Last May, the Austrians held a presidential election in which the No. 1 issue was immigration -- specifically, the admission to the country of hordes of Muslim invaders posing as asylum-seekers. Anti-immigrant backlash looked like putting the anti-immigrant Freedom Party into office. But just when FPÖ candidate Norbert Hofer was measuring the drapes of the Hofburg, 1000s of postal ballots suddenly appeared, giving the edge to the incumbents. See "Absentee votes deny Freedom Party victory in Austrian election", WWW 23/5/16.
The good news is that the vote was so close, and the suspicion of electoral fraud so strong, that the Freedom Party's appeal to the Austrian Constitutional Court was successful, and a do-over has been ordered. The reply will take place on either 25 September or 2 October.
Rewind to New Year's Day in Vienna, when a white German woman went to police claiming that she had been raped by a gang of Arab foreigners. Inspektor Katzenjammer didn't exactly spring into action. Only last week -- the middle of August -- following a painstaking (and ballsachingly slow) investigation, and careful analysis of DNA evidence and CCTV camera footage, did Austrian police announce the arrests of nine (9) Iraqi "refugees". Aged between 21 and 47, all nine had applied for or been granted asylum.
Sex attacks by Muslim "migrants" from the Middle East and North Africa are nothing new in Europe, with numerous outrages being reported in Germany, Sweden and other countries that have welcomed the poor downtrodden "refugees". Austria has seen its share of attacks, not just on women but even brutal homosexual attacks on little boys at public swimming pools.
In this case, Austrians are asking why it took nearly eight months to arrest the perps. Was the investigation so "protracted and difficult" as the police claim? Vienna police spokesthingy Paul Eidenberger said there was "no doubt about the gang rape according to the biological traces." And (they say now) what happened was pretty clear. The Arabs met the woman in Vienna's central Schwedenplatz, drugged her, and then assaulted her for four hours in an apartment where two of the attackers lived.
Surely the FPÖ can be forgiven for suggesting that the delay in arresting the criminals was a deliberate attempt to withhold the news during the run-up to the presidential election. But the cat is out of the bag now. News of the gang rape, combined with ongoing refugee-terrorist attacks and other criminal activities by the Muslim invaders, is expected to push even more Austrian voters into the FPÖ camp come the fall. Stay tuned.
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Thursday, August 18, 2016
More Muslim refugees than Christians admitted to USA
In this final year of the too-long reign of Hussein Obama, more Muslim "refugees" than Christians are being allowed to come into the US of A. So says the non-partisan Pew Research Center, in a report made public today.
Of the 63,000 refugees -- real and bogus -- admitted during the current fiscal year (which began last October), 29,000 are Muslims. Walt will do the math for you. It works out to 46%! 44% of the refugees declared themselves to be Christians. The remaining 10% were "unknown, unaffiliated or 'other'".
The largest numbers of Muslim refugee claimants came from Syria, Somalia, and Iraq. The Democrats have made a big fuss over the handful of Christian Syrians being allowed in, as proof that they're not discriminating in favour of President 0's co-religionists (?), but the fact is that of the roughly 9000 Syrian refugees who entered this year, fewer than one percent (1%) were Christians.
But wait (as Vince Offer used to say), there's more! The total number of Muslim refugees -- nearly 29,000 -- was also the highest number recorded since the statistics became available. This is also the fourth year in a row that over 25,000 Muslims have gained entry into the USA as refugees.
Here's a final thought. The statistics collected and reported by the INS do not distinguish between "moderate Muslims" [an oxymoron, shurely! Ed.] and Islamic extremists. Should we be alarmed? Surely they can't all be jihadis! OK, let's suppose only 1% of them are. Let's see. 1% of 29,000 would be... errr... 290. How many Islamic terrorists did it take to kill dozens of people in San Bernardino? 2. How many did it take to kill dozens of people in Orlando? Errr... just one (1).
Of the 63,000 refugees -- real and bogus -- admitted during the current fiscal year (which began last October), 29,000 are Muslims. Walt will do the math for you. It works out to 46%! 44% of the refugees declared themselves to be Christians. The remaining 10% were "unknown, unaffiliated or 'other'".
