Last year, the riots by young people in the Düsseldorf public swimming pool Rheinbad made quite a stir throughout Germany. On each of three days the pool had to be evacuated by the police. Now, after a two-day trial, a young man (17 years old) was convicted of threatening behaviour.According to a ruling by the Düsseldorf District Court, the North African Amaru C. must take part in a literary project entitled “Crisis situations – how do I deal with them? He is then to write an essay on this topic with special attention to a victim!The trial against him took place behind closed doors. The reason for the lenient sentence is said to be that Amaru C. has no criminal record and also attends school regularly.In the juvenile law regulations, the focus is on the educational aspect.

A second trial against a rioter (27 years old) resulted in an order of summary punishment for insulting for a sum amounting to 600 euros. He had insulted a policewoman as a “dirty piece of shit”.
During the incidents in the Rheinbad in summer 2019, up to 400 people had attacked employees and other visitors, thrown chairs into the water and rioted.

bild.de/regional/duesseldorf/duesseldorf-aktuell/urteil-in-duesseldorf-rheinbad-randalierer-muss-aufsatz-schreiben-73294480.bild.html###wt_ref=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2F&wt_t=1602093305006

A Dutch appeals court recently upheld the conviction of Dutch politician Geert Wilders for supposedly insulting Moroccans in comments he made at an election rally in 2014. At the same time, however, the appeals court overturned Wilders’ conviction for inciting hatred or discrimination against Moroccans.

At an election rally in The Hague in March 2014, as leader of the Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom), reportedly the country’s most popular opposition party today, Wilders asked those present, whether they wanted “more or fewer Moroccans?” After the crowd chanted “fewer, fewer” Wilders said, “We’re going to organize that.”

Wilders was prosecuted and convicted in December 2016 on two counts: First for “deliberately insulting a group of people because of their race.” Second, for “inciting hatred or discrimination against these people.” Wilders did not receive any punishment then, nor will he now: Judge Jan Maarten Reinking stated, “The accused has already for years paid a high price for expressing his opinion,” referring to the fact that Wilders has lived under constant police protection for more than a decade and still receives constant threats. Most recently, Al Qaeda issued a threat against Geert Wilders, among others. “Terrible news,” Wilders called the threat.

“I was already on their hit list, already have two fatwas from Pakistan and now another call for murder from al-Qaeda. Disgusting. This has cost me my freedom for 16 years, something that I would not wish on my worst enemy.”

In his reasoning for upholding the verdict for “insulting a group of people because of their race,” Reinking said that Wilders’ comments “can contribute to polarisation within Dutch society, while in our democratic, pluralistic society, respect for others, especially minority groups, is of great importance”. Reinking added:

“Although offensive statements are protected to a certain extent by the right to freedom of expression, in this case the suspect has gone too far and is thus guilty of a criminal offense.”

There was no nod to the primacy in a free society of being able to speak freely without the fear — as in the former Soviet Union — of being hauled into court by the state. As the Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky stated:

“But for all of us it was absolutely obvious that we all wanted to live in a society where people can…. present their views… and not to be punished for this. It is called the town square test, where every person can go in the center of the town, say what he or she thinks, what she believes, to insist on their right to promote these views, and will not be arrested and will not be punished for this. And if that is possible, that is a free society. If it is not permitted it is a fear society. And there is nothing in between.”

“The Netherlands has become a corrupt country”, Wilders stated after the verdict.

“Moroccans who set our cities and neighborhoods on fire usually get away with it… but the leader of the largest opposition party who asks a question about Moroccans with which millions of Dutch agree, has been convicted in a political trial. Because that is exactly what this is… the judge has disposed of… freedom of expression… And this is not just about my freedom of speech, but about everyone’s. I am of course glad that the accusation… in the earlier conviction, by the court, when it comes to inciting discrimination, has now become an acquittal. That incitement to hatred has not been proved either… But convicted – albeit without punishment – for group insult, in a political trial”.

Wilders was presumably referring to riots that recently took place in several Dutch cities, in which young Dutch-Moroccans, among rioters from other immigrant communities, reportedly engaged in “rioting, public assault, threatening behavior and violating the emergency order put to stop the unrest”.

Wilders also announced that he would appeal the verdict of the appeals court to the Dutch Supreme Court. “Of course we will appeal and we will go to the Supreme Court because the verdict and the guilty sentence are ridiculous,” Wilders said.

