A 33-year-old Iraqi man is under arrest for a spate of sexual assaults and rapes of elderly women in the Swedish city of Umeå.
The man is currently in detention and prosecutors are expected to file charges on May 21, according to public prosecutor Petra Hedberg, who spoke to Swedish news outlet Samnytt.
Police reported on April 8 that the Iraqi man was detained for crimes that were conducted in March of this year. However, once taken into custody, it emerged that he was involved in other crimes, including a serious rape committed on Feb. 23.
In total, the man is believed to have sexually assaulted and raped three elderly women.
“There are different plaintiffs that he is remanded in custody for crimes against. One is a serious sexual assault and I will probably press charges for that. Then there is a serious rape of another person, and I will also press charges for that,” she said.
“Then there are other plaintiffs who have come forward, and for whom he is not in custody. I will probably press charges for sexual harassment against a third plaintiff. So that’s how it looks now,” she said. “As it stands now, the plan is to prosecute next week,” she added.
The man, who comes from Iraq, has to conduct his detention hearings with the help of an Arabic-speaking interpreter.
The Swedish Migration Agency indicates that he applied for a residence permit in Sweden for the first time in October 2015. He has been given several temporary residence permits but was rejected from receiving a permanent residence permit. He has no previous convictions.
Documents also show that he has refused to work in the past in order to stay on social benefits.
Shockingly, the Umeå Municipality was provided a report on Feb. 27, 2025, that he had sexually harassed an older woman in a care home, but despite this, he was allowed to keep working there. This enabled him to eventually sexually assault other women.
Malin Hansson, deputy director of operations for Umeå’s municipal home care, refused to answer questions posed by Samnytt about the man.
“I cannot speak calmly right now. I cannot stand up right now,” she said when contacted by Samnytt.
When asked why they kept employing the man despite his sexual harassment allegations and worked there despite needing a translator to communicate, she said: “I have no comments on that part, so I need to end the conversation right now. I want to end the conversation.”
As the various stories linked above in this article attest to, instances of migrant men raping elderly women, including in senior care homes, are far from unusual in Europe. Many cases have likely gone unreported, as these women are in a vulnerable position, often cut off from their families and sometimes with limited cognitive abilities due to advanced age. Furthermore, these linked articles are just a small sample of the Remix News archive involving such cases, which are already only a fraction of the overall cases. Remix News lacks the resources to comprehensively cover each such case that is reported in Europe.
The Dutch government could be forced to pay more than €100 million in compensation to asylum seekers after a recent ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), sharply reducing member states’ freedom to manage migration pressures on their own terms.
The ruling, issued on May 8th in the Zimir case, drastically narrows the conditions on which governments can delay asylum decisions, leaving the Dutch government legally exposed—and politically cornered. While public services are overwhelmed, Brussels punishes an EU member state for not giving absolute priority to people who are not even European citizens.
The decision directly affects around 18,000 asylum seekers who have been waiting between six and fifteen months for a resolution, far exceeding the six-month deadline established by EU law. If each of them claims the maximum compensation—€7,500—the total could easily surpass €100 million. This comes on top of nearly €37 million already paid out in similar penalties last year. Brussels shows little concern for the strain on Dutch public services—its main concern, it seems, is protecting the procedural rights of foreigners.
The ECJ made it clear that only a sudden and large-scale crisis—such as an armed conflict or an unforeseen influx—justifies extending the time limits. Gradual increases in asylum claims or a lack of staff are not acceptable reasons.
This calls into question years of Dutch asylum policy. During the tenure of former Minister Eric van der Burg, the government extended the processing time to 15 months, citing system overload and staffing shortages at the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND). That approach has now been ruled illegitimate by Brussels.
Current Asylum Minister Marjolein Faber (PVV) has admitted the scale of the challenge. “It will take years,” she told Parliament, to return to compliance with legal timelines. Meanwhile, the IND still takes an average of 72 weeks—nearly three times the legal limit—just to complete the second interview, a prerequisite for any official decision.
Criticism has mounted. NSC MP Diederik Boomsma warned, “The government must act now to avoid this kind of economic bleeding,” describing the situation as “legally and politically unsustainable.” Asylum lawyer Michael Yap was even more direct: “The state has only itself to blame. The IND can handle a case in days—the problem is they don’t start working on it until months later.”
All of this comes at a politically sensitive time. The new center-right government is trying to reduce the burden that the asylum system places on state resources. The numbers speak for themselves: thousands of people remain in temporary shelters or hotels, with nightly costs exceeding €300. Family reunification—especially among Syrians—continues to drive new arrivals.