The largest numbers of Muslim refugee claimants came from Syria, Somalia, and Iraq. The Democrats have made a big fuss over the handful of Christian Syrians being allowed in, as proof that they're not discriminating in favour of President 0's co-religionists (?), but the fact is that of the roughly 9000 Syrian refugees who entered this year, fewer than one percent (1%) were Christians.
But wait (as Vince Offer used to say), there's more! The total number of Muslim refugees -- nearly 29,000 -- was also the highest number recorded since the statistics became available. This is also the fourth year in a row that over 25,000 Muslims have gained entry into the USA as refugees.
Here's a final thought. The statistics collected and reported by the INS do not distinguish between "moderate Muslims" [an oxymoron, shurely! Ed.] and Islamic extremists. Should we be alarmed? Surely they can't all be jihadis! OK, let's suppose only 1% of them are. Let's see. 1% of 29,000 would be... errr... 290. How many Islamic terrorists did it take to kill dozens of people in San Bernardino? 2. How many did it take to kill dozens of people in Orlando? Errr... just one (1).
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Bill and Hellery accept the nomination
Here's a photo -- cleverly captioned by Private Eye -- of Clinton I and the would-be Clinton II accepting the Democratic nomination. Ask yourself: who's really being nominated here? Her or him? Or both of them?
Dear American readers, think about this! If Hellery is elected, you're in for either four more years of a Clinton administration or four more years of an Obama administration... or both, all rolled into one horrible package. Is that what you really want?
Dear American readers, think about this! If Hellery is elected, you're in for either four more years of a Clinton administration or four more years of an Obama administration... or both, all rolled into one horrible package. Is that what you really want?
Why Trump and Clinton are wrong on ISIS
I want to endorse Donald Trump for President. Really I do. But I am yet to be convinced that he has the answers -- good answers -- to America's problems at home and abroad. Yesterday he made an important speech on foreign policy, on his vision for the US role in the world. His answer to the threat posed by Islamist terrorism seems to be to "crush" ISIS.
To destroy ISIS.... That's clearer and stronger than la Clinton's non-answer, which seems to be to continue the Obama policy of merely "degrading ISIL", which has failed in the Middle East and has actually made matters worse in Europe and North America, where "homegrown, radicalized Islamists" have mounted attack after attack on whatever hapless "infidels" happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
What both Ms Clinton and Mr Trump either don't understand or deliberately ignore is the reason given by the "lone wolves" for blowing themselves up or driving trucks into crowds of merrymakers. What they say in their videos is that they're protesting against American meddling in the Muslim civil war being fought out in the Arab world. (Note that there's no Islamic terrorism in such large Muslim countries as Iran, Malaysia and Indonesia -- only in the Arab states.)
The solution seems simple enough. Get out of the Middle East, leave the Arabs to duke it out amongst themselves, and they'll leave us and US alone!
Ron Paul has been saying that for years. So have I. And so has Gwynne Dyer, whose book After Iraq (St. Martin's Press, New York, 2007) I've mentioned before. See "Who really 'founded' ISIS?", WWW 14/8/16. Here are some wise words from the chapter headed "The Terrorist Bandwagon".
The United States has never been more disliked in the Arab world, and Arab regimes associated with it have a grave public relations problem at home, but there is no sign of a popular revolution brewing against even the most vulnerable regimes.
Terrorist attacks in Western countries will doubtless continue in a minor key, probably carried out for the most part by young Muslims already living in those countries who have been radicalized by the invasion of Iraq.... The invasion of Afghanistan had less effect on Muslim opinion in Western countries, since there seemed some logical justification for it, whereas the lack of such a justification for invading Iraq left many in the Muslim diaspora convinced that there really was a concerted Western assault on Islam itself.
The withdrawal of Western troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan would remove the main cause of this radicalization in Muslim communities in Western countries...and the likelihood of further attacks would then tend to diminish over time.
As for genuinely international Islamist terrorism against Western countries that is planned and controlled from within the Muslim world, apart from 9/11 it has never been a significant phenomenon, and 9/11 increasingly looks like a one-off. Not only would it be much harder to carry out such an operation today in the face of much-improved security measures, but the strategic motive for doing so has dwindled drastically, since it would be very difficult to sucker the United States or other Western countries into invading Muslim countries again once the troops are out.
