Yves Mamou : France: No-Go Zones Now in Heart of Big Cities

France: No-Go Zones Now in Heart of Big Cities

by Yves Mamou
May 23, 2017 at 4:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10404/france-no-go-zones

• "There are several hundred square meters of pavement abandoned to men alone; women are no longer considered entitled to be there. Cafés, bars and restaurants are prohibited to them, as are the sidewalks, the subway station and the public squares." – Le Parisien.
• "For more than a year, the Chapelle-Pajol district (10th-18th arrondissements) has completely changed its face: groups of dozens of lone men, street vendors, aliens, migrants and smugglers harass women and hold the streets." – Le Parisien.
• In the heart of Paris, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Marseille, Grenoble, Avignon, districts here and there have been "privatized" by a mix of drug traffickers, Salafist zealots and Islamic youth gangs. The main victims are women. They are – Muslim and non-Muslim -- sexually harassed; some are sexually assaulted. The politicians, as usual, are fully informed of the situation imposed upon women.

In January, 2015, a week after the attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the American television channel Fox News created a scandal in France by claiming that Islamic "no-go zones" were established in the heart of Paris. For the French media, the existence of no-go zones -- where non-Muslims are unwelcome and Islamic law, sharia, holds sway -- in the heart of the capital was pure nonsense and horrifying "fake news." Paris's mayor, Anne Hidalgo, said she planned to sue Fox News and that the "honor of Paris" was at stake.

By May 2017, however, the tone had changed. The French daily, Le Parisien, disclosed that, in fact, no-go zones are in the heart of the capital. It seems that the district of Chapelle-Pajol, in the east of Paris, has become very much a no-go zone. Hundreds of Muslim migrants and drug dealers crowd the streets, and harass women for wearing what many of these migrants apparently regard as immodest clothing:

"Women in this part of eastern Paris complain that they cannot move about without being subjected to comments and insults from men.
"There are several hundred square meters of pavement abandoned to men alone; women are no longer considered entitled to be there. Cafés, bars and restaurants are prohibited to them, as are the sidewalks, the subway station and the public squares. For more than a year, the Chapelle-Pajol district (10th-18th arrondissements) has completely changed its face: groups of dozens of lone men, street vendors, aliens, migrants and smugglers harass women and hold the streets."

Natalie, a 50-year-old resident of the area said: "The atmosphere is agonizing, to the point of having to modify our routes and our clothing. Some [women] even gave up going out."

Aurélie, 38, who has lived in the area for 15 years, said that the café-bar below her apartment had been a pleasant place, but has turned into an exclusively male establishment. "I have to listen to a lot of remarks when I pass by, especially since they drink a lot," she said.
A local 80-year-old woman is reported to have totally stopped leaving her apartment after being sexually assaulted one day as she was returning home. Another woman is said to suffer a flood of insults simply by standing at her window.

Mayor Hidalgo is not talking about suing the media for defaming the honor of Paris anymore. She even said that this security issue has been "identified for several weeks", and proposed launching an "exploratory process" to combat discrimination against women and a "local delinquency treatment group". It was slightly hollow, Orwellian "newspeak," and aroused mockery and indignation on social networks.

Mentioning no-go zones in France was, until recently, taboo. It was regarded as "racist" or "Islamophobic" -- most of the time both -- to talk about that. In May 2016, Patrick Kanner, France's Minister for Urban Areas, harassed by journalists, finally acknowledged the truth : "There are today, we know, a hundred neighborhoods in France that present potential similarities with what has happened in Molenbeek." He was referring to the infamous neighborhood in Brussels, under Salafist control, which has become the epicenter of jihad in Europe.
What is new, is that no-go zones are no longer relegated to the suburbs, where migrants and Muslims have usually been concentrated.


No-go zones, through mass migration, have been emerging in the heart of Paris, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Marseille, Grenoble, Avignon -- districts "privatized" here and there by a mix of drug traffickers, Salafist zealots and Islamic youth gangs. The main victims are women. They are -- both Muslim and non-Muslim -- sexually harassed; some are sexually assaulted.

Politicians, as usual, are fully informed of the situation imposed upon women. A 2014 report from the High Commissioner on Equality revealed that in the so-called "sensitive urban areas," nearly one in ten women has suffered physical or sexual violence.

Another report handed to the government, in September 2016, by the organization "France Médiation" revealed significant details, albeit written in chastened terms:

Public areas are "occupied" exclusively by men who "park" there, and women are merely authorized to pass through them...
It's not unique to this city: in the past 10 years, women have been seen public spaces desert them.
"You have to stay away, not provoke. I always go out with my children so there is no problem."
In some places, male groups "monopolize" public spaces and sometimes block the access to the entrances of buildings
Women are obliged to avoid the elevator in order to flee glances and remarks that are sometimes unpleasant. They have go up the stairs -- dirty, unlit and several stories high.
Cafés are occupied exclusively by men; women do not dare to enter them; they even avoid passing by.

The newly elected French president, Emmanuel Macron, ostensibly avoided security questions during the election campaign. No doubt, security questions will overtake him sooner than he thinks.

(Image source: Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images)

Yves Mamou, author and journalist, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde.

• Follow Yves Mamou on Facebook

Uzay Bulut : Europe: Muslim Atrocities against Women? So What!

Europe: Muslim Atrocities against Women? So What!

by Uzay Bulut
May 21, 2017 at 4:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10381/europe-women-muslim-atrocities

• These examples are merely a sampling of what is becoming commonplace across Europe. In the name of human rights, inclusion, diversity and equality, "enlightened" activists and judicial authorities are apologizing for and excusing Muslim criminals for behavior that would not be tolerated from anyone else -- and should not be tolerated.
• Do these judges work for Islamic sharia courts or for secular European courts?
• These court rulings are an open call to Muslim men in Europe to rape women, children, anyone they like. Those cultures in which women and children as are viewed as property deserve no respect, and certainly not preferential treatment.

It happened again last week. Two Turkish nationals in Schwerin, Germany were arrested for raping a 13-year-old girl after forcing themselves into her home.

Schwerin, Germany (Image source: Getty Images)

Recently, a judge in Germany acquitted a Turkish drug dealer of raping one of his customers last August. He had forced himself on her for four hours and left her incapacitated for weeks. He told the judge that in the culture from where he came, what she "had experienced as rape" might be considered merely "wild sex".
What "culture" is this?

According to the Turkish women's rights organization "We Will Stop the Murders of Women," which publishes monthly reports, in March of this year alone, 35 women were killed; 14 others were exposed to sexual violence, and 63 children were molested. Many children, the report said, had been sexually abused for years, and often attempted suicide.

The report also stated that the murder of women in Turkey -- 63% percent of which is committed by husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers or sons -- is spurred more than half the time by women; it is supposedly their fault: they actually wanted to make decisions about their lives, such as getting a divorce, before they were murdered.

Worse, nearly a third of those are classified by authorities as "suspicious murders," perpetrated by "unknown assailants."

Torturing women to death is also increasingly widespread, as well as killing young children along with their mothers. One case involved a man who slit the throats of his ex-wife and their five-year-old daughter.

As above, crimes against girls and women are often shrugged off by Turkey's criminal justice system. One case in point is of a man acquitted by a judge in Eskisehir; the man was accused by his cousin of repeated rape and death threats, from the time the victim was 13 years old. After a nine-month trial and massive evidence against him, the man was acquitted.

