergoing psychiatric treatment.

Lawyer defends his client

Ebadullah A.’s lawyer is asking the courts to have compassion on his client, saying “he is a broken soul, a pitiful sick man.”

“My client is convinced that the knife was wielded by magic and sorcery – he lives in a mythical world,” he told Austrian publication Heute.at.

Immediate deportation

The Freedom Party of Austria, which is currently the country’s most popular party, according to polling, is calling for the suspect to be deported immediately.

“This new act of bloodshed against women by people who have nothing to do with our Western culture, who can live out their hatred of women with us (in Austria) is further sad evidence of the failure of the ÖVP interior ministers,” said FPÖ security spokesman Hannes Amesbauer. “It is also incomprehensible that this suspected murderer should now be provided with the best possible care in Austria’s (…) cozy justice system with organic menus and private medical treatment.”

Amesbauer said that Austria will only be safe if FPÖ leader Herbert Kickl is elected as chancellor, with political analysts saying this is actually the most likely outcome based on current polling numbers.

“Austria certainly cannot be the melting pot of political Islam, even if the ÖVP and the Greens would like it to be. But deportation and ‘imprisonment at home’ will only happen with People’s Chancellor Herbert Kickl and a ‘Fortress Austria’ involving our 23-point package of measures,” Amesbauer continued.

Other FPÖ politicians also sniped at the ruling government, with Vienna’s Maximilian Weinziert saying, “After this incident, however, one has to ask oneself what actually distinguishes Vienna from Kabul. These conditions are intolerable.”

https://www.rmx.news/crime/austria-afghan-migrant-who-beheaded-prostitutes-in-triple-homicide-cites-quran-to-investigators/

By Andrea Widburg

Unsurprisingly, given the nature of oral argument during Trump v. Anderson, the Supreme Court has released a unanimous decision reversing the Colorado Supreme Court’s holding that Donald Trump was an “insurrectionist” under Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment and, therefore, should be barred from the Colorado ballot. This ruling, written in accessible, logical, and unambiguous language, definitively ends a plan that predated January 6 and helps re-federalize federal elections.

Although the Colorado Supreme Court didn’t issue its now-reversed ruling until last December, Democrats have been working since before January 6, 2021, to keep Trump off the ballot for 2024. We have reason to believe that Democrats hoped events on January 6 would get out of hand, given that they removed any barriers (e.g., the National Guard, extra law enforcement) to a potentially out-of-control protest on January 6. Additionally, there were inexplicable behaviors that would agitate the crowd and lead them into the Capitol—behaviors the Democrat-controlled federal government has refused to investigate.

More tellingly, literally within hours of the day’s events, the word “insurrection” appeared from Democrats, NeverTrumpers, and the media:

• President Biden: “It’s not protest; it’s an insurrection.”
• Mitch McConnell: “Senator Mitch McConnell…promptly vowed that the Senate would finish its work Wednesday night, undeterred by ‘failed insurrection.’”
• Mitt Romney: “What happened here today was an insurrection…”
• Senator Angus King (I-Maine): “Today’s violent insurrection…”
• The New Yorker: “This Violent Insurrection Is What Trump Wanted.”
• NPR: “What Groups Were Involved in Pro-Trump Insurrection?”
• The Conversation: “This Trumpest insurrection…”

That suggests coordinated action because “insurrection” was not previously a word that was bandied about regarding protests.

The word’s sudden new currency began to make sense when Trump announced his candidacy. Then, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment sprang into the forefront of political debate:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

It turns out, however, that we were ignoring Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

This gets us to the decision in Trump v. Anderson. The Court framed the issue this way: “Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?” It added, “Concluding that it did, we now reverse.” This decision was issued per curiam (that is, we don’t know who wrote it) but emphasized that “All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.”

Here’s the heart of the analysis: In the wake of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment’s whole point was to expand federal power over state autonomy. Unlike other provisions of the Constitution, Section 3 doesn’t acknowledge existing rights. Instead, it subtracts a core constitutional right—to run for office—from specifically identified people. In Section 5, Congress added that it was responsible for determining how to implement the 14th Amendment’s term.

However, proponents of the Section 3 argument say that they weren’t challenging the federal government’s rights. They hold, instead, that states also may apply Section 3. The Court responded,

We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency.” To hold otherwise would give individual states the power to override “ ‘the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people.’ [Citation omitted.)

The decision points out that no one questions that, once in office, states lack the power to control federal officials. Further, says the Court, the same must apply when people announce as candidates. Again, this is because the point of the 14th Amendment is to disempower the states when it comes to federal matters.

Nor does it help to point to the Elections and Electors Clauses (Art. I, sec. 4, cl. 1 and Art. II, sex. 1, cl. 2), which give the states procedural authority over federal elections. However, that does not translate into the substantive authority to affect the federal government by giving states unilateral power to decide whether they think candidates have run afoul of Section 3.

Giving states the power to make decisions under Section 3 would upend the 14th Amendment by giving states control over the federal government rather than vice versa. They could make it impossible for people with specific values to appear on their ballots, affecting future legislative policies. This problem multiplies when it comes to the presidential election:

Finally, state enforcement of Section 3 with respect to the Presidency would raise heightened concerns. “[I]n the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest.” [Citation omitted.] But state-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that “the President…represent[s] all the voters in the Nation.” [Citation omitted.]