Mr Dyer wrote that in 2007. And in that last sentence is the essence of what's wrong with Mr Trump's just-proclaimed policy. To respond to the jihadist wannabe outrages in Europe and the USA by sending the Marines into the Middle East sandpit is would be to do exactly what ISIS wants, in order to destabilize and overthrow the governments (horrible though they may be) of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon etc. Walt's advice to The Donald (and Hellery): don't get suckered in again!
To destroy ISIS.... That's clearer and stronger than la Clinton's non-answer, which seems to be to continue the Obama policy of merely "degrading ISIL", which has failed in the Middle East and has actually made matters worse in Europe and North America, where "homegrown, radicalized Islamists" have mounted attack after attack on whatever hapless "infidels" happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
What both Ms Clinton and Mr Trump either don't understand or deliberately ignore is the reason given by the "lone wolves" for blowing themselves up or driving trucks into crowds of merrymakers. What they say in their videos is that they're protesting against American meddling in the Muslim civil war being fought out in the Arab world. (Note that there's no Islamic terrorism in such large Muslim countries as Iran, Malaysia and Indonesia -- only in the Arab states.)
The solution seems simple enough. Get out of the Middle East, leave the Arabs to duke it out amongst themselves, and they'll leave us and US alone!
Ron Paul has been saying that for years. So have I. And so has Gwynne Dyer, whose book After Iraq (St. Martin's Press, New York, 2007) I've mentioned before. See "Who really 'founded' ISIS?", WWW 14/8/16. Here are some wise words from the chapter headed "The Terrorist Bandwagon".
The United States has never been more disliked in the Arab world, and Arab regimes associated with it have a grave public relations problem at home, but there is no sign of a popular revolution brewing against even the most vulnerable regimes.
Terrorist attacks in Western countries will doubtless continue in a minor key, probably carried out for the most part by young Muslims already living in those countries who have been radicalized by the invasion of Iraq.... The invasion of Afghanistan had less effect on Muslim opinion in Western countries, since there seemed some logical justification for it, whereas the lack of such a justification for invading Iraq left many in the Muslim diaspora convinced that there really was a concerted Western assault on Islam itself.
The withdrawal of Western troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan would remove the main cause of this radicalization in Muslim communities in Western countries...and the likelihood of further attacks would then tend to diminish over time.
As for genuinely international Islamist terrorism against Western countries that is planned and controlled from within the Muslim world, apart from 9/11 it has never been a significant phenomenon, and 9/11 increasingly looks like a one-off. Not only would it be much harder to carry out such an operation today in the face of much-improved security measures, but the strategic motive for doing so has dwindled drastically, since it would be very difficult to sucker the United States or other Western countries into invading Muslim countries again once the troops are out.
Mr Dyer wrote that in 2007. And in that last sentence is the essence of what's wrong with Mr Trump's just-proclaimed policy. To respond to the jihadist wannabe outrages in Europe and the USA by sending the Marines into the Middle East sandpit is would be to do exactly what ISIS wants, in order to destabilize and overthrow the governments (horrible though they may be) of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon etc. Walt's advice to The Donald (and Hellery): don't get suckered in again!
Sunday, August 14, 2016
Who really "founded" ISIS?
The Donald made headlines last week by saying that Barack Hussein Obama founded ISIS, and his one-time Secretary of State, Hellery Clinton, was its co-founder. He said he meant it. Then he said he was speaking sarcastically, "but not too sarcastically". Perhaps that was going a bit far, but one can certainly make a good case that the IS "caliphate" has benefitted greatly from President 0's weak [non-existent? Ed.] foreign policy, and the ineptitude and general mismanagement of his administration in general, and Ms Clinton in particular.
Who knows why they've bungled the Middle East file so badly? Maybe the Prez really is a Muslim, as many people believe. Still, it's a bit much to give him credit for "founding" ISIS. At the beginning of the Obama-Clinton years, ISIS (or "ISIL", as they keep calling it) didn't really exist. All we had to worry about, the first eight years of this century, was Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. But it cannot be denied that ISIS sprang from Al-Qaeda, and from the mess the Paranoid States of America created in Iraq.
