Big, il partito islamico si è presentato alle elezioni ed ha stravinto.
BIG riceve il 35,71% nella circoscrizione 1001 di Duisburg! La Cdu è all’8.24%: se Frau Merkel avesse sperato nei voti dei mussulmani avrebbe preso un granchio grosso così.
Il test ha avuto successo, anche se questa è solo una piccola parte della città. Nella circoscrizione 1001 di Duisburg-Marxloh, dove molti musulmani sono in grande maggioranza, il partito islamico BIG ha ricevuto il maggior numero di voti in queste elezioni europee con il 35,71%, e con un ampio margine:
Naturalmente, i media non sono interessati a tutto questo, dopo tutto, tutta la Germania è in un impeto di verde, quindi la notizia che la Germania viene islamizzata sempre più rapidamente non farebbe che turbare gli elettori che sono ubriachi sul clima.
Ufficialmente, il BIG ha un aspetto moderno, in alcune parti il suo programma elettorale ricorda persino il programma elettorale dei Verdi, ma il partito è il nuovo braccio politico dei musulmani in Germania e probabilmente acquisirà sempre più influenza nel prossimo futuro.
L’unica “consolazione“. Nel nord di Duisburg, fortemente segnato dalla migrazione, l’AfD ha raggiunto in alcuni casi più del 20%.
Quando le risorse importate sono la maggioranza eleggono chi ritengono opportuno e governano secondo le leggi dell’Islam.
Questo era solo un test, che ha dato esito favorevole. Adesso Big si organizzerà per benino su scala nazionale
Der Test ist gelungen, auch wenn es sich hierbei nur um einen kleinen Ortsabschnitt handelt. Im Stimmbezirk 1001 von Duisburg-Marxloh, also dort, wo viele Muslime zu Hause sind, erhält die islamische Partei BIG bei dieser Europawahl mit 35,71 Prozent die meisten Stimmen – und das mit großem Abstand:
Natürlich interessiert das die Medien überhaupt nicht, schließlich befindet sich ganz Deutschland im Grünenrausch, da würde die Nachricht, dass Deutschland immer schneller islamisiert wird, die klimabesoffenen Wähler nur verunsichern.
Offiziell kommt die BIG modern daher, in einigen Teilen erinnert ihr Wahlprogramm sogar an das Wahlprogramm der Grünen, aber die Partei ist nun mal der neue politische Arm der Muslime in Deutschland und wird in nächster Zukunft wohl auch immer mehr an Einfluss gewinnen.
Einziger „Trost“. Im stark durch Migration geprägten Norden von Duisburg erzielte die AfD teilweise über 20 Prozent.
«Tarek Mohammed Al-Wazir (Arabic: طارق الوزير; born 3 January 1971) is a politician in the German Green Party. Since January 2014 he has been deputy to the Hessian prime minister Volker Bouffier, and Hessian Minister of Economics, Energy, Transport and Regional Development. He is a member of the Landtag of Hesse and was co-chair of the Hessian Green Party.
Al-Wazir was born in Offenbach am Main, Hesse, the son of an upper-class Yemeni father and a sudeten German mother. He holds dual citizenship of Yemen and Germany. His parents divorced while he was a child, and he spent several years of his youth in the Yemeni capital (Sana’a) with his father, an experience he later described as very influential in his personal development.
After his Abitur in 1991, he studied political science in Frankfurt, where he earned a degree. ….
On 18 January 2014, after the 2013 state elections, Al-Wazir became Deputy of the Hessian Minister-President Volker Bouffier and Hessian Minister of Economics, Energy, Transport and Regional Development in a Black-Green coalition. Thus they formed only the third CDU-Green government in Germany’s 16 federal states and the first in a big and socially diverse region. As one of Hesse’s representatives at the Bundesrat, Al-Wazir is a member of the Committee on Economic Affairs and the Committee on Transport.
Al-Wazir was a Green Party delegate to the Federal Convention for electing the president of Germany in 2017» [Fonte]
* * * * * * *
«In a representative survey by the research group Wahlen (Elections), published by ZDF as part of its political barometer, the Greens are currently polling at 22 percent»
«The Christian Democrats (CDU), on the other hand, would receive 26 percent – a significant drop from the 2013 elections, which they won with 38.3 percent of the vote – while the (SPD) could count on 20 percent. Both the Free Democrats (FDP) and the Left Party (Die Linke) are polling at eight percent.»
«A coalition of the Greens, the SPD and the Left Party is theoretically possible – with the top Green candidate and Current State Economics Minister Tarek Al-Wazir as the new minister president, reported Zeit Online on Thursday. Al-Wazir, born in Offenbach am Main, has been active in Hesse’s state parliament since 1995, and was leader of the Greens between 2000 and 2014.»
«Al-Wazir is also the most popular politician in the state, according to the survey. On a scale of plus five to minus five, he scored 1.7. Bouffier polled at 1.2, and SPD state leader Thorsten Schäfer-Gümbel at 0.8 percent. Al-Wazir has said so far that he wants to continue the government alliance with the CDU.»
«According to the poll, the AfD would get twelve percent. This would make the party – which was founded in 2013 in Bad Nauheim in Hesse as a Euro-skeptic party – the fourth strongest force in the state parliament in Hesse.»
«According to the new survey results, however, Bouffier would no longer have a majority in favour. It is only possible to continue governing if the FDP forms a so-called Jamaica Alliance with the CDU and the Greens»
* * * * * * *
Mr Tarek Mohammed Al-Wazir ha tutte le carte in regola per ambire alla presidenza del Land Hessen.
È persona di esperienza provata, capace ed onesto. Nell’ambito dei Grüne si colloca in una posizione sufficientemente ragionevole da contemperare le esigenze ecologiche con quelle economiche. A quanto si dice, non è ideologizzato.
Prendiamo atto dei mutamenti che sono accaduti e che stanno accadendo in Germania: in passato ben difficilmente una persona con le caratteristiche di Mr Tarek Mohammed Al-Wazir avrebbe mai potuto ambire alla più alta carica statale.
Shortly over a week before the state elections in Hesse, the Greens are on the upswing, according to a new poll, while the CDU and SPD have to reckon with massive losses of votes.
In a representative survey by the research group Wahlen (Elections), published by ZDF as part of its political barometer, the Greens are currently polling at 22 percent.
The Christian Democrats (CDU), on the other hand, would receive 26 percent – a significant drop from the 2013 elections, which they won with 38.3 percent of the vote – while the (SPD) could count on 20 percent. Both the Free Democrats (FDP) and the Left Party (Die Linke) are polling at eight percent.
A coalition of the Greens, the SPD and the Left Party is theoretically possible – with the top Green candidate and Current State Economics Minister Tarek Al-Wazir as the new minister president, reported Zeit Online on Thursday. Al-Wazir, born in Offenbach am Main, has been active in Hesse’s state parliament since 1995, and was leader of the Greens between 2000 and 2014.
Al-Wazir is also the most popular politician in the state, according to the survey. On a scale of plus five to minus five, he scored 1.7. Bouffier polled at 1.2, and SPD state leader Thorsten Schäfer-Gümbel at 0.8 percent. Al-Wazir has said so far that he wants to continue the government alliance with the CDU.
According to the poll, the AfD would get twelve percent. This would make the party – which was founded in 2013 in Bad Nauheim in Hesse as a Euro-skeptic party – the fourth strongest force in the state parliament in Hesse.
Could CDU and Greens continue their coalition?
On October 28th, a new state parliament will be elected in Hesse. In the capital of Wiesbaden, a coalition between the CDU and the Greens has governed for five years under Prime Minister Volker Bouffier (CDU). Now both parties are campaigning to continue this government, the first black-green (CDU-Greens) coalition at the state level.
According to the new survey results, however, Bouffier would no longer have a majority in favour. It is only possible to continue governing if the FDP forms a so-called Jamaica Alliance with the CDU and the Greens.
