Allah's Willing Executioners

It has been revealed that one of France’s most-watched right-wing TV shows, Touche pas a mon poste, will be officially taken off air.

That came after the Council of State, the highest administrative court in France, upheld a decision to strip its channel host C8 of its broadcast frequencies.

The ruling, delivered on February 19, meant C8 would cease operations on the evening of February 28, marking an unprecedented move in the country’s media landscape.

The French court rejected C8’s final appeal against the broadcasting regulator Arcom’s refusal to renew its licence, despite public backlash and an online petition gathering more than 1 million signatures in just 24 hours.

Arcom initially refused to extend C8’s frequencies in the summer of 2024, citing regulatory concerns, prompting it to take its fight to the highest administrative court.

The channel’s renewal was in jeopardy due to controversies surrounding Touche pas à mon Poste and host Cyril Hanouna.

It has faced many sanctions since 2016, with more than half occurring in the past four years, primarily involving Hanouna’s on-air behaviour.

In July 2024, Arcom issued a warning against C8 for “denigrating a political candidate”.

During one show at that time, Hanouna put two leaders of Reconquête and the National Rally in contact by telephone asking them to negotiate ahead of the French legislative elections. During the call, he also denigrated former French president François Hollande.

Arcom then deemed that Hanouna had not respected the obligation to respect political pluralism during electoral periods.

A documentary aired by US television station CBS has apparently revealed how Germany criminalised freedom of opinion, causing shock worldwide. https://t.co/2mjxWMXPmI

— Brussels Signal (@brusselssignal) February 20, 2025

C8, part of the Canal+ media empire owned by Conservative French billionaire Vincent Bolloré, is the entertainment sister channel of CNews, often described as France’s equivalent of Fox News in the US.

In response to the ruling, Canal+ labelled the decision as “baffling” and a first in French audio-visual history, warning of economic and social consequences.

“This ruling results in the outright elimination of a channel that has been part of the audio-visual landscape for almost 20 years, still ranking as the first digital terrestrial television (DTT) channel, attracting over 9 million daily viewers,” the company said in a statement on February 18.

“An entire ecosystem is being sacrificed. Nearly 400 employees and service providers now face job losses,” it added.

The decision has sparked outrage on the Right, with many seeing it as a direct attack on media pluralism and free speech.

Reconquête MEP Sarah Knafo denounced the ruling, stating: “Fifteen judges at the Council of State have just deprived millions of French people of a channel they watched every evening. Administrative justice was meant to protect our freedoms against the arbitrariness of power — instead, it did the opposite.”

Marion Maréchal, president of the right-wing movement Identity and Liberty echoed the concerns, warning that the court’s ruling was another step toward the erosion of media diversity in France.

“The confirmation of C8’s shutdown by Arcom places France among countries where media pluralism, already fragile, is rapidly declining,” she said.

Even before the verdict, National Rally leader Jordan Bardella had warned that the French establishment was cracking down on dissent ahead of the likely closure of C8.

Meanwhile, French leftwing activists celebrated the channel’s demise, taking to social media to mock C8’s flagship right-wing host Hanouna.

“Your tears are so sweet, Cyril Hanouna,” one activist gloated.

“History will remember nothing of your show, except what not to do in a democracy. Populism and simplism have thrown you into the abyss of fascism,” the poster continued.

“The end of your show will be good for public debate.”

President of France’s National Rally party and MEP Jordan Bardella has warned that free speech is “under attack” in his country, citing the US as a model for change. https://t.co/J5JCKj9D1E

— Brussels Signal (@brusselssignal) February 18, 2025

https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/02/frances-top-court-ends-popular-right-wing-tv-show-and-host-channel/

A panel discussion on local politics was to be held for those who work in the legal system in Hamburg, Germany earlier this month. Representatives of all the political parties that will be competing in Hamburg’s upcoming state election were scheduled to participate. The event was canceled at the last minute, however.

The reason? One of the invited parties was Alternative for Germany (AfD) – and some in Hamburg’s political and legal institutions consider them to be no better than Nazis, and unworthy of being heard at all. This has become clear both as the result of their public statements as well as a series of leaked official e-mails, which Freilich Magazine first reported on.

The elections to Hamburg’s state parliament are scheduled for March 2, exactly one week after Germany’s national elections, in which the AfD is expected to perform well. Senior Public Prosecutor Sebastian K. of the Hamburg Judges’ Association thus thought that this was an opportune time to have spokesmen from all the parties come together to address his colleagues on the theme of “Hamburg as a Legal Center: What Is it Worth to Hamburg?” The discussion was scheduled to be held on Feb. 6 in the Hamburg Regional Courthouse.

All of the parties acknowledged their participation. The AfD decided to send Dr. Alexander Wolf, a lawyer who is the deputy leader of the party’s group in the Hamburg State Parliament.

When Sebastian K. invited his colleagues to attend, however, it did not elicit the response he had hoped for. One of the judges in the regional court sent a reply message on Jan. 28, saying that she was shocked that a party that is “certainly at least partially right-wing extremist,” in her words, would receive an invitation to such an event.

