Cart
0
0.00 €
The Political Scene.
The United Nations wants a one-world government in less than twelve years.
November 5, 2018 (American Thinker) - In the 1960s, an informed but naive undergraduate, I was walking across the campus of the University of Pennsylvania with the Chairman of the Chemistry Department, Prof. Charles C. Price. He told me that he was president of the United World Federalists, and asked if I knew what that organisation was. When I said that I did not, he replied that they believed in a one-world government that would grow out of the United Nations. I was nonplussed as I had never heard anyone suggest that idea before. To me, the United Nations was a benevolent organisation dedicated to pressuring the world community in the direction of peace, and to operating charitable programs to help the struggling, impoverished peoples of the world. I imagined the UN as a kind of United Way on a worldwide scale.
How would Prof. Price's vision of a new world government emerge? Although there was a socialistic thread in its founding document, the United Nations was formed based on a vision of human rights presented in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (UDHR) which placed the concept of rights at the forefront for the progress of the world body. And rights are the mainstay for uplifting human freedom and the dignity of the individual. The UDHR document followed many amazing documents that presented rights as the central concept of the post-feudal world: the English Declaration (or Bill) of Rights of 1689, the U.S. Declaration of Independence with its important and forceful assertion of inalienable natural rights, the powerful U.S. Bill of Rights enacted in 1791, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789).
The word "rights" appears in almost every sentence of the 1869-word UN document. The document is literally obsessed with rights, and one must assume they are likewise obsessed with the rights successes as manifested in the United Kingdom, the U.S., and France. However, there are some deviations from the rights usage we are all familiar with. In Article 3, Instead of the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" found in our Declaration of Independence, the UN declares everyone's right to "life, liberty and security of person." Are they implying that security will bring happiness? Or are they implying that happiness is too ephemeral a value, and too Western? Perhaps more mundane survival goals are needed by most of the world.
We see a reprise of items from our Bill of Rights such as condemnation of cruel and unusual punishment (Article 5), due process (Articles 6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 14, 17), illegal search and seizure (Article 12), and freedom of speech and assembly (Articles 19,20). But there are new rights introduced which, as early as 1945, were pointing the way towards intervention by the UN in the daily lives of people throughout the world. Throughout the document, they assert the right to food, clothing, medical care, social services, unemployment and disability benefits, child care, and free education, plus the right to "full development of the personality," (imagine, the UN says I have the right to be me) and the "right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community... and to enjoy the arts" (we each have the right to enjoy a painting or a movie). However, they do not state the right to appear on the "Tonight Show" or "Saturday Night Live", so there were limits to their largesse.
In 2015, seventy years after their original rights-based document, the UN took a giant step towards the global government that was only hinted at in their first organising document. They issued a document entitled "Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development." This document has 91 numbered sections of the UN's program for world government. The UDHR is only referenced once in the entire document in Article 19. Unlike the original "mother document" that was under 1900 words, this document is 14,883 words. The 91 items are addressing issues under the five headings of People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership. Additionally, the document provides 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to improve life on the planet.
What is meant by the term "sustainable?" The most often quoted definition comes from the UN World Commission on Environment and Development: "sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." The earlier ideas and ideals of rights, freedom, equality, and justice are subsumed under meeting of needs and an explicit environmentalism which emphasises preventing the depletion of scarce planetary resources. Of course, the takeoff is the Marxist axiom that society should be organised around the idea of "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs." Thus, Marxism is implicit in sustainability, but is nuanced by its alliance with seemingly scientific adjustments and goals related to environmentalism. A technical jargon is welded to Marxist intentionality to produce a sense of fittingness and modern progress.
The entire "Transforming Our World" document is cast in a stream of consciousness of pious platitudes for a utopian future. It is an outsize utopian dream. Five of the 17 items pertain to the environment. There are goals for the cities, for women, for the poor, and even for life under the water. Absolutely no sphere of human activity is exempt from control by the UN. The key word of course is no longer "rights" except the oblique reference in Article 19. In fact, this writer did not see the word rights even once in this document even though that word appeared in practically every sentence of the original UN document.
The one-worlders of the 1950s and early 1960s are now in the UN driver's seat, and they have made their move. The overlay of Marxist talk about "meeting needs" has moved to centre stage. The UN has assigned itself a time frame for moving forward in its plan for planetary hegemony.
This projected transformation detailing (yet without details) a new world order of environmental responsibility and a significant reduction of poverty and hunger never speaks to the practical dimension of vast manipulations of people by cynical leaders and ignorant bureaucrats who hold their positions through terrorism and bribery. They never discuss incompetence and corruption, twin brothers in the family of venality. The document portrays a sincere world where all those in power want to help humanity despite the daily evidence of the selfishness, corruption, murderous intents, devilish manipulations, thefts, personal immoralities, hatreds, and utter depravity of many governmental leaders in every country in the world, and among the leaders of business as well. Is not the Agenda for Sustainable Development itself one of those devilish manipulations?
The sustainability ideal is not wedded to a Christian worldview; instead, individual liberty is submerged in a scientifically determined collectivist mindset with final decisions in the hands of the devilish, all-knowing Big Brothers. The relevance of the individual is downplayed. It is being put forward by a UN that is no longer pro-western, a much larger body than existed in 1945. Will you accept it, or is it time, more than ever before, to begin rethinking our membership in that unsustainable body?
Donations.
Everyone who reads The CJCNs news blog knows we cover the news the media won't cover, in fact, they try to cover it up. However, we cannot do our ground-breaking reporting without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the Islamic and lunatic left's war on freedom of speech, democracy and constitutional rights. It is only our readers' contributions which make that possible. If you would like to become one of The CJCNs support partners and help to grow this vital ministry, please follow this link to PayPal and make your donation. Thank you and God bless you for your gift.
The Church of Jerusalem and the Christian Nation.
The CJCN.
The FBI Ignores Federal Records Laws, and President Trump Notices.
Due Process denied... By the Justice Department....
The Deep State still lumbers along, concealing its illicit activities and protecting its own. Nowhere is this more prevalent that in the Department of Justice and its FBI.
We have had to file lawsuits regarding the maintenance of text messages as federal records and for records of the audit of communications of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe because the FBI refuses to release them.President Trump noticed the FBI's behavior and tweeted:
Why isn't the FBI giving Andrew McCabe´s text messages to Judicial Watch or appropriate governmental authorities. FBI said they won't give up even one (I may have to get involved, DO NOT DESTROY). What are they hiding? McCabe´s wife took big campaign dollars from Hillary people.....
9:17 AM - 11 Aug 2018
After the FBI claimed that text messages are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we filed suit to ensure that text messages are being preserved. The new Administrative Procedure Act lawsuit against the FBI challenges the FBI failure to preserve FBI text messages as required by the Federal Records Act. (Judicial Watch v. FBI (No.1:18-cv-02316)).In our lawsuit we point to a related case in which Michael G. Seidel, the assistant section chief of the Record/Information Dissemination Section in the FBI's Information Management Division, stated: "text messages on [FBI]-issued devices are not automatically integrated into an FBI records system" (Danik v. U.S. Department of Justice(No. 1:17-cv-01792)).
The FBI has become a puppet of the left.... EXECUTE THEM Mr. PRESIDENT
We argued that the FBI "does not have a recordkeeping program in place that provides effective controls over the maintenance of electronic messages, including text messages." Moreover, "The FBI relies upon its personnel to incorporate their text messages into a recordkeeping system. If FBI personnel do not actively incorporate their text messages into a recordkeeping system, the text messages are not preserved."We asked the court to declare the FBI's failure to have a recordkeeping program for electronic messages to be "not in accordance with law" and that the court order the FBI "to establish and maintain a recordkeeping program that provides effective controls over the maintenance of electronic messages."If text messages are not preserved, then they may be deleted and never produced to Congress, criminal investigators, and to the American people under FOIA.We also filed suit against the Justice Department after the DOJ failed to respond to an August 27, 2018, FOIA request for the FBI's audit records of McCabe's communications (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-02283)).In 2015, a political action committee run by Terry McAuliffe, a close friend and political supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton, donated nearly $500,000 to Andrew McCabe's wife Jill, who was then running for the Virginia State Senate. Also, the Virginia Democratic Party, over which McAuliffe had significant influence, donated an additional $207,788 to the Jill McCabe campaign. In July 2015, Andrew McCabe was in charge of the FBI's Washington, DC, field office, which provided personnel resources to the Clinton email probe.In July 2017, we filed three FOIA lawsuits seeking communications between the FBI and McCabe concerning "ethical issues" involving his wife's political campaign; McCabe's communications with McAuliffe; and McCabe's travel vouchers.Following an Inspector General Report, a grand jury reportedly was impaneled recently to investigate McCabe's possible role in leaks to the media "to advance his personal interests."
The FBI has told us that it is under no legal obligation to produce any of Andrew McCabe's text messages under FOIA, which has attracted criticism from President Trump.Our lawsuit exposes a massive FBI cover-up of its text messages, which are government records and are, by the thousands, likely to have been deleted and lost by FBI employees. And, of course, this cover-up conveniently affects the production of text messages to us and to the Congress of disgraced FBI officials Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and James Comey.Let's hope President Trump takes additional notice and orders compliance. In the meantime, we will seek accountability in the courts.
Donations.
Everyone who reads The CJCNs news blog knows we cover the news the media won't cover, in fact, they try to cover it up. However, we cannot do our ground-breaking reporting without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the Islamic and lunatic left's war on freedom of speech, democracy and constitutional rights. It is only our readers' contributions which make that possible. If you would like to become one of The CJCNs support partners and help to grow this vital ministry, please follow this link to PayPal and make your donation. Thank you and God bless you for your gift.
The Church of Jerusalem and the Christian Nation.
The CJCN.
European Human Rights Court Backs Sharia Blasphemy Law.
The Abomination of the European Union.
The European Court of Human Rights - which has jurisdiction over 47 European countries, and whose rulings are legally binding on all 28 member states of the European Union - has effectively legitimised an Islamic blasphemy code in the interests of "preserving religious peace" in Europe.
The ruling effectively establishes a dangerous legal precedent, one that authorizes European states to curtail the right to free speech if such speech is deemed to be offensive to Muslims and thus pose a threat to religious peace.
