In Bremen, Germany, the victims of serious crime are not worth the attention of politicians. The socialist SPD, the Greens and the Left have all agreed not to build a memorial to crime victims but to a perpetrator instead.

Despite the already financially unsound budget of the extreme-left Hanseatic city, 60 000 euros were made available for a monument to a criminal. One of the few vehement critics of legal this inversion, is Jan Timke.

“To honor such a person even indirectly with a memorial would damage the general public’s sense of justice and thus further erode citizens’ trust in politics and the rule of law,” Timke told Berlin weekly Junge Freiheit. “We cannot afford that at all, especially in the historical crisis situation in which Germany is currently mired!”

Who is this monument for? On December 27, 2004, police officers arrested Laye-Alama Condé (34) at Sielwallkreuzung in the Steintorviertel. The officials had suspected drug trafficking. The dark-skinned man had in fact swallowed drug packages. While in custody at police headquarters, he was given emetics through a gastric tube. But the rejected asylum seeker from Sierra Leone had opposed the medical intervention.

He was nevertheless handcuffed and a doctor inserted the tube through his nose. The drug dealer then clenched his teeth and repeatedly swallowed his vomit, evidence from the last trial showed. He had swallowed five hazelnut-sized packets of cocaine. Then Condé fainted, was taken to a clinic and died days later. Water had gotten into his lungs and had caused a lack of oxygen to the brain.

The proceedings against the doctor was discontinued in November 2013 and he was ordered to pay a fine of 20 000 euros. The money was given to the drug dealer’s mother. In 2006 the European Court of Justice classified emetics as a violation of the prohibition of torture.

It was well known that this procedure is dangerous, but at the time it had been legitimized by leftist politicians. None of the political leaders have ever been held accountable however. In 1995, the then Bremen Health Senator Christine Wischer (SPD) is said to have expressed concerns about this procedure, but Justice Senator Henning Scherf (SPD) defended the use of emetics in a letter.

According to German magazine Spiegel, Scherf, who testified in the Condé trial against the doctor as a witness, stated: “This letter was not written by me.” He could not remember that he had dismissed ethical objections at all.

Timke described the behavior of the SPD to support the application for the construction of the monument as the convulsive attempt of the former mayors Scherff and Böhrnsen as well as the then Justice State Council and today’s Interior Senator Mäurer to “whitewash” the Condé case and “make it appear in a positive light”.

And he pointed out that there was still another leading Social Democrat, “who was a vehement supporter of the use of emetics at the time, but is not mentioned in the motion”. This top politician is not from Bremen: It is none other than the current Federal Finance Minister and SPD candidate for Chancellor, Olaf Scholz.

As Hamburg Senator for the Interior, Scholz introduced the use of emetics in the Hanseatic city in 2001 and defended this method because there was “no alternative” after the Nigerian Achidi John died in December of the same year during an emetic use ordered by the police at Eppendorf University Hospital.

According to German daily taz, the Initiative in memory of Laye-Alma Condéhas been campaigning for a memorial for Condé for several years already and justified their commitment by saying: “The death of Laye Condé while in police custody has made its mark in the history of Bremen. The memory of him must therefore find a concrete and symbolic place in Bremen. Because there is a social responsibility to name what happened and to permanently remember: An asylum seeker who was suspected of a crime was tortured and ultimately killed in the course of a police measure that was wanted and ordered by the political side.”

Then the Initiative suddenly changed its line of argument and the incident is now all about racism. The regional magazine butenunbinnen from Radio Bremen thus announced: “It shouldn’t be about Condes’ personal life.” The broadcaster quoted the Initiative’s spokeswoman, Gundula Oerter. “At today’s commemorative event, we also want to address racist violence that takes place, for example, in police custody or in psychiatric hospitals, as some cases in recent years show.”

The final decision has since been postponed to December.

freewestmedia.com/2020/11/22/a-memorial-to-a-migrant-criminal-in-bremen/

The Financial Times has never understood France grappling with extremist Muslim terrorism and the country’s battle for freedom of expression. After the Charlie Hebdo massacre in 2015, Tony Barber wrote in the Financial Times that the massacred journalists and cartoonists had been “stupid“. The article was then edited.

