Belgium: Osman Calli, a Turk convicted by the Belgian judiciary of killing four women in one night, “enjoys the beach and the sun at large” in Turkey

Osman Calli, the Turkish-born Ghent resident sentenced to life in prison in 2008 for four counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder, arson, carjacking and hostage-taking, was released in 2020. This was confirmed by the FPS Justice on Monday, confirming a report by HLN. The man had been transferred to Turkey in 2013 to serve the rest of his sentence, but was released there.

“The Belgian authorities have not been formally informed about a possible release,” said Sharon Beavis of the FPS Justice communications department. Osman Calli, on the other hand, has started a new life in Turkey and says today that he “enjoys the Turkish beach and sun” and wants to be “left alone”.

On the night of November 11-12, 2004, Osman Calli had shot his wife Teslime and his sister Hacer in their house in Ghent. He had set the house on fire and then driven to Nieuwerkerken near Aalst, where he broke into the house of Wendy Blendeman, his ex-wife and mother of his eight-year-old son, who lived there with her boyfriend Henri De Cooman and her mother Marie-Louise De Rop. Osman Calli opened fire and shot his ex-wife and her mother. The spouse, who had been hit by a bullet in the chest, had survived. The murderer had then committed carjacking and forced the driver to take him to Ghent. There he forced his way into the house of a man he falsely suspected of adultery with his wife. The latter was injured by a gunshot and has been paralysed ever since.

(…) In their conversation, which was recorded on video, the man who had killed four women declared himself bluntly. “I have fulfilled all my obligations (…) I am a free man, free as a bird. I enjoy the sun, the sea and the beach here. I have started a new life, soon I will be the father of a little boy. Now I want to be left alone,” the man shouted in a video call broadcast on the Flemish channel.7sur7.be

https://www.fdesouche.com/2022/02/16/belgique-osman-calli-un-turc-condamne-par-la-justice-belge-pour-avoir-tue-4-femmes-en-une-nuit-profite-librement-de-la-plage-et-du-soleil-en-turquie/

Trudeau’s Justice Minister Says Being “Pro-Trump” is a Factor That will Decide if Your Bank Account is Frozen Under Emergency Orders (VIDEO)

Is the Canadian Government Starting a Civil War? Trudeau to protesters: If you don’t let our government make your health decisions, we’re willing to shoot you

The Premier of Ontario has declared what he calls a “state of emergency” to justify the Canadian government’s removal of the truckers and their trucks from Ottawa.

Others, however, could view his statement to more closely resemble a Declaration of War

You decide. I urge you to watch the video of the Premier’s statement for yourself.

According to the Premier, each trucker they arrest will face up to one year in prison, have to pay fines up to $100,000 and may likely forfeit their trucks to the Crown!  

The Premier’s position is that the truckers protesting Canada’s mandate requiring truckers to be vaccinated have no “right” to block the roads of Ontario.

He does not, however, satisfactorily address the truckers’ other “rights,” like their right to protest wrongful and immoral actions of their government or even to make their own healthcare decisions. 

Moreover, the Premier completely overlooks the reality that the Canadian government could alleviate the “emergency” in the blink of an eye, if it were willing to remove its tyrannical mandate dictating that all truck drivers shall either receive a vaccine shot or forfeit their “right” to make a living.

In essence, it appears the government of Canada has chosen to declare war on its own people instead of restoring to its citizens their “unalienable” rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  

Civil wars — i.e. revolutions – have been started for far lesser reasons.

And for what?

What are Trudeau and his minions thinking? Why are they willing to unleash possibly lethal force to enforce a diktat on unwilling people that, by all reports is, at best, an ineffective medical experiment. As such, their mandate should more likely be found not only immoral, but unlawful. On this point, Trudeau’s government need go no further than a consideration of the moral, ethical and legal predicates underlying the Nuremburg Code that, in reference to medical experimentation on humans — like the Covid vaccinations — provides, in pertinent part: The voluntary consent of the human subject — i.e. each individual trucker — is absolutely essential. (emphasis added)

By contrast, however, what people like Trudeau are telling the people of Canada is: If you don’t let our government make your health decisions, we’re willing to shoot you.

How is that for the good of public health?

That said, please pray for our Canadian brothers and sisters. Tragically — based on the Premier’s statement — it seems highly foreseeable that at least some Canadians are about to suffer harshly for trying to protect their rights… which appears to be what always happens whenever a totalitarian regime is allowed to seize and retain control of any nation.

Of course, the gaping question this leaves for the world to reflect upon yet again is how should the people of any nation be able to define what it is to properly “protest” against the evils of such a regime in defense of one’s unalienable rights?

Specifically, are protests to be constrained only to such actions that the regime exclusively decides are both “lawful” and “peaceful?”

Some would say, it must be both. Otherwise, they say, some Canadians could quickly find themselves being accused of things like treason, insurrection and/or sedition by a “regime” such as Trudeau’s. But, the problem with this is that many laws such a regime may consider “lawful” may not necessarily always be “moral,” which makes a citizen’s opposition even to those laws that are immoral to be unlawful — i.e. to violate even a law considered immoral is still, technically, unlawful

For example, consider our cherished Declaration of Independence here in America. In large part, it was written for the exact purpose of protesting King George’s immoral laws and procedures. However, under the King’s laws on the books in 1776, that Declaration presented the King with nothing less than clear evidence of a criminal conspiracy to commit crimes against the Crown – which, of course, made the proclamations of our founding fathers “unlawful.” At a minimum, this requires one to conclude that our founding fathers at some point must have decided that trying to remain “lawful” in the course of protesting an evil regime is most assuredly not always possible. That is, if those protesting the laws issued by the Crown ever hope to succeed.