The women on the court issued concurrences (Barrett issued one, and Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson issued another), both saying much the same: The decision could have stopped with a tight focus on Colorado rather than striking down preemptively any future efforts to disqualify people under the 14th Amendment. Barrett is a stickler for procedure, which means focusing solely on the stated issue. I feel that the other three were probably disappointed to see future 14th Amendment lines of attack foreclosed.

Overall, the Supreme Court did well today.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/03/breaking_unanimous_supreme_court_holds_that_individual_states_cannot_remove_trump_from_the_ballot.html

Police also reportedly shielded the Churchill monument from the hooliganism witnessed in the Black Lives Matter riots and the rampages that took place during the Covid lockdown.

The more tolerance that British authorities show for pro-Hamas disruptions, the more they will escalate. They will likely become worse than the BLM riots, given the religious zeal that plays such a large role in motivating them.

UK: Police form 'ring of steel' to protect Churchill statue from pro-Hamas mob in Parliament Square – https://t.co/nt8rMAVAD0

— Robert Spencer (@jihadwatchRS) March 4, 2024

A gang who groomed and raped a 13-year-old girl, using threats to kill and kidnap, have been handed jail terms.

The four attackers were aged between 15 and 21 when they abused the victim between August 2018 and April 2019, Newcastle Crown Court heard.

The girl said they “tortured” her, making childhood a “living nightmare”.

Brothers Omar and Mohamed Badreddin and Huzaefa Aleboud were found guilty of multiple rapes. Hamoud Al Soaimi was found guilty of sexual assault.

Judge Amanda Rippon said the girl was already “extremely vulnerable” when she met the “far more sophisticated” males in Newcastle.

She was repeatedly abused in the castle keep in Newcastle city centre and behind a burger restaurant after being “groomed” with alcohol and cigarettes, the court heard.

Mohamed Badreddin, then aged 17, was “aggressive and rough” with her and threatened that his brother Omar, then aged 20, would “hurt her if she didn’t do stuff with him”, prosecutor Anne Richardson said.

The girl was also raped at her own home with the brothers, who moved to the UK as refugees from the war in Syria, telling her she would be killed or taken to another country, Ms Richardson said.

The court heard she was raped by Omar Badreddin on at least seven occasions, the first time immediately after his brother had raped her.

Ms Richardson said Aleboud, then aged 17 and also a refugee from Syria, “badgered” the girl to have sexual contact with him by saying she had “let” the Badreddin brothers do it, with there then being “ongoing and regular” rapes.

Al Soaimi, who was 15 at the time and from Kuwait, was heard by a passing witness saying it was his “turn” with the girl after she had been raped.

He also sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl, the court heard, with Judge Rippon saying he was copying the behaviour of Badreddin brothers whose “swagger” he “foolishly held in high regard”.

In a statement read to the court, the 13-year-old victim, now aged 19, said: “My childhood turned into what I can only describe as a living nightmare.”

She said she dropped out of school and turned to drugs and self-harming to “cope” with the trauma, adding her family had also been devastated by what happened.

The girl said she was “petrified” of the men who had “tortured” her and “hurt [her] in so many ways”, adding the experience and impact had been “horrific”.

In mitigation for Mohamed Badreddin, Sue Hirst said he had grown up in a warzone in Syria.

Glenn Gatland, for Omar Badreddin, said he had been “haunted” by his experiences in Syria, having lost an older brother in the conflict, and felt “deep shame and guilt” for being in prison.

Robin Patton, for Aleboud, of Tilmouth Park Road in Throckley, said he had been “physically puny” after undergoing treatment for a recurring childhood cancer and had not been a leader of the group.

In mitigation for Al Soaimi, Joe Hedworth said his family moved to the UK from Kuwait in 2016, adding he was “immature and easily led”.

Judge Rippon said the Badreddin brothers, of Middle Garth in Newcastle, led the group and “quickly identified” the girl could be “manipulated” and “groomed”.

She said they treated her like a “toy” and found it “entertaining”, exploiting her and using her for sex.

“Even when she begged you to treat her more kindly and told you truthfully she was harming herself and could not cope, you made fun of her,” Judge Rippon told the brothers.

The judge said the other defendants were “followers” of the brothers and learned from them that “local girls were there to be used and played with”.

She said she accepted the girl had told them she was 15 when she was actually 13, but the “reality” was “none of you cared how old she was”.

The girl tried to learn their language and started reading the Quran in an attempt to befriend the men, and in return she was “abused and passed around”, the judge said.

The men, the first three of whom must sign the sexual offenders’ register for life and Al Soaimi for 10 years, received the following sentences:

• Omar Badreddin, 26, for five counts of rape, jailed for 18 years
• Mohamed Badreddin, 23, for six counts of rape and one count of assault by penetration, jailed for 13 years
• Huzaefa Aleboud, 23, for assault by penetration, two counts of rape and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, jailed for five and a half years
• Hamoud Al Soaimi, 21, for three counts of sexual assault and one assault by penetration, jailed for two years suspended for two years with 180 hours unpaid work

The Badreddin brothers’ sentences also included a year in jail each for violent disorder after they threw bottles and charged at police when a Black Lives Matter group clashed with North East Frontline Patriots in Newcastle city centre on 13 June 2020.

