A top commander in southwest Asia reminded U.S military personnel stationed in Muslim countries in the Middle East of the restrictions placed on them during Ramadan. According to a report by the U.S. Air Forces Central Command Public Affairs, Brig. Gen. John Quintas, 380th Air Expeditionary Wing commander in Southwest Asia, said that the U.S. is “committed to the concepts of tolerance, freedom and diversity.” But he added that soldiers should “become more informed and appreciative of the traditions and history of the people in this region of the world… [R]emember we are guests here and that the host nation is our shoulder-to-shoulder, brothers and sisters in arms, risking their lives for our common cause to defeat terrorism.”
During the 30-day religious celebration of Ramadan, even non-Muslims are expected to obey local laws regarding eating, drinking, and using tobacco in public. Violators can be fined up to $685 or receive two months in jail. A spokesperson for United States Central Command [CENTCOM] said that “we are not aware of any specific instances of anyone being arrested” for such violations.
\For military personnel outside of U.S.-controlled areas, the only exceptions for the rules are for those “performing strenuous labor.” Such personnel are “authorized to drink and consume as much food as they need to maintain proper hydration and energy.” It is unclear what constitutes “strenuous labor” or whether additional exceptions might be made during a heatwave affecting some areas of the region that has taken hundreds of lives.
When asked if the restrictions were new or simply a continuation of past policy, a CENTCOM spokesperson replied:
There has been no change in policy… [W]hile the US does not have a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the UAE, it is common practice to ensure all Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, and Marines deployed to Muslim countries are culturally aware that during the month of Ramadan, practicing Muslims do not consume anything from sunrise to sunset as a pillar of their faith. Commanders throughout the AOR create policies to ensure their subordinates respect the laws and culture of our hosts at all times.
The report on CENTCOM’s website is accompanied by the following graphic urging military personnel to “respect Ramadan.”
I find the bolded part particularly interesting. First of all, there’s the idea of being tolerant, and respecting freedom and diversity… concepts Shariah ruled countries are completely at odds with. I’m not saying that individual Muslims don’t believe in these concepts, but can anyone honestly name a country with Islamic law that does support these concepts? I honestly can’t think of one myself.
I also think it’s interesting that it says that soldiers should recognise that they are guests in these countries and therefore should be respectful towards their way of life. I wonder if Muslims in the US are expected to behave the same way towards their host nation.
According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.
The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities.
Overall, the survey, which was conducted by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), suggests that a substantial number of Muslims living in the United States see the country very differently than does the population overall. The sentiments of the latter were sampled in late May in another CSP-commissioned Polling Company nationwide survey.
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.
These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey. It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”
Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.
Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
The findings of the Center for Security Policy’s survey of Muslims in America suggests that we have a serious problem. The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year. If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today. That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”
It is incumbent on the many American Muslims who want neither to live under the brutal repression of shariah nor to impose it on anybody else to work with the rest of us who revere and uphold the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in protecting our nation against the Islamic supremacists and their jihad.
Their values are completely at odds with those of the American public at large. Also, I’m guessing that not all of those polled were honest about their true feelings. I’m sure that only the stupider ones were completely honest. I’d bet the smarter ones only pretended to be opposed to living under Shariah law, or to using violence to achieve their goals, because they would have been smart enough to realise the trouble they could cause for themselves by being open about it.
So let me ask this question. If these Muslims want to live under Shariah law so badly, why did they choose to go to a country, where Shariah law isn’t practiced, when there are countries which do practice it?
I see only two possible explanations
To leech off of a country with a far higher standard of living… like parasites really.
They’re actively engaged in conquest. They outright admit that they believe that Shariah law is “Allah’s” law and that they have a duty to impose it on the world through jihad. Is it really that hard to believe that those already in our nations are acting as a fifth column to weaken us from the inside, thus making us easier to conquer?
Of course, you can be sure that nothing will be done about this. Authorities and the media will probably blame it all on white racism or something, and tell us that if we just act a bit nicer towards them, eventually they’ll give up their desire to conquer us, and will magically change their entire belief system to be more like ours. If you ask for evidence to support this theory, you’re obviously just a hate filled racist who uses fear of being conquered as an excuse when really, you just hate their skin colour.
The national leaders of Europe have scrapped plans for a new system of quotas in response to the soaring numbers of migrants reaching the continent from Libya, the Balkans and the Middle East.
Effectively telling Brussels to mind its own business on the politically toxic issue of immigration, a summit of EU leaders on Thursday evening was due to bury calls for a more equitable system across the 28 countries.
“We have no consensus among member states on mandatory quotas for migrants,” said Donald Tusk, the president of the European council. “It will take much time to build a new European consensus on migration.”
Instead of discussing measures for a more organised and equitable system of taking people in, the leaders focused on how to keep people out and deport those who get in.
“First and foremost, we need to contain illegal migration and this should be our priority. All those who are not legitimate asylum seekers will have no guarantee that they will stay in Europe,’’ Tusk said.
The European commission in Brussels unveiled radical new proposals last month calling for a new system of mandatory quotas for sharing migrants. The policy shift was rejected on Thursday.
“The idea that Brussels imposes quotas is not going to fly,” a senior EU official said. “It will never gather the support of the member states.”
In a token gesture to Italy, which is increasingly bitter about being left to cope with the immigration crisis, the EU countries are to agree on how to share 40,000 asylum seekers – 24,000 from Italy and 16,000 from Greece – by next month. The scheme, however, will be voluntary and officials predicted bitter infighting among interior ministers negotiating the details.
