Author: fredalanmedforth

Concerns over the breakdown of social cohesion, increasing violence, and the rise of Islamism have reached an “unprecedented level” in France, according to a survey which found over four in ten believe the country is heading towards civil war.

A survey from Ifop published in Le Figaro to coincide with the 120th anniversary of the passing of the Secularism Act of 1905 and the 10th anniversary of the Bataclan Islamist terror attacks in Paris in 2015, has found that the French public is increasingly sceptical of the multicultural project foisted upon the nation, with many fearing that their society may devolve into full-on chaos.

According to the poll, a record eight in ten people in France believe the country is at risk of experiencing a “social explosion” in the coming months.

While the “explosion” could come in the form of riots such as the ones experienced in 2023 following the police killing of an Algerian-heritage teen, or like the Yellow Vest or farmers’ protest movements, a staggering 42 per cent are concerned that it could come in the form of an outright civil war. The survey also found 39 per cent could envision an attack on the Élysée Palace (the residence of the French president) or the National Assembly.

In any event, the French public appears to be losing faith in their public institutions’ ability to withstand the growing turmoil, with six in ten expressing doubt over the government’s ability to maintain stability in the country. This comes as the National Assembly remains mired in a three-way split and in the wake of three governments collapsing since the start of last year.

One of the key drivers of the growing feeling of instability found by the survey was the spread of Islamist ideology throughout France. The poll found that 72 per cent were concerned about growing Islamism in working-class neighbourhoods, 70 per cent about it in prisons, 63 per cent in schools, 56 per cent in universities, and 52 per cent in sports clubs.

Islam in general was by far seen as the religion most likely to harbour radical positions at 63 per cent, compared to Judaism at 23 per cent and Catholicism at 16 per cent.

While the public was mostly tolerant towards some practices of the Muslim faith, such as praying five times a day and abstaining from alcohol, others, such as forcing young girls to wear veils or refusing to shake the hand of a person of the opposite sex, are seen as signs of radicalisation.

Other major factors seen as contributing to the breakdown in social cohesion surrounded issues of multiculturalism, with 88 per cent citing the “evolution of delinquency” on the streets of France, 82 per cent the “concentration of populations of the same culture or origin in neighbourhoods,” and 75 per cent pointing to the public spaces becoming “occupied by religions”. Outside of multiculturalism, only income inequality, at 77 per ent, was seen as playing a meaningful role in the cultural decay.

The growing concern over Islamism and multiculturalism appears to be having an impact on the political sphere. According to the survey, over eight in ten see the far-left La France Insoumise (France Unbowed) party of Jean-Luc Mélenchon as contributing to societal divisions.

Perhaps influencing this perception, supporters of the LFI, which has been an outspoken proponent of Gaza in the conflict with Israel, were the most likely to hold a positive perspective on radical Islam, with 36 per cent saying they would support Islamism.

Conversely, while the legacy media and the political establishment have long attempted to deride the National Rally as divisive and outside the bounds of acceptable politics, 39 percent of the public now sees Marine Le Pen’s anti-mass migration party as beneficial to France’s cohesion.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/03/28/four-in-ten-fear-civil-war-in-france-amid-spread-of-islamism-breakdown-of-social-cohesion

By H. Sterling Burnett

The Paris Climate Agreement was flawed; doomed to fail from its inception. It is long past time for all parties to it and the media to acknowledge this fact.

The mainstream media have bemoaned the Paris Agreement’s fate since Donald Trump’s reelection. Trump took the United States out of the Paris Agreement during his first term, and vowed to do so again after President Biden put America back into the agreement. While Trump withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement was a visible and public rebuke of the pact, undermining its “effectiveness,” in point of fact, the agreement was dead even before the ink of the last signature on it was dry.

Physics, economic, and social realities on the ground, and the structure of the treaty itself ensured that the Paris Agreement would be ineffective in preventing greenhouse gas emissions from rising.

