RUTHFULLY YOURS

Nigerian army spokesperson Rabe Abubakar could not confirm that a baby had been used in the attack, and said the woman may have just been disguised to appear as if she was carrying an infant.

The UN children’s agency (UNICEF) said it was the first such incident involving a baby reported in northeast Nigeria. “We are extremely worried about the use of a baby in this callous way,” UNICEF spokesperson Doune Porter told a foreign news agency.

The suicide bombings, which bore the hallmark of militant group Boko Haram, are common in northeast Nigeria, the heart of the militants’ seven-year campaign to create an Islamic state.

The militant group preys on displaced children or young girls it kidnaps and forces them to become bombers, with some unaware they are carrying explosives, aid agencies say.

The use of children as suicide bombers by Boko Haram has surged almost five-fold since 2014, with 19 child bombings, most involving young girls, recorded by UNICEF last year.

Prior to the Madagali bombings, the youngest child used in such an attack was a nine-year-old girl, the UN agency said. The attack in Madagali is one in a series of bombings in Nigeria northeast, mainly Borno state, in recent weeks as Boko Haram steps up attacks with the end of the rainy season facilitating movements in the bush.

However, risk management consultancy Signal Risk’s director Ryan Cummings said Nigeria’s civilian joint task force (CJTF) had stepped up efforts to spot and search suspected bombers. “Several attempted attacks by females bombers have been thwarted (due to the CJTF), limiting casualties,” he said.

Army spokesperson Abubakar said security forces would be extra vigilant and ready to respond to any new strategies used by Boko Haram. The militants’ insurgency has killed about 15,000 people and forced more than two million to flee their homes.http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2017/01/25/with-baby-strapped-to-back-woman-suicide-bomber-strikes-nigerian-market/

In early 2015, the militants controlled an area the size of Belgium but has been pushed out from most of the territory by the Nigerian military with help from neighbouring countries.

Mullahs seem to prefer protecting inhuman laws to protecting humans.

Most full coverings for women are black, which absorbs heat, and are made not of cotton but of non-porous cloth – in the scorching heat.

In a province of Indonesia, Aceh, a woman, accused of being intimate with her boyfriend is caned, in front of a jeering crowd. Later, a photograph of the screaming woman is published as a token of pride for the men who had just exacted this “justice” — on her; no consequence for the boyfriend. It was a lesson to remind women to submit to their place in society.

Turkey last year presented a bill for tackling its widespread child-marriage issue: the Turkish government introduced a bill that pardons a rapist if he marries his victim. The victim is not consulted.

All forms of exploiting women are presented as divine law, sharia, in which women have no say, which they are unable to use in their own defence, and which they are forced to accept as their fate.

These are countries where men are not only permitted, but invited, to consider woman a pet — to be killed, burned with acid, benzene or a weapon of choice supposedly to preserve a family’s “honour”.

These laws, put in place by the governments and the clergy, provide a safe escape for criminals, such as those who kill their women and claim it is in the name of “honour”.

The deeper horror is that all these abuses — child marriage, confinement, FGM, rape, torture, and legal discrimination — have accomplices. These enablers are often well-meaning people from the West, “multiculturalists” who are reluctant to pass judgement on other people’s customs no matter how brutal they might be.

Sadly, they are unable to see that they are actually part of the huge jihadi radicalization machine working under the very nose of even governments in the West.

As the British in India effectively got rid the people of the cultural practice of suttee, in which Hindu widows were required to throw themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre, if people would really like to do “good”, they will please help to stop similar crushing practices.

A bitter truth, often glossed over in the name of “tradition,” is the religious teachings and the responsibilities of a Muslim woman. Most glossed over is the violence that men are still allowed to inflict on their women in the name of their religion and culture on such a massive part of the planet.

This brutality not only takes place in ISIS-held territory but across most Muslim societies. All around you, you

UNITED NATIONS—The new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley , arrived on Friday with a posture and message that startled many U.N. officials and diplomats and signaled a shift of policy: The U.S., she said, would collect names and respond to countries opposing American interests, and would “do away” with U.N. programs it deems obsolete.

“For those who don’t have our back, we’re taking names—we will make points to respond to that accordingly,” Ms. Haley said to reporters upon arrival.