The summit was due to define the 40,000 scheme as “temporary and exceptional” and spread over two years. It will have little impact on the overall numbers, given that more than 600,000 people sought asylum in the EU last year. The figures for new arrivals this year are much higher.
According to the latest figures from Frontex, the EU’s border agency, the number of migrants arriving at the EU’s external borders has soared by a factor of 2.5 this year compared with 2014, from 61,500 to 153,000. The numbers coming through the Balkans were nearly nine times higher than last year.
Mediterranean crossings last month were 29% up on April, and there has been a five-fold increase so far this year in those using the eastern Mediterranean route compared with the same period in 2014.
The number of first-time asylum seekers in the EU in the first quarter of 2015 almost doubled compared with the first three months of 2014, according to Eurostat, the EU statistics agency. About 40% of the claims were lodged in Germany compared with only 4% in Britain.
The summit was expected to decide on a battery of measures aimed at speeding up asylum processing and expelling those whose claims are turned down.
EU development funds, trade agreements and diplomatic pressure are to be deployed as leverage on the migrants’ countries of origin to encourage them to sign readmission agreements with the EU.
“All tools shall be mobilised to promote readmission,” the summit was to decide.
“Structured border zones” or “hotspots” are also to be established in southern Italy to quarantine those arriving, fingerprint and register them and expedite the deportation of those deemed to be illegal or economic migrants.
European police and border agencies are to be granted new powers for implementing policies that until now have been the sole remit of national authorities.
Syrians and Eritreans arriving in the EU in high numbers can seldom be repatriated because of the risk to their lives at home. Their treatment in the asylum regime will remain unchanged and their cases will remain in the relevant national systems as before.
It’s nice to see that people are finally getting sick of all this nonsense. I do feel bad for the Italian people who will eventually be overwhelmed if trends continue, but that’s entirely the fault of their own treacherous government, and incompetent Navy. They need to deal with the issue themselves.
Shockingly enough, this story isn’t from Sweden. It’s from Germany. Then again, Germany is a very politically correct country itself, though at least in their case, it’s motivated by a combination of draconian anti-discrimination laws, and the collective guilt they feel about certain WW2 events. I’m not sure what Sweden’s excuse is.
A week ago emergency accommodation for 200 Syrian refugees was erected right next to the gym of Wilhelm-Diess-Gymnasium in Pocking, Bavaria, Die Welt reports.
The gym has been closed as a result, and PE lessons have been relocated to a nearby primary school, but the school is still worried about the refugees interacting with students.
So worried in fact that the headteacher recently sent out a letter to parents to give reassurance about extra security measures.
I really can’t blame the school for being worried. If Sweden is anything to go by, it is quite likely that these “refugees” will have little hesitation about raping any of these girls if given the opportunity. It’s nice to know that the Germans are a little more in touch with reality, and actually want to protect their girls, unlike the Swedes who literally sent them to a camp to be sexually assaulted by immigrants.
“For the refugees, access to the school gardens and buildings is strictly forbidden. The same goes for the school grounds during the day. The number of teachers on duty during breaks has been increased,” read the letter from headteacher Martin Thalhammer.
Excellent. Though personally, I think they shouldn’t be left near the school at all, I do at least have to commend the school for taking whatever precautions they can to keep the girls safe. I’m actually somewhat impressed.
The letter goes on to give students instructions on how to deal with the situation:
“The Syrian citizens are mainly Muslims and speak Arabic. The refugees are marked by their own culture. Because our school is directly next to where they are staying, modest clothing should be adhered to, in order to avoid discrepancies. Revealing tops or blouses, short shorts or miniskirts could lead to misunderstandings.”
AND… they failed. This is fucking ridiculous. Misunderstandings? Because these people come from a culture that is backward, and completely incompatible with European culture, these girls are expected to dress a certain way to avoid “misunderstandings”? This is a complete disgrace. How exactly do they define “modest clothing”? As far as some of these men are concerned, a woman who has more than her eyes and hands exposed is dressed inappropriately. Should the girls be forced to change their school uniform to a full on burkha, in order to avoid these “misunderstandings”
The letter has not been met favourably by some parents, but a local politician, who did not want to be named, told Die Welt the move was “absolutely necessary”.
“When Muslim teenage boys go to open air swimming pools, they are overwhelmed when they see girls in bikinis,” he said.
So they aren’t people then? They’re just animals with an inability to control their sexual urges. Is that the logic here?
“These boys, who come from a culture where for women it is frowned upon to show naked skin, follow girls and bother them without realizing. Obviously this is concerning for us,” he continued.
Why exactly are we importing people into our lands, whose cultural values are completely at odds with our own? What benefit is it to us to do this?
The move by the school has caused a lot of discussion, and Thalhammer has received queries from all over the media, reports the Passauer Neue Presse.
“There have never been uniform rules at this school and there never will be.” He said.
“It is my duty to look after the children. Therefore I wanted to inform everyone about what is going on at school and what the gym is being used for.”
“It was my responsibility to remind everyone that two cultures are coming together here,” he continued.
And as I’ve pointed out time and time again. two cultures cannot come together, unless one submits to the other. All throughout history, whenever two cultures have come together, either one has conquered and assimilated the other, or they’ve separated into different nations with distinct borders. Having two or more vastly different cultures, with both cultures fully represented, living within the same borders as equals, is simply impossible. Can anyone honestly name one example in history where this has actually worked out successfully? Because I’ve genuinely tried, and I haven’t thought of a single example.
West Midlands Police knew five years ago that Asian grooming gangs were targeting children outside schools across the city – but failed to make the threat public.
I always hate how they use the word “Asian” to describe these scumbags. While technically speaking it is correct because Pakistan is an Asian country, the word Asian naturally conjures up images of East Asian people such as Chinese or Japanese, people who weren’t guilty of these crimes.