"In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others." - Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that criticism of Mohammed, the founder of Islam, constitutes incitement to hatred and therefore is not protected free speech. Pictured: A courtroom of the ECHR in Strasbourg, France. (Image source: Adrian Grycuk/Wikimedia Commons)
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that criticism of Mohammed, the founder of Islam, constitutes incitement to hatred and therefore is not protected free speech.
With its unprecedented decision, the Strasbourg-based court - which has jurisdiction over 47 European countries, and whose rulings are legally binding on all 28 member states of the European Union - has effectively legitimized an Islamic blasphemy code in the interests of "preserving religious peace" in Europe.
The case involves Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian woman who in 2011 was convicted of "denigrating religious beliefs" after giving a series of lectures about the dangers of fundamentalist Islam.
Sabaditsch-Wolff's legal problems began in November 2009, when she presented a three-part seminar about Islam to the Freedom Education Institute, a political academy linked to the Austrian Freedom Party - which today forms part of the Austrian government. A left-leaning weekly magazine, News, planted a journalist in the audience to secretly record the lectures. Lawyers for the publication then handed the transcripts over to the Viennese public prosecutor's office as evidence of hate speech against Islam, according to Section 283 of the Austrian Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB).
The offending speech was an offhand comment by Sabaditsch-Wolff that Mohammed was a pedophile because he married his wife Aisha when she was just six or seven years old. Sabaditsch-Wolff's actual words were, "A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?"
Indeed, most hadiths (collections of traditions containing the words and actions of Mohammed) confirm that Aisha was prepubescent when Mohammed married her and was only nine years old when the marriage was consummated. Mohammed's actions would today be unlawful in Austria, so Sabaditsch-Wolff's comments were factually, if not politically, correct.
Formal charges against Sabaditsch-Wolff were filed in September 2010 and her bench trial, presided over by one judge and no jury, began that November. On February 15, 2011, Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion," according to Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code.
The judge rationalized that Mohammed's sexual contact with nine-year-old Aisha could not be considered pedophilia because Mohammed continued his marriage to Aisha until his death. According to this line of thinking, Mohammed had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to older females because Aisha was 18 years old when Mohammed died.
The judge ordered Sabaditsch-Wolff to pay a fine of €480 ($550) or an alternative sentence of 60 days in prison. Moreover, she was required to pay the costs of the trial.
Sabaditsch-Wolff appealed the conviction to the Provincial Appellate Court in Vienna (Oberlandesgericht Wien), but that appeal was rejected on December 20, 2011. A request for a new trial was dismissed by the Austrian Supreme Court on December 11, 2013.
Sabaditsch-Wolff then took her case to the European Court of Human Rights, a supranational court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the Convention.
Relying on Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) of the Convention, Sabaditsch-Wolff complained that Austrian courts failed to address the substance of her statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression. If they had done so, she argued, they would not have qualified them as mere value judgments but as value judgments based on facts. Furthermore, her criticism of Islam occurred in the framework of an objective and lively discussion which contributed to a public debate and had not been aimed at defaming Mohammed. Sabaditsch-Wolff also argued that religious groups had to tolerate even severe criticism.
The ECHR ruled that states could restrict the free speech rights enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention if such speech was "likely to incite religious intolerance" and was "likely to disturb the religious peace in their country." The court added:
"The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the applicant's statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with pedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the Court saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts' qualification of the impugned statements as value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made.
"The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant's right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.
"The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression.
"Lastly, since Mrs S. was ordered to pay a moderate fine and that fine was on the lower end of the statutory range of punishment, the criminal sanction could not to be considered as disproportionate.
"Under these circumstances, and given the fact that Mrs S. made several incriminating statements, the Court considered that the Austrian courts did not overstep their wide margin of appreciation in the instant case when convicting Mrs S. of disparaging religious doctrines. Overall, there had been no violation of Article 10."
The ruling effectively establishes a dangerous legal precedent, one that authorizes European states to curtail the right to free speech if such speech is deemed to be offensive to Muslims and thus pose a threat to religious peace.
The ECHR ruling will be welcomed by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim countries that has long pushed for the European Union to impose limits on free speech when it comes to criticism of Islam.
The OIC has pressed Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of ... religion and belief."
Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva on March 24, 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.
Former OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu hailed the ECHR's decision, which he said "shows that disrespect, insults and detestable enmities have nothing to do with the freedom of expression or human rights." He added:
"The fight against Islamophobia and our opinions we have been voicing for years have been adopted and declared by the ECHR. This ruling is pleasing in all its aspects."
In a statement, Sabaditsch-Wolff criticized the ruling but held out hope that European publics are waking up to the looming threats to free speech:
"On Thursday, 25 October the ECHR ruled that my conviction by an Austrian court for discussing the marriage between Prophet Mohammed and a six-year-old girl, Aisha, did not infringe my rights of freedom of speech.
"I was not extended the courtesy of being told of this ruling. Like many others, I had to read it in the media.
"The ECHR found there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that right to expression needed to be balanced with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.
"In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others.
"This should ring warning bells for my fellow citizens across the continent. We should all be extremely concerned that the rights of Muslims in Europe NOT to be offended are greater than my own rights, as a native European Christian woman, to speak freely.
"I am proud to be the woman who has raised this alarm.
"I am also optimistic. Since giving my seminars in Austria in 2009, we have come a very long way.
"Ten years ago, the press labeled me a 'confused doom-monger' and I was compared to Osama Bin Laden. Now, Islam is being discussed in every sphere of life and people are waking up to the reality of a culture so opposed to our own.
"The cultural and political threat posed by Islam to Western societies is now widely recognized and discussed. It is fair to say European society, as well as the political realm, is undergoing an enlightenment, as it is more awake than ever to the need to defend our own Judeo-Christian culture.
"I believe my seminars in 2009, and subsequent work have contributed to strong push back against an Islamic culture which is so at odds with our own. And note with interest that only one sentence out of 12 hours of seminars on Islam was a prosecutable offense. I assume the remaining content is now officially sanctioned by our Establishment masters.
"It is obvious to me that public education and discourse on the subject of Islam can have a fundamental and far-reaching impact, even if our state or supra-national authorities try to stifle or silence it, in order to appease a culture so foreign to our own.
"This fight continues. My voice will not and cannot be silenced."
Donations.
Everyone who reads The CJCNs news blog knows we cover the news the media won't cover, in fact, they try to cover it up. However, we cannot do our ground-breaking reporting without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the Islamic and lunatic left's war on freedom of speech, democracy and constitutional rights. It is only our readers' contributions which make that possible. If you would like to become one of The CJCNs support partners and help to grow this vital ministry, please follow this link to PayPal and make your donation. Thank you and God bless you for your gift.
The Church of Jerusalem and the Christian Nation.
The CJCN.
Watch: Angela Merkel complains "Trump is destroying the UN"
Only Angela Merkel could be that insensitive to her own calamitous policies.
Angela Merkel expresses outrage as Trump cracks down on the UN and cuts all US ties with UNESCO, UNHCR, UNRWA, UNHRC.
Please watch this video (embedded below) and Leave a comment down below: Do you support Trump's rhetoric against the UN? Yes or No
Since Trump took office, he has cut hundreds of millions of dollars in US aid to the United Nations and cut all ties with a large number of UN agencies including: UN agencies in Gaza (UNRWA), the UN's cultural agency.
(UNESCO), UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and quite recently with the UN refugee agency (UNHCR).
Britain, the US and Australia should stop funding the UN.
The U.N. General Assembly elected Qatar, Congo and Pakistan to its top human rights body, joining existing members such as Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and Venezuela.
Countries that practice Sharia laws have been chosen to be human rights watchdogs.
Even a country like Iran has been given a seat in the UN Human Rights Council.
Iran Where women are stoned to death, where gays are executed in a public square.
Christians are brutally persecuted in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Pastors are jailed for no reason, no reason other than for being Christian leaders. Christians have been lashed for sipping wine during prayer services; Christians have been brutally tortured for doing nothing more than practicing their faith.
Saudi Arabia is the head of the Human Rights Council, a country where there are no Christian citizens, even Christian migrant workers are persecuted by the authorities if they practice their religion.No religion is allowed to exist in Saudi Arabia except Islam, anyone who leaves Islam is executed.
Pakistan is the worst country for Christians to live in.
Under sharia blasphemy law Muslims murder Christians on false charges of insulting the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran.
These countries are kidnapping the UN bodies to push the anti-Israel and anti-Western agenda.
They use the United Nations to attack Israel which is the only democratic state in the Middle East where Christians are free and women are not considered citizens in rank.
In the last two years Benjamin Netanyahu cut 90% of Israeli aid to the UN after U.N.'s Cultural Agency passed a resolution denying the Jewish and Christian connection to Jerusalem.
Western countries should follow Israel - Cut all funding & Announce Withdrawal From U.N.
Donations.
If you are blessed and informed by this Ministry, Please consider a generous gift of any amount to help us remain strong and on the leading edge of helping many be equipped, informed and edified. If you would like to become one of The CJCNs support partners and help to grow this vital ministry, please follow this link to PayPal and make your donation. Thank you and God bless you for your gift.
The CJCN.
A Finger on the Pulse of International Politics.
I am Yisrael Chai.
The IDF struck some 80 terrorist targets in Gaza overnight in response to 30 rockets fired at Israel, a military spokesman said early Saturday morning.
On Saturday, the IDF said fighter jets, attack helicopters and UAVs had hit targets including two advanced weapons manufacturing facilities in al-Attara and the Netzarim area; five military compounds in Khan Younes, Dir al-Balah, Tel Za'atar and Jabliyah; a training compound in Rafah, a terror tunnel in Khan Younes and an anti-aircraft observation post in Beit Lahiya.
The rocket attacks began at around 10 p.m Friday, with barrages launched against the town of Sderot and the Sha'ar Ha'Negev Regional Council. No injuries were reported, although several people were treated for shock
Hamas and Islamic Jihad issued a statement saying fire would be met with fire and blood with blood. The rocket fire came after a day in which five Palestinians were killed during the weekly violent demonstrations along the Gaza border.