As I noted shortly after the time of its completion in 2015, even those who developed the agreement at the time quietly acknowledged that emission reduction pledges made by the signatory countries would be insufficient to keep temperatures below the 2.0℃ threshold. By their accounting at the time, if every party to the agreement actually cut emissions by the amount they agreed to, it would result in less than half the greenhouse gas cuts required to halt temperatures at the upper limit of 2.0 degrees. By 2017, the UN reported that even if every country abides by its Paris commitments, a dubious proposition at best, temperatures would still rise by 3 degrees C by 2100.

Also dooming the Paris Agreement is the fact, as reported by the BBC, that a number of countries are openly discussing not keeping their commitments. Mind you, those same countries have failed to keep their commitments so far, but now they are openly conversing about it. Argentina, Indonesia (a top 10 global CO2 emitter), South Africa (Africa’s largest emitter), and South Korea, among other countries supposedly committed to reining in fossil fuel use and cutting their emissions, are now openly saying they will increase production of coal, natural gas, and oil. Moreover, they hope to import those products from the United States.

They are blaming Trump for their decision, but the data show that every single country now saying they want more fossil fuels was, in fact, increasing its use of fossil fuels long before Trump was reelected and pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement. In fact, no country that set specific targets for emission reductions in the first Paris commitment period has made significant progress toward meeting its goals.

Further evidence the Paris Agreement is dead has been reported by Yahoonews.com. Of the nearly 200 countries that signed the Paris agreement, only 10 submitted their updated carbon reduction commitments by the deadline. That makes 190 scofflaws. Also, even those 10 have failed to meet their previous carbon reduction commitments.

It also bears noting that two of the three biggest carbon dioxide emitters in the world, China and India, have no firm commitments under the Paris Agreement. Rather than promising to cut emissions, they vaguely said that they expect at some point in the future to see their emissions peak. If CO2 emissions are driving climate change, China’s emissions trajectory — which has grown steadily since 2015 — would ensure more atmospheric CO2 in 2030 and 2050, regardless of what the rest of the world did or did not do.

Another compelling reason that the Paris Agreement was bound to fail was aptly described by philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan: “Covenants, without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.” That describes each and every climate agreement developed thus far, in a nutshell.

The Paris Agreement was never a binding treaty. Under its terms, the nearly 200 nations that signed were supposed to set individualized targets to reduce or cap carbon dioxide emissions. However, none of those goals, or even the commitment to set such goals, was enforceable internationally. Unless and until the individual countries actually enact the targets through domestic law, they aren’t even binding within the legal system of any individual country.

In the end, the Paris Agreement requires sacrifice, sustained and deep sacrifice, for no discernable gain. Politicians want to stay in power and are loathe to stay a policy course that visibly harms their constituents for payoffs decades after they are out of office. That is the main, realpolitik reason the Paris Climate Agreement was doomed from day one. Now is the time to speak its eulogy, without regret. The trillions of dollars wasted to date on it are sunk costs, but at least we can now cease throwing good money after bad.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/03/the_paris_climate_agreement_was_doomed_from_the_start.html

On today’s #NCFDeprogrammed, hosts Harrison Pitt and Connor Tomlinson are joined by Adam Limb, a writer for The Mallard and The Critic.

By Olivia Murray

Medical murder comes for the disabled children. Again.

I mean, we’ve been here before, but for some reason, a sizable enough portion of the population refuses to heed the words commonly attributed to Spanish thinker, George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” and so we traditionalists, “clinging to” (as Barack Obama might derogatorily say) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are left to scream into the void about how today it’s the retarded kids, tomorrow it’s us.

Jonathon Van Maren’s new report at Life News reveals that in 2024, the Netherlands put 219 people to death, based on “psychological suffering” of the individual. For reference, this was a 10,850% increase over the previous 14 years. Thirty of those lives, or around 14%, belonged to either very young, or relatively young people.