This judge went on to say that the AfD’s Hamburg branch is using slogans that are comparable to those of the Sturmabteilung (SA), or Stormtroopers, the violent paramilitary force that helped Adolf Hitler come to power in Germany in the early 1930s. She also indicated that she was confused as to why the Hamburg Judges’ Association would allow the AfD to be represented “on an equal footing with representatives of democratic parties.” The AfD should not be given any attention whatsoever during the period of election campaigning, she concluded.

It should be noted that on Jan. 28, the day of the judge’s message, a mass demonstration against the AfD was held in the city of Hamburg. The police estimated that 60,000 people participated.

Also on Jan. 28, a motion to tighten Germany’s immigration policies in response to the deadly knife attack in Aschaffenburg on Jan. 22 was put forward by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the Bundestag. The motion narrowly passed with the help of the AfD, which horrified all of the enemies of the right throughout the country.

The next day, Carola Ensslen, a member of the Hamburg Parliament from the Left Party, and who was to have been one of the participants in the panel discussion, informed the assembly that the Holocaust is repeating itself, gesturing in the direction of the AfD’s representatives. She then said that “democrats must not make room for right-wing agitation.”

Ensslen’s sentiments were echoed by Lena Zagst, a member of the Hamburg Parliament from the Greens who had likewise been invited to participate in the discussion, on her Instagram account. Both Ensslen and Zagst then announced that they were boycotting the event in protest of the AfD’s participation.

Given that it was scheduled to occur the following week, the Hamburg Judges’ Association announced that the parliamentarians’ withdrawal so close to the date meant that the discussion would have to be canceled altogether.

The controversy didn’t end there, however. Another regional judge sent out an e-mail which has since been made public in which he bemoaned the fact that Friedrich Merz, the leader of the CDU, is “working with the fascists” to introduce a “xenophobic and probably illegal bill.” The judge advised that no one should participate in discussions involving the AfD, since “fascists and right-wing extremists like the AfD” are not interested in “discussions on the matter.”

A Hamburg public prosecutor who expressed his shock at the AfD’s invitation to the panel discussion gave his view that, given that the Hamburg Judges’ Association is a private rather than public institution, it is not bound by the constitutional requirement to remain neutral. He added that opponents of the rule of law such as the AfD should not be given a venue in which to spread their “often false” views, even though the prosecutor refused to give any examples of such views.

Another prosecutor went even further: “The judiciary is not neutral in this regard, but is rather called upon to actively support democracy,” he said.

Some judges also threatened to resign from their membership in the association.

These are only a few examples of the censorious rhetoric about the AfD that has been heard from public officials in Hamburg in recent weeks. It should be mentioned that while the response to the event was overwhelmingly negative, a few of the association’s members attempted to remind their colleagues that they must exercise impartiality, as mandated by the constitution – even when it involves “abhorrent political viewpoints.”

The German news portal Freilich contacted the Hamburg judiciary for their reaction to its members’ clear bias against the AfD – specifically, how it could be reconciled with the constitutionally mandated requirement for judges to remain impartial. The judiciary’s press agents refused to answer, however, referring such inquiries to the Hamburg Judges’ Association – despite the fact that many of these statements were made via the official e-mail accounts of members of the courts and prosecutors’ offices.

When Freilich contacted Dr. Alexander Wolf of the Hamburg faction of the AfD for comment, he denounced the accusations that his party is fascist or undemocratic as an “absurdity” that calls into question the sanity of those who make such statements. He further said that he believes it calls the impartiality of Hamburg’s judges and prosecutors into question.

It seems that some of those who participated in the e-mail discussions were aware of this, given that two of the judges involved suggested that the exchange should be moved to the Hamburg Judges’ Association’s private e-mail list, given that the accounts they were using were official ones.

The publication of the judges’ and prosecutors’ e-mails by Freilich has led the AfD to consider launching legal action against them. Krzysztof Walczak, who is the parliamentary secretary for the Hamburg faction of the AfD, said that these revelations are tantamount to a scandal “if it is true that several Hamburg judges .. used official e-mail accounts to conduct political agitation against a legal and constitutionally protected party such as the AfD.”

Walczak said that the situation is especially serious given that judges have a large degree of power to affect the lives of ordinary citizens.

“If every citizen now has to fear being treated unfairly by a judge because of his party membership, it not only means that there might be bias in individual cases, but it also undermines trust in the judiciary and the rule of law as a whole,” he explained.

Walczak believes that, if the e-mails are proven to be authentic, the judges’ actions could be construed as a violation of the Hamburg constitution, and it would then be possible to prosecute them in court. He said that the AfD is currently investigating whether or not they should submit an application for the judges to be indicted on the grounds that they have violated the constitution.

It is unclear how prejudice against the AfD from within the German state might impact their ability to govern if they win political power in Sunday’s national elections. One thing seems to be certain, however: They are not likely to get a warm reception from the existing establishment.  

Germany: AfD Derangement Syndrome among Hamburg’s judges and prosecutors

The 15-year-old pupil had replied with ‘Allah’ to an anonymous person he was chatting to on Instagram after the latter had asked him to ‘find a dog’s name that starts with A’. Three suspects were taken into police custody on Tuesday.

[…]
It all started when the student, who was chatting with a stranger ‘by private message’ on the social network Instagram, was asked to ‘find a dog’s name starting with A’, the Bordeaux public prosecutor’s office told Le Figaro, confirming a Sud Ouest report. Except that the teenager had replied with ‘Allah’. An insult that led to a violent reaction from his interlocutor.

