RUTHFULLY YOURS

In Germany, 47% of Muslims believe Sharia is more important than German law. In Sweden, 52% of Muslims believe that Sharia is more important than Swedish law.

The studies are supported by European intelligence reports. In Germany, intelligence agencies warned in the early fall of 2015 that, “We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law.”

A recent Belgian study, in which 4,734 Belgians were polled, showed that two-thirds of Belgians feel that their nation is being “increasingly invaded”.

“We cannot and will never be able to stop migration”, wrote the EU’s Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, Dimitris Avramopoulos recently. “At the end of the day, we all need to be ready to accept migration, mobility and diversity as the new norm and tailor our policies accordingly”.

Given that such people would have us believe that migration has become such a categorical and seemingly incontestable policy of the EU — “Migration is deeply intertwined with our policies on economics, trade, education and employment”, Avramapolous also wrote — it is crucial to analyze what kind of “diversity” the EU is inviting to make its home on the European continent.

Professor Ednan Aslan, Professor of Islamic Religious Education at the University of Vienna, recently interviewed a sample of 288 of the approximately 4,000 predominantly Afghan asylum seekers in the Austrian city of Graz, on behalf of the city’s integration department. Members of the department understandably wanted to know the views of the Muslim newcomers there. The results were published in a study, “Religiöse und Ethische Orientierungen von Muslimischen Flüchtlingen in Graz” (“Religious and ethical orientations of Muslim refugees in Graz”).

According to the study, two-thirds of the asylum seekers are men, mostly under 30 years old. They are all in favor of preserving their traditional, conservative, Islamic values. The migrants are extremely religious; 70% go to the mosque every Friday for prayers.

“Islam in Global Politics.” How one addresses this issue depends not just on the meaning of those four words —— “Islam,” “Global” “politics,” and also “in” —— both individually and together. It also depends on how you see and approach the question that they together pose. On the attitude or approach that you adopt. Is it one of:

Islam and Muslims asserting themselves in, imposing themselves and their agenda upon, global politics? or of
Islam and Muslims within, and finding their world-historical place within, and engaging with —— respectfully engaging with —— diverse, plural and (in significant measure non-Muslim) global humankind: in and as part of a sincere effort by all to find, negotiate, establish a way, or ways, of “sharing the world”? Decently and constructively sharing the world?

These are two radically, different and contrasting attitudes and approaches.

One is egotistic, immature, narcissistic (akin to an infantile “Me! Me! Me!” tantrum); it rests upon a childish notion that sees only oneself as real, and others as merely the sociocultural backdrop, the historical context, of one’s own needs, agenda and “narrative”;

The other, alone, is mature, humane, constructive, exceeds the bounds and framework of infantile wish-fulfillment drives.

To be specific. “Islam in Global Politics”: there is today no more high-profile and urgent instance than “The Jerusalem Question.”

There are two parts to this problem —— and they are not the same. They are related, but not one and the same thing. Both must be understood, and they must both be resolved.

Poland’s parliament passed a libel bill Thursday imposing jail sentences for accusing the Polish population of collaborating in the Holocaust or other war crimes, sparking concerns from Israel and the U.S. that a close ally was limiting free expression and flirting with anti-Semitism.

American and Israeli diplomats condemned the legislation, passed by the upper house of the country’s legislature, which would set up to three years’ imprisonment for blaming the wartime murder of roughly six million Jews on the Polish state or people.

The vote comes against a wider backdrop of rising nationalism and increasing state control over democratic institutions, including the media and the courts. Critics accused the government of turning a blind eye to a rising tide of xenophobia late last year after a march organized by a movement that seeks an ethnically pure Poland drew some 60,000 people.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called his Polish counterpart earlier this week to lobby against the law, according to Polish media, and Mr. Netanyahu’s government has likened the law to state denial of the Holocaust.

“Israel opposes categorically the Polish Senate decision,” Emmanuel Nahshon, spokesman for Israel’s foreign ministry said in a statement. “Israel views with utmost gravity any attempt to challenge historical truth. No law will change the facts.”

U.S. diplomats said it would impinge on free speech and called for Poland to reconsider the bill: “We all must be careful not to inhibit discussion and commentary on the Holocaust,” a statement from the U.S. State Department said.