A restraining order was also made banning each defendant from contacting the two victims and several other girls, or referring to them on social media.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855

Portuguese elections rarely make news outside that country. Sunday’s parliamentary vote will be different if the polls prove correct.

A national populist party, Chega, looks likely to nearly triple its vote from two years ago and emerge as the country’s third largest party. How the two main parties that have alternated in office for decades respond will affect Portugal’s, and perhaps Europe’s, trajectory.

Politics in Portugal took a standard European path after the return of democracy in 1975. Two main parties, the center-Left Socialists (PS) and the center-Right Social Democrats (PSD), have alternated in power since then. They have been sometimes supported, in coalition or through confidence and supply, by minor parties to their Left and Right. This perfectly ordinary politics has persisted for decades.

Também nas redes sociais somos líderes. Vamos mudar Portugal a 10 de Março! pic.twitter.com/bYaejRvHIW

— André Ventura (@AndreCVentura) March 3, 2024

It is now under threat as new parties have emerged that sit outside the traditional Left-Right axis. Livre and PAN are two green-tinged parties that now have parliamentary representation, drawing support away from the traditional parties on the Left.

The Liberal Initiative (IL), a Rightist-classical liberal party, has sapped the PSD strength, winning 5 percent and 8 seats in the 2022 election. The biggest threat of all, however, comes from Chega.

Founded by André Ventura, a former PSD member in 2019, Chega – Enough! in Portuguese – has remade the traditional political map. It won a single seat in its first election and rose to 7 percent and 12 seats in 2022. Polls currently peg it on around 17 percent of the vote, with a recent poll estimating the party would win between 36 and 41 seats.

Neither of the traditional dominant parties as a result look likely to be able to form a government with the support of its ideological allies.

Both parties’ leaders have responded like their colleagues elsewhere did when a nationalist populist party first emerged: say they won’t work with the newcomer.

PSD leader Luis Montenegro says he won’t work with Venture or Chega, openly stating he wants to form a coalition with the IL.

PS leader Pedro Nuno Santos has repeated the old trope the Left often uses against national populists, contending that Chega is a “threat to democracy”. If we take the leaders’ words at face value, Portugal might have its first grand coalition after the election.

That’s clearly something Santos wants. He has said that PS will support PSD – which is running on a united ticket with other smaller Rightist parties as the Democratic Alliance (AD) – if AD gets the most votes.

Montenegro has not reciprocated, much to Santos’ dismay. A simple overview of the past few years explains why.

The PS has governed since 2015 and has had an absolute majority since 2022. During that time, it has been hit with significant housing price increases and two major corruption cases, one forcing the resignation of two ministers and the other forcing the current snap election as a probe ensnared the PS Prime Minister.

PS has plummeted in the polls and has little chance of winning more than a third of the vote. Its only feasible chance at returning to power is with AD’s support.

AD’s Montenegro, on the other hand, knows that support of the unpopular PS is the kiss of death.

Portuguese clearly want a change, and alliance with the PS won’t provide that. He is trying to force change minded voters to back him by ruling out an alliance with Chega. AD’s slogan is “Believe in Change,” and Montenegro’s hope is that in the polling booth voters will reluctantly back him to get it.

His hope may be dashed by Ventura’s embrace of change and Chega’s untraditional support.

Chega’s slogan is “Clean Up Portugal,” and since the party has never held power there is no history to dispute the claim they will do that.

Polls also show that Chega’s support tends to come from the young, the less educated, and the economically downscale.

These groups have traditionally backed PS or other Left-wing parties and may not be willing to trust an AD-IL alliance whose demographic base of support tilts toward the well-off and the educated.

Montenegro will be in a quandry if current polls reflect Sunday’s results. AD looks set to take the most votes but fall well short of a majority even in combination with IL.

Neither Livre nor PAN look likely to gain enough seats to push a cross-ideological alliance over the top. Montenegro will then finally have to choose: grand coalition with PS or Chega.

He should keep in mind the perils of choosing the grand coalition option. No European grand coalition has yet stemmed the rising populist tide.

Instead, voters who want change drift toward the populists while disappointed ideologues tend to swing towards more purist parties. An AD-PS coalition would likely see Chega, IL, and some of the Left-wing parties grow larger.

Montenegro would be wiser to follow the course adopted by Scandinavian countries. National populist parties there have either been part of center-Right governments or supported them via confidence and supply.

Treating those parties – and their voters – as worthy of respect has tended to halt their rapid rise as the issues they raise become part of normal politics. Responsibility tames these parties, it seems.

The traditional Left-Right political axis arose in the 20th Century because it reflected different approaches to the common problems of the era. This axis is breaking down because it no longer provides real answers to today’s problems.

Eventually, all developed nations will have to accommodate populist parties that have plausible answers to the new problems. Portugal can be a leader in that path if the election’s winner stops demonising populists and starts governing with them.

https://brusselssignal.eu/2024/03/the-populist-revolt-is-about-to-up-end-portugals-politics-if-the-traditional-parties-seek-to-exclude-chega-they-will-only-turbo-charge-the-upstart/

Lawmakers in an Indian state ruled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have approved landmark legislation to unify personal laws across religions, a move that bans discrimination against women based on Islamic sharia law.

Approval by the State of Uttarakhand makes it the first in the country since independence from Britain in 1947 to pass a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The bill provides uniformity in personal laws regarding inheritance, marriage, divorce and adoption, amongst others, across various communities in Uttarakhand. The new bill mandates a set of personal laws that would be common for all citizens, regardless of religion.

