Turkish ambassador for Austria says: Christmas is selfish – The event is also said to have paid tribute to the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna

At an event at the end of Ramadan in Vienna’s Ottakring district, Turkish Ambassador Ozan Ceyhun is said to have called the Christmas celebration selfish.

According to a report in the Krone newspaper, numerous AKP supporters of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met in the 16th district of Vienna on Sunday to pay tribute to a Corona relief action from Turkey and distribute aid packages. Present were students and graduates of Imam Hatip schools as well as other AKP-related groups. While praising the Turkish relief action, Ambassador Ozan Ceyhun is said to have said something about Christians in his speech: “They don’t organize events like we do here. For example at Christmas, and I deliberately say the word Christmas in German language so that you understand what I mean. They proceed in a selfish manner and seclude themselves in their own homes and don’t hand out presents like we do.” In addition, the Turkish AKP MP Zafer Sirakaya, is said to have paid tribute to Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, at the event: “The biggest ammunition, the military arsenal, is the Muslim brothers, who are connected in brotherhood.”

wochenblick.at/tuerkischer-botschafter-weihnachten-ist-egoistisch/

France’s Determination to End Free Speech

On May 13, the French parliament adopted a law that requires online platforms such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat[1] to remove reported “hateful content” within 24 hours and “terrorist content” within one hour. Failure to do so could result in exorbitant fines of up to €1.25 million or 4% of the platform’s global revenue in cases of repeated failure to remove the content.

The scope of online content deemed “hateful” under what is known as the “Avia law” (after the lawmaker who proposed it) is, as is common in European hate speech laws, very broadly demarcated and includes “incitement to hatred, or discriminatory insult, on the grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or disability”.

The French law was directly inspired by Germany’s controversial NetzDG law, adopted in in October 2017, and it is explicitly mentioned in the introduction to the Avia law.

“This law proposal aims to combat the spread of hate speech on the internet,” it is stated in the introduction to the Avia law.

“No one can dispute the exacerbation of hate speech in our society… the attack[s] on others for what they are, because of their origins, their religion, their sex or their sexual orientation… hints… [at] the darkest hours in our history… the fight against hatred, racism and anti-Semitism on the Internet is an objective of public interest that justifies…strong and effective provisions… this tool of openness [the internet] to the world, of access to information, to culture, to communication, can become a real hell for those who become the target of ‘haters’ or harassers hidden behind screens and pseudonyms. According to a survey carried out in May 2016, 58% of our fellow citizens consider the internet to be the main locus of hate speech. More than 70% say they have already been confronted with hate speech on social networks. For younger people in particular, cyber-harassment can be devastating…However… Few complaints are filed, few investigations are successful, few convictions are handed down – this creates a vicious circle…”

Having acknowledged that online “hatred” is tricky to prosecute under the existing laws because “few complaints are filed and few investigations are successful, few convictions are handed down”, but nevertheless determined that censorship is the panacea to the perceived problems, the French government decided to delegate the task of state censorship to the online platforms themselves. Private companies will now be obliged to act as thought police on behalf of the French state or face heavy fines. As in Germany, such legislation is bound to lead to online platforms exhibiting overzealousness in the removal or blocking of anything that might conceivably be perceived as “hateful” to avoid being fined.

The purpose of the law appears to have been twofold — not only to achieve the actual censorship of speech by the removal or blocking of online posts, but also the (inevitably) chilling effects of censorship on online debate in general. “People will think twice before crossing the red line if they know that there is a high likelihood that they will be held to account,” French Minister of Justice Nicole Belloubet saidin what sounded ominous for a government representative to say in a country that still claims to be democratic.

From the beginning, when French President Emmanuel Macron first tasked the group led by Laetitia Avia with preparing the law, the proposal was met with criticism from a number of groups and organizations. France’s National Consultative Commission on Human Rights criticized the law proposal for increasing the risk of censorship, and La Quadrature du Net, an organization that works against censorship and surveillance online, warned that, “Short removal times and large fines for non-compliance further incentivize platforms to over-remove content”. The London-based free speech organization Article 19 commented that the law threatened free speech in France. According to Gabrielle Guillemin, Senior Legal Officer at Article 19:

“The Avia Law will effectively enable the French state to devolve online censorship to the dominant tech companies, who will be expected to act as judge and jury in determining what is ‘manifestly illegal’ content. The Law covers a wide range of content so this is not always going to be a straightforward decision.