It gets worse, though, from UnHerd’s Yuan Yi Zhu: “An unspecified number of minors were also euthanised.” The one specific given is that one of the minors, a teenage boy, was euthanized over his autism.

Now, to recall your attention back to 1930s Germany, from the testimony (via abortion: the SILENT HOLOCAUST) of a Sister Rutilia, a nun whose religious order was tasked to care for physically and mentally disabled children:

[O]ne day we heard that the government was planning to take them [the children] away and to kill them, just because they were retarded or handicapped. At first we could not believe this, but we prayed anyway. Oh, how we prayed for our children! But one day the vans came and soldiers took away our little babies. They threw them into the vans like sacks of potatoes and took them off to the ‘killing centers.’

Here’s some incredible, and utterly tragic, irony: the Dutch doctors of the 1930s were the first line of resistance when the Third Reich invaded:

[W]hen the Reich Commander for the Occupied Netherlands Territories invited Dutch physicians to rehabilitate people for the sole purpose of putting them to forced labor, the Dutch doctors adamantly refused. They knew it would be the first, slight step away from principle and medical ethics. They were men in the service of men. They would not treat human beings like pawns. When these Dutch physicians were threatened with revocation of their licenses, they simply mailed in their licenses and took down their shingles. Even when the Reich Commander had one hundred Dutch doctors arrested and sent to concentration camps, the whole Dutch medical profession continued to stand firm [emphasis added].

Was all the courage and sacrifice made in vain? What happened to that spirit? Hegelianism, leftism, and “progress,” that’s what.

As governments continue to sanitize the world of the indesirables—how many times have we seen this now?—seems like we’re the only ones paying attention, signaling like the canary in the coalmine about what this means for the rest of humanity, and where it’s going next.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/03/new_report_netherlands_is_now_euthanizing_minors.html

The suspect of a stabbing incident on the Sint Nicolaasstraat in Amsterdam on Thursday was arrested after he had been detained by a good samaritan. The suspect is currently being taken to the hospital with an injury to the leg as a result of the arrest, police have reported on X. Five people were critically injured as a result of the stabbing, including two who were severely hurt, police said. There have been no updates on their condition.

“Not four but five people were injured. In addition, the suspect also sustained injuries,” police said on X. Authorities have not yet shared anything about the suspect’s motive, but justice minister David van Weel said terrorism has not been excluded.

The incident unfolded just after 3:15 p.m. when witnesses say two people were stabbed on Sint Nicolaasstraat. The two victims appeared to be an older man and a younger man in his early 20s, according to Parool.

Moments later, The attacker moved towards the Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal, where he stabbed a young woman in her mid 20s in the back in front of the store Dutch Quilts. The store is located at the intersection of the two streets.

The last stabbing occured on the sunny patio in front of the 3 Fleschjes cafe on the Gravenstraat. The fourth woman, who witnesses said was of an older age, was also stabbed in the back, a bar employee told Parool. Security footage from the area shows the suspect running off as bystanders chased after him.

Witnesses described the events to media outlets at the scene saying the stabbings appeared to be random in nature. The assailant was not heard shouting any politically or religiously motivated slogans, according to NOS. In fact, witnesses did not hear him utter anything out loud.

The suspect in the case made his way towards the H&M on the Nieuwendijk shopping street, at which point, a good samaritan tackled the individual. A woman at the scene said the bystander then sat on the suspect at the intersection with Valkensteeg and pinned him on the ground until police arrived and took him into custody.

“He looked normal. Middle aged, but it went very fast. I did not see much more than that,” the woman told Parool.

A video of the arrest obtained by AT5 showed the suspect being brought under control by one police officer as another arrived to provide assistance. Police said the man’s leg was injured in the struggle with the good samaritan.