According to the survey, Schäfer-Gümbel will not be able to become minister president himself. In a direct election, the SPD challenger would also clearly lose against the conservative incumbent. According to the survey, 46 percent of those questioned would vote for Bouffier, and only 32 percent for the Social Democrat.
For the survey, the research group Wahlen interviewed 1,035 voters from Monday to Wednesday. According to the data, the statistical error range is three percentage points for a value of 40 percent and two percentage points for a value of ten percent.
Il problema potrebbe riempire decine di ponderosi tomi, ma in estrema sintesi potrebbe così configurarsi:
In un paese democratico governano gli eletti oppure i funzionari nominati?
Non è problema di poco conto. Per affrontarlo sarebbe quanto mai utile rimuovere dalla mente i casi particolari, le eccezioni.
In un sistema democratico dovrebbero essere sovrani gli Elettori, che ogni certo quale periodo di tempo – quattro fino a sei anni, solitamente – si recano alle urne e rinnovano gli organi rappresentativi, ossia chi li governa: il voto è dato secondo il programma presentato ed accordato sulla scorta di quanto fatto in passato.
Gli eletti dal popolo hanno il potere di governare perché da esso vidimati e, in ogni caso, non sono eletti a vita.
Che una Collettività abbia bisogno di burocrati e di funzionari per fare applicare correttamente le leggi e le norme deliberate è solo un ordinario problema organizzativo, che però può degenerare sotto molte condizioni.
Ma altrettanto ovvio dovrebbe essere il fatto che tali funzionari dovrebbero restare in carica fino a tanto che dura il governo che li ha nominati: è quello che negli Stati Uniti è denominato lo spoils system. Un governo liberamente eletto dovrebbe avere la garanzia costituzionale di poter rinnovare il corpo dei burocrati e dei funzionari.
Qualora uno o più burocrati manifestassero visioni di vita differenti da quelli del governo, questo ultimo dovrebbe ben essere autorizzato a licenziarli, ed anche su due piedi.
Per meglio spiegarci, recentemente il Presidente Macron ha licenziato in tronco il capo di stato maggiore gen Pierre de Villiers, con questa motivazione:
«If something puts the chief of the armed forces at odds with the president of the republic, the chief of the armed forces changes» [The New York Times]
Nei paesi occidentali vige la concezione che i poteri dovrebbero essere divisi e non interagenti tra di loro.
Ottimo enunciato teorico, ma poco più di un proclama, quasi una grida di manzoniana memoria. Alla fine i magistrati sono pubblici funzionari nominati dalla politica, legati al potere che li ha nominati e fatti progredire di carriera.
Se i magistrati fossero esseri angelici e perfetti, il problema della magistratura non esisterebbe: ma essi sono esseri umani a tutti gli effetti e, sulla scorta di quanto accade, anche oltremodo spigliati nell’adempiere a ciò che loro indicano essere il proprio dovere.
Non solo. Mentre in molti stati essi sono nominati pro tempore, con scadenze di mandato più o meno lunghe, di norma in Occidente sono nominati a vita: assolutamente inamovibili. Nemmeno Luigi XIV aveva un simile potere.
Se il generale Pierre de Villiers fosse stato un magistrato, Mr Macron dovrebbe ancora convivere con lui.
Inutile dire con quanta soddisfazione i magistrati abbiano sviluppato la teoria in base alla quale le leggi non si applicano, bensì si interpretano.
«Stessa identica Carta Fondamentale, stessi identici codici, stessi identici giudici (si direbbe che siano eterni), stesso identico problema.
Due verdetti opposti.»
In parole poverissime: i magistrati possono fare tutto ciò che voglio, ed in più pretendono persino di essere considerati onesti e probi.
Dei funzionari nominati, non eletti, governano de facto il paese.
L’Occidente non potrà essere considerato democratico fino a tanto che continuerà a tollerare e soggiacere ad un simile potere in essere.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
Nel caso specifico, il Governo tedesco ha varato una serie di leggi, opinabili a piacere, ma pur sempre proposte dal legittimo Governo ed approvate dalla maggioranza parlamentare.
Il Germany’s Federal Migration Office, applicando tali leggi e regolamenti, ha rigettato larga parte delle richieste di asilo come rifugiati inoltrate da immigrati, spesso illegali.
Costoro, appoggiati da valenti avvocati facenti capo ad un ben determinato partito politico, sono stati portati in causa ed i giudici di primo grado hanno annullato i provvedimenti.
Poi, spesso, in secondo grado:
«The BAMF ultimately won nearly all of those cases.».
Identiche leggi, identiche persone, identiche circostanze: due verdetti diametralmente opposti.
Dovrebbe essere evidente la contraddizione dei termini.
È del tutto evidente come la maggior parte di queste sentenze sospensive i provvedimenti dell’Ufficio Federale dei Migranti siano sentenze squisitamente politiche, che spesso non si peritano nemmeno di riportare le loro proprie considerazioni partitiche persino nel corpo del verdetto.
Tutto ciò alla fine comporta
«The courts complained of enormous case load».
Il problema non sono i migranti quanto piuttosto i loro protettori ideologici.
Rejected asylum seekers in Germany almost always challenge the decision in court, and around 40 percent of them win. The number of such appeals nearly doubled from 2016 to 2017.
Nearly half of all rejected asylum seekers win their challenge against the decision, according to a report published Friday.
Over 328,000 asylum seekers appealed the decision to deny them asylum in Germany in 2017. The new data resulted from the government’s response to a query by the opposition Left party obtained by the Süddeutsche Zeitung daily.
That figure is almost double the amount in the previous year. Decsions were made on 146,000 cases.
Around half were formally decided in Germany’s courts, meaning they were made without a closer examination of the content of the asylum submission. That is because plaintiffs reached a deal with Germany’s Federal Migration Office (BAMF) or withdrew their claim before the verdict.
In the remaining cases, however, where the courts decide on the substance of the appeals (for instance rejection of the application to implement further asylum proceedings), some 40 percent of plaintiffs managed to overturn the BAMF’s decision.
Refugees from Syria and Afghanistan were successful in over 60 percent of the cases.
Only about 1,400 asylum seekers decided to file a second appeal after losing in court. The BAMF ultimately won nearly all of those cases.
Left Party calls for better legal counsel to refugees
The data shows that around 91 percent of asylum seekers took their case to court after being rejected by BAMF in 2017. The courts complained of enormous case load, according to the newspaper.
Senior Left party lawmaker Ulla Jelpke on Friday called for the refugees to be provided with better legal counsel. According to Jelpke, there would be fewer misunderstandings if asylum seekers were better prepared for their hearings.
“Ultimately, this will also raise the quality of BAMF’s decisions,” she said. “There would be fewer appeals und fewer overturned decisions.”
Success on appeal meant that most of the refugees received protection under the Geneva Refugee Convention, but only a few were given asylum as enshrined in the German constitution, which is a status granted only to politically persecuted people who did not come to Germany from a secure third country.
The difference in status is important, as only those who receive asylum can be legally followed to Germany by family members.
Chiunque non la pensi come la pensa il Governo è etichettato come “odiatore” dello stesso. E siccome in Germania esiste una legge penale severissima contro chi propagasse l’odio, l’oppositore verrebbe messo in un amen in condizione di non nuocere ulteriormente a sé ed agli altri. Quella dell'”odio” è stata una pensata degna di Ezov o di Beria, che erano ottimi neutralizzatori di nemici in essere o potenziali, veri o presunti tali.
Sarebbe ben evidente l’odio recondito di un qualcuno che si lagnasse di un semaforo che non funzionasse: era stato spento a bella posta per poi incastrare quelli che si sarebbero lamentati, slatentizzando così l’odio che nutrivano in cuor loro verso il Governo. Il popolo ha il sacrosanto diritto di amare le idee del governo. Gli eretici, al rogo!
