RUTHFULLY YOURS

In its report, the Charity Commission makes note of the iERA’s promotion of hate preachers, but treats the charity as a victim of such extremism, rather than an instigator.

According to the Commission, bureaucracy is the solution — the iERA’s extremism will be solved by more “adequate procedures… to prevent abuse of the charity, its status, facilities or assets.”

Those more familiar with the iERA will know that asking this Salafist charity to produce and follow its own counter-extremism plan is akin to demanding that the Ku Klux Klan introduce affirmative action hiring processes.

Extremist charities are not private institutions: charitable status affords extraordinary legal and financial benefits, including the opportunity for radical Islamist organisations to claim government subsidies. But no government should allow extremist networks to exploit charitable status. Shut these charities down, and ban those Islamist activists from ever again becoming trustees of a charitable organisation.

On November 4, the British charity regulator, the Charity Commission, published a report of its inquiry into the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA), a British Salafist group and religious training organisation. The inquiry was initially welcomed by moderate Muslim groups and counter-extremism analysts, but many will be disappointed with the Charity Commission’s recommendations.

More than a dozen pieces have been written for the Gatestone Institute examining the iERA’s links to extremism, as well as the failure of government, media and even Jewish organisations to tackle this fast-growing Salafist group. In 2014, one of these articles exclusively revealed that the “Portsmouth Five,” a notorious group of ISIS recruits from southern England, were all members of an iERA youth group.

While Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas was accepting praise for sending Palestinian firefighters to help put out fires in Israel, the PA Finance Ministry was busy doing the paper work to start paying salaries to the Palestinian arsonists who were arrested for setting many of those same fires. So far Israel has arrested 23 suspected arsonists connected to the hundreds of fires that raged across Israel in the last week of November, burning more than 500 homes and 32,000 acres of forests and national parks. According to Palestinian law documented by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), anyone imprisoned for “resisting the occupation” receives a high monthly salary. Therefore, all of those convicted and imprisoned for arson will receive PA salaries “from the day of arrest until the day of release.”

A fire rages in central Haifa, November 24, 2015. (Image source: Haaretz video screenshot)

Of course, it is not only arson-terrorists who receive a PA salary. All Palestinian, Israeli Arab and Arab terrorists from any country who are imprisoned are rewarded with high salaries from the PA. (See PMW Special Report) According to PA law and practice, “resisting the occupation” includes any Arab imprisoned for attacking Israelis by any means, including throwing a stone at a car, driving a car into people at bus stops, building bombs for suicide bombers to blow up at cafes, or shooting and stabbing civilians to death in their sleep. Since the PA automatically includes anyone who attacked Israelis or their possessions as “fighters” who are “resisting the occupation,” there is no justification under Palestinian law and practice not to include last week’s arsonists among the Palestinian “heroes” who receive monthly salaries.

Significantly, these salaries for terrorists rise the longer terrorists are in jail. Terrorists convicted of murder and serving life sentences will reach a high salary of NIS 12,000 a month – more than four times the average Palestinian salary.

With his initiative for tighter gun laws, to prevent weapons getting into “the wrong hands,” Justice Minister Maas does not mean to target the Islamists who pose an existential threat to Germany, but an obscure German group called the “Reichsbürger.”

As the German newspaper Bild describes the law proposed by Maas, “a 13-year-old child bride would have to testify against her husband, saying that her well-being as a child is under threat. If neither the child nor the Child Welfare Service lodges a complaint, for all practical purposes the marriage would be declared legitimate.” This law clearly does not take into account the possibility of private coercion against a child, let alone the blinding likelihood of outright threats.

Justice Minister Maas evidently cares more about “gender image” than he cares about truly oppressed women and vulnerable children. In a recently drafted new law by his ministry, Mass refused to ban child marriage.

With both France and Germany going to polls next year, there is the possibility of a democratic, peaceful “European Spring.”

In her first message to President-elect Donald Trump, German Chancellor Angela Merkel lectured him on gender, racial and religious equality. As the New York Times put it, Merkel “named a price” for Germany’s cooperation with the Trump-led administration, namely the “respect for human dignity and for minorities from a man who has mocked both.”

If this was anything more than political posturing, and Chancellor Merkel truly cared about “human dignity” or the rights of those most vulnerable, she might have started closer at home.

After a year-long investigation into the mass-sexual attacks in Cologne, where an estimated 2,000 migrant men — mostly from Arab and Muslim countries — molested at least 1200 women, almost all the men have managed to walk free.

Excerpts from Srdja Trifkovic’s latest Sputnik Radio interview, in which he comments on the findings of a new poll which indicates that an increasing number of Europeans want their countries to leave the European Union. More than half (53%) of the respondents in Italy said they would like their government to hold a referendum on EU membership. Similar sentiments are felt in France, Germany, Spain and Poland. [Audio]
[…] We are witnessing an overall public backlash against the European Union. It is increasingly perceived not as an institution geared to facilitating the flow of goods, services and people, but as a means of political and ideological control by an elite that is alienated from ordinary people… In Italy’s case it is clear that the level of dissatisfaction with the political establishment is very high. If someone like Beppe Grillo, a comedian who has never conducted a serious campaign, gets as many votes as he did [25.5% in 2013], we are looking at a discredited establishment, where politics is seen as part joke and part tragedy.

In Poland the disenchantment is to a large extent due to the attempt by Brussels to impose immigration quotas on former Soviet bloc countries. They rebelled together, the Visegrad Group, starting with Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban, but including the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland’s [prime minister] Beata Szydlo. They simply do not want to submit a key element of their sovereignty—the decision on who will reside inside their frontiers—to the unelected Eurocrats in Brussels…

Europe has gotten tired of being anguished about Donald Trump and has now moved on to being anguished about itself. The question being asked by all the Big Think editorials and news magazine programs runs: “Is Europe going populist too?” It’s especially unavoidable this weekend because of the coincidence of three events:

French president François Hollande, facing the prospect of a humiliating defeat, announced on Thursday that he would not contest next year’s presidential elections, in which, as everyone knew, he would have run a poor third to the populist Right’s Marine Le Pen and the conservative Right’s new favorite, former prime minister François Fillon.

On Sunday there will be a referendum in Italy on constitutional reform that, if rejected, will lead to the resignation of the prime minister and new elections in which an anti-euro party, Beppe Grillo’s Five Star movement, would at least start out as the favorite.

Also on Sunday there will be a rerun of the Austrian presidential election, which – because the first, narrow victory of the establishment candidate was overturned owing to irregularities – could swing a victory for the candidate of the populist “far right” Freedom party.

As if this trifecta were not excitement enough, almost every news broadcast reminds us that next year we will have – in addition to the French presidential elections — a Dutch election in which the populist party of Geert Wilders (who is currently on trial for demanding fewer Moroccan immigrants in Holland) may end up as the largest single group in parliament, and a German election in which Angela Merkel will seek a fourth mandate in a contest in which, for the first time, a populist anti-migrant party, the AFD, may win a serious number of votes and seats and deprive the conservative Christian Democrats of office.

Something big is clearly going on. It fills the imaginations of the more excitable members of mainstream parties of Left and Right with dramatic fantasies of fighting neo-fascism alongside Paul Henreid and Ingrid Berman. Worse, it suggests that Donald Trump may inspire a new populist politics in Europe that will put them out of a job.