RUTHFULLY YOURS

BRUSSELS—The European Union’s parliament on Thursday asked for the bloc to scrap visa-free travel for U.S. citizens within two months in retaliation for the U.S. continuing to exclude five EU countries from its no-visa regime.

While the request is nonbinding and unlikely to change EU policy, it reflects hostility among some European politicians to the Trump administration.

Under EU visa-reciprocity rules, countries allowed visa-free travel to the EU must replicate the no-visa regime to all EU countries.
However, the U.S. Visa Waiver program allowing visa-free travel to citizens from 38 countries is based on a country-by-country analysis of how many of their citizens overstay or are declined visas.

In the EU, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland and Romania continue to be outside the Visa Waiver program, years after joining the EU. Cyprus and Poland became members of the EU in 2004, Romania and Bulgaria 10 years ago, and Croatia in 2013.

A two-year deadline that lapsed in April 2016 obliging the EU executive to scrap visa-free travel for U.S. citizens has been pushed back last year, as the outgoing Obama administration didn’t commit on the issue before the presidential elections that took place in November.

European home-affairs commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos, who traveled to Washington last month, spoke to U.S. Secretary for Homeland Security John Kelly and explained the time constraints and the pressure from the European Parliament to resolve the issue. But with the new administration still defining its policies, EU officials don’t expect the matter to be advanced soon. CONTINUE AT SITE

The document does not contemplate a scenario in which the European Union faces collapse, or in which major member states decide to follow the British example and exit the bloc.

The European Commission, in a rare instance of candor, admits that European federalism risks “alienating parts of society which feel that the EU lacks legitimacy or has taken too much power away from national authorities.”

The Commission does not consider the possibility that in 2025 it may not even exist.

The European Commission has published a document outlining five scenarios for how the European Union could evolve within the next ten years.

The so-called White Paper on the Future of Europe, which will be presented at the Rome Summit on March 25, 2017 to mark the 60th anniversary of the European Union, is intended to be “the starting point for a wider public debate on the future of our continent.”

Each of the five scenarios is based on the premise that “the 27 Member States move forward together as a Union.” The document does not consider the possibility that the EU could collapse or break apart, or even that the powers of the EU be significantly curtailed. The document states:

“Too often, the discussion on Europe’s future has been boiled down to a binary choice between more or less Europe. That approach is misleading and simplistic. The possibilities covered here range from the status quo, to a change of scope and priorities, to a partial or collective leap forward.”

Nevertheless, for the European Commission, the powerful administrative arm of the European Union, publicly to even consider alternatives to full-blown European federalism is a testament to the growing power and influence of anti-EU political movements in Europe.

Before its official presentation by one the EU presidents, Jean-Claude Juncker, this afternoon at 15.00, the White Paper that presents the EU Commission’s vision of the future of the EU has already been leaked. Politico has been able to get a hold of what looks like a final draft version of the document and published it (PDF). The report offers five possible scenarios.

Scenario 1, carrying on, mostly means ‘more of the same’. Especially a sentence such as “there is incremental progress on improving the functioning of the single currency in order to drive growth and prevent shocks starting at home or abroad” indicates the same sort of ‘creeping barrage’ of further centralisation we see now.

Scenario 2, is nothing but the single market, in which the EU would secede federal control over immigration, security and defence. However, it should be called ‘nothing but the single market, and the shared currency that’s dragging it down’, because it says “the euro facilitates trade exchanges but growing divergence and limited cooperation are major sources of vulnerability.” Those that were hoping for construction similar to the EEC will be sorely disappointed.

Scenarios 3 and 4 are more or less hybrids, where the EU either divests itself from tasks, or from countries.

In scenario 5, the so-called “Verhofstadt option,” the sovereignty of member states is severely limited, with the EU taking over foreign policy and building up a European Defence Union.

This scenario also claims a “significantly modernised and increased [EU budget], backed up by own resources; a euro area stabilisation function is operational,” effectively leading to the formation of some sort of European Superstate at the EU level.