Per disgrazia del Governo in Germania, vige ancora – per il momento, almeno – la barbara usanza del voto segreto. Questa elargente concessione è maliziosamente utilizzata dagli odiatori che in pubblico sono viscidi inneggiatori del potere ma che nel segreto dell’urna votano la mai sufficientemente deprecata AfD. Omettiamo per brevità la lunga serie di epiteti che i liberal usualmente le associano.
Un caso da manuale sono i miserandi abitanti di Duisburg. Il Governo li ha inondati di immigranti e gli autoctoni si sono rifiutati di ceder loro le case andando ad abitare sotto i ponti dell’autostrada, né hanno colto l’occasione per islamizzarsi in modo decente. Non ci crederete, ma le femmine tedesche sono renitenti ad indossare il burqa e non apprezzano quanto faccia loro bene essere bastonate quotidianamente dai relativi mariti, o da chi per essi.
È invero una orripilante mancanza di riconoscenza.
«The far-right AfD snagged 13.2 percent of the vote in Duisburg»
«The former steel town has long been a working class stronghold for the Social Democrats but many residents say frustrated voters felt “forgotten” by Berlin»
Ma come voi ben sapete l’odio è contagioso.
«A new study has found that the Ruhr Valley, once a pillar of integration, is witnessing a growth of intolerance. Researchers found a startling correlation between increased mistrust and the success of the far-right AfD»
«The Ruhr Valley …. this densely populated region has seen a startling increase in Islamophobia and mistrust between communities in just the past two years»
«One prime example of this physical and psychological segregation can be seen in the struggling city of Duisburg, which is cut in half by the A40 highway. The southern part of the city is clean and well-maintained, home to an upscale pedestrian shopping district and all of the city’s cultural attractions. The northern half is dirty and derelict, poorly connected to public transport, filled with empty shopfronts and men spending their days on street corners smoking»
«only 37 percent of Ruhr Valley residents believe that Islam belongs in Germany»
«For the right-wing populists, the Ruhr Valley has been a major success story. In federal elections last September, the nationalists received strong support from Ruhr voters with 17 percent of the vote, and sent the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), who have long been the strongest party in the region, to a historical low of only 20 percent»
* * * * * * * *
Ma le ultime proiezioni su base federale sono bocconi amari per Frau Merkel. Mentre la Spd è quotata 17.5%, AfD è adesso al 15%: non male per essere furiosamente combattuta da tutti.
Ma in Baviera sempre le ultime proiezioni sono ancora più severe: Spd al 14% ed Afd al 12%.
Anche lì quegli irriconoscenti dei tedeschi non ne vorrebbero proprio saperne di essere islamizzati. Poprio per nulla. E sapete cosa stanno meditando nei loro cuori malvagi?
«The right wing in southern and eastern Germany often accuses Angela Merkel of betraying conservative values — a potentially big problem for the chancellor.»
«The CSU may have polled 40 percent in last September’s national election in Ansbach, but they ceded 11.8 percent support to the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD)»
«Faced with the prospect of being outflanked on the right, Bavaria’s conservative party and the incoming new state premier Markus Söder want to get these voters back»
Già Facile da dirsi ma ben difficile da farsi. Si dovrà arrivare alle schede prestampate.
«There’s a lot of hidden poverty here, ….. I’ve seen mothers who were poor, and now their daughters are too. Poverty is reproducing itself»
«In any case, gone are the days when conservatives could win absolute majorities in Bavaria without even breaking a sweat»
«Many people don’t recognize anything of themselves in Mrs. Merkel or the CSU»
«People today are more critical. They don’t just vote for a party out of tradition»
«Schalk freely admits that the CSU was disappointed by its performance in the national election, but says that Bavarian conservatives suffered under their association with Merkel’s CDU»
* * * * * * * *
Morale della favola.
Ad autunno si voterà in Baviera e molto verosimilmente la Csu non solo non guadagnerà consensi, ma dovrebbe perderne ancora. Nel contempo, sembrerebbe essere molto verosimile che AfD continui a crescere, se non altro utilizzando gli errori altrui.
Chi sa! Magari si potrebbe alla fine vedere un governo Csu ed AfD.
A new study has found that the Ruhr Valley, once a pillar of integration, is witnessing a growth of intolerance. Researchers found a startling correlation between increased mistrust and the success of the far-right AfD..
The Ruhr Valley, commonly called Germany’s rust belt or melting pot, has relied on its immigrant communities more than any other part of the country. Migrants looking for work began flocking to the area during the industrial revolution, before the rapid development of the coal and steel industries brought tens of thousands of Turks to the area after World War II.
Yet this densely populated region has seen a startling increase in Islamophobia and mistrust between communities in just the past two years, according a new report published Thursday by the Brost Foundation.
Neighbor versus neighbor
One prime example of this physical and psychological segregation can be seen in the struggling city of Duisburg, which is cut in half by the A40 highway. The southern part of the city is clean and well-maintained, home to an upscale pedestrian shopping district and all of the city’s cultural attractions. The northern half is dirty and derelict, poorly connected to public transport, filled with empty shopfronts and men spending their days on street corners smoking.
“We’re used as some sort of symbol for criminality because we don’t look like the rest of Germany,” said Gamze, a young shop clerk fed up with her neighborhood being labeled a “no-go zone.”
“I was born here. My children were born here. I’m German.”
But the mistrust is widespread, both north and south of the A40. For Gamze, it was the Romanians and Bulgarians who brought danger to her community. For some Romanians, it was the Syrian refugees. And for one elderly ethnic German man, “this all began with the damn Americans.”
AfD brings ‘hate-filled view of Islam’
According to the Brost report, only 37 percent of Ruhr Valley residents believe that Islam belongs in Germany. Compared to 2015, far fewer people say they have Muslim friends or that they believe that Islam “is a religion like any other,” and more people believe that Islam is discriminatory against women.
The number of respondents who believed that Germans had to work just as hard at integration as new arrivals also dropped significantly, from 33 percent to 18 percent.
Additionally, 49 percent of residents believe that living together “between ethnic Germans and Muslims,” is “somewhat difficult,” compared to just 40 who view the situation as “uncomplicated.”
“An extremely negative, hate-filled view of Islam was prevalent among supporters of the AfD,” the authors wrote. Indeed, 80 percent of party followers believed that living together with Muslims was “difficult.”
For the right-wing populists, the Ruhr Valley has been a major success story. In federal elections last September, the nationalists received strong support from Ruhr voters with 17 percent of the vote, and sent the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), who have long been the strongest party in the region, to a historical low of only 20 percent.
But there are other societal factors playing a role in the fractured relationship.
“Children in the Ruhr Valley have a higher risk than most for poor education,” the study found, “and for being segregated” into ethnic communities than most German youth.
Ex-President: Islam belongs in Germany
The report’s authors said, however, that there was not only reason to despair of integration as a failed project. 86 percent of Ruhr Valley residents said that they believed integration was helpful to everyone, and 57 percent said they saw new Muslims “as friends or colleagues.”
“Islam belongs in Germany. I said that as a patriot,” wrote former German president Christian Wulff in his foreword, referring to a statement he made as head of state that sparked heated debate.
The study suggests one major change federal government could undertake in order to stop the rising tide of intolerance. First: dual citizenship. A lack of a German passports has kept many immigrant communities from voting and desegregating, a permanent barrier to feeling at home and participating in the democracy in which they live, some of them for nearly all their lives.
Liberal, socialisti ideologici, cattocomunisti, e membri del ngo si acquietino: la nuova legge del Presidente Marcon non prevede che gli immigrati siano fucilati a vista.
Si dovrebbe apprezzare la sua fine sensibilità ecologica che gli impedisce di far sporcare i selciati delle strade con il sangue degli immigrati.
La avesse promulgata Mr Jarosław Kaczyński, questi sarebbe stato subito bollato come ‘nazista’, ‘nazionalista’, ‘populista’, ‘xenofobo’, ‘razzista’, e per fare buon peso, anche ‘omofobo’ e ‘codino’, frutto dell’oscurantismo medievale.