It recently happened again. The British newspaper removed an article on French President Emmanuel Macron’s anti-Islamist policies. The article, “Macron’s war on Islamic separatism only divides France further”, by Mehreen Khan, appeared in the online version of the newspaper and was then also removed. The piece argued that after two beheadings in Yvelines and Nice, Macron would need six million Muslims in the country to eradicate violent extremism, but that instead, he chose to feed “moral panic“. Clearly, the article postulated, if there are Islamist attacks in France, it must be because its president has been looking for them.

Macron himself thought of attempting to educate the Financial Times.

“Who could imagine that the statements made publicly by the head of a G7 member state could be distorted by this news organisation?” Macron wrote.

“The piece misquoted me, substituting ‘Islamic separatism’ — a term that I have never used — for ‘Islamist separatism’, which is a reality in my country. It accused me of stigmatising French Muslims for electoral purposes and of fostering a climate of fear and suspicion towards them”.

Macron went on to accuse the Anglophone media of not understanding what is going on in the French suburbs.

“Since 2015 it has become clear, and I said this even before I became president, that there are breeding grounds for terrorists in France. In certain districts and on the internet, groups linked to radical Islam are teaching hatred of the republic to our children, calling on them to disregard its laws. That is what I called ‘separatism’ in one of my speeches. If you do not believe me, read the social media postings of hatred shared in the name of a distorted Islam that resulted in Paty’s death. Visit the districts where small girls aged three or four are wearing a full veil, separated from boys, and, from a very young age, separated from the rest of society, raised in hatred of France’s values”.

It is the first time that a French president has attacked the Anglophone media in this way — and Macron had every reason to do so. In fact, what he wrote was the article that the columnists of the Financial Times should have the courage to write and their editors to publish; this brand of religious extremism has also claimed many victims on the streets of London.

In another interview published online by Le Grand Continent, Macron attacked“the manipulation of history” of those who want to lock him up “in the camp of those who would not respect the differences”. “I am for the respect of cultures, civilizations, but I am not going to change my law because it is shocking elsewhere”, he said.

This is also a major difference between France and the American mainstream outlets, of which some apparently would even like to change the date of foundation of the United States. The New York Times’s “1619 Project” could serve as Exhibit A for this new “manipulation of history”.

Macron plans to fight “Islamist separatism“. We do not know if the French president’s project will be successful; it is legitimate to have doubts about its real effectiveness in stopping the disintegration of French society operated by the extremist communitarianism that feeds terrorism. We are not, all the same, allowed to accuse France of racism and “Islamophobia”, as the Anglophone media is obsessively doing. It seems that the entire American media has decided to blame the victim of terrorism.

According to Le Monde, Macron, in a recent cabinet meeting, said: “Alignment with American multiculturalism is a form of defeatist thought… Our model is universalist and not multiculturalist… You should not care if someone is black, yellow or white; first, they are citizens….” Multiculturalism in France seems to keep ending in “no-go zones“.

Macron, after that, arranged an interview with The New York Times to criticise the Anglophone media:

“So when I see, in that context, several newspapers which I believe are from countries that share our values – journalists who write in a country that is the heir to the Enlightenment and the French Revolution – when I see them legitimising this violence, and saying that the heart of the problem is that France is racist and Islamophobic, then I say the founding principles have been lost”.

On Friday, October 16, an extremist Muslim beheaded a teacher, Samuel Paty, in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine. The New York Times headlined its article on the attack: “French Police shoot and Kill Man after a fatal Knife Attack on the Street”. It seems that the Anglophone media live in a world deaf to reality and based on imaginary victimization; they see racism where there is none, and they do not even know what to name it when it appears in the French streets to behead a teacher.

Associated Press immediately succumbed to an avalanche of criticism. The news agency again cancelled a tweet, one accusing France of “inciting” hatred against Muslims after the wave of Islamic terror attacks the country just suffered.

“This is not only disgraceful but dangerous,” the journalist Agnès Poirier replied. “The Associated Press is inciting hatred against France and its people.” She too charged the American media with “malicious distortion of facts, ignorance and bad faith”.

