That was quick! Three days after the report in the newspaper BILD about the video of the Syrian Fayez Kanfash (26 years old) showing the ” chase of the policemen”, the police searched the Youtuber’s flat. The day before the raid he already posted the next video. Again with extremely provocative content …

In his new video the Youtuber gives away iPhones and MacBooks at Alexanderplatz square in Berlin.

For the expensive “gifts” Berlin teenagers had to kiss the Koran three times. When they did, the video featured “Allah u Akhbar! But Kanfash claimed that he is not an Islamist.

Hours later Kanfash announced his new goal on YouTube: “10 million subscribers”!

With what money did the welfare recipient buy the phones? The police confiscated his mobile phone and bank statements during a raid on Friday evening. He had caused the raid by uploading another provocative video …

“Open the door! Police!” – Friday night, police officers in bulletproof vests knocked on Kanfash’s door in Luckenwalde.”We’ve searched the flat,” police spokesman Torsten Herbst confirmed to the newspaper BILD. By order of the Potsdam District Court. Herbst said: “We will not give details.”

The Public Prosecutor is investigating for violation of the Weapons Act and social fraud. Reason: A video of the Syrian in which he “shoots” people in police clothing with a pistol.

“If someone shows up with weapons on the Internet, danger is imminent,” says police union boss Andreas Schuster, “then action must be taken immediately.

According to information from the newspaper BILD, Kanfash handed over the gun and cartridges to the officers: An alarm pistol, 1:1 replica of a real model. He did not have the required “small firearms license”.

Weird justification: The weapon allegedly is a movie prop. With his videos he hopes to get into the film business. Not very convincing: With 1.02 million YouTube subscribers, his cash register is already jingling.

bild.de/regional/berlin/berlin-aktuell/nach-razzia-wegen-gewalt-video-youtuber-laesst-jugendliche-koran-kuessen-74332418.bild.html?ref=fbpa&fbclid=IwAR3_sj1Ebni5e5TPIQjg2miaGPJZ_r6ivuTsPlX_OkHhp1bytSHkpLntyz0

Vaccine makers may have been using fraudulent false positive diagnosis of Covid-19 in the control group to make a dangerous vaccine appear more efficacious.

Two researchers involved in Covid analyses, Dr Wolfgang Wodarg and Dr Michael Yeadon, have issued a motion for administrative and regulatory action to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). They are concerned about the new mRNA Coronavirus vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, warning that the vaccines could attack placenta cells, causing female infertility.

According to Natural News, the doctors have petitioned for regulatory action that requires confirmation of the vaccine’s real benefits. The doctors are petitioning the EMA for a stay-of-action, halting the emergency approval of the new vaccines until the companies can correct the study design to ensure that the vaccines are not based on nonspecific symptoms and false positive high cycle PCR tests.

Doctors warned that the Coronavirus vaccines would cause autoimmune responses and infertility in women since phase three clinical trials have produced fraudulent data points which will lead to misleading public health guidelines.

According to the Independent, the British government has warned pregnant women not to take Pfizer’s vaccine and in general women “should avoid becoming pregnant until at least two months after being vaccinated.”

“The mRNA vaccines are intended to induce an immune response to spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2, but these spike proteins (transcribed for replication within cellular ribosomes) also contain a homologous form of syncytin-1,” Natural News reported.

“This natural protein (syncytin-1) is created from human endogenous retroviruses and is responsible for the placenta development in mammals and humans. This protein is required for a successful pregnancy, but after covid-19 vaccination, an individual’s immune cells will be trained to attack syncytin-1 (leading to potential miscarriages, birth defects and infertility). The study designs do not test for mutagenic or reproductive defects, yet the science of the mRNA vaccine shows potential to cause long term autoimmune destruction of the female reproductive system.”

The product also includes polyethylene glycol (PEG) that will not only make the vaccine less effective but also cause allergic reactions and deadly adverse effects. The active ingredients, mRNA nano-particles are coated with PEG. Furthermore, the vaccines also contain mNeonGreen, an ingredient with bio-luminescent properties. It is not clear why this ingredient is being used in the vaccines.