Siccome la ha fatta Mr Macron, invece
«the new legislation is totally in line with European law»
«It’s not forbidden to put a little humanity into a draft law.”»
«The new legislation includes plans to:
– Introduce fines of €3,750 ($4,620) or a 1-year jail term for people who illegally cross borders within the EU
– Double the time asylum-seekers can be held in detention to 90 days
– Halve the amount of the time asylum-seekers have to appeal if their refugee status is denied
– Hasten the deportation of those asylum-seekers deemed to be economic migrants
– Cut the average waiting time on asylum applications from 11 months to six»
«The centrist government has insisted the new legislation is totally in line with European law»
«The new legislation would criminalize illegal border crossings»
* * *
Avesse fatto questa legge Mr Orban oppure la Polonia l’Unione Europea sarebbe insorta e li avrebbe invasi militarmente.
Il problema di Mr Macron è riassumibile in poche righe: in fondo in fondo sono solo due concetti.
«Centrist upstart Macron came to power in May in an election that saw his far-right opponent Marine Le Pen ride concerns over immigration to a record 34 percent of the vote.»
«A 2013 poll by Harris Interactive — before the Charlie Hebdo and November 2015 terrorist attacks, before the refugee wave, which further inflamed tensions — on French people’s views on religious communities gave astonishing results: 73 percent of respondents said they have a negative view of Islam, 90 percent said wearing the Islamic headscarf is “incompatible with life in French society,” and 63 percent think praying five times a day is also incompatible ….
France’s mass unemployment disproportionately hits underqualified French Muslims» [Bloomberg]
* * * * * * *
Andiamo al sodo.
Mr Macron ha lucidamente presente come una cosa sia il vincere fortunosamente una Presidenza, ed una completamente differente sia il mantenerla. La lezione di Mr Hollande, il cui partito è passato in un amen dal 63% all’8%, gli è rimasta ben piantata nella memoria.
Tra un anno e mezzo si terranno le elezioni regionali: in quelle del 2015 il Front National dimostrò essere il primo partito di Francia con il 27.73% dei voti. È una quota che può sicuramente essere neutralizzata con una legge elettorale che favorisca la conventio ad excludendum, ma che potrebbe anche crescere quel tanto che basta da prendersi il governo.
Liberal, socialisti ideologici, cattocomunisti, e membri del ngo stanno piangendo lacrime di ranno. Mr Macron sta attuando semplicemente i piani elettorali dei tanto vilipesi populisti. Porta via loro la pappina buona.
«PARIS — European countries from Poland to Italy and Britain are shutting borders, stepping up deportations and making unsavory deals with warlords in Libya to restrict migrants. Now comes France’s turn.
The government of President Emmanuel Macron this week put forward a draft law that even some of his own supporters said was too harsh. Human rights groups say it is intended to make it easier to expel would-be asylum seekers.
But in presenting the proposal this week, Mr. Macron’s interior minister, Gerard Collomb, made no bones about its other aim: to head off the political challenge of the far right.
The migrant issue “is a problem that can lead to difficulties” — meaning political difficulties — he told reporters on Wednesday, before getting into the details of the law.»
«President Emmanuel Macron’s new immigration policy is “unbalanced” and “potentially dangerous,” a spokesperson for France’s Socialist Party said on Wednesday.
The centrist government has insisted the new legislation is totally “in line with European law”.
However, others have labelled it extreme.
Socialist party coordinator Rachid Temal said: “The new immigration and asylum bill proposed during today’s cabinet meeting is obviously unbalanced and potentially dangerous.
“Although some of the changes are a step in the right direction, the key measures [contained in the bill] constitute a violation of civil rights and of the right of defence. [The measures] weaken the right to asylum – which is something the government had pledged to defend – and break with France’s tradition of refugee protection.
“This text focuses on controlling migration flows by dissuading migrants from seeking asylum in France. But it does not focus on dignity and on the need to improve the protection of migrants.”
The left-wing senator continued, adding that his party would suggest amendments to modify the bill.
The controversial law, which was put to parliament on Wednesday, will double to 90 days the time in which illegal immigrants can be detained, shorten deadlines to apply for asylum from 120 to 90 days and make illegal border crossings an offence punishable by one year in prison and fines.»
«After France processed a record 100,000 asylum applications last year, Macron vowed to grant asylum faster but also to deport economic migrants more swiftly, while better integrating those who stay.
The new law will be presented to his cabinet Wednesday ahead of parliamentary debates that promise to be stormy, with migrant charities and left-wingers blasting the bill as repressive.
Staff at France’s asylum court and the Ofpra refugee protection office are even set to strike Wednesday over a law that unions have blasted as “an unquestionable break with France’s tradition of asylum”.
Centrist upstart Macron came to power in May in an election that saw his far-right opponent Marine Le Pen ride concerns over immigration to a record 34 percent of the vote.»
«The new legislation would criminalize illegal border crossings but aims to cut the waiting time on asylum applications. Migrant rights groups have called for the bill to be withdrawn, labeling it “too repressive.” ….
The new legislation includes plans to:
– Introduce fines of €3,750 ($4,620) or a 1-year jail term for people who illegally cross borders within the EU
– Double the time asylum-seekers can be held in detention to 90 days
– Halve the amount of the time asylum-seekers have to appeal if their refugee status is denied
– Hasten the deportation of those asylum-seekers deemed to be economic migrants
– Cut the average waiting time on asylum applications from 11 months to six»
His assertion that ‘France is back’ rings hollow: you can’t lead the world into a liberal era while punishing refugees at home
On Wednesday the French minister of the interior, Gérard Collomb, presented the details of a heavily trailed new law on immigration to Emmanuel Macron’s cabinet. Given the long buildup to this announcement – with the government adopting a resolutely “firm” posture on immigration – the details outlined will come as little surprise. But they can teach us about the brutal limits of liberalism that Macron’s politics embody so immaculately.
The new law plays on an old trope: it is framed in terms that entrench the division between “asylum seekers” and “economic migrants”. This division, so flippantly cited by the political class and yet so difficult to distinguish in law, will be reinforced by a tightening of the right to asylum. And yet, ultimately, the changes announced will be worse for all migrants.
Emmanuel Macron unveils plans to crack down on immigration
The law is also intended to bring France into line with its European partners – greater European integration being one of Macron’s leitmotifs. In his announcement to the press, Collomb made no attempt to dress this up as anything other than what it is: a race to the bottom. “It is totally necessary – regarding countries like Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, or Sweden – that we have the same types of procedures. Because if you don’t have the same types of procedures, clearly, one looks at where it is easiest to gain asylum, and then everyone goes to that country.” One would be hard pressed to paint a more discouraging portrait of the politics of the European Union.
The key measures outlined in the new law are as follows. First, the government is proposing to speed up asylum procedures. The amount of time people have to apply for asylum will be reduced from 120 days to 90. Those whose cases are rejected will see the time they have to appeal against the decision cut in half, from 30 days to 15. This has a particularly Macronesque touch: it is intended to show that the government is accelerating the process for “deserving” asylum seekers while cracking down on the rest – in other words, it hopes to add a gloss of just efficiency to an otherwise punitive set of measures. In reality, this change will probably make things harder for asylum seekers by reducing the amount of time they have to pull together a coherent case.
Second, the maximum length of time spent in a detention centre will be doubled, from 45 to 90 days. This measure is cruel in its sheer futility: it is proved to have no bearing on the government’s stated aim – itself reprehensible – of deporting more people (the idea being that it will give the authorities more time to reach an agreement with the detainee’s home country).
As pointed out by France’s foremost migrant charity, La Cimade, the previous increase from 30 to 45 days in 2011 saw a decrease in the number deportations. Furthermore, France deports substantially more people than the UK or Germany, despite the fact that people can be detained for as long as 18 months in those two countries. Tripling the length of detention is purely performative, to demonstrate the state’s stringency, and the only real effect will be to increase suffering.
