I realize there are Muslims that have adopted Western norms
particularly in Western nations. Nonetheless, unless a Westernized Muslim is willing
to condemn Quranic, Hadith, Sira or Shariah practices that are contrary to
Western Culture, Western norms and Western Laws (and from my perspective – U.S.
Constitutional Law) those Muslims are underserving of the benefits of residing
in the West.
Yeah I know -Multiculturalists
who care little of the traditions the West has provided are beginning to experience
their blood boiling. I live in America thus I am not Leftist Multicultural
thought and speech laws – at least not subject for now. Americans keep voting American Constitutional Laws for American Courts.
JRH 2/17/20
Your generosity is always appreciated - various credit, check
BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently
been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after
criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing
Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions.
Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I
choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely.
Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are
banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT
CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in
pop-up on 1/20/20: “You're temporarily restricted from joining and posting to
groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
****************************
Female Genital Mutilation and Islamic Social Norms
On January 30th of this year, a 12-year-old girl in Egypt died
as a result of her parents having Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) performed on
her. Egypt has had a law outlawing the practice since 2008. The parents have
been charged. This law was written to protect females because Islamic
social norms permit and encourage this practice.
According to Ian Askew, World Health
Organization Director for the Department of Reproductive Health and Research:
FGM describes all procedures that
involve the partial or total removal of external genitalia or other injury to
the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. It has no health
benefits.
More than 200 million girls and
women alive today are living with FGM and many are at risk of suffering the
associated negative health consequences as a result.
These include death, severe
bleeding and problems urinating. Longer-term consequences range from
cysts and infections to complications in childbirth and increased risk of
newborn deaths.
FGM is a grave violation of the
human rights of girls and women.
Another term used for FGM is female circumcision. Some
countries prefer the term FGC, as it is seen as “more
neutral.” (The “C” being a reference to “cutting.”) This “more neutral” term allows their
medical personnel to package FGM into the “birth package.” Ebony Ridell Bamber, the head of
advocacy and policy at Orchid Project, a UK-based NGO working towards ending
FGM, states that. "It really contributes to legitimizing and
entrenching the practice even further."
In Islam, legitimization comes when shariah, Islamic law,
endorses and promotes a practice. Under shariah, female circumcision is
required of Muslim females. This is documented in Reliance of the Traveller:
e4.3 Circumcision is
obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing
the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of
the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A:
Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while
Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)"
Islamic scholars have been found
using this piece to declare to non-Muslims that shariah does not agree with
FGM, going so far as to claim it is unIslamic if carried out to the extreme and
totally removing the clitoris:
Female circumcision, known pejoratively in its extreme form
as female genital mutilation or cutting, is not prescribed in the Quran and
there are no authentic prophetic traditions recommending the practice.
The basis in Islamic law is that it is not permissible to cause bodily
harm and any such practice of female circumcision proven to be harmful would be
unlawful.
This is very deceptive. Let’s look at what the
abbreviations mean in the above section of shariah:
A: ... comment by Sheikh 'Abd
al-Wakil Durubi
Ar. Arabic
n: ... remark by the
translator
O: ... excerpt from the commentary
of Sheikh 'Umar Barakat
Taking the commentary of the translator out, the passage now
reads:
e4. 3 Circumcision is
obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing
the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar.
Bazr) of the clitoris.
Many other hadiths also back up the obligation for FGM under
Shariah. For example:
·Jami` at-Tirmidhi Vol. 1
Book 1 #109
Aishah narrated that: the Prophet
said: "When the circumcised meets the circumcised then Ghusl [full-body
ritual purification] is required."
Yahya related to me from Malik
from Ibn Shihab from Said ibn al- Musayyab that Umar ibn al-Khattab and Uthman
ibn Affan and A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant
him peace, used to say, "When the circumcised part touches the circumcised
part, ghusl is obligatory."
·Sahih al-Bukhari 6599, 6600
Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger
said, "No child is born but has the Islamic Faith, but its parents turn it
into a Jew or a Christian. It is as you help the animals give birth.
Do you find among their offspring a mutilated one before you mutilate
them yourself.”
To say that FGM only happens in third-world countries
ignores the sad and sorry truth that several countries have passed laws
forbidding this cruelty to their children. Egypt passed a law against FGM in 2008 and was
amended in 2016. But by 2015, a “government survey discovered that 87% of
Egyptian women and girls aged between 15 and 49 have been mutilated, or as the
Egyptian government put it, “circumcised.”