Ms. Haley presented her credentials to U.N. Secretary General António Guterres and held her first one-on-one meeting with him for 20 minutes. Officials didn’t offer details of what Mr. Guterres and Ms. Haley discussed, but a U.N. official said that the “U.S. has always been an important partner for the U.N. for reform.”

Before the meeting, Ms. Haley vowed “a change in the way we do business.”

“Everything that’s working, we’re going to make it better; everything that’s not working, we’re going to try and fix; and anything that seems to be obsolete and not necessary, we’re going to do away with,” Ms. Haley said.

Some U.N. officials and diplomats said privately they had expected Ms. Haley to strike a more diplomatic tone on her first day. She didn’t ease concerns that the U.S. might significantly cut back on funding for many U.N. programs and pursue a more unilateral agenda. In her Senate hearing earlier this month, Ms. Haley came across as a moderate voice with views on Russia, U.N. funds and international engagement that fell in line with those of U.S. allies.

But on Friday, diplomats said her “tone was tough” and that she projected views more in keeping with the new administration’s pledge to upend and overhaul all things policy, from trade deals to refugee regulations and U.N. programs.

“The U.N. is an institution that is often a difficult one to work with for the U.S. but overall it serves U.S. interest, it’s a place where American values of democracy and human rights are voiced,” said Matthew Bolton, an associate professor at Pace University familiar with U.N. matters.

Ms. Haley has plenty of leverage at her disposal. The U.S. is the largest financial contributor to the U.N., providing 22% of its operating budget and 28% of peacekeeping costs in 16 missions around the world, estimated at nearly $8 billion a year.

Diplomats widely agree that the U.N. needs reform. The organization is weighed down by bureaucracy and procedure. Mr. Guterres began his tenure on Jan. 1 with a promise to improve efficiency through structural reorganizing. Some diplomats acknowledge that a little tough talk from the U.S. could benefit the U.N. and force it to accelerate the much-needed changes. CONTINUE AT SITE

— Viktor Orban is the prime minister of Hungary.

In the annals of European history, 2015 will go down as the inception of a new era. It marked the end of an age when we could take Europe’s secure and sheltered status for granted, assured in the knowledge that it was all up to Europe and no one else. More than a year and a half has passed since I first warned of the danger posed by a potential new wave of mass migration. Today, that mass migration is an accomplished fact, one that no sane person would dispute.

Why were we, Hungarians — or, rather, East Central Europeans — the first to recognize this threat? Several possibly concurrent explanations are conceivable. Perhaps it had to do with the tempestuous times we lived through, the shock waves of historic turmoil, the toil and struggle that followed the democratic turn of history in 1990. Our Western partners experienced the last 50 to 60 years very differently. There, it was all about success, prosperity, a predictable future, well-trodden paths to a better life. To us, all that seems like a fantasy world where ideology mingles with illusion and reality, the boundaries become blurred between nation and nation, culture and culture, man and woman, the sacred and the profane, freedom and responsibility, noble intentions and actual action.

The Danger Is Here, Now
For the West, “what is” has become increasingly difficult to disentangle from “what ought to be.” By contrast, our perception of the real remains as sharp and cold as common sense. We have learned that the real is that which refuses to disappear even if we have stopped believing in it.

That compels us to recognize that the second and third decades of the 21st century will be defined by the mass migration of peoples. Until recently we thought such things could happen only in times gone by and were relegated to history books. We would not face the impending danger of an unprecedented mass of people — greater than the total population of some European countries — setting out for our continent in the coming years. Now that danger is upon us.

Parallel societies have been rearing their heads in several European countries — displacing the world we know as ours, the one we hope to pass to our children and grandchildren. Not all of those who come here intend to accept our ways of life. Some see their own customs and worldview as more valuable, stronger, and more viable. But these are of little use to us as we struggle to replenish the work force that is now abandoning the manufacturing plants of Western Europe — for generations, the unemployment rate among residents not born in Europe has many times higher than that among natives. In most cases, the nations of Europe have failed to integrate even the masses that have gradually poured in from Asia and Africa over the course of several decades. How can we now expect countries to integrate migrants quickly, with large numbers arriving all at once?

Admittedly, Europe is suffering from an aging and dwindling population. But if we try to solve this problem by relying on newly arriving Muslims, we will squander our way of life, our security, our very selves. Unless we make a stand, and do so quickly, the tension between an aging Europe and a young Muslim world — between a Europe unable to provide its own young with work and an undertrained Muslim ghetto — will spiral out of hand in the heart of Europe.

