RUTHFULLY YOURS

President Obama took office in 2009 promising that his brand of engagement would yield global respect for the United States. We’ve since had more than seven years of leading from behind, standing “shoulder to shoulder” with the “international community,” snubbing of allies, appeasing of enemies and cutting America down to size. As Obama makes what will likely be his final official visit to China, how’s it going?

Well, China, as host of the current G-20 summit, rolled out the red carpet — or at least the red-carpeted airplane stairs — for the arriving leaders of such countries as Britain, Australia, Germany and Russia.

For President Obama, arriving yesterday on Air Force One, there was no such dignified reception. Instead, there was a shoving match with the press and a confrontation with National Security Adviser Susan Rice, in which a Chinese official shouted “This is our country. This is our airport.” For lack of any portable stairs rolled to the front door of the presidential plane, Obama was left to jog down the aircraft’s own stairs at the back.

Obama downplayed the insult, telling reporters “not to over-crank the significance.”

Maybe that makes sense in the bubble-world of the Ben-Rhodes-foreign-policy narrative, where the tide of war is forever receding, the arc of history bends toward justice, the oceans rise and fall at the command of Obama’s pen and phone, and the echo chamber, on cue, applauds.

But China’s reception was an insult, pure and simple. No one need study the tea leaves to understand that this was a gesture of gross disrespect, seen around the world, putting the American president in his place — especially as compared with the warm reception for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.

“We will colonize you with your democratic laws.” — Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Egyptian Islamic cleric and chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars.

“Beaches, like any public space, must be protected from religious claims. The burkini is an anti-social political project aimed in particular at subjugating women… It is not compatible with the values ​​of France and the Republic. Faced with such provocations, the Republic must defend itself.” — French Prime Minister Manuel Valls.

According to the mayor of Villeneuve-Loubet, the high court’s ruling against burkini bans, “far from appeasing [Muslims], will instead increase passions and tensions.”

“Beaches are equated with streets, where the wearing of ostentatious religious symbols is also rejected by two-thirds of the French.” — Jérôme Fourquet, director of the French Institute of Public Opinion (Ifop).

The French city of Nice has lifted a controversial ban on Muslim burkinis after a court ruled such prohibitions illegal. Bans on the full-body swimsuits have also been annulled in Cannes, Fréjus, Roquebrune and Villeneuve-Loubet, but they remain in place in at least 25 other French coastal towns.

The row over burkinis — a neologism blending burka and bikini — has reignited a long-running debate over Islamic dress codes in France and other secular European states (see Appendix below).

On August 26, the Council of State, France’s highest administrative court, ruled that municipal authorities in Villeneuve-Loubet, a seaside town on the French Riviera, did not have the right to ban burkinis. The court found that the ban — which was issued after the jihadist attack in Nice on July 14, in which 86 people were killed — was “a serious and manifestly illegal attack on fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of movement and the freedom of conscience.” The judges ruled that local authorities could only restrict individual liberties if there was a “demonstrated risk” to public order. There was, they said, no evidence of such a risk.

Although the ruling applied only to the ban in Villeneuve-Loubet, observers said the ruling would set a legal precedent for the 30 other cities and towns which have also implemented bans on burkinis.

The high court decision overturned a lower court ruling, issued August 22, which said the burkini ban was “necessary, appropriate, and proportionate” to ensure public order.

The case was brought by the Collective against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) and the Human Rights League (LDH). The two groups have vowed to file lawsuits against any municipality with a burkini ban, which they say violates the religious freedom of Muslims in France.

Patrice Spinosi, a lawyer for the LDH, said that in the absence of a demonstrated threat to public order, the high court “has ruled and has shown that mayors do not have the right to set limits on wearing religious signs in public spaces. It is contrary to the freedom of religion, which is a fundamental freedom.”

The fate of the Middle East’s remaining Christians appears little these days in mainstream media news stories, which presently focus on terrorist outrages in Europe instead. Given the recent targeting of churches in several European nations, the omission is unfortunate.

Rather than candidly facing up to the religious roots which motivate terrorist outrages, politicians and the press in Europe often pick up on outpourings of grief and express the need for “unity” as a means of dealing with such violence.

The Australian academic, Dr. Mark Durie, has noted that this perspective contains a grave error: it is often used “as a pretext to censor those who ask the hard questions.”

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah … those who have been given the Book [Jews and Christians] until they pay the tax [jizya tribute] … and they are in a state of subjection.” – Koran, 9:29, (Shakir translation)

In the north-eastern Syrian city of Al-Qamishli, nestled on the border with Turkey, Islamic fundamentalists bombed St. Charnel Church, an ancient site of worship for the Assyrian Orthodox Christians.

On July 18, reported ARA News, gunmen detonated explosives inside the church. Activists point the finger of responsibility at ISIS. “We saw a huge fire and security forces arrived and extinguished the fire. But the church was completely destroyed, you can see only ashes here,” remarked one eyewitness to the attack.

The fate of the Middle East’s remaining Christians — often open to abuse and attack at any moment — appears little these days in mainstream media news stories, which presently focus on terrorist outrages in Europe instead. Reporting has likewise been dominated, since 2015, by coverage of the continuing Muslim migration from Africa and Asia into Europe.