In 2015, Associated Press had been quick to censor the Islamic cartoons of Charlie Hebdo. The reason? “Deliberately provocative“. They evidently have no idea what free speech is and appear uninterested in defending it.

Politico joined in, removing an op-ed, “The dangerous French religion of secularism”, by the French sociologist Farhad Khosrokhavar. Politico then set about publishing a letter by Gabriel Attal, a French government spokesperson, who accused Khosrokhavar of “an unthinkable reversal of roles between the attackers and the attacked”.

When the Charlie Hebdo massacre occurred in 2015, the Anglophone media effectively competed to black out and censor the cartoons about Mohammed. The big American networks (CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC and CNN) refused to show the cartoons. Facebook blocked the French site of Le Point to prevent access to the offending drawings. Sky News interrupted a live broadcast to avoid airing them. That was when the cowardice of the American media really began to show: during the 2006 Danish cartoon crisis. The only newspapers to rebel against self-censorship were The Weekly Standard and Free Inquiry, two media outlets with an extremely limited circulation.

With a third small journal, the Seattle Weekly , a reporter, Molly Norris, in solidarity with the endangered creators of the television cartoon “South Park,” drew a caricature of the prophet of Islam. She then had to disappear after death threats. The last newspaper article that talked about her stated:

“You may have noticed that the Molly Norris strip is not included in this week’s issue. That’s because there is no more Molly… on the advice of FBI security specialists, she will be moving and changing her name…”.

You would have to search a lot to find a single voice defending Norris in all the mainstream American media.

The New York Times — ostensibly out of “respect” towards the Muslim faith — censored the Mohammed caricatures of Charlie Hebdo, but defended the work of Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary,” in which the mother of Jesus is covered with feces and images of genitalia. The American media, it seems, show “respect” only toward Islam. Are the American media, one wonders, expecting any reciprocity?

A French scholar of Islamic extremism, Gilles Kepel, recently noted that the atmosphere now in France reminds him of the time of the Iranian fatwa in 1989 to murder the author Salman Rushdie for his fictional novel The Satanic Verses. Already then, the Anglophone media and publishing houses were blaming the victim, not the ayatollahs. Among Rushdie’s colleagues, Roald Dahl, a bestselling author of children’s books, said he was a “dangerous opportunist“, while the king of the literary spy stories, John Le Carré, called Rushdie “arrogant”, “self-righteous” and a “colonialist”.

The Jewel of Medina, a novel by the American writer Sherry Jones about the life of the third wife of Muhammad, was purchased and then scrapped by the US publisher Random House. Yale University Press published a book, The Cartoons That Shook the World, by Jytte Klausen – but without the cartoons. “The capitulation of Yale University Press to threats that hadn’t even been made yet was the latest and perhaps the worst episode in the steady surrender to religious extremism — particularly Muslim religious extremism — that is spreading across our culture”, the late Christopher Hitchens wrote.

How, as well, can one forget the shameful list of “anti-Islamic extremists”, published by the Southern Poverty Law Center? Among them were Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former member of the Dutch parliament and the most famous dissident from Islamic world, and Maajid Nawaz, a British Muslim who has fought radicalism — and, successfully, the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Canadian PM Justin Trudeau recently criticized Charlie Hebdo and declared that free speech “has limits“. Trudeau, to put it bluntly, is not Charlie. He is a communitarian affirming the rights of groups, not a liberal affirming the rights of the individual.

The American media know perfectly well what is going on in France. They see a teacher beheaded for showing Islamic drawings and discussing freedom of expression; journalists under guard for criticizing extremist Islam; massacres in churches; secession in neighborhoods with a high numbers of immigrants, and the challenge that political Islam has launched to European culture and democracy. It is apparently, however, out of the fear of being called a “racist” — not even of being murdered, like Samuel Paty — that they choose self-censorship. Not to appear as cowards, they call it “respect”.

Unfortunately, Anglophone culture has been devoured, piece by piece, by the “diversity industry”. If the villain is, by definition, white, Western culture, then Muslims supposedly must be victims of colonialism — old and new. It is no coincidence that, in the name of “diversity”, the American media in the last year have bullied journalists such as James Bennett and Bari Weiss, who resigned from the New York Times.