In response, Minister Faber has announced a set of reforms, including limiting family reunification rights and tightening access to asylum. But now she must deal with a European legal machine seemingly determined to impose its rules, even at the expense of national sovereignty. With this ruling, the ECJ has drawn a red line: the rights of asylum seekers come first—even if that means financially punishing a country that simply cannot take in more.
The Archdiocese of Salzburg, Austria, held a training event titled “Queer people in our parishes” with two pro-LGBT activist groups.
According to kath.net, the event occurred on May 5 and was organized by the Rainbow Pastoral Care Platform and HOSI (Homosexual Initiative) Salzburg.
The event’s goal was, based on the “personal approach to the topic,” to reflect on the “theological approach” and the “canonical framework” and discuss “concrete options for action.” Two of the five speakers at the event were members of the pro-LGBT activist group HOSI Salzburg.
According to its website, HOSI is a pro-LGBT “human rights organization.” Its goals include “depathologizing and destigmatizing people, regardless of their body and gender identity(ies) and their (a-)sexual lifestyles and practices,” the “promotion of community and queer (sub)cultures” and “acceptance, respect and appreciation of sexual, gender and romantic diversity.”
Asked by kath.net why the Archdiocese of Salzburg held the event with HOSI despite views clearly contrary to Catholic teaching, the diocese said it strives to “speak WITH people and not ABOUT them.”
According to the diocese, HOSI is a “recognized self-representation of queer people in Salzburg” and therefore “an important point of contact.” From previous encounters, it is known that faith “is an essential source of life for many queer people,” the archdiocese’s statement continues.
Kath.net noted that their question about why people with same-sex inclinations who follow Church teaching and live in celibacy were not invited to the event remained unanswered by the archdiocese.
The Catholic Church has always taught that homosexual acts are gravely sinful and contrary to nature. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states the following:
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (CCC 2357)
The Archdiocese of Salzburg is headed by Archbishop Franz Lackner, who also serves as the leader of the Austrian Bishops’ Conference. During the COVID-19 crisis, Lackner and the other Austrian bishops supported the Austrian government’s draconian general vaccine mandate.
Suggesting that Islamic culture is not compatible with Christian society, criticising “globalist” elites, claiming that immigration and certain ethnic minorities are linked to higher rates of crime, and even calling for the use of private firms to assist in deportations were all listed as evidence that the populist Alternative for Germany party is a “right wing extremist” organisation.
A thousand-plus-page document produced by Berlin’s Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) — under the direction of former far-left Interior Minister Nancy Faeser and rushed to implementation in her final hours in power — to justify its decision to classify the anti-mass migration AfD party as extremists was leaked and published this week by former Social Democrat politician Mathias Brodkorb on his Cicero website.
According to Die Welt, the document almost entirely relied on public comments made by AfD politicians rather than any undisclosed information obtained through other means. Thus, it appears that the case to brand the country’s second-largest party and the official opposition to the government as an extremist group, which would allow for mass surveillance of the entire party — as has already been done against local branches of the AfD — was built on political opinions.
The paper of record noted that much of the so-called evidence consisted of statements which the political spy agency felt were “incompatible with human dignity” by allegedly espousing “ethnic nationalist, anti-foreign and anti-minority, anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic and anti-Semitic positions.”
The BfV reportedly claimed that AfD Thuringia leader Björn Höcke’s comments condemning the influence of “globalists” and “financial elites” in conjunction with describing the German government as their “puppets”, demonstrated an example of antisemetic rhetoric. The document is said to have quoted a 2022 speech, in which he said that the politicians in Berlin were not “German patriots” but rather “globalist speech puppets” who act in the interest of “large American corporations and for globalist masterminds.”
The intelligence agency said that while opposition against multiculturalism did not necessarily indicate extremist beliefs, the promotion of ‘ethnopluralism’, or the belief in separate and distinct nations based on their historical ethnicities, crossed the bounds of acceptable political speech. Again, Höcke was cited for another speech in 2022 in which he warned that if Europe fails to stop mass migration from Arab and African countries, it would “eliminate Europe for what it has become over thousands of years” and spark a “cultural meltdown”.
“That’s why we need at least temporary foreclosure… It’s not just the quantity of people that matters, it’s also the quality of people… If we want to survive as a European civilisation, then we have to seal ourselves off from mass immigration,” the AfD politician is quoted as saying. The BfV argued that distinguishing migrants by their quality demonstrated an “antipluralistic view of society would not be compatible with human dignity.” The agency also cited Höcke’s use of terms such as the “Great Replacement” and calling for remigration as evidence of extremism.