It reminds me a lot of how the word “Romanian” is often used by the media to describe Gypsy criminals. It paints an unfair image of innocent Romanian people, who are no better or worse than any other Eastern European people.
Documents obtained by the Birmingham Mail show the force were aware pupils were at risk of child sexual exploitation (CSE) back in 2010.
The confidential report, obtained under a Freedom of Information Act, also shows police were worried about community tensions if the abuse from predominantly Pakistani grooming gangs was made public.
Translation. Maintaining the illusion of the multicultural paradise was more important than protecting those innocent children and letting the truth come out.
The West Midlands Police document entitled Problem Profile, Operation Protection is from March 2010 and highlights how grooming had been directed specifically at schools and children’s homes.
In one heavily redacted passage, entitled ‘Schools’, it states: “In (redacted) a teacher at a (redacted) that a group of Asian males were approaching pupils at the school gate and grooming them. Strong anecdotal evidence shows this MO (modus operandi) is being used across the force.”
Of course, this wasn’t just a few isolated cases. It was an absolute epidemic. It’s actually believed that potentially up to a million English girls experienced this. Throughout history, this kind of rape epidemic only usually happens when an invading army conquers a territory. Essentially this is what is happening. Muslim men are conquering Britain, without even needing to fire a single shot, because the British authorities are just letting them in and giving them what they want. This is just the conquerors taking their spoils.
The Birmingham Mail is unaware of any police public appeals or warnings from that time.
The 2010 report also reveals children’s homes were being targeted by gangs who used victims to target other girls. It states: “Operations in other forces have identified an MO where offenders use a young girl in a children’s home to target and groom other residents on their behalf.
They literally used their victims to recruit new victims.
“This has also been evidenced within the force in (redacted) and (redacted). The girl’s motivation to recruit new victims is often that the provision of new girls provides her a way to escape the cycle of abuse.”
I actually don’t believe that was the case. I think a lot of girls were too young to know any better and were tricked by what they perceived as being kindness from their abusers. However, a lot of the older girls (around the ages of 14 or 15) have actually gone on record and said that they thought theirabusersweretheirboyfriends (I just posted links to 5 examples there), so it’s not beyond the realm of possibility to suggest that they did it, not because they were looking for an escape, but rather because they wanted to please their “boyfriend”
The report also highlighted potential ‘community tensions’ which the CSE problems could lead to.
It said: “The predominant offender profile of Pakistani Muslim males… combined with the predominant victim profile of white females has the potential to cause significant community tensions.”
But yet I guarantee you that if the roles were reversed, if the perpetrators were white, and the victims non-white, you would have absolutely no problem with tensions being aroused then.
It added: “There is a potential for a backlash against the vast majority of law abiding citizens from Asian/Pakistani communities from other members of the community believing their children have been exploited.
And again, the media has no problem when law abiding white people are victims of attacks due to their biased reporting. Look at America and think about all the innocent white people who were potentially attacked because of how the media deliberately plays up black deaths at the hands of whites, while downplaying white deaths at the hands of blacks.
“These factors, combined with an EDL protest in Dudley in April and a general election in May could notably increase community tension.
“Police will be criticised if it appears we have not safeguarded vulnerable children, investigated offences and prosecuted offenders.”
And why shouldn’t they be fucking criticised? If they have knowledge that vulnerable children are in danger, and fail in their duty to protect them, can you really blame people for criticising them?
I didn’t post the rest of the article because I didn’t think it had anything relevant that I should respond to. The link is there at the top if you wish to read the rest of it. This whole situation just gets more and more shocking. This is Swedish levels of incompetence. My thoughts are with those girls and their families. May they someday get to see justice served.
The girl told the court that she last November came with the offender, Muhamed, to his home because he promised her that she would then get back intimate photos he had of her.
In place in the home he tore off her clothes so that her jacket was broken and carried out the rape.When the 12-year-old girl tried to resist replied Somali feeding strokes over her face and holding his hand over her mouth while he raped her.
– Black dick is expensive, proclaimed Somali several occasions during the rape, told the girl.
Muhamed, who was 17 when the crime was committed, has claimed that the two had a “love affair” and that he did not know she was underage – information law could dismiss.According to the judgment, it is beyond reasonable doubt that he raped the girl vaginally and that he associated with it awarded her slap in the face / head and held a hand over her mouth.
Although the rape of a child normally should give prison select district court to let Muhamed get away with a light sentence – 180 hours of community service with probation.The judgment refers among other things to somalierns low age and that he has “some trouble with anxiety and sleep problems he is medicated against when necessary”.
Just unbelievable. Normally, I would try to add some kind of discussion when posting an article, and try to bring some kind of humour to it. I don’t tend to like just pasting articles verbatim on this blog, without adding my own content to it. In this situation though, I’m actually so disgusted by what I’ve read, that I really just have nothing to say. I think the article itself really says it all, and I’m sure anyone reading this, will share my disgust.
After constantly reading about Sweden’s constant descent into insanity, it’s nice to hear that it isn’t spreading to their neighbours. It seems that Denmark is apparently very intolerant towards Gypsies, and some do-gooders (who have probably never actually dealt with Gypsies in their lives) aren’t happy about that. It’s crazy really. I mean, what is it about the Swedish people that makes them so different from the Danes in terms of their tolerance levels? I was always led to believe that the Nordic countries were all very similar to one another, but evidently, I was wrong.
Denmark has been ranked as the most intolerant out of seven Northern European nations, according to a new YouGov research poll (here in English).