IDF attack helicopters and drones struck three Hamas targets after fire bombs and grenades were thrown at Israeli forces along the border.
In its statement Saturday morning, the IDF said the rocket fire from Gaza was being carried out "in a climate that enabled terror that is being led by the terrorist organization Hamas."
The statement added that the IDF views Hamas as "responsible for all events in Gaza and emanating from Gaza" and that Hamas "will pay the price for all acts of terror against Israeli citizens.
Albert Reingewirtz • said just one day ago.........
Both Hamas and civilians from Gaza target Israel and it's civilians. It is time Israel did the same but in a more humane fashion by simply closing everything going into Gaza. Leaving the choice to Gaza: return all Israelis to their homes and stop the terror at the fence. The choice will always be Gaza's choice. You want to be in the dark in the cold of winter then continue with you terror, no heat, fuel, nothing in to Gaza. You make the choice.
Donations.
If you are blessed and informed by this Ministry, Please consider a generous gift of any amount to help us remain strong and on the leading edge of helping many be equipped, informed and edified. If you would like to become one of The CJCNs support partners and help to grow this vital ministry, please follow this link to PayPal and make your donation. Thank you and God bless you for your gift.
The CJCN.
The CJCN.
A Finger on the Pulse of International Politics.
Big Tech Snuffing Free Speech; Google's Poisonous 'Dragonfly'.
If the big social media companies choose what to publish and what not to publish, they should be subject to the same licensing and requirements as media organizations.
Google has decided it will not renew a contract with the Pentagon for artificial intelligence work because Google employees were upset that the technology might be used for lethal military purposes. Yet Google is planning to launch a censored search engine in China that will empower a totalitarian "Big Brother is watching you" horror state.
Freedom Watch filed a $1 billion class-action lawsuit against Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter, claiming that they suppress conservative speech online.
A Media Research Center report found that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube stifle conservative speech and that in some instances staffers have admitted that doing so was intentional.
Chinese officials prevented a journalist, Liu Hu, from taking a flight because he had a low "social credit" score. According to China's Global Times, as of the end of April 2018, authorities had blocked individuals from taking 11.14 million flights and 4.25 million high-speed rail trips.
The internet, especially social media, has become one of the primary places for people to exchange viewpoints and ideas. Social media is where a considerable part of the current national conversation takes place.
Arguably, big tech companies, such as Google, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, therefore carry a responsibility to ensure that their platforms are equally accessible to all voices in that national conversation. As private commercial entities, the social media giants are not prima facie legally bound by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and are free to set their own standards and conditions for the use of their platforms. Ideally, those standards should be applied equally to all users, regardless of political or other persuasion. If, however, these companies choose what to publish and what not to publish, they should be subject to the same licensing and requirements as media organizations.
The current media giants' favoring one kind of political speech over another -- progressive over conservative -- and even shutting down political speech that does not conform to the views of the directors, certainly skews the national political conversation in a lopsided way that conflicts with basic principles of democratic freedom of speech and what presumably should be the obligations of virtual monopolies.
The question of whether such discrimination against conservative viewpoints constitutes a breach of law is currently the subject of a number of lawsuits. In October 2017, PragerU, a conservative educational website, filed a lawsuit against YouTube and its parent company, Google, for "intentional" censorship of conservative speakers, saying that they were "engaging in an arbitrary and capricious use of their 'restricted mode' and 'demonetization' to restrict non-left political thought."
PragerU claimed that "Google and YouTube's use of restricted mode filtering to silence PragerU violates its fundamental First Amendment rights under both the California and United States Constitutions," YouTube, for instance, restricted a video by a pro-Israel Muslim activist, discussing how best to resist hatred and anti-Semitism, as "hate speech". The US District Court Judge in the case, Lucy Koh, however, dismissed PragerU's claims because Google, as a private company, is not subject to the First Amendment. "Defendants are private entities who created their own video-sharing social media website and make decisions about whether and how to regulate content that has been uploaded on that website," Koh wrote. PragerU has appealed the decision.
In August, Freedom Watch filed a $1 billion class-action lawsuit against Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter, claiming that they act in concert to suppress conservative speech online. Freedom Watch claims, among other things, that the four media giants have violated the First Amendment to the Constitution and that they have engaged "in a conspiracy to intentionally and willfully suppress politically conservative content."
PragerU and Freedom Watch are not the only conservatives to have experienced suppression of their voices on social media. In April, the conservative Media Research Center released a report detailing the suppression of conservative opinions on social media platforms.
The 50-page report, "Censored! How Online Media Companies Are Suppressing Conservative Speech," which looked at how conservative political speech fared on Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, found that the tech companies stifle conservative speech and that in some instances, staffers have admitted that doing so was intentional. The report found that Google showed a "tendency toward left-wing bias in its search results", and that Twitter (by admission of its own employees) had "shadow-banned" some conservative users. ("Shadow banning" means that their content did not appear to other users, but the account owners themselves had not been notified of this "banning" of their content).
The apparent leftist bias, however, not only shows itself in the suppression of conservative speech on social media giants' websites. Censorship and selective presentation of speech has also led to unfortunate policy decisions by some of the big tech companies. Google, for example, has decided it will not renew a contract with the Pentagon for artificial intelligence work when it expires next year, because Google employees were upset that the technology they were working on might be used for lethal military purposes.
Yet, according to leaked documents, Google is planning to launch a censoredversion of its search engine in China, code-named "Dragonfly," which will aid and abet a totalitarian "Big Brother is watching you" horror state. China, according to the Economist, is planning to become "the world's first digital totalitarian state." The Chinese government is in the process of introducing a "social credit" system by which to score its citizens, based on their behavior. Behavior sanctioned by the government increases the score; behavior of which the government disapproves decreases the score. Jaywalking, for example, would decrease the score. China is reportedly installing 626 million surveillance cameras throughout the country for the purpose of feeding the social credit system with information.
According to Gordon G. Chang, Chinese officials are using the social credit system for determining everything from being able to take a plane or a train, to buying property or sending your children to a private school. Officials prevented a journalist, Liu Hu, from taking a flight because he had a low score. According to China's state-owned Global Times, as of the end of April 2018, authorities had blocked individuals from taking 11.14 million flights and 4.25 million high-speed rail trips. "If we don't increase the cost of being discredited, we are encouraging discredited people to keep at it," said the former deputy director of the development research center of the State Council, Hou Yunchun. He added that an improved social credit system was needed so that "discredited people become bankrupt".
According to a legal expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, Zhi Zhenfeng:
"How the person is restricted in terms of public services or business opportunities should be in accordance with how and to what extent he or she lost his credibility.... Discredited people deserve legal consequences. This is definitely a step in the right direction to building a society with credibility."
The goal, straightforwardly, is to control citizen behavior by aggregating data from various sources such as cameras, identification checks, and "Wi-Fi sniffers" so that Chinese citizens will end up being controlled completely. As Chinese officials have reportedly put it, the purpose of the score card system is to "allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step."
It is, in other words, an excellent deliberate tool to suppress the human rights of the Chinese people.
Although Google has refused to comment on the concerns about Dragonfly, the leaked documents indicate that this censored version of Google's search engine will help the Chinese government do just that by blacklisting websites and search terms about human rights, democracy, religion, and peaceful protest. It will also, reportedly, link users' searches to their personal phone numbers, thereby making it possible for the Chinese government to detain or arrest people who search for information that the Chinese government wishes to censor.
"Linking searches to a phone number would make it much harder for people to avoid the kind of overreaching government surveillance that is pervasive in China," said Cynthia Wong, senior internet researcher with Human Rights Watch. Fourteen organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, Access Now, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, PEN International, and Human Rights in China, have demanded that Google stop its plans for a censored search engine. They say that such cooperation would represent "an alarming capitulation by Google on human rights" and could result in the company "directly contributing to, or [becoming] complicit in, human rights violations."
In a recent speech, US Vice President Mike Pence also asked Google to end Dragonfly: it "will strengthen Communist Party censorship and compromise the privacy of Chinese customers," he said.
So, while Google claims it has moral qualms about cooperating with the US government, the company evidently has no moral issues when it comes to cooperating with Communist China in censoring and spying on its billion citizens with a view to rewarding or punishing them via opportunities in real life. Google employees, according to the Intercept, have circulated a letter stating that the censored search engine raises "urgent moral and ethical issues," and saying that Google executives need to "disclose more about the company's work in China, which they say is shrouded in too much secrecy, according to three sources with knowledge of the matter".
Google is apparently all too eager to work with China on micromanaging its citizens, and there is plenty to work on, according to a recent Amnesty International report :
"China has intensified its campaign of mass internment, intrusive surveillance, political indoctrination and forced cultural assimilation against the region's Uighurs, Kazakhs and other predominantly Muslim ethnic groups."
Up to 1 million people have been detained in "China's mass re-education drive," many of them tortured, according to the report.
Eight years ago, Google co-founder Sergey Brin -- who was born in the highly repressive Soviet Union -- at least had the decency to hesitate on (if not turn down) doing business in China if it involved censorship. "[W]e have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results," Google had announced two days before "company spokesman Scott Rubin started singing a different tune."
Perhaps totalitarian Communist repression is of no consequence to Google, so long as it gets still more market share?
Everyone who reads The CJCNs news blog knows we cover the news the media won't cover, in fact, they try to cover it up. However, we cannot do our ground-breaking reporting without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the Islamic and lunatic left's war on freedom of speech, democracy and constitutional rights. It is only our readers' contributions which make that possible. If you would like to become one of The CJCNs support partners and help to grow this vital ministry, please follow this link to PayPal and make your donation. Thank you and God bless you for your gift.
CJCN.
CJCN.
A Finger on the Pulse of International Politics.
Christians Sentenced to Death Under Sharia Law
In response to the latest abuses against Christians, Amnesty International has initiated an "urgent action" appeal. It has called on the Iranian regime to "quash the convictions and sentences of Victor Bet-Tamraz, Shamiram Isavi, Amin Afshar-Naderi, and Hadi Asgari, as they have been targeted solely for the peaceful exercise of their rights to freedoms of religion and belief, expression, and association, through their Christian faith." However there are far more stories of Christian persecution throughout Iran, than just these four.