Comments from AfD leader Alice Weidel also drew the ire of the political spy agents for comments linking certain minority ethnic groups to crime in Germany, as she pointed out that migrant crime was undercounted, as the government statistics do not list those who gain citizenship among migrant criminals. She pointed specifically to people from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria as having higher crime rates than native Germans. This, the BfV said, “reduces the entirety of migrants from these countries as fundamentally more dangerous than Germans through blanket insinuations.”
Additionally, the intelligence agency objected to suggestions that Islamic culture is not compatible with Christian societies like Germany, despite the frequent jihadi terror attacks in the country since the opening of the floodgates to migration from the Muslim world.
Suggesting that “real integration” of Muslims into Christian countries was largely impossible, AfD member of the Bundestag Christina Baum was cited as saying: “Many of our Muslim fellow citizens never made a secret of saying out loud what they think of us Germans, our laws and traditions – namely nothing, not at all. Most of them despise us and consider us women fair game.”
Even simple policy proposals surrounding immigration were documented, including calls from Brandenburg state MP Lena Kotre for the government to employ private contractors to carry out deportation services. According to the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, such suggestions ignored that deportations are “human rights-intensive interventions”.
The report also accused the party of having downplayed the crimes of Nazi Germany, citing Höcke’s use of the phrase “Everything for Germany”, a phrase that predates the 20th century. Höcke has claimed that he was unaware of its ties to the Nazi regime. The BfV also cited comments from state parliamentarian Hans-Thomas Tillschneider, who is cited as saying in 2023 that “only a tiny proportion of Wehrmacht soldiers committed crimes” and thus it was unfair to brand “our great-grandfathers and our grandfathers” as criminals.
The leaked report was heavily criticised by a constitutional law professor at the University of Augsburg, Josef Franz Lindner, who argued that political parties should largely be exempt from laws enabling state surveillance of “extremist” groups, as it is improper for the government to target political opponents through state surveillance.
“Trying to combat and ‘eliminate’ political opponents with the help of the secret service is unworthy of a mature democracy,” Lindner said.
“The core problem of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) in its current performance is that… it has viewed its mandate primarily in political terms. This is a profound misunderstanding of its own role. A secret service that believes it has the right to participate in the political decision-making process and can, through new, unlawful categories, open up new fields of observation and effectively exclude certain opinions from political discourse, is dangerous,” he added.
In a speech before the Bundestag this week, AfD leader Alice Weidel rejected the notion that her party represented extremism, arguing that the Berlin political establishment was far more extreme.
“An extremist is someone who arbitrarily restricts fundamental rights, as in the Corona period. An extremist is someone who destroys the prosperity of citizens through eco-socialist transformation. An extremist is someone who wants to abolish civil liberties and freedom of expression.”
A person ‘from outside the facility’ carrying a knife broke into a pavilion of the psychiatric hospital in Libourne on Sunday evening, threatening staff with death and causing panic among patients.
‘A man smashed a window of the hospital and forced his way into a pavilion of the psychiatric ward’. The staff present described a man who repeatedly shouted ‘Allahu akbar’ and carried a knife. He threatened those present with death, searched for a doctor at the hospital and finally left the premises”.
The Force Ouvrière union of the Libourne hospital posted on social media that the man ‘tried to enter several pavilions from outside the facility before entering one of them and causing panic among the patients’. He emphasises that ‘the staff present reacted perfectly and kept the patients and themselves safe.’
The country that was just recently considered the heart and key player of Europe, wants to deal a crushing blow to democracy. This is the only way to explain the decision of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, to classify the Alternative for Germany (AfD) as a “confirmed right-wing extremist party”. The establishment of the republic has long been looking for an opportunity to remove the undesirable AfD from the political field of the country. Many were not happy with the fact that Alice Weidel’s party was not shy about telling the truth, which contradicted the EU propaganda mainstream. There is no doubt that the next step of German legislators will be to ban the AfD from participating in the country’s political life, despite the party’s growing support among the population. This is the price for calling for peace, refusing to support Ukraine’s endless war, and disagreeing with the course of militarization of the EU.