“Given the timeframes by which companies have to respond, we can expect them to err on the side of caution when it comes to deciding whether content is legal or not. They will also have to resort to using filters that will inevitably lead to the over-removal of content.

“The French government has ignored the concerns raised by digital rights and free speech groups, and the result will be a chilling effect on online freedom of expression in France”.

The passed law was also met with disapproval in France. On May 22, Guillaume Roquette, editorial director of Le Figaro Magazinewrote:

“Under the pretext of fighting ‘hateful’ content on the Internet, it [the Avia law] is setting up a system of censorship that is as effective as it is dangerous… ‘hate’ is the pretext systematically used by those who want to silence dissenting opinions.

“This text [law] is dangerous because, according to lawyer François Sureau, ‘it introduces criminal punishment… of the conscience’. It is dangerous…because it delegates the regulation of public debate… on the internet to American multinationals… A democracy worthy of its name should accept freedom of expression”.

Jean Yves Camus. from Charlie Hebdocalled the law “a placebo for fighting hate” and pointed out that the “hyper-focus on online hate” masks the real danger:

“It is not online hatred that killed Ilan Halimi, Sarah Halimi, Mireille Knoll, the victims of the Bataclan, Hyper Cacher and Charlie; it is an ideology called anti-Semitism and/or Islamism… Who determines what hatred is and its [distinction from] criticism? A Pandora’s box has just been opened… There is a risk of a slow but inexorable march towards a digital language hyper-normativized by political correctness, as defined by active minorities”.

“What is hate?” asked French writer Éric Zemmour rhetorically. “We do not know! You have the right not to love… you have the right to love, you have the right to hate. It’s a feeling… It cannot be judicialized, legislated.”

Nevertheless, that is what hate speech laws do, whether in the digital or the non-digital sphere. Asking private companies — or the government — to act as thought police does not belong in a state that claims to follow a democratic rule of law.

Unfortunately, the question is not whether France will be the last European country to introduce such censorship laws, but what other countries are next in line.

[1] As well as other online platforms and search engines that reach a certain threshold of activity in France (this threshold will be specified by decree at a later date).

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16057/france-free-speech

Pandemic Paranoia Makes ‘The Lives of Others’ a Remarkably Timely Movie

Fade in. A title card reads “Temporary Detention Center; Ministry For State Security.” A policeman is holding a man by his arm in a darkened and scary looking corridor. He tells him, “Stand still. Eyes to the floor,” and then after a beat, “Walk on.” The prisoner is taken to a room, and the policeman tells him, “Address him as ‘Captain!’ Enter. Sit down. Hands under your thighs, palms down.” In front of the captain’s desk, the prisoner is seated on a small wooden chair, with a red cloth cushion.”

The captain asks him, “What do you have to tell us?”

The prisoner replies, “I’ve done nothing. I know nothing.”

The captain replies, “You’ve done nothing, know nothing…You think we imprison people on a whim? If you think our humanistic system capable of such a thing, that alone would justify your arrest.”

Just when the prisoner is ready to confess, the film cuts to a classroom, voyeuristically listening to a reel-to-reel tape of the same interrogation we’ve been watching. The tape is played to the class by a professor who is teaching future Stasi members how their profession works, telling them that it’s necessary to interrogate a prisoner for hours because “An innocent prisoner will become more angry by the hour, due to the injustice suffered. He will shout and rage. A guilty prisoner becomes more calm, more quiet, Or he cries. He knows he’s there for a reason. The best way to establish guilt or innocence is non-stop interrogation.”

If a student shouts out a sympathetic remark towards the taped prisoner, such as, “Why keep him awake for so long? It’s inhuman,” the professor subtly ticks a box with the student’s name on the classroom list. In other words, even the future spies are being spied upon.

The professor is no ordinary teacher. Eventually, we learn that he is Stasi Captain Gerd Wiesler, who during the two hours and 18 minutes of The Lives of Others, the brilliant 2006 film, the first effort by director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, then 33, is about to slowly undergo a surprising transformation.