Although crimes against women take place all over the world, practices such as sexual enslavement and stoning to death are far more widespread in Islamic societies, where they are also socially and legally tolerated -- as rooted in Islamic scripture. The Quran, for instance, allows men to beat his wives.

Tragically, Europe, when Muslims are the perpetrators, seems to be adopting the sharia approach to rape.
Britain's The Independent reported in October:

"A man who raped a 10-year-old boy at a swimming pool in Austria has had his conviction overturned after judges found he may have believed the child consented. Police said the 20-year-old Iraqi refugee, who has not been named, assaulted his victim in a toilet cubicle at the Theresienbad swimming pool in Vienna on 2 December last year.
"The child reported the rape to a lifeguard and his attacker was arrested at the scene, reportedly telling officers in initial interviews that he was experiencing a 'sexual emergency' after not having sex in four months. In June, he was jailed for a minimum of six years for rape and aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, and ordered to pay €4,700 (£3,700) compensation to the boy's family.
"Speaking to local media, the victim's mother revealed her son had been 'screaming and crying every night' since the attack and had talked of suicide."

This came from the UK's Daily Mail:

"A young left-wing German politician has admitted she lied to police about the racial background of three men who raped her in case it triggered reprisals against refugees in her country.
"Selin Gören, the national spokeswoman of the left-wing youth movement Solid, was attacked by three men in January in the city of Mannheim where she works as a refugee activist.
"The 24-year-old was ambushed late at night in a playground where she said she was forced to perform a sex act on her attackers.
"After the assault, she went straight to the police -- but she did not tell them the ethnic make-up of the men, that they were speaking Arabic or Farsi.
"Selin, aware of the backlash that migrants suffered after the events in Cologne on New Year's Eve - when hundreds of women were sexually assaulted and robbed by marauding gangs of immigrant youths - instead said she was robbed and said her attackers spoke German.
"Now she has told Germany's Spiegel magazine why she lied...[because she] did not want to stoke 'more hatred against migrants in Germany.'"

These examples are merely a sampling of what is becoming commonplace across Europe. In the name of human rights, inclusion, diversity and equality, "enlightened" activists and judicial authorities are apologizing for and excusing Muslim criminals for behavior that would not be tolerated from anyone else -- and that should not be tolerated.

By overlooking or justifying Islamic atrocities, Europeans are not only endangering innocent women and children; they are actually encouraging rape and other forms of violence. Meanwhile, they are also complicit in destroying Western values.
If one such value is multiculturalism, sadly -- contrary to "progressive" belief -- not all cultures are necessarily equal. Those cultures in which women and children as are viewed as property deserve no respect, and certainly not preferential treatment.

Do these judges work for sharia courts or for secular European courts?
What kind of a message do these judges give to Muslim and other criminals in Europe with their decisions? These court rulings are an open call to Muslim men in Europe to rape women, children, anyone they like. What will a society be like to live in if the courts will be on the side of the rapists and they will not be held accountable?

Why not publicize that if people decide to move to a country, they must respect the citizens and laws of that country? Bringing the primitive aspects of one's culture to a host country should not be encouraged or tolerated. Rape is always rape, assault is always assault, no matter who the perpetrator is. Western countries must stop tolerating Muslim criminals because of their religion. That is not wise public policy or even justice. Cultures and religions that do not respect women and others do not deserve to be respected.

Unfortunately, these extremely basic truths haven been largely ignored. The politically correct multiculturalists have created an environment in which some Europeans have forgotten what it means to stand up for reason, truth and justice- perhaps out of fear of being called "racist"; or the very misguided desire to "prevent a backlash against Muslims." It would be nice if Muslims would help to prevent the "frontlash".

By tolerating Muslim criminals in the name of human rights, tolerance, inclusion, diversity, or equality, however, these judges or activists are actually destroying those values. By taking the side of the rapists and becoming complicit in their crimes, they are encouraging rapists and turning everyone -- including children -- into potential victims.
Trying to justify rapes and other crimes committed by Muslims is an attack against the safety and dignity of everyone.

Uzay Bulut, a journalist born and raised a Muslim in Turkey, is currently based in Washington D.C. She is a writing fellow of the Middle East Forum.

• Follow Uzay Bulut on Twitter

Giulio Meotti : The Gender Obsessed West Sets Itself Up for the Rise of Islam

The Gender Obsessed West Sets Itself Up for the Rise of Islam

by Giulio Meotti
May 20, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10347/gender-culture-decline

• French authorities imposed on students ridiculous books such as Daddy Wears a Dress. It would have been comical if the following years would not have been so tragic. What, in fact, wrecked these French illusions was Islamic terrorism.
• The only enemy these French élites knew were patriarchal privileges, since for them "domination" comes only from the white male Europeans.
• Obsession with gender is a convenient distraction to avoid facing matters that are more difficult and less pleasant. If the West will not commit itself to preserving Western societies and values, it will fall. And its extraordinary progress will be blanketed over by darkness, along with all those gender rights.

Welcome to the progressive "next frontier of 'liberation'", where the most urgent question in Western democracies is "genderism".

North Carolina was subjected to a year of being boycotted, until it withdrew its transgender bathroom law.
Last month, the National Union of Teachers in Great Britain asked the government to teach children as young as two new transgender theories.
 New York recently presented the first "trans-doll".
American universities are wracked with hysteria over the correct use of neutral pronouns. 
Even National Geographic, instead of writing about lions and elephants, started covering the "Gender Revolution". One of the first announcements of Emmanuel Macron, as the French President-elect, was that he would appoint officials from a "gender equal" list.

(Image source: Sara D. Davis/Getty Images)

What does it mean that this gender mania is permeating every corner of Western societies and culture? According to Camille Paglia, the contrarian feminist, it is a sign of the decline of Western civilization. In her new book, Free Women, Free Men, she writes:

"Civilizations have gone through recurrent cycles. Extravaganzas of gender experimentation sometimes precede cultural collapse, as they certainly did in Weimar Germany. Now as then, there are forces aligning outside the borders, scattered fanatical hordes where the cult of heroic masculinity still has tremendous force".

She then asks:

"How has it happened that so many of today's most daring and radical young people now define themselves by sexual identity alone? There has been a collapse of perspective here that will surely have mixed consequences for our art and culture and that may perhaps undermine the ability of Western societies to understand or react to the vehemently contrary beliefs of others who do not wish us well. Transgender phenomena multiply and spread in 'late' phases of culture, as religious, political, and family traditions weaken and civilizations begin to decline".

It is not a coincidence that this obsession with gender grew out of Western culture during the 1990s, the decade of peace and prosperity before 9/11. The decade was free of any existential angst, consumed by the Monica Lewinski scandal and dominated by Francis Fukuyama's "End of History". According to Rusty Reno, editor of First Things, gender ideology is a symbol of our epoch of "weakening", pointing to a globalized future "governed by the hearth gods of health, wealth, and pleasure". The high priests of this ideology, however, did not take into account the rise of radical Islam.

Before the French cities of Paris, Nice and Rouen came under the assault of jihadist groups, the French Socialist government had just one cultural priority: the "ABC of gender equality". 
The name came from a controversial program that France's women's rights minister, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, had launched in 500 schools.