He was also taken to an area hospital, police confirmed. He did not appear to resist arrest.

investigators were still working from a command post set up at Dam Square, hours after the violence took place.

https://nltimes.nl/2025/03/27/five-critically-hurt-amsterdam-stabbing-bystander-pinned-suspect

Trust in Germany’s political establishment is not just waning—it is collapsing. Friedrich Merz, poised to become Germany’s next chancellor, has achieved the remarkable feat of being called a liar before he has even been officially appointed by parliament.

A recent poll provides a damning indictment of his political manoeuvring: 73% of respondents—including 44% of his own CDU supporters—believe he has deceived voters. In eastern Germany, entire local CDU associations have resigned from the party, with one group’s letter of resignation capturing the raw sentiment: “We feel betrayed by you and look to Germany’s future with even more trepidation than during the previous coalition.”

This level of disillusionment is unprecedented in post-war German politics. It stems from a technocratic style of government that is fundamentally bankrupt—devoid of vision and principle, and driven by a singular obsession: to suppress populist challenges.

Calling Merz a liar may seem harsh because, in truth, he has never hidden his authoritarian anti-populist stance. Although he has presented himself as something of an anti-establishment rebel, opposing the green-left consensus that has governed the country so poorly in recent years, he has consistently been committed to excluding the right-populist AfD. 

Last October, he brazenly declared: “There is no longer a left-wing majority in Germany, but a theoretical right-of-centre majority. But we say quite clearly: we will not cooperate with the AfD. If you want a change of course, you have to vote for the CDU and CSU”. 

Unsurprisingly, this strategic attempt to win back disgruntled populist voters by promising their exclusion backfired spectacularly. In the February election, Merz’s CDU scraped into first place with a meagre 28.5% of the vote, while the ‘hated’ AfD doubled its share to 20%. Instead of securing a comfortable majority, Merz found himself desperately seeking a coalition partner. Standing by his earlier pledge to rule out any cooperation with the AfD, Merz quickly announced a coalition with the SPD—the former governing party that had lost the election so spectacularly.

Since then, his political manoeuvring has revealed a stark disconnect between campaign promises and post-election realities. On the campaign trail, he promised a ‘180-degree turn’ on asylum policy and permanent border controls in response to a series of deadly attacks, many committed by rejected asylum seekers. But almost immediately after the election, his rhetoric shifted dramatically: “None of us are talking about closing the borders. Nobody! Even if that was perhaps claimed at times during the election campaign. But none of us want to close the borders,” he trumpeted.  

When confronted with the possibility of having misled voters, Merz resorted to semantic gymnastics. Fact-checkers rushed to his defence, arguing that he had only promised to ‘’secure’ the German border, not to ‘close’ it—a distinction that has done little to quell growing voter frustration.

The true depth of Merz’s political expediency was revealed in his approach to defence and debt reform. During the election campaign, he positioned himself as a staunch advocate of fiscal austerity and of Germany’s constitutional ‘debt brake.’ In February, just after the elections, he still declared emphatically: “It is out of the question that we will reform the debt brake in the near future.” Yet in early March, he pushed through a law to borrow billions to boost Germany’s crumbling infrastructure and its failing army, using a strategy that has raised serious questions about his understanding of democratic representation.

His tactical maneuver was calculated and controversial. Knowing that the AfD and the Left Party—significant electoral gainers—would oppose his plans, Merz chose to rush the vote through the outgoing parliament before the new parliament convened on March 25th. The result was a legislative sleight of hand: MPs who had lost electoral support were able to decide on far-reaching changes while newly elected representatives were summarily excluded.

In his eagerness to win the support of the Greens—which he also needed for his two-thirds majority—to reform the debt brake, Merz went even further. He agreed to allocate billions to a climate fund and pushed through a commitment to make Germany carbon neutral by 2045, enshrining the goal in the constitution.

All this has made a mockery of the voters’ desire for change. Merz’s approach is also not without historical irony. Arguments over the debt brake had previously led to the collapse of the despised coalition led by Olaf Scholz (SPD). In the autumn of 2023, Germany’s highest court had blocked attempts to circumvent the brake and use COVID-19 emergency funds to plug budget gaps—a ruling that Merz and his CDU had enthusiastically supported at the time.