Shortly after his class ends, Wiesler is tasked by the corpulent minister of East German culture, Bruno Hempf, to spy on a Brechtian playwright, Georg Dreyman, played by Sebastian Koch, who has become quite successful writing turgid melodramas that preach the party line. We eventually learn that Dreyman is targeted by Hempf not for slipping any subversive decadent capitalist messages into his plays, but because Hempf is having an affair with Dreyman’s beautiful girlfriend (played by Martina Gedeck), and Hempf wants to get the playwright permanently out of the way by tossing him into jail. Eventually Wiesler begins to become quite disgusted with his role in the destruction of a successful man, and rebels. Dreyman is also about to slowly undergo a transformation of his own.

East Germany: The Real-Life 1984

The Lives of Others is set, appropriately enough in the year 1984 – East Germany’s Stasi is Orwell’s omnipresent Thought Police made real:

The Nazi secret police, the Gestapo, could claim to have had around 40,000 operatives in a country of around 80 million people, while their Soviet equivalent, the KGB, had around 500,000 agents in a country with a population north of 280 million. The Stasi is estimated to have employed around 100,000 full-timers in a nation of just 17 million people…The upshot was that everyone, but everyone, knew that anyone could be a Stasi member and reporting back on their activities to their hierarchy. Throw in the informers and that number comes down to around one snoop per 66 East Germans, and that number, too, does not include the inoffizielle mitarbeiter (IM), the network of informers that the Stasi maintained on a temporary basis. With them, it is closer to one in six.

How ubiquitous were the Stasi in East Germany? It was reported that shortly before his death 2007 death, Ulrich Mühe, the East German-born actor who played Wiesler, discovered that his ex-wife was a Stasi informant.

Von Donnersmarck attempted to film in Hohenschönhausen, the actual main Berlin prison of the Stasi. However, he was unable to obtain permission from the director of the memorial site. As the Heritage Times notes, Dr. Hubertus Knabe “argued that von Donnersmarck wanted to make a Stasi man (Captain Gerd Wiesler, the film’s main protagonist) into a hero, to which von Donnersmarck used Schindler’s List to try and justify his plans for the film. To this Dr. Knabe allegedly replied: ‘But that is exactly the difference. There was a Schindler. There was no Wiesler.’”

For millions of East Germans, a nation formed by decree of the Soviet Union in 1949, it must have been cold comfort to see a National Socialist police state replaced with an International Socialist police state. The Stasi, East Germany’s Ministry for State Security, began the following year, East Germany’s equivalent, as a Soviet satellite state, of the KGB. Reportedly, some ex-Nazis served as Stasi spies. Even the uniforms of the Stasi looked similar to the Nazis, with the exception of a change of helmets.

In addition to the socialist collectivism, other attitudes enforced by the state remained identical; this was a topic explored in depth in von Donnersmarck’s 2018 film, Never Look Away, which begins with a young artist attending the National Socialists’ infamous “Degenerate Art” exhibition of 1937, with its attacks on all forms of art except for realism, only to be told 15 years later by his East German art professor that socialist realism is the only acceptable art form behind the Iron Curtain. In Never Look Away, Sebastian Koch, the playwright in Lives of Others, portrays an SS Medical Officer Karl Seeband who after the war, blends seamlessly into the East Germany’s Inner Party.

“In the person of Professor Seeband, the murderous eugenicist and the abortionist, the Nazi and the Communist, become one,” America Magazine noted in their review. “The doctor smoothly transitions from denying the rights of the individual in the name of the Volk to denying them in the name of class struggle.”

Dispatches from the Intersection of The Overlook Hotel and the Führerbunker

Like the actors from Stanley Kubrick’s prior movies who re-appear as ghosts in The Shining, watch enough German movies and TV series, and a lot of faces start to look familiar, often in rather ironic ways. Compared to Hollywood, the German acting pool is somewhat smaller, so it’s always fascinating to see an actor from 2004’s Downfall pop up in another film. Sometimes it’s done deliberately by the director and his casting agent, such as the 2009 Tom Cruise movie Valkyrie,where Cruise was supported by actors from both Downfall and the 2000 HBO movie about the Wannsee Conference, Conspiracy.