The Netherlands is a party to the European Convention of Human Rights, article 10 of which states the following:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers…

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

In its case law[1], the European Court of Human Rights has stated that Article 10 protects not only “the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected”.

Also, according to the European Court of Human Rights’ case law,

“…the extent of protection depends on the context and the aim of the criticism. In matters of public controversy or public interest, during political debate, in electoral campaigns… strong words and harsh criticism may be expected and will be tolerated to a greater degree by the Court”.

Asking whether voters want fewer Moroccans in their city or country may seem, to some, offensive. However, what seems offensive is often extremely subjective. In Morocco, in May, actor Rafik Boubker was arrested for “blasphemy” for posting a video in which he told people “to make their ablution with wine and perform prayers with whiskey.” The video reportedly “angered millions of Moroccans. The actor rapidly released another video, apologizing to his fans and followers for the statements”.

In the Sudan, in 2007, the authorities sentenced an English teacher to two weeks in prison and deportation for “insulting Islam,” because she had allowed her primary school students to name a teddy bear a common man’s name there, Mohammed. Meanwhile, she was threatened with death.

Freedom of speech means the right to offend. As Sigmund Freud, quoting the neurologist John Hughlings Jackson, reportedly put it, “the man who first flung a word of abuse at his enemy instead of a spear was the founder of civilization”. Speech with which everyone agrees does not need protection.

In the light of the case law of the European Human Rights Court, which specifically protects the political speech of political actors and political campaigns, it is difficult to see how the question Wilders posed could legitimately be limited in accordance with article 10 (2). Wilders did not incite to violence, nor did he jeopardize national security or public safety or any of the other concerns noted as relevant to limiting free speech.

It will now be up to the Dutch Supreme Court to determine whether it wants a “free society” or a “fear society”. As Sharansky notes, “There is nothing in between.”

[1] Monica Macovei: A guide to the implementation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, p 16, (Human rights handbooks, No. 2, 2004).

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16598/netherlands-free-speech-geert-wilders

Progressive billionaire George Soros has called on the EU to cut funding to Hungary over rule of law issues, with his statement released following a decision made by the EU’s top court which favored George Soros’s Central European University over the Hungarian government.

“I call on the EU to make Hungary a test case,” Soros wrote in a statement, urging Brussels to make an example out of Hungary, including attempts to tie EU funding to rule of law conditions. 

Near the end of the statement, the liberal billionaire investor urged the European Union, which at the moment is debating on whether or not to make the distribution of EU aid linked to so-called ‘rule of law’ conditions, to cut its funding to Hungary.

For the liberal billionaire, setting such a precedent would send a clear message to other EU nations: those who refuse to obey Brussels’ edicts will face real consequences. 

In a statement, Soros claimed that “the Hungarian government continues to trample on EU Law”, adding that its latest victim was “the world-famous University of Theater and Arts (SZFE)” in Budapest, Hungarian newspaper Magyar Hirlap reports.

Soros’s sentiments were echoed nearly verbatim late week by the Deputy Head of the European Parliament, Katarina Barley – also a German MP for the Socialist Democratic Party (SDP) – when she urged the EU to “starve” Poland and Hungary of EU funds, Remix News reported.

“The rule of law is constantly broken and EU funds are an efficient way to exact pressure. States such as Poland and Hungary must be financially starved. Funds are an efficient lever,” Barley said during an interview with German radio.

Following the German MEP’s statements, several Polish politicians were quick to hit back, saying that the use of word “starvation” – in the context of Polish-German relations – reminded them rhetoric used by Nazis during World War II.

“This statement is outrageous and reminds us of the most dreadful historic connotations. We could say that Germans have ample experience in starving and persecuting Poles. We are awaiting an official apology from Mrs. Barley and the retraction of these shameful words,” Michał Dworczyk, the chief of the Prime Minister’s Chancellery, wrote.

On Tuesday, Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party called on Katarina Barley to resign from her post as the Deputy Head of the European Parliament as a result of the offensive statements that she made on German radio, Remix News reported.

