I would like to propose Labour MP Tulip Siddiq as the winner of the pious political hypocrite of the week badge for her response to President Trump’s temporary immigration halt. From today’s Guardian we learn that Ms Siddiq is one of a number of Labour MPs who have warned that the UK Prime Minister’s allegedly ‘feeble’ response to President Trump’s recent immigration order risks making UK Muslim communities feel ‘disenfranchised and disillusioned.’ Apparently the consequences of this failure could be ‘played out on our streets’ and ‘turning a blind eye to the reality of this ban we run the risk of losing the trust of an entire generation of young British Muslims.’
Now of course one might ask what it is about any group of people that makes them so available for street disturbances. I cannot think of any other group in society of whom this would be said. Does not the very suggestion that young Muslims might rise up on the streets of Britain over such a far-away political issue actually suggest a certain validity to the argument some people make that Muslims are unusually bad at integrating and continuing to import them in very large numbers is a mistake in the long term? Does it not, in other words, go some way to justifying what rationale appears to exist behind Trump’s Presidential order?
via Douglas Murray
The end of last week President Trump gave official warning to the Palestinian Authority (PA) that they had violated the terms under which they operate offices in Washington D.C. demanding that they enter talks with the Israelis in order to prevent their being shuttered. Some news termed these as the PLO offices which are simply further proof that there is no difference between the PLO and the PA thus they are either both patriotic peace seeking entities or terrorist entities to be shunned and shut down. This has been hailed by supporters of President Trump as an unprecedented move. Sorry folks, this has been part of the threat and promise operations since President William Jefferson Clinton had their office permitted, breaking numerous regulations and initiating something new and giving the State Department responsibility for seeing to it that the move resulted on a positive peace. Nobody ever actually defined positive…
View original post 1,509 more words
October 1. A 29-year-old illegal immigrant from Tunisia stabbed two women to death at the central train station in Marseille. Witnesses heard the assailant shout “Allahu Akbar” as he lunged at the women with a 20-centimetre (eight-inch) knife before threatening soldiers, who shot him dead. The man, identified as Ahmed Hanachi, was using seven different identities and had a long criminal history. He had been arrested in Lyon for shoplifting just days before the attack, but those charges were dropped due to a lack evidence. He was released, despite not having the documents needed to live in France. Why he was never deported remains unclear.
October 2. Five people were arrested in Paris after police found four makeshift bombs at a building in the 16th arrondissement, one of the city’s most exclusive neighborhoods. Police said there was no one living in the apartment block who might be considered a target for jihadists. Interior Minister Gérard Collomb surmised that the bomb was simply meant to create fear: “Blowing up a building in a posh neighborhood shows that no one is safe…that it could happen anywhere in France.” He added: “This shows that the level of the threat in France is extremely high…yes, even if the Islamic State has suffered military setbacks, we are still in a state of war.”
French patriots led a protest march in a Paris suburb to demand Muslims stop praying outdoors.
The phenomenon of street prayers, which see Muslims spreading mats on footpaths, became a common sight in Europe.
Praying in the streets of Paris is against the law but French police refuse to enforce the law banning Muslims from praying in public.
Under French law, police can use force and arrest Muslims, and those of any other faith, disobey the rule to keep the French capital’s public spaces secular.
Please write in the comments below: Do you support the French law banning Muslims from praying in public?
t is only eight weeks since an 18-year old Iraqi-born man walked onto the London Underground and left a bomb on the District line. Fortunately for the rush-hour commuters and school children on that train, the detonating device went off without managing to set off the bomb itself. Had the device worked, the many passengers who suffered life-changing burns would instead have been among many other people taken away in body bags. Ahmed Hassan came to the UK illegally in 2015 and was subsequently provided with foster care by the British government. He has now been charged, and is awaiting trial, for causing an explosion and attempted murder.
London police outside Parsons Green Underground station, following the terrorist bombing there on September 15, 2017. (Image source: Edwardx/Wikimedia Commons)
As stories like that of Mr. Hassan emerge, there are varying reactions. Some people say that this act is not indicative of anything, and that we must accept that such things happen — like the weather. Others suggest that anyone might leave a bomb on the District line in the morning, and that there is no more reason to alter your border policy because of it than there is to alter your meteorological policy because of it.
As poll after poll shows, however, the majority of the public in Britain — as in every other European country — think something else. They think that a country that has lost a grip on its immigration policy is very likely to lose control of its security policy, and that one may indeed follow the other.
So the British public were not at all reassured by the news this month that the country’s Home Office has lost track of tens of thousands of foreign nationals who were due to be removed from the country. Nor that there is no evidence of any effort to find the people in question.