February 6th was the International Day of Zero
Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation. This annual day of awareness was commemorated this year by the German news source DW.com’s article, “Female genital mutilation feels 'like living in a dead body'
by Shadia Abdelmoneim, which describes how a midwife performed FGM on her
without her consent after the birth of her third child in Sudan:
It led to a lengthy period of shock
thereafter where she found it difficult to trust anybody, but Shadia also
vividly recalls the moment she realized what had happened.
"I wanted to go to the toilet,
but something wasn't right. I couldn't walk and was in considerable pain.
When I saw what she had done, I was shocked. She'd cut everything
open and then sewn it closed. I had no idea what to do.”
Shadia, already fighting against
female genital mutilation and for women's rights as an activist in Sudan, was
in her mid 30s at the time. She started living in a constant state of
fear for her three daughters; she could barely let them out of her sight.
"How could women do something
like that to one another, how?" she asks, her eyes welling up with tears.
"Being circumcised is like living in a dead body.”
Dr. Cornelia Strunz, who works at the Desert Flower
Center, met Shadia when she came to the center for help, said Shadia needed
surgery to help her live with this mutilation. According to Dr. Strunz, there are many
possible problems that result from FGM.
Many women have problems emptying
their bladder after FGM. Menstrual blood can't drain properly. For
some, sex becomes practically impossible. Women can also develop fistulas
-- connections between two body parts which should not exist at all in normal
circumstances. One example would be a link between the vagina and rectum,
leading to them passing stools through the vagina. Obviously, that's not
very easy to live with.
Social norms that allow for FGM conflict with several social
norms of Western civilization. It denies a women’s rights to have control
over her own body, as it is a requirement under shariah. It destroys a
woman’s ability to enjoy partaking in sexual activity when the woman
marries. This makes the act a duty and not a pleasure. The act itself
violates the Hippocratic Oath “to do no harm.” In countries where FGM is
banned, parents/guardians who have this done to their own daughters are denying
the validity of laws made by men.
++++++++++++++++++
BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently
been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after
criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing
Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions.
Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I
choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely.
Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are
banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT
CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in
pop-up on 1/20/20: “You're temporarily restricted from joining and posting to
groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
Most European Union (EU) nations operate under a Parliamentary political system rather than a Federal political system as in the USA. As such the Parliamentary system in the Netherlands is now being exposed in doing its version of a Trump-frame against Party for Freedom (Dutch acronym – PVV. Interesting irony on Wikipedia PVV info: the English Wikipedia listing is quite negative while the Dutch language Wikipedia [I used Google Translate] is more informational and balanced) leader Geert Wilders. WHY? Wilders is anti-Multiculturalist and anti-Muslim immigration all to preserve Western Culture.
It is extremely apparent Netherlands (and EU) power elites fear a drain-the-swamp avalanche if Wilders ever wins enough of a Parliamentary election to be the Netherlands Prime Minister.
BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You're temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
****************************
The Netherlands: The Geert Wilders Show Trial Continues
§The emails indicate that Prime Minister Mark Rutte himself was involved in the decision to prosecute Wilders.
§"Minister Van der Steur has deliberately withheld those documents, as is apparent from these documents. Moreover, it appears that another Justice Minister, Minister Opstelten, lied..." — Geert Wilders, February 5, 2020
§"Mr. Presiding Judge, the Minister of Justice interfered in detail with my conviction. The documents even state that the Ministry of Justice instructed the public prosecutor — you will find the word 'instruct' in the documents...." -- Geert Wilders, February 5, 2020
§"And every day that this trial continues and you do not punish the conspiring prosecution, and the Ministry of Justice for their lies and haggling with the principles of an independent, fair and balanced trial, by declaring them inadmissible, every day this trial continues is a black day in the history of Dutch justice." — Geert Wilders, February 5, 2020
§"In the Wilders case, we certainly do not have to rely on the judge to agree with Wilders and to reach the conclusion that there has been a political trial, which is therefore not legally valid.... Wilders case appears to have been pre-cooked in the cabinet itself.... [Prime Minister] Rutte himself was involved.... The lying and spinning must stop somewhere.... This rule of law, in which judges and prosecutors receive instructions by the politicians on how to act, is rotten from within." – Joost Niemöller, Dutch Journalist, Ongehoordnederland.nl, February 5, 2020
Newly released documents show that senior members of the Dutch government — including the former prime minister and justice minister — applied political pressure on public prosecutors to indict Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom for "hate speech." Pictured: Wilders (left) sits next to current Prime Minister Mark Rutte at a meeting of political party leaders at the Dutch House of Representatives on March 16, 2017 in The Hague. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)
Newly released documents show that senior members of the Dutch government — including the prime minister and two former justice ministers — applied political pressure on public prosecutors to indict Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV), for hate speech for comments he made about Islam and Moroccan immigrants.
