Swedish parliamentary majority wants to ban participation in ‘racist’ organizations

In future, it will be forbidden in Sweden to participate in organizations that are designated as “racist”. The committee working on the issue will propose this in April, according to news outlet TT. The Prime Minister has already called the second largest opposition party, the Sweden Democrats (SD), racist.

In July 2019, the Löfven government appointed the “Committee on the Prohibition of Racist Organizations”, with the task of considering whether Swedes who participate in organizations that can be designated as “racist” should be punished. The committee will submit its final report in April 2021.

According to TT, there is now a parliamentary majority behind the proposal to “introduce criminal liability for participation in a racist organization”. Most parties support the move.

According to TT, there is still no parliamentary ban on dissolving “racist organizations” and such a decision would require a constitutional amendment. In practice, however, the difference between dissolving an organization and punishing participation in it is not so great.
As Swedish daily Nya Tider has previously reported, however, it is extremely unclear what will be counted as a “racist” organization if the government succeeds in enforcing a ban.

The government already has the right to ban associations that “involve persecution of a ethnic group due to ethnic origin, skin colour or similar circumstances”. It is then becomes absolutely crucial how one defines “persecution”, something the investigators could not explain when Nya Tiderlast spoke to a couple of them in September last year. Nor had the word “racism” been defined.

The two most important key concepts for pointing out exactly what should be banned were thus still unclear. Dag Mattsson, the special investigator who leads the work, would not respond to calls from the weekly.

However, the investigator Ida Karkiainen revealed to Nya Tider that they were primarily looking at how Finland had banned the Nordic Resistance Movement (NMR). When we talked to the NMR representative Pär Öberg, however, he said that not even the banned organization itself had managed to understand exactly what it meant.

Jeff Ahl, a former member of parliament for the Sweden Democrats who now represents Alternative for Sweden, pointed out that the unclear definitions opened up a shift in meaning where one can count on more and more organizations being banned.

“Alternatives for Sweden will of course not be banned in the first wave, but the ‘blackest sheep’ instead according to the politically correct view of the matter, that is, NMR. But the goal is guaranteed to be able to ban us both as well as the Sweden Democrats and other parties. We do not need to hesitate for a second that there are people who would like to go so far that they can ban one of the larger parties in Sweden,” Jeff Ahl told Nya Tider.

The government pointed out in particular “anti-Semitic and Afrophobic messages” that need to be banned. However, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven has previously said, for example, that SD was a racist party. In SVT Agenda in October 2016, he said that “Sweden Democrats are a Nazi and racist party.” But after the program he partially backed down and corrected himself: “SD is a racist party with Nazi roots.”

Even without a ban, the law on “incitement against ethnic groups” has been used by the Svea Court of Appeal to convict a 68-year-old woman for having written that all Africans should be sent home. When Nya Tider called the appellate court advisers behind the verdict, it turned out that none of them could answer how many Africans should stay in Sweden in order not to break the law.


Germany – a safe haven for Chechen terrorists?

The so-called “Tiergarten Murder Trial”, which is currently taking place before the Berlin Court of Appeal, is about an alleged contract murder of a “Georgian asylum seeker” in the Kleiner Tiergarten in Berlin on August 23, 2019.

But the “Georgian” is actually the Chechen terrorist Selimchan Changoshvili, which has largely been concealed in mainstream reporting or at least played down by the media during the Berlin trial.

Changoshvili, who, according to the book To Remove a Witness by Islam Sayadaew, called himself the “Emir of the Pankissi Jamaat” in August 2008, comes from the Georgian Pankissi Valley, where the Chechen minority of Kisten lives. Sayadaew knows what he’s writing about. He was once a high-ranking militiaman of the Chechen Islamists who was also active in Georgia. So he knew Changoshvili well.

The Pankissi valley, from which Changoshvili originates, is also considered one of the breeding grounds of al-Qaeda and later of the “Islamic State” (IS). Changoshvili himself fought alongside Chechen Islamists during the Second Chechen War against Russia and his own compatriots, who wanted to come to an understanding with Moscow.