According to India Today:

“The Uttarakhand UCC bill makes it mandatory to register live-in relationships and puts a complete ban on polygamy and child marriage. It also recommends a common marriageable age for girls across all faiths and similar procedures for divorce.”

India, a secular democracy with a majority Hindu population, also hosts a population of more than 200 million Muslims. It is the world’s third-largest “Muslim country.”

While Muslims in India are allowed to follow sharia law in matters such as family or inheritance, India’s central government could end this by adopting a Uniform Civil Code for all citizens of India, on a national scale.

Sharia law in Islam is, sadly, not favorable to women, their status, or rights. Under sharia law, Muslim men are allowed to marry up to four wives and have been granted the upper hand when it comes to supremacy in the home, divorce, and spousal and child support.

In addition, while the legal age of marriage in India is 21 for men and 18 for women, sharia law in the country states that those who have attained puberty are eligible to be married.

Replacing sharia law with a universal civil code across all of India would vastly ensure more rights for women and children and secure gender equality, and would be most welcome in other nations on the grounds of humanitarian fairness.

Reuters reported on February 7:

“‘The Uniform Civil Code will give the right to equality to everyone without any discrimination. … We must make history by clearing it,’ said Pushkar Singh Dhami, the [Uttarakhand] state’s chief minister, just before BJP lawmakers and some others voted in favor of the bill.

“Rooted in the framework of the Indian Constitution, the code puts an end to religious interpretation of laws guiding marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, adoption and succession.

“Dhami said it ‘provides security to women and empowers them.’

“The code sets a minimum marriageable age for both genders. It guarantees equal rights to men and women on issues pertaining to divorce, share in ancestral property and offers rights to adopted children, those born out of wedlock or were conceived through surrogate births.

“A legal expert working on the UCC bill in Uttarakhand said Islam’s Sharia laws permits polygamy and has no stringent rules to prohibit marriage of minors.”

Although America’s First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” in fact, Utah was not able to become a state in 1896 until, in Congress’s Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, it had banned polygamy. The passing of this landmark civil code in the Indian state of Uttarakhand sets a crucial example for the West, which increasingly appears caught between universal rights for everyone or the right to restrict universal rights in favor of religious rights.

Sharia courts, or councils, have been established in many countries in the West, such as Canada. In 2004, Margaret Wente writing for the Globe and Mail reported:

“The province of Ontario has authorized the use of sharia law in civil arbitrations, if both parties consent. The arbitrations will deal with such matters as property, marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance. The arbitrators can be imams, Muslim elders or lawyers. In theory, their decisions aren’t supposed to conflict with Canadian civil law. But because there is no third-party oversight, and no duty to report decisions, no outsider will ever know if they do. These decisions can be appealed to the regular courts. But for Muslim women, the pressures to abide by the precepts of sharia are overwhelming. To reject sharia is, quite simply, to be a bad Muslim.”

Under sharia, if women do not do what the men in their family tell them – regarding, for instance, “dressing too Western,” undergoing genital mutilation, where, how and with whom they can spend their leisure time, or being in the unsupervised company of an unrelated man — the consequences can be severe, from being beaten to being killed. Some women, notes the author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “not only comply with those rules but … also enforce them.”

Where, one wonders, are the women in the West, the self-described “feminists,” to help protect these women, or even to even to speak out against such abuse? Instead, many claim that they “choose” to wear a hijab; that it is “empowering.” In Iran, however, women are being imprisoned, raped, tortured and killed, for “choosing” not to wear a hijab.

What happens if a Muslim woman “chooses” not to, such as the BBC journalist Bella Hassan — in London?:

“I no longer feel accepted in my own community and I no longer feel that I am safe…. After I took off my hijab, I started getting death and rape threats from men. They were criticising me, slut shaming me – men I didn’t know…. There is no specific punishment for women who don’t wear the hijab. It says in the Quran that God will deal with them, but Muslim men from my country decided to deal with me, instead of God.”

Sharia law is creeping into Europe through Islamist parties and organizations, accompanied by the problem that some of the extremely religiously observant would reportedly like to “impose sharia” on everyone. In 2013, more than a decade ago, Mara Bizzotto, a member of the European Parliament, informed the European Commission that:

“In Spain, Norway, Sweden and Finland, Islamist parties whose manifestoes revolve around the ultimate goal of incorporating sharia law into European legal systems, are growing increasingly stronger. In the most recent local elections held in the Belgian capital Brussels, two members of an Islamist movement who have publicly stated that they want to do all they can to impose sharia in Belgium within the next 20 years, were elected as town councillors in the municipalities of Molenbeek and Anderlecht.

“In an interview, the newly elected town councillors said, in reference to imposing sharia, that it was still too soon as society was not ready and that they would have to cut too many people’s hands off. They also propose banning mixed-sex working environments and reintroducing the death penalty.”

Britain seems to be one of the most striking instances. Sharia councils – also known as Sharia courts – have existed in the UK since the early 1980s. The Islamic Sharia Council, based in Leyton, East London, was established in 1982.

“These organizations are accused of operating a parallel legal system in the UK,” reported Susanna Lukacs, a researcher, in 2023.