The poll – which also included France, Germany, Britain, Sweden, Norway and Finland – found that 29 percent of Danes were found to be intolerant to either Romas, Muslims, Jews, black people or gay people. It just edged out Finland, which also scored 29.
“Denmark appears to be very intolerant overall, but setting the especially high level of negative sentiment towards Roma/Gypsies/travellers to one side, it is third (18 points) behind Finland (23) and France (20),” the poll found.
The findings showed that 72 percent of Danes were ‘totally negative’ when it came to their impression of Roma/Gypsies/travellers – first by a long way – while 45 percent felt similarly about Muslims, which was tied for the most with Finland.
I’m actually amazed that it’s only 72% that have a negative view of them. I’m guessing the other 28% have never actually dealt with them. Seriously, I’ve actually never encountered anyone who has ever actually dealt with Gypsies, who has ever had anything good to say about them. Most Eastern Europeans living in Ireland, have dealt with Gypsies for centuries, and they all seem to have a particularly strong contempt for them. I find that most of the Eastern European people that I have dealt with have been nothing less than pleasant. My own experiences with Gypsies (thankfully very few) have all been extremely negative. Therefore, due to a combination of my own personal experiences, and from hearing the negative views of other people who I would regard as being good people, I’m inclined to believe that there are damn good reasons why nobody seems to like Gypsies. In all honestly, what have they ever actually contributed of worth to any society that they’ve lived in?
To a lesser degree, the Danes were also intolerant of black people (11 percent), gay people (7 percent – the lowest of all seven nations), Jews (8 percent), Christians (7 percent), young people (11 percent) and the elderly (5 percent).
Overall, Sweden was found to be the least intolerant at 20 percent, followed by Norway and Germany (tied at 22), Britain (24), France (27), while the Finns joined the Danes at joint last (29).
Let us suppose that along the coast of Normandy up to one million non-EU migrants are waiting to be packed like sardines in small unseaworthy vessels and to cross the English Channel.
Let us suppose that first the Royal Navy, then the navies of a dozen other EU countries, start to search for all such vessels in the Channel right up to the French coast, out into the North Sea and the Atlantic even, and then ferry all the passengers on board to Dover, Folkestone, Hastings, Eastbourne and Brighton in a surreal modern-day never-ending version of the Dunkirk evacuation of 1940. Would the British government agree to take them all? What of the British people? And if they did agree, what would the British government and people do with all the migrants? How would they cope?
They probably wouldn’t cope at all. Such an action would clearly be completely insane and would only result in Britain’s services being overwhelmed by the sheer strain of all these new people. A country would have to be run by complete cretins of the highest order to engage in such a suicidal policy. Luckily, no democratically elected government would force such a thing on the people they repres…
Well, Italy has been invaded in just this way, by migrants from many nations all coming over here from Libya. And Italy’s unelected government has agreed to take them all. This makes the Italian people — who are among the least racist in Europe — very angry. It’s hard to blame them.
It is indeed hard to blame them. What gives that government the right to do this to the Italian people?
In October 2013, Italy’s previous unelected government, which like the current one was left-wing, ordered the Italian navy to search for and rescue all boat people in the Sicilian channel and beyond. This hugely expensive operation — ‘Mare Nostrum’ — ran until October last year and rescued nearly 190,000 people. The Italian government took this decision after a migrant boat sank with the loss of 360 lives 500 yards from an idyllic beach on the island of Lampedusa, once a resort of choice for the right-on rich.
It was their own fault that boat sank. Why should the Italian people feel guilty because a bunch of invaders were stupid enough to get on a boat that wasn’t sea worthy? Despite the propaganda in the media, these migrants aren’t fleeing the warzone in Libya. As I already covered before, even left wing newspapers like the Guardian are admitting to the obvious reality, that these migrants come from other African countries and are deliberately taking advantage of the chaos in Libya in order to invade Europe. I have absolutely no sympathy for them when their boats sink, and in all honesty, I bet very few people actually do. In polite company, most people will act as if they care because it’s the “right thing to say”, but I bet that in their hearts, they really don’t feel a thing.
That doesn’t mean that they, or myself are cold hearted monsters with no sense of morality. We are capable of feeling empathy for those who deserve it. However, morality is entirely a biological function that exists for a very specific purpose… our own self interests. Morality is about creating a safer world for ourselves and our kin (who are essentially an extension of ourselves). When people act morally, it is with the understanding that others will also act morally because it is also in their self interest to create a safer world. Therefore, when we do something “moral”, our brains release endorphins to make us feel good and to basically tell us that we should keep doing that. This is our biology telling us that we have done something good for our survival, or for the survival of our kin. This is why when the recent Berkley balcony collapse happened, people here in Ireland felt genuinely saddened by it, even if they didn’t personally know any of the victims. They were members of our society, whose deaths may have affected people we do have a connection with, and we know that they would have been good, decent people. Therefore, their loss means more to us.
When we see invaders (who we have no biological connection to) coming in, and know the problems they are going to cause for us, we don’t get this same good feeling helping them, because our brains know (at least on a subconscious level) that helping them isn’t good for us or those close to us. Therefore in a sense, it is actually immoral to help them, because in doing so, we are harming ourselves and our kin in the process.
The same left-wing Italian government also took the extraordinary step of decriminalising illegal immigration, which means among other things that none of the boat people are arrested once on dry land. Instead, they are taken to ‘Centri di accoglienza’ (welcome centres) for identification and a decision on their destinies. In theory, only those who identify themselves and claim political asylum can remain in Italy until their application is refused — or, if it is accepted, indefinitely. And in theory, under the Dublin Accords, they can only claim political asylum in Italy — the country where they arrived in the EU. In practice, however, only a minority claim political asylum in Italy. Pretty well all of them remain there incognito, or else move on to other EU countries.
