RUTHFULLY YOURS

If Europeans are ever to stand a chance of unravelling the coils of laws constricting their throats, preventing their ability to speak out against the demographic redrawing of their countries or any other potential danger they may note, it may prove helpful understanding how this slow strangulation took shape.

Although the gross unfairness of Geert Wilders’s prosecution is clear when compared with other Dutch politicians who have articulated far worse, there is also compelling evidence that much that is preached from the Koran in mosques daily would clearly fall under such a definition of hate speech — also remaining curiously outside the attention of public prosecutors.

Are not elected Member of Parliament even more responsible to for the safety of the public than are other citizens? If elected officials are criminalized for speaking out, at what point do such restrictions start posing a national security problem?

How are ordinary, decent, native Europeans ever likely socially and politically to articulate how they never consented to being part of a “grand experiment,” without incurring the stain of bigotry accompanying this reasonable assertion, from friends and co-workers alike?

Would it not be a remarkable irony if, instead of burying Wilders, as the conviction seemed intended to do, it propelled him instead to victory?

Much has been made of the 2016 populist revolt in the West, beginning with Britain’s June 23 decision to leave the European Union, and culminating with the victory of president-elect Donald Trump on November 8. The narrative of change is understandably seductive, but has recently been dealt successive blows by the domestic circumstances that so characterize European politics.

Despite traditions of liberty being placed at the heart of the successful Trump campaign, the promise of a new economic approach also enabled him to cross the line on election day.

The Brexit vote similarly took place under a referendum that allowed Britain’s voting populace to defy the stated preference of the majority of their elected parliamentarians.

The most disturbing recent development on the European continent, however, was Friday’s conviction of Geert Wilders on two charges, “inciting discrimination and insulting a minority group,” for asking supporters whether they wanted “fewer Moroccans” in the Netherlands, at a small public rally in a bar in The Hague, on March 19, 2014.

A politician has controversially voiced her backing for Sharia law being introduced in Europe, calling it “absolutely comparable” with current legislation.

Absolutely comparable in what way exactly? Sharia demands that married individuals who cheat be stoned to death. To me, that doesn’t seem very compatible with Germany law. After all, Germany has actually abolished the death penalty.

And how about the Sharia-prescribed punishment for theft — cutting off the thief’s hands? I’m all for a zero-tolerance policy, but modern European governments do not have the right to cause bodily harm to suspects (or convicted criminals, for that matter).

Another issue: rape. When a woman says she has been raped, Sharia demands she finds a couple of witnesses who can corroborate her story. If she doesn’t find such witnesses, she can be put on trial herself, resulting in a very serious punishment.

The State Secretary for the Berlin government, Sawsan Chebli, defended Islamic law saying it can exist alongside Germany’s Basic Law because it “largely regulates the relationship between God and man.”

That, too, is simply not true. Sharia law is “divine” according to fundamentalist Muslims — that is correct. But that doesn’t mean it mostly focuses on the relationship between God and man. In fact, it focuses quite a bit on man’s relationship with… man. Either Mrs. Chebli doesn’t know what she’s talking about, or she’s lying through her teeth. In either case, she clearly is unfit for her role in Berlin’s local government (seriously, she’s actually state secretary? What a joke).

The above is bad enough, but Chebli was just getting started.

Liberals have always prided themselves as promoters of freedom of religion, expression, and equality. At face value, these concepts are the key ingredients to a thriving society. But as time has passed, there is an growing abyss stretching between the original ideals of the liberal movement and what it actually supports. When analyzing the goals and agenda of liberalism, one may become confounded at their faithful, unconditional support of Islamic culture. Islamic culture is the very opposite of what the liberals claim to celebrate and uphold. Instead of exposing and critiquing the components of Islamic culture that are in direct opposition to their core beliefs, liberals would quiet critics of the religion, despite facts and experiences. Muslim women are the silent majority in the matter and their experiences and voices are often dismissed. Their opinions and plight are largely met with harsh treatment and more oppression. This represents a paradox for those seeking to uphold the values of liberalism, while exposing their contradictory stance as well.

Liberals have built upon concepts such as freedom of expression, gender equality, and religious freedom. They relentlessly oppose and attack those whom they perceive as violators of these human rights. During the 2016 presidential election, there was a huge outcry against the statements that president-elect Donald Trump made about women. Many critics argued that his stance on women disqualified him from running a country that prides itself on being a progressive nation. Liberals used every media outlet they could to highlight this shortcoming, replaying sound-bites of Trump’s comments repeatedly to garner support for their position. While Trump’s indiscretion toward women may be alarming, it is not nearly as alarming as the culture of Islam that the liberals unconditionally support. More than any other major religion, Islam is closely associated with oppressive views toward women, violence and terrorism, and inequality. Even in moderate Islamic nations, such as Turkey, freedom for everyone is not necessarily thriving. Recently a Turkish girl was sentenced to two years in prison and 100 lashes for being raped by her neighbor. According to the Sharia courts, she was not accompanied by a male guardian, thus making herself more accessible to rape. Liberals largely ignore these common human rights violations and often refuse to speak out against these horrendous offenses. Instead, they attempt to separate the violence and oppression associated with Islam and label it as “Islamic extremism.” Outside of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS, Sharia law is still the predominant influence and governing standard in many Islamic countries. Despite the numerous facts and experiences that are presented to the liberals, they still align themselves with support for Islam, which is not consistent with the values they vehemently strive to defend.

While Geert Wilders was being prosecuted in the Netherlands for talking about “fewer Moroccans” during an election campaign, a state-funded watchdog group says that threatening homosexuals with burning, decapitation and slaughter is just fine, so long as it is Muslims who are making those threats, as the Quran tells them that such behavior is mandated.