Logic and reason also present similar problems with respect to the concept of protestors only having recourse to “peaceful” means when attempting to resist the evil of a tyrannical regime.

If tyrannies throughout history have proven anything, it is that sometimes to achieve success, actions must be taken by those on the side of “good” that necessarily must often fall far short of what may be considered “peaceful.” For instance, consider World War II. To successfully protest the evils of Hitler’s Nazi regime required actions to be taken by U.S. forces that were about as “peaceful” as those that were taken by George Washington to successfully protest the evils practices of the British Crown. Clearly, neither of these stands taken by Americans to “protest” the evil of their day were remotely even “mostly peaceful.” Yet, both are undeniable instances where violence was absolutely necessary and appropriate to defeat the evils presented at those moments in our nation’s history.

Which, of course, then leaves us with the question of whether the rights of the Canadian truckers that are presently at stake are of such fundamental importance that the merits of the protest warrant an escalation to acts of resistance that are either or both unlawful or unpeaceful?

No doubt, most of us would sincerely hope to conclude they are not yet at that place. And, in fact, anyone with any sanity would most certainly want to cling to the hope as long as possible that they never will be drawn to such a place where bloodshed results almost invariably.

Nor is this analysis of the Ontario Premier’s state of emergency a call for such a civil war – or, if you prefer, revolution — to transpire in Canada!

But, with that said, it is equally important to note, that’s not to say by this discourse that such a civil war in Canada’s immediate future is not possible.

The truth is somewhere in between – consequent to the Ontario Premier’s declaration this week, some form of civil war in Canada seems far more likely to happen – and now even more foreseeable — in the days to come than appeared to be the case even the day before the Premier of Ontario issued his government’s threat to the truckers. And, for all concerned, that trend is not a good thing.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/02/canadian-government-starting-civil-war-cliff-n/

Dr. Zelenko On Vaccines During Active Pandemics: “Causing Evolutionary Pressure To Create More Dangerous Variants”

The Islamist killer of Father Hamel had posted on social media: “You take a knife, you go into a church, you make a bloodbath, you cut off two, three heads”

Could the murder of Father Hamel have been prevented? This question cannot be answered, but the errors of the secret services are at the heart of the trial taking place before the Special Jury Court in Paris. Nevertheless, the five agents of these services do not plan to appear at the hearing.

These anti-terror police officers were monitoring the social networks. A week before the attack, they had tracked down hate messages and identified the author: Adel Kermiche, who was under electronic ankle bracelet at his home in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray (Seine-Maritime). On 19 July, he had posted: “You take a knife, you go to a church, you make a bloodbath”, but the police officers had not informed the DGSI, the Central Intelligence Service. The presiding judge of the jury court must decide whether to force the five policemen to testify. Franceinfo

(…) Especially on his Telegram channel called “Haqq-Wad’Dalil”, which he had started on June 11, 2016. A few days before the attack, on July 21, an officer of the DRPP (Direction du renseignement de la préfecture de police de Paris) came across Adel Kermiche’s channel, on which he posted 118 photos, three videos, 89 voice messages… In response to a question from an internet user, he had replied: …] If I personally had the opportunity to carry out an assassination, i.e. weapons, the whole shebang, the whole shebang, to be honest, you have to catch such an opportunity immediately…. Ouest-France

https://www.fdesouche.com/2022/02/16/proces-de-lassassinat-du-pere-hamel-une-semaine-avant-lattentat-lun-des-assaillants-avait-poste-sur-les-reseaux-sociaux-tu-prends-un-couteau-tu-vas-dans-une-eglise-tu-fais-un-carnage-t/

German dictionary removes warning that the word ‘Jew’ is discriminatory

The main dictionary of standard German has altered its definition of Jew (“Jude” in German) after being castigated by the German Jewish community for a recent update of the definition that explained the word could be considered discriminatory.

The online edition of the Duden dictionary had changed the definition of Jew to include a caveat that “occasionally, the term Jew is perceived as discriminatory because of the memory of the National Socialist use of language. In these cases, formulations such as Jewish people, Jewish fellow citizens or people of the Jewish faith are usually chosen.”

But the Associated Press reported that the updated definition caused a backlash from German Jewish groups and members of the Jewish community who were livid, explaining that many Jewish people call themselves Jews and that the word itself is not offensive, contrary to the new definition.

“Even if ‘Jew’ is used pejoratively in schoolyards or only hesitantly by some people, and the Duden editors are certainly well-meaning in pointing out this context, everything should be done to avoid solidifying the term as discriminatory,” Joseph Schuster, the president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, said in a statement.

Daniel Botmann, the executive director of the Central Council of Jews, emphasized the absurdity of the new definition in a Twitter post.

“Is it okay to say Jew? Yes! Please don’t say ‘Jewish fellow citizens’ or ‘people of the Jewish faith’. Just JEWS. Thank you!” he wrote.

In response to the outcry, the online dictionary definition was changed and now says: “Because of antisemitic usage in the past and present, especially during the National Socialist era, the words Jew/Jewish have been debated by the language community for decades. At the same time, the words are widely used as a matter of course and are not perceived as problematic. The Central Council of Jews in Germany, which uses the name itself, advocates its use.”

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/322395

Ottawa Residents Are Now Carrying Around Empty Gas Cans to Throw Off Authorities Trying to End the Trucker Protest