Who was responsible for the Iraq debacle? It wasn't Mr Obama, but a Republican. No, not Dubya -- except in the sense that he, as Supreme Commander, must bear the ultimate reponsibility -- but one his appointees, named and shamed by Gwynne Dyer in After Iraq (St. Martin's Press, New York, 2007). That would be... wait for it... Lewis Paul Bremer III, a former Managing Director of Kissinger and Associates. (Yes, that Kissinger.) Mr Bremer was appointed by President Bush II as Presidential Envoy to Iraq on 9 May 2003. His appointment declared him subject to the "authority, direction and control" of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He led the American occupation of Iraq from 11 May 11 2003 until 28 June 2004. Here's what Gwynne Dyer says, with Walt's emphasis.
[Bremer] disbanded the entire Iraqi army and police force and banned all senior Ba'ath Party members -- and anybody in the top three management layers of government ministries, government-run corporations, universities and hospitals who was a Party member at all -- from future government employment. Bremer paid no need to arguments that, until his arrival, conversations had been underway with Iraqi generals for the reconstitution of the army, purged of its Saddam loyalists, and that in all the former ruling parties of post-Communist states in the early 1990s the majority of the "senior" members had been innocent professionals who had been compelled to join in order to do their jobs.
So far as it can be discerned these were Bremer's own decisions, not imposed on him by the White House, and they had catastrophic effects. With a couple of decrees he effectively gutted the Iraqi state apparatus and abolished the only other national institutions, the army and police, that at least in theory rose above mere sectarian, ethnic, and local concerns. He also abruptly three half a million people, most of them with weapons training, serious organizational abilities, or both, onto the street in the most humiliating way.
The Sunni insurgency began at once, led initially by ex-army officers and Ba'ath officials and public justified by incidents like the killings [by US soldiers of unarmed demonstrators] at Fallujah. These "dead-enders", as they were explained away in Washington, were soon joined in the insurgency by homegrown Islamist extremists who had previously been terrorized into submission by Saddam's regime, and by some foreign Islamists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, who made themselves useful by offering to carry out suicide attacks.
By the autumn of 2004, only a year and a half after the invasion, the US authorities wwere recording between two thousand and three thousand insurgent attacks per month. The shocking pictures taken by the American torturers at Abu Ghraib had a big impact elsewhere in the Muslim world, but in Iraq they caused no particular upsurge in the violence: most people had already chosen their side.
Walt doesn't always agree with Gwynne Dyer's politics, but reads his columns in the international (non-American) media regularly, and often quotes him here. Mr Dyer earned a Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History from the University of London, served in three navies and holds acade3mic appointments at the Royal Military Academy (Sandhurst) and Oxford University. I think he knows what he's talking about.
In the Introduction to After Iraq, Mr Dyer argues -- as Ron Paul has for lo these many years -- that the USA has no skin in what is essentially a Muslim civil war, and should get out of the Middle East immediately, before things get any worse. (Maybe things couldn't get any worse. Mr Dyer was writing in 2007, before ISIS swept across Iraq and Syria.) Here's what he says.
What should the rest of the world do about this? Nothing. Just stand back and let it happen. Outsiders to the region have no solutions left to peddle any more (nor any credibility even if they did have solutions), and they no longer have the power or the will to impose their ideas. For the first time in a century, the region is going to choose its future for itself -- and it may, of course, make a dreadful mess of it. Even then, outsiders should not intervene, because foreign intervention generally makes things worse -- but also because it's none of their business.
Further reading: "Just How Much Should Paul Bremer Be Blamed for the Rise of the Islamic State?", in Foreign Policy in Focus, 18/3/16.
Who knows why they've bungled the Middle East file so badly? Maybe the Prez really is a Muslim, as many people believe. Still, it's a bit much to give him credit for "founding" ISIS. At the beginning of the Obama-Clinton years, ISIS (or "ISIL", as they keep calling it) didn't really exist. All we had to worry about, the first eight years of this century, was Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. But it cannot be denied that ISIS sprang from Al-Qaeda, and from the mess the Paranoid States of America created in Iraq.
Who was responsible for the Iraq debacle? It wasn't Mr Obama, but a Republican. No, not Dubya -- except in the sense that he, as Supreme Commander, must bear the ultimate reponsibility -- but one his appointees, named and shamed by Gwynne Dyer in After Iraq (St. Martin's Press, New York, 2007). That would be... wait for it... Lewis Paul Bremer III, a former Managing Director of Kissinger and Associates. (Yes, that Kissinger.) Mr Bremer was appointed by President Bush II as Presidential Envoy to Iraq on 9 May 2003. His appointment declared him subject to the "authority, direction and control" of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He led the American occupation of Iraq from 11 May 11 2003 until 28 June 2004. Here's what Gwynne Dyer says, with Walt's emphasis.