The bill, which requires the signature of President Andrzej Duda to become law, touches on a bedrock emotional and historical subject for both Poland and Israel. It doesn’t mention the Holocaust, or World War II. But it criminalizes accusing the Polish state or population for responsibility or complicity in any crime against humanity, at any point in history.

The subtext was widely understood to be the Nazi-led genocide that took place largely on Polish soil in the 1940s. Nearly 90% of Poland’s three million Jews—along with about three million non-Polish Jews and another three million non-Jewish Poles—were killed after Germany’s 1939 invasion of its eastern neighbor.

Poland’s government was in exile or hiding throughout the war. Unlike France, Belgium, or Norway, there was no organized state effort by Polish people to deport Jews. As many as 400,000 Poles fought the Nazi soldiers occupying their country. CONTINUE AT SITE

HONG KONG— Joshua Wong, the university student who became the face of Hong Kong’s democracy movement, has been nominated along with other local activists for the Nobel Peace Prize by a group of U.S. lawmakers, a move that risks a rebuke from China.

The 12 politicians, led by Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Rep. Christopher Smith (R., N.J.), wrote in a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee that the entire pro-democracy movement should receive the honor “in recognition of their peaceful efforts to bring political reform” to Hong Kong, where many have decried Beijing’s increasing control.

The nomination threatens to anger the Chinese government, which has insisted that Hong Kong’s affairs are a domestic matter because the former British colony is a special administrative region of China. The House of Representatives passed a resolution on Nov. 1 urging Beijing to stick to the “one country, two systems” agreement, made before Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule in 1997, that affords the city a high degree of autonomy and its residents greater liberties than those on the mainland.

Sen. Rubio and Rep. Smith are the chair and cochair, respectively, of the bipartisan Congressional-Executive Commission on China.

Mr. Wong and fellow activists Nathan Law and Alex Chow led pro-democracy protests in 2014 that became known as the Umbrella Movement. Tens of thousands of demonstrators, seeking freer elections without Beijing’s interference, blocked highways for three months — but ultimately failed to extract democratic concessions from the Chinese government.

The movement is credited with birthing a new political class in the Asian financial hub, including the political party Demosisto, which Messrs. Wong and Law founded with others.

Their efforts have faced setbacks in recent months.​ Mr. Wong, who is 21 years old, was jailed for his role in the protests—and in a separate case for contempt of court—with the sentence length rendering him ineligible for office for five years. He is appealing both sentences. CONTINUE AT SITE

February is officially LGBT history month in Britain, and according to the acronym posted by one British gay site, you might be part of the movement — without even knowing it! Everyone from gays and lesbians to those into kinky sex now count in the movement.

How big can a tent get before it becomes meaningless? Perhaps we’re about to find out.

Here is the list published by “The Gay UK” (PJ Media comments in italics):

L – lesbian Okay.

G – gay I’m tracking.

B – bisexual Yeah, yeah.

T – transgender Identifying with the gender opposite your biological sex. That can get weird with extraterrestrials and dragons…

Q – queer Not normal, in some vague sexual way.

Q – questioning Do philosophers count? Socrates?

I – intersex At least everyone agrees this is a physical condition.

A – asexual Wait, I thought this was all about sex… Now there’s a group who identify as not wanting sex.

A – agender Ummm, people can’t erase gender, but okay I guess.

A – ally Seriously? All you have to do to get on this list is say you’re “allying” with people?

C – curious This is different from questioning how?

P – pansexual How is this different from bisexual? “I do believe in fairies! I do! I do!”

P – polysexual According to the dictionary, it’s the same as pansexual. Perhaps they meant polyamorous, loving more than one person?

F – friends and family WHAT? So if you’re vaguely related to somebody in the LGBT+ you’re in it, now?

2 – two-spirit Native Americans who embrace the masculine and the feminine in themselves. Somehow different from being high on peyote.

K – kink Yes, this means anyone who gets sexually aroused by weird things, like Fifty Shades of Grey, is in… CONTINUE AT SITE

Canada continues its submission to Islamism. My local paper, the Hamilton Spectator, ran an op-ed on January 26th from a local Muslim doctor under the headline, “Islamophobia is alive and well.” Dr. Raza Khan, writing about the tragic shooting a year ago by a lone individual in a Quebec City mosque killing 6 and injuring more, advocates that Canada should designate January 29th as a “National Day of Remembrance and Action on Islamophobia.” The doctor recites a few anti-Muslim actions by some fringe groups, and Quebec’s law that those wearing burkas or niqabs would not be eligible from offering or receiving public services, its legislature feeling that faces should be disclosed. From this he hectors us that “Racism is surging in Quebec” and that “the ugly face of hatred (is) here in Canada.”