This was casting along the lines of Alfred Hitchcock’s movies, where the actors’ previous roles allows the director to waste little time establishing his characters. In German films, it’s occasionally done for the sake of satire, such as 2008’s The Baader Meinhof Complexwhere the terrorists’ hatred of West Germany was played up by having the detectives chasing them portrayed by the actors who starred as Hitler and Albert Speer in Downfall.

In The Lives of Others, the man moving the chess pieces around is the aforementioned minister of culture, Bruno Hempf. Hempf is portrayed by Thomas Thieme (born in Weimar, appropriately enough), who played Martin Bormann in Downfall, and the presiding judge in The Baader Meinhof Complex. (Incidentally, to bring things full circle, according to the Grauniad, “Baader-Meinhof terrorist may have worked for the Stasi.” “Horst Mahler, a founding member of the Red Army Faction, was also a Stasi informant.”)

The scenes of Wiesler sitting in a darkened basement, headphones on, observing his stacks of video monitors and reel-to-reel recorders is highly reminiscent, intentional or not, of Francis Ford Coppola’s legendary 1974 film, The Conversation, where Gene Hackman played Harry Caul, an industrial spy-for-hire by major corporations and CEOs.

In The Conversation, Hackman slowly goes insane as he ponders who he is aiding: the CEO (Robert Duvall) who potentially wants to murder his wife (a pre-Laverne and Shirley Cindy Williams), or the CEO’s wife, who wants to murder the CEO. At the end of the film, told by his client’s assistant (played a pre-Star Wars Harrison Ford), “We’ll be listening to you,” Caul sits forlornly playing his saxophone after having demolished his apartment looking for the bug.

Released at the time of Watergate, as Wikipedia notes, “Coppola cited the 1966 film Blowup as a key influence. However, since the film was released to theaters just a few months before Richard Nixon resigned as President, he felt that audiences interpreted the film to be a reaction to the Watergate scandal.” However, Hackman’s character’s power was limited. He supplied recordings to whoever hired him, who in turn decided what to do with the surveillance tapes were turned in.

In sharp contrast, Wiesler’s power over Erich Honecker’s subjects was effectively unlimited. Observed breaking into Dreyman’s apartment by a middle-woman living in the apartment next door, Wiesler coldly threatens her: “Frau Meineke: One word of this to anyone, and Masha loses her spot at the university. Is that understood?”

Why Aren’t There More Movies About The Iron Curtain?

In contrast to the languid pacing of von Donnersmarck’s follow-up, Never Look Away, The Lives of Others has remarkable tension all the way through its 137 minute running time, perhaps because we’ve seen all the elements before in a variety of movies ranging from the James Bond series to Richard Burton’s The Spy Who Came In From The Cold: The shadowy concrete buildings and pools of light from streetlamps illuminating otherwise menacing-looking streets, the spies and their tradecraft, the surveillance state, the attempts to flee the Berlin Wall, etc. So why aren’t there more films about life behind the Iron Curtain? In 2007, when The Lives of Others played America’s art-house circuit, John Podhoretz theorized in the Weekly Standard:

I think there may be another reason for the reluctance of the makers of pop culture worldwide to reckon with communism, and that is shame. The ideological struggle against leftist totalitarianism was something that did not arouse the interest or enthusiasm of cultural elites in the West during the Cold War. Far from it; from the 1960s onward, the default position of the doyens of popular culture was a presumption in favor of the Communist struggle, as personified by Mao, the Viet Cong, Castro, the Sandinistas, El Salvador’s guerrillas, and the so-called African liberation movements.

This was not a reasoned, or thought-through, view. It was little more than fashion. And rarely, if ever, has history rendered a more devastating verdict on the wrongheadedness of fashionable Western groupthink than it did when the walls and statues came down, and Lenin was removed from his unholy pedestal.

They got it wrong. And though they may not know it, they are ashamed of it and do not wish to be reminded of it. Perhaps that’s why it took a 33-year-old to make this masterpiece–a 33-year-old who was too young during the Cold War to have joined any camp in any meaningful way. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck found a great story to tell with a great setting and he told it with peerless skill while bearing none of the scars of past ideological battles.

In The Lives of Others, after the Wall fell, and Germany reunified, Hempf meets Dreyman in the lobby of a Berlin theater while one Dreyman’s plays is being shown. Hempf tells him, “You’ve not written since the Wall fell? That’s not good, after all our country invested in you. Although I understand you, Dreyman.  What is there to write about in this new Germany? Nothing to believe in, nothing to rebel against. Life was good in our little Republic. Many people only realize that now.”