Absolutely stupid policy. Border controls exist for a reason. Decriminalising this criminal act is completely ridiculous. It will just encourage more and more of them to come until eventually, Europe is just an extension of Africa.
Here’s how it works. In the welcome centres, they are given free board and lodging plus mobile phones, €3 a day in pocket money, and lessons — if they can be bothered — in such things as ice-cream-making or driving a car and (I nearly forgot) Italian. Their presence in these welcome centres is voluntary and they are free to come and go, though not to work, and each of them costs those Italians who do pay tax €35 a day (nearly €13,000 a year). Yes, they are supposed to have their photographs and fingerprints taken, but many refuse and the Italian police, it seems, do not insist. As the Italian interior minister, Angelino Alfano, explained to a TV reporter the other day: ‘They don’t want to be identified here — otherwise, under the Dublin Accords, they would have to stay in our country. So when a police officer is in front of an Eritrean who is two metres tall who doesn’t want his fingerprints taken, he can’t break his fingers, but must respect his human rights.’
They should just lock them in cells until they co-operate.
This year, there is space for just 75,000 migrants in such places. Hotels are filling the breach, including the four-star Kulm hotel perched high above the luxury resort of Portofino on the Ligurian coast. But most of the rescued migrants could not care less about all that jazz and have just disappeared.
The ones who stay long in the welcome centres are those who have revealed their identities in order to apply for political asylum in Italy. Last year, 64,900 migrants did so in Italy — roughly a third of those saved by the Italian navy. But this being Italy, the judicial system only had time to reach a decision on half those applications (accepting 60 per cent of them), and anyway, thanks to the byzantine Italian appeals procedure, those refused asylum can remain for years. Even if their asylum claim is finally rejected and by some cruel quirk of fate they are actually handed a deportation order, it is easily ignored: last year Italy forcibly deported just 6,944 people — a figure set to shrink even more once a law before parliament is passed banning deportation to countries where human rights are abused.
So basically anyone from Africa or the Middle East will be impossible to deport, even if they have no justification to claim asylum then. Keep in mind, that a certain European country (if you’re a frequent reader, you’ll know which one I’m talking about) already won’t deport convicted rapists out of fear that they might commit crimes in the country they are deported to. They literally choose to protect people who they have no responsibility to, over the people they do have a responsibility to. This idiotic Italian law sounds pretty similar. What if a rapist flees a country where he could potentially receive the death penalty for his crimes, and goes on to commit rapes in Italy? They wouldn’t be able to deport him, because his “human rights” would be at risk. This is completely insane.
Fair enough, you might say, if all the asylum seekers were genuine refugees from war zones. But contrary to the impression given by most of the world’s media, hardly any of 2014’s intake were from war-torn countries such as Syria or Iraq (though it is true that the number of Syrians is now rising).
Exactly what I already said. I’m glad to see that more media is telling the truth.
Last year, most were from sub-Saharan Africa. Top of the league table were the Nigerians, followed by the Malians and the Gambians, the Senegalese and even the Pakistanis — who together made up 70 per cent of the total. No doubt these countries are no picnic to live in, and parts of some of them are war zones, but that should not, and in theory does not, guarantee refugee status. It is also a fact that most boat people are young single men and the price of a ticket on a people-smuggling boat is €2,000 (nearly two years’ pay for the average worker in Mali).
And this is something else I’ve also addressed. Anytime you see a photo of these boats full of migrants, finding a woman or child is like looking at one of those “Where’s Wally?” books. They’re virtually non-existent. It’s all just young, healthy men. The fact that they are able to pay the equivalent of two years average pay for a worker in their societies, suggests that by the standards of the countries they are coming from, they’re fairly well off. They just come to Europe because what they have isn’t enough to satisfy them. After all, they’d actually be required to work for things back there, and there probably isn’t a good supply of white women for them to rape back home, hence why so many of them are drawn to Europe.
It’s worth remembering here that the majority of the boat people are Muslims and reports suggest that a small number are Islamic terrorists. The terrorists of ISIS are, we know from their Twitter feeds, obsessed with taking their crusade to Rome. One of those arrested in connection with the Islamic terrorist attack on the Bardo National Museum of Tunis in March had crossed the Mediterranean from Libya to Italy in a migrant boat in February.
I don’t care how “small” that number is. Even one getting through to Europe is too many.
Many refugees have no intention of staying in Italy, which is hardly surprising. For a start, only people who lose a full-time job are entitled to unemployment benefit. Italy, thanks to the straitjacket of the single currency, has been mired in recession for most of the past six years, with an official unemployment rate of 13 per cent (the real rate is probably 20 per cent) and the youth unemployment rate at a staggering 43 per cent.
Translation: They want to go somewhere where they can get the most free stuff.
The government of Matteo Renzi — the man billed as the Latin left’s answer to Tony Blair — seems happy to ferry into Italy a vast army of migrants with no real idea what to do with them except hope that they move on to other EU countries. The Italian premier has also been quick to champion the Euro-luvvie definition of this as a ‘European’ and not an ‘Italian’ crisis. So as of spring 2015, the ferry service is now operated not just by the Italian navy in the Sicilian channel but across the entire Mediterranean by the navies of many other EU countries, including the Royal Navy. This year, they have brought 54,000 boat people into Italy and a further 48,000 into Greece, and the summer migration season is not even in full swing yet.
No, it is just an Italian crisis, because you’re the one who is causing the fucking problem for Europe. If you just did the sensible thing and sent them right back to Africa, there wouldn’t be any crisis at all.