After this outrageous word, the teenager became the target of numerous death threats and insults.

Le Figaro

The pupil was very disturbed and had to change schools. Investigators examined the contents of his mobile phone and contacted Instagram’s general management at the request of the public prosecutor’s office. Checks of the app led to the alleged authors of the messages. The investigation is focussed on three young people aged 13, 14 and 17. They were arrested on Tuesday February 18 at their parents’ home near Gradignan and taken into police custody at the central police station.

[…]

Sud-Ouest / Gradignan (33) : après avoir prénommé un chien « Allah », un lycéen de 15 ans menacé de mort sur les réseaux sociaux et contraint de changer d’établissement ; trois ados interpellés – Fdesouche

He expresses no remorse, only hatred: Farhad Noori believes that Allah ordered the deadly attack in Munich. In prison, he refuses to see a doctor – ‘only Allah decides about me’. He refuses his food because it is ‘not halal’. He orders the prison staff to clean his cell – of Christians.
Who was Farhad Noori, the Munich attacker? Initially, the 24-year-old Afghan who drove a Mini Cooper into a Verdi rally last Thursday, killing two people and injuring 37, puzzled investigators. However, initial impressions gained by security circles from Noori’s statements during interrogations and his behaviour in Munich prison reveal a profile of a radical Muslim who shows no remorse and exhibits signs of religious madness. NIUS learnt this exclusively from Bavarian police circles who had an insight into his accommodation in Munich prison.

According to the report, Noori, who was allegedly born in Kabul on January 9, 2001, is said to have made several fundamentalist religious statements in dialogue with prison staff in recent days. For example, when a doctor came to examine Noori’s mental state, the bodybuilder is said to have repeated several times that ‘only Allah decides about him’. This was another reason why he refused to see a doctor. If he were to die, it would be ‘Allah’s decision’ – and he felt no fear because he would be resurrected and return to this world anyway.

After the crime, the lead prosecutor, Gabriele Tilmann, had already stated that she would ‘dare to speak of an Islamist motivation for the offence’. The 24-year-old, who is now accused of 39 counts of attempted murder by the federal prosecutor, is said to have prayed and shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ after the crime. During questioning, Noori also gave insights into his motives, ‘which I would summarise as religious motivation’, according to Tilmann. Research by NIUS also came to the conclusion that Noori had repeatedly used Islamic symbols on social media, including the tauhid finger, Kaaba emojis or sermons that at least indicated an interest in pious Islamic content, in addition to pictures of poses in the gym or in branded clothing.

However, Noori’s behaviour in Munich prison can hardly be described as pious in the literal sense: According to police sources, the Afghan is said to have behaved ‘insolently’ at times – and showed no signs of remorse or scruples. When making contact with investigators on site, the Afghan is said to have repeatedly displayed ‘aggressive behaviour’ and a ‘loud, demanding tone’. Noori is also said to have repeatedly changed languages and started speaking in Urdu.
For example, when food was to be brought to him through the food hatch, an attempt at communication is said to have failed immediately, as Noori repeatedly interrupted staff members and interrupted them aggressively. Within a few days, the assassin is also said to have triggered the emergency call several times, although he had been made aware that this was only intended for emergencies. On one occasion, the Afghan is said to have instructed a guard to ‘throw away his rubbish immediately’, as this was ‘his will’.

But there is much more: Noori is also said to have explicitly asked prison staff to clean his cell ‘because the Jesuits housed before him had soiled everything’. According to police sources, it seems likely that by ‘Jesuits’ he meant Christians in the sense of the German majority society. When he was brought food to his detention room, he did not want to accept it ‘because it was not halal and would have been soiled by the prison’. Everything he really needed, he said, he got from Allah, ‘because Allah was sitting next to him when he prayed’. The offence of which the accused is accused was also ordered by Allah. The communication attempts present the impression of a radically religious and at the same time delusional perpetrator, according to the source.

This matches a digital ring that Noori is said to have carried with him last Thursday during the crime. The newspaper Die Welt reported exclusively on the item. Investigators are said to have puzzled over the significance of the digital ring, the report said, possibly because the gadget was intended to record the number of people hit or killed. According to NIUS information, however, it seems more likely that the analogue counter is a further indication of Noori’s Islamist world view. Devout Muslims in the Middle East are said to carry such Digital Rings with them to count their prayers to Allah. A New York Times article from 2022, for example, is entitled: ‘Some Muslims Are Using Digital Rings to Track Their Praises to God’. It seems likely that the mysterious Digital Ring was more an indication of Noori’s attachment to Allah than a kind of body counter.

The Afghan arrived in Germany in 2016. His asylum application was rejected, but due to the situation in Afghanistan, Noori could never be deported – and was therefore granted tolerated stay. In 2021, he was also granted a so-called ‘lane change’. This allows rejected asylum seekers who are considered to be well integrated to obtain a residence permit. The German magazine Der Spiegel revealed last weekend that he allegedly lied about his escape story. A judge at the administrative court in Munich came to the conclusion that Noori’s statements were ‘not credible’ as they seemed ‘lacking in detail and unrealistic’. There were also ‘inconsistencies’ in his statements. A serious threat in Afghanistan was therefore ‘unlikely’.