Moreover, vaccine study designs use false positive PCR results on controls to boost vaccine efficacy rate. The vaccine study designs do not test if the vaccine reduces severe Covid-19 symptoms, including hospital admissions, ICU or death. The tests are not designed to determine if the vaccine can interrupt virus transmission, either.

Dr. Tommy Megremis recently commented on Facebook: “The problem is in the false positivity if you will for the PCR test. If you are generally aware, the PCR test is used to amplify small amount of genetic material so as to recognize patterns of DNA by ‘cycling’.(Also, for RNA virus, the RNA is converted to DNA in order to be detected, it’s just the way the test works) This is how we have been able to recognize the genomes in Egyptian mummies and Wooly Mammoths. It works because if you amplify and cycle enough times to “grow” legitimate DNA fragments, you get something with with a fair amount of specificity.

“What is becoming more and more apparent is that the PCR test was not designed as a diagnostic tool for infection, and really cannot function as one without having a huge amount of false positives, period. When it comes to Covid, the presence of viral particles picked up by the PCR technique does not and has not been quantitatively linked to an active “symptomatic” infection. It simply cannot be so, because infection threshold as a result of viral load is different for each patient. It turns out, if you ‘cycle’ over around 25 times, the false positivity of Covid infection starts getting very high. I and others have explained in blogs how people can be exposed to virus, and mount a simple innate immune response and never know any differently. When you test these people with very low viral loads, who are not sick, you can find the viral RNA code that is used to ‘diagnose’ if you cycle enough times. The last I read, Labcorp cycles at least 40 times to detect viral genome fragments. […]

“The hospitalizations now do not reflect the Covid clinical pattern seen back in March and April. In conclusion, what we see now are ordinary respiratory illnesses needing supportive care masquerading as Covid because of a false positive PCR testing which is a clinically unreliable test for symptomatic infection. This is not a theory. There is research to back this up.”

The worst part of the study design of the vaccine manufacturers therefore, is that it is based on fraudulent diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2. Wodarg and Yeodon have warned that “high cycle thresholds, or CT values, in RT-qPCR test results have been widely acknowledged to lead to false positives.”

Governments all over the world have been basing their decisions on CT values that are very high, while they should be very low. Also, the Coronavirus has a 99,5 percent survival rate for those under 70 years old, according to the CDC’s best estimate.

“RT-qPCR-positive test results used to categorize patients as ‘Covid-19 cases’ in the trials and used to qualify the trial’s endpoints should be verified by Sanger sequencing to confirm that the tested samples in fact contain a unique SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA,” the doctors noted.

Since high cycle PCR tests have been ruled to be 97 percent false positive, the end points collected in the Pfizer/BioNTech studies could ultimately show that the vaccine is less than 3 percent efficacious, while causing severe and lasting health effects, including but not limited to: infertility of women.

Curiously, the CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, sold off 62 percent of his stock on the same day that his company announced their vaccine was supposedly 90 percent effective.

In the US, only Florida’s Department of Health, with support from Republican Governor Ron deSantis, for the first time in the history of the pandemic, will require that all labs in the state report the critical “cycle threshold” level of every COVID-19 test they perform.

https://freewestmedia.com/2020/12/08/could-new-mrna-coronavirus-vaccines-lead-to-infertility-miscarriage-birth-defects/

All of Europe mourned the victims of the Islamist terrorist attack in Vienna. Hundreds expressed this mourning by laying candles for the victims on the spot, leaving a veritable sea of lights. But a Turkish woman was probably affected by completely different feelings: she went rioting across the memorial on Sunday and simply kicked over the lovingly placed candles of the mourners!

On Sunday, the Viennese police were called into Vienna’s Seitenstettengasse street for a disturbing incident. Wearing a long coat, a face mask and a headscarf, the 56-year-old Turkish woman stormed into the sea of lights on Sunday morning, which hundreds of mourners commemorated the four victims of the Islamic terrorist.
Videos show the Turkish woman kicking around, knocking over the candles and rioting at the sad place of the terror attack.

On Monday morning, attentive security staff at Vienna International Airport became aware of the Turkish woman and identified her as the suspected rioter from Vienna’s Seitenstettengasse, the place of terror. It is not known where the violent Turkish woman was going to travel to.