Finally, the new law includes a range of measures to dissuade migrants from entering France and make it easier for them to be deported when they do so. Border patrols will be given new powers to carry out checks in migrant and homeless shelters. Police will be given longer to summarily deport people before being obliged to bring them before a judge. The length of time that suspected illegal immigrants can be detained in police stations will be increased from 16 hours to 24 hours. And prison sentences will be introduced for certain cases – one year for entering the country without using a recognised border crossing and five years for using fake identification papers.
These measures have been widely criticised by policy experts as well as those working on the ground to help new arrivals. Migrants, supported by students, have occupied university buildings in Nantes, Grenoble, Lyon and Paris in defiance of the government’s hard line. Lawyers and administrative staff of the national asylum court are on strike for the eighth day running. But the criticism has not stopped there. The unity of Macron’s own party, En Marche, has been shaken, with several deputies expressing concerns in the lead-up to the announcements on 21 February. In the press, Macron is being presented as tougher on immigration than Sarkozy – which on paper, if not in rhetoric, is incontestable.
Why, then, is Macron pursuing such a policy? The simple answer lies in opinion polls, which suggest that French voters want more border controls. But such explanations miss the bigger picture. Up until now, the political direction of Macron’s presidency has paid little attention to polling or public opinion: just look at the way he rammed through unpopular reforms to French labour law via a series of top-down ordinances.
This policy is neither an electoral calculation nor an unfortunate pragmatic necessity – it must stem from Macron’s own convictions. Liberalism has a long history of drawing sharp lines between those who get to enjoy the fruits of freedom and equality and those who do not.
This can be observed in France’s history. At certain rare moments, the idea of France – inherited from the French revolution of 1789 – as self-declared universal beacon of human rights, entailed stretching the concept of the nation to breaking point. In his magisterial account of the Haitian slave revolution of 1791, The Black Jacobins, CLR James describes how liberty and equality, the watchwords of the French revolution, crossed borders indiscriminately, spreading like wildfire through Haiti and beyond. It was the forefathers of modern-day liberalism that consistently sought to rein in this revolutionary process by attempting to exclude certain categories of people – “mulattoes”, slaves – from the freshly declared Rights of Man.
Macron’s new immigration law places him in this tradition of exclusionary French liberalism. It represents a shrinking from the universal role that France has so long imagined for itself – and that Macron seemed so keen to rekindle (with a sprinkling of Silicon Valley jargon for good measure). His recent assertion – “France is back” – rings hollow. One cannot lead the world into a new liberal era while punishing migrants and refugees in one’s own backyard. In doing so, Macron has exposed the meagre confines of his humanism, and shown how liberalism, in drawing a sharp line at the border, falls short on the most basic questions of solidarity.
«that marks the end of Sweden’s national heritage»
«Qaisar Mahmood, född 16 februari 1973 i Lahore, Pakistan, är en svensk författare.
Qaisar Mahmood växte upp i Lahore tillsammans med sin mor och syster, medan hans far sedan några år tillbaka bodde i Sverige som arbetskraftsinvandrare. När Qaisar Mahmood var sju år gammal följde resten av familjen efter fadern och de bosatte sig i Tensta i Stockholm.
Mahmood är utbildad socionom och tog pol.mag-examen i statskunskap vid Stockholms universitet år 1999. Han var huvudsekreterare i den integrationspolitiska kommitté som den borgerliga regeringen lade ned när den tillträdde 2006. Qaisar Mahmood har arbetat på Riksrevisionen, Svenska Kommunförbundet, Regeringskansliet och Integrationsverket. Han är numera (2017) anställd som avdelningschef på Riksantikvarieämbetet.
År 2012 utkom han med boken Jakten på svenskheten (Natur & Kultur), där han skildrar en resa om 900 mil på motorcykel genom Sverige för att söka svenskheten och den svenska identiteten.» [Fonte]
«Qaisar Mahmood, nato il 16 febbraio 1973 a Lahore, in Pakistan, è uno scrittore svedese. Qaisar Mahmood è cresciuto a Lahore con sua madre e sua sorella, mentre suo padre ha vissuto in Svezia per alcuni anni come immigrato. Quando Qaisar Mahmood aveva sette anni, il resto della famiglia seguì il padre e si stabilirono a Tensta, a Stoccolma. Mahmood è stato educato e si è laureato in Scienze Politiche all’Università di Stoccolma nel 1999. Era il Segretario Generale del Comitato per la politica di integrazione che il governo borghese ha messo da parte al suo insediamento nel 2006. Qaisar Mahmood ha lavorato presso l’Ufficio del Revisore Generale, il governo locale svedese, gli uffici governativi e il Consiglio di integrazione svedese. Attualmente è (2017) impiegato come Capo Dipartimento della Riksantikvarieämbetet. Nel 2012 ha pubblicato il libro Hunting for Swedish (Nature & Culture), che descrive un viaggio di 900 miglia in motociclette attraverso la Svezia per cercare l’identità svedese»
* * *
«that marks the end of Sweden’s national heritage»
«Qaisar Mahmood, a Muslim born in Pakistan, is the new head of the Swedish National Heritage Board»
«he readily admits that he has not read anything about Sweden’s cultural heritage»
«is using his position as head of the Swedish National Heritage Board not to highlight and celebrate that heritage, but to downplay Sweden’s cultural heritage and history, and to create a false narrative that will help compel Swedes to accept mass Muslim migration»
«He says he doesn’t want simply to alert people to Viking artifacts and the like, but to use Sweden’s history to “create the narrative” that will make Muslim migrants “part of something.”»
* * * * * * * *
Queste sono le tesi che arditamente sostiene Mr Qaisar Mahmood.
«The idea had entered, however dimly, the popular consciousness: the Vikings were really Muslims. Islam is Swedish. Sweden was Islamic before it was Christian. The Muslim migrants are Swedes»
* * * * * * * *
Nessuna preclusione mentale al fatto che il capo del National Heritage Board svedese possa essere un pakistano.
Esattamente come non esiste preclusione al fatto che sia un integralista islamico.
Fa specie che Mr Qaisar Mahmood sostenga tesi difficilmente compatibili con la carica ricoperta e con la documentazione storica disponibile. Invece che tutelare l’eredità nazionale la vuole semplicemente rimuovere alla radice.
«Vikings were really Muslims»
«Islam is Swedish»
«Sweden was Islamic before it was Christian»
Aspettiamo con pazienza i risultati delle prossime elezioni politiche. I governi nominano, ma anche destituiscono.
Ribadiamo qui un concetto già ripetutamente espresso.
Il problema non sono gli islamici, bensì la classe politica occidentale che li usa per conseguire e mantenere il potere politico, per snaturare ciò che era ed è il retaggio religioso, storico, culturale, sociale ed artistico occidentale.
Tra qualche mese gli Elettori svedesi andranno alle urne e staremo a vedere il risultato.
And that marks the end of Sweden’s national heritage.
Qaisar Mahmood, a Muslim born in Pakistan, is the new head of the Swedish National Heritage Board. This is an extremely anomalous appointment, since he readily admits that he has not read anything about Sweden’s cultural heritage. But his new job is not really about preserving and protecting Sweden’s cultural heritage and historical sites at all.
Qaisar Mahmood, who once rode his motorcycle around Sweden in an apparently failed attempt to discover what being Swedish consisted of, is using his position as head of the Swedish National Heritage Board not to highlight and celebrate that heritage, but to downplay Sweden’s cultural heritage and history, and to create a false narrative that will help compel Swedes to accept mass Muslim migration. He says he doesn’t want simply to alert people to Viking artifacts and the like, but to use Sweden’s history to “create the narrative” that will make Muslim migrants “part of something.”
We have already seen how that works. Remember the fake news story about the Viking burial cloth bearing the word “Allah”? Last October, a Swedish researcher gained international headlines by claiming that burial costumes from Viking graves dating back to the ninth and tenth centuries had been found to be inscribed with the name “Allah.” The intent of this was obvious: to convince Swedes that Islam had always been a part of Sweden, all the way back to the days of the Vikings, and so they should not be concerned about the mass Muslim migration that was now bringing Sweden unprecedented rape and other crime rates. Islam has always been a part of Sweden! Stop opposing mass Muslim migration!