In addition, Changoshvili is considered a supporter of the so-called “Caucasus Emirate”, a proclaimed, unrecognized Islamist state in the North Caucasus. This is also anything but a secret: The Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote on August 26, 2019, just three days after the death of Changoshvili, that he had fought against Russia in the Second Chechnya War “as a supporter of the rebel group ‘Caucasian Emirate’” and with no reference to Russian sources, but rather on the “findings of German security authorities”.

The “Caucasus Emirate” is considered a magnet for the global Islamist terror scene. Both Moscow and Washington refer to the Caucasus emirate as a “terrorist organization”. The UN Security Council also put the Caucasus emirate on a list of organizations that cooperate with the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda.

In his book To Remove a Witness, Islam Sayadaew also points out another interesting fact: In an interview with Changoshvili, he confided that he no longer felt safe in Georgia. Changoshvili claimed that he could be the target of an assassination at any time. Interestingly enough, however, he did not feel threatened by the Russian secret services, but rather by the Georgian ones, with whom he had even co-operated for a while.

If Sayadaev is to be believed, Changoshvili was one of the leaders in a military provocation in 2012 in the Georgian Lopota Valley, near the border with Dagestan, which belongs to the Russian Federation. Several militants and members of the Georgian security forces were killed in intense fighting in the incident. On the US news website TheDailyBeast, a member of the Georgian security services suspected that Chechen Islamists from the Pankissi Valley had tried to advance into Dagestan – allegedly to give Moscow an excuse to attack Georgia.

Myths and legends surround this incident, which has not yet been clarified. Book author Sayadaew believes in a completely different version: Allegedly, the militant Chechens and the Georgian secret service planned this provocation directed against Russia with the aim of helping the pro-Western and thoroughly anti-Russian Georgian politician Mikheil Saakashvili again to be elected to the office of President.

Sayadaew’s book throws a spotlight on the complexity of the conflicts in the Caucasus, on constantly changing alliances and archaic blood feuds – the world of Selimchan Changoshvili. No wonder that, after the Chechen murder, the German security authorities are assuming “a thousand possibilities” as to who could have killed Changoshvili, as the Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote at the time.

This article was translated from the German news magazine ZUERST available here


Meghan Markle ‘didn’t do any research’ on the British royal family, exposing herself as a fool

By Monica Showalter

Meghan Markle, it seems, isn’t much of a scholar.

While much of the focus has been on her barbs accusing the British royal family of abnormal interest in her baby’s skin color and denying him a title and personal security protection supposedly because he is black and they are racists, what’s striking to me is how unprepared she was for the royal role she sought when she married Prince Harry.  And not just ignorant, but willfully ignorant, proud of her ignorance, flippantly stating she never did “any research,” as if that’s something to be proud of.

Here’s the video of it, beginning at the 8:30 mark, with some choice quotes:

Oprah: “Everybody who gets married knows that you are really marrying the … family, too.”

Meghan: “Hmmm.”

Oprah: “But you weren’t just marrying a family, you were marrying a 1200-year-old institution. You were marrying the monarchy. What did you think it was going to be like?”

Meghan: “I will say went into it naively, because I didn’t grow up knowing much about the royal family, it wasn’t something that was part of conversation at home, it wasn’t something that we followed. My mom even said to me a couple months ago, she said: ‘Did Diana ever do an interview?’ But now, I can say ‘yes, a very famous one.’ But my mom doesn’t even know that. 

Oprah: “But you were certainly aware of the royals…” 

Meghan: “Of course.”

Oprah: “And if you were to marry a royal, you would do research about what that would mean…”

Meghan: “Woah, I didn’t do any research about that!”

Oprah: “You didn’t do any research?”

Meghan: “No.”

You can tell from the transcript that I transcribed that Oprah was a little flabbergasted.