The documents, which the government turned over to the Amsterdam-based newspaper De Volkskrant in compliance with a Freedom of Information request, appear to confirm long-standing allegations by Wilders that the government's decade-long legal war against him is far from a principled pursuit of justice, and instead politically motivated aimed at silencing his criticism of multiculturalism and mass migration from the Muslim world.
On February 3, De Volkskrantreported that the government documents — numbering nearly 500 pages — show that as early as 2008, then-Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin was "intensively involved" in the decision to prosecute Wilders.
According to De Volkskrant, the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie, OM) found nothing illegal about Wilders statements, but Hirsch Ballin pressed the OM on three separate occasions to change its assessment.
In June 2008, the OM dismissed more than 40 criminal complaints against Wilders on the grounds that his statements were made "in the context of political debate" and therefore "not of a punishable nature."
In January 2009, the Amsterdam Appeals Court, the second-highest legal authority in the Netherlands, overturned the OM's decision and ruled that Wilders could be tried for inciting hatred. Wilders said that it was a "black day for myself and for freedom of speech."
The first trial against Wilders began on October 4, 2010. He was accused of insulting religious and ethnic groups and inciting hatred and discrimination for describing Islam as fascist and comparing the Koran to Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf. Wilders argued that his statements were directed at Islam as an ideology and not at individual Muslim believers.
The trial collapsed on October 22, 2010, after it emerged that Tom Schalken, one of the judges in the case, had tried to sway a potential witness.
The retrial began on February 6, 2011 with three new judges. Wilders said that his trial was about preserving freedom of expression in the West.
On June 23, 2011, Wilders was acquitted of all charges. Judge Marcel van Oosten ruled that the statements by Wilders, while "gross and denigrating," did not meet the standard of hate speech and as such were "acceptable within the context of public debate."
Despite the acquittal, the government's harassment of Wilders continued. Internal government emails recently published by RTL Nieuwsshow that Hirsch Ballin's successor, Justice Minister Ivo Opstelten, repeatedly pressured the OM to bring a new case against Wilders. Opstelten, his aides and the prosecutor repeatedly consulted with each other before the decision to prosecute Wilders a second time was made in the fall of 2014. The OM has always denied that it was subject to outside political interference; the emails show that the OM denials were untruthful. An email sent by the lead prosecutor, Wouter Bos, on October 8, 2014, warned: "This must not leak!"
Other government emails show that the decision to bring a new case against Wilders was discussed as early as March 2014 in the Council of Ministers, the executive council of Dutch government, formed by all the ministers, including the prime minister. The emails indicate that Prime Minister Mark Rutte himself was involved in the decision to prosecute Wilders.
On March 18, 2016, Wilders went on trial again for allegedly inciting hatred against Moroccan immigrants. Prosecutors said that in March 2014, Wilders, while campaigning in The Hague, asked a crowd of supporters if they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. The crowd said fewer. Wilders responded: "We'll take care of that."
Prosecution spokeswoman Ilse de Heer said that Wilders "targeted a specific race, which is considered a crime." Wilders countered that his comments referred to Moroccan criminals, not to Moroccans in general, and that, in any event, Moroccans are not a race.
On December 9, 2016, Wilders was found guilty of inciting discrimination. The court, however, imposed no form of punishment; it said that the verdict was sufficient penalty. The Public Prosecutor demanded a fine of €5,000 ($5,500). Both Wilders and the Prosecutor appealed.
Since then, Wilders has been entangled in a protracted legal process that shows no signs of ending anytime soon. In an appeal hearing on February 5, 2020, Wilders voiced his anger over the political nature of the case against him:
"Presiding Judge, members of the court: The shamelessness of the Public Prosecution Office knows no boundaries. In a report we received yesterday and heard about today, they claim — one-and-a-half days after they received the documents from the Ministry of Justice — that nothing is wrong, that nothing has been found that indicates political influence.
"Rarely have I seen attorney generals who are so damaging to the rule of law, who don't care about a fair trial. They are blinded by their hatred for me and the PPV. These kinds of people, like those two attorney generals, ensure that the trust of ordinary people, the common man and woman in the Netherlands, in the public prosecutor and the judiciary has fallen to a low point.
"The Public Prosecutor says that there is nothing wrong. Shame on you, attorney generals. What we all know now is enough to immediately end this political process, this charade....