According to a Twitter message of the Vienna police, the woman is said to have given confusing information in a first interview. She had confirmed that she had kicked out the candles.

Strangely enough, the police also stated in their tweet that the woman “is likely to suffer from psychological impairment”. Should a proper psychological assessment be available just a few hours after the woman has been caught?

The quick reference to the mental state of perpetrators with presumed Muslim background regularly causes heated debates. For example, the rapid exclusion of an Islamist background in favour of psychological impairment in the case of the Graz amok driver Alen R. caused heated debates. Many did not want to believe the official version of the mentally ill individual perpetrator.

wochenblick.at/tuerkin-verwuestet-terror-gedenkstaette-schon-wieder-psychisch-krank/

A Muslim woman who wears a niqab for religious reasons is not entitled to an exception to the ban on wearing burqasl when driving a motor vehicle. The ban on wearing burqas according to § 23 (4) of the German Road Traffic Act (StVO) is compatible with the freedom of religion according to Article 4 of the Basic Law. Cars offer a protective space in public which largely fulfils the purpose for which the niqab is intended. Furthermore, § 46 (2) StVO allows exceptions in cases of hardship. A full veiling endangers traffic safety because traffic offences can no longer be effectively pursued, because it can impair all-round vision and restrict mimic communication in road traffic. The state authority and not the Federal Ministry of Transport is responsible for granting an exception according to § 46 (2) StVO, even if the exception is to apply nationwide.

(Düsseldorf Administrative Court, judgment given on November 26, 2020, Ref. 6 L 2150/20)

https://flotte.de/artikel/112/16636/vollverschleierung-verstosst-gegen-verhullungsverbot-nach–23-abs–4-stvo.html

By Michael Iachetta

It’s likely that the Supreme Court will overturn a critical Pennsylvania State Supreme Court ruling on account of the state court’s incorrect use of the legal doctrine of laches (pronounced like latchkeys but without the “k”). This could return the electoral votes of Pennsylvania back to President Trump.

The reasons why we may consider this outcome as possible, and even likely, can be summarized as follows:

The 2019 Pennsylvania vote-by-mail law clearly violates Article VII, sec. 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which lists only four classes of voters entitled to vote absentee: those who cannot vote in person because of work, physical incapacity, religious obligation, or (in the case of county employees) election-related duties. In violation of this constitutional provision, the Pennsylvania vote-by-mail law (Act 77), as described by a 2019 press release from the Pennsylvania governor’s office, “creates a new option to vote by mail without providing an excuse.” Whatever the benefits of such a change in voting law, it could not be legally accomplished without an amendment to the Pennsylvania  Constitution.

In late November, Rep. Mike Kelley (PA-R) and several other Pennsylvania voters challenged the law and lost when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that — whatever the merits of the plaintiff’s case — it was too late to challenge the constitutionality of the law. In other words, the court dismissed the case under the equitable doctrine of laches, which states that if you wait too long to claim your legal rights have been violated, that’s too bad for you.

At first glance, this argument sounds compelling. Kelley’s lawsuit was filed more than a year and half after the law was passed, with two elections taking place during that time without any complaint. Not only that, but the mail-in ballot law itself contained a provision that no legal challenges to the law would be entertained by Pennsylvania courts after 180 days.

In addition, Ed Morrisey of Hot Air cites Jonathan H. Adler’s claim that Kelley’s suit will fail, because the plaintiffs should have been savvy enough to sue before the election and lose (for lack of standing), and then use this as a defense against the accusation of filing their suit too late.

Not only that, but Samuel Bray of the Volokh Conspiracy approvingly cites theamicus brief of Erwin Chemerinsky et. al. arguing that Kelley’s suit should fail, because the doctrine of laches applies especially to elections that have already taken place. In a key line, the brief insists that “Courts will not overturn elections that already have occurred absent extraordinary reasons for doing so” (emphasis added).

But these arguments are not persuasive, because the doctrine of laches cannot rightly be used to dismiss an allegation that a statute violates constitutional provisions — and this is precisely what Kelley et al. allege.