Meghan claimed (not in the clip) that Prince Harry told her all she needed to know, so no need for that.


She also claims she didn’t know how to curtsy to the queen, which is a little hard to believe, given that curtsies are pretty common in stage performances with children, especially in dance, and as an actress from the get-go, she participated in many.  In any case, she’s seen movies, and presumably, she’s seen ballet, where this act is common.  But maybe she didn’t.

How’d that work out for you, Meghan?

Markle started out as a duchess with a fancy royal wedding, a revamped Frogmore Cottage, a high and honored place in British society, and now she’s back to seeking gig work in Hollywood, along with some emoting with Oprah.  Maybe if she had researched what the royal position would be like, she wouldn’t have been in for such surprises.  Instead, she’s unwittingly exposed herself to be a fool and the bad kind of fool: the one who doesn’t know it.

Her flip refusal to research her coming new life suggests a lot of shallowness, which is kind of what you expect in a Hollywood actress, but until now, most would have given to her the benefit of the doubt.

Anyone who has read anything about the unique, rarified life of the British royals would know that its demands are rigorous and include considerable personal sacrifice.  It requires service for others and a lack of sense of self.  It also includes bright camera glare and a thick skin based on the acts of a rude and tasteless press.  In return, one could expect a life of luxury with few personal finance worries and a steady and high place in society.  That’s the tradeoff, and the people who understand this can make it work.

I’ve met royals.  I met Prince Charles as an exchange student at Oxford University in the 1980s, and the king of Jordan’s lovely sister.  I have a friend from college who became a royal through marriage.  They all showed considerable selflessness.  Charles was kind and accommodating to all of us students, who were thrilled to meet a real royal for the first time.  The king of Jordan’s sister, whom I met at an Asia Society event in New York in the 1990s, went out of her way to greet me after I’d been shoved out of the way by a fat, pushy United Nations official, and I wasn’t even dressed properly.  (Embarrassingly, I was wearing a skirt and flip-flops).  Yet she treated me so memorably kindly, and I told her how much she looked like her recently deceased brother.  My friend who became a royal gave up her chance for a fancy wedding, donating her wedding money to the poor.

You see a lot of selflessness among people who are in the authentically royal life.

But Meghan didn’t.  She didn’t even know there was something special about meeting the queen, given her lack of butterflies for the affair.  To her, the queen was just some in-law old lady.

Nevertheless, she seemed to be canny of the politics.  She was careful not to directly criticize the queen and, for that matter, her sister-in-law, Duchess Catherine, at least in name, because she was trying to influence public opinion to her side of things and knew that both are very popular with the British public and she’d be a goat if she did.  Nevertheless, she threw them all under the bus, saying it was Kate who made her cry and the queen’s staff who were awful, as if any of this were important.  It was to her, but that was the problem.  She didn’t have any idea about the kind of enterprise she was on and, as a result, failed miserably.  If she had researched the matter, maybe she would have had realistic expectations about what she could and couldn’t do and come up with a plan to make the best of it, assuming she really loved Harry.

And that’s another thing.  Was there any effort to love these people in all this?  If they were to be family, wouldn’t you do research on how to please them, how to understand them, how to contribute to their mission, how to support them, how to know what they’d expect?  Couldn’t you spend a bit of time in England first to get acculturated, to know what Brits are really like, the good and bad of it, for sure?  She constantly sounds like someone who’s a victim of culture shock and doesn’t realize it.

She claims she was lonely and demanded a shrink, and they said “no,” but did she ever try to get close to the family, maybe learn from them how they coped?  That would have fixed the loneliness problem, but it doesn’t sound like it.  She bagged her prince, and she was on her way, her career always coming first, and the royal family merely “the firm” and her vehicle, which for her cultural failure to assimilate, or even try to assimilate, she failed to achieve mightily.

She didn’t really give them a chance, and it’s pretty obvious she didn’t research the royal life because she’s neither a listener nor a learner.  She didn’t try to adapt to anything as she joined their lives.  She seemed to think they were joining hers. 