"We already knew, Mr. Presiding Judge and members of the court, that officials from the Ministry of Justice, under the responsibility of former Justice Minister Ivo Opstelten, had adjusted press releases from the public prosecutor. That it was Minister Opstelten himself who wanted two press releases. That his officials had made a legal analysis of this case. And shared this with the public prosecutor.
"We already knew that they had helped the public prosecutor refute the defenses of the defense. That, for example, the phrase, 'we will arrange that' was brought to the attention of the public prosecutor by the Ministry of Justice. That they wanted to see the requisites in advance to provide comments.
"And now there are 475 pieces again. And indeed, we have not been able to read all of them, I mean, we could hardly read any of the pieces. But if I only look at what the media writes about it, such as Volkskrant or RTL journalist Pieter Klein, then only more shocking things have come to the surface.
"It even appears now that it [the case] has been discussed in the Council of Ministers, Mr. Presiding Judge. In the Council of Ministers. How much more political does it get?
"The documents show that a senior official of the Ministry of General Affairs of Prime Minister Rutte informed a senior official of Ministry of Justice of Minister Opstelten that the Prime Minister expects the Minister of Justice to be able to say something meaningful during the Council of Ministers of March 21, 2014 about whether the prosecution of Wilders is promising.
"How promising it is! Promising: according to the dictionary, I looked it up, that also means likely, successful. It has a positive connotation. The Council of Ministers, Mr. Presiding Judge. This concerns an opposition leader in the House of Representatives. That is shameful, but that is, unfortunately, not unique, because we also know from the documents that we received yesterday that it was — in relation to the Wilders 1 trial, but I still want to have mentioned it, to indicate what they are capable of — that it was then Justice Minister Hirsch Ballin who requested legal advice three times because he did not like the earlier advice that it was impossible to prosecute Wilders. He repeated his requests for advice until he received the advice he wanted.
"Back to this trial. Apart from the fact that it was discussed in the Council of Ministers — words cannot express, it does not become much more political and corrupt — former [Justice] Minister Van der Steur, the documents show, deliberately and personally stopped the publication, on the basis of the Dutch Freedom of Information Act (WOB), of an official message about my persecution. Minister Van der Steur stopped that.
"According to the documents, the decision on the WOB request was delayed until after the decision of the Court of First Instance. Until after my conviction. Imagine that. Mafia practices. Pure political influence of the worst kind. A minister who deliberately withholds relevant and possibly exculpatory documents until after the conviction. Words really cannot express...
"If we had received those documents earlier and also all the other documents requested on that basis, and now also obtained with the permission of your court, then perhaps it might not have come to a conviction at all...then the court might not have decided on a conviction in the first instance.
"Minister Van der Steur has deliberately withheld those documents, as is apparent from these documents. Moreover, it appears that another Justice Minister, Minister Opstelten, lied when he said during his interrogation by the commissioner, that outside the Council of Ministers — you can find it literally in the reports — he never spoke about this matter with other ministers.
"The documents that we received yesterday show that he did indeed talk to other ministers about this outside the Council of Ministers, namely with Interior Minister Ronald Plasterk.
"Mr. Presiding Judge, the Minister of Justice interfered in detail with my conviction. The documents even state that the Ministry of Justice instructed the public prosecutor — you will find the word 'instruct' in the documents — when and at what time they had to call me on October 9, 2014, to say that I was a suspect. For a phone call to me, saying that I was a suspect, the Public Prosecutor's Office was instructed by the Ministry of Justice when and at what time and on what day that had to happen.
"My case has been dealt with in detail. And this whole trial, just like the Wilders 1 trial, is permeated with political influence. From phone calls, up to the Council of Ministers, and to ministers who withheld or delayed documents, an opposition leader from the national parliament has been prosecuted for ten years that way.
"Politics have always been involved, from civil servants to ministers and the Council of Ministers. Every day that this trial continues and you do not punish the conspiring prosecution, and the Ministry of Justice for their lies and haggling with the principles of an independent, fair and balanced trial, by declaring them inadmissible, every day this trial continues is a black day in the history of Dutch justice.
"This trial will have to stop today. I have said it many times. To be honest, I find it incomprehensible that this has not been decided long ago by declaring the prosecution inadmissible. If in the unfortunate event, even after today, you want to continue with this trial again, then indeed, and you have just said that, Mr. Presiding Judge, we need ample time to read all those documents and possibly based on those documents, also call new witnesses, like Minister Van der Steur. Like the prime minister. Like all the people involved.