NIUS

The world’s a stage and the players are finally taking their places. Trump and Putin, two lions in a den of hyenas, two men who don’t just talk but act. The phone call was the spark, the kindling. Now the fire’s burning and the smoke’s rising over Riyadh, where the real work begins. No time for the faint-hearted, no time for the hand-wringers, the bureaucrats, the paper-pushers, who’ve spent decades hiding behind their desks and their rules. This is about power. Unapologetic, world-shaping power. And Europe? Europe’s not invited. The Europeans are not even in the conversation. They’re the ghosts of a fading empire, the relics of a world that doesn’t exist anymore. Trump doesn’t need them. Putin doesn’t need them. The future doesn’t need them.

Riyadh. The desert. The heat. The sand. A fitting backdrop for what’s about to go down. The American delegation — Rubio, Waltz, Witkoff — men who understand the game, men who don’t flinch when the stakes are high. Across the table, Lavrov and Ushakov, the sharp minds of the Kremlin, the architects of Russia’s resurgence. No Europeans. No Ukrainians. No whining, no begging, no pathetic cries for “diplomacy” or “multilateralism.” This isn’t a charity. This isn’t a therapy session. This is the real deal. The kind of deal that gets made when the adults are in charge and the children have been sent to their rooms.

What’s on the table? Everything. Ukraine. NATO. The future of Europe. The balance of power. The Europeans can cry about “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity,” but what do they know about strength? What do they know about survival? They’ve spent decades leeching off American power, hiding behind American tanks, American dollars, American might, while sneering at the hand that feeds them. Well, guess what? The hand’s pulling back. Trump’s America doesn’t owe them anything. And Putin? He’s been waiting for this moment. Russia’s a powerhouse. A player. A force to be reckoned with.

The Europeans can cry all they want. They can whine about “security” and “alliances” and “values.” But what have they ever done except freeload? What have they ever built except a house of cards? Trump knows it. Putin knows it. The world knows it. Europe’s time is over. Their security architecture? A joke. Their NATO? A relic. Their so-called “unity”? A fragile facade that crumbles at the first sign of pressure. Trump and Putin aren’t here to prop up their hallucinations. They’re here to burn them down.

And what about Ukraine? What about the so-called “peace talks”? Let’s be real. Ukraine’s a pawn. A bargaining chip. A piece on the board that Trump and Putin will move as they see fit. The Europeans can scream about “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity,” but what do they know about strength? What do they know about survival? Trump and Putin are playing the long game. They’re thinking about the future. About power. About control. The Europeans? They’re stuck in the past, clinging to their pathetic little fantasies of relevance.

So let them whine. Let them cry. Let them clutch their treaties and their alliances and their useless little conferences. Trump and Putin are moving forward. They’re building a new world. A world where the weak are left behind. And Europe? Europe can rot. The Europeans had their chance. They blew it. Now they’re just spectators, watching as the real players rewrite the rules.

This is the new reality. This is the new order. And if the Europeans don’t like it? Tough. They’re not at the table anymore. They’re not even in the room. Trump and Putin are the future. And the future doesn’t have room for weaklings.

Europe, once the cradle of civilization, now lies in its twilight, a hollowed-out shell of its former glory. Its cities, once bustling with the vigor of empires, are now museums of decay, their streets echoing with the footsteps of a people who have forgotten how to rule and have been subjugated long ago. The Faustian spirit that once drove Europe to conquer the world has withered, replaced by a lethargic decadence that clings to the past like a child to a broken toy. Trump and Putin, in their brutal pragmatism, are the harbingers of a new epoch, one where the old order is dismantled brick by brick. Europe, with its endless debates and moral posturing, is no longer the protagonist of history but a footnote, a cautionary tale of what happens when a civilization loses its will to power. The future belongs to those who can seize it, and Europe, paralyzed by its own irrelevance, has already been left behind.

Trump, Putin, and Europe’s Funeral / Constantin von Hoffmeister

A “very dangerous” asylum seeker who sexually assaulted a teenager cannot be jailed as it could breach his human rights due to the torture he experienced in Syria, a court has heard.

Hassan Abou Hayleh, 39, was found guilty in November of sexually assaulting a 19-year-old woman in Dorset.

His sentencing at Bournemouth Crown Court was adjourned on Monday after his defence barrister argued imprisonment could violate his rights under Article Three of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Syrian immigrant’s lawyer said Hayleh, who required an Arabic interpreter in court, suffers from PTSD after being tortured in a jail under the Assad regime.

CCTV footage showed Hayleh driving around Weymouth town centre at 3.25am on December 18, 2022, looking for vulnerable women to target. He spotted the victim sitting alone on the pavement after leaving a nightclub while waiting for her father to collect her.

After helping her up from the ground, he placed his hands down her trousers and inside her underwear before trying to get her into his car. The victim refused and shouted for help to three passing members of the public, telling them Hayleh had touched her.

Defence barrister Graham Gilbert told Judge Robert Pawson: “The doctor’s report only came in on Saturday and it expressed concerns about Hayleh’s PTSD.”

“He has several symptoms of PTSD which would be made worse by a custodial sentence. It would also be made worse without the support of his wife and friends,” Gilbert said.