She may have emoted something fierce with Oprah about how hard her life was, and as Andrea Widburg, in her piece here, said, plenty of things that didn’t sound terribly truthful — especially the one about her baby’s prince title, which at the time, she claimed she didn’t want.  (New York Post columnist Maureen Callaghan is even harsher in her skepticism, rooted in her not so disguised slavering for fame.)  But what strikes me most is that she jumped into a role and she wasn’t ready.  If she did that in an acting role, she’d be panned.  But she failed to research a big life role, including a sense of what she was getting into.  She didn’t care about them, and she didn’t even care that she didn’t.  She only cared about herself from start to finish, exposing herself as a fool.  She seems a little big for her britches.


Extra jail time for Muslim rapist – Actually, he should be deported from Germany, but his home country does not want him

Shortly after his illegal entry, the Somali Abdi Mohamed M. (23) raped a 16-year-old girl and attacked a 21-year-old. The next day he was jailed.

He is still in prison today. Among other things, he was sentenced to six years for the rape. Remorse? Empathy? Not a trace! He repeatedly attracted attention in the Diez prison, even behind bars.

Insult, exhibitionist acts in front of female staff, sexual assault. Again and again he was given additional detention.

The record of Abdi Mohamed M.

Born May 1st 1997 in Mogadishu, Somalia

February 22, 2014: First entry into the country

February 25, 2014: Reception centre Trier

March 03, 2014: Rape of a 16-year-old girl, assault on a woman (21)

March 04, 2014: Start of pre-trial detention

October 1st, 2014: verdict by Trier District Court for rape and other offences – 6-year juvenile sentence

March 1, 2020: end of imprisonment actually foreseen

May 2nd, 2016: verdict of the court of Diez for insult – 6 months imprisonment

September 1, 2020: end of imprisonment actually foreseen

January 15, 2020: Judgement of the court of Diez because of exhibitionistic acts – 6 months imprisonment

(not yet final)

May 14, 2020: Criminal charges for sexual assault (file no. 2070Js31516/20). Judgement of the court in Diez on February 15: 18 months.

Actually, he was supposed to be deported. But his home country does not want him ( the newspaper BILD reported). Somalia does not issue the necessary travel documents.

Now it is at least clear that he will not be released any time soon. Because of the latest exhibitionist offences in prison, he was given a further 18 months in prison. According to the weekly “Wochenspiegel”, the judge attested him a “high rate of recidivism”.


Berlin State Commission “Anti-Muslim Racism” trivialises the Holocaust

Berlin is the first German state to introduce an “Expert Commission on Anti-Muslim Racism”. According to a press release of the federal state, the “independent committee” is to deal intensively with “anti-Muslim racism”. Until spring 2022, the commission is to critically accompany administrative actions and develop concrete recommendations for the further development of prevention work on anti-Muslim racism.

The commission is chaired by Eren Ünsal, head of the anti-discrimination department of the Senate Department for Justice, Consumer Protection and Anti-discrimination. Other members include two delegates from the Islam Forum, Lydia Nofal and Mohammed Hajjaj, as well as Prof. Zülfukar Çetin from the Protestant University in Berlin. The Senator for Justice, Consumer Protection and Anti-Discrimination, Dirk Behrendt ( Greens), said that anti-Muslim racism is a problem that needs to be looked at more closely.After the “racist attack” in Hanau, the question was raised whether enough was really being done against this form of racism. “That is why we want to put the actions of politics and administration to the test with an expert commission,” said the politician.The lawyer and co-founder of the liberal Ibn Rushd Goethe Mosque in Berlin, Seyran Ateş, told the Protestant news agency IDEA when asked that the membership of the commission did not show plurality. In principle, she said, she welcomes expert commissions as long as they produce a result and “make a real contribution to improving a situation for society as a whole”. However, she assumes that in 20 to 30 years the effects of this “identity policy movement” will be judged in the same way as all other so-called “integration policies”, namely as “misguided and subverted”.