Recently, Nick Cooke-Priest, captain of the British vessel involved in the rescue mission, HMS Bulwark, told reporters that ‘the indications are that there are 450,000 to 500,000 migrants in Libya who are waiting’ to reach Italy. The British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said ‘We could see hundreds of thousands trying to cross this summer.’ Fabrice Leggeri, the head of the EU’s border agency Frontex, has put the figure even higher, at ‘between 500,000 and a million’. So huge are the numbers that Italian police often just dump coach loads of migrants in town squares or at main railway stations which are then turned into temporary camps. Government policy is to try and spread the migrants out throughout the peninsula to lessen their impact; but now many regional and town councils (of all political persuasions), especially in the north, are in open revolt and refusing to take any more. Scabies is rife (of 46,000 migrants tested this year, 4,700 were infested) and one in four migrants is said by doctors to have Hepatitis C. The anti-immigration vote is rocketing and the Italian left has taken a hammering in the recent regional and city elections.
So not only are they drain on society. Not only are they violent. Not only, do they rape the native women, but now, they’re also diseased. What exactly are these vast benefits that diversity brings to Europe? I know they’re supposed to be so obvious, that they don’t actually need to be discussed, but unfortunately, I’m just too stupid to see these obvious benefits. It seems that many Italian people are too stupid to see them as well if the anti-immigration vote is doing well, so it might be a good idea to actually explain what these vast benefits are. After all, if diversity really is so beneficial to Europe, it should be easy to explain….right?
The EU — urged on in particular by an increasingly desperate Italy and Greece — is trying to draw up a quota deal to distribute the huge migrant army; but as with the single currency, when push comes to shove, it is every nation for itself. Despite months of talks, there are few signs of an agreement even on the small numbers being bandied about. A couple of months ago, there was much talk about UN sanctioned military action by the EU to stop the smugglers’ boats putting to sea from the Libyan coast. For weeks now, the silence on that subject has been deafening.
NO NO, that was a fantastic idea. Stop the smugglers, you stop the problem. Why was that fantastic idea abandoned?
The French have ‘closed’ their border with Italy on the Côte d’Azur in defiance of the Schengen Agreement, which guarantees free movement within member nations. They are rigorously checking trains, cars and even footpaths across the mountains, and sending any illegal migrants back to Italy; they say they have sent back 6,000 this year. The justification is simple: the Italians are failing to identify these people and distinguish economic migrants from refugees. Who can argue with that? The Austrians are doing the same at the Brenner Pass in the Alps.
And this makes perfect sense. As I mentioned before, just because Italy is too soft/incompetent to defend their borders, doesn’t mean every other European country should act the same. I respect those countries that put the needs of their own people ahead of the needs of outsiders. I’m just relieved that Ireland is an Island that is far from Africa, because I have little faith that we would be so capable of defending our own borders otherwise.
Pope Francis said last month that leaving the boat people to drown (about 3,500 are known to have died last year, and already nearly 2,000 this year) is ‘an attack against life’ akin to abortion. All of us feel it to be our moral duty to save lives where we can. Yet it cannot be our moral duty to ferry such vast numbers across the Mediterranean into Italy and Europe for ever, unless they are genuine refugees. In fact, our moral duty is not to do so — and the only solution is the one which few politicians dare even talk about, let alone implement: that the navies of the EU should stop the ferry service and start a blockade of Libya.
Why are they so afraid to this? I guarantee that most ordinary Europeans would support that policy and would stand behind any politicians who would implement this. This is obvious just looking at the growing popularity of anti-immigration opposition parties. Do they really fear the vocal minority of lunatic SJWs who would cry about it, that much?
Prime Minister Renzi tried to pretend that the migrant crisis did not exist, but now that it has turned into an emergency he can remain silent no longer. He blames other EU countries for putting the nation before the union — in this latest meltdown of EU collective responsibility — and the British and the French in particular for getting rid of Muammar Gaddafi and turning Libya into a failed state. When Gaddafi was in power, thanks to a deal struck with Berlusconi, who like Blair had an excellent rapport with the Colonel, the number of boat people slowed to a trickle.
Signor Renzi now threatens his EU partners with what he calls ‘Plan B’ but refuses to reveal the details. It is thought to involve, among other things, refusing the EU fleet permission to land rescued migrants in Italy, and giving all migrants already here temporary leave-to-remain cards — in order to fox the French and flood Europe with them. That’ll teach them. The Italians call Renzi ‘Il Rottamatore’ (the Demolition Man) because of his vow to reform Italy root and branch. The nickname may end up being more apt than anybody realised.
Shows just how selfish he is. Because of his own inability/unwillingness to do the right thing for his people by protecting his country’s borders, he has to act like a petulant child and attempt to destroy the rest of Europe. I really hope there’s an election in Italy soon. Hopefully, an anti-immigration party can get in, and put a stop to this insanity, before it’s too late.
Salaam aleikum. Throw-away for obvious reasons. I am a Swedish woman, 31, in the city of Malmö who is in a life-choice situation that involves an Arab man, and I could really need some urgent advice.
As you maybe know, we in Sweden celebrate the multi-cultural society and most people are happy we have gotten a lot of new Muslim co-citizens the past years. Unfortunately, as you also know, because of the war in Syria and America’s bombings, a lot have not moved on their own free will, they are refugees.
I really don’t understand how most people could possibly be happy with this situation. They’ve brought a rape epidemic with them. There’s been an increase in terrorism and gang related violence. They’ve demanded that Swedish society changes to accommodate their beliefs more. There’s a massive housing shortage as a result of mass immigration. All across the rest of Europe, people are getting sick of immigration and want to see much less of it. Yet in Sweden, they’re apparently so happy with it, that they actually call the invaders “co-citizens”. This literally would not happen anywhere else.