Commenting on the White Paper, Pieter Cleppe, the head of the Brussels office of the Open Europe think-tank, is summarised in the Telegraph as saying:

“the Juncker blueprint was shaping up to be a repeat of tired old EU dogma, rather than a genuine attempt to address the EU structural issues,” and quoted as saying it presents “a lost opportunity for the EU to reinvent itself after Brexit. Turning it into a mere trade-facilitating arrangement could have increased popular support.”

According to Reuters, Commission spokesman Margaritis Schinas said that

“After [the March 25 summit in] Rome we want to launch a public debate on these options (…) this has to be about the people and we very much hope that the leaders will launch such a process.”

Which is a bit rich, coming from a Commission that has time and time again, decided to ignore the wishes of the people made clear in referenda. The people have already spoken and it does not seem they will be taken in by these five scenarios.

Dorsa Derakhshani may be today’s bravest feminist. As the 18-year-old Iranian chess grandmaster competed at a January tournament in Gibraltar, she refused to don a hijab, in defiance of her country’s Islamic authorities. She was later removed from the national team. Her 15-year-old brother, Borna, was also booted, for facing off against an Israeli chess player.

It would be nice to report that Western feminists rallied to Ms. Derakhshani’s defense, but they didn’t. America’s liberal feminists have been busy planning a “Day Without a Woman” to protest President Trump’s alleged misogyny.

In Iran, the Interior Ministry investigates more than a million women every year for refusing to cover their heads. In 2014 several bareheaded young Iranian women posted a video of themselves dancing and singing to Pharrell Williams’s “Happy.” They were arrested for “hurting public chastity” and sentenced to a year in prison and 91 lashes. (The sentences were suspended contingent on three years of good behavior.)

Feminists and progressives have a habit of ignoring Islamism’s female victims, preferring to focus on phantom reports of Islamophobia in the West. Enormous attention has been paid to “burqa bans” in European countries. But how many readers have heard of Ms. Derakhshani?

Sweden claims it has a “feminist foreign policy,” yet during an official trip to Iran last month several female cabinet members covered their heads. How will Iranian women escape Islamism’s chokehold if European feminists submissively bow to men who refuse even to shake a woman’s hand?

Days before that state visit, an Islamic court in Iran’s Lorestan Province sentenced a man and woman to death by stoning for adultery. The Swedish feminists issued nary a peep in protest of this gross violation of human rights.

In the guise of cultural relativism, Western feminism appears to have evolved into a new kind of racism. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights seems not to apply to women in certain Islamic countries. CONTINUE AT SITE

Those rotten Papists http://quadrant.org.au/

Kristina Keneally headline “CATHOLICISM HAS DIONE MORE HARM TO AUSTRALIA THAN ISLAM.WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?”

The way it works is like this:

First, a favoured or indulged representative of some not-quite-mainstream group or organisation says something offensive or, just as likely, irredeemably stupid.

Second, the first enablers and apologists poke their heads out of whichever university faculty, rights commission or assembly of scolds in which they have found a roost, usually a taxpayer-funded one, and insist that there is nothing wrong with whatever utterance has incited criticism. Most likely these first responders will assert the remarks were taken out of context and this happens because critics’ are shamefully eager to parade their prejudice/racism/intolerance/whatever.

Third, the professional dissemblers — those masters of the misleading analogy, the schleppers of advanced sophistry — gird themselves in militant righteousness and go on the attack.

This very process notably began two weeks ago, when Yassmin Abdel-Magied swore blind on Q&A that there could be no creed more aligned with feminist sentiment than that of the mosque and minaret. How sharia is just, you know, a really, really beaut thing.

First out of the gate in Ms Abdel-Magied’s defence was the Australian Islamic Mission, which raised a petition objecting to her treatment as a Muslim. She should never have been placed in such position, allowed to make a spectacle of herself, because it is offensive for Muslims to be called upon for explanation of themselves and their views.