"It is clear from these documents that they are more involved than we already knew. And see the minutes, the records, of the Council of Ministers as well. It appears to have been discussed. It has been said by the General Affairs official against the Justice official: '[Prime Minister Mark] Rutte wants to say something about the chances of this trial, Ivo [Opstelten].' And Ivo went to the Council of Ministers on March 21. This has always been denied. Denied during the interrogations. Now it appears to have just happened. I want to see those documents from the Council of Ministers. I want to talk to people about it. It is not just about someone who steals a roll of licorice. It is about the opposition leader in the Dutch parliament whose persecution has been influenced up to the Council of Ministers.
"I want to hear the truth. I want to hear more than the truth about the political influence in this trial so that this trial is taken off the table as quickly as possible.
"On February 3, just before another hearing in the endless criminal case against Wilders, a bulk of internal documents were dropped by Justice Minister Ferdinand Grapperhaus which relate to the official and political involvement in this trial. These documents were intended for the House of Representatives and are now public.
"If the Chamber takes its task seriously, it must investigate the political nature of this lawsuit. That is emphatically not an investigation into the trial itself — after all, we have a separation of powers here — but an investigation into the political role behind the continuation of this trial....
"In the Wilders case, we certainly do not have to rely on the judge to agree with Wilders and to reach the conclusion that there has been a political trial, which is therefore not legally valid.... After the internal documents released, the issue has become even more flammable.
"The Wilders case appears to have been pre-cooked in the cabinet itself.... [Prime Minister] Rutte himself was involved.... The lying and spinning must stop somewhere.
"The anger of Wilders in court was only too understandable, and all too justified. It is the anger of more and more Dutch people. Even in the mainstream media it is now recognized that this political pre-cooking goes beyond all limits.
"This is the umpteenth example in which democracy is excluded by the judiciary, because the judiciary and the OM have become an extension of politics.
"This point is increasingly emphasized by, among others, Forum for Democracy leader Thierry Baudet, whose hypocritical opponents accuse him of rejecting the rule of law.
"This rule of law, in which judges and prosecutors receive instructions by the politicians on how to act, is rotten from within."
Wilders' trial will continue on March 23. Four additional hearings are scheduled for April. It remains unclear when his trial will end.
+++++++++++++++++
BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You're temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
Elsa shows optimism in human nature relating Islam. She
believes the more non-Muslims are educated into the true facts relating to
Islamic history – including the actions of its self-proclaimed prophet, people
will understand Islam ideology is unacceptable and incapable of merging into
Western Culture.
I pray she is correct, but I do have doubts. What about you?
In essence, the observed vulnerability of Islam is TRUTH.
I've been wondering, what is the Achilles' heel of
Islam in the West? What is its major vulnerability?
Everything has vulnerable points. But until you know that
Achilles' vulnerable point is his heel, you're not likely to attack it.
It's clear that Islam very much cares to maintain the image of
Islam-religion-of-peace, which it has gone to great pains to project to
non-Islamics in the West. Otherwise why would Islamic forces (OIC, CAIR, Muslim
Brotherhood, etc., etc.) have invested such an enormous amount of money and
energy into:
- blocking and criminalizing freedom of speech about Islam via the many hate
laws and blasphemy laws throughout the West;
- creating an environment in
which many people are hit by negative consequences if they speak out - loss of
job, loss of friends, loss of reputation, law suits, jail (just think of Tommy
Robinson);
- purchasing text book
publishing houses in the West and rewriting textbooks so the content on Islam
becomes major and positive;
- trotting out the story of
"it was mental illness" every time there is a jihad murder spree.
It is clearly important to Islam to be seen, overtly anyway,
as benign, by most non-Islamics in non-Islamic countries.
Yet most Islamic organizations have not worked to stop violence done in the
name of Islam, including in the West. Instead, for instance, Saudi Arabia has
openly promoted and exported very traditional Islam.
So it also seems to matter to most Islamic forces that non-Islamics
in the West simultaneously experience Islam as dangerous. Maybe all
the people working to spread the truth about Islam have in fact helped Islam be
experienced as dangerous. Fear helps keep people in line.
My image is of a huge veiled dancer, supposedly a beauty, veils
swirling so they reveal glimpses, to all, of hairy legs and who knows
what else. By now, millions of people are tugging at the veils, so that
ever more of what's underneath becomes visible.
It becomes tricky, keeping some balance between the main image and the unsavory
glimpses, especially as ever people know Islamic ideology and talk about it.
Each person who knows moves aside tiny bits of the veil.
Of course at some point there is a tipping point. The indoctrination about
Islam as a religion of peace stops working, by and large. The reality of Islam
becomes visible to too many people. Currently we have the proliferation, in
Europe and Australia, of political parties against Islamization and sometimes
against Islam - parties labeled by the mainstream as ultra right
wing, racist and even Nazi, to keep as many people away from them for as long
as possible.