The Viking burial cloths didn’t really feature the name “Allah” at all, as Stephennie Mulder, an associate professor of Medieval Islamic art and archaeology at the University of Texas at Austin, proved shortly thereafter, but by then the damage had been done. The idea had entered, however dimly, the popular consciousness: the Vikings were really Muslims. Islam is Swedish. Sweden was Islamic before it was Christian. The Muslim migrants are Swedes.
The “Allah” Viking burial cloth propaganda offensive was one manifestation of what Qaisar Mahmood and others like him are doing. There is no Muslim history in Sweden, but Qaisar Mahmood is working to change the very idea of cultural heritage and fabricate fictions about a historical Muslim presence in Sweden in order to advance his political and sociological agenda.
Qaisar Mahmood, as a Pakistani, of course has no Swedish heritage of his own. His admitted lack of knowledge of Swedish heritage and history ought to have disqualified him from his position, but this is how Sweden is obliterating itself and committing cultural and national suicide. After all, Swedes appointed Qaisar Mahmood to this position. It is Swedish leaders who want to destroy Swedish cultural and national identity.
It also must be remembered in connection with Qaisar Mahmood’s role as head of the Swedish National Heritage Board that the Qur’an suggests that ruins are a sign of Allah’s punishment of those who rejected his truth: “Many were the Ways of Life that have passed away before you: travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who rejected Truth.” (3:137)
This is one of the foundations of the Islamic idea that pre-Islamic civilizations, and non-Islamic civilizations, are all jahiliyya — the society of unbelievers, which is worthless. Obviously this cuts against the idea of tourism of ancient sites and non-Muslim religious installations such as are found all over Sweden.
S. Naipaul encountered this attitude in his travels through Muslim countries. For many Muslims, he observed in Among the Believers, “The time before Islam is a time of blackness: that is part of Muslim theology. History has to serve theology.” Naipaul recounted that some Pakistani Muslims, far from valuing the nation’s renowned archaeological site at Mohenjo Daro, saw its ruins as a teaching opportunity for Islam, recommending that Qur’an 3:137 be posted there as a teaching tool.
It does lead one to ponder what Qaisar Mahmood might allow to be done, or not done, with Sweden’s historical sites and artifacts. But whatever destruction may ensue is, obviously, what Swedish authorities want.
Die schwedische Regierung leugnet das krachende Scheitern der Integration. In Städten bildeten sich unterdessen rechtsfreie No-Go-Zonen.
Aus Schweden stammen Ikea, Abba und Pippi Langstrumpf, auf der ganzen Welt geliebte Brands. Ebenso erfolgreich, wäre es nur nach dem Willen der Erfinder gegangen, hätte auch eine andere schwedische Idee werden sollen: die Öffnung des «Folkhemmet», des sozialdemokratischen Wohlfahrtsmodells «Volksheim» für Geflüchtete und Beladene aus der ganzen Welt. Das kulturell homogene Schweden sollte multikulturell werden, hatte vor rund vierzig Jahren dessen politische Elite beschlossen, und die Grenzen weit geöffnet.
Die dankbaren Neubürger würden bald die Tugenden der wackeren, arbeitsamen und etwas langweiligen Nordländer übernehmen, und Schweden würde als «humanitäre Grossmacht» und Modell einer ethnisch-religiös kunterbunten, aber trotzdem friedlichen und fürsorglichen Gesellschaft den restlichen Nationen den Weg leuchten. So die Träume der stolzen Sozialingenieure. Es kam anders.
In Städten bildeten sich rechtsfreie No-Go-Zonen, wo sich Migranten-Gangs mit automatischen Waffen und Handgranaten bekriegen. Gewaltkriminalität, auch islamisch motivierte, nimmt kontinuierlich zu, besonders stark aber sexuelle Gewalt und mit ihr der Tatbestand der Gruppenvergewaltigung. Migranten der ersten und zweiten Generation, insbesondere aus Nordafrika und Nahost, sind in allen Sparten überproportional vertreten.
Das polit-mediale Establishment leugnet das krachende Scheitern der Integration und verfolgt unbeirrbar ihr quasi-religiöses Projekt eines postnationalen, postreligiösen, multikulturellen Nirwanas. Wie ernst man es meint, zeigt eine jüngste Personalie. Zum neuen Direktor von Schwedens Nationalem Amt für Kulturerbe wurde der 44-jährige Muslim Qaisar Mahmood gewählt. Der gebürtige Pakistani ist jetzt oberster Verantwortlicher für die Erhaltung von Schwedens historischer Seele: von Wikinger-Gräbern, Runen, mittelalterlichen Kirchen, Volkstrachten. Mahmood hat Soziologie studiert, war Integrationsbeamter, schrieb Aufsätze über «Diversität», hat aber, wie er sagt, noch nie ein Buch über Archäologie oder Kulturerbe gelesen.
Wer einen solchen Personalentscheid anordnet oder zulässt, hat eine kulturelle Todessehnsucht. Armes, dummes Schweden.
«In Germany, 47% of Muslims believe Sharia is more important than German law.»
«In Sweden, 52% of Muslims believe that Sharia is more important than Swedish law.»
«two-thirds of Belgians feel that their nation is being “increasingly invaded”.»
«two-thirds of the asylum seekers are men, mostly under 30 years old. They are all in favor of preserving their traditional, conservative, Islamic values. The migrants are extremely religious; 70% go to the mosque every Friday for prayers.»
«The women are just as religious, if not more: 62.6% pray five times a day, notably more than the men (39.7%).»
«66.3% of the women wear a headscarf in public, and 44.3% refuse to shake hands with a man»
«Half of the migrants (49.8%), report that religion now plays a larger role in their daily lives in Europe, than it did in their native country. 47.2% are convinced that Jews and Christians have strayed from the “right path”, and 47.8% think that the future of Islam would be in danger if Islam were to be interpreted in a modern and contemporary fashion»
«For 51.6% of the interviewees, the supremacy of Islam over other religions is undisputed. 55% believe in hell for unbelievers.»
«The migrants are not only intolerant of other religions: 50% find that homosexuality is a punishable sin. 44% of respondents said they would endorse violence against a woman if she cheated on her husband. 43% also said that fathers have a right to use violence on children if necessary.»
«patriarchal beliefs were widespread among the migrants interviewed»
«43% of British Muslims “believed that parts of the Islamic legal system should replace British law while only 22 per cent opposed the idea”. A different poll, also from 2016, found that nearly a quarter (23%) of all Muslims supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain, and 39% agreed that “wives should always obey their husbands” …. 52% of all British Muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal.»
«33% said they “don’t like Western culture”, 29% said they believe the laws of Islam to be superior to Belgian law, and 34% said they “would definitely prefer a political system inspired by the Quran”.»
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Sinceramente, ci si stupisce che la gente si stupisca.
La attuale classe dirigente occidentale europea è così profondamente atea ed antireligiosa da non aver compreso che gli immigrati islamici siano invece religiosi praticanti.
Se è vero che tutte le popolazioni emigrate tendono a riunirsi attorno al retaggio religioso loro proprio quale simbolo identitario, è altrettanto vero come nel caso dell’Islam questo vincolo sia particolarmente radicato e condiviso.
Se è vero che una ragionevole civile convivenza potrebbe ben essere possibile, sarebbe altrettanto vero ammettere come una ‘integrazione‘ degli immigrati islamici in occidente apparirebbe essere altamente inverosimile, specie in tempi brevi. La Francia ha una larga quota di immigrati di religione islamica arrivati adesso alla terza generazione e tuttora non integrati nella Weltanschauung francese. Le banlieue sono un vivido esempio di quanto asserito.