Two weeks later, your more accomplished spinners and dissemblers are on the job, with former NSW premier Kristine Keneally setting the gold standard for dross. Here she is in the Guardian, putting Abdel-Magied’s inanity into the preferred perspective (emphasis added):

…every Australian Muslim who pokes their head up in public is expected to own, explain and condemn any terrorist act carried out by any extremist Muslim anywhere in the world. The outrage machine demands it, and then that same machine judges if the words are sufficient.

Why isn’t this same outrage applied to Australian Catholics? If we are going on a body count the Catholic clergy has done more harm to more Australians than extremist Muslims.

At last count no Australian Catholic, a religion in which Ms Keneally lists herself a believer, had stabbed two policeman, schemed to blow up the Holsworthy army base and the MCG, held a coffee shop hostage, shot a computer programmer on a Parramatta street or … [insert the next outrage here]

Keneally’s departure point for this flight of fancy and fantasy is the evidence of priestly abuse laid before the ongoing royal commission. Well she would cite that, wouldn’t she?

To appreciate the Guardian’s place as Australia’s intellectual S-bend — the spot where grubby muck briefly settles — follow the link below.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/berlin-bans-muslim-group-accused-of-supporting-terrorism-1488302106

BERLIN—Local authorities on Tuesday banned a Muslim group accused of supporting terrorism, offering a fresh sign of Germany’s increased efforts to combat Islamist extremists in the wake of December’s deadly Christmas-market attack.

Officials in Berlin, which is governed as a city-state, moved quickly through the arduous legal process of banning the Muslim group Fussilet 33 e.V. They did so after learning that Anis Amri, who attacked the market, was a frequent visitor at the group’s mosque, including on the day he rammed a truck into a Christmas market.

Berlin’s interior ministry said Fussilet 33, which also hosted religious lectures and seminars in the working-class Moabit neighborhood, supported terrorist organizations such as Islamic State and Junud al-Sham by collecting funds and recruiting people to fight in Syria and Iraq. Representatives from Fussilet 33 couldn’t be reached for comment.

The group and its members “hailed the armed jihad and religiously motivated terrorism,” said State Secretary Torsten Akmann.

German authorities face pressure to show they are aggressively fighting radical Islamism at home. They came under criticism for failing to stop Mr. Amri in the months before his attack.

Mr. Amri’s case drew attention to radical Muslim groups that German security authorities say pose an increasing challenge in the fight against violent Islamist ideology and terrorism but that are hard to ban because of laws protecting religious groups. Berlin had considered banning Fussilet 33 in 2015 but abandoned the idea for lack of proof.

“Inflammatory ideologues aren’t welcome in Berlin,” said Andreas Geisel, the city-state’s senator for domestic affairs. “Whoever thinks that they can call for violence or support others (who do) in our city needs to know: We are watching you, and we will take care of you the exact same way we’re taking care of the Fussilet 33 association.”

Mr. Amri also had ties to another known radical group in Germany affiliated with prominent radical preacher Abu Walaa, who was arrested last year on suspicion of recruiting fighters for Islamic State, prompting intelligence officials to monitor him. But his connection to Fussilet 33 only emerged after the attack, sparking calls for a sharper monitoring of known meeting spots for radicals.

Berlin’s interior ministry said Tuesday that prominent Fussilet 33 members have been convicted or are facing trial for supporting a foreign terror organization or planning an attack. Its assets have been seized and the association is now barred from any activity, including online or reorganizing under a new name. CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-china-block-u-n-sanctions-over-syria-chemical-weapons-use-1488315139

UNITED NATIONS—Russia and the U.S. clashed openly at the Security Council over a Syria sanctions resolution, a confrontation signaling Washington and Moscow don’t see eye to eye on some of the world’s top security crises.

The U.S. on Tuesday accused Russia of covering for Syria’s use of chemical weapons, and Russia accused the U.S. of using false pretenses to impose sanctions to try to topple Syria’s government.

The tense exchange mirrored those between Russia and previous U.S. administrations, offering a telling look at deep divisions that remain even as President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, President Vladimir Putin, have vowed to improve ties.