We try to help as much as we can, and I have personally worked at the immigration authority for 5 years now. I try to go out of my way to be professional, but last year something happened.
A man, let’s call him A, was my case. He is Syrian from the rural side and had fled with his two brothers. He is 23, brothers 17 and 15.
It was a hard case because we grant extra services to people with traumatic experiences and needed to determine his condition. Because of that I got to know A really well and he started courting me. I was taken out, came home to his place to meet his brothers, he was – and is – a true gentleman.
I’ve got a bad feeling about this.
We started really dating and he wanted me to quickly move to his apartment. It’s in a very Arab part of town, so I was curious but agreed. I was indeed wrong to distrust him, I quickly found the community you never find in Swedish cities. I was and am so happy with that.
This is an interesting comment. I’ve always suspected that part of the reason why the west is so laid back regarding mass immigration the past few decades is because there has been a collapse of community values and a sense of belonging. People feel as if they don’t belong to a larger community and so, it doesn’t make a difference to them if people from a completely different background move in on their turf. As far as people are concerned, a Muslim, or an African migrant is no further removed from them than their native countrymen, in terms of the the connection they feel to them. I think a lot of this has to do with the collapse of Christianity. Although I’m not religious myself, I can’t deny that Christianity was once the uniting factor of Western communities. Communities attended mass together every week, bonded with other members of their parish, and learned their values from the church. I think it’s safe to say that Christianity is dying bit by bit, leaving people without an outlet to bond as a community. Regardless of any bad the church may have done, I do think it’s sad to see that nothing has bee able to fill the communal void its collapse has left.
However, it took some getting used to to be “his” – Swedish men are very soft compared to Arab men, if that makes sense.
This comment makes me laugh. The highly feminist society of Sweden has spent decades demonising their men for displaying masculinity and more or less demanded that they be turned into a bunch of limp-wristed weaklings.
Finally, after decades of social engineering, they managed to turn a significant amount of their men into a bunch of self loathing manginas, with the traits that Swedish feminists have always wanted…. only to reject them in favour of men from a culture which is far more misogynistic than Swedish men ever were. It’s completely insane. I’ve never claimed to be an expert on women because…well… I’m not, quite frankly. However, I do at least have enough common sense to know this much. Women are attracted to men, not fucking doormats, which is exactly what a lot of Swedish men have been reduced to over the past few decades.
OK, so 7 months ago, we decided to get Islamic married at a small beautiful ceremony. I started covering myself to respect him and I actually found it very safe. But that’s when the problems began. My family started to talk very badly about him and my brothers especially were extremely disrespectful to us and our life.
It has been escalating since, and as a result, he has become more controlling and stressed. I can easily handle that and I like that he cares so much about me.
Today, we were out for breakfast to meet up with my family. And then my one brother set a trap for A: he had his wife flirt with him in the kitchen, and when my brother “saw” it – he knew it all along – he punched A. A defended himself and we left.
He was first very angry with me but then we had a talk. This is where I need help: he can no longer accept my family and I think he is justified to think so. He has set the ultimatum that we either go to my parents tonight and tell them that I won’t be seeing them anymore and on top of that, he will help me learn how to create a good relation/marriage for the two of us. If we don’t do it, we are over.
I’m now in our bathroom speculating. I know I should say no to him, but my deepest desire is to give in to him and take my life with him.
Please, you know the culture better than me: what would you do? Thanks so much.
So lets summarise what has happened here.
She adopts Islamic traditions in order to “respect him” even though he is the guest in her country. It would be one thing, if she was in his home country. I could kind of understand then, but in her own country, this seems ridiculous.
He is a control freak. She just considers it to be him “caring” about her.
She says her family has become disrespectful towards him. She doesn’t explain how. Seeing as this is Sweden, I doubt they’d ever actually be genuinely be racist. They probably just expressed concern about her (obviously as a result of being brainwashed) behaviour. Showing such concern would probably seem racist to a Swede.
The guy wants her to break off contact with her family (which would thus isolate her even more and just lead to her getting more brainwashed).
She’s actually seriously considering it.
I just found this absolutely fascinating to read. It really is a disturbing insight into the mind of a Swedish woman. I actually wonder just how many others like her are out there. Looking at what’s going on in Sweden, I’m guessing she’s just one of many.
As we all know only white people can ever be racist. This is because racism requires both prejudice and power. Having white skin automatically confers greater power on a person than those who don’t have white skin. We can see a perfect example of this in action in the video below.
Even though the two Pakistani boys were larger, had a two to one advantage, and are living in one of the most politically correct countries in the world, where invasive minorities are given preference in the media and by law enforcement over the native majority, they are still automatically overpowered by the smaller British boy’s white skin. Therefore, we can conclude that what we saw in the above video is not a hate crime, or if in fact it was, the perpetrator was clearly the white boy, who was more than likely oppressing those Pakistani boys somehow.
Seriously, what are those Pakistani boys doing in Britain? If their parents have some in demand skills (for example, they could be doctors), then fair enough, at least the family as a whole is of some benefit to Britain. If on the other hand, they come from an unskilled family, why are they in Britain? How does their presence benefit the British people? Did Britain (an alleged democracy) actually allow the British people to say whether or not they wanted to open their borders to outsiders? Do the British people not have a right to live in safety within the borders of the country their ancestors built? We don’t see British people going over to live in Pakistan, raping their children, committing acts of terrorism, or allowing their children to savagely beat native Pakistani children. Why is the reverse allowed to happen?