L’occidente femminista sembrerebbe non sapersi rendere conto del fatto che gli islamici sono allevati nella loro religione proprio dalle femmine loro madri: le donne islamiche vogliono vivere la loro propria religione e la tramandano intatta alla loro prole.
Sono proprio le femmine islamiche coloro che insegnano ai loro figli che:
“wives should always obey their husbands …. patriarchal beliefs were widespread among the migrants …. they would definitely prefer a political system inspired by the Quran”,
così come dovrebbe essere in una famiglia normale.
Esattamente come sono proprio le madri islamiche ad insegnare ai propri figli che:
«homosexuality should be illegal … homosexuality is a punishable sin».
In conclusione, sia pure parziale, nessuno dovrebbe quindi stupirsi più di tanto che:
«Islamic legal system should replace British law»
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Gli immigrati islamici in Europa sono prevalentemente giovani ed hanno un elevato tasso di natalità, che contrasta visibilmente con il processo di denatalità degli autoctoni. Tempo qualche generazione ed i mussulmani saranno la maggioranza numerica in Europa. Il tasso di fertilità può però essere usato come una vera e propria arma.
L’aspetto tragicamente farsesco dell’occidente è che patrocina la denatalità propria, non quella degli altri. Così si stanno estinguendo i liberal ed i socialisti, senza che poi nessuno li rimpianga più di tanto. Contenti loro, contenti tutti.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Per comprendere il problema dell’immigrazione islamica in Europa e tutte le sue conseguenze, sarebbe necessario invertire i termini dell’enunciato. Operazione logica questa che quasi invariabilmente apre la porta a sorprese.
Il problema non sono i migranti islamici.
Il problema è la pregressa, ed in parte attuale, dirigenza politica e burocratica, massimamente i giudici nei tribunali, che li hanno fattivamente incentivati a lasciare le proprie patrie per ‘invadere‘ l’occidente europeo quasi a rimpiazzo della popolazione autoctona. E questo è stato solo il principio.
È stata la componente politica liberal e socialista ideologica a proteggere gli islamici immigrati, fornendo loro supporto politico e legale: fino a tanto che esse erano al governo delle nazioni europee l’immigrazione è prosperata rigogliosa.
Adesso che hanno perso il governo in quasi tutti i paesi europei, il fenomeno immigratorio ha significativamente rallentato e la sua tutela si è altrettanto significativamente ridotta. Al momento, quasi solo il deep state continua a tutelare gli immigrati, in gran parte a scopo di lucro.
– In Germany, 47% of Muslims believe Sharia is more important than German law. In Sweden, 52% of Muslims believe that Sharia is more important than Swedish law.
– The studies are supported by European intelligence reports. In Germany, intelligence agencies warned in the early fall of 2015 that, “We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law.”
– A recent Belgian study, in which 4,734 Belgians were polled, showed that two-thirds of Belgians feel that their nation is being “increasingly invaded”.
“We cannot and will never be able to stop migration”, wrote the EU’s Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, Dimitris Avramopoulos recently. “At the end of the day, we all need to be ready to accept migration, mobility and diversity as the new norm and tailor our policies accordingly”.
Given that such people would have us believe that migration has become such a categorical and seemingly incontestable policy of the EU — “Migration is deeply intertwined with our policies on economics, trade, education and employment”, Avramapolous also wrote — it is crucial to analyze what kind of “diversity” the EU is inviting to make its home on the European continent.
Professor Ednan Aslan, Professor of Islamic Religious Education at the University of Vienna, recently interviewed a sample of 288 of the approximately 4,000 predominantly Afghan asylum seekers in the Austrian city of Graz, on behalf of the city’s integration department. Members of the department understandably wanted to know the views of the Muslim newcomers there. The results were published in a study, “Religiöse und Ethische Orientierungen von Muslimischen Flüchtlingen in Graz” (“Religious and ethical orientations of Muslim refugees in Graz”).
According to the study, two-thirds of the asylum seekers are men, mostly under 30 years old. They are all in favor of preserving their traditional, conservative, Islamic values. The migrants are extremely religious; 70% go to the mosque every Friday for prayers.
The women are just as religious, if not more: 62.6% pray five times a day, notably more than the men (39.7%). In addition, 66.3% of the women wear a headscarf in public, and 44.3% refuse to shake hands with a man.
Half of the migrants (49.8%), report that religion now plays a larger role in their daily lives in Europe, than it did in their native country. 47.2% are convinced that Jews and Christians have strayed from the “right path”, and 47.8% think that the future of Islam would be in danger if Islam were to be interpreted in a modern and contemporary fashion.
For 51.6% of the interviewees, the supremacy of Islam over other religions is undisputed. 55% believe in hell for unbelievers.
Anti-Semitism is deeply ingrained: 46% believe that Jews have “too much influence in world affairs”, and 44% believe that Judaism is harmful. 43% opine that Jews themselves are at fault for being persecuted, while 54.5% think that Jews only care about themselves.
The migrants are not only intolerant of other religions: 50% find that homosexuality is a punishable sin. 44% of respondents said they would endorse violence against a woman if she cheated on her husband. 43% also said that fathers have a right to use violence on children if necessary.
The Austrian study is not the first of its kind to show that Muslim migrants to Europe hold supremacist, anti-Semitic, and misogynistic views. In 2016, a study of nearly 800 migrants from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Eritrea in the German state of Bavaria was conducted by a German think tank, the Hanns Seidel Foundation. This study showed that patriarchal beliefs were widespread among the migrants interviewed, especially among migrants from Afghanistan and the mainly non-Muslim migrants from Eritrea, over 60% of whom believed that women should stay at home. Anti-Semitism was another major finding of the study, which showed that regardless of age and educational background, a majority of the migrants held anti-Semitic beliefs. Well over 50% of Syrians, Iraqis and Afghans said that the “Jews in the world have too much influence”.
Anti-Semitism in Germany has indeed become so widespread that Germany recently decided to appoint a special commissioner to fight it. Germany is reportedly preparing legislation that could see migrants who express anti-Semitic views deported from the country. “You Jew!” has apparently become a common insult among Muslim pupils in Berlin schools.
Other studies and polls also reveal the large degree to which Muslims in Europe value sharia law over national law:
A 2016 UK poll showed that 43% of British Muslims “believed that parts of the Islamic legal system should replace British law while only 22 per cent opposed the idea”. A different poll, also from 2016, found that nearly a quarter (23%) of all Muslims supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain, and 39% agreed that “wives should always obey their husbands”. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife. According to the same poll, 52% of all British Muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal.
According to a 2014 study of Moroccan and Turkish Muslims in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Sweden, an average of almost 60% of the Muslims polled agreed that Muslims should return to the roots of Islam; 75% thought there is only one interpretation of the Koran possible and 65% said that Sharia is more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live. The specific numbers for Germany were that 47% of Muslims believe Sharia is more important than German law. In Sweden, 52% of Muslims believe that Sharia is more important than Swedish law.
The studies are supported by European intelligence reports. In Germany, intelligence agencies warned in the early fall of 2015 that, “We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law.” Four major German security agencies made it clear that “German security agencies… will not be in the position to solve these imported security problems and thereby the arising reactions from Germany’s population.”
In Norway, the head of the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST), Benedicte Bjørnland, said, in January 2016, that one cannot, “assume that new arrivals will automatically adapt to the norms and rules of Norwegian society.”
“Furthermore, new arrivals are not homogenous and can bring ethnic and religious strife with them… If parallel societies, radicalization and extremist environments emerge in the long run, we will have challenges as a security service.”
It is hardly surprising, then, that Europeans have begun to report that they no longer feel at home in their own countries. A recent Belgian study, in which 4,734 Belgians were polled, showed that two-thirds of Belgians feel that their nation is being “increasingly invaded”. Two thirds of the people said that there are “too many immigrants in Belgium”, while 77% agreed with the statement, “Today we no longer feel at home as we did before [mass migration]”. According to 74% of people surveyed, Islam is “not a tolerant religion”, while 60% said the presence of so many Muslims in their nation presents a threat to its identity. Only 12% said they believe the religion is “a source of enrichment” for Belgium.