After approving same-sex marriage, the French government apparently thought it also had to promote a cultural revolution. According to Education Minister Benoît Hamon, who failed miserably in the recent presidential elections, schools are "a battlefield". Half the pupils boycotted "gender theory" lessons. Then French authorities imposed on students ridiculous books such as Daddy Wears a Dress. It would have been comical if the following years would not have been so tragic.

What, in fact, wrecked these French illusions was Islamic terrorism.

The effect on Western culture of this gender ideology is the rejection of the critical spirit combined with a "kitsch appeal to sentiment against reason." 

The same gender-obsessed culture refuses to see the burkini as an Islamist tool, and instead turns it into a symbol of human rights. 

The consequence is that the jihadist threat is perceived merely as an unacceptable disruption of Western lifestyles. Europe risks to losing all its historic gifts: human dignity, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and its colossal culture.

The erotocratic French élites were not prepared for what turned out to be the most severe terror assault since 9/11. 

France, obsessed with the "ABC of equality", was caught off-guard and ready to be disarmed when terrorists attacked it during the day that celebrates equality. 

 In France, there was simply no public resistance to sharia law and jihadist ideology. Intoxicated with the obsolescence of identity, the only enemy these French élites knew were patriarchal privileges, since for them "domination" comes only from the white male Europeans.

The presidency of Emmanuel Macron has already been hailed by gender activists. "Macron is like a breath of fresh air in this country," said Natacha Henry, a writer on gender issues, at the New York Times. "I think he won because he didn't do any kind of macho performance, and that's what we need."

Anesthetization by an obsession with gender rights further seems to have become a fixture of countries after terror attacks. 

Soon after jihadists targeted Spain in 2004 and forced it to withdraw troops from Iraq, the Socialist government of Jose Luis Zapatero embraced the titillation of gender ideology, including gay-friendly "diversity" training at elementary schools. The "Zapatero Project" was based on the "scorn of nature, reinvention of what is human, exaltation of desire". Former U.S. President Barack Obama's years were also marked by an "obsession" with transgender rights. Obsession with gender is a convenient distraction to avoid facing matters that are more difficult and less pleasant.

There is a saying that civilizations can be destroyed from within, rather than by armies from without. 
If the West will not commit itself to preserving Western societies and values, it will fall. 
And its extraordinary progress will be blanketed over by darkness, along with all those gender rights.
According to Camille Paglia, "a purely secular culture risks hollowness and, paradoxically, sets itself up for the rise of fundamentalist movements that ominously promise to purify and discipline". 
Such as -- name it -- radical Islam.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

Alan M. Dershowitz : Who Will Stand up for Civil Liberties?

Who Will Stand up for Civil Liberties?

by Alan M. Dershowitz
May 19, 2017 at 3:00 pm

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10386/who-will-stand-up-for-civil-liberties

At a moment in history when the ACLU is quickly becoming a partisan left wing advocacy group that cares more about getting President Trump than protecting due process (see my recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal,) who is standing up for civil liberties?
The short answer is no one. 
Not the Democrats, who see an opportunity to reap partisan benefit from the appointment of a special counsel to investigate any ties between the Trump campaign/ administration and Russia.
Not Republican elected officials who view the appointment as giving them cover.
Certainly not the media who are revelling in 24/7 "bombshells."
Not even the White House, which is too busy denying everything to focus on "legal technicalities" that may sound like "guilty man arguments."

Legal technicalities are of course the difference between the rule of law and the iron fist of tyranny. Civil liberties protect us all. As H.L. Mencken used to say: "The trouble about fighting for human freedom is that you have to spend much of your life defending sons of bitches: for oppressive laws are always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be stopped in the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." History demonstrates that the first casualty of hyper-partisan politics is often civil liberties.

Consider the appointment of the special counsel to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." Even if there were such direct links that would not constitute a crime under current federal law. Maybe it should, but prosecutors have no right to investigate matters that should be criminal but are not.

This investigation will be conducted in secret behind closed doors; witnesses will be denied the right to have counsel present during grand jury questioning; they will have no right to offer exculpatory testimony or evidence to the grand jury; inculpatory hearsay evidence will be presented and considered by the grand jury; there will be no presumption of innocence; no requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, only proof sufficient to establish the minimal standard of probable cause. The prosecutor alone will tell the jury what the law is and why they should indict; and the grand jury will do his bidding. As lawyers quip: they will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor tells them to. This sounds more like Star Chamber injustice than American justice.

And there is nothing in the constitution that mandates such a kangaroo proceeding. All the Fifth Amendment says is: "no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." The denials of due process come from prosecutorially advocated legislative actions. The founding fathers would be turning over in their graves if they saw what they intended as a shield to protect defendants, turned into a rusty sword designed to place the heavy thumb of the law on the prosecution side of the scale.

Advocates of the current grand jury system correctly point out that a grand jury indictment is not a conviction. The defendant has the right to a fair jury trial, with all the safeguards provided in the constitution. But this ignores the real impact of an indictment on the defendant. Based on a one-sided indictment alone, the "ham sandwich" can be fired from his or her job or suspended from university.
Consider what happened to the Arthur Andersen company and its thousands of employees when it was indicted for obstructing an official proceeding by destroying records relating to one of its clients. Although Andersen was ultimately vindicated, the indictment itself forced it into bankruptcy causing a loss of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in shareholder values.
Many individual have been indicted on the basis of one sided grand jury prosecutions and subsequently acquitted after a fair trial. Many of these individuals also suffered grievously as the result of being unfairly indicted.

Consider the consequences of an indictment by the special counsel's grand jury in this matter. Not a conviction – just an indictment handed down by a grand jury that heard only one side in secret. It depends, of course on who the indictment named. In the Nixon case, for example, the president was named as an unindicted co- conspirator by the Watergate grand jury. This meant that he could not even defend himself at a trial. I was on the national board of the ACLU at the time. And although I despised Nixon and campaigned for his opponent, I wanted the ACLU to object to the unfairness of a one sided grand jury naming him as an unindicted co conspirator.

So I will be standing up for civil liberties during the duration of this investigation. As a civil libertarian, I care more about due process and the rule of law than I do about politics. But many people conflate my advocacy for civil liberties with support for President Trump. I have been bombarded with tweets such as: "Alan loves Donald. He's throwing him lifelines;" "Has he been hired by Trump? Time to come clean;" "@AlanDersh I thought you were a smart guy. After hearing you support Trumpie, guess not;" "Has Trump already hired @AlanDersh to defend him? Clearly sounds that way;" and "No matter the subject, he inserts himself in the conversation with a full-throated and nonsensical defense of Trump."

Let me be clear: I voted for Hillary Clinton and oppose many of President Trump's policies. I would be taking the same position if the shoe were on the other foot – if Hillary Clinton had been elected and she were being subjected to an unfair process. Indeed I did do precisely that when she was threatened with prosecution. Remember the chants of "lock her up" during the campaign?

I will continue to monitor the current investigations into President Trump and his associates for any violation of civil liberties. I will call them as I see them, without regard to which side benefits.

• Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter

Soeren Kern : Germany: Should Migrants Integrate? The Cultural Integration Initiative.

Germany: Should Migrants Integrate?