The decision of the German authorities, although it became a high-profile political scandal, is not something surprising. Thus, at the end of the last year, Romania’s constitutional court annulled the result of the first round of voting in the presidential election after the victory of Calin Georgescu, who was inconvenient for Brussels. And just recently, in France, the main rival of Emmanuel Macron, Marine Le Pen, has been banned from running for political office for five years after being convicted for embezzling European Union funds. All this is happening against the backdrop of growing censorship in the information field and is a part of the attempts of European hawks to establish their control on the territory of the EU. Some MEPs have become so carried away with totalitarianism that they even tried to dictate to heads of states where and how they should celebrate the anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany.
It is scary to imagine what outcome the killers of European democracy are aiming for, but one thing is clear — it is better to stay away from them. The course toward aggressive rearmament coupled with attempts by some states, in particular Poland and Lithuania, to snatch a share of the EU budget for the implementation of crazy militaristic ideas, such as mining their own borders and creating a “wall of drones”, is unlikely to lead to adequate economic development on the continent. In the current circumstances, Trump’s decision to distance himself from Europe gives a hope that the U.S. will not find itself drawn into another conflict based solely on the desire to shed more blood. The American president needs to either establish tighter control over errant European politicians or seriously consider leaving NATO before it is too late.
The murder trial against the 25-year-old Afghan starts at the regional court in Stuttgart. On November 15, the asylum seeker Ramin F. is said to have killed a jogger. The reason: he was in a bad mood because he had been thrown out of his asylum centre. He therefore decided to kill someone at random. The victim, Fabrice D., was a French software developer. His heart was pierced with a 17-centimetre knife. He bled to death in the street. Ramin F., who had arrived in Germany in 2022, was also previously considered aggressive. A week before the crime, he is said to have threatened the local caretaker in a dispute over a screwdriver: ‘I’ll kill you all!’. After the murder, he fled into a neighbouring forest, but was caught by the police just an hour after the crime. As if all this wasn’t cruel enough, the Afghan now also has a clear idea of how things should go in court. Before Ramin F. took his seat, the interpreter assigned to him by the court had to leave. The Afghan did not want to sit next to a woman.
First, the German government pushed out an unvetted report to brand the largest opposition party as ‘right-wing extremist.’ Then, they claimed it had to stay secret to protect sensitive sources. Now it turns out they lied: The entire report is based on public information.
The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, BfV), Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, placed the political party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) at the center of national political debate after it, on May 2nd, officially classified the party as a “proven right-wing extremist organization” (gesichert rechtsextrem). This designation, announced with the backing of outgoing Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD), is based on a report exceeding 1,100 pages, which was initially kept classified. The institutional rationale was clear: to protect sensitive sources and preserve the agency’s operational methods. However, the official narrative began to unravel when media outlets accessed the full content of the document and published it. Their conclusions are unequivocal: the report contains no classified sources, nor does it include any information that would compromise state security. Rather, the document is an extensive compilation of public statements, social media posts, policy papers, and speeches by party representatives.
The BfV itself states in the report that the analysis is based on “Statements and activities of representatives, officeholders, and organizational units of the AfD,” and that the sources used were “Programmatic writings, publications, statements on internet platforms and social networks, as well as statements in public settings, such as speeches at campaign events.” In other words, the analysis relies entirely on publicly available material. This directly contradicts the justification for keeping the report secret, drawing significant criticism from the media and legal scholars. According to Cicero, the classification was not intended to protect the Verfassungsschutz from external threats, but to conceal the report’s weak foundation from public scrutiny.
The report includes a broad array of quotes that the BfV interprets as indicators of extremist ideology. One of the most frequently cited is a statement by regional parliamentarian Lena Kotré, who said: “With the AfD in power, the murders, terrorist attacks, rapes, and replacement migration that now terrify Germany would never have happened”. The BfV interprets this as undermining human dignity and democratic coexistence. However, as experts quoted by Junge Freiheit note, criticism of migration policy or linking criminal phenomena to immigration does not in itself constitute proof of unconstitutionality. According to German jurisprudence, in cases of ambiguous or interpretable statements, the interpretation most favorable to freedom of expression must be chosen.
Another example cited is a social media comment by AfD member Fabian Küble: “Anyone who is not German should not become a citizen,” made in the context of debates on nationality. The report interprets this as an expression of ethnic nationalism that contradicts Article 1 of the Basic Law. Similarly, it cites a post by the Saxony state chairman of the AfD, Jörg Urban, who wrote: “The government relies … on intimidation—on totalitarian methods, like those we knew in the GDR.” This comparison between the current state apparatus and the repressive regime of East Germany is recorded in the report as a sign of contempt for democratic institutions.