As Kelley et al. point out in their Dec. 1 emergency petition to Justice Samuel Alito for injunctive relief, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court itself previously noted in Stilp v. Hafer (1998) that although “[l]aches may bar a challenge based upon procedural deficiencies in its enactment… laches may not bar a constitutional challenge to the substance of a statute.” The Kelley suit is precisely a “constitutional challenge to the substance of a statute” (h/t Christine Niles andShipwreckedcrew).

The Pennsylvania law is not only clearly in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution but almost certainly of the U.S. Constitution as well. If a state legislature creates an election law that violates its own state constitution, and this unconstitutional law contributes to determining the outcome of a presidential election, this becomes the concern not only of the people of Pennsylvania but of all Americans.

As Kelley et al. point out in their emergency injunction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Palm Beach City (2000) that federal courts usually defer to state courts when it comes to the interpretation of state statutes, but in the case of a law that applies to the election of presidential electors, the legislature is acting “by virtue of a direct grant of authority made under Art. II, sec. 1, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution.” If the Pennsylvania legislature, in the exercise of this authority, passes a law that is in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution, this must almost certainly be considered a “significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors” and so would present a “federal constitutional question” (Bush v. Gore, 2000; h/t Christine Niles).

In response to Professor Chemerinsky (see above): considering that this unconstitutional Pennsylvania  law contributed to determining the outcome of a presidential election, it would be hard to imagine a more “extraordinary reason” to justify overturning the election results in Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania law may include a 180-day window for the law to be challenged in a Pennsylvania  Court, but there can be no statute of limitations when it comes to challenging the law in federal court as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Think about it: do you recall any liberal judges, attorneys, or law professors raising the doctrine of laches when someone suddenly realizes that a decades or century old state law violates the provisions of the Constitution? Me neither.

There is reason to hope that the plaintiffs’ suit will result in a Trump victory at the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Alito has already ordered that all absentee ballots in Pennsylvania be sequestered. The Court now has nine justices and Justice Barrett said repeatedly in her confirmation hearings that she was committed to following the law. So, there are now potentially five votes to overturn the Pennsylvania law expanding absentee voting as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

According to the official Pennsylvania election website, President Trump received 2.7 million in person votes and Joe Biden received 1.4 million in person votes in Pennsylvania. Of the mail-in ballots, Trump received 595,538 votes and Biden received 1,995,691. According to WHYY, under the previous rules concerning voting by mail, civilians cast 266,208 absentee ballots in 2016 in Pennsylvania and 248,561 absentee ballots in 2012. So, even if we generously assume that there were 500,000 civilians in Pennsylvania in 2020 who cast absentee votes in accordance with the provisions contained in the Pennsylvania Constitution, and that they all cast their votes for Biden, Trump would still win Pennsylvania by a landslide. This would justify a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of Kelley et al. and a decision to assign the electoral votes of Pennsylvania to President Trump.

But what about Pennsylvania voters who voted absentee in good faith based on a Pennsylvania law that violated the Pennsylvania Constitution? They would have good reason to be angry (and this is assuming that these were actual votes cast by actual Pennsylvanians), but they will have no one to blame but the Pennsylvania legislators themselves, who could not have been unaware that they did not have the authority to pass the vote by mail law in the first place.

Justice Alito has given Pennsylvania until December 9 to respond to Kelley’s suit, so all will soon be revealed.

A SCOTUS ruling striking down the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s incorrect laches ruling would not of itself hand the election to Trump — for that to happen, there would need to be victories in a couple of other battleground states as well.  But it would be the correct ruling, and if we can just get through this dark night, who knows what tomorrow may bring?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/will_scotus_overrule_the_pennsylvania_supreme_court.html

Europe has once again been targeted with Islamist terror attacks.

On October 16, Samuel Paty, a history teacher, was beheaded in Paris by an 18-year-old Chechen Muslim who acquired refugee status in France this past March. The teacher was murdered after showing cartoons from Charlie Hebdo depicting Islam’s prophet Muhammad to his students, during a discussion on freedom of expression.

On October 29, three people were murdered and several others wounded in an Islamist knife attack in the Basilica of Notre-Dame-de-l’Assomption in Nice, France; one victim was decapitated.