"We are an open society. We show our face. We do not wear burkas."

by Soeren Kern
May 19, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10382/germany-migrants-integration

• The list makes no mention of German culture as being the guiding or core culture (Leitkultur), nor does the task force explicitly demand that migrants assimilate to the German way of life. Rather, the guiding principles appear to be aimed at encouraging Germans to embrace the foreign cultural norms that migrants bring to Germany.
• "We cannot ask anyone to respect our customs if we are not ready to articulate them.... Our country is shaped by Christianity.... Germany is part of the West, culturally, spiritually and politically speaking." — German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière.
• Proponents of a Leitkultur argue that it necessary to prevent the establishment of parallel societies, including those governed by Islamic sharia law.

A government task force created to promote the integration of migrants into German society has published a list of the core features of German culture.
The list studiously omits politically incorrect terms such as "patriotism" and "leading culture" (Leitkultur), and effectively reduces German traditions and values to the lowest common denominator.
The task force, in fact, implicitly establishes multiculturalism as the most complete expression of German culture.
The so-called Cultural Integration Initiative (Initiative kulturelle Integration) was created by the German government in December 2016 to promote "social cohesion" after Chancellor Angela Merkel opened German borders to more than a million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
The task force — led by the German Cultural Council (Deutscher Kulturrat) in close cooperation with the German Interior Ministry and two dozen media, religious and other interest groups — was charged with reaching a consensus on what constitutes German culture. 
The original aim was to facilitate "cultural integration" by encouraging migrants to assimilate to a shared set of cultural values.
After five months of deliberation, the task force on May 16 presented a list of what it considers to be the top 15 guiding principles of German culture. Encapsulated in the catchphrase "Cohesion in Diversity," the list consists of mostly generic ideas about German culture — gender equality, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, pluralism and democracy — that are not at all unique to Germany.
Moreover, the list makes no mention of German culture as being the guiding or core culture (Leitkultur), nor does the task force explicitly demand that migrants assimilate to the German way of life.
Rather, the guiding principles appear to be aimed at encouraging Germans to embrace the foreign cultural norms that migrants bring to Germany. The task force's focus seems to have shifted from integration and assimilation to coexistence, tolerance and to the Germans adopting the migrant's core culture.
The preamble states:

"Integration affects all people in Germany. Social cohesion can neither be prescribed, nor is it alone a task of politics.... Solidarity is one of the basic principles of our coexistence. It shows itself in our understanding of each other and in the attention to the needs of others — we stand for a solidarity society....
"Immigration changes a society and requires openness, respect and tolerance on all sides.... The stirring up of fears and hostilities is not the right way — we stand for a cosmopolitan society....
"The European integration process is not only a guarantee for peace in Europe and an important basis for prosperity and employment, it also stands for cultural convergence as well as for common European values ​​— we want a united Europe."

A job fair for migrants, held on February 25, 2016 in Berlin, Germany. (Image source: Carsten Koall/Getty Images)

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, a well-known supporter of the idea of a core culture (Leitkultur), expressed disappointment at the task force's refusal to be more specific about what constitutes Germanness. "We cannot ask anyone to respect our customs if we are not ready to articulate them," he said. At a press conference in Berlin on May 16, he elaborated:

"I clearly disagree with the German Cultural Council regarding the word Leitkultur: I like the word, the council does not. It is still not clear to me whether what disturbs you is the word 'core' or the word 'culture' or the combination of both words. Or is it something else in the past."

Proponents of a Leitkultur argue that it necessary to prevent the establishment of parallel societies, including those governed by Islamic sharia law. Critics say that a Leitkultur would require migrants to abandon some parts of their identities to conform to the majority — the opposite of the multicultural ideal in which migrants should be allowed to retain their identities.

De Maizière generated a firestorm of criticism after he wrote an article, published by Bild on April 29, calling on migrants to accept a German Leitkultur. He argued that Germany needs a "core culture to act as a common thread through society, especially because migration and an open society are making us more diverse."
In his article, de Maizière outlined ten core features of a core German culture, including the principle of meritocracy and respect for German culture and history. He added: "There is something beyond our language, constitution, and respect for fundamental rights that binds us in our hearts, which makes us different, and distinguishes us from others."

Commenting on the role of religion in Germany, de Maizière wrote that "our state is neutral, but friendly towards churches and religious communities.... Church towers shape our landscape. Our country is shaped by Christianity.... Germany is part of the West, culturally, spiritually and politically speaking." He added:

"In Germany we say our name and shake our hand when greeting. We are an open society. We show our face. We do not wear burkas."

De Maizière's comments were greeted with widespread derision. Martin Schulz, chancellor candidate for the Social Democrats (SPD), said that Germany's "leading culture, consisting of freedom, justice and peaceful coexistence, is enshrined in the constitution."

German Green Party member, Jamila Schäfer, said:

"As soon as your identity is based most strongly on which country you belong to, you can easily adopt an attitude of superiority. And that is dangerous and anti-democratic because it is excluding others. A society is always changing, and one of the reasons for that is migration. I do not think that finding a way to live together peacefully is about preserving one's culture."

Schäfer's view, if taken to its logical conclusion, would surrender German culture for the chimera of social peace: accepting that Germany's Judeo-Christian heritage slowly be replaced by Islamic sharia law. Many German politicians agree with Schäfer.

The leader of the Free Democrats, Christian Lindner, accused de Maizière of reopening "an old and outdated" debate: "Once again, it is about religion."
The former general secretary of Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU), Ruprecht Polenz, said that the concept of a Leitkultur "does not fit into a pluralistic society." He added:

"A certain conception of Islam suggests or even forbids men from shaking hands with women. I do not think it is good, but it does not hurt. It does not have to be problematized by the debate over a Leitkultur."

Germany's Integration Commissioner, Aydan Özoğuz, denounced the debate over Leitkultur as "ridiculous and absurd." Writing in Tagesspiegel, she argued:

"A specifically German culture, beyond the language, is simply not identifiable. Historically, regional cultures, immigration and diversity have shaped our history. Globalization and pluralization have further multiplied diversity. Immigrants cannot be regulated by a majority culture."

Despite the criticism from German politicians, de Maizière appears to have the support of the German public. A May 5 Insa poll conducted for Focus magazine found that 52.5% of Germans agreed that Germany needs a Leitkultur. Only 25.3% of respondents were opposed.

De Maizière's efforts come amid attempts by the CDU to win back conservative voters angered over Merkel's liberal immigration policies. Many of those have embraced the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a party that has called for curbs to mass migration.

A May 17 Forsa poll for Stern and RTL showed that if the September federal election were held today, Merkel's CDU would win with 38% of the vote, far ahead of the SPD with 26%. The FDP would win 8% of the vote, followed by the Greens and the AfD, each with 7%. If Germans were able to choose the chancellor directly, rather than through party lists, Merkel would win with 50%, compared to 24% for her main challenger, Martin Schulz of the SPD. German voters, at least for now, appear to be happy with the status quo, with or without a Leitkultur.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

• Follow Soeren Kern on Twitter and Facebook

Yves Mamou : France: The Ideology of Islamic Victimization

France: The Ideology of Islamic Victimization

by Yves Mamou
May 18, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10134/france-islamic-victimization

• They are not the victims of any racist system -- it does not exist -- but they are the victims of an ideology of victimization, which claims that they are discriminated against because of race and religion.
• Victimization is an excuse offered by the state, by most politicians (right and left) and by the mainstream media.
• To avoid confrontation, all the politicians from the mainstream political parties and all mainstream media are going along with the myth of victimization. The problem is that this is only fueling more violence, more terrorism and more fantasies of victimization.