[Bremer] disbanded the entire Iraqi army and police force and banned all senior Ba'ath Party members -- and anybody in the top three management layers of government ministries, government-run corporations, universities and hospitals who was a Party member at all -- from future government employment. Bremer paid no need to arguments that, until his arrival, conversations had been underway with Iraqi generals for the reconstitution of the army, purged of its Saddam loyalists, and that in all the former ruling parties of post-Communist states in the early 1990s the majority of the "senior" members had been innocent professionals who had been compelled to join in order to do their jobs.
So far as it can be discerned these were Bremer's own decisions, not imposed on him by the White House, and they had catastrophic effects. With a couple of decrees he effectively gutted the Iraqi state apparatus and abolished the only other national institutions, the army and police, that at least in theory rose above mere sectarian, ethnic, and local concerns. He also abruptly three half a million people, most of them with weapons training, serious organizational abilities, or both, onto the street in the most humiliating way.
The Sunni insurgency began at once, led initially by ex-army officers and Ba'ath officials and public justified by incidents like the killings [by US soldiers of unarmed demonstrators] at Fallujah. These "dead-enders", as they were explained away in Washington, were soon joined in the insurgency by homegrown Islamist extremists who had previously been terrorized into submission by Saddam's regime, and by some foreign Islamists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, who made themselves useful by offering to carry out suicide attacks.
By the autumn of 2004, only a year and a half after the invasion, the US authorities wwere recording between two thousand and three thousand insurgent attacks per month. The shocking pictures taken by the American torturers at Abu Ghraib had a big impact elsewhere in the Muslim world, but in Iraq they caused no particular upsurge in the violence: most people had already chosen their side.
Walt doesn't always agree with Gwynne Dyer's politics, but reads his columns in the international (non-American) media regularly, and often quotes him here. Mr Dyer earned a Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History from the University of London, served in three navies and holds acade3mic appointments at the Royal Military Academy (Sandhurst) and Oxford University. I think he knows what he's talking about.
In the Introduction to After Iraq, Mr Dyer argues -- as Ron Paul has for lo these many years -- that the USA has no skin in what is essentially a Muslim civil war, and should get out of the Middle East immediately, before things get any worse. (Maybe things couldn't get any worse. Mr Dyer was writing in 2007, before ISIS swept across Iraq and Syria.) Here's what he says.
What should the rest of the world do about this? Nothing. Just stand back and let it happen. Outsiders to the region have no solutions left to peddle any more (nor any credibility even if they did have solutions), and they no longer have the power or the will to impose their ideas. For the first time in a century, the region is going to choose its future for itself -- and it may, of course, make a dreadful mess of it. Even then, outsiders should not intervene, because foreign intervention generally makes things worse -- but also because it's none of their business.
Further reading: "Just How Much Should Paul Bremer Be Blamed for the Rise of the Islamic State?", in Foreign Policy in Focus, 18/3/16.
Saturday, August 13, 2016
A Canadian man walks into a bar...
Agent 9 enjoyed "A (something) walks into a bar..." so much that he sent us this contribution.
A guy goes into a bar in Toronto where there is a robot bartender. The robot says, "What will you have?"
The guy replies, "Whiskey."
The robot brings back his drink and asks, "What’s your IQ?"
The guy says, "168."
The robot continues to talk about physics, space exploration, and medical technology.
After the guy leaves and the more he thinks about it, the more curious he gets, so he decides to go back.
The robot asks, "What’s your drink?"
The guy answers, "Whiskey."
The robot returns with his drink and asks, "What’s your IQ?"
The man replies, "100."
The robot talks about the Raptors, Crown Royal, and the Leafs.
The man finishes his drink, leaves, but is so interested in his experiment that he decides to try again.
He enters the bar and, as usual, the robot asks him what he want to drink.
The man replies, "Whiskey."
The robot brings the drink and asks, "What’s your IQ?"
The man answers, "50."
The robot leans in real close and asks, "So . . . are . . . you people . . . still happy . . . with Trudeau?"
American readers may feel free to subtitute different cities, brand/team names, and candidates for the presidensity. You're welcome.
A guy goes into a bar in Toronto where there is a robot bartender. The robot says, "What will you have?"