What is important to note is that in countries, run by sharia law, the constitution becomes inferior to the Islamist laws of the land. When radical Islam gains power, every article in the constitution becomes contingent on compliance with sharia. The rights that are promised in the constitution therefore become null and void.
It is not enough to hope that one day Christians will be able to practice their faith in Iran without fear of persecution or death; action must be taken by the global community to ensure that the Iranian regime stands by its own constitution and provides its Christian citizens with equal rights and protections.
Frequently, Shiite Islamic preachers and leaders can be heard stating that Islam recognized "People of the Book," which refers to Christians and Jews. This assertion sounds as if Islam gives Christian and Jews the same level of status and respect as their Muslim counterparts.
That argument was recently confirmed when the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, claimed that "Christians have the same rights as others do." With that confirmation, it might be easy to assume that Christians are relatively safe in Iran. But are they?
In speeches, and on paper, these words probably give the impression that Christians are not only welcome in Iran, but given equal rights and protections. However, the everyday experiences of Christians in Iran, tell a very different story.
Violence and persecution against Christians have, under the sharia law of Iran, increased significantly. One recent case documents the traumatic experiences of Pastor Victor Bet-Tamraz and his wife Shamiram Issavi, ethnic Assyrian Christians, along with Amin Afshar Naderi and Hadi Asgari, who converted to Christianity from Islam. Each were sentenced by the Revolutionary Court in Tehran to a combined total of 45 years in prison. Despite Iran's claims that they have equal rights and protections, they may never see freedom again.
What terrible crime must they have committed to warrant such a harsh punishment? Surely it had to be more than simply being Christians? After all, the President of Iran had made it clear that Christians enjoy equal rights. The ambiguous charges they faced included vague terms such as conducting "illegal church activities" and threatening "national security."
Why would there be animosity toward Christians in Iran that might drive the kind of persecution these four faced? Even though Christians make up a very small part of the population, they have always been viewed, under Iran's sharia law, as a threat to "national security". Iran's total population is roughly 80 million, with anywhere between 117,000 and 3 million of that total being Christians, according to various estimates.
The international community has recently taken note of the abuse of power wielded against Christians in Iran. The latest report, from Amnesty International, pointed out that, "Christians in Iran have been a target of harassment, arbitrary arrest and detention, unfair trials, and imprisonment on national security-related charges solely because of their faith." Yet, atrocities against them continue.
It is worth noting that, before the Islamic revolution, in order to gain support and power, fundamentalist Muslim leaders promised the Christians in Iran that they would have the same rights as Muslim citizens. They also assured Christians that they would be able freely to practice their faith. As a result, many Christians, trusting that they would enjoy the freedom that was promised to them, supported the Muslim leaders. Instead, after the Islamic revolution, anyone who did not believe in the Islamist and revolutionary ideals of the sharia theocracy became the enemy. Even recently, the Iranian president stated:
"Our revolution was victorious when we were all together... All Iranian races, all Iranian religions, Shiites and Sunnis, Muslims, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians -- whoever believes in the constitution, that is our criteria. He is a revolutionary and he must be respected."
Unfortunately for the Christians of Iran, they are not being respected at all.
In response to the latest abuses against Christians, Amnesty International has initiated an "urgent action" appeal. It has called on the Iranian regime to "quash the convictions and sentences of Victor Bet-Tamraz, Shamiram Isavi, Amin Afshar-Naderi, and Hadi Asgari, as they have been targeted solely for the peaceful exercise of their rights to freedoms of religion and belief, expression, and association, through their Christian faith." However, there are far more stories of Christian persecution throughout Iran, than just these four.
Many other Christians are being jailed for baseless charges such as "Propagating against the Islamic Republic in favor of Christianity." The organization "Article 18," which promotes religious freedom and supports persecuted Christians living under sharia law, wrote on Twitter on August 9, 2018:
A #Christian couple have reported that a court in Boushehr has just sentenced them & 10 other #Iranian Christians to one year in prison each for "Propagating against the Islamic Republic in favour of Christianity". This group of Christian converts were arrested on April 7th, 2015
There does not yet exist any information about their release.
The oppression does not end here. Another Christian couple who converted from Islam, was also recently charged with "orientation toward the land of Christianity," according to Mohabat News. Even though the Christians have been told they have the right to practice their religion, they are being arrested and tormented for it.
Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani was sentenced to death in 2010 for "apostasy," because he converted from Islam to Christianity. After significant pressure from legal and human rights groups, in a retrial, a court acquitted him of the charge of apostasy that carried the death sentence. The retrial ended with a guilty verdict on the charge of "evangelizing Muslims," but he was sentenced to the prison time he had already served, and released.
In 2016, Nadarkhani was "charged with 'acting against national security.' He also was accused of Zionism and evangelizing." On July 6, 2017, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison and an additional two years in exile in Nikshahr (southern Iran). He was allowed to appeal and was out on bail when, on July 22, 2018, police raided Nadarkhani's home and took him to Evin Prison. He will have 10 years of his life stolen from him, just because he practiced his faith.
The American Center for Law & Justice in Washington, D.C., has launched a petition for Nadarkhani's release. As of October 2nd, more than 112,000 people has signed the petition. The ACLJ pointed out that "Iran's actions violate its own constitution that guarantees religious freedom, and multiple international human rights treaties." However, he remains in prison.
This may seem confusing and contradictory to some; what is important to note is that in countries run by sharia law, the constitution becomes inferior to the Islamist laws of the land.
When radical Islam gains power, every article in the constitution becomes contingent on compliance with sharia. The rights that are promised in the constitution therefore become null and void. The Christians in Iran who believed that by supporting the Islamic revolution they would be gaining protections and equal rights are now instead living in constant fear. Only increased pressure from the international community may create a change within Iran that might afford these innocent people some protections against the brutal acts that they face.
It is not enough to hope that one day Christians will be able to practice their faith in Iran without fear of persecution or death; action must be taken by the global community to ensure that the Iranian regime stands by its own constitution and provides its Christian citizens with equal rights and protections.
Everyone who reads The CJCNs news blog knows we cover the news the media won't cover, in fact, they try to cover it up. However, we cannot do our ground-breaking reporting without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the Islamic and lunatic left's war on freedom of speech, democracy and constitutional rights. It is only our readers' contributions which make that possible. If you would like to become one of The CJCNs support partners and help to grow this vital ministry, please follow this link to PayPal and make your donation. Thank you and God bless you for your gift.
CJCN.
A Finger on the Pulse of International Politics.
Virginia School Bans All Songs Mentioning 'Jesus' at Annual Christmas Concert.
A middle school in Virginia has banned songs mentioning "Jesus" from its annual Christmas concert as part of an effort to be "more sensitive" toward the increasingly "diverse population" of its student body.
"We had a few students who weren't comfortable singing a piece I have done many times in the past, but it is of a sacred nature and does mention Jesus," the choir teacher at Robious Middle School in Chesterfield said in an email to a parent who was concerned about the changes to the winter concert program, NBC News affiliate WWBT has reported.
Parent David Allen said the public school's efforts to encourage diversity while at the same time being exclusionary doesn't seem rational.
"It just seems like ... everywhere you look everyone's afraid of stepping on someone's toes or everything is being so sensitive," Allen told NBC News affiliate WWBT. "They were unable to [sing this song] because the word Jesus was in there and apparently someone assumed it was of a sacred nature."
News of the censorship of Jesus songs at Robious Middle School has garnered attention at multiple conservative websites.
Public schools in the United States have often seen their share of controversy over the extent to which they can reference Christmas in general and the Gospel story of Jesus' birth in particular.
For example, in December 2016, a judge in Texas ordered a school district to restore "A Charlie Brown Christmas" display after it had been taken down by administrators because it featured a Bible verse.
Bell County State District Judge Jack Jones had issued a temporary injunction against the Killeen Independent School District from enforcing its decision to prohibit the Christmas decoration.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office backed the display, released a statement at the time expressing support for the injunction.
"I am glad to see that the court broke through the Left's rhetorical fog and recognized that a commitment to diversity means protecting everyone's individual religious expression," Paxton said at the time.
Everyone who reads The CJCNs news blog knows we cover the news the media won't cover, in fact, they try to cover it up. However, we cannot do our ground-breaking reporting without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the Islamic and lunatic left's war on freedom of speech, democracy and constitutional rights. It is only our readers' contributions which make that possible. If you would like to become one of The CJCNs support partners and help to grow this vital ministry, please follow this link to PayPal and make your donation. Thank you and God bless you for your gift.
CJCN.
A Finger on the Pulse of International Politics.
Greece: Majority Rejects Institutions of the Far-Left.
After being subjected to decades of anti-Semitic brainwashing -- fostered chiefly by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) and its tentacles -- Greeks have begun to view Israel as a role-model state.
During World War II, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini was a very close ally of Adolf Hitler's. In other words, the Arabs of Palestine have the blood on their hands of half a million Greeks who perished during the German occupation. Marwan Toubassi, the Palestinian ambassador to Greece, is thus among the last people on earth who should be lecturing the Greek people about morality, values and historical ties.
Who benefits from the KKE's war against the Greek-Israeli friendship and from a defamation of the EastMed pipeline? The answer is Turkey, of course, but also Qatar, Russia and Iran.
Israel, Greece and Cyprus are cooperating closely on the EastMed pipeline, a joint project that would supply east Mediterranean gas to Europe. Pictured: Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu (left), Cyprus President Nicos Anastasiades (center) and Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras (right) meet on January 28, 2016 in Nicosia, Cyprus. (Image source: Cyprus Ministry of the Interior/Wikimedia Commons)
Greece is a deeply divided country. It has two camps. One is the "institutional camp," which is presented to the global community and the international press. The other is what can be called the "people's camp," which considers the existing political regime a "Corpus Separatum" -- a separate entity.
The institutional camp consists of the corrupt political system, the oligarchs, the academic community and the media -- all soldiers in an army of globalization and multiculturalism. It is a system that feeds on the Greek populace, and, for its political and economic survival, depends on a strategic alliance with the Islamic countries of the Persian Gulf.