French sociological research seems to have no new books, articles or ideas about French Muslim radicalization.
It is not hard to see why: the few scholars tempted to wander off the beaten path ("terrorists are victims of society, and suffering from racism" and so on) are afraid to be called unpleasant names.
In addition, many sociologists share the same Marxist ideology that attributes violent behavior to discrimination and poverty.
If some heretics try to explain that terrorists are not automatically victims (of society, of white French males, of whatever) a pack of hounds of Muslim and non-Muslim scholars start baying to lynch them as racists, Islamophobes and bigots.

"Youth and Radicalism: Religious and Political Factors"

After the November 2015, terrorist attacks in Paris, Alain Fuchs, president of France's National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), launched a call for a new project to understand some of the "factors of radicalization" in France.
The project that emerged, "Youth and Radicalism: Religious and Political Factors", by Olivier Galland and Anne Muxel, was thorough. Their survey is based mainly on a poll conducted by Opinion Way of 7,000 high school students, and was followed by a second "poll" of 1,800 young people (14 to 16 years old). The next phase will apparently include individual and group interviews with young secondary-school students.
Galland and Muxel do not say that their survey is "representative" of all French youth. Muslims high school students are over-represented in the polls, in order to understand what is at stake in this segment of the population.
Their proposal, however, is heretical: it means there is a problem with Muslims.
The preliminary results of this vast study were released at a press conference on March 20. To the question in the study: What are the main factors of radicalization? The answer was: religion.

"We can not deny the 'religion effect'. Among young Muslims, the religion effect is three times more important than in non-Muslim groups. Four percent of youths of all denominations defend an absolutist vision of religion and apparently adhere to radical ideas; this figure is 12% among young Muslims in our sample. They defend an absolutist view of religion -- believing both that there is 'one true religion' and that religion explains the creation of the world better than science."

What about the usual explanations of lack of economic integration, fear of being on welfare, social exclusion and so on?

"A purely economic explanation appears not to be validated. The idea of ​​a 'sacrificed generation', tempted by radicalism, is confronted with the feeling of a relatively good integration of these populations. [Young Muslims] appear neither more nor less confident in their future than all other French youths; they believe in their ability to pursue studies after the baccalaureat and to find a satisfactory job."

These young Muslims recognize that they are not suffering from racism or discrimination. But at the same time, many of them say they "feel" discriminated against anyway. They are not the victims of any racist system -- it does not exist -- but they are the victims of an ideology of victimization, which claims that they are discriminated against because of race and religion.

"The feeling of being discriminated against is twice as strong in our sample especially among young people of Muslim faith or of foreign origin. To explain the adherence [of young Muslims] to radicalism, we must consider that religious factors are combining with identity issues, and mixing themselves with feelings of victimization and discrimination".

If Islam is an engine of radicalization, the second powerful engine of radicalization is this dominant ideology of victimization.

"Young Muslims who feel discriminated against adhere more often to radical ideas than those who do not feel discriminated against."

These preliminary results are more than worrying. Against all sociological evidence, social origin and academic level do not outweigh the effect of religious affiliation. In other words, regardless of a young Muslim's performance at school and his parents' profession, he is four times more likely than a young Christian to adhere to radical ideas.

"This strength of the effect of Islam is perhaps the most surprising teaching of this study," points out Olivier Galland. "This is confirmed in school by school statistics. Whatever their sociology, Muslim youths have an identical propensity to become a radical."
 ==========

This study is not the first to bring to light the process of the radicalization of young Muslims in France. It is, however, the first to connect radicalization and the ideology of victimization. Victimization is an excuse offered by the state, by most politicians (right and left) and by the mainstream media. Moreover, not only does the policy of blaming victimization fail to be of any help, but the excuse of victimization is actually fueling terrorism.
When, on February 17, 2017, French President François Hollande rushed to visit Théo, a 22-year-old youth who claimed that the police sodomized him with a baton during a confrontation with drug dealers -- it appeared later that Theo was not so sure of his accusations against the police. The presidential visit was not helpful. The meeting between President Hollande and Theo sparked three weeks of riots in the suburbs of Paris.

When Emmanuel Macron, the new president of France, states that he is in favor of "positive discrimination" (a €15,000 grant of public money for any company that hires a youth from the suburbs), he is encouraging future jihadists to represent themselves as victims.

When Emmanuel Macron, the new president of France, states that he is in favor of "positive discrimination", he is encouraging future jihadists to represent themselves as victims. (Image source: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

France has Europe's largest Muslim community, largest Jewish community, largest Chinese community, and largest Armenian community. The French integration model worked for all those groups except one. A growing percentage of Muslims in France are not accepting the rules that everyone else has accepted. To avoid confrontation, all the politicians from the mainstream political parties and all mainstream media are going along with the myth of victimization. The problem is that this is only fueling more violence, more terrorism and more fantasies of victimization.

Yves Mamou, author and journalist, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde.

• Follow Yves Mamou on Facebook

Samuel Westrop : American Islam's Most Extreme Conference

American Islam's Most Extreme Conference

by Samuel Westrop
May 18, 2017 at 4:30 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10374/mas-icna-conference

• Islamists, forming inherently political movements, insist to policy-makers and the media that Islam is homogenous and that their Islamist organizations speak on behalf of all Muslims, despite their clear lack of any mandate.
• Politicians and journalists -- by speaking at Islamist conferences, or treating the Muslim community as a homogenous bloc represented by self-appointed groups such as MAS or ICNA -- actually serve to legitimize extremist Islamist leadership.
• Now it falls to national and state governments to stop working with Islamists, and to support genuinely moderate Muslims instead.

Last month, Keith Ellison's name disappeared from a list of speakers at one of the largest conferences in the Muslim calendar. The annual event, which took place in Baltimore from April 14-16, was organized by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Muslim American Society (MAS).
In December 2016, Ellison also withdrew from the convention's sister-conference, the "MAS-ICNA conference," after reports about extreme clerics sharing the stage.
April's conference was no different. Speakers included Siraj Wahhaj, an imam who addresses Muslim events across the country every week, and is a former advisory board member of the Council on American Islamic Relations. Wahhaj has preached:

"I don't believe any of you are homosexual. This is a disease of this society. ... you know what the punishment is, if a man is found with another man? The Prophet Mohammad said the one who does it and the one to whom it is done to, kill them both."

Elsewhere, Wahhaj cites the death penalty for adultery, advocates chopping off the hands of thieves, and tells Muslims:

"Take not into your intimacy those outside of your race. They will not fail to corrupt you. Don't you know our children are surrounded by kafirs [disbelievers]. I'm telling you, making the hearts of our children corrupt, dirty, foul."

Other listed speakers included Abdul Nasir Jangda, who advocates sex-slavery and gives husbands permission to rape their wives; Suleiman Hani, who claims that "Freedom of speech is a facade" used to stifle "objective discussion" of the "Holocaust and Jews"; Mohammad Elshinawy, who claims that women who fail to wear the hijab will contract breast cancer; and Yasir Qadhi, whose violent homophobia was recently the subject of an investigative report by The Times.
Such extremism is not confined to the speakers. The organizing bodies, MAS and ICNA, are not ordinary Muslim organizations, but Islamist groups with long-standing ties to extremism at home and abroad. Senior MAS-ICNA official Ahmed Taha, the organizer of the December conference, is a strident anti-Semite. He published a text on social media that states, "O Muslim, O servant of God. There is a Jew behind me, come kill him."