It has become very clear that Merz will do everything to uphold the old status quo. He is not the force for change that many had hoped for. Pleasing his potential coalition partner has taken precedence over satisfying voters’ will—even the will of his own CDU voters.

Economically, Merz is counting on the stimulus of new debt. He hopes that there will be substantial financial investment that will boost the German economy. He may also be speculating that voter anger will dissipate before the next election cycle. Given that many of Germany’s problems are in fact structural, it is more than doubtful that this strategy will succeed. 

But it’s the wider implications that are most worrying. The German establishment seems to have reached a point where, in its quest to combat populism, maintaining the facade of democratic responsiveness is no longer even deemed necessary. The question remains: How far will they go to marginalize and combat populist sentiments?

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/how-far-will-germany-go-to-keep-the-firewall-against-populists/

In a live discussion on Channel Zero, Polish presidential candidate Sławomir Mentzen of the Confederation party touched on various topics, including Poland’s security and mandatory military training. Mentzen is currently third in the polls, behind Rafał Trzaskowski (KO) and Karol Nawrocki (PiS).

During this interview, Menzten reiterated his idea to ensure politicians do not rush to drag the country into wars, writes Do Rzeczy.

“Politicians’ children should be the first to go to the front. This will introduce a mechanism — thanks to which politicians do not get involved in wars in which they should not get involved — because they then risk the health and lives of their own children,” emphasized the Confederation candidate.

“The task of a member of parliament is to sit in the Sejm, to make laws during a war […] while the children of politicians should be in the first row to go to war because these politicians caused the outbreak of this war, and they should be the first to suffer the consequences,” he continued.

Asked about military training, Mentzen said that it should be mandatory for young people after high school. “But not for everyone, because the Polish army is not able to train everyone. In addition, this training should be paid, i.e., these people should receive money for the training they undergo during this period,” Mentzen commented. 

The politician recalled another argument in favor of military training. “In war, just like in any other industry (…) knowledge, experience, skills are valuable. The chance that someone who has undergone such training, who will be drafted into the army anyway, if push comes to shove, will survive is much greater,” he said, adding that training “drastically increases their chances of survival in the event of a war breaking out.”

Conscription is also currently being pushed in Germany, and various liberal news outlets are pushing for young people to fight to “defend freedom and diversity” by joining the army.

Poland: Politicians’ kids should be sent to the frontline first, says right-wing presidential candidate in new law proposal

by Giulio Meotti

The English government has just appointed the new head of Ofsted, the body that inspects public schools. His name is Hamid Patel and he is a mufti.

And then they say that “Islamization does not exist”.

Patel was the headmaster of a school in Blackpool, the first in the country to ask pupils to wear the hijab outside of school, to “recite the Koran at least once a week” and to “not carry stationery containing non-Islamic images”. And while he was at it, Patel also invited a Saudi imam to speak badly of Jews, which never hurts.

A sort of emirate in Lancashire.

The Oftsed thus gets its “first religious leader in history” and since there will soon be more practicing Muslims than Christians in England why not get ahead of the curve a little?

“England and Europe are sinking into decline, naivety and fear” writes imam Hassen Chalghoumi, who knows what he’s talking about since in France he has to wear a bulletproof vest and go around with an armed escort like a head of state. “An Islamist to head Ofsted, the UK’s leading education body… This is the result of the appeasement of political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood. We would never see such an appointment in the Arab and Muslim world, except in Afghanistan and Iran. The Islamist grip is no longer just on our doorstep, it is now within the system.”

I looked at Patel’s photo several times and then pinched myself, thinking it was a joke. A mufti with a Salafi beard and in Islamic robes appointed to head the UK’s most important education body?

“The UK could fall into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists” and become “an Islamist state with nuclear weapons.” It is not the usual alarmist Meotti who says this, but Suella Braverman, former British Home Secretary.