The people's camp, which the international community and media ignore, has a totally different view of -- and strategic approach to -- Greece's geopolitical present and future. This is evident in the latest World Values Survey (WVS), in which Greece participated for the first time. The survey, conducted on a sample of 1,200 Greek households in September-October 2017, reveals that only 7% trust their country's political parties; only 13% trust the government; only 14% trust the parliament; and only 18% trust the trade unions.
One key area that highlights the dichotomy between Greece's institutional camp and its people's camp is the country's attitude towards Israel. After being subjected to decades of anti-Semitic brainwashing -- fostered chiefly by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) and its tentacles -- Greeks have begun to view Israel as a role-model state. A recent controversy surrounding a conference held in Sparta on September 2-3 is a perfect example.
The conference -- "Sparta-Israel: Renewing an Ancient Friendship" -- was organized by the Municipality of Sparta, B'nai B'rith Greece and the Greek-Israeli Cooperation Institute. Distinguished participants from Greece and abroad, including the chief of staff of the Greek Army, presented archeological findings supporting the friendship between ancient Sparta and the Jewish people, and discussed contemporary issues, such as geopolitics in the Eastern Mediterranean and cooperation towards development and growth between the two nations.
On September 1, a day before the conference, the socialist-anarchist Greek group Gassan Kanafani (Front of Resistance and Solidarity for Palestine) released a long and angry statement of "complaint" about the event. It reads, in part:
"...[W]e call the Spartans and, by extension, all the Greek people, everybody who opposes the imperialist and colonial crimes against the Palestinian people, every progressive citizen who believes that solidarity is the weapon of the peoples in the struggle for a world of social justice and respect for human rights, to turn their backs on this event and to stand in the way of all the policies implemented by the Greek government. At the same time, to strengthen in any way the boycott-Israel movement and all the companies that support it."
The statement also includes a passage about the EastMed pipeline, a joint project under consideration by Cyprus, Israel and Greece that would supply east Mediterranean gas to Europe. Gassan Kanafani claims it "belongs to the Palestinian people," and describes the project as follows:
"Israel, with the pipeline under construction and the help of Greece, Cyprus, Italy and EU funding, wants to export stolen Palestinian resources to the European market, but also to exploit the resources that have been identified in Cyprus and Greece and are property of the Greek and Cypriot people respectively."
Three weeks later, the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), celebrating the 100-year anniversary of its establishment, hosted the Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimiand her family, introducing her to the Greek people as a hero fighting injustice and Israeli occupation. In fact, Tamimi -- who served an 8-month prison sentence for physically assaulting an IDF soldier -- has openly called for suicide bombings and stabbing attacks against Israelis. Recently, she saluted Hassan Nasrallah, the head of the Lebanon-based, Iran-backed terrorist organization Hezbollah, for calling her "brave and courageous." In remarks broadcast on August 22 on Lebanese Al-Jadeed/New TV channel, Tamimi said:
"To the honorable sheikh, Hassan Nasrallah, I say: Thank you very much... His words boosted our morale -- not just my morale, but the morale of many people... I'd like to salute him, to thank him for his support, and to tell him that he always makes us grow stronger. We all support him and are proud of him."
Another of Tamimi's greatest supporters is Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
During her trip to Greece, Tamimi held a joint press conference with the Palestinian Ambassador to Greece, Marwan Toubassi, at the GCP Youth Center. The "questions" from reporters were so slanted against Israel that they might as well have been scripted by the Palestinian Authority propaganda machine. For example (at minute 3:26):
"You have to fight against a very powerful enemy, the Israeli murder state, which murders the Palestinian people daily. How do you imagine that it is possible for your struggle to win, to achieve what you want, and how important is international solidarity for this purpose?"
Tamimi's and Toubassi's replies were filled with lies, hatred, threats and historical inaccuracies. For instance, Toubassi said, among other things (minute 21:41): "If an independent Palestinian state is not established at the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as capital, there will be neither security nor stability, and the region will go to hell." Toubassi failed to mention that the Palestinian leadership refers to the entire state of Israel as "occupied territory," going as far as to threaten Britain with a lawsuit over the 100-year-old Balfour Declaration.
Toubassi was particularly vitriolic about Greek-Israeli cooperation, stating (minute 17:28):
"...I am impressed when I hear from some people here [in Greece] saying that we have common values with the State of Israel. Which values are they talking about -- the values of occupation, apartheid and racism? The Greek people have nothing to do with these ugly values. The Greek people have suffered from the occupation and fought against the occupation and defeated the occupation of Nazism and dictatorship. That is why Greece has nothing in common with the values of a country that is an occupier."
The Palestinian ambassador also omitted the fact that the Greeks and the Jews have more than 2,500 years of cultural, religious and historical ties and failed to mention that during World War II, the Jewish community in Greece fought alongside the rest of the Greek people in defending the country against the Nazi invasion.
In contrast, during WWII, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini -- the Muslim cleric in charge of Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem -- was a very close ally of Adolf Hitler's. In other words, the Arabs of Palestine have the blood on their hands of half a million Greeks who perished during the German occupation and of the over 60,000 Greek Jews who were murdered in German concentration camps. Toubassi is, thus, among the last people on earth who should be lecturing the Greek people about morality, values and historical ties.
The KKE's political activism and alliance with the Palestinian Authority raises a very serious geopolitical question: Who benefits from the KKE's war against the Greek-Israeli friendship and from a defamation of the EastMed pipeline? The answer is Turkey, of course, but also Qatar, Russia and Iran. The KKE's behavior illustrates one way in which the far-left and radical Islamists are bedfellows.
It is crucial for people outside Greece to understand that the Communist Party of Greece is not a fringe party; it is the backbone of the political system. The good news -- as the World Values Survey indicated -- is that more and more Greeks are losing their faith in that system, and are striving to become a society that is more like Israel.
Everyone who reads The CJCNs news blog knows we cover the news the media won't cover, in fact, they try to cover it up. However, we cannot do our ground-breaking reporting without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the Islamic and lunatic left's war on freedom of speech, democracy and constitutional rights. It is only our readers' contributions which make that possible. If you would like to become one of The CJCNs support partners and help to grow this vital ministry, please follow this link to PayPal and make your donation. Thank you and God bless you for your gift.
CJCN.
A Finger on the Pulse of International Politics.
How Palestinians Lie to Europeans.
In the eyes of Hamas and its supporters, it is fine for Palestinians to throw explosive devices and firebombs at soldiers, but it is completely unacceptable for the soldiers to defend themselves. According to the twisted logic of the Palestinian leaders, it all started when Israel fired back.
Those who sent the Palestinians to clash with the Israeli soldiers along the border with the Gaza Strip are the only ones who bear responsibility for killing more than 150 Palestinians and injuring thousands of others.
The goal the Palestinians have in mind is to see Israel gone. All of it. Mahmoud Abbas believes he can achieve this goal by waging a diplomatic war against Israel in the international community -- one aimed at delegitimizing and demonizing Israel and Jews.
The question, again, remains whether the international community will ever wake up to realize that Palestinian leaders are playing them for fools. The European Parliament delegation that visited Ramallah is a good test case: What message will its members convey back at home: the truth about the ruthless and repressive Palestinian Authority, or the lies that were spoon-fed to them by Abbas and his friends?
In the days before Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas delivered his speech at the UN General Assembly on September 27, his security forces were waging a massive crackdown on his critics and opponents in the West Bank, arresting more than 100 Palestinians. (UN Photo/Cia Pak)
The Palestinian Authority (PA) says it wants the international community to exert pressure on Israel to "halt violations against the Palestinians and international law." The demand was relayed to members of a delegation from the European Parliament who met on October 8 in Ramallah with PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah. At the meeting, Hamdallah also renewed the PA's call for providing "international protection" for the Palestinians.
Hamdallah's appeal to the European Parliament representatives should be seen in the context of the PA leadership's ongoing campaign of lies and incitement against Israel. The appeal also smacks of hypocrisy and deceit.
Hamdallah is apparently referring to Israel's defensive measures along the border between the Gaza Strip, where thousands of Hamas supporters have been staging violent demonstrations since March 2018. As part of the Hamas-orchestrated protests, which are sometimes called the "March of Return," Palestinians have been infiltrating the border with Israel and hurling firebombs and explosive devices at Israeli soldiers. They have also been launching arson kites and booby-trapped balloons towards Israeli communities near the border with the Gaza Strip.
Hamdallah and his boss, PA President Mahmoud Abbas, believe that Israel has no right to defend itself against the campaign of terrorism waged by Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups in the Gaza Strip. In their eyes, it is fine for Palestinians to throw explosive devices and firebombs at soldiers, but it is completely unacceptable for the soldiers to defend themselves. According to the twisted logic of the Palestinian leaders, it all started when Israel fired back.
Those who sent the Palestinians to clash with the Israeli soldiers along the border with the Gaza Strip are the only ones who bear responsibility for killing more than 150 Palestinians and injuring thousands of others. The Hamas-engineered "March of Return" is nothing but a declaration of war on Israel. It is another phase in the Palestinian campaign of terrorism to force Israel to its knees. When suicide bombings and rockets do not achieve their goal of forcing Israel to submit, the Palestinians resort to incendiary kites and balloons, and to stabbings and shootings to achieve their goal.
The goal the Palestinians have in mind is to see Israel gone. All of it. Abbas believes he can achieve this goal by waging a diplomatic war against Israel in the international community -- one that is aimed at delegitimizing and demonizing Israel and Jews. His rivals in Hamas believe that Israel could and should be destroyed through terrorism and other acts of violence.
The PA prime minister's strategy of crying foul against Israel is part of a long-standing Palestinian tradition of rallying the world against Israel.
In fact, it is in keeping with the famous Arab saying: "He hit me and cried, he raced me to complain." This saying reflects the state of mind of the Palestinian leaders, according to which the perpetrator pretends to be the victim.
However, this is more than just pretending to be the victim. The approach of the Palestinian leaders is not only fraudulent, but also extraordinarily hypocritical.
While Hamdallah was complaining about Israeli "violations," his security forces in the West Bank were continuing their daily assaults on public freedoms, including freedom of the media. Just as the meeting was taking place in Ramallah, a Palestinian group published a report about large-scale human rights violations committed by Hamdallah's and Abbas's various security forces.