MAS was founded in 1993 by operatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, while ICNA has identified itself as an American front for Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), a South Asian Islamist group that Bangladeshi officials have linked to terrorism. One of the other listed speakers at the ICNA-MAS conference was, in fact, Yusuf Islahi, a member of the Central Advisory Council of the Indian branch of Jamaat-e-Islami. According to the academic Irfan Ahmad, Islahi claims that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks, as part of a conspiracy to defame Islam.

As America finds itself increasingly exposed to the homegrown Islamist terror that has, in recent years, increasingly gripped Western Europe, politicians and law enforcement are starting to ask how Muslim communities have come to be represented by such extremist groups.

Part of the answer lies in the make-up of Islam. Sunni Islam has no organized clergy. There is no equivalent of a Pope. Instead, Islam is divided into dozens of fractious political and religious sects, which no single person or organization can represent. But Islamists, forming inherently political movements, insist to policy-makers and the media that Islam is homogenous and that their Islamist organizations speak on behalf of all Muslims, despite their clear lack of any mandate.

Non-Muslims either do not know any better, or else are seeking votes. Neither reason helps anyone but the extremists. Politicians and journalists -- by speaking at Islamist conferences, or treating the Muslim community as a homogenous bloc represented by self-appointed groups such as MAS or ICNA -- actually serve to legitimize extremist Islamist leadership.

Ellison made a sensible choice to not attend the ICNA-MAS conference. It is a decision that can only help his political ambitions. Allegations of anti-Semitism made against Ellison during the DNC chairmanship race, whether warranted or not, would likely not be put to bed by standing on a stage next to such preachers.
By withdrawing from the ICNA-MAS conference, as DNC vice-chairman, Ellison also avoided lasting harm to the Democratic Party. This is progress. Now it falls to national and state governments to stop working with Islamists, and to support genuinely moderate Muslims instead.

DNC vice-chairman Keith Ellison's name disappeared from a list of speakers at one of the largest conferences in the Muslim calendar, after reports about extreme clerics sharing the stage. (Image source: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Samuel Westrop is the Director of Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

• Follow Samuel Westrop on Twitter

Judith Bergman : Sweden: A Qatari Protectorate

Sweden: A Qatari Protectorate

by Judith Bergman
May 17, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10373/sweden-qatar

• At the opening of the mega-mosque, Malmö City Councilor Frida Trollmyr gave a speech in which she continued to use the term "cultural center", never using the word "mosque", as if -- Soviet-style -- the use of certain words could alter reality.
• The mega-mosque was never supposed to be a mosque, according to the Wakf's own application for building permits, but merely a "cultural center" (the application talks about "an activity center for youth and families in Malmö with a focus on Rosengård").
• When the journalist asked Khaled Assi whether his organization was in fact building a mosque, he told her that "there already is a mosque in Malmö" and that the "cultural center" would just contain a "small prayer room".

On April 28, the Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs of the State of Qatar opened the Umm Al-Mu'minin Khadijah Mosque in Malmö, Sweden. Qatar -- the epicenter of Muslim Brotherhood and the base of its proselytizing megaphone, Al Jazeera -- paid more than 3 million euros to build the mosque, which is almost 2,000 square meters and accommodates up to 2,000 people, making it the largest mosque in Scandinavia.

One astonishing fact about this new mega-mosque is that, according to Swedish mainstream media, the opening never happened. Not a single Swedish news outlet mentioned the opening. Swedish authorities were also completely silent on the topic. On her Facebook and Twitter accounts, Malmö's Mayor, Katrin Stjernfeldt Jammeh, wrote about the opening of a new office for army recruits in Malmö and the Swedish coast guard moving its activities to Malmö harbor, but failed to mention the opening of the largest mosque in Scandinavia. The website of Malmö municipality was also silent on the topic.

For information on what goes on in Sweden, therefore, one has to turn to Qatar News Agency, which reported:

"Director of the Islamic Affairs Department at the Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs Khalid Shaheen Al Ghanim said that the mosque was built and furnished by the State of Qatar at a cost of over 3 million euros, under the supervision of the Ministry of Awqaf and in collaboration with the Wakf of Scandinavia in Malmo, Sweden
"He added that the Umm Al-Mu'minin Khadijah Mosque is the largest mosque in Scandinavia and is located on the first and second floors of the four-story building of the Wakf of Scandinavia in Sweden. The mosque is equipped with facilities for people with special needs to perform prayers and others for children and women.
"The opening ceremony was attended by representatives of Swedish local authorities, representatives of Islamic institutions in Sweden and Denmark, as well as a number of businessmen."

The organization in Sweden behind the mega-mosque is the Swedish Wakf, better known as the Islamic Community of Malmö. In its statutes, the Swedish Wakf describes itself as a "religious and cultural community, registered as an ideal institution", and "politically independent".

The neighbors of the mega-mosque, which was never supposed to be a mosque, according to the Wakf's own application for building permits, but merely a "cultural center" (the application talks about "an activity center for youth and families in Malmö with a focus on Rosengård"), protested when they learned of the plans in 2010. The Malmö municipality brushed them off. "It is like any congregational activity, and I find it hard to see that there should be anything to worry about", said Dick Johansson, representing Malmö municipality, at the time.

As it turns out, there is a great deal to worry about.
Several of the Swedish Wakf's members come from the Swedish Islamic Cultural Association, whose spokesman and front figure, Ammar Daoud, was described by Swedish newspaper Sydsvenskan in an article from 2006, as the "apprentice" of the Danish imam Abu Laban. Laban, who died in 2007, was known for his jihadist connections and for instigating riots in the Muslim world against Denmark after the 2005 publication of the Mohammed cartoons in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten. He led his own Danish Wakf -- Danish Islamic community -- in Copenhagen.

Laban declared Sayid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood's chief ideologue, to be his role model, and was a frequent guest preacher at one of the basement mosques of the Swedish Cultural Association in Rosengård (a crime-ridden, infamous no-go zone in Malmö).

Already in 2006, Abu Laban told the daily Sydsvenskan that he wanted to "help" his Swedish Muslim friends establish a new mosque. Abu Laban and Ammar Daoud were unhappy with the existing mosque in Malmö, Islamic Center Mosque, which Abu Laban derisively labelled "Islam-light".

In 2010, Khaled Assi, head of the Swedish Wakf (a position he still holds today), told a Swedish journalist that he was "inspired" by Abu Laban and his Wakf in Denmark. When the journalist asked Khaled Assi whether his organization was in fact building a mosque, he told her that "there already is a mosque in Malmö" and that the "cultural center" would just contain a "small prayer room". Asked about the financing of the project, Assi said that the Wakf was "unassociated with any organization" and that all financial contributors were "individuals from Malmö and Skåne", although they would also approach "individuals" abroad.