“While their rulings have no legal validity, they have a decision-making capacity. Currently, there is no reliable statistic on the number of sharia councils in England and Wales, estimates vary between 80-85 and they are growing in number.”

According to a 2019 report by David Torrance, an expert on constitutional law at the House of Commons Library:

On 22 January 2019, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe agreed the text of Resolution 2253: Sharia, the Cairo Declaration and the European Convention on Human Rights. Paragraph 8 states that the Assembly is:

“‘concerned about the ‘judicial’ activities of ‘Sharia councils’ in the United Kingdom. Although they are not considered part of the British legal system, Sharia councils attempt to provide a form of alternative dispute resolution, whereby members of the Muslim community, sometimes voluntarily, often under considerable social pressure, accept the irreligious jurisdiction mainly in marital and Islamic divorce issues, but also in matters relating to inheritance and Islamic commercial contracts. The Assembly is concerned that the rulings of the Sharia councils clearly discriminate against women in divorce and inheritance cases. The Assembly is aware that informal Islamic Courts may exist in other Council of Europe member States too.'”

Sharia is Islamic law. It is based on the sunnah — the “path” or way of life of Islam’s prophet Muhammad as recorded in the Hadith (the sayings and deeds of Muhammad, passed down orally and written roughly 200 years after his death). It is an organized body of rules derived from various Quranic verses and historical narrations.

According to sharia, leaving or criticizing Islam is punishable by death. Jihad (warfare in the service of Islam) is a communal obligation; homosexuals must be killed; a husband is allowed to beat his wife to discipline her; a woman is not allowed to marry or get a divorce on her own free will; non-Muslims have to pay a special “poll” tax (the jizya) to Muslim authorities; marrying children at the age of puberty is permitted and, the sexual slavery of non-Muslim women is condoned.

The website “thereligionofpeace.com” summarizes what sharia law entails according to Islamic scriptures by referencing the classic manual, Reliance of the Traveller, considered one of the soundest translations of Islamic law:

“Sharia is explicitly opposed to religious freedom, freedom of conscience and the free exchange of ideas. It is violent, openly bigoted toward non-Muslims, discriminatory, and unflinchingly sexist. Large sections deal with the practice of slavery. None of this changes by affixing a ‘phobia’ label or otherwise insulting detractors.”

The website quotes from “the classic manual, Reliance of the Traveller, considered one of the soundest translations of Islamic law”:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion…

The scriptural basis for jihad… is such Koranic verses as:

-1- “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2: 216);
-2- “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4: 89);
-3- “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9: 36)…

According to the (Koran 9: 29):

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day… (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Sharia has strict rules discriminating against women. According to thereligionofpeace.com, citing Reliance of the Traveller:

“A woman may not ‘conduct her own marriage’, meaning that she is not free to marry by choice. A male guardian is required to validate the marriage agreement.

“A woman is not free to choose her guardian. It is assigned by family relation. Once she is married, she becomes the charge of her husband’s guardianship.

“A Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim man (Quran 2:221).

“An untranslated portion of the Sharia even forbids an Arab woman from marrying a non-Arab man.

“A woman has no right to custody of her children from a previous marriage when she remarries.

“It is obligatory for a woman to let her husband have sex with her immediately when he asks her… and she can physically endure it.

“It is not lawful for a wife to leave the house except by the permission of her husband.

“When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife, he warns her in words. If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping with her without words, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow.

“The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

‘Divide the universal share so the male receives the portion of two females (Rule of inheritance based on the Quran 4:11)

“It is unlawful for women to leave the house with faces unveiled.”

The website cites Reliance of the Traveller on Sharia law rules regarding non-Muslims:

“The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim.

“It is not permissible to give zakat [almsgiving] to a non-Muslim.

“It is offensive to use the vessels [dishes] of non-Muslims or wear their clothes.

“A non-Muslim may not touch the Quran.

“Non-Muslims are not allowed to ‘mix’ with Muslims at certain events.

“It is permissible for a Muslim to visit a non-Muslim who is ill, but not recommended. (Same with visiting the grave of a non-Muslim relative.)

“A non-Muslim may not inherit from a Muslim. (or vice versa)

“There is no penalty for a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim.

“Non-Muslim subjects of an Islamic state may live free from harm if they:

– pay a special ‘poll’ tax (the jizya)
– comply with certain Islamic rules, specifically the penalty for adultery (stoning) and theft (amputation)
– distinguish themselves from Muslims by dressing differently
– keep to the side of the side of the street when Muslims pass
– accept a lesser form of greeting
– agree not to build new churches or ring church bells
– do not build houses higher than those of Muslims

“The agreement is broken if the non-Muslim breaks the rules, fails to pay the poll tax, ‘leads a Muslim away from Islam’, ‘mentions something impermissible’ about Islam, or marries or has sex with a Muslim woman. If this happens, then the non-Muslim is treated as a prisoner and may be lynched — provided they do not first ‘convert’ to Islam before the sentence is rendered.”

Last year, in Cameroon, for example, 30 fishermen were kidnapped and 10 others murdered for refusing to pay their “taxes” (jizya).

According to thereligionofpeace.com, citing Reliance of the Traveller, the rules of sharia law regarding art and music include:

“Musical instruments are condemned.

“One should know that singing or listening to singing is offensive (with the exception of songs that encourage piety).