As the meeting was underway, Palestinian Authority security forces arrested yet another Palestinian journalist in the city of Hebron: Amer Abu Arafeh. The journalist, who was released 24 hours later, said his Palestinian interrogators tried to force him to give them the password to his Facebook page.
The European Parliament delegation were not made privy to a report about this latest assault on the Palestinian media during their meeting with the PA prime minister. This is not something that concerns them or the EU because the journalist was not targeted by Israel. Why should they open their mouths about arrest of a Palestinian journalist if Israel is not involved?
Nor did the European Parliament delegation hear about the report published by a group called The Committee of Families of Political Prisoners in the West Bank. The committee consists of families and relatives of Palestinians who are regularly and systematically targeted by the PA security forces, largely because of their affiliation with Palestinian opposition groups, including Hamas, or for openly criticizing Palestinian leaders.
The report, which was made public while the EU officials were taking in Hamdallah's accusations against Israel, charges the PA with intensifying its assaults on public freedoms in the West Bank. This is not the kind of account that Hamdallah would be interested in sharing with his European guests.
In its report, the committee says it has documented 685 assaults by the Palestinian Authority security forces in the West Bank on public freedoms just during the month of September. The assaults include, among other things, massive arbitrary arrests and detentions, summons' for interrogation, raids on homes and confiscation of property. The report pointed out that this marked a dramatic increase in human rights violations compared with previous months.
According to the report, the PA security forces arrested more than 100 Palestinians in the days before Abbas delivered his speech at the UN General Assembly on September 27. Abbas devoted large parts of his speech to condemning Israel, which he accused of "suffocating" the Palestinians and "undermining our serious efforts to build the institutions of our cherished state."
Abbas, however, refrained from mentioning to the UN General Assembly that while he was speaking, his security forces were waging a massive crackdown on his critics and opponents in the West Bank. As far as Abbas is concerned, this is not something that the world should know about. The evil he and others see is only on the Israeli side.
Back to the report, which neither Abbas nor his prime minister cares to share with the world. According to this report, among those arrested or detained during September are 37 university students, eight school teachers, seven journalists, 55 university faculty members and lecturers, five engineers and 23 merchants. The report also revealed that four Palestinian detainees have gone on hunger strikes in Palestinian prison to protest their illegal incarceration.
So, we are again witnessing an act of fraud and deception on the part of Abbas and his senior officials in Ramallah. Palestinian leaders have convinced themselves that they can continue to spread their lies to the world while hiding the truth about what is happening within their repressive and corrupt regime in the West Bank. They believe that, because of the world's silence, they can continue to lie to everyone all the time.
The question, again, remains whether the international community will ever wake up to realize that Palestinian leaders are playing them for fools. The European Parliament delegation that visited Ramallah is a good test case: What message will its members convey back at home: the truth about the ruthless and repressive PA, or the lies that were spoon-fed to them by Abbas and his friends?
If you would like to become one of The CJCNs support partners and help to grow this vital ministry, please follow this link to PayPal and make your donation. Thank you and God bless you for your gift.
CJCN.
A Finger on the Pulse of International Politics.
GERMAN FATHER CHARGED FOR PROTECTING HIS DAUGHTER AGAINST SEXUAL ASSAULT BY MIGRANT.
A man protecting his 21-year-old daughter against a bottom groping African will be charged with causing bodily harm.
At the Munich Hackerbrücke train station, a drunk 28-year-old migrant from Eritrea grabbed a German woman under her skirt on Tuesday.
When her father saw the sexual assault, he punched the African man in the face to make him stop.
An employee of the German railway company Deutsche Bahn, witnessed the incident and alerted federal police.
The German police decided to file two charges: One against the migrant for sexual assault and one against the father for causing bodily harm.
Many Germans were shocked by the case against the father, believing the man acted in defence of his daughter. Comments below a Facebook post regarding the charges show that many do not understand why the father is being punished for protecting his daughter.
"It is up to the judiciary to assess the case. There is a suspicion that there were two crimes, one sexual harassment and the other a physical injury. The police are required by law to bring both," spokeswoman Petra Wiedmann of the Munich police says.
She advises people to use 'other options' when a crime occurs at the station. People should address the security forces on the ground in a preventative way if something suspicious occurs, she adds.
Donations
Everyone who reads The CJCNs news blog knows we cover the news the media won't cover, in fact, they try to cover it up. However, we cannot do our ground-breaking reporting without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the Islamic and lunatic left's war on freedom of speech, democracy and constitutional rights. It is only our readers' contributions which make that possible.
If you would like to become one of The CJCNs support partners and help to grow this vital ministry, please follow this link to PayPal and make your donation. Thank you and God bless you for your gift.
CJCN.
A Finger on the Pulse of International Politics.
Canada: Jewish woman humiliated & kicked out because she is not a Muslim
This is a must watch. How is this even legal? Religious discrimination in Toronto.
Faith J Gold & Laura Loomer tried to attend an event in Canada featuring, Siraj Wahhaj & Linda Sarsour who call for Jihad.
Despite the event being advertised as open to everyone, Laura & Faith were banned because they are Jewish & Christian (As you can clearly hear in the video below "Muslims Only").
Is this what multiculturalism looks like in Canada?
A Jewish woman was publicly humiliated and expelled from a public event for being non-Muslim.
Why is mainstream media silent? Where are all human rights organizations? Where are all women's rights organizations? Where is the outrage of all the Feminists? Where is the outrage of the left? Shame on Canada and Shame on Justin Trudeau.
Since the beginning of his term, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been constantly talking about "Islamophobia" which means fear of Islam.
It seems that Justin Trudeau is trying to limit freedom of speech by criminalizing criticism of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. In countries such as Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia it is called "Sharia blasphemy law".
There are already anti-hate speech laws in Canada, and there is no need to give Islam a special status under Canadian law.
Justin Trudeau is discriminating against Islam by giving it special treatment over other religions.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in a Western democratic state.
Shari'a laws and blasphemy law are incompatible with Western values.
In his foreign policy, the situation is even worse.Canadian PM Trudeau stabs Israel in the back by funding an Islamic UN agency in Gaza
UNRWA's education program teaches children to be suicide bombers "in the name of Allah" and wage jihad against the West.
During the 2014 war in Gaza, the UN found rockets and missile launchers hidden inside UNRWA schools.
Canada must stop funding Hamas schools in Gaza.
Every Western country has the right to defend itself, Canada must close its borders and deport illegal immigrants back to where they came from.
Canadian Taxpayers Give $25 Million to Fund Islamic terrorism - in other words, the Canadian Government steals $25,000,000 of taxpayers' money to fund The Palestinian Authority which pays salaries to Muslim terrorists who carried out terrorist attacks "in the name of Allah".
The more people they killed the more money they get at the expense of the Australian taxpayers.
Canada must follow Australia and the US and cut all its foreign aid to the PA and UNRWA.
Donations To The CJCN.
If you would like to become one of The CJCNs support partners and help to grow this vital ministry, please forllow this link to PayPal and make your donation. Thank you and God bless you for your gift.
Please note. We are unable to process debit and credit cards at this time, only PayPal accouns may be processed.
CJCN
A Finger on the Pulse of International Politics.
ACLU's Opposition to Kavanaugh Sounds Its Death Knell
So why did the American Civil Liberties Union oppose a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court and argue for a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against that judicial nominee? The answer is as clear as it is simple. It is all about pleasing the donors. The ACLU used to be cash poor but principle-rich. Now, ironically, after Trump taking office, the ACLU has never become so cash-rich, yet principle-poor.
The problem is that most of the money is not coming from civil libertarians who care about free speech, due process, the rights of the accused and defending the unpopular. It is coming from radical leftists in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and other areas not known for a deep commitment to civil liberties.
The old ACLU would never have been silent when Michael Cohen's office was raided by the FBI and his clients' files seized; it would have yelled foul when students accused of sexual misconduct were tried by kangaroo courts; and it surely would have argued against a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against a judicial nominee.
When the ACLU's national political director and former Democratic Party operative Faiz Shakir was asked why the ACLU got involved in the Kavanaugh confirmation fight, he freely admitted, "People have funded us and I think they expect a return."
Now that Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed, it is appropriate to look at the damage caused by the highly partisan confirmation process. Among the casualties has been an organization I have long admired.
After Politico reported that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was spending more than $1 million to oppose Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court, I checked the ACLU website to see if its core mission had changed -- if the ACLU had now officially abandoned its non-partisan nature and become yet another Democratic super PAC. But no, the ACLU still claims it is "non-partisan."
So why did the ACLU oppose a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court and argue for a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against that judicial nominee?
The answer is as clear as it is simple. It is all about pleasing the donors. The ACLU used to be cash poor but principle-rich. Now, ironically, after Trump taking office, the ACLU has never become so cash-rich, yet principle-poor. Before Donald Trump was elected President, the ACLU had an annual operating budget of $60 million dollars.[1] When I was on the ACLU National Board, it was a fraction of that amount. Today it is flush with cash, with net assets of over $450 million dollars. As the ACLU itself admitted in its annual report ending 2017, it received "unprecedented donations" after President Trump's election. Unprecedented" it truly has been: the ACLU received $120 million dollars from online donations alone (up from $3-5 million during the Obama years).
The problem is that most of the money is not coming from civil libertarians who care about free speech, due process, the rights of the accused and defending the unpopular. It is coming from radical leftists in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and other areas not known for a deep commitment to civil liberties. To its everlasting disgrace, the ACLU is abandoning its mission in order to follow the money. It now spends millions of dollars on TV ads that are indistinguishable from left wing organizations, such as MoveOn, the Democratic National Committee and other partisan groups.
As the New Yorker reported on the ACLU's "reinvention in the Trump era,"
"In this midterm year...as progressive groups have mushroomed and grown more active, and as liberal billionaires such as Howard Schultz and Tom Steyer have begun to imagine themselves as political heroes and eye Presidential runs, the A.C.L.U., itself newly flush, has begun to an active role in elections. The group has plans to spend more than twenty-five million dollars on races and ballot initiatives by [Midterm] Election Day, in November. Anthony Romero, the group's executive director, told me, 'It used to be that, when I had a referendum I really cared about, I could spend fifty thousand dollars.'"