Yet the breakthrough is inevitable. It's just a question of when, how soon, and
how fully the shift to reality perception of Islam is made.
There's also the question of what will the outcome be.
What's the vulnerable point, the Achilles' heel, for Islam? One
vulnerability is the possibility of being seen early, so that, for
instance, Islamic incoming is stopped before there is a considerable Islamic
population. That has happened in only a few eastern European countries.
It's my sense that another vulnerable point is during the shift in
perception. It's like when an animal with an exoskeleton molts. No shell,
for a time. In this case, no veil.
My sense is also that, the quicker the shift, the more likely there can be a
relatively non-violent resolution in favor of human rights and freedoms, for
the re-establishment of freedom of speech and good thinking skills.
That makes our efforts ever more important, each of us doing what we can to
help with the shift - millions of us each tugging aside more and more of the
veil.
Part of the impact will be on things like whom we vote for, the education about
Islam in the schools, the stories about the mental health of jihadis.
Another part of the impact will be on Islamics. As our knowledge of
their ideology changes, as ever more non-Islamics are aware of Islamic
ideology, aware of Islamic history, aware of the story of Mohammed. Islamics
will know, when we look at them, that the ideology of their religion and the
life of Mohammed, are generally known. There will be a powerful group energy in
our gaze. Each of us will know we're not alone. And they will know they are
being seen, as people adhering to an ideology that aims to destroy Western
human rights and freedoms. Quite a shift, I'd say.
I wonder, is the core vulnerability of Islam, that Islamics will know their
religion is accurately seen? Not noble. Not savory. Not peaceful. Calling for
the subjugation and killing of non-Islamics.
What will this do to the many Islamics who are used to denying or ignoring the
reality of Islamic ideology, who might even be ashamed of much of it?
Will Islam be drained of a considerable portion of its energy?
Just think of the response of most Germans and Austrians after World War
II, when the reality of the Holocaust became known. Generations of people
feeling shame.
Anyway, I am sure that the major Islamic organizations are aware of the
impending tipping point.
We will see how things go.
As always, all the best to all who care and dare,
Elsa
PPS. By the way, re the tipping point in the perception of
Islam, the kids' video, Islam - Who, What, How, can be very
helpful. It tells the truth in a simple fun sweet non-confrontational
manner. And it tells it to children, to inoculate them against indoctrination,
so they won't have to undo brainwashing. If you haven't seen it, join the 165,000
people who have. And please keep sharing. http://livefreedom.net/islam-who-what-how.html PPPS. It's clear that the rights movements have been hijacked,
from movements for the rights of people who very obviously do not have equal
rights, to movements like Black Thugs Matter. Now someone has written that
"Hyper-liberalism is liberalism turned inside out and upside down."
In other words, the same hijacking has happened to liberalism. Of
course. The hijacking is everywhere. It's clearly more than time to take back
the rights movements! Here's the article on the hijacking of liberalism: https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/john-gray-hyper-liberalism-liberty/
A few European nations are finally comprehending just how
dangerous the culture of Islam is to Western Civilization. Last week Austria
gave the boot to Mosques that make no bones about following
Muhammad’s agenda for global Islamization. Today I found out Denmark is making sure all refugees are going
to be made to learn what it means to be a Dane or leave Denmark.
After coming to the realization that second-generation Muslim
immigrants are predisposed to committing horrific terrorist attacks on
non-Muslims (especially women and children), the Danish government has come
upon a novel solution: Why not try to assimilate the immigrants to Danish
culture? Crazy, right?
Apparently the Danes have reached a conclusion that their
soil is not magical and that just because a Muslim sets foot in Denmark and is
given citizenship papers, it does not automatically transform them into a Dane
with appreciation for Western civilization, democracy, and the moral restraint
to not punch a woman in the face and call her a whore for wearing an
ankle-revealing dress.
If only Congress would realize this about our non-magical
soil in America! We know this sounds totally insane, but other nations actually
do have these kooky ideas about immigration. Don’t believe us? Fly to Tokyo
tomorrow and declare yourself to be Japanese. We’ll wait for you to report back
with results!
Meanwhile, the Danish government will now require children
in Muslim ghettos to undergo 25 hours of coursework on the meanings of Easter
and Christmas, Christian morals, language skills and, presumably, the need to
not murder members of your host community based on your parents’ barbaric
8th-century values. (Perhaps they should teach the Muslims about Denmark’s
Viking history as well, just to let it sink in that they are the minority and
the Danes will only be pushed so far before bringing back the “blood eagle.”
Just saying.)