The motion was presented by PiS, a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists EU parliamentary group, at Tuesday’s meeting of the European Parliament presidency.

rmx.news/article/article/soros-urges-eu-to-cut-funding-for-hungary-make-country-a-test-case

The agenda for Wednesday’s International Olympic Committee executive board meeting omits the Iranian regime’s execution of the champion wrestler Navid Afkari, prompting calls for IOC president Thomas Bach to include Afkari’s execution in its agenda and sanction the clerical regime in Tehran.When asked by The Jerusalem Post if the IOC plans to sanction Iran’s regime and raise Afkari in its agenda, an unnamed committee spokesperson said that, “For your information, you will find here the schedule for tomorrow’s IOC Executive Board committee’s meeting.”

The IOC schedule sent to the Post omitted Afkari.Rob Koehler, the Director General of Global Athlete, a sports human rights advocacy organization, wrote on Twitter: “The Olympics Executive Committee meets Wednesday 7 October… How about under miscellaneous you include: 1. Suspending Iran @Olympic_ir #Justice4Navid #navidafkarai.”Koehler included the Twitter handle for Iran’s Olympic chapter and the hashtags in support of Navid Afkari.The international outcry over the IOC and Bach’s failure to include Afkari in its agenda on Wednesday sparked former Olympic Iranian wrestler Hossein Khosrow Ali Vaziri, known as The Iron Sheik, to tweet to his over 518,000 followers on Tuesday: “AS FORMER OLYMPIC WRESTLER I DEMAND THE THOMAS BACH IOC PRESIDENT OF THE @Olympic@iocmedia YOU INCLUDE THE CASE OF THE IRANIAN REGIME MURDER OF INNOCENT CHAMPION THE NAVID AFKARI FOR TOMORROW AGENDA AND SANCTION IRAN”S REGIME.”

The Iron Sheik, who is a world-famous retired professional wrestler, issued a second tweet: „IOC PRESIDENT THOMAS BACH @Olympics @iocmedia YOU NEED TO HELP ME TEACH THE WORLD ABOUT THE IRAN SANCTION ON THE CHAMPION WRESTLER NAVID AFKARI.”

The Iranian journalist and women’s rights activist Masih Alinejad tweeted: “Dear athletes of Iran & the world! Break your silence. 2 of Navid Afkari’s brothers are in jail. Their mother is in pain. Torture, Forced confessions & executions. Enough is enough. This apartheid regime must be judged in the Court of justice [and] not be invited to sports tournaments.”
THE NATIONAL Union for Democracy in Iran (NUFDI) issued a letter to the IOC urging Bach to sanction Iran’s regime, citing two precedents: The IOC sanctioned the racist South African regime during the apartheid period, as well as Afghanistan when the country was controlled by the radical Islamic terrorist movement, the Taliban.“The Islamic Republic of Iran is as racist as the Apartheid regime and as misogynistic as the Taliban,“ NUFDI wrote.NUFDI added that „the IOC has nonetheless refused to take any tangible steps to punish this regime. It is still standing by the oppressors, and against the people of Iran. The IOC must add the discussion of banning the Islamic Republic in Iran from the Olympics to its agenda.“The Iranian-American human rights advocate and writer Mariam Memarsadeghi tweeted: “A champion wrestler–hero–was executed because he dared protest for a better life. This is an absolute violation of the Olympic Charter. If @iocmedia @Olympics doesn’t consider this worthy [of] its attention, exactly what is its mandate & why does the Charter even exist? #NavidAfkari.”The IOC condemned the September 12 Iranian regime execution of Afkari but said it did not wish to violate the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran by sanctioning the regime over it.
In response to a Post query about the German Green Party’s alleged appeasement toward the Iranian regime, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Los Angeles-based human rights organization Simon Wiesenthal Center, said that „Green Parties should be helping expand the growing circle of peace between Arabs and Jews, not abetting would be genociders [sic] like Ayatollah Khamenei – especially Germans. Not too late to urge snapback against ruthless Iranian regime that executes its own innocent citizens.“Green Party foreign policy spokesman and MP Omid Nouripour, who has been accused of supporting the reportedly antisemitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel, refused to respond about the whether the IOC should sanction Tehran’s regime.Volker Beck, a former Green Party MP, refused to urge his party to call on the IOC to sanction Iran’s clerical regime. Cooper’s criticism included Beck’s alleged silence about his party’s alleged pro-Iranian regime policies.US State Department officials have declared Iran’s regime the top state-sponsor of terrorism and antisemitism.

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/olympics-refuses-to-discuss-iranian-regimes-murder-of-wrestler-644791

A supporter of the Identitarian Movement (IB) in Konstanz has been the target of a left-wing extremist attack. But his family suffered the consequences instead.