This new strategy can be seen in many of the ACLU's actions, which would have been inconceivable just a few years ago. The old ACLU would never have been silent when Michael Cohen's office was raided by the FBI and his clients' files seized; it would have yelled foul when students accused of sexual misconduct were tried by kangaroo courts; and it surely would have argued against a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against a judicial nominee.
Everything the ACLU does today seems to be a function of its fundraising. To be sure, it must occasionally defend a Nazi, a white supremacist, or even a mainstream conservative. But that is not its priority these days, either financially or emotionally. Its heart and soul are in its wallet and checkbook. It is getting rich while civil liberties are suffering.
There appears to be a direct correlation between the ACLU's fundraising and its priorities. When the ACLU's national political director and former Democratic Party operative Faiz Shakir was asked why the ACLU got involved in the Kavanaugh confirmation fight, he freely admitted, "People have funded us and I think they expect a return." Its funders applaud the result because many of these mega donors could not care less about genuine civil liberties or due process. What they care about are political results: more left-wing Democrats in Congress, fewer conservative justices on the Supreme Court and more money in the ACLU coffers.
When I served both on the National and Massachusetts Boards of the American Civil Liberties Union, board members included conservative Republicans, old line Brahmans, religious ministers, schoolteachers, labor union leaders and a range of ordinary folks who cared deeply about core civil liberties. The discussions were never partisan. They always focused on the Bill of Rights. There were considerable disagreements about whether various amendments covered the conduct at issue. But no one ever introduced the question of whether taking a position would help the Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, Jews or Catholics or any other identifiable group. We cared about applying the constitution fairly to everyone, without regard to the political consequences.
As the New Yorker described these more innocent times: the ACLU "... has been fastidiously nonpartisan, so prudish about any alliance with political power that its leadership, in the nineteen-eighties and nineties, declined even to give awards to like-minded legislators for fear that it might give the wrong impression."
Those days are now gone. Instead we have a variant on the question my immigrant grandmother asked when I told her the Brooklyn Dodgers won the World Series in 1955: "Yeah, but, vuz it good or bad for the Jews?" My Grandmother was a strong advocate of identity politics: all she cared about was the Jews. That was 63 years ago. The questions being asked today by ACLU board members is: is it good or bad for the left, is it good or bad for Democrats, is it good or bad for women, is it good or bad for people of color, is it good or bad for gays?
These are reasonable questions to be asked by groups dedicated to the welfare of these groups but not by a group purportedly dedicated to civil liberties for all. A true civil libertarian transcends identity politics and cares about the civil liberties of one's political enemies because he or she recognizes that this is the only way that civil liberties for everyone will be preserved.
Today, too few people are asking: Is it good or bad for civil liberties?
If you would like to become one of The CJCNs support partners and help to grow this vital ministry, please forllow this link to PayPal and make your donation. Thank you and God bless you for your gift.
Please note. We are unable to process debit and credit cards at this time, only PayPal accouns may be processed.
CJCN.
A Finger on the Pulse of International Politics.
Merkel Seeking More Migrants.....
The new immigration law is a tacit admission that Chancellor Angela Merkel's open-door migration policy, which has allowed into Germany more than a million mostly unskilled migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, has failed to resolve the country's most pressing demographic challenges and labour shortages.
"We are creating the framework for more controlled immigration of qualified specialists." - Interior Minister Horst Seehofer.
By the middle of 2018, only a quarter of those who arrived during the migrant crisis had found a job and only a fifth were paying into the social welfare system, according to the Institute for Employment Research. Most of those who were employed had low-paying jobs, and many of them were receiving supplementary welfare benefits to make ends meet.
After months of wrangling, Germany's coalition government has reached an agreement on the key points of a new immigration law - one that is aimed at filling labor shortages and stabilizing the public pension system by encouraging the immigration of skilled workers from outside the European Union.
Germany's Minister of Labor Hubertus Heil (left), Economic Affairs Minister Peter Altmaier (middle) and Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (right) present the government's immigration policy framework for skilled workers, at a press conference on October 2, 2018 in Berlin, Germany. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
The new law, which will tighten restrictions on the immigration of unskilled workers, is a tacit admission that Chancellor Angela Merkel's open-door migration policy, which has allowed into Germany more than a million mostly unskilled migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, has failed to resolve the country's most pressing demographic challenges and labor shortages.
Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU), Labor Minister Hubertus Heil (SPD) and Economic Affairs Minister Peter Altmaier (CDU) presented the compromise agreement during a joint press conference in Berlin on October 2.
The so-called Fachkräftezuwanderungsgesetz (Law on Immigration of Skilled Workers) would waive existing requirements for companies to give preference to German or EU citizens when filling job vacancies. Specifically, it would allow companies to recruit non-EU (Drittstaaten) citizens in all economic sectors, provided that those recruits are qualified for the job and have satisfactory German language skills.
Even lower requirements would apply for information technology professionals, who would be allowed to come to Germany without formal academic qualifications, provided they have solid work experience and a job offer.
The new law would also provide skilled workers without concrete job offers a six-month residence permit to find a job, provided they have German language skills and the financial means to support themselves during this period.
On the other hand, the proposed law states that non-EU citizens without higher education will not be allowed to migrate to Germany: "We do not want any immigration from unqualified third-country nationals," the deal states.
"We will ensure through clear criteria that the rules cannot be abused. We will align our efforts with the needs of our economy, taking due account of qualifications, age, language skills, evidence of a real job offer and the ability to guarantee livelihoods."
The agreement does not specifically mention the so-called Spurwechsel ("lane change") proposal, a plan championed by the SPD that would allow migrants living in Germany to exchange their asylum seeker status for permanent residency status if they find a job and learn German. "We maintain the principle of separation of asylum and labor migration," the document states. "We will prevent immigration into the social welfare system."
Seehofer and others said they feared that the "lane change" proposal would reinforce the immigration pull factor, thereby further encouraging unskilled economic migrants to travel to Germany in the hopes of being allowed to stay. "We had a silent consensus that there should be no lane change," said Seehofer.
In a compromise, however, the deal commits the government to "define clear residence criteria" for so-called Geduldete ("tolerated") migrants: well-integrated refugees whose asylum applications have been rejected but who cannot be deported because they lack identification papers, their home countries refuse to take them back, or there is legitimate fear for their safety once home. Currently, there is no unified policy on Geduldete migrants; some of Germany's 16 federal states are showing leniency while others are taking a hard line.
Seehofer said he was "extremely satisfied" with the results and described the agreement as a "pragmatic, practical response to the reality of life." He added: "We are creating the framework for more controlled immigration of qualified specialists."
Labor Minister Heil said the agreement represented the first step for a "modern immigration law in Germany."
Economic Affairs Minister Altmaier said that the deal would "ensure that all jobs for skilled workers can also be filled."
By contrast, the leader of the anti-immigration party Alternative for Germany (AfD), Alexander Gauland, said that the compromise on the so-called lane change proposal would encourage more illegal immigration:
"With the new immigration law, the SPD has once again prevailed against Seehofer. Asylum and immigration are now being mixed beyond recognition and the opportunities to escape deportation are massively expanded.
"This is now officially what the AfD has always warned: As soon as illegal immigrants have crossed our borders, they may stay with us forever."
Business leaders praised the deal. The chief executive of the Confederation of Employers' Associations, Steffen Kampeter, said that the German economy "relies on qualified specialists from abroad" in order to maintain competitiveness: "We need the brightest brains from all over the world."
The president of the Federal Association for Information Technology (Bitkom), Achim Berg, said there currently are about 55,000 job vacancies in the IT sector, costing German companies about 10 billion euros in lost sales each year:
"Bitkom has been campaigning for years for the immigration of skilled workers. We very much welcome the fact that this is now fundamentally addressed by the federal government with the Law on Immigration of Skilled Workers. We need the brightest minds from around the world to shape digitization in Germany, to support our economy and to strengthen the labor market."
Germany will need to take in 300,000 migrants annually for the next 40 years to stop population decline, according to a leaked government report. The document, parts of which were published by the Rheinische Post, revealed that the German government is counting on permanent mass migration to keep the current size of the German population (82.8 million) stable through 2060.
The report implied that Chancellor Merkel's decision to allow into the country some 1.5 million mostly Muslim migrants between 2015 and 2016 was not primarily a humanitarian gesture, but a calculated effort to stave off Germany's demographic decline and to preserve the future viability of the German welfare state, in which the young are obligated support the elderly.
Rioting Migrants in Germany.
The report stressed the need quickly to integrate migrants into the workforce so that they can begin paying into the social welfare system. "According to past experience, this will not be easy and will take longer than initially often hoped," the report conceded. "Successes will only be visible in the medium to long term."
By the middle of 2018, only a quarter of those who arrived during the migrant crisis had found a job and only a fifth were paying into the social welfare system, according to the Institute for Employment Research (IAB). Most of those who were employed had low-paying jobs in the hospitality or services sectors, including in cleaning, package delivery or security, and many of them were receiving supplementary welfare benefits to make ends meet.
In August 2018, Deutschlandfunk public radio reported that "disillusionment has arrived" as many refugees are still receiving social welfare benefits or working in the low-wage sector:
"'First refugees, then 'German craftsman,' 'Young, alone and motivated,' 'People come to work hard,' 'Refugees are lucky.' This is what the headlines sounded like in the summer of 2015, when images of the German welcome culture were seen around the world. The welcoming teddy bears at Munich's central station promoted the view that hundreds of thousands of young men from Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea and Iran could solve several problems in one go - rejuvenate aging German society and alleviate the skills shortage.
"Three years later, the headlines sound sobering: 'Job miracle among migrants is missing,' 'Where are the specialists?' 'Most of the refugees live on Hartz IV [unemployment benefits],' 'The high burden of refugee policy.'
"Was Germany naïve in summer 2015? Did policymakers and experts see the situation from too rosy a perspective and forget that integration into the labor market is a long, sometimes rocky path? ....
More of the usual Migrant gratitude.
"Only one out of every 100 refugees is working in a highly skilled job in Berlin. Nationwide, 8 out of 10 asylum seekers have neither a university degree nor a vocational qualification...."