Martin Bormann couldn’t have said it better about the socialist empire he served.

In his Weekly Standard review, John Podhoretz wrote that as directorial debuts go, The Lives of Others is on-par with Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane, and while they’re obviously very different films in terms of content and style – he’s not wrong. No less than William F. Buckley, a year before his death at age 82, wrote in 2007 that von Donnersmarck’s film is “the best movie I ever saw…The tension mounts to heart-stopping pitch and I felt the impulse to rush out into the street and drag passersby in to watch the story unfold.”

Freedom Versus Security

The Lives of Others is a remarkably timely movie right now, for multiple reasons. We’ve seen several blue enclaves in America, such as Los AngelesManhattan, and Houston attempt to setup snitch lines to turn in businesses reopening ahead of the Coronavirus lockdown schedule. Similarly, as I was completing this article, the Orwellian headline, “Antifa protests against ending the lockdown in Germany,” made the rounds on Twitter.

The details of Obama’s spying on the incoming Trump administration (aka “Obamagate”) are beginning to trickle out, likely accelerating in quantity as November approaches, an extension of Obama’s spying on reporters. And perhaps even more ominously, Vijeta Uniyal of the Legal Insurrection blog recently spotted an alarming headline in “Der Spiegel magazine: ‘Young Germans are turning into China fans.’ Nearly half of them want closer ties with China over the U.S.”

Politics runs alongside two poles: freedom and security. For most of America’s history, the former was its government’s goal. Under FDR’s New Deal in the 1930s, “This shift from a government aimed at protecting Freedom to one designed to provide Security is the single most important thing that happened in 20th Century America,” conservative blogger and book reviewer Orrin Judd wrote in 2000. And more security means more laws – and the potential for more to be arrested.

Earlier this month, a Reason magazine article was headlined, “The New York Times Recoils at the Predictable Consequences of the Mandatory COVID-19 Precautions It Supports.” As Glenn Reynolds noted when linking to it at Instapundit, “Government Is Force. If You Don’t Like Violence, Don’t Call For Laws.” Today’s Germans are determined to seek security in socialism, not realizing they could be about to make the same mistakes as their 20th century predecessors.

https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2020/05/25/the-lives-of-others-4-n426836

German party seeks to ban Iranian-regime center in Hamburg

The Christian Democratic Union Party (CDU) in the city-state of Hamburg said last week that it plans to introduce an initiative to outlaw the Iranian regime-controlled Islamic Center because of its link to the terrorist organization Hezbollah.The spokesman for the CDU in the Hamburg parliament, Dennis Gladiator, told Die Welt that “all official contact to the Islamic Center of Hamburg should immediately end, an association ban should be examined and introduced as well as the cancellation of the state contract with the Schura [the association of Islamic communities] as long as the Islamic Center of Hamburg is part of the association.”

The pro-Israel NGO German-Israel Friendship Society also urged the coalition Social Democratic Party and Green Party government to cancel the state contract with the Schura due to the presence of the Iranian regime-controlled organizations. Germany’s Interior Ministry banned all Hezbollah activities within the federal republic last month.Iran’s Blue Mosque, the Islamic Academy and the Islamic Center of Hamburg are widely considered the long-arm institutions in Germany of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, according to the Hamburg domestic intelligence agency. Iran’s regime is the chief financial supporter of Hezbollah.The Jerusalem Post reported in January that a group of 600 pro-Iranian Islamists attended a memorial service on Sunday in Hamburg mourning the death of the EU- and US-designated terrorist Qassem Soleimani.The mourners, from Hamburg’s Islamic Center, praised Soleimani as a “heroic martyr.”US presidential administrations under both Barack Obama and Donald Trump have classified Iran’s regime as the worst state-sponsor of terrorism.