Demographic change is the defining megatrend with the most important implications for Europe’s societies, culture and governance structures. Just look at the percentage of Muslims in the country’s major cities:

London, 15 percent Muslim

Birmingham, 1,149,000 inhabitants: (29.9 percent)

Bradford: 536,000 inhabitants (30.5 percent)

Manchester: 553,000 inhabitants (22.3 percent)

Leicester: 357,000 inhabitants (23.5 percent)

Nottingham: 331,000 inhabitants (12.2 percent)

Blackburn: 148,000 inhabitants (35 percent)

Luton: 218,000 inhabitants (32.9 percent)

Slough: 164,000 inhabitants (29.4 percent)

Pendle: 91,000 inhabitants (26 percent) hundred)

Oldham: 237,000 (24.4 percent)

Rochdale: 211,000 (18.8 percent)

Kirklees: 438,000 (19 percent)

Sheffield: 556,000 (10.3 percent)

It’s not hard to imagine what they’ll look like in, say, 20-30 years: the judge, the police chief and the TV presenter will be wearing shalwar kameez.

In the post-war period, British elites launched an experiment. They wanted to prove that multiculturalism was compatible with Britain’s great liberal tradition. They created modern British exceptionalism: the mixture of liberalism and multiculturalism would solve the problems of a multi-ethnic nation. But multiculturalism and liberalism are only compatible as long as minority groups are committed to liberal values, and in Britain, minority groups clearly are not. So multiculturalism and liberalism have proven incompatible. And now multiculturalism, not liberalism, rules Britain.

Mufti Patel is from Blackburn.

Among the areas Ed Husain visited to chronicle the Islamisation of England in his magnificent book “Among the Mosques” is Blackburn. “It has the largest Muslim population outside London and is the global hub of the Deobandis, the movement that created the Taliban in Afghanistan,” he explains in the book. White people told him they were afraid to enter “no-go areas” of the city, such as Whalley Range. “The main street is full of Hajj shops, gender-segregated restaurants, Islamic bookshops and a number of mosques.”

There are more than 40 mosques in Blackburn and a quarter of the population is already Muslim, reports Daily Mail reporter Neil Tweedie. The whites are leaving. The first church in Blackburn that was used as a mosque was in 1978.

Anyone in their right mind reading about Patel’s appointment doesn’t see a respected educator but a harbinger of a future in which more and more of the people who matter will be dressed like this while they’re chairman of the BBC or governor of the Bank of England or headmaster of Oxford.

The number of Muslims in the UK has risen to 6.5 per cent of the total population, up from 4.9 in 2011, according to the 2021 census. What makes this shift even more striking is the age demographic: an overwhelming 84.5 per cent of Muslims are under 50, compared to just 62 per cent of the overall population. In other words, Islam isn’t just growing, it’s shaping Britain’s future.

Sharia courts are growing in the country.

People pray to Allah even inside Westminster.

Today’s churches will be tomorrow’s mosques: Christians, even nominally, are no longer the majority. In ten years, Islam has doubled, and for the first time in 1,300 years, Christianity is no longer the majority.

Demographics have started to shift rapidly. Muhammad has become the most popular name among newborns in the United Kingdom for the first time.

London has become the world capital of Islamic investment.

Before the end of this decade, we will be in a completely new phase.

Just go to Luton to see it. A sea change in customs, civilization and culture. In Luton, writes the Wall Street Journal, 32 percent of the population is Muslim.

In the new phase, the Anglican church will be a Pakistani mosque, the pub a halal butcher’s shop, the clothes shop a hijab warehouse and the bookshop a travel agency to Mecca.

Judge for yourself whether the liberal multiculturalism experiment has been a success.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/405946

On Friday March 21, the first deputy mayor of Nice, responsible for security, announced on social media that the ‘MS Market’, a late-night shop on Boulevard de la Madeleine, had been closed for a month (for the third time). At the time, Anthony Borré spoke of ‘a business that has been worrying local residents for several weeks’. In a video on his X account, he called on the state to allow the city council to close the shop permanently.