Judge Pawson responded: “A lot of prisoners’ mental health gets worse during a custodial sentence…However we are going to take the upmost care and caution due to Mr Hayleh’s PTSD due to his time suffering torture in a Syrian prison under the Assad regime. Placing him in prison would provide echoes of that experience.”

Article Three of the European Convention of Human Rights prohibits torture, inhumane treatment and degrading punishment. The judge must now interpret UK criminal law in a way that is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. Hayleh, of Wentworth Close, Weymouth, was released on conditional bail until his next appearance in April.

The Syrian arrived in the UK in 2020 and had been living in Weymouth, Dorset. When questioned by police, Hayleh claimed it was a misunderstanding, saying he had only tried to help the victim by pulling up her exposed trousers after she hugged him.

At a previous hearing following his conviction, Judge Pawson told Hayleh: “You were driving around in the early hours on a Sunday morning hoping that you would find exactly what you did find, a young and vulnerable drunk woman who you wanted to get into your car so that you could sexually abuse her.”

The judge had also stated: “On the evidence before me you are potentially a very dangerous man. I shudder to think what might have happened.”

The case has drawn criticism from former politicians, with some arguing that victims’ rights should take precedence over offenders’ human rights considerations.

https://www.gbnews.com/news/dorset-news-asylum-seeker-sexual-assault-teenager-jail-breach-human-rights

Villach, Austria is a city proud of being multicultural with its mix of German, Slavic and Romanesque identities, delightful to visit on the waters of the Drava River and already appreciated by the Romans for its thermal springs. A Syrian, shouting “Allahu Akbar”, lunges at passers-by with a knife and kills a 14-year-old boy. Then he sits down, smiles and waits to be arrested. They also call this multiculturalism.

The German-Syrian journalist and blogger Manaf Hassan publishes the photo on 𝕏 and writes: “The blood and tears have not dried. And now we move on to the next assassination attempt. A Syrian man accidentally stabs passersby in Villach. A 14-year-old is dead. And the perpetrator? He laughs and raises his finger. He laughs in our faces and is not afraid. Incredible.”

The start to 2025 is full of “facts,” but they dismiss them: a Kalashnikov shooting in the Brussels metro, a hand grenade in a Grenoble bar, an explosion a day in Sweden, two Israeli tourists stabbed in Athens, a church burned each week.

And thank goodness Europeans were outraged by US Vice President JD Vance’s criticism of European migration policies. “If we now have to start apologizing for having shown a friendly face,” said a frustrated Angela Merkel as the consequences of her 2015 invitation to migrants became clear, “then this is not my country.”

Indeed, she is right. Many of these are no longer our countries: Brussels, Grenoble, Sweden, Villach, Monaco…

At the same time as the Villach murder, a two-year-old girl and her mother died in hospital in Monaco, after an Afghan drove his Mini at full speed into a crowd. What was he shouting? No point in asking. You know.

But now get ready for a great story about the “power of hope, help and love”.

“The power of hope, help and love…The story of Rashad from Afghanistan to Auburn, who is making a difference in Australian public hospitals.”

This is how they introduced Rashad Nadir. It was 2021. A boy who escaped from Afghanistan to go and live the Western dream in the lucky country. What could possibly go wrong?

Now fast forward to 2025.

Rashad Nadir is still making a “difference in Australian public hospitals” as a nurse while studying for a master’s degree.

“You have no idea how many Israeli dogs have come to this hospital and I,” Rashad says before making a throat-slitting gesture to an Israeli.

Hope and love.

In the video, his female colleague also announces that she will kill (or has killed?) Israeli patients at her hospital in Sydney.

Nadir adds: “You have no idea how many Israelis have come to this hospital and I have sent them to Jehannam (hell).”

Asked what would happen if an Israeli patient entered the hospital, Abu Lebdeh says: “I will not treat them, I will kill them.”

Ahmad Rashad is from Afghanistan, a country 3,083 kilometers from Israel, but Ahmad has continued to harbor a pathological hatred for Jews.

And then one wonders why Jews who go to Australian public hospitals hide their identities.

Don’t they know the “power of love”?

While nurses in Norway on October 7 chanted for Hamas and in New York they had to fire Palestinian nurses and doctors who chanted support for the massacre at the Nova Festival, in Belgium a doctor refused to treat an elderly Jewish woman, Bertha Klein from Antwerp. “Send her to Gaza for a few hours, you will see that she will not feel any pain anymore,” he said. Hershy Taffel, Bertha’s nephew who reported the episode, later declared: “What happened reminds me of what happened in Europe 70 years ago. I never thought it could happen again”.

Naive and ungrateful one, it is a beautiful world of love and hope. And Jewish patients should not be afraid to be admitted to European hospitals: they should close their eyes, everything will be fine.

In Antwerp, more than half of the primary school students are Muslims and if this trend continues a will be an Islamic city by 2050.

Let’s now talk about Farhad, the Afghan attacker in Munich.

Born in Kabul in 2001, like Rashad, he arrived in Germany from Italy as an “unaccompanied minor” at the end of 2016, but his asylum application was rejected. The young Afghan was granted a temporary residence permit and his deportation was suspended. He began his life in the magnificent German welfare system. He took part in the Bavarian Bodybuilding Championships. He has a very large following on social media: 33,000 followers on TikTok and 68,000 on Instagram. Many of his videos are accompanied by Islamic chants. In several photos he thanks “Allah, the Greatest”. He uses the emoji of the Kaaba in Mecca. He raises his index finger, the gesture of Islamists. He worked at Ralph Lauren in Munich.