She would very much welcome, said the lawyer, if the membership were more pluralistic and the commission had a different name. The term “anti-Muslim racism” suggests that there is such a thing as a race called ” Muslim/Muslima”, but this should be rejected.
Moreover, “anti-Muslim racism” is often compared to anti-Semitism: “Islamophobia and Muslimophobia and the broad dimension of this hostility are not only brought close to the Holocaust, but claimed to be identical.” This form of trivialisation of the Holocaust must be countered with “all forces”.


Germany’s migration and integration policy is not only characterised by a particular negligence towards Islamic fundamentalism, a prominent Dutch sociologist claims

The Dutch social scientist Ruud Koopmans has made fun of German reactions to the Swiss referendum on the ban on full-face veils. In a tweet, Koopmans, who researches integration at Humboldt University and the WZB in Berlin and became known for a major study on religious fundamentalism, wrote: “Help, Germany is surrounded by Nazis.”

It ironically draws attention to the fact that Germany’s migration and integration policy is not only characterised by a particular negligence towards Islamic fundamentalism. Even in Muslim-majority Morocco, a ban on the sale of burqas was reported in 2017. In Germany, however, this political negligence is also backed up by a snobbishly moralising public opinion that tends to school other countries. “Once again, the world must be healed by the German spirit,” Koopmans writes. With his tweet, he is reacting to a tweet by former Zeit editor and Taz columnist Mohamed Amjahid, who claims that Switzerland has “democratically stumbled over the far-right fringe”.


The Muslim Social Democratic Party (SPD) member of the Bundestag and her questionable attitude towards Islamism and her Islamist brothers

Aydan Özoğuz Member of the German Bundestag, former Federal Commissioner for Migration, Refugees and Integration and current member of the Committee for Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid in the German Bundestag, is an enigmatic personality within an integration-hostile family. As early as 2016, she warned against a general ban on child marriages, because this could push sexually abused girls completely into the social exclusion.

A weak argument that sets abuse and financial dependencies against each other. And on other issues, too, she repeatedly let it be known that she wanted to protect rather than condemn orthodox (radical) Islam.This was also the case with the burqa ban. One never heard anything really pro-Israel or warnings against Islamic Islamism from her. This probably has to do with her family, as her brother Dr. Yavuz Özoguz runs the website Muslim-Markt that is full of misogyny, anti-Semitism and contempt for Christianity.

For more than three years now, the front page of Muslim-Markt has featured a link to an article by Ms Özoğuz’s brother Yavuz comparing Israel to the Boer state, which was wiped out because of its apartheid. In addition, a pamphlet disguised as an appeal against anti-Semitism claims that anti-Zionism has nothing to do with hostility towards Jews. Below this, numerous anti-Israel and anti-Jewish articles are linked, such as: “The Eleventh Commandment: Israel may do anything”, “The Holocaust Industry” or “Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing in Palestine”.

Since the day before yesterday, the linked headline “You want to start wearing hijab” has been used to advertise the veiling of young girls.

Dates are always given twice on this page. Today, for example, it says “Mo. 8.3.21 / 24. Radschab 1442.” This also clearly shows the will to distance oneself from Western society.

The member of the German Parliament has never distanced herself from her brother’s propaganda, neither at the time when she was Integration Commissioner nor later. This shows: Either she sees herself as a subordinate being in her family constellation who has to obey and not contradict. Or else – since she always presents herself as liberal and emancipated – she fully stands by the contents spread by her brother. The latter is more likely.

For the German government, Islam belongs to Germany. It should browse more often on the websites of educated Muslims. Then perhaps they would realise that this sweeping statement cannot be allowed to stand. On this website Muslim-Markt , articles are linked and distributed that call for anti-Zionism and thus indirectly for anti-Semitism. Christians who position themselves against Islam are discredited, the role of women in Islam is reduced to the servant of men. Is all this really supposed to be part of Germany, Ms Merkel?