A decision that provoked the wrath of a young resident of the neighbourhood. In a 40-second video published on Instagram, which we were able to view from a police source, he verbally attacked the MP, insulted him and threatened to kill him several times. ‘Anthony Borré, where do you think you are? This is my livelihood, you son of a bitch. This is my home here, La Madeleine is our home here, this is our neighbourhood. Do you understand, brother?’ he shouts from behind his camera, alternating between insults in French and Arabic. ‘Bring whoever you want, we’ll send you all home with a beating. Wallah I’ll catch you with a Schlass (knife, editor’s note)’, he continues. And even more threatening: ‘Anthony Borré, stay calm, otherwise we’ll tie you up in a car boot and take you to the Costière. We’ll put you on the cross of Jesus, you’ll die like Jesus!’

The deputy, who denounces ‘limitless’ slumming, has filed a complaint. (…)

Le Figaro

Nice : un élu menacé pour vouloir fermer une épicerie de nuit pic.twitter.com/kJ9jHPrUr0

— Fdesouche.com est une revue de presse (@F_Desouche) March 26, 2025

According to information from Radio BFM Nice Côte d’Azur, the author of the threats has been arrested. He was due to appear on Wednesday March 26th, but his trial was postponed until May 12th as he had asked to prepare his defence. He was therefore remanded in custody until his judgement. (…)

BFMTV / “Wallah j’te prends à coups de schlass. Tu vas mourir comme Jésus, on va te faire la croix” : un élu de Nice menacé de mort par le gérant d’une épicerie de nuit visé par une fermeture administrative. L’individu incarcéré (MàJ) – Fdesouche

Such hatred of women, such disdain! The public prosecutor’s accusation: in order to find out whether his ex-girlfriend had cheated on him, a young woman was asked to swear on the Koran. When she refused, the man attacked her and raped her. He had previously beaten her up with a baseball bat.
Bulgarian Ilia K. ( aged 24) is led in handcuffs to his trial in room 12 E at Frankfurt District Court on Wednesday, hiding under his anorak. Almost exclusively family members and friends are sitting in the audience area. The charges are rape, assault and violation of the Protection Against Violence Act. His victim: ex-girlfriend Döndü G. ( aged 19).
The crime scene is Nordweststadt in Frankfurt/Main, a problem district with many high-rise apartment buildings. The young woman had already broken up with K. in 2023 – because he had hit her with a baseball bat. Motive: jealousy! Sentence at the time: ten months’ probation.
But Ilia K. apparently continued to stalk and harass his ex. Prosecutor Luisa Mende says: “He repeatedly threatened to beat up and stab the victim and also threatened family members.”
On June 25, 2024, he then lured his victim into a park, according to the indictment. The prosecutor: “He asked her to put her hand on the Koran and swear that she had not betrayed him.” Döndü did not want to do this, saying that she was on her period and could not swear on the Koran during it.

Her tormentor then allegedly threatened her with death and beat her several times. According to the indictment, he then dragged her by the hair into a bush and raped her. He also threatened to do this again and to videotape it. Then the entire city of Frankfurt would see the video. Ilia K. kept a straight face as the charges were read out. “Today we will remain silent, he will not make any statements, neither about the crime nor about his personal circumstances”, said his lawyer Ivo Hänel.

Unbelievable: at the end of the trial, the alleged rapist even wanted kisses and hugs from his mother. The court did not allow this.
The trial will continue on March 31. Döndü G., who is severely traumatized, will probably have to face her tormentor. K.’s lawyer has so far refused to allow video interrogation from the next room. It has not yet been decided whether the judge will allow this.

Staatsanwältin sicher: Frau wollte nicht auf Koran schwören, vergewaltigt | Regional | BILD.de