Farhad was not doing badly. Better than many young Germans. Now German police say he had a “religious motive” for plowing his car into a crowd in Munich. It would be laughable if it weren’t all so tragic.

Europe is in grave, grave danger.

But let’s move forward with the power of love.

Farhad arrived in Germany during the same period as “the refugee girl who won over the Germans”, Reem. She was Palestinian Arab and had been chosen to speak to Angela Merkel in a school. The fruits of “diversity” had to be reaped. Reem had explained to the Chancellor that her father was unemployed because his residence permit was not being extended. Merkel had responded: “The procedures must be changed, we cannot wait that long. But not everyone will be able to stay”. And fourteen-year-old Reem burst into tears. Who hadn’t sympathized with the little refugee?

Ten years later, Reem is 24, they have given her German citizenship for the sake of “diversity” and now she publishes posts in which she says #fromtherivertothesea. And posts a map without Israel.

Reyaad Khan was born and raised in Europe and his story was also about the “power of love and hope”, obviously before he became one of the leaders of the English cell under the orders of the caliph Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. Reyaad said that another world is possible. “The world can be a lovely place, but you have to eliminate evil. If everyone chose good, evil would go away”. The same one who does not see anything wrong with cutting off heads, stoning women and crucifying Christians.

There is a photograph that portrays Reyaad in the company of Ed Balls, then Minister of Education of the United Kingdom, visiting the youth centre of Cardiff, a multicultural institute. At university Reyaad said he wanted to “become the first Asian minister of the United Kingdom”. He did not succeed, so he thought of killing Queen Elizabeth.

Rashad, Reem, Reyaad, Farhad…

Years and then decades will pass, in the meantime fortune and well-being will have produced a civilization heir to Voltaire’s Candide, incapable of seeing the world and civilizations for what they are. So in the end we will all live in a great Antwerp where “diversity will be our strength” and nothing will be able to stop the “power of love and hope,” certainly not your life.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/404100

A trans-identified male in New Jersey is suing a Korean health spa after being denied access to the women’s nude area. Alexandra “Allie” Goebert first launched the discrimination suit against King Spa in Palisades Park in 2022, and is now moving to obtain compensation from the spa on the grounds of violating the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

According to newly-filed court records, the incident occurred in August of 2022 when Goebert visited the location with a female companion. Upon registration, Goebert was provided wristband granting him access to the men’s locker room instead of the women’s. Goebert immediately complained, telling staff he was a “transgender woman” and was legally recognized as “female” by the state of New Jersey.

After making a phone call, the staff member gave Goebert access to the restricted women’s area. But after entering, Goebert came to the attention of a locker room attendant who quickly called the manager. The manager then began to question whether Goebert had undergone genital surgeries, at one point asking if Goebert still had “boy parts.”

Goebert responded that he did not have “boy parts” because he is a “woman,” implying that he had attempted to argue his penis was not an inherently male anatomy. But the manager continued to press on whether he had changed his anatomy, to which Goebert eventually admitted he was fully intact. The manager then told Goebert he needed to leave the female area of the spa.

King Spa is a venue modeling itself after a jimjilbang, a traditional Korean health facility which requires nudity in some areas. For that reason, the nude areas of the spa were strictly sex-segregated.

After being told to use the men’s side of the spa, Goebert protested and said he would be uncomfortable in the men’s area because he identified as a woman.

The manager then went to get the General Manager, Youn Park, who attempted to make a concession for Goebert in the form of allowing him to use the women’s area, but only if he wore a bathing suit. Goebert refused, stating he did not have a bathing suit to wear and accused the spa of being in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. He was offered a refund on his admission and told to leave.

Less than two months later, Goebert, who is a US Army Veteran and law school graduate, filed a complaint against the spa with the state’s Department of Law and Public Safety.

Throughout the course of the proceedings, Goebert’s counsel has complained that King Spa has “misgendered” him in court filings.

In their position statement, lawyers for King Spa explained that Goebert had previously attended the spa and presented ID with his sex listed as “male,” prompting confusion from staff.

“When the agent, servant, and employee of [the spa] saw that the license indicating female and recognizing that this was the same individual who had utilized the male facilities, the question was posed as to has the front changed,” the position statement reads.

“This was an attempt at not being insulting, but deemed a necessity given that there are many other male and female customers who utilize the Spa and do so in the nude. Once this individual indicated that he had not change his front, to wit, that he had male genitalia, the agent, servant, and employee of [the Spa] made a reasonable accommodation. They indicated that the individual could certainly use the facilities, but not in the female nude area. To do otherwise would simply cause havoc and expose all the other nude females to a fundamental invasion of their privacy and certainly expose the [spa] to extensive liability for the same.”

The position statement also notes that there is an apparent exception in New Jersey’s statues denoting that public places are allowed to impose “reasonable restrictions” where facilities are reserved for “individuals of one sex,” such as summer camps, day camps, resort camps, bathhouses, dressing rooms, and more.

This exception has been challenged by Goebert’s lawyers, who claim the single-sex provision does not entitle facilities to discriminate on the basis of gender identity.”