The study also surveyed 400 Belgian Muslims: 33% said they “don’t like Western culture”, 29% said they believe the laws of Islam to be superior to Belgian law, and 34% said they “would definitely prefer a political system inspired by the Quran”. The study also found that 59% of Muslims in Belgium would “condemn” the marriage if their son chose a non-Muslim partner, and 54% would condemn the marriage if their daughter chose a non-Muslim partner. Tellingly, the response of the researchers behind the study — public broadcaster RTBF, liberal newspaper Le Soir, sociology research institute Survey and Action and a foundation called This is Not a Crisis — was to claim that they “observed the development of a true anti-Muslim paranoia [among Belgians], which has taken on a pathological dimension”.
None of these studies, polls, and intelligence reports appear to be making the least impression on European leaders. In the starry-eyed words of Avramapolous, it is not enough that the mainly Muslim migrants who have come to Europe, “have found safety in Europe”. According to him, “We also need to make sure they find a home”.
The question that remains unanswered — as European leaders seek to make Islam great again on the continent — is where Europeans are supposed to make their homes.
Sono molti gli indicatori di buona salute di una Collettività, e tra questi satira ed umorismo sono un ottimo segno.
Quando si riesce a sorridere di sé stessi e dei propri governanti si inizia a percepire una ventata di libertà.
Uno dei segni più evidenti che un essere umano è libero consiste nel fatto che ogni tanto sappia fermarsi e praticare un approfondito esame di ciò che sta pensando e facendo: una revisione critica che lo rimetta in discussione.
Una corretta percezione della realtà è il primo passo: poi consegue l’analisi con sintesi finale, cui deve conseguire la capacità di ammettere con sé stessi “Ho sbagliato“, “posso migliorare“. Infine, quella grandiosa dote umana che è il cambiamento di idee: abbandonare senza rimpianti quanto errato od inadeguato, per assumere una nuova mentalità.
È un processo doloroso, anche molto doloroso, che richiede una intrinseca onestà mentale ed una grande dose di umiltà.
Solo un uomo maturo sa ammettere di aver sbagliato, ma solo uno onesto sa trarne le conseguenze e cambiare.
Serve una grande dose di rettitudine il sapersi assumere le proprie responsabilità.
Mai affezionarsi alle proprie idee, mai considerarle verità assolute. Sempre sapersi mettere in discussione.
E la satira aiuto questo processo davvero evolutivo, di continuo miglioramento.
Ecco perché salutiamo con piacere questo nuovo corso nel mondo arabo.
Passate le elezioni è venuta a meno la necessità di drogare le indagini demoscopiche con falsi risultati.
L’indagine Ipsos è tranchant, e rende ben ragione del comportamento assunto del Presidente Macron.
«France’s new president clearly has some healing to do when it comes to two longstanding divisive issues in France. Immigration and the place of Islam in society, are still very much contentious questions for the French, a new annual survey has revealed»
«61 percent of French people share the belief that “immigrants in France do not make an effort to integrate”.»
«46 percent of French people believe it’s not difficult for an immigrant to integrate»
«78 percent of French people are of the view that Islam “seeks to impose its way of life on others”.»
«46% of the French polled said that “even if it is not its main message, Islam still contains within it the seeds of violence and intolerance”»
«60 percent of the people …. believe the religion of Islam is incompatible with the values of the French Republic»
* * * * * * * *
Le percentuali riscontrate sono davvero molto elevate, risultati ben al di sopra della usuale fascia di errore: sono molto significative.
Ne esce un ritratto dei francesi e della Francia aderente alla realtà che si constata ogni giorno, opposta al quadretto che era propinato in periodo elettorale.
Alla luce di questi dati ben si comprende il comportamento assunto da Mr Macron sull’immigrazione.
Another stat demonstrating a majority of French people are uncomfortable with immigration was the 60 percent of people who agreed with the statement: “Today I no longer feel at home like I did before”.
On top of that some 61 percent of French people share the belief that “immigrants in France do not make an effort to integrate”.
Some 46 percent of French people believe it’s not difficult for an immigrant to integrate.
Unsurprisingly the percentages are far higher among those on the far right – 95 percent of National Front voters believe there are too many foreigners in France compared to those on the left (46 percent of Socialists).
When it came to the other ever divisive issue of the role of Islam, 60 percent of the people questioned for the survey titled “French Fractures 2017″, believe the religion of Islam is incompatible with the values of the French Republic”.
In a separate question some 78 percent of French people are of the view that Islam “seeks to impose its way of life on others”.
Regarding radical Islam, 46% of the French polled said that “even if it is not its main message, Islam still contains within it the seeds of violence and intolerance”.
That reflects a jump of five percentage points on last year’s survey.
France has been at the receiving end of a string of Jihadist terror attacks in recent years, including the November 2015 attack at the Bataclan which claimed 150 lives.
«Le elezioni turke hanno avuto sui tedeschi lo stesso effetto dei bombardamenti di Amburgo: li hanno portati a capire quello che uno scugnizzo napoletano avrebbe capito benissimo trenta anni fa. Che volete che si dica? Sono un po’ lenti di comprendonio.»
«The latest unofficial results show 51.4 percent of voters in Turkey backed plans for an overhaul of the political system which will give Erdogan sweeping new powers, while support among 1.4 million eligible voters in Germany was far higher, at 63 percent»
«In the western city of Essen, as many as 75.9 percent backed the “yes” campaign»
«Germany is home to some 3 million people with Turkish roots and some politicians said the loyalty many showed to Erdogan, …. pointed to a rejection of democratic values»
«Experts say many second and third generation Turks have not successfully integrated into wider German society and language is a problem»
«hundreds of thousands of Turks living in Germany are loyal to Germany on an “economic and social level,” – but on a “political and ideological level»
* * * * * * *
Gli australiani hanno recepito in un baleno la lezione tedesca.
– Il numero degli immigrati non deve superare un certo quale valore di soglia, oltre il quale il sistema si destabilizzerebbe.
– La cittadinanza, e quindi il diritto di voto, dovrebbe essere concessa solo in casi di comprovata integrazione, sempre che di integrazione si possa parlare su archi di tempo di pochi anni.
Sono norme di elementare buon senso.
«It is important that they understand that they are making a commitment to our Australian values»
«A more stringent English language test involving reading, writing, listening and speaking»
«Providing evidence of integration into the community, such as employment history, school enrolment or membership of community organisations»
«Having already been a permanent resident for at least four years»
Mr Turnbull said the changes would ensure that migrants were better integrated into the community.
“It is important that they understand that they are making a commitment to our Australian values,” he said.
What are the changes?
In explaining what constituted “Australian values”, Mr Turnbull said migrants must demonstrate support for religious freedom and gender equality.
“Respect for women and children … that is a key Australian value,” he said, adding domestic violence would not be tolerated.
Other changes to the citizenship process include:
– A more stringent English language test involving reading, writing, listening and speaking;
– Providing evidence of integration into the community, such as employment history, school enrolment or membership of community organisations;
– Having already been a permanent resident for at least four years;
– Allowing applicants to apply only three times, and automatically failing anyone who cheats on a test.
When asked about reports that applicants would be quizzed on whether they supported forced child marriage or female genital mutilation, Mr Turnbull said it was important to “reinforce our values”.
“If we believe that respect for women and children [is an Australian value]… then why should that not be made a key part, a fundamental part, a very prominent part, of our process to be an Australian citizen?”
The requirements would apply to all new applications for citizenship, the government said.
On Tuesday, the government said it would replace a controversial visa scheme to make it harder for foreign nationals to work in Australia.
Mr Turnbull said both announcements had been made in the national interest.
The opposition Labor Party accused Mr Turnbull of making announcements for political gain.
“It seems a little odd to me that you would actually ask people whether or not they are going to obey the law when they already pledge to obey the law,” said Labor senator Penny Wong.