In the jihadist war against the West, the Anglophone press, now famous for “cancel culture”, has deserted the ranks. It is a shame. This war on the West was already in progress nearly twenty years ago, when two planes appeared over the skies of Manhattan.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16782/media-legitimizing-terror

Hundreds of antifascist activists condemned coronavirus sceptics and anti-lockdown protesters as they marched through Berlin on Friday night. Police supervised the peaceful march, where demonstrators could be seen holding banners condemning “corona deniers and Nazi pigs.” Thousands of protesters rallied against a proposal to incorporate coronavirus measures into Germany’s existing infection protection law in the German capital on Wednesday, with police deploying water cannons and arresting over 150 demonstrators. The law subsequently passed both houses of the German parliament, and will give the German government a legal basis for future coronavirus restrictions. The German government and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have previously justified the partial lockdown implemented at the start of November as necessary to prevent the healthcare system from becoming overwhelmed and to ensure that coronavirus infections are kept at a level where contact tracing may take place.

There are currently 124 Islamists at large in Germany who, according to the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), are considered to be at “high risk”. This is shown by the Federal Government’s answer to a parliamentary question of the Green Party in the German Parliament, which is published in the newspaper “Welt”.

According to the answer, the high-risk Islamists are divided into 97 so-called ” dangerous persons” and 27 extremists designated as relevant persons. The police always believe that dangerous persons are capable of committing politically motivated crimes of considerable dimensions, including attacks.Persons who take a leading role within the extremist/terrorist sphere or act as supporters are considered relevant persons. In addition, 151 persons are listed for whom there is a “moderate risk”. The basis for the classification is the instrument “Radar iTE”, which the authorities have developed in recent years to better classify Islamists.

According to the Federal Government, it has knowledge of a total of 240 dangerous persons who are not in custody and have been recorded by the authorities nationwide. 135 of these persons have German nationality, a third of them also having the nationality of another state.

Among the 240 dangerous persons there are also 41 Syrians, 17 Russians, seven Iraqis, seven Turks and persons from almost 20 other countries. The nationality of seven of the companions is officially considered “unresolved” – three others are stateless.Some Islamists have been hindered from leaving Germany in recent years. The background to this is that authorities can prohibit departure if there are concrete indications of planned support for a terrorist group abroad.

“According to the Federal Government’s knowledge, 24 persons who are dangerous and 13 relevant persons are currently subject to valid bans on leaving the country”, the Federal Government’s reply states. Especially Islamists who wanted to leave the country for a “so-called jihad area” were considered to have an “increased potential for danger”.

In its reply, the Federal Government also states that it has no knowledge of how many of the dangerous persons or relevant persons have a licence to carry weapons. This is the responsibility of the state authorities.After the deadly knife attack in Dresden in October, the debate about the possibilities of monitoring dangerous Islamists had gained momentum.The suspected perpetrator is Syrian and was released from prison as a classified dangerous person only five days before the attack. Although the authorities wanted to keep an eye on him, he was initially able to commit the crime undetected. Horst Seehofer ( Christian Social Union), Minister of the Interior, announced that he would again check whether deportations to Syria might be possible after all.

.waz.de/politik/deutschland-124-hochrisiko-islamisten-auf-freiem-fuss-id230967864.html

Recently the clashes of criminal Arab clans in Berlin escalated. Now a wave of violence seems to be about to break out in Essen (North Rhine-Westphalia).