New U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley, who arrived in late January, has held close to core American policies when it comes to differences with Russia on Ukraine and Syria. On two previous occasions, in early February and last week, Ms. Haley assailed Russia at the Security Council for what she called its “aggressive actions” and “destabilizing” role in Ukraine.

On Tuesday, Ms. Haley went a step further, directly confronting Russia and China over their positions, saying they were taking an indefensible stance by putting the protection of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime ahead of global security.

“It is a sad day on the Security Council when member states start making excuses for other member states killing their own people,” Ms. Haley said. She added the vote signaled to the world that allies of Russia and China would be protected even if they kill their own people.

U.S. allies at the U.N. welcomed the comments, having feared that even the smallest U.S. policy shift toward Russia would have significant impact on issues such as Syria, Europe, counterterrorism and Iran.

But it further dimmed any likelihood of an early rapprochement between Moscow and Washington. The U.S. on Tuesday also countered a Russian assertion that a summit is being planned between Messrs. Trump and Putin, amid growing questions in Washington about contacts between associates of the president and the Kremlin.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said practical preparations have started for a meeting between the two leaders, but added there was “no agreement yet as to the time and place,” Russian news agencies reported.

A senior U.S. official, however, said no preparations are under way.

Mr. Trump’s election had raised hopes in Moscow that the U.S. government would move to roll back sanctions imposed after the Russian government annexed the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea in 2014 and gave support to separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Mr. Putin said in a congratulatory note he hoped Russia and the U.S. could work as equals following years of strained ties with President Barack Obama’s White House. Mr. Trump—who has long expressed admiration for the Russian leader—enjoyed overwhelmingly positive coverage on Russian state-controlled television. CONTINUE AT SITE

Once again, an American has pointed to a failing in European society, and instead of focusing on the problem identified or even admitting that there is a problem, the European response has been to point at the American and blame him for creating the problem he has in fact merely identified.

We are being given an accurate representation of a serious problem.

If the response to every problem is denial, and the response to anyone pointing to the problem is opprobrium, legal threats or hilarity, it suggests that Europe is not going to make the softer-landing it could yet give itself in addressing these issues.

It might make us feel better, but every time we attack or laugh at the messenger, rather than addressing the message, we ensure that our own future will be less funny.

How can one excavate the minds of so many European officials and the extraordinary mental gymnastics of denial to which they have become prone?

One of the finest demonstrations of this trend occurred in January 2015, after France was assailed by Islamist gunmen in the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and then in a Jewish supermarket. In the days after those attacks, Fox News in the U.S. ran an interview with a guest who said that Paris, and France, as a whole, had “no-go zones” where the authorities — including emergency services — did not dare to go. In the wake of these comments, the Mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, chose to make a stand. She announced that she was suing Fox News because the “honour of Paris” was at stake.

It appeared that Mayor Hidalgo was rightly concerned about the image of her city around the world, presumably worrying in particular about the potential effects on tourism.

Of course, Mayor Hidalgo’s priorities were all wrong. The reason Paris’s public relations suffered a dent was not because of what a pundit said on Fox News one evening, but because of the mass murder of journalists and Jews on the streets of the “City of Light.” Any potential tourist would be much more concerned about getting caught up in a terrorist firefight than a war of words. Mayor Hidalgo’s manoeuvre, however, turned out not to be a rarity, but a symptom of a wider problem.

Consider the almost precise replay of that 2015 episode after U.S. President Donald Trump referred in a speech to “what’s happening last night in Sweden.” Much of the press immediately seized the opportunity to claim that Trump had asserted that a terrorist attack had occurred the night before in Sweden. This allowed them to laugh at the alleged ignorance of the president and the alleged concoction of what has become known as “fake news.” Except that it swiftly became obvious to anyone who cared that what the president was referring to — a documentary film about the situation in Sweden that had aired the night before on Fox News — showed the extent of the lawlessness in parts of Sweden. While every authority in Sweden was laughing at Donald Trump, a day after his comments. residents of Rinkeby, a suburb of Stockholm, obligingly had a car-burning riot and attacked police.