RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.milsteinff.org/from-auschwitz-to-america-lessons-from-europes-killing-fi

This month, we had the privilege to learn more about the devastating and cruel truths of the Holocaust. We traveled to six countries – the Czech Republic, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Germany – with 100 leading American philanthropists and scholars, and together, we tried to wrap our heads around the scope of the genocide carried out by Nazi Germany and its European collaborators.

We saw the horrific conditions suffered by the Jews in Auschwitz-Birkenau, which were built with a single purpose: to eradicate the Jewish and Gypsy peoples. We saw mass graves in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland, where hundreds of thousands of Jewish families perished by firing squads because their gentile neighbors collaborated with or joined in when the German Killing Machine arrived. At the Rumbula Forest Memorial, we paid our respects to some of the 2.4 million Jews who were killed in the Hidden Holocaust by bullets – some, murdered by neighbors they had grown up alongside.

Far too many people view these places as simply historical sites, where you can learn something about the past, but nothing about the future. Many – including some within the Jewish community – can’t comprehend that the antisemitism that existed in Nazi Germany might happen again, especially in America.

Facing these horrors up close focused our attention on the relevance of the Holocaust to our present day. How can we ensure that Never Again isn’t just a slogan, but a mindset and an action plan?

Three lessons from our journey stand out.

First, events like the Holocaust don’t happen overnight. They result from a process of systematic racism, intimidation, and discrimination that lasts many years.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/06/sharia-stealth/

Criminalising comments deemed offensive to any religious group intimidates those who wish to freely express their ideas and opinions, a liberty our democracy has always maintained should be available to all. Such laws are antithetical to all the West represents — and all it should be defending.

The infiltration of non-Muslim countries by Islam is one of the strategies Mohammed devised when creating his ideology. His initial approach was persuasion through infiltration and, if that failed, he then adopted a military strategy through conquest and total domination. This is still Islam’s approach today. The financing of universities by Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for gaining critical leverage and massive influence has been endemic in the United States but also other Western countries, including Australia. This enables these oppressive Islamic regimes to strategically insert academics who become prominent and thus extremely influential in corrupting the minds of gullible students.

There is no Centre for Western Civilisation in Australian universities. However, there are plenty of centres dedicated to the promotion of Islamic states and societies. Take a look for instance at the Centre for Muslim States and Societies at the University of Western Australia. Its director is Samina Yasmeen (BSc Punjab, MSc Quaid-i-Azam, MA ANU, PhD Tas), a self-described expert in ‘the role of Islam in world politics’. When the media reported violent protests in Sydney by radical Muslims attacking the police, she dared to create a moral equivalence between the violence of Muslims and the so-called ‘violence’ of YouTube videos that ‘inflame emotions across the Muslim world.’[1] These videos ‘violate the special place assigned to Prophet Mohammed. Any disrespect is felt as an intrusion into this sacred space’, she said.[2]

This Muslim academic claims it is the disrespect of Islam that triggers the violent responses of radical Muslims against non-Muslims. Instead of addressing the appalling levels of intolerance and bigotry within the Muslim community, Yasmeen proposes a form of punishment of those who ‘violate’ the ‘religious feelings’ of Muslims. She argues that Australians should be forced to respect these ‘religious feelings’, which cannot be ‘invaded’ by infidels. Any criticism of Islam is, in her opinion, a primary source of Islamic terrorism and all sorts of intolerant behaviour: ‘I would argue that intentionally violating spaces sacred to Muslims or any other people falls within the space of violence. Though not obviously targeting anyone living today, deliberating inflaming emotions needs to be acknowledged as violence’, she says.[3] Yasmeen also talks about ‘coordinating financial sanctions’ that ‘could help the Muslims deal with such attacks on religions feelings’. In order to ‘help Muslims to deal with such attacks on religious feeling’, a form of Sharia law by stealth should be imposed:

A billion dollar lawsuit against those who target religious beliefs, and engage in intense violation of sacred spaces, would shift the whole discussion to a different place. Even if the courts throw out the suit, it would focus attention on legal pathways to oppose such violence aimed at space that is sacred for a quarter of humanity. It may even create pathways that counter violence of this kind. [4]

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12614/netherlands-burqa-ban

“People’s faces should not be hidden in society, for it is our faces that give us our identity and our fundamental means of communication with others.” — Geert Wilders, Party for Freedom (PVV).

Dutch Interior Minister Kajsa Ollongren said the new law represents “a fair balance” between “the freedom to dress as one wishes” and “the general interest of communication and security.” She also said that far from violating fundamental rights, the ban will enable Muslim women “to have access to a wider social life” because if they do not cover the face “they will have more possibilities for contact, communication and opportunities to enter the job market.”

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) twice has ruled that burqa bans are legal, making it unlikely that the Dutch ban could be overturned in court.

The Dutch Senate has approved a law that bans the wearing of “face-covering clothing” in public buildings, including hospitals, schools and government offices, as well as on public transportation.

Although the ban does not extend to public streets, the law authorizes police to ask individuals to remove face-covering clothing to establish their identity.

Those found flouting the ban — which includes Islamic veils and robes such as burqas (which cover the entire face) and niqabs (which cover the entire face except for the eyes), as well as balaclavas and full-face helmets — will be subject to a fine of 410 euros ($475).

The new law, previously adopted by the Dutch House of Representatives in November 2016, was approved on June 26 by 44 to 31 votes in the 75-seat Senate.

In a statement, the government, which has not yet said when the law will enter into effect, explained its purpose:

“In a free country like the Netherlands, everyone has the freedom and space to behave and dress as he or she desires. Sometimes, limits can and must be imposed on that freedom. In the case of face-covering clothing, this applies in particular if mutual communication is impeded or safety is jeopardized.

“Mutual communication whereby people can look each other in the face is so important that uniform rules have now been laid down by law. This makes it clear to everyone what is and is not allowed in those situations.”

A Muslim activist group called “Stay away from my Niqab!” said the ban is unconstitutional. In an open letter sent to Dutch lawmakers, the group, which has more than 5,000 followers on Facebook, asked:

“Why is it not realized that this law leads to people being isolated from society? This ban leads to women who wear face-covering clothing, who like to participate in society, no longer to be able to do this effectively because they now have a restriction on education, license applications, travel with public transport, visiting a doctor and much more….

“Is the constitution no longer applicable to women with face-covering clothing? What about the right that everyone is free to dress how he/she wants, regardless of race, gender, religion or belief?

“What about Article 6 of the Constitution which sets out freedom of religion and belief? Is there a problem in which everyone does not have the right freely to confess their religion or belief, individually or in community with others?”

The group’s spokeswoman, Karima Rahmani, added:

“We feel that we are being wronged with a repressive measure, which is why we trying to make our voices heard. It is getting harder and harder to be on the street with a niqab. I myself have been threatened with death, and other women have even been physically attacked.