The Iranian regime-controlled organizations have sent busses of anti-Israel activists to participate in the al-Quds rally over the years in Berlin. The al-Quds rally calls for the destruction of the Jewish state and attracts Hezbollah members, neo-Nazis, extreme leftists, and Palestinian supporters.Hamburg’s social democratic government negotiated a 2012 agreement with Muslim organizations that pledged common values and peaceful activities and tolerance. The contracts say the Islamic Center of Hamburg agreed to “international understanding and tolerance toward other cultures, religions and world views.”The Post reported in 2017 that Carsten Ovens, from the CDU faction in Hamburg’s legislative body urged the cancellation of the city’s contract with an Iranian regime-controlled institution because it participates in the annual al-Quds Day rally in Berlin, which calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.Ovens told the Post at the time that the “CDU is calling for the suspension of the agreements” because “Israel’s right to exist and the freedom of the Jewish people are not subject to negotiation.”The Green Party and the social democrats claim that Hamburg’s intelligence agency can continue to monitor the Iranian regime-controlled organizations and will not take action against the alleged antisemitic and pro-terrorism activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s institutions in Hamburg. The Anti-Defamation League’s national director Jonathan Greenblatt, termed the Iranian regime the leading state-sponsor of antisemitism and Holocaust denial.

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-News/German-party-seeks-to-ban-Iranian-regime-center-in-Hamburg-629252

Sugar Feast under the sign of Islamization: Mass prayers in German inner cities

How far the “Islamic expansion” has gone in Central Europe, above all in Germany as the former heartland of the Christian West – to study this, certain events in the annual calendar offer most favourable occasions; currently it is for instance the just started three-day Sugar Feast, which was launched yesterday after the end of Ramadan. Many streets and places were in the rule of Muslims.

Particularly in several cities of North Rhine-Westphalia praying Muslims highlighted the fact that they claim the just again ” Corona relaxed” public space exclusively for their own religious practice – and without further ado they converted city centres, meadows and even parking lots of supermarkets into prayer areas. Strikingly, only men were always to be seen, strictly traditionally the women did not pray in public. And above all: it is the younger ones who present themselves here in strict faith – and not the older Muslims who have been living here for a longer time; a disturbing development, especially among Turks born here, but also among the young Arab refugees, which is connected with the worldwide strengthening of political Islam.

In the net, self-confident believers with defiant declarations proudly posted pictures of the traditional prayers at the end of the month of fasting, such as this picture from Detmold:

(Screenshot:Facebook)
(Screenshot:LZ)

The related comments below the various Facebook and YouTube impressions leave no doubt as to how most Muslims in this country interpret these (for locals looking spooky) images: Not as an expression of a practised “German” or “moderate” Islam on the basis of the Basic Law, full of gratitude for the liberties granted to them – but as a gesture of triumph.

And such images are shared worldwide – and especially in the Islamic hemisphere between West Africa and the Hindu Kush they do not miss their fatal effect: There the message is understood as it is actually meant beyond the confessions of Muslim associations, foreigners’ and “integration councils”: Look here, the land of the infidels is as good as subjugated. So that even more may set out on the way to the promised land. But yesterday’s impressions also said a lot about the bitter reality of the much-vaunted ” coexistence”: Once again, the Umma demonstrated on German soil that it does not claim to “belong to Germany” – but at best that Germany should belong to Islam as soon as possible. This is the direction in which it is going, applauded, encouraged and promoted by naive idiots, idealistic dreamers and multiculturalists, whose contempt for Christian traditions and values has blinded them to the even more conservative religiousness of most Muslims especially in Europe and their ambivalence towards Western ways of life. The continuing boom that Islam is receiving was not only reflected in calls to prayer during the Corona crisis and in the de facto special treatment of Muslim believers who violated contact restrictions during the shutdown; the real Islamization that exists is progressing and is being driven forward year after year more blatantly by zealous, servile promoters of Islamization in politics and society, who with open arms and closed eyes approve of everything and welcome everyone. So much filled with the fear of being “Islamophobic” or even “racist”, everything is done out of fundamentally misunderstood tolerance so that the previous minority milieus of many parallel societies gradually become a majority society.And for them Germany is not home, but a mission territory and a territory to be conquered.

.journalistenwatch.com/2020/05/25/zuckerfest-zeichen-islamisierung/?fbclid=IwAR3XbZAcejs5Lph7i9gGfhSUbl_tlxdC9BscSpoM_Fo5cnUVR4EgzhDMq0s

Austria’s president breaks coronavirus regulations

A routine check by Viennese police found Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen his wife and two friends merrily chatting away past midnight on Sunday in breach of the current mandated closing time of 11 p.m., the country’s largest newspaper, the conservative Kronen Zeitung reports.