Ordinary Europeans know this well enough. In the past year, the Hungarian government commissioned a public-opinion poll encompassing 28 member states of the European Union. It revealed that more than 60 percent of Europeans have no doubt whatsoever that a direct correlation exists between the escalation of terrorism, higher crime rates, and migration. By the same token, 63 percent believe that migration transforms the culture of the host country. Illegal migration presents a threat, facilitates terrorism, and boosts crime. It repaints Europe’s cultural face, brushing over national cultures on a massive scale.

Welcome to our brave new digital world in which raping women is all fun and games:

Police are reportedly investigating the suspected gang rape of a woman after the attack was live-streamed on Facebook.

An online witness said the victim had her clothes pulled off by armed men and was sexually assaulted before cops arrived and turned off the camera.

According to Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet, three people have been arrested after the alleged attack was broadcast in a closed Facebook group last night.

Dutch website De Dagelijkse Standaard (of which I’m editor-in-chief) adds that the three suspects have been identified. It must come as a shock to all those who worship at the altar of political correctness and multiculturalism, but the rapists are, wait for it, all immigrants. In this screenshot of the gang rape, you can see two of the three suspects in action:

screen-shot-2017-01-26-at-17-55-37

The first suspect’s name is Emillem ‘Lemon’ Khodagholi. Khodagholi was on probation for a variety of crimes (theft, assault, drugs crimes, and death threats) when he participated in this horrendous crime. Shortly before he and his friends raped the poor woman at the point of a gun, Khodagholi announced his plans to his followers. “Listen, today I will f*ck. I swear it on my mother,” he said, adding that he would cause “a rampage.”

Not long after, he and the other two suspects entered the young woman’s apartment in the city of Uppsala. They raped her for a full three hours. The entire crime was broadcast live on Facebook. Yesterday, footage was released of Khodagholi bullying his victim when she was calling someone for help. The poor girl was barely conscious, but her rapist couldn’t control himself. “You got raped. There, we have the answers. You’ve been raped,” he shouted gleefully at her. He then laughed like a psychopath and continued to make fun of her.

Illiberal and hypocritical — those few words capture the contortions of British judges who have ruled that the voices and votes of Brexit supporters need parliamentary endorsement. Consider the contradiction: those who would bow to Brussels also insist their own lawmakers are paramount.
The constitutional soap opera that is Brexit took on an interesting new plot line in November when the Queen’s bench division of the High Court for Justice heard the case of R Miller v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The panel of three judges found that the government did “not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union”.

The political and media reaction was predictable. The Independent described the decision as a “momentous defeat” for the May government. The Guardian thought it the most “encouraging day” for Remainers since the vote on June 23. Champagne socialist MP for the super-rich ghetto of Hampstead, Tulip Siddiq, tweeted that the decision was a vindication of “parliament’s sovereignty”, whilst Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg promised that parliament would amend “any legislation” before triggering Article 50. By contrast, the Sun wondered, “Who do EU think you are?” and the Daily Mail disparaged “gloating Europhiles” who hailed Theresa May’s “humiliation”, and condemned the “out of touch judges” as “enemies of the people”.

The decision by the three High Court judges, all of whom have significant ties to the European Court and judicial system, has added a surreal new act to the evolving political drama. It also creates an unanticipated impediment to Theresa May’s announcement, at the Conservative conference in October, of “a quiet revolution” that would make the United Kingdom a “sovereign and independent” country once again. Australians, of course, need no such revolution as they already enjoy the sovereignty and constitutional liberty bequeathed to them by what the nineteenth-century constitutional authority A.V. Dicey termed the “imperial mother of parliaments”.

What was the ground for the judges’ dramatic decision, which they asserted dealt “only with a pure question of law”, and does it make legal or constitutional sense? Interestingly, in rejecting the prerogative power of the Crown, the judges reaffirmed Dicey’s view that only parliament has “the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law … as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament”.

In order to establish the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, both Dicey and the High Court judges referred to the history of English common law and the great constitutional debates of the seventeenth century. In particular, alongside Dicey the judges cited the great oracle of the common law, Sir Edward Coke, who in his legal report on The Case of Proclamations (1610), ruled that “the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm”, because “the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him”. This position was confirmed in the first two parts of section 1 of the Bill of Rights (1688), which stated “that the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall”.