Best of all, there’s an immediate punishment that will be
meted out if any Muslim parents don’t enroll their kids in the Danish
Christianity classes. Check out the video below to learn what it is!
Denmark’s government said Monday
that children living in a primarily Muslim immigrant community are required to
attend classes on democracy, language, and Danish Christian traditions.
Danish parents living in ghettos —
an official Danish term for non-western immigrant communities — must enroll
their children into 25 hours of public education starting at age one, according to Reuters.
The ghettos for which this new
policy is mandatory are composed mainly of Muslim migrants from Middle Eastern
countries. The classes will focus on language skills, foundational education,
as well as integral facets of Danish culture like democracy, equality and
Christian holidays like Easter and Christmas. (RELATED: Danish
Politician Slammed For Saying Fasting Muslims Pose Work Safety Threat)
Immigrant parents who do not enroll
their children in the mandatory public education program will lose their child
welfare benefits. Parents who have already placed their children in daycare
programs are not required to enroll their children in these classes. The new
policy, on which major opposition parties agreed with the leading Liberal Party
and the supporting nationalist Danish People’s Party, was put forward as part
of a solution to the problem of integrating Muslim immigrants into Denmark’s
western, democratic culture. The leading opposition party, The Social
Democratic Party, has taken a harder stance toward Muslim migrants as the
problem of migrant communities’ refusal to integrate has persisted in recent
years.
Non-western immigrants
comprise 66.5 percent of the population of ghetto areas and 8.7 percent of
Denmark’s overall population of 5.7 million, according to EuroNews. …
Patriotic Viral News was
designed to bring you the latest conservative news stories and viral videos
from around the web. Our videos will inspire, provoke thought, and sometimes
even enrage, though most importantly we want them to be shared.
We encourage you to share these pages with friends, family, and anyone else who
wants America to become the great nation it once was.
Sign up for our free newsletter today so you don’t miss a single story.
The Multicultural Left encourages
Anti-Constitution/Anti-American-Heritage religion Islam to take up roots in
America in the name of diversity. In case you didn’t realize it, DIVERSITY =
DIVISION!
Two national mottos are stamped in American history
representative of who we are as a nation of people. The first national motto
codified by Congress on the United Seal in 1782 is E Pluribus Unum. The
motto is Latin for “from many, one”. The other national motto is In
God We Trust encoded by Congress in 1956 (Wikipedia).
I am quite committed to both mottos, but I want to focus on “from many, one”
in an American cultural perspective.
Whether you believe this motto refers to 13 former British
Colonies becoming one to form one nation or a nation of European immigrants who
became one-people to form one nation; the point is ‘DIVERSITY” has no part in
America blending many people into one nation with one culture (which duh,
was a Judeo-Christian heritage!). Why? AGAIN, because DIVERSITY =
DIVISION!
President Abraham Lincoln completely understood as a nation
divided, America would break up into weak independent States. He engaged in the
Civil War against the Southern States that perceived Lincoln would promote an ever-growing
Northern States attitude that the institution of slavery was immoral and should
be abolished.
Rather an adopt a greater moral stand in catching up with
the moral imperative that human beings should never be treated as property, all
humans are created by God and God does not created some humans better than
others. Rather the Christian perspective Man fell from union with God in Eden
and Man has an opportunity of choice to re-institute that union in Jesus
Christ.
That is ALL mankind (or humankind if you are a
politically correct Multiculturalist Leftist) regardless of racial lines.
Indeed Lincoln used the Biblical
picture in his House Divided speech when he ran for Senator
in Illinois indicating division is weakness:
A house divided against itself,
cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave
and half free. I do not expect theUnionto
be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will
cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the
opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where
the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate
extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful
in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South. (Quoted
from Wikipedia; Lincoln's
House Divided Speech; page was last edited on 6/1/18 at 11:55)
Even though the Civil War came to a fighting point due to
Southern wanting to preserve their culture based on State Sovereignty, the
fight evolved into a fight on which culture (North or South) would be
perpetuated: The Northern belief of a culture of a moral imperative on human
nature or a Southern belief that a slave economy is essential to preserve the
Southern way of life. Preserving the Union of American States initiated a
Christian moral imperative for all Americans illuminating humans as property.
In reality it has taken over 100 years for the descendants of former slaves to
achieve the united Civil Rights of the descendants on non-slaves. There is
still a lot cultural healing for African-Americans to experience because
American non-slaves were indoctrinated that Black-skinned humans were inferior
to White-skinned humans.
At this point I could spin-off to a number of subjects
relating to how the Diversity thinking of Multiculturalist has increased
division in America more than a continued healing of America bringing about an
E Pluribus Unum, but I want focus on one divisive oriented issue that has
really been imported to America in the name of Multiculturalism.