“Every maker of pictures will go to the fire, where a being will be set upon him for each picture he made, to torment him in hell

“Pictures imitate the creative act of Allah (when they are of animate beings).

“It is unlawful to decorate walls with pictures (generally interpreted as pictures of animate beings).”

In 2020, Elżbieta Kruk, a Member of the European Parliament from the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, presented a written question to the European Commission. She said:

“By 2030, there will be 60 million Muslims living in Europe. We are witnessing the process of the Islamisation of Europe, including Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden. Muslims are living in closed communities, mainly in the suburbs of cities, which are de facto not subject to the law of the land. In these communities, Sharia law applies and families living there pay Islamic taxes in accordance with Sharia law.

“According to a report by France’s Directorate-General for Internal Security (DGSI), commissioned by former French Minister of the Interior Christophe Castaner, as many as 150 urban districts are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists. In France, the police have virtually no access to these districts, and they must be protected by the French Army if they wish to enter ‘no go’ zones.

“Mosques financed by Islamic countries are the backdrop for Muslims’ lives in Europe. In Muslim-controlled districts and micro-territories there is discrimination against girls in public schools, and children and young people are subjected to Islamic indoctrination. Koranic schools are financed mainly by the rich Gulf states.

“1. What steps is the Commission taking to better integrate Muslim communities?

“2. What steps is the Commission taking to combat discrimination against Muslim women and girls in Europe?

“3. What measures will the Commission propose to reduce the phenomenon of Islamic radicalisation inside Europe, which takes place under the guise of religious education?”

Effective measures the European Commission could implement include banning sharia courts or councils across Europe, strictly monitoring mosques and Islamic schools, banning any foreign funding to Islamist organizations, banning the foreign funding of mosques and schools, and deporting radical Muslims who call for jihad or sharia law.

As recent marches across Europe in support of the terrorist group Hamas have made clear, Europe is facing a serious, intermittently violent, jihad. The surge of migrants can also be understood not just as hope for a better economic opportunity, also as “emigration for the sake of Allah.”

India shows the West an alternative path: to protect the rights of everyone, especially women and children, and to ensure the human rights of liberty and freedom for everyone.

As Bat Ye’or, the author of eight books on the history of Islam and dhimmitude, six of which are available in English, said in an interview:

“Every European is aware of Europe’s transformation under the pressure of massive Muslim immigration. Some Muslims are perfectly integrated and oppose the Islamization of European school teaching, culture, law, society. No European or American well integrated in its Western and Judeo-Christian culture could possibly welcome its replacement by a Koranic shariah society, imposing its religious conception of history which affirms that jihad is just and resistance to jihad is aggression. Nor could he accept the discriminated condition of the women, the denial of the equality of human beings, and the restrictions on knowledge.”

As the increasing number of Islamists in the West demonstrates, the future of Western civilization is threatened by Islamization. The Islamic ideology of conquest demands that a land, once conquered for Islam, belongs in perpetuity to Muslims. Three choices are offered to non-Muslims: conversion to Islam, sword or dhimmitude, an inferior status in which non-Muslims are allowed to survive as long as they pay tribute.

All these options are against human dignity. Western nations must choose a fourth path: freedom. And this new choice would require more courage, resolve and strength as opposed to appeasement and surrender.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20459/india-sharia-law

As the war in Ukraine enters its third year, French President Emmanuel Macron called his country’s European allies to a grand summit in Paris. The event comes after a string of Ukrainian defeats—Kyiv’s 2023 counter-offensive failed with no significant territory retaken and heavy losses in men and matériel; renewed Russian advances, most notably Moscow’s victory in the battle of Avdivka, have shown the rising vulnerability of Ukraine’s battered forces; in the U.S., Congressional gridlock has put military aid for Kyiv on hold for the time being. Longstanding rumours of political infighting in Kyiv were proven correct in early February, as President Zelenskyy dismissed the respected commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, Valery Zaluzhny, and many other commanders—a number of them apparently finding out about their ouster from the media. As Business Insider put it a few weeks ago, “things are going badly for Ukraine—really badly.” An eventual Russian triumph in the bloody conflict, as repeatedly warned by realist-minded commentators—politicians and businessmen such as Professor John Mearsheimer, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Elon Musk —now looks likelier than at any point since early 2022.

During his remarks after the Paris meeting, and with Ukraine’s prospects now universally recognised as bleak, the French leader has defiantly declared that “Russia cannot and must not win” the war. To give weight to his words, Macron announced a new ‘missile coalition’ of countries willing to supply Ukraine with medium- and long-range weapons—and he went further still by suggesting that the deployment of European military forces inside Ukrainian territory can no longer be seen as being off the table.

These comments caused a firestorm, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov immediately announcing that sending Western contingents to Ukraine would lead “not to the probability, but to the inevitability of direct conflict” [between NATO and Russian forces]. Whatever one might think of Mr. Peskov, it appears difficult to disagree with his assessment. Were NATO countries to place their military forces within Ukraine—regardless of whether or not in combat roles—it seems unavoidable that they would be engaged by Russia, whose military regularly strikes objectives in the entirety of Ukrainian territory. Such an event, of course, would lead to public outcry in the West—in all likelihood, to the activation of NATO’s mutual security clauses, in the form of Article V of the Washington Treaty, and probably to immediate retaliatory strikes against Russian targets. The escalation to full-scale war would then become hard, if not impossible, to stop. While Russia’s inferior conventional capabilities would determine its defeat in such a conflict, Moscow would then have little alternative to making use of its vast nuclear arsenal, which remains the world’s largest, as explicitly permitted by its military doctrine. The scenario proposed by Emmanuel Macron would lead directly to a nuclear war in the heart of Europe.