Van der Bellen is a member of the country’s Green Party.

“I went out to eat with two friends and my wife for the first time since the lockdown. We then chatted away and unfortunately overlooked the time. I am truly sorry. It was a mistake,” Van der Bellen wrote in a tweet, followed by a second one adding “should the host suffer any damage, I will stand for it straight.”

Under the current Austrian coronavirus regulations, any restaurant found open after the mandatory 11 p.m. closing time faces a fine of up to €30,000 ($32,663).

Aki Nuredini, owner of the Italian restaurant, told Kronen Zeitung that he did nothing wrong.

“The Federal President is a regular guest here, like many artists. He had fish for dinner. I did everything right, and we locked down with a last round of drinks on time at 11 p.m., as required by law,” Nuredini said. “The Federal President simply had afterwards — initially I was there too — chatting nicely with his wife outside on the covered sidewalk terrace.”

Michael Schnedlitz, secretary general of Austria’s senior coalition party, the conservative People’s Party (ÖVP) said “This is a very inappropriate attitude for the federal president of a democratic country”.

rmx.news/article/article/austrian-president-breaks-coronavirus-regulations

Angela Merkel losing grip as German state ignores her order and immediately ends lockdown

The East Germany state of Thuringia has said its citizens can make their own choices with regards to the lockdown becoming the first place in Europe to end any formal rules. This does not follow Chancellor Angela Merkel’s advice of not moving too fast as the states compete to get their economies back going. Chancellor Merkel has made it clear the country is still “fragile” and “not out of the woods” with regards to COVID-19. Thuringia will lift its ban on mass gatherings, the compulsory wearing of facemarks in shops and a requirement for people to stay 1.5 metres apart.

The restrictions will be officially lifted on June 6.

Germany has been less affected by COVID-19 than many other European countries and began lifting its lockdown on April 20.

The rate of infection has been declining in the country, with only 431 new infections over the past 24 hours this weekend. Thuringia’s state leader Bodo Ramelow has said: “Our motto will be: recommendations instead of bans, and self-regulation instead of state compulsion.

“We made our decision in March based on estimates of 60,000 infections, we are now down to 245 [in Thuringia].

“This success shows that restrictions were correct, but it also means we have to now make realistic decisions – meaning lifting the lockdown.”

Sweden has also urged people to take on their own personal responsibility, but they have banned gatherings of over 50 people.

Chancellor Merkel has said that while the first phase of the virus is over, the country still has a long fight ahead of them.

She also said that if infection rates were to spread to more than 50 cases per 100,000 people in one area, a new lockdown would be enforced.

The Germany leader has made it clear she puts her faith in the people of the country to stick to the rules.

She said: “Our republic is built on trust and if we don’t have trust, we might as well call it quits.”

The chancellor has warned that COVID-19 presents the EU with its biggest challenge yet.

She has said: “Germany is only doing well if Europe is going well.

“Everyone is equally affected so it must be in everyone’s interest … that Europe should emerge strongly from this test.”

There are concerns if lockdowns are lifted too quickly, there could be a second wave of the coronavirus in Europe this autumn.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1286765/Angela-Merkel-Germany-lockdown-latest-Thuringia-ignore-coronavirus-advice

Germany: Attempted killing of a policewoman by North African-looking man

During an investigation, an unidentified person threw a flowerpot at an officer and missed her by only a few centimetres.

Yesterday morning, around 5 a.m., several police officers in Frankfurt am Main carried out checks to ensure that the corona measures were being observed. When the officers checked a group of people on the banks of the Main at the height of the Iron Bridge, a clay flower pot weighing around 20 kg hit the pavement just a few centimetres next to a 25-year-old policewoman.

The official had a lot of luck, not to have been hit by the flowerpot. Because it was thrown down from a height of six to seven metres. According to witnesses, a hitherto unknown perpetrator is said to have carried the flower pot first to the iron walkway and then deliberately thrown it at the police officers. The alleged perpetrator is described as being about 180 cm tall and of North African appearance. He was wearing a grey hooded sweatshirt and blue jeans.

wochenblick.at/frankfurt-versuchte-toetung-einer-polizistin-mit-blumenkuebel/