Given the recent targeting of churches in several European nations, the omission is unfortunate.

The journalist who reported the rape for the newspaper Birgun, said that that he and the newspaper received countless death threats on social media for reporting the case.

Turkey’s constitutional court in July annulled a criminal code provision punishing all sexual acts involving children under the age of 15 as “sexual abuse”, giving a six-month period for parliament to draw up a new law.

The facts on the ground indicate that the sexual abuse of children in Turkey is extremely widespread and the Turkish state authorities are not acting responsibly.

When Syrian babies and other children, as well as women, are being raped and treated horribly in Turkey, and their abusers go free; when journalists covering these abuses are threatened; when publication bans are imposed on the crimes committed against Syrians, and when criminals are given “good conduct abatement” by courts, Turkey seems to be one of the last countries on earth to have the moral right to demand visa-free travel in Europe or anywhere else.

Turkey has once again threatened to tear up a controversial migrant deal and send hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers to Europe if its citizens are not granted visa-free travel to the European Union within months.

Mevlut Cavusoglu, the Turkish foreign minister, demanded the EU drop visa requirements for Turkish citizens by October.

Meanwhile, Syrian children are being raped and abused inside and outside of refugee camps in Turkey.

Recurrent Hamas rocket attacks upon Israeli noncombatants are terrorism. Such terrorism — all terrorism, irrespective of so-called “just cause” — represents a distinct crime under international law.

When Palestinian terrorism reflects populations that enthusiastically support terror attacks, and where the terrorists can find hospitable refuge among local populations, the legal responsibility for all ensuing counterterrorist harms lies with the perpetrators.

Under international law, which also happens to be part of the law of the United States, all Palestinian terrorists are hostes humani generis: “Common enemies of humankind.”

Hamas’ lack of distinction between “Jews” and “Israelis” is intentional. For Hamas, the true enemy is identifiable by religion, not territory, and is therefore irremediable. For “the Jews,” this means that the only way to avoid Arab terror is to disappear, or submit to Islamic control — to become persecuted, second-class dhimmi citizens in their own country, just as the indigenous Christians are now in Egypt and much of the Middle East.

“The safety of the People Shall be the highest law.” — Cicero, The Laws.

It is beginning again. As Hamas terrorists are attacking Israeli civilians with indiscriminate rocket fire, most recently in the southern city of Sderot, Israeli self-defense reactions are already being labeled “excessive” and “disproportionate.” As usual, international public opinion is quickly, if bizarrely, mobilizing against Israel’s underlying supposed “occupation” of Jews living in their own Biblical land.

But what of the facts? In Gaza, since 2005 at least, when every last Jew left, there has been no “occupation.” There are no Israelis in Gaza.

Systematic Hamas misrepresentations get progressively worse.

Any such blame, however, has no basis in law. Regarding “proportionality,” the actual legal requirement of proportionality contained in international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict) has nothing to do with how many unfortunate deaths there might be on either side. Proportionality has nothing to do with each side incurring an equivalent number of deaths.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, investigated allegations of war crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and in 2006 published an open letter containing his findings. Included was this section on proportionality:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.

One of my friends who was a survivor of Auschwitz said to me: “The people who were pessimistic survived. The people who were optimistic died.”…

France is completely lost ….

The French press lie all the time…. The media is largely in the hands of the Left….

The French don’t know how to fight but they do know something: preemptive surrender….

Muslims use two tools to conquer Europe. First, attacks. Second, “Dawah”: invitation to submit to Islam….

Political correctness works …

The Left and Islam have something in common: they want to destroy Western civilisation…. Islam is a totalitarian political movement. … Islam is fighting a war against the West, against freedom…. I am here [the USA, to which he emigrated two months ago] because I want to win…. We have to choose strength.’The speaker is a French philosemitic pro-Israel intellectual, Guy Millière, about whom I have blogged before.

By “political correctness” he means the leftist-driven outrage against “Islamophobia” which has ensured that virtually nothing critical of islamifiction or of the current suicidal madness engulfing Europe gets published in book form, whereas there are now books a-plenty advocating for the Muslim-abundant Europe we are witnessing, from the jihadist aspects of which French elites seem to think France can be immune through the emergence a “friendly” sui generis French Islam.

This video (hat tip Vlad Tepes blog) shows his speech at last month’s “Can Israel Co-Exist With The West?” conference in America.

On this new special edition of The Unknown, Anni Cyrus casts a disturbing light on Islam’s Rape Game in Europe, giving the deniers their first clue.

Don’t miss it!http://jamieglazov.com/2016/09/01/anni-cyrus-islams-rape-game/

And make sure to watch Anni discuss Global Dawah Day Unveiled, revealing what the Muslim Supremacists didn’t tell you when they invited you to Islam.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel and to Jamie Glazov Productions. Also LIKE us on Facebook and LIKE Jamie’s FB Fan Page.