The guy replies, "Whiskey."
The robot brings back his drink and asks, "What’s your IQ?"
The guy says, "168."
The robot continues to talk about physics, space exploration, and medical technology.
After the guy leaves and the more he thinks about it, the more curious he gets, so he decides to go back.
The robot asks, "What’s your drink?"
The guy answers, "Whiskey."
The robot returns with his drink and asks, "What’s your IQ?"
The man replies, "100."
The robot talks about the Raptors, Crown Royal, and the Leafs.
The man finishes his drink, leaves, but is so interested in his experiment that he decides to try again.
He enters the bar and, as usual, the robot asks him what he want to drink.
The man replies, "Whiskey."
The robot brings the drink and asks, "What’s your IQ?"
The man answers, "50."
The robot leans in real close and asks, "So . . . are . . . you people . . . still happy . . . with Trudeau?"
American readers may feel free to subtitute different cities, brand/team names, and candidates for the presidensity. You're welcome.
VIDEO: Walt's Muslim swimsuit issue!
Coming soon to a beach near you... Yes, YOU, even if you live in Germany or France or Britain or Canada or Australia or even... horrors... the Excited States of America. Introducing the burkini, perfectly Islamic swimwear for the modest Muslim woman.
I'm talking about the one on the right. Duh. Not the typical Middle Eastern matron shape, true, but definitely the latest thing in fashions for fastidious Islamists. If you think this is a joke, check Google Images for "burkini" and you'll see hundreds of them, available online or from your local Muslim merchant.
Believe it or not, some people find this lovely beachwear offensive. This week, the mayor of Cannes, the French resort town, has announced a ban on the wearing of burkinis, for the sake of public order. Mayor David Lisnard called the burkini a "symbol of Islamic extremism". Imagine that!
The actual decree reads as follows: "Access to beaches and for swimming is banned to any person wearing improper clothes that are not respectful of good morals and secularism. Beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation, when France and places of worship are currently the target of terrorist attacks, is liable to create risks of disrupting public order."
Can you imagine any government official in the USA, Canada or Britain being so politically incorrect as to write or say such things? I thought not.
UPDATE 15/8/16: Yes! Ed. has found a video! This comes from Canada's Global TV, with a report that the mayor of a Corsican town has banned burkinis after a clash between local residents and Muslim bathers of North African origin. Ange-Pierre Vivoni, the mayor of Sisco, told France-Info radio Monday that the ban aimed at calming religious tensions and protecting Muslims.
The French Ministry of the Interior said a clash Saturday in Sisco that left at least four people injured and three cars torched reportedly started over the presence of women in burkinis. Cannes and the town of Villeneuve-Loubet also recently banned the burkini.
Further reading (for those confused about Islamic dress): "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", one of WWW's most-viewed posts.
I'm talking about the one on the right. Duh. Not the typical Middle Eastern matron shape, true, but definitely the latest thing in fashions for fastidious Islamists. If you think this is a joke, check Google Images for "burkini" and you'll see hundreds of them, available online or from your local Muslim merchant.
Believe it or not, some people find this lovely beachwear offensive. This week, the mayor of Cannes, the French resort town, has announced a ban on the wearing of burkinis, for the sake of public order. Mayor David Lisnard called the burkini a "symbol of Islamic extremism". Imagine that!
The actual decree reads as follows: "Access to beaches and for swimming is banned to any person wearing improper clothes that are not respectful of good morals and secularism. Beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation, when France and places of worship are currently the target of terrorist attacks, is liable to create risks of disrupting public order."
Can you imagine any government official in the USA, Canada or Britain being so politically incorrect as to write or say such things? I thought not.
UPDATE 15/8/16: Yes! Ed. has found a video! This comes from Canada's Global TV, with a report that the mayor of a Corsican town has banned burkinis after a clash between local residents and Muslim bathers of North African origin. Ange-Pierre Vivoni, the mayor of Sisco, told France-Info radio Monday that the ban aimed at calming religious tensions and protecting Muslims.
The French Ministry of the Interior said a clash Saturday in Sisco that left at least four people injured and three cars torched reportedly started over the presence of women in burkinis. Cannes and the town of Villeneuve-Loubet also recently banned the burkini.
Further reading (for those confused about Islamic dress): "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", one of WWW's most-viewed posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)