In all likelihood, the Elysée understands the unfeasibility of its proposal. While the West’s reputational, military, and financial investment in the Ukrainian cause explains Macron’s bellicosity, the idea is patently unserious. The risks of such an enterprise are extreme, to the point of making the whole thing unacceptable to any rational foreign policy actor. Instead, the discussions in Paris appear designed to scare Vladimir Putin into peace negotiations.

This is the ‘Madman Theory’ with a French flavour—an act of brinkmanship designed to move Moscow’s hand with the threat of all-out war. More likely than not, the move reveals the simmering fear in Paris and other Western capitals that Ukraine’s fortunes are even bleaker than recognised by the mainstream media. This scenario appears consistent with reports that the Pentagon believes Ukrainian ammunition shortages could become ‘catastrophic’ by mid- March or that Western strategists are gaming NATO’s war readiness for as early as May. Given the apparent severity of Kyiv’s predicament, Macron’s ploy, however desperate, might have helped convince Moscow of the usefulness of a peace deal whereby the current frontline is frozen in exchange for the Russians not advancing further west.

As much as the self-proclaimed French ‘Jupiter’ might have found it wise to take a page out of Richard Nixon’s playbook, however, he has shown himself to be the mediocre student of a great master. It was not long for Macron’s miscalculation to become painfully apparent. If the scenario of Western armies flowing into Ukraine was supposed to send shivers down Putin’s spine, it instead caused a Europe-wide war panic. With the collective mood clearly hostile to further involvement in the Ukraine crisis and more Europeans in favour of reducing the current levels of aid than those eager to increase it, Macron left the leaders of Europe scrambling to reassure their domestic electorates while distancing themselves from Paris. In the hours that followed the infamous press conference, nations as diverse as the United States, Germany, Italy, Britain, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Slovakia, Hungary, and others made public assurances that there would be no deployment of their militaries into Ukraine, with only Lithuania and Estonia stating that the idea was ‘worth considering.’ Paris was left utterly isolated—its disagreements with Berlin now more obvious than ever. French opposition leader Jordan Bardella’s estimation that Macron had unwittingly “exposed our divisions and weaknesses, thus playing the game of Vladimir Putin” seems hard to reject.

Instead, what the episode has left abundantly clear is that there is little will—whether in the corridors of power or among the wider Western public—for further escalation in Ukraine. As the end game for Europe’s largest land conflict since 1945 draws near, the contours of peace will be determined by the existing balance of power—not by the clever tricks of an illusionist, and certainly not by the whims and preferences of the political class. Should the results prove disadvantageous for Western interests, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/the-macron-theory-of-madness/

An event in Toronto where Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was scheduled to host his Italian counterpart Giorgia Meloni, was cancelled on Saturday due to ‘security concerns’ after hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters gathered outside the venue, CBC News reported citing Trudeau’s office.

Neither Trudeau nor Meloni were able to enter the place as the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO) went into lockdown following protests.

The protestors criticized the Canadian government’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war and alleged that “Trudeau was funding a genocide in Gaza.”

“Due to security concerns, the event was cancelled,” a spokesperson for the PMO said.

Police said that there were 200-300 protesters outside the gallery, but noted it was difficult to estimate the total size of the demonstration as protesters gathered outside several entrances.

Would-be attendees gathered outside were confronted by demonstrators, with their entry paths blocked. Some were later escorted to the building’s entrance by police.

International Development Minister, Ahmed Hussein tried to enter through the main entrance, but protesters blocked his path and followed him for two blocks as he tried to enter a more secure location while flanked by police, according to CBC News.

“You are complicit in the genocide. Your hands are red. You are complicit in the murder of my family members and my friends,” one demonstrator chanted at him.

Italian PM Meloni, was in Toronto to hold meetings with Trudeau. The two G7 leaders discussed a wide range of topics, including the crisis in the Middle East.

Hamas carried out a terror attack on Israel on October 7 killing over 1200 people and taking around 250 people as hostages.

Following this, Israel launched a massive counter-offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. But, the military operation has so far claimed more than 30,000 lives, according to Gaza health officials.

Canada considers Hamas a ‘terrorist group’ and has repeatedly said that “Israel has the right to defend itself”. Lately, Ottawa called for a ceasefire in the conflict due to the deteriorating humanitarian crisis in Gaza, CBC News reported.

https://www.opindia.com/2024/03/canada-trudeaus-event-with-giorgia-meloni-cancelled-amid-massive-pro-palestine-protests/

On Sunday morning, counter-terrorism officers arrested four men suspected of being connected to an extremist Islamist organization, with three of the suspects reported as minors.

The operation was carried out in four different Belgium cities — Brussels, Charleroi, Ninove and Liège — with officers raiding houses and apartments in each location, although no explosives or weapons were discovered.

According to RTBF, the suspects were communicating through a messaging app and were believed to be planning a terror attack. Authorities intervened and arrested the men as a precautionary measure to avoid a potential assassination attempt.