Professor Fionnuala McAuliffe, a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist at the National Maternity Hospital and head of obstetrics and gynaecology at UCD’s medical school, said women should consider starting their families earlier to avoid potential health complications or risk struggling to get pregnant.
“We need to get the message out there that, biologically, women do much better when they have their children in their 20s instead of their 30s,” she told the Irish Independent.
“I’m not encouraging women to have a baby come hell or high water. The message is for women in their 20s who are in a stable relationship but are deferring motherhood because they want to do other things.
“We come across couples who have been together since their early 20s but are not planning to have a family till their early 30s. Of course, fertility is starting to decline at that stage; the orange light goes on at 35 and the red light goes on at 40. The older the mother is, the more likely she is to have complications.”
Ireland is now home to the oldest mothers in Europe. Women here are 30.3 years old, on average, when they give birth for the first time, the HSE reported in March. In addition, a higher proportion of women in Ireland are aged 40 or older when they first become mothers than in any other country in the rest of the EU.
Prof McAuliffe said that information about the optimum age to reproduce should be highlighted at second level on the Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) curriculum, which includes relationships and sexuality education.
“All schools have education programmes around family, nutrition, lifestyle, and that would be an ideal place” to “raise awareness among schoolchildren that there are medical and biological issues” around giving birth at an older age, she said.
Unfortunately, we live in a world that is at war with the natural order. People have become arrogant enough to think that humanity is above nature. That all observable, physical realities about ourselves are simply “social constructs” that were set up arbitrarily in order to oppress people, and have nothing to do with biological reality.
Not too long ago, we weren’t like this. We lived in harmony with nature. We lived in small, tribal communities and we hunted and farmed the food that we ate. Like all living organisms, the biggest instinctive drive in our lives, beyond self-preservation, was reproduction, in order to ensure that our genes would carry on after we were gone. As we are a sexually dimorphic species with different strengths and weaknesses, it was necessary for men and women to take on different roles in order to best ensure our survival. Men, being physically stronger and having higher testosterone levels (and therefore higher aggression), were better suited to hunt animals to eat, or to fight wars against rival tribes for resources. Women, being gentler and better carers, were better suited to take care of children. A male and female would produce children together. The male would go out and provide for and protect his children and the mother of his children, and the female would raise and take care of the children. This was in the best interest of both sexes. Having these specific roles meant that psychological differences between the sexes, evolved alongside the physical differences, in order to make the sexes better suited for their roles in the tribe’s survival.
Now, I’m not denying that humanity has come a long way since we were in the caves. Technological and societal developments have meant that this arrangement is no longer necessary for survival. A woman doesn’t need a man to protect her, or to provide for her anymore. She is capable of getting a job and providing for herself. However, just because they can do this, it doesn’t mean that everything that existed before suddenly doesn’t matter. Absolutely nothing about our biological make-up has changed since we lived in the caves and had to take specific gender roles. This includes our psychology.
I would strongly suspect that the vast majority of women who are mothers, would consider it to be the best thing that ever happened to them. Even despite the challenges and difficulties they may have faced raising their children, the annoyances they may have endured, and the personal sacrifices they would have had to have made for their children, I bet very few would say that it wasn’t worth it. I would also suspect that the vast majority of women who aren’t mothers, would like to become one some day. Again, obviously there will be exceptions and I will not deny that, but I bet these exceptions are in the minority.
Unfortunately, we have created a world which favours these exceptions, instead of the majority. There was a time, not too long ago, were a man could have an average job that provided an income which was enough to provide for himself, his non employed wife, several children, and could pay for a mortgage. This setup worked quite well, and most people were happy with it. Then feminism came along with the claim that women had the “right to work” as if working was this fun amazing thing that men excluded women from. I don’t disagree that women have the right to work, because I believe in a fair and equal society. However, what started as a right, quickly became an obligation.
Once women entered the workforce, the law of supply and demand kicked in. If you increase the supply of something and there is no increase in demand to match the increased supply, the end result is that it becomes devalued. By essentially doubling the number of potential workers in the system, it halved the value of their labour. Now, the single income family is virtually non-existent among people with average jobs. Can anyone honestly name a man on the average industrial wage who earns enough to support a family and pay a mortgage on just his income alone? I’d be amazed if you can.
So now, instead of having the choice between employment, or adopting a traditional housewife role, women have no choice but to go out and work. Naturally because they have to work, they want to get good jobs, which means that many of them attend university, find employment with good companies, and spend the next few years working their way up the ranks to a better position. In a highly competitive environment, having other commitments (ie. children) can be seen as a liability, which means that many women are putting off having children at a time when, biologically speaking, their bodies are most suited to do so.
By the time they are in a position in their career where they can start having children without them being a liability to their advancement prospects, it is often too late. The only other option that many women are left with is to try and do both, commit to a career, while at the same time, trying to raise children, a near impossible task in a world where childcare is so expensive, that it’s almost not worth having a job at all.
Even then on the topic of childcare, how many women would much rather spend that time taking care of their children themselves, rather than working and getting someone else to take care of their kids for them? Again, I’d suspect that the vast majority of women would happily pack in their career to take care of their kids, if it was financially possible to do so because that is what their biology wants them to do.
While I think it’s great to see a mainstream newspaper addressing the biological reality of the race against time for women to actually have children, I don’t see anything being done that will actually make any difference unfortunately. As long as we live in a society where both men and women are required to be employed just to survive, I can’t see things getting any better. I think it’s an awful shame that ironically enough, fighting to allow “choice” has actually resulted in less choices.