At the opening of the mega-mosque of the Wakf on April 28, Malmö City Councilor Frida Trollmyr gave a speech in which she continued to use the term "cultural center", never using the word "mosque", as if -- Soviet style -- the use of certain words could alter reality:

"In many ways, this cultural center is unique but at the same time it is one of many meeting places that has contributed to the diversity that has made Malmö into the city it is today. We Malmöites know what this diversity entails and all its strength -- it is that which has made Malmö into the city it is today."

Trollmyr's speech will go down in history as the moment Malmö municipality finally submitted completely to Islam.

When the Swedish independent news site, Samtiden, tried to reach Trollmyr for comment on how the new gender-separated mosque corresponds to Swedish values about gender equality, about Trollmyr's views on the financing of mega-mosques by foreign dictatorships, and what this entails for Malmö with regards to radicalization, Trollmyr's secretary informed Samtiden that the politician did not have time to answer the questions.

In the former democracy of Sweden, politicians are no longer answerable to the citizens, and can apparently cover up whatever topics they choose, no matter how detrimental to the people who elected them. The mainstream media willingly collude with the authorities by uniformly ignoring the issue.

One would have thought, however, that at least one mainstream Swedish journalist would be interested in uncovering the cover-up of the Swedish authorities. Here are some of the many unanswered questions:

How did a project that the Malmö municipality approved as a "cultural center" end up as the largest mosque in Scandinavia?

How did an organization, the Swedish Wakf, which is supposed to be "politically independent", and which said it was collecting its financing from local Muslims, end up having its mosque bought and paid for by Qatar, the primary exporter -- along with Saudi Arabia -- of Wahhabism in the world?

When did Sweden become a province of the dictatorship of Qatar, where the presence of Qatari government officials at the opening of a Qatari-funded mosque in a major Swedish city does not elicit the slightest media attention, let alone criticism, as if this kind of occurrence were the most routine order of the day? 

Instead, the only Swedish reaction is an embarrassingly sycophantic speech by a representative of the Malmö municipality.
In short, when did the Swedish population vote to become a Qatari protectorate?

Editor's Note: On the same day that Gatestone Institute published this article, May 17, 2017, two news outlets in Sweden published reports about the Umm Al-Mu'minin Khadijah mega-mosque.

Malmö, Sweden. (Image source: David Ramos/Getty Images)

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

Stefan Frank : German Companies Boycott Breitbart, Not Ayatollahs

German Companies Boycott Breitbart, Not Ayatollahs

by Stefan Frank
May 17, 2017 at 4:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10348/germany-breitbart-boycott

• Sadly, there seems to be no benefit in opposing this extortion: No one in Germany will praise anyone for protecting freedom of speech — on the contrary. As far as the American market is concerned, they seem to think: America is far away, no one will ever know about it.
• For those who do not like self-appointed "morality police" entering the political arena and taking part in "boycott" actions against freedom of opinion, they themselves may consider boycotting those companies or reporting about them on Twitter.
• The Breitbart boycotters seem to have no qualms about dealing with dictatorial regimes that habitually imprison and torture their citizens. In Iran, Daimler (owner of Mercedes-Benz) wants to become market leader in commercial vehicles. Lufthansa, which allegedly opposes "violence-glorifying, sexist, extremist as well as radical political content," not only offers flights to Tehran, but praises the torture- and stoning-metropolis on its website.

Reports in January noted how Gerald Hensel, a high-ranking employee of Scholz & Friends, one of the two largest advertising agencies in Germany, used his professional position to launch a private war against the freedom of expression, under the slogan "No Money for the Right Wing!"

"Right wing" websites — those which have criticized the German government for its policies on, for example, Muslim mass-migration, the euro rescue or climate policy — should, according to Hensel, be cut off from advertising revenues. If they have no more money, so the thinking goes, it will be more difficult for them to stay in business; perhaps they would give up, and opinions differing from the mainstream would not be put into circulation.

Hensel explained his strategy on his private blog, which featured a red Soviet star: Large conglomerates that want to advertise on the Internet usually do not directly contact specific websites. Instead, computer programs recognize who is interested in a particular product or service, based on the user's search behavior. The advertisement is personalized: a car maker will only approach users who are looking for cars. The advertisement, however, will not only appear on car websites, but on all sites the user visits in the following hours or days.
Hensel urged all of those who are disturbed by diverse views on the internet to exert pressure on companies, by branding particular websites as "right wing." This pressure alone, according to his calculation, would ensure that the company would block the website in question.

His strategy succeeded: Within a few days, the website "Achse des Guten" (Axis of the Good) — one of the most popular German political blogs, which daily exposes the insanity of German politicians and journalists from a common-sense point of view — lost its entire advertising business. Advertising agencies simply cut off the website from their ads.

Those who are leading this war against the freedom of expression often claim innocence: the standard argument is that a company must be able to choose where it wants to place its advertisements, and that this choice has nothing to do with censorship.

The censorship, in fact, takes place elsewhere: where the thought police put pressure on companies to block certain websites. The threat — implicit or explicit — is that if you do not do what we say, we will tell the public that you are advertising with the "right wing," and you know what that would mean for your business.

An internet petition aimed at forcing Amazon to boycott Breitbart News, shows how these activists view freedom of expression:

"Breitbart's advertisers are dropping like flies. ... People power has already forced BMW, T-Mobile and Kellogg's and hundreds of other corporations to drop Breitbart — and now we are going to force Amazon to follow suit. Amazon is receiving loads of pressure already, and if we add our voices from across the planet together now, we can make sure Amazon cannot ignore us anymore."

Activists such as these are not consumers who appeal to a company to meet legitimate ethical demands; rather, they act like a mafia against a restaurant owner who refuses to pay protection money. They occupy the tables with aggressive behavior and scare away the guests — until the owner capitulates, because the economic damage is too great and out of fear of penalties still to come.

Questions to German Boycotters

Gatestone Institute asked some of the large German companies boycotting Breitbart what had caused them to do so: Are there internal guidelines? Are other websites or newspapers boycotted? The answers came quickly and were, in most instances, clearly prefabricated. Inquiries proved fruitless.

AXA, for example, a multinational insurance company based in France, wrote: "AXA Deutschland avoids sites with content that does not fit our brand. The website you mention is part of this."

When Gatestone asked about the criteria, and, with Breitbart, what was the decisive factor for the decision, the answer was: "Please understand that we do not disclose strategies and details of our advertising activities."
Deutsche Telekom / T-Mobile wrote:

"Deutsche Telekom does not advertise on Breitbart.com. ... Deutsche Telekom expressly only allows advertisements to be placed on established networks via 'white listings.' In addition, Telekom regularly defines and updates exclusion lists, so-called 'black listings' of internet pages with undesirable content. We react immediately if we are made aware of Telekom advertising on internet pages with undesirable content, or we ourselves notice Telekom advertising on such sites. I hope the information will be of help. Please understand that we do not comment on our media strategy."

A follow-up question regarding "undesirable content" was answered by a repetition of the previous sentence.

Daimler AG (owner of Mercedes-Benz) sent a "corporate statement," that looked pre-formulated, a kind of encyclical that defines the objectives of the politically correct automobile manufacturer:

"Daimler generally dissociates itself from all forms of discrimination and extremism. Mercedes-Benz has strict advertising guidelines, which are also adhered to by our market and media agencies. These advertising guidelines basically exclude platforms and channels which are not compatible with our principles. These include platforms with content that is extremist or politically polarizing, discriminatory, sexist or criminal in nature. Daimler has also called on its market and media agencies to demand compliance with the strict Mercedes-Benz advertising guidelines for the relevant ad networks."