Terror threat is growing

In its report published on Friday, the Belgian Center for the Analysis of Terrorism Threats (OCAD) noted that the number of threats related to terrorism and extremism increased by 41 percent last year. 

More than 40 percent of the reports were related to Islamist extremism, but in the other cases, the “ideological dimension” could not be determined. OCAD attributes the majority of threats to lone perpetrators, with only a small percentage involving organized groups. 

OCAD reported that there were 332 reports of terrorism or extremism in 2023, compared to 236 threats the previous year. The rise in terror threats jumped due to “significant emotional events,” such as the Gaza war and the Brussels terror attack in October, where two Swedish soccer fans were fatally shot.

While more than half of the reports were classified as a low threat, OCAD noted that 7 percent were classified as very severe, raising the overall threat environment in Belgium to Level 3 (severe). The highest threat Level 4 was briefly implemented in the Brussels region following the October attack.

https://www.rmx.news/crime/belgium-4-islamists-arrested-over-suspected-assassination-plot-terror-threat-soars/

The Biden administration is preparing to run the 2024 election on abortion. With a miserable economy and failure on every side, that is the one thing still left for the Democrats to run on.

But no generation has ever had less use for abortion than this one.

After the end of Roe v. Wade, Democrats warned of a decline in abortions, what they failed to mention was that abortions had been declining long before the Supreme Court decision.

After Roe v. Wade first came on the scene, abortions shot up all through the 80s and hit a peak in 1990 with 1.6 million. Then, just as the Democrats decided to go all-in on abortion, purging their pro-life wing, abortion rates crashed, and now struggle to pass the million mark.

The numbers are even more striking when accounting for the large U.S. population increase since 1990. According to the CDC, there were 345 legal induced abortions per 1,000 live births, 24 per 1,000 women, in 1990. By 2021, there were 204 abortions per 1,000 live births and 11.6 abortions per 1,000 women. The actual abortion rate had fallen by more than half.

There were over 4 million babies born in 1990 to a population of 250 million. In 2021 there were only 3.6 million babies born among a population of 330 million. It wasn’t abortion that accounted for much of the decline. The babies were not being aborted, rather they were not even coming into being.

Fewer of the young women in their twenties who used to get abortions need them anymore. 63% of men under 29 describe themselves as single, but only 34% of women under 29 do. 57% of those who say they’re single aren’t looking for a relationship or even casual dates. Only 13% of those who are looking, are seeking a committed relationship.

Rates of sexual intimacy have also dropped. 1 in 3 men in 2018 reported no intimate encounters. Even among teens, the number of high schoolers who ever had sex fell from 54% to 38% in 2019. (These numbers predate the pandemic which means nothing that happened during the pandemic had any impact on them.) There’s a decline in casual sex and intimacy among married couples, but it would be more accurate to say that it’s a decline in relationships.

It’s not just a male-female romantic decline either. Friendships are disappearing as are all sorts of in-person interactions. More people are single, not just as couples, but are lonely and alone.

Nothing Biden or any of the Democrats can do will save abortion from itself.

The war on the family has succeeded all too well, but what replaced it isn’t whatever perpetual orgy the sexual politics activists of the sixties imagined would ensue. There are endless varieties of new sexual identities emerging, men are getting castrated and women are getting mastectomies to try and pretend to be the other sex, but none of this is bringing people together.

The alternatives to the family have failed miserably even on their own terms. The family has been crippled, but in its place are lonely shallow narcissists who can’t tear themselves away from their phones long enough to connect to another human being. The country has come to inhabit the world of Edward Hopper’s ‘Nighthawks’, but the late night diner is a 5 inch screen.

There is a grim comedy to the endless fight to save abortion when it’s aborting itself.

The idea that the family would be replaced by casual relationships temporarily spurred a wave of them accompanied by the widespread use of abortions. But each succeeding generation became less likely to have any kind of relationships. Women turned off by casual sex and men by the demands of relationships drifted apart. Social media replaced real relationships with virtual ones offering online pornography and narcissism as substitutes for human intimacy.

And that is where we are now.

Democrats believe that it’s urgent to fight for abortion and to plant graphic pornography in schools, especially of the non-heterosexual kind, but apart from spurring a rash of teenage girls to mutilate themselves in the hopes of making themselves over to be boys, it’s not doing much to what may be the least sexual generation of teenagers since the 1880s.

In the 1990s, liberal men claimed that they didn’t want to get married until gay marriage was legal. Now liberal couples claim that they don’t want to have kids because of global warming. But marriage rates didn’t turn around when gay marriage was legalized and childbirths wouldn’t be significantly impacted if it was announced tomorrow that the climate is doing just fine.

Likewise, overturning Roe v. Wade didn’t have all that much of an impact on abortion.

Abortion, like marriage and childbirth, are all in decline. That’s also bad news for Biden and the Democrats because it means that there are fewer younger and traditionally more liberal voters.

In 1990, 18 to 24 year olds, more likely to vote Democrat, made up 10% of the population while those 50 and over, who are more likely to vote Republican, made up a quarter of the population. Now the 18 to 24 cohort has dropped down to 9% while the over 50 group makes up a third of the country.

Democrats have become more fanatical about abortion even as it becomes less relevant in a country without marriages, children or even intimacy. The real threat to abortion isn’t coming from Republicans or the Supreme Court, but a society with no more babies to abort.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/abortion-is-running-out-of-babies/