“My stepfather suffered a head injury and the facade of the house is damaged,” Dominik B told Berlin weekly Junge Freiheit on Monday, describing the extent of the attack.

The 26-year-old used to be an active IB member and, among other things, took part in an information campaign. Antifa noted on the information portal Indymedia that he heads the IB local branch in Konstanz. But that’s not true, said Dominik B.

Around 60 hooded Antifas marched through the streets of Konstanz to his parents’ house on Sunday afternoon. They carried a red banner with the inscription “Counter the shift to the right – organized, consistent, determined”. The 26-year-old reported that he was not at home at the time.

The attack on his family’s row house began around 3:30 pm. The rioters had thrown numerous eggs and bags of red paint against the yellow house facade and filled the mailbox with construction foam. In addition, the words “Nazi” were sprayed on the entrance area in front of the house. Photos of the extent of the attack has been taken, but for the protection of the family’s privacy they cannot be published.

The target’s stepfather faced the anti-fascist mob, which then attacked him. The attackers hit the 49-year-old man in the head. Meanwhile, one of the masked people is said to have tried to snatch his mobile phone from him. When more and more residents got involved, the left-wing extremists fled.

“The neighbors reacted well and shouted to the masked people to leave,” said the young man. The criminal police are investigating the case.

The stepfather had to be treated because of the head injury and was taken to hospital due to head trauma and bruises.

A family with four young children were among the residents. The children were extremely shocked by the attack. In addition, the Antifa is said to have left “outing posters” in the neighborhood, on which they described Dominik B as an “active neo-Nazi” and disclosed his address.

freewestmedia.com/2020/10/07/antifa-attack-on-family-father-of-ib-supporter-suffers-head-trauma/

by Giulio Meotti

It was 1969 when the leader of the British Labor parliamentary group, Douglas Houghton, called for state intervention to discourage births by reducing assistance and subsidies for large families, while Lord Sorensen declared: “We must encourage sterilizations”.Meanwhile, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist and author of “The population bomb”, predicted poverty and famine for England at a symposium at the London Institute of Biology: “If I were a player, I would bet that England will no longer exist in the year 2000 and ten to one that the standard of living of the average Englishman will be below the current one”.Fifty years past 1969, life expectancy in England has increased by ten years and the standard of living has undergone a radical upward transformation. Yet, the idea that population decreasing action is needed to reduce environmental impact is still at the root of all the green anthropophobic cries, including the eco-fascism of the two bombers in Christchurch, New Zealand and in El Paso, Texas.

Now billboards are appearing in many North American cities, from Vancouver to Minneapolis, at bus stops as well as along highways. A smiling child watches the commuters. And below, the announcement says: “The greatest loving gift you can give to your first child is not having another one”. It is part of a series of advertisements (another says that “conservation begins at conception”) financed by the World Population Balance, an ecological organization in the United States. Dave Gardner, the director, says he supports an “ethical, humanitarian and voluntary” solution to overpopulation. And it is propaganda that works.

A Morning Consult poll for the New York Times shows that one-third of men and women between the ages of 20 and 45 cite climate change as a factor in their decision to have children or not. The Morning Consult data also finds that 11 percent of childless adults say climate change is the “main reason” they didn’t want it.

“Congestion begins at conception” announces another manifesto for an eco-sustainable one-child. Traffic and fire images are used. The message is clear: have children and you will increase the queues on the streets and the risk of natural disasters. The “child free” section, on the other hand, is seductive: young couples without children, hugging, kissing, enjoying outings.

The proponents say they are in favor of a “drastic and voluntary reduction in births”. And if that doesn’t work, biologist Ehrlich always has the next step ready. Taxing baby products (“cribs, diapers, games, baby food”), flooding schools with sex education, making access to abortion even easier and Chinese-style sterilization campaigns with implants, mandatory there for Ughur women, that prevent births.

Current environmentalism, which is based on an anti-Biblical and post-humanist vision, is pure civilizational suicide. Birth rates are already falling all over the West, Canada, Europe, America. The West is not overpopulated at all. But environmentalists are fine with that. They are pro mass immigration from Africa, where birth rates are surging and which is coming to Europe.

They don’t dream of an empty planet, but of a post-Western one. Where the Statue of Liberty is submerged on the beach.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/288538