After the attack in Nice, France raised its nationwide terror alert status to the “maximum emergency” level. Approximately 4,000 military personnel were deployed to guard schools, churches, and other places of worship.

In Vienna, on November 2, four more people were murdered and 22 injured (including a police officer) in another Islamist terror attack that took place in six locations across the Austrian capital.

After Paty’s murder, French President Emmanuel Macron defended freedom of expression and freedom of religion:

“Our compatriot was killed for teaching, for teaching children freedom of speech, freedom to believe, or not to believe. Our compatriot was the victim of a terrorist attack.”

Macron added that Islam was “in crisis” and that he would fight “Islamist separatism” within the country. It was reported that “the government would present a bill in December to strengthen a 1905 law that officially separated church and state in France. He [Macron] announced stricter oversight of schooling and better control over foreign funding of mosques.”

In response, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan remarked, “What’s the problem of the individual called Macron with Islam and with the Muslims?… Macron needs mental treatment.”

Erdogan also called for a boycott of French products and was supported in parliament by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), the secular opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Iyi Party.

The Turkish government’s hostile reaction to Europe is not new. Erdogan has been threatening Europe and the rest of the West for several years.

The ongoing crisis between Turkey and Europe appears to stem from deep cultural and political differences between the parties involved — Europe that respects freedoms and Turkey that violates them.

After the 2016 attempted coup in Turkey, the authorities’ crackdown on journalists critical of the regime targeted Western journalists as well, including French journalists Olivier Bertrand and Loup Bureau.

Turkey, long a candidate for European Union membership, has often been criticized by Western governments and international press organizations for its mass incarceration of journalists.

In March 2017, Erdogan, lashed out at criticisms at an event in which he addressed journalists in Ankara. If Europe continues its attitude, he said, “no European and no Westerner will be able to walk safely and peacefully in the streets.”

Erdogan pressed on, saying that Western countries always accuse Turkey of violating press freedom and jailing journalists.

“When we wanted a list of those [jailed] journalists… they gave us one… The list includes everyone from murderers to thieves, from child abusers to swindlers. It is only journalists that are missing in the list.”

Erdogan stated that Turkey was sent a list containing the names of 149 [journalist] prisoners in Turkey and that the list was examined by the government. “144 people in the list are in jail due to terror-related crimes and four due to ordinary crimes.”

“What do these people have to do with journalism that you send this list to our country?,” Erdogan continued.

“We are aware of their real intentions. When it is about themselves, they have no problem shelving democracy, rights, freedoms, justice, and prosperity but when it comes to Turkey, they immediately put on a mask. We have also decided to treat those with masks like the bandits that they are. Indeed, if you have nothing to hide, why are you wearing a mask? Come out courageously and say ‘I have issues with Turkey; I want it to get divided and fragmented’ so everyone can know who is who.

“If you open this dangerous road,” he went on, “you will be the ones to be exposed to the greatest damage. As Turkey we call on the European countries to respect democracy, human rights and freedoms.”

Freedom House lists Turkey as “Not free.” According to a November 16 report by the Platform for Independent Journalism (P24), at least 86 journalists and media workers are in prison in Turkey, either in pre-trial detention or serving a sentence.

Problems between Turkey and France intensified even more following Turkey’s invasions of northern Syria: After Macron met with Kurdish-Syrian officials (Syrian Democratic Forces/SDF) at Elysée Palace in March 2018, he offered to mediate Turkey-Kurdish talks. Macron said he hoped “a dialogue can be established between the SDF and Turkey with help from France and the international community.”

Erdogan turned down the offer:

“This is a statement that goes beyond the limits and height of that person [Macron]… Who gave you such a duty? Do not engage in endeavors that exceed your height.

“We don’t need a mediator. Since when has Turkey had a problem of sitting around a table with terror organizations? Where did you get that from? You can sit at a table with a terrorist organization, but Turkey fights against terrorist organizations as in Afrin [Syria].”