One of the most controversial aspects of the report is the evaluation of policy proposals contained in regional AfD platforms. Notably, a proposal in the Saxony AfD manifesto suggests limiting the number of non-German-speaking children in daycare groups to a maximum of 10% to ensure every child learns the German language. The BfV concludes that such a measure introduces discrimination based on language and, indirectly, ethnicity, thus violating human dignity. The report further argues that, due to the nationwide shortage of childcare facilities, this policy would effectively exclude a large number of migrant-background children from early education opportunities.
The report also includes statements on immigration and crime that refer directly to official data from the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA). Klaus Esser, a regional parliamentarian, wrote on Telegram: “Asylum immigrants commit far more violent crimes against Germans than vice versa,” citing BKA statistics. Even though the data are verifiable, the BfV maintains that such statements perpetuate negative stereotypes and portray migrants as inherently dangerous. In the agency’s interpretation, this type of rhetoric violates the principle of equality and human dignity.
A key legal issue is whether these expressions reflect the party’s official stance or are merely the views of individual members. The BfV report does not provide an evaluation to differentiate between institutional positions and isolated opinions. As constitutional law experts frequently point out, the Federal Constitutional Court requires that unconstitutional aims be characteristic and dominant within the organization—not marginal or incidental—for a classification of extremism to be legally valid.
Beyond its content, the potential use of the report as a basis for banning the party has raised further concerns. A party ban, as outlined in Article 21 of the Basic Law, is an extraordinary measure that demands unequivocal proof that the party seeks to eliminate the free democratic order. Given the lack of intelligence sources, the prevalence of ideological interpretations, and the ambiguity of many cited statements, it is unclear whether the legal threshold has been met.
The full publication of the report by independent media now enables the public to directly examine the foundations upon which the state has made one of its most consequential decisions in recent years. As Junge Freiheit put it: “The sovereign in this country is not Friedrich Merz or Nancy Faeser, but the citizens of this country.” With the document now accessible, the discussion is no longer limited to leaks or official interpretations but can proceed based on direct analysis of the facts.
The Svea Court of Appeal in Sweden has upheld a lower court ruling acquitting three Afghan-born individuals of the murder of Ako Abbas, a 37-year-old man whose dismembered body was discovered in a suitcase in a wooded area on Värmdö in March 2024.
The verdict leaves no one convicted of the killing itself, despite significant circumstantial evidence and allegations of an honor-related motive. All three defendants, however, were convicted of lesser charges related to the killing.
The case drew national attention when Abbas’s body was found on March 10, 2024. As reported by the Samnytt news site, the investigation led to charges against three people: 24-year-old Wajiha Korashi, her brother Sayed Rija Korashi, and her husband’s brother Saeed Waziri.
A fourth individual, Wajiha’s husband, Farid Vaziri, is still at large and remains the main murder suspect. His DNA was found at the crime scene, and he is wanted internationally.
Prosecutors argued that the crime was driven by honor-based motives, pointing to Abbas’s relationship with Wajiha Korashi, who was married at the time. Concerns were raised that Abbas possessed compromising photos and videos of her.
However, both courts found the evidence for an explicit honor motive inconclusive. While cultural and familial pressure may have formed part of the background, the courts concluded that honor was not sufficiently proven as the primary motive.
The court also found, despite the nature of the killing and the suspects’ alleged involvement in events before and after the attack, that the evidence was not sufficient to prove who committed the actual murder. Both courts determined that while the defendants played roles in related criminal acts, the threshold for a murder conviction had not been met.
Wajiha Korashi was sentenced instead to two years and three months in prison for aiding and abetting aggravated assault and aggravated violation of grave peace. The Court of Appeal concluded she had lured Abbas to the scene, helped pack his body, and organized her escape with assistance from others.
Saeed Waziri was given one year and eight months for aggravated grave peace violation, and Sayed Rija Korashi received one year and six months for protection of a criminal and attempted aggravated fraud, after helping his sister flee and assisting in securing false documents.
Efforts to deport Wajiha Korashi after her prison term were also rejected. Although she is not a Swedish citizen, the court found that returning her to Afghanistan would pose a serious risk of gender-based persecution and discrimination. The two men involved also could not be deported, as they now hold Swedish citizenship.
The suspected killer, Farid Vaziri, remains on the run. Authorities believe he played a central role in the killing, helped dispose of the body, and fled the country alongside Wajiha.
An international arrest warrant is in effect, but his whereabouts are unknown.