Criminal content? Extremist? Has Daimler made a mistake? We asked:

"Are you sure that the classification as 'extremist' is not perhaps due to a misunderstanding or a translation error? Could you perhaps mention a few examples of Breitbart articles that spread extremist thought? This would help readers better understand your position."

As with the other companies, there was only a cut-and-paste type of response:

"As we have written, this includes platforms with content that is extremist or politically polarizing, discriminatory, sexist or criminal in nature.... Please understand that we will not name individual items."

The press officer of BMW, responding by telephone, explained that BMW does not have "blacklists" but rather "whitelists," which stipulate exactly where the group's advertising should appear (he mentioned the New York Times as an example of a publication where BMW advertises). When told that German- and English-language newspapers had reported that BMW was boycotting Breitbart, he explained:
 With respect to the "No Money for the Right Wing" campaign launched by Gerald Hensel, journalists had repeatedly called and asked whether BMW advertised on Breitbart. BMW denied this. The journalists might have interpreted this as a "boycott."
Lufthansa, when asked, responded:

"Our principles clearly exclude advertising on websites that represent violent, sexist, extremist and radical political content. The placement of Lufthansa advertising on Breitbart does not meet the stated principles. That is why we have blocked the page for banners that are automated through specialized agencies. The 'blacklist' also includes other websites that do not comply with the above principles."

Does this mean that there is "violent, sexist, extremist and radical political content" on Breitbart? And why is it that answers on the subject of Breitbart always come so fast that they seem to have been shot from a gun? Do journalists frequently ask them about this? Lufthansa's reply:

"We have defined these principles and decided that Lufthansa banners on Breitbart would not be appropriate. And your guess is correct, that your query was not the first on the subject."

Lufthansa, which has Breitbart News on its advertising blacklist, claims to oppose "violence-glorifying, sexist, extremist as well as radical political content." However, Lufthansa not only offers flights to Tehran, but praises the torture- and stoning-metropolis on its website. (Image source: Alexander Hassenstein/Getty Images)

The answer from Volkswagen was:

"Volkswagen of America does not place advertisements on Breitbart.com. However, our Volkswagen trading companies in the USA are privately owned. Our dealers therefore decide independently where they place advertising."

That sounded reasonable. The press officer of Audi (a Volkswagen subsidiary) with whom we also spoke was almost unintelligible:

"Audi of America has in the past not directly placed any advertising on Breitbart. However, the online banner of our American subsidiary was apparently on Breitbart. This happened by means of customer-specific targeting measures. They involved individual users whose surfing behavior resulted in a high degree of automotive interest, and were not bound to specific websites. Audi of America then blocked Breitbart from implementing the targeting measures."
Gatestone: "You said that Audi targets users with high automotive interest. What about someone who shows a strong automotive interest, but who is also a reader of Breitbart News? Can one say that Audi would rather sell fewer cars than to advertise on Breitbart?"
Audi: "The question you asked does not arise for us."
Gatestone: "What can I write in my article about why Audi has blocked the website Breitbart News?
Audi: "I can only refer to our previous statements. We generally do not communicate details of our advertising and communication planning."

Boycott Hysteria and Censorship

Even some left-wing activists have now turned against the boycott hysteria that is spreading among major German conglomerates. On a pacifist site, "War Reporting" (Kriegsberichterstattung), a blogger named "Tom" warned: "Advertising boycott against Trump's Breitbart portal" is "nonsense and dangerous for Daimler AG":

"More than 36 million Americans read Breitbart.com as a news and debate forum — actually, almost every tenth American. To reduce the Breitbart portal to 'racism' or to brand it as 'reactionary,' 'right-wing' or 'extremist,' as some on the left, including advertising specialists, advertising portals and journalists are currently trying to do, misses the point."

With regard to the statement by Daimler, which indirectly accuses Breitbart as a "platform with extremist or politically polarizing, discriminating ... content," the blogger wrote: "It is absurd to dismiss 36 million Americans as being polarized." It is not clear where his number originated.

A commentator at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) wrote about the German boycott:

"It is currently in fashion to brand and denounce people with incorrect views as being 'right wing.' Companies do not want anything to do with that label and immediately reverse course — as you can follow on Twitter — if they are accused of supporting the wrong sites with their advertising... An advertising boycott is, by the way, not only a measure against allegedly dangerous [opinion] blogs and web portals, but above all against critical press coverage. Anyone who relies on such a thing, especially as a strategist of an advertising agency, positions economic power against the diversity of opinion and freedom of the press."

That German companies immediately comply when someone asks them to boycott an American website is not only because they are accustomed to dance to the whistle of the "left," but also due to German anti-Americanism and the German media campaign against Donald Trump — which is based on precisely that anti-Americanism.

Counter-Pressure is Necessary

It appears that none of the German corporations that have committed themselves to boycotting Breitbart understands what is at stake — protecting freedom of speech. It is highly probable that none of their decision-makers has ever read a single article on Breitbart. The only thing they appear to know is that this is an American website that has something to do with Trump and is unpopular with left-wing German journalists. From there, it is a simple business decision: with a few mouse-clicks, opponents of Breitbart — or of any policy with which they might disagree — can harm the image of a brand and thereby sales in Germany. To many, this might seem a bit too close to what Germany did in the 1930s and early 1940s.

Sadly however, there seems to be no benefit in opposing this extortion: No one in Germany will praise anyone for protecting freedom of speech — on the contrary. As far as the American market is concerned, they seem to think: America is far away, no one will ever know about it.

The only thing that could cause them to surrender to the pressure from activists is counter-pressure — people saying to them, "We are not pleased that you, without even informing yourselves, are submitting to activists who believe they have the right to determine which opinions may be published." If there were such pressure, the decision to boycott would not be so pleasant. For those who do not like the self-appointed "morality police" entering the political arena and taking part in "boycott" actions against freedom of opinion, they themselves may consider boycotting those companies or reporting about them on Twitter.

"Have fun in Tehran"

The Breitbart boycotters, incidentally, seem to have no qualms about dealing with dictatorial regimes that habitually imprison and torture their citizens. During an annual meeting of Daimler AG, a shareholder asked the board of directors to which countries the company was exporting military vehicles. The answer was: Abu Dhabi, Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, among others.
In Iran, Daimler wants to become market leader in commercial vehicles.

In January 2016, Daimler Trucks CEO Wolfgang Bernhard arrived in Tehran "just a few hours" after the official lifting of sanctions against Iran. According to the Iranian news agency IRNA, Daimler paid 42 million euros in compensation to the Iranian state company Khodro because Daimler was no longer able to manufacture vehicles in Iran, as a result of sanctions imposed in 2010. Has Daimler never heard of the Iranian regime being rather "extremist, politically polarizing, discriminatory, sexist, and criminal"?

Similarly, Lufthansa, which allegedly opposes "violence-glorifying, sexist, extremist as well as radical political content," not only offers flights to Tehran, but praises the torture- and stoning-metropolis on its website with the words: "The hustle and bustle on the streets has everything you expect from a megacity. ... Have fun in Tehran before you have to catch your Lufthansa flight back home."

Stefan Frank is a journalist and author based in Germany.

• Follow Stefan Frank on Twitter