“I am still of the view that declaring statistical facts or even sharing an opinion is not a crime if someone doesn’t like it.” – Finns Party politician, Terhi Kiemunki, fined 450 euros for writing of a “culture and law based on a violent, intolerant and oppressive religion.”

In Finland, since the court’s decision, citizens are now required to make a distinction, entirely fictitious, between “Islam” and “radical Islam,” or else they may find themselves prosecuted and fined for “slandering and insulting adherents of the Islamic faith.”

As Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said, “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” There are extremist Muslims and non-extremist Muslims, but there is only one Islam.

It is troubling that Western governments are so eager to crack down on anything that vaguely resembles what has erroneously been termed “Islamophobia,” which literally means an irrational fear of Islam.

Considering the violence we have been witnessing, for those Westerners who have studied Islam and listened to what the most influential Islamic scholars have to say, there are quite a few things in Islam of which one legitimately ought to be fearful.

Several European governments have made it clear to their citizens that criticizing European migrant policies or migrants is criminally off-limits and may lead to arrest, prosecution and even convictions. Although these practices constitute police state behavior, European governments do not stop there. They go still farther, by ensuring that Islam in general is not criticized either.

President-elect Trump has the opportunity to make a historic course correction, and to do so in a manner consistent with his administration’s stated goals. By renegotiating the U.S. African Growth and Opportunity Act, which was first initiated by the Clinton Administration, he can strengthen American exports, create new export-related jobs and foster development-oriented investment on the continent. By reforming U.S. humanitarian aid to Africa, he can cut considerable bureaucratic waste, effectively increasing assistance without upping the cost.

What’s a three-word foreign policy agenda President-elect Donald Trump can pursue that will create American jobs, reduce terrorism, challenge China and set him apart from the failings of his predecessor? Promote African development.

On the one hand, the world’s poorest continent is rife with socioeconomic problems that have paved the way for some lands to become hubs of international terrorism, posing a threat to their own populations as well as to distant countries, including the United States. Of the eighteen ISIS branches deemed fully operational by the National Counterterrorism Center, eight are in Africa. According to the latest edition of the Global Terrorism Index, the world’s deadliest terrorist group by sheer volume of lethality is not ISIS but the Nigerian Boko Haram.

These clear and present threats were built on a continent’s suffering — from example, drought in Somalia and throughout East Africa, and totalitarianism and corruption across the continent — breeding weak, failing and failed states that prove commodious to jihadist operations. Dictators in the mold of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe continue to terrorize their own populations. And the Democratic Republic of Congo risks deteriorating into civil war should the head of state, Joseph Kabila, continue on his path to authoritarian rule. In a country rich in natural resources, the population remains destitute. These diverse factors help explain why the campaign to roll back terror on the continent is inseparable from African development needs.

On the other hand, some parts of Africa are among the world’s bright spots: According to the World Bank, six of the thirteen countries with the highest compound growth annually are on the continent. Among them, Rwanda provides an example of a country that has overcome one of the continent’s bloodiest conflicts in recent memory to empower women, fight corruption and attract international investment. Similar positive trends are visible in the democracies of Senegal, Cote d’Ivoire and even terror-plagued Nigeria — all of which are part of a larger pro-American bloc, stretching up to Morocco in the north, that stand with the United States in its struggle against terrorism. For Moroccan King Mohammed VI, the struggle against terrorism is inextricable from the challenge of developing the African continent. He has devised a holistic strategy to pursue both goals in tandem. And multinational bodies on the continent such as the African Union, after decades in a Cold War deep-freeze, are newly invigorated, as these like-minded African nations assert a greater leadership role within them.

One U.S. president in particular made a meaningful contribution to mitigating some of these problems: George W. Bush. He is widely viewed on the continent as a hero: His signature Africa initiative, “the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief” (PEPFAR), saved millions of lives, and also drew praise on both sides of the American partisan divide. He launched the single greatest initiative to fight malaria on the continent to date, and, as a private citizen together with his wife Laura, has since been committed to the struggle against cancer in Africa.

The law that the elders of Islam bequeathed to Egypt’s Muslims, holds that all conquered indigenous inhabitants — in Egypt, the infidel Christians — must not be permitted to build churches, must not complain or ask for equal rights, and must be grateful merely for being allowed to live.

In short, not only has nothing changed for Egypt’s Christians; the deadliest church attack in modern history has now just taken place, not under Mubarak or Morsi, but under President el-Sisi. What does he propose to do about it?

The worst attack on Egypt’s Christian minority in recent years occurred yesterday, Sunday, December 11, 2016. St. Peter Cathedral in Cairo, packed with worshipers celebrating Sunday mass, was bombed; at least 27 churchgoers, mostly women and children, were killed and 65 severely wounded. As many of the wounded are in critical condition, the death toll is expected to rise.

As usual, witnesses say that state security was not present, and that police took an inordinate amount of time to arrive after the explosion. Preliminary investigations point to a bomb placed inside an unattended woman’s purse on one of the rear pews of the women’s section.

The interior of St. Peter Cathedral in Cairo, after the bombing of December 11, 2016. (Image source: AP video screenshot)

Mutilated bodies were strewn along the floor of the cathedral. “I found bodies, many of them women, lying on the pews. It was a horrible scene,” said one witness.

“I saw a headless woman being carried away,” said Mariam Shenouda.

“Everyone was in a state of shock. We were scooping up people’s flesh off the floor. There were children. What have they done to deserve this? I wish I had died with them instead of seeing these scenes.”

In death toll and severity, this attack surpasses what was formerly considered the deadliest church attack in Egypt: a New Year’s Day bombing of a church in Alexandria that killed 23 people in 2011.