Erdogan evidently forgot to mention that Turkey has been hosting members of the terrorist group Hamas, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, while presumably enabling them to set up bases there from which to attack Israel. According to a report in The Times on October 22, Hamas is secretly operating a facility in Turkey where it conducts cyberattacks and counterintelligence operations. Citing Western intelligence sources, The Times said the headquarters was set up two years ago and is overseen by Hamas military leaders in the Gaza Strip. However, Erdogan targeted France after Macron met with Syrian Kurdish officials:

“After this attitude, France has no right to complain about any terrorist organization, any terrorist or terror acts. Those who sleep with terrorists and even host terrorists at their palace will sooner or later understand the mistake they have made. Those who so recklessly support these terrorists should also be ready to account for the consequences to the French public. The problems we are experiencing right now might also happen to them any time. I do not know what more we should say or do for them to understand we are not making jokes and do not have the slightest tolerance for this.”

On April 7, hours after a man ploughed his van into pedestrians in Münster, Germany, Erdogan threatened France again:

“France, you are helping terrorism, you support and host the terrorists in the Elysee Palace. You will not be able to account for these things. You see what is happening in Germany, right? The same will happen in France. The West will not be able to get rid of this scourge of terrorism. You will not be able to get rid of this terror scourge. As the West feeds these terrorists, it will sink. “

Austrian precautions against radical Islam also seemed to anger Erdogan. In June, 2018, the Austrian government announced it was closing down seven radical mosques and expel 40 foreign-funded imams employed by ATIB (Turkish-Islamic Union for Cultural and Social Cooperation), which is connected to Turkey’s Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet). The moves followed the Austrian “Islam law“, passed in 2015, which bans foreign funding of religious groups and made it a duty for Muslim organizations to have “a positive fundamental view towards (Austria’s) state and society”.

“Political Islam’s parallel societies and radicalizing tendencies have no place in our country,” said Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz.

Erdogan responded:

“The Austrian PM… is making calculations over closing our mosques in Europe. Where is this going? I’m afraid towards a crusade-crescent war; the steps taken by this Austrian Prime Minister are leading the world towards it. For this reason, the Western world should pull these men together. If they don’t, these calculations will be made differently. They say [they are] going to kick our clergy out. So [you think] you’ll do it and we will stand idle? We will do some things too.”

That a NATO member and European Union candidate, Turkey, is openly threatening the security of Westerners, is unprecedented. Yet, on November 22, Erdogan called on the European Union to “keep your promises” on issues such as the country’s membership bid and refugees:

“Even if we leave aside the previous history, only the Ottoman Empire had a history of 600 years in Europe. Today, we see ourselves as an integral part of Europe.”

Erdogan was referring to the centuries-long Ottoman occupation of several European nations such as Cyprus, Hungary and Greece. The presence of the Ottoman Turks in Europe was marked by wars between the Ottoman Empire and Europe dating from the late Middle Ages up through the early 20th century. After destroying the Greek Byzantine Empire in Asia Minor (today’s Turkey), Ottoman Turks waged wars against Christian nations in the Balkans, including the Hungarians, Bulgarians, Croatians, Greeks and Serbs. The Ottoman Empire targeted Central Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. The Ottoman-Venetian Wars lasted for four centuries, starting in 1423 and lasting until 1718. Christians in European nations that fell under the Ottoman occupation became dhimmis, second-class, tolerated, subjects of the empire who had to buy their lives and protection by paying a high tax, and were systematically abused by Ottoman authorities.

One of the most abusive Ottoman practices was the institution of “devshirme,” also known as the “child levy” or “blood tax,” with which Christian boys were forcibly abducted from the conquered population, enslaved, converted to Islam and later trained as soldiers. Erdogan evidently sees the Ottoman occupation and abuse of European nations as Turkish “contributions” to Europe.

This current belligerence once again demonstrates major differences between Europe and Erdogan’s regime. It is a crisis between a mentality that respects a free press versus a mentality that jails critical journalists. It reveals a mentality that wants to preserve the safety of its citizens versus a mentality that aims to force others to submit to its demands through threats and use of terror. It is a mentality that stubbornly believes in violating and even trying to invade the territories of its neighbors versus one that tries to resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.

As the president of France, Macron has the responsibility to protect the security and freedom of expression of his citizens. It is Erdogan’s regime who targets the safety and freedoms of Europeans — as well as Armenians, Syrians, Iraqis, and many of his own Turks.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16809/turkey-erdogan-threatens-europe