“Nowhere in the LAD is there an exclusion for the wholly-fabricated ‘invasion of privacy’ or ‘extreme emotional distress’ the Defendant is convinced would befall all of the other female guests of the spa were [Goebert’s] gender identity to be respected,” Goebert’s lawyers claimed.

On February 14, 2025, Goebert’s counsel moved to request the court enter judgement in Goebert’s favor, and allow the matter to proceed to a jury trial to determine how much compensation he is entitled to.

While Goebert has now deleted most of his social media presence, Reduxx found that his Instagram profile had followed a wide range of fetish-related accounts. 

Among them are women’s lingerie company Honey Birdette and sex toy retailer Wet For Her. Hashtags followed by Goebert include “lesbian”, “boyinadress”, “menindresses”, and the misspelled “nuedisnormal”, which features photos of naked or nearly-naked women, often in sexualized poses.

Goebert’s lawsuit is not the first involving a trans-identified male lashing out at a Korean bathing establishment due to its sex-segregated policies.

In 2023, a court in Seattle, Washington, ruled that a female-only nude spa lacked the “constitutional right” to bar males from their facilities. The decision came after the spa sued the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC), which had forced them to change their sex-exclusive policy due to the complaint of a transgender patron.

The complaint was made by Haven Wilvich, who had sought a membership at the Olympus Spa in January of 2020, but had been denied on the basis that he had not undergone “gender reassignment” surgeries and his penis was fully intact. The WSHRC ruled in Wilvich’s favor, and demanded Olympus Spa revise its policies to ensure trans-identified males who claimed a female identity could access the female nude areas.

In March of 2022, Olympus Spa sued Andreta Armstrong, the executive director of the Washington State Human Rights Commission, asserting that the actions taken against them violated their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.

But a Washington District Court dismissed their lawsuit in January of 2023, upholding the ruling by the WSHRC and affirming that the measures taken to prevent the spa from having a female-only policy were lawful.

https://reduxx.info/trans-identified-male-sues-for-compensation-from-discriminatory-korean-spa-that-would-not-allow-him-to-be-nude-around-female-patrons/

The arrival of the Bayrou government in office coincided with the accelerated implementation of a new, openly militant sex education programme in French schools, completely excluding parents from the process. Despite the mobilisation of parents’ associations, there is no indication that the Ministry of Education intends to back down.

All the indicators are red; the skill level of young French children is plummeting year after year; the basics—reading, writing, arithmetic—are not mastered by the time they start secondary school; but the stated priority of the Ministry of Education is “relational, sexual and emotional” education.

The new sex education curriculum has been in the works for almost two years. The project was created on the initiative of former Education Minister Pap Ndiaye, known for his militant progressivism, who made it one of his priorities.

An initial version, made public in December 2024 by the previous government, raised concerns among parents and family associations. Even the then-minister for school success, Alexandre Portier, expressed his reservations at the time—before being pilloried by the press and teachers’ unions for being too conservative.

In the meantime, the government fell apart. Portier was not reappointed to his post, and a new minister of education arrived in the person of Élisabeth Borne, former prime minister. The learning framework has been reworked—and the changes made do nothing to correct the flaws already observed in the previous version.

35,000 people had signed a petition calling for a revision of the text. They were not heard, and the Higher Council for Education (Conseil supérieur de l’éducation) has just definitively validated an extremely worrying curriculum, which is to be applied in all French schools from the next school year—whether they are state schools or private ones under contract with the state.

A symbolic and particularly revealing element sets the tone for the spirit in which the course of study was conceived. Parents were supposed to be informed in advance of the “education in emotional, relational and sexual life” (Education à la vie affective, relationnelle et sexuelle, or EVARS) sessions, but this clause has been removed. The refusal to inform parents about what their children will be told shows that the forces behind the development of this programme know full well that it is a militant tool that does not respect the basic principles of healthy pedagogical neutrality on highly sensitive subjects.

The stated objectives were to strengthen equality between men and women, to combat violence, and to raise awareness of harassment from an early age. But the means used are clearly inappropriate, even counterproductive. The Syndicat de la famille (Family Union), an offshoot of the La Manif Pour Tous movement formed at the time of the adoption of same-sex marriage, has carried out an in-depth analysis of the course outline.

The fight against gender inequality is transformed, from nursery school onwards, into a systematic deconstruction of images of the feminine and masculine in young children: “on the obviously laudable grounds of equality, the fight against gender stereotypes is omnipresent from nursery school onwards, in the form of a systematic challenge to all the mental representations that children may have of the feminine and masculine,” the Family Union’s report laments.

Despite the protests of the curriculum’s editors—for whom “gender theory does not exist”—pride of place is given to an ideology which deliberately disconnects sex and gender, to make students think that gender (i.e., the social and cultural expression of sexual identity) is totally independent of sex (biological).

Beyond its practical recommendations, the teaching plan claims to fight against extremely serious problems currently blighting childhood and the adult world—sexual violence, harassment—but is unable to produce an alternative positive discourse that allows young people in the process of developing their personality to envision positive and inspiring values. Nothing on the couple, nothing on motherhood, nothing on fatherhood. The programme prides itself on considering relationships not only in sexual terms but also in ‘relational and emotional’ terms but is reluctant to connect love and sexuality—a necessarily retrograde vision in the eyes of its writers—not to mention the connection between love, sexuality, and family.