In another segment entitled, "No New German Economic Miracle in Sight," Deutschlandfunk reported:
"The German economy needs skilled workers: When almost one million refugees came to Germany in 2015, hopes of the big corporations were aroused. But what role do the 30 DAX [blue chip stock market index consisting of the 30 major German companies trading on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange] companies play in integrating into the labor market?
"Deutschlandfunk conducted a survey - the result is sobering: only 800 refugees have been recruited by DAX companies. Most of them work at Deutsche Post - especially in parcel sorting centers or as couriers - and also at the carmakers BMW and Daimler. But: The majority of stock market heavyweights has not hired any migrants...."
Company executives said the main problem is that migrants lack professional qualifications and German language skills.
According to the Federal Labor Office, the educational level of newly arrived migrants in Germany is far lower than initially expected: only a quarter have a high school diploma, while three quarters have no vocational training at all. Only 4% of new arrivals to Germany are highly qualified.
For now, the vast majority of migrants who entered Germany in 2015 and 2016 are wards of the German state. German taxpayers paid around €21.7 billion ($25 billion) on aid for refugees and asylum seekers in 2016, €20.8 billion in 2017, and will pay a similar amount in 2018, according to government figures published by Focus magazine.
A Finance Ministry document revealed that the migrant crisis could end up costing German taxpayers an additional €94 billion ($107 billion) by 2020. About €25.7 billion would be for social spending, such as unemployment benefits and housing support. About €5.7 billion would be destined for language courses and €4.6 billion for integrating refugees into the workforce.
More cultural enrichment.
Over the long-term, the 2015 migrant crisis could end up costing German taxpayers more than one trillion euros -- the equivalent of around one-third of Germany's current GDP -- according to calculations presented by economist Bernd Raffelhüschen on behalf of the Market Economy Foundation (Stiftung Marktwirtschaft). He concluded:
"We need people, that is clear. But we need people we need. Which means: Germany needs an immigration limitation law. Only those who fit into the German qualification requirements may come. Other countries do that too. One must have the courage to discriminate, that is to select."
Germany currently has more than 1.2 million job vacancies, according to the Institute for Employment Research (IAB). Of these, 440,000 are for skilled jobs, which, if filled, would increase German economic output by a full percentage point, according to the German Economic Institute in Cologne.
CJCN.
A Finger on the Pulse of International Politics.
EU: Politicizing the Internet.
Even before such EU-wide legislation, similar ostensible "anti-terror legislation" in France, for example, is being used as a political tool against political opponents and to limit unwanted free speech.
In France, simply spreading information about ISIS atrocities is now considered "incitement to terrorism". It is this kind of legislation, it seems, that the European Commission now wishes to impose on all of the European Union.
Social media giants -- Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Microsoft, Google+ and Instagram -- act as voluntary censors on behalf of the European Union.
The European Commission states that it is specifically interested in funding projects that focus on the "development of technology and innovative web tools preventing and countering illegal hate speech online and supporting data collection", and studies that analyze "the spread of racist and xenophobic hate speech in different Member States..."
In March, the European Commission -- the unelected executive branch of the European Union -- told social media companies to remove illegal online terrorist content within an hour -- or risk facing EU-wide legislation on the topic. This ultimatum was part of a new set of recommendations that applies to all forms of supposedly "illegal content" online. This content ranges "from terrorist content, incitement to hatred and violence, child sexual abuse material, counterfeit products and copyright infringement."
While the one-hour ultimatum was ostensibly only about terrorist content, the following is how the European Commission presented the new recommendations at the time:
"... The Commission has taken a number of actions to protect Europeans online - be it from terrorist content, illegal hate speech or fake news... we are continuously looking into ways we can improve our fight against illegal content online. Illegal content means any information which is not in compliance with Union law or the law of a Member State, such as content inciting people to terrorism, racist or xenophobic, illegal hate speech, child sexual exploitation... What is illegal offline is also illegal online".
The Church of Jerusalem and the Christian Nation.
The European Union seems fixated, at least for the internet, on killing free speech. And social media giants -- Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Microsoft, Google+ and Instagram -- act as voluntary censors on behalf of the EU. (Image source: iStock)
"Illegal hate speech", is then broadly defined by the European Commission as "incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin".
The EU has now decided that these "voluntary efforts" to remove terrorist content within an hour on the part of the social media giants are not enough: that legislation must be introduced. According to the European Commission's recent press release:
"The Commission has already been working on a voluntary basis with a number of key stakeholders - including online platforms, Member States and Europol - under the EU Internet Forum in order to limit the presence of terrorist content online. In March, the Commission recommended a number of actions to be taken by companies and Member States to further step up this work. Whilst these efforts have brought positive results, overall progress has not been sufficient".
According to the press release, the new rules will include draconian fines issued to internet companies who fail to live up to the new legislation:
"Member States will have to put in place effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for not complying with orders to remove online terrorist content. In the event of systematic failures to remove such content following removal orders, a service provider could face financial penalties of up to 4% of its global turnover for the last business year".
Such astronomical penalties are likely to ensure that no internet company will run any risks and will therefore self-censor material "just in case".
The European Union seems fixated, at least for the internet, on killing free speech. And social media giants -- Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Microsoft, Google+ and Instagram -- act as voluntary censors on behalf of the EU. (Image source: iStock)
According to the European Commission press release, the rules will require that service providers "take proactive measures - such as the use of new tools - to better protect their platforms and their users from terrorist abuse". The rules will also require increased cooperation between hosting service providers, and Europol and Member States, with the stipulation that Member states "designate points of contact reachable 24/7 to facilitate the follow up to removal orders and referrals", as well as the establishment of:
"...effective complaint mechanisms that all service providers will have to put in place. Where content has been removed unjustifiably, the service provider will be required to reinstate it as soon as possible. Effective judicial remedies will also be provided by national authorities and platforms and content providers will have the right to challenge a removal order. For platforms making use of automated detection tools, human oversight and verification should be in place to prevent erroneous removals".
It is hard to see why anyone would believe that there will be effective judicial remedies and that erroneously removed content will be reinstated. Even before such EU-wide legislation, similar ostensible "anti-terror legislation" in France, for example, is being used as a political tool against political opponents and to limit unwanted free speech. Marine Le Pen, leader of France's Front National, was charged earlier this year for tweeting images in 2015 of ISIS atrocities, includingthe beheading of American journalist James Foley and a photo of a man being burned by ISIS in a cage. She faces charges of circulating "violent messages that incite terrorism or pornography or seriously harm human dignity", and that can be viewed by a minor. The purported crime is punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine of €75,000 ($88,000). Le Pen posted the pictures a few weeks after the Paris terror attacks in November 2015, in which 130 people were killed, and the text she wrote to accompany the images was "Daesh is this!" In France, then, simply spreading information about ISIS atrocities is now considered "incitement to terrorism". It is this kind of legislation, it seems, that the European Commission now wishes to impose on all of the EU.
The decision to enact legislation in this area was taken at the June 2018 European Council meeting - a gathering of all the EU's heads of state - in which the Council welcomed "the intention of the Commission to present a legislative proposal to improve the detection and removal of content that incites hatred and to commit terrorist acts". It sounds, however, as if the EU is planning to legislate about a lot more than just "terrorism".
Preaching the word of God.
In May 2016, the European Commission and Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Microsoft, agreed on a "Code of Conduct on countering illegal online hate speech online" (Google+ and Instagram also joined the Code of Conduct in January 2018). The Code of Conduct commits the social media companies to review and remove, within 24 hours, content that is deemed to be "illegal hate speech". According to the Code of Conduct, when companies receive a request to remove content, they must "assess the request against their rules and community guidelines and, where applicable, national laws on combating racism and xenophobia..." In other words, the social media giants act as voluntary censors on behalf of the European Union.
The European Council's welcoming of a legislative proposal from the European Commission on "improving the detection and removal of content that incites hatred" certainly sounds as if the EU plans to put the Code of Conduct into legislation, as well.
At the EU Salzburg Informal Summit in September, EU member states agreed to, "step up the fight against all forms of cyber crime, manipulations and disinformation". Heads of member states were furthermore invited, "to discuss what they expect from the Union when it comes to... preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online" and "striking the right balance between effectively combating disinformation and illegal cyber activities and safeguarding fundamental rights such as the freedom of expression".
At the same time, however, the European Commission, under its Research and Innovation Program, has a call out for research proposals on how "to monitor, prevent and counter hate speech online," with a submission deadline in October.
In the call for proposals, the Commission says that it is "committed to curb the trends of online hate speech in Europe" and underlines that "proposals building on the activities relating to the implementation of the Code of Conduct on countering hate speech online are of particular interest".
The Commission states that it is specifically interested in funding projects that focus on the, "development of technology and innovative web tools preventing and countering illegal hate speech online and supporting data collection"; studies that analyze "the spread of racist and xenophobic hate speech in different Member States, including the source and structures of groups generating and spreading such content..."; and projects that develop and disseminate "online narratives promoting EU values, tolerance and respect to EU fundamental rights and fact checking activities enhancing critical thinking and awareness about accuracy of information" as well as activities "aimed at training stakeholders on EU and national legal framework criminalising hate speech online".[1] One just wonders which member states and what "hate speech" will be held accountable -- and which not.
The EU seems fixated, at least for the internet, on killing free speech.
The European Commission writes in its call that it would like the funded projects to have the following results:
- Curbing increasing trends of illegal hate speech on the Internet and contributing to better understanding how social media is used to recruit followers to the hate speech narrative and ideas;
- Improving data recording and establishment of trends, including on the chilling effects of illegal hate speech online, including when addressed to key democracy players, such as journalists;
- Strengthening cooperation between national authorities, civil society organisations and Internet companies, in the area of preventing and countering hate speech online;
- Empowering civil society organisations and grass-root movements in their activities countering hate speech online and in the development of effective counter-narratives;
- Increasing awareness and media literacy of the general public on racist and xenophobic online hate speech and boosting public perception of the issue.
Donation.
If you would like to become one of The CJCNs support partners and help to grow this vital ministry, please forllow this link to PayPal and make your donation. Thank you and God bless you for your gift.
Please note. We are unable to process debit and credit cards at this time, only PayPal accouns may be processed.