The newspaper “Der Westen” reports disturbing pictures. Two men of Lebanese origin are said to have been attacked by around 30 Syrians. However, the police, who arrived shortly afterwards, did not find any of them. A short time later – as can be seen on a video – numerous men march across Essen and are searching for the attackers. They can also be heard insulting Syrians in Arabic.This is nothing new for the police. North Rhine-Westphalia has had a problem with criminal Turkish-Arab clans for years. Investigators assume that a total of 111 criminal clans are active in the federal state. The major cities in the Ruhr area are particularly affected, with Essen showing an increase in suspects and crimes. It is said that 3,779 suspects belonging to the clans alone are responsible for 6,104 criminal offences. It now appears that the police have been anticipating possible escalations in the clan milieu for some time.On the one hand, this is about allocation battles and the occupation of new territories, as the Head Criminal Investigation Director Thomas Jungbluth explains:”There are fights in the social milieu, where we assume that these are the first steps towards allocation battles. He also gives examples of this: “One must not forget that the clans are not friendly with each other. … Another example from another city: Here the police very successfully arrested a part of a clan that was dealing in narcotics. Another clan noticed: ‘They are gone, we can take over here’. The clan tried to take over the business.”However, conflicts based on the ethnic background should not be neglected either. After all, many clan members have a migrant background – many have Turkish (15 percent) or Lebanese (31 percent) citizenship, 36 percent have German citizenship and five percent are stateless. This is how economist and Islamic scholar Ahmad A. Omeirate (36) from Berlin explains the situation for ” Der Westen”: “There is a historical antipathy between certain Syrian and Lebanese groups, which has existed in Lebanon since the civil war in 1975” and also warns against further escalation.Just recently, the rivalry between Chechens and the Remmo clan in Berlin revealed just how strong the clans have become in Germany. Within only 24 hours, there were three attacks. The Berlin police already feared a full-scale clan war on the streets of the German capital. However, both sides finally agreed on an internal peace talk to settle their conflicts for the time being. The police and the constitutional state can only remain passive onlookers…

wochenblick.at/rechtsstaat-machtlos-eskaliert-nun-die-clan-gewalt-in-essen/

A rally scheduled for today, Friday, in Hamburg, to which Islamists are also mobilising, has provoked harsh criticism. The Hamburg Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the AfD party called for a ban. “A well-fortified state must not allow radical Islamists to demonstrate unhindered on Hamburg’s streets for the abolition of freedom of the press and freedom of opinion after the cruel terrorist attacks in Paris, Nice and Vienna,” said Christoph de Vries, CDU Member of Parliament, on Thursday.

According to the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the Al-Azhari Institute in Hamburg is also organizing the demonstration. The official purpose of the association behind the institute is to promote education and training in Islamic theology. “According to the knowledge of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, however, Islamist teaching content is actually being taught which is in clear contradiction to the canon of values of the Basic Law”. There is also talk of a basic Islamist orientation.

The motto of the demonstration is: “Against disrespect to our Prophet Muhammad”. According to information from the CDU, the appeal to demonstrate is also explicitly directed against the French satirical magazine “Charlie Hebdo”, which the Office for the Protection of the Constitution did not confirm, however. In early 2015, the magazine had been the target of a terrorist attack in which eleven people were killed. A trial against alleged accomplices is currently underway in Paris.

Already on November 8th, the Al-Azahri Institute had called for a demonstration with about 270 participants under the motto “We are against discrimination and for respect of our Prophet”. On the sidelines of the demonstration an unknown person was attacked, possibly by participants of the final rally.

“Freedom of opinion and assembly are a high good, but we must not allow them to be abused by Islamists and enemies of our constitution for their own purposes,” said Dennis Gladiator, spokesman for domestic policy of the CDU’s Citizens’ Faction.

A spokesman for the Interior Ministry said that all legal possibilities had been examined. “If there was a possibility, we would have banned the gathering.” However, the gathering was protected by the freedom of assembly according to the Basic Law.The Council of Islamic Communities in Hamburg (Shura) distanced itself from the demonstration. A spokesman stated that the Council of Islamic Communities was not inviting to the rally. The private person who organised the demonstration was not known to us, said board member Mehdi Aroui. He stressed: “We condemn all violence. He said that the Shura stood up for the absolutely precious good of freedom of expression.Aroui further stated that the Mohammed cartoons published by “Charlie Hebdo” hurt the religious feelings of Muslims and were a form of bullying. During a minute’s silence at Hamburg schools for Samuel Paty, a French teacher murdered in mid-October, some Muslim children had felt uncomfortable. They felt that they were considered “jointly liable”. The Shura wants to discuss the subject with Islamic teachers in an online event at the end of November.

focus.de/regional/hamburg/widerspruch-gegen-verfassung-protest-in-hamburg-scharfe-kritik-an-demo-mit-islamisten-beteiligung-kein-verbot_id_12682767.html