The document reveals the total and systematic evacuation of any form of morality. Thus, the notion of consent, so beloved of the progressive Left and brought to the fore by the “#me too” movement, is reduced to a banal dichotomy: I want to / I don’t want to—without any reflection on the merits of the act, for oneself, for the other, or on the harmony to be sought between the body and the heart. This sketches a sad and dreary landscape where depression and suicide attempts among young people can boom. If no one speaks to them seriously and no one cares about offering them an inspiring ideal and a real prospect of fulfilment, how can we be surprised?

The scourge of pornography, which does so much damage to teenagers and children alike—and at an increasingly early age—is totally underestimated, because here again, a firm condemnation of its ravages implies the integration of a moral reflection. We now know full well that children as young as primary school age are already being exposed to pornography, but the curriculum does not address this until the 4th year (13-year-olds), with a guilty shyness. Let us be logical: moral safeguards cannot be put in place when those behind the instructional content claim to be ‘taboo-free’ and advocate unbridled sexual liberation—which gives rise to the very ills they claim to be fighting.

Finally, we note the predictable but oh-so-dangerous complacency towards transgenderism and gender transition among young people: nothing on the dangers of puberty blockers, nothing on the risks of hormone intake and gender reassignment surgery. If gender has nothing to do with biology, then anything goes, and information on these subjects will, unsurprisingly, be left in the hands of duly blessed militant associations and authorized and recommended by the Ministry of National Education.

A curriculum of similar substance has already been implemented in French-speaking Belgium. Four administrative appeals for the annulment of the educational plan are pending before the Belgian constitutional court. In France, teachers’ unions are crying out against the “fundamentalist offensive” protesting the new plan. In terms of fundamentalism, it is simply a matter of recalling Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that “parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/new-french-sex-ed-plan-opens-gate-to-gender-ideology/

The debate over free speech in Germany has taken a new turn following the case of Markus Roscher, a 61-year-old lawyer from Braunschweig, who was fined €3,000 for criticizing the government’s heating law.

Roscher described Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock as “malicious failures” in a post on X back in 2021. He was subsequently issued a penalty notice under the controversial Paragraph 188 of the German Criminal Code, which criminalized defamation against individuals engaged in public political life.

Roscher, who has been active on X for over 14 years and is well accustomed to the legal boundaries surrounding political debate, insists that his post was within the bounds of political criticism.

“I actually know myself to be quite well within the red lines,” he told Bild. “You have to formulate things pointedly to be heard. The lines of freedom of opinion have slipped with the red-green government (ed. the coalition of Social Democrats and Greens).” He further described his hefty fine as a “scandal for freedom of expression.”

Paragraph 188, introduced in April 2021, criminalizes insults against politicians if they significantly hinder their public work. It was initially passed under a coalition government of the CDU and SPD but has been increasingly enforced under the current administration. The law has led to numerous prosecutions against individuals who have criticized government officials online.

In Roscher’s case, the penalty order claimed that his statements portrayed politicians as “corrupt, stupid, and arrogant,” constituting “abusive criticism” that allegedly impeded their political activity. Following the charge, authorities also moved to revoke his gun license, citing “unreliability.”

Furthermore, his case was forwarded to the Kassel and Braunschweig Bar Associations, raising concerns that he could face professional sanctions. “If I now claim the same or something similar and get another conviction exceeding 90 daily rates, I can lose my license,” Roscher warned. “Then you get a job ban as a 61-year-old lawyer!”

Roscher believes that his support for the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) has played a pivotal role in his prosecution. He asserts that the penalty order was politically motivated, arguing that he stood little chance in a legal battle, which led him to pay the fine without challenging it in the courts.

The scrutiny of political affiliations within Germany’s public sector was also highlighted by a leaked memo last month revealing that federal police officers who join or actively support the AfD could face disciplinary action, including dismissal. The memo cited a decree by Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, explicitly stating that officers suspected of affiliation with the party could see their employment terminated.

The controversy has drawn international attention from U.S. billionaire Elon Musk and most recently from U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who labeled Germany’s online speech laws this week as “Orwellian.” Responding to a CBS “60 Minutes” interview with German prosecutors, Vance argued that Germany was effectively “criminalizing speech” and urged Europeans to “reject this lunacy.”

Roscher’s case is part of a broader pattern of speech-related prosecutions in Germany. Other recent incidents include a Lower Saxony man, Daniel Kindl, who was fined €1,800 for allegedly insulting Green Party MP Janosch Dahmen in an online post. Kindl’s remark, which dismissed Dahmen’s concerns about an alleged attack on Robert Habeck, was deemed criminal by prosecutors.

Several other individuals have faced legal consequences for online speech. A pensioner was fined €800 for a satirical comment about Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, joking that she had hit her head too many times on a trampoline. Another was arrested for retweeting a meme that called Economy Minister Robert Habeck an “idiot,” classified as a “politically motivated right-wing crime.” A Bavarian woman was fined €6,000 for calling Baerbock a “hollow brat” but was later acquitted after a lengthy legal process. Additionally, a civil engineer was sentenced to 30 days in jail after failing to appeal a fine for calling SPD politician Manuela Schwesig a “storyteller.”

AfD-supporting lawyer fined €3,000 for criticizing German government, has gun license revoked and complaint filed with bar association