He concludes his essay thus: “Never Again. For all.” Most of us know that “Never Again” is the term most often used in the hope that the Holocaust murdering 6 million Jews will never again happen. Dr. Khan however appropriates this expression for the purpose of drawing moral equivalence between acts of some isolated individuals and a considered legislative policy about how far hiding your face can go in a liberal democracy. This equivalency was run in the newspaper three days before International Holocaust Remembrance Day. This attempt to give another commemorative date to Muslims a few days before Holocaust Remembrance Day follows an attempt to bring a motion before Canada’s Parliament giving special attention to “Islamophobia” in a motion condemning racism.

Member of Parliament Iqra Khalid in her Motion 103 calls on the government to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination,” asks the government to “recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear,” and request for the “Commons heritage committee to study how the government could develop a government-wide approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia, and collect data to provide context for hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities. Findings are to be presented within eight months.” Khalid has been “unwilling to entertain any compromise on the specific wording” of Motion 103.

The European Union has programs in place that seek heavily to influence mainstream news outlets and journalists with its own agendas — such as that of continued mass-migration into Europe from Africa and the Middle East. For this purpose, the European Commission recently funded the publication of a handbook with guidelines for journalists on how to write about migrants and migration.

It is seemingly in the interest of these media representatives to label competition from alternative or new media, “fake news”.

A proposed French law would allow authorities to block websites during election seasons, a draconian measure to combat political opponents, which would place France in the same category as countries such as China and Iran that block websites that do not suit the agendas of the regime.

The European Union is intensifying its efforts to censor and marginalize voices that disagree with its policies, under the convenient euphemism of combating “fake news”.

“The Commission needs to look into the challenges the online platforms create for our democracies as regards the spreading of fake information and initiate a reflection on what would be needed at EU level to protect our citizens,” wrote Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, in May 2017. How considerate that Juncker, in totalitarian fashion, wishes to protect EU citizens from news that does not fit the Commission’s narratives and agendas.

In October 2017, the European Commission announced its “fake news” policies and how it intends to “design solutions to address the spread of fake news”. According to the Commission, “Fake news consists of intentional disinformation spread via online social platforms, broadcast news media or traditional print”. Furthermore, according to the Commission, the EU’s fake news policy is guided by, among other things, “the freedom of expression, media pluralism, and the right of citizens to diverse and reliable information”.

Why is this ongoing post colonial tragedy in Africa ignored by legislators? A documentary was made in 2013 “Congo-The Road to Ruin” read about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/opinion/congo-the-road-to-ruin.html
During the final mass of his Latin American tour this past week, Pope Francis highlighted one of the most devastating crises currently affecting Christians: the ongoing atrocities being committed by Joseph Kabila’s unconstitutional government in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). In an emotional appeal in Lima, the leader of the Catholic Church demanded that Congolese authorities do everything possible to stop the constant escalation of violence against peaceful protesters.

Over the 12+ months that President Kabila has refused to step down since his term officially ended, Pope Francis and the Catholic Church have been among the strongest voices calling for Kabila to allow free and fair elections to choose his successor. When Kabila visited the Vatican in September 2016, as concerns intensified that he would delay the elections then scheduled for December of that year, Francis pointedly received him in his library, rather than the reception room in which he usually greets heads of state. The pope used their conversation to urge Kabila to ensure a peaceful transition of power.

Yet in more than a year since that meeting, a transition of power has yet to take place. Instead, Kabila has taken progressively more extreme measures to cling to power, from attempts to change the constitution to increasingly violent crackdowns on protests. In late 2016, the influential and widely respected Catholic Church of Congo brokered an agreement to allow Kabila to remain president until the end of 2017, provided that he refrain from amending the Constitution or staying in office beyond December 31, 2017. The passage of that date marked not only Kabila’s failure to stick to his side of the bargain, but one of the Congolese authorities’ most egregious violations of human rights yet.