How did a burkini ban imposed in more than 30 seaside municipalities become the center of international scorn? France, reeling in the aftermath of allahu akhbar mass murders, suddenly becomes the bad guy? Videos, some of them staged provocations, of innocent Islamically dressed women, victims of “police brutality” on French beaches replace the horrifying reality of the dead and the maimed on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, and hardly anyone notices the paradox?

First of all, it’s not a burkini. The catchy misnomer is good marketing but it does not describe the hijabathing suit that covers a woman from head to toe, leaving only the face, the hands, and the feet exposed. Unless it’s supposed to mean a transition from burqa to bikini? More likely vice versa! As it stands today, it’s nautical miles away from a bikini and the gaggles of ladies performing in front of the French embassy in London and similar locations are paddling in bad faith. “No one can tell me what to wear,” they declaim, echoing sharia -friendly slogans we’ve heard before. Europe is pockmarked with neighborhoods controlled by sharia promoters who most certainly do tell women what to wear. And punish them if they do not comply. In one of countless “honor” murders in France the parents of a young man who burned a woman alive defended him with this straightforward explanation: she wore makeup.

Hala Gorani (CNN International) invited two Muslim women to comment on the French burkini ban. One, dressed in Western clothes, is against the burkini and against the ban. Walking in a neighborhood in Bradford she heard men who did not know she understood their language tearing her apart for showing her face. The other guest, her head and neck enclosed in an opaque winding sheet and the rest of what must be her body hidden inside a thick-skinned jilbab, summed up the French burkini ban as “white men telling brown women what to wear.” The current French government is a stickler for parity but that doesn’t penetrate the young woman’s hijab. From her viewpoint, the president is a white man, the male and female cabinet ministers are a white man, the naughty burkini ban is a white man’s insult to Muslim women.

Islamically correct neighborhoods in our modern Western countries are modelled on Islamic nations in which women are most vehemently told what they can wear. Tourists, businesswomen, wives of heads of state, female politicians, and journalists cover their arms and legs and wrap their heads in scarves more accurately described as hijab when they tread those grounds.

Fallacious sisterhood

Daughters or granddaughters of bra-burners frolic on a makeshift beach in front of a French embassy, arm in arm with their Muslim sisters whose mothers or grandmothers fled oppressive Islamic lands. Egged on by the usual battalions of reporters in prestigious media, they scold the intolerant French. Nobody can tell you what to wear? Tell me, American and British sisters, can you go topless on your beaches? Can you wear street clothes in the swimming pool? Of course not, and everyone knows. It’s my choice to cover myself? Women who “freely choose” to hide their bodies also accept a wide range of constraints and impositions that may include genital mutilation and purdah. But this ad hoc Sisterhood equates the choice of Islamically hiding one’s body with Women’s Liberation! Contraception, abortion, sexual freedom, the right to be a bus driver, party all night, stay alone in a hotel without being branded a prostitute…and the right to swathe my body in yards of fabric to stifle its improper sexual invitation.

What’s not French about a burkini? asks one sassy progressive. Didn’t Victorian bathing costumes cover women from head to toe?

http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/site/documents/?d=15720
CLICK HERE FOR FULL REPORT

Our ground-breaking report exposes the shocking antisemitism and incitement to violence that is occurring at the United Nations by means of UN-accredited non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The UN is enabling groups to spread hatred, encourage terrorism, and promote the destruction of the Jewish state from the world stage.

Democratic states, led by the United States, control the purse strings of the United Nations either from within the UN bureaucracy or through domestic policy. Getting serious about combating gross intolerance and violent extremism means putting an immediate stop to the use and abuse of the United Nations to broadcast and support antisemitism and bigotry and the lethal consequences.

In the French republic, state schools were built to fight the grip of the Catholic church on the whole of French society. The thinking was that Darwin is better at explaining the origin of the human race than the Bible. To build a country of free citizens: knowledge first; belief only if you insist, and even then, only by yourself.

“If the hijab or burkini had anything to do with modesty or piety, the Islamic fundamentalists would have sought private beaches, not insisted on forcing themselves on the public. … If the hijab becomes an accepted public phenomenon, a modern society cannot teach its future generations that a woman’s dress is not an excuse for rape”. — Hala Arafa, writing in The Hill.

A French Muslim society that often seems to feel as if it still belongs to its country of origin, appears to have decided that the game of secularism and “living together” should be over. With veils, burkinis and guns, various Islamists groups seem to be trying to embed the same message: We remain Muslims first and have decided to pay no attention to the culture of countries in which we are living.

For many today, French secularism is an anti-human rights ideology, a kind of moral deformity close to racism.

How can a free country, they ask, even think of doing such a thing as trying to ban a veil or a burkini — the full body covering for women to wear on the beach? How, they ask, can the French Republic call itself free and remain free when many of its citizens would like to rob Muslim women, peacefully obeying their own religion, of the freedom to choose their own clothes?

The current radicalization in France is not like that of the recent migration of Muslims to other European countries. Muslims have been coming to France in large numbers since the French left Algeria in 1962. The French never made any distinction between the French of “Gaul” and the French of North Africa. The current radicalization is not of those who came then, but of the younger generation — of French Muslims. They were born in France, speak French, were schooled in France — but they are not at ease with the values of France.