That imported divisive issue is promoting immigration of
Muslim refugees that have been ingrained with the Islamic culture of
intolerance of all things NOT Islamic. Lincoln began the union of cultural
values by preserving the Union of American States. The American Left (cough –
Democrats) is setting the stage for another divided America to fester into
violence resulting between preserving our American Heritage and those committed
to transforming American culture into self-destructive diverse peoples with no
national loyalty but loyalty to only segments of like-minded people. You could call
this segmenting Tribalism.
There is ZERO E Pluribus Unum in Tribalism. A
Tribalistic culture in America means this great Republic that our Founding
Fathers fought for will not survive.
There can be no “from many, one” nation with a
theo-political ethos that calls for the destruction or subservience of all
things non-Islamic because Islam is superior.
No Coexistence Foolish
Infidels
Search Engines are dominated by Multiculturalist thinking so
you may actually have a difficult experience finding Islam/Constitution
contradictions. When I began a search the top results were Muslim apologists
trying to twist incompatibilities as irrelevant. After working with various
phrases I found an honest comparison on WND:
The First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free
exercise of religion, yet the Quran states in Sura 4:89, “Those who reject
Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and
kill them wherever you find them.”
In Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 9,
Book 84, No. 57), Muhammad said: “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill
him.”
Islamic law relegates non-Muslims
to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs amongst
Muslims and cannot display a Cross or a Star of David.
The First Amendment states
Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law
enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their
religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer or ringing
church bells.
The First Amendment states Congress
cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet
Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot build any new places of worship or repair
any old places Muslims have destroyed; they must allow Muslims to participate
in their private meetings; they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of
Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.
The First Amendment states
Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to
harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who
disagree with Islamic government.
The Second Amendment states,
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet
Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any
kind.
The Third Amendment states one
cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law
states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants
to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill – and
they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees
“the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states
if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be
taken away.
The Fifth Amendment states that
“no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime …
without due process of law,” yet Muhammad said, “No Muslim should be killed
for killing a Kafir (infidel)” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a
“public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states
“the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not
give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting a
non-Muslim from testifying in court against a Muslim.
The Eighth Amendment states
there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran
states:
“Cut off the hands of thieves,
whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a
deterrent from Allah” (Sura 5:38). … READ ENTIRETY – Bold Emphasis
Blog Editor’s (QURAN VS. CONSTITUTION: WHY THEY'RE INCOMPATIBLE; By William
Federer; WND; 9/26/09 12:00 AM)
The Constitution guarantees Religious Freedom, but Religious
Freedom cannot be used as a tool to overthrow the Constitution.
Citing the Constitution - ARTICLE III, SECTION 3,
CLAUSE 1:
Treason against the United
States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their
Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason
unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on
Confession in open Court. (Treason;
The Heritage Guide to
the Constitution)
U.S. Legal Code on Rebellion or Sedition - 18 U.S. Code §
2383:
Whoever incites, sets on foot,
assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of
the United States or the laws thereof, or
gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office
under the United States.
When most American lawmakers agreed that Communism was a
threat to our Constitutional Republic, treason description was broadened
through the Smith Act in 1940. The original Smith Act had some Constitutional
problems that has modified the Act since its 1940 inception. Here is an excerpt
from Conservative News and Views relating to the Smith Act:
The Smith Act
Here is some information about the
Smith Act gleaned from Internet:
The Alien Registration Act of 1940,
usually called the Smith Act because its anti-sedition section was authored by
Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia, is prescribed in 54 Statutes at
Large 670-671 (1940). The Act has been amended several times and can now be
found at 18 U.S. Code § 2385 (2000).
§ 2385. Advocating Overthrow of
Government.
Whoever knowingly or willfully
advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or
propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the
government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by
the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the
overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits,
issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or
printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the
United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or
attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach,
advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by
force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such
society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof–
…
The Smith Act and Muslim groups
The Smith Act clearly applies to
Muslim organizations in the United States such as CAIR, the Council on
American–Islamic Relations. CAIR is an Islamic supremacist organization that
pioneered 20th century Islamic terrorism, and it sanctions violence against the
United States. CAIR is headquartered on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., and
has regional offices nationwide. Through media relations, lobbying, and
education, CAIR promotes Islamic, hence anti-American perspectives to the
American public, while promoting social and political activism among Muslims in
America. Moreover, CAIR is suspected of being linked to terrorist organizations
such as the Muslim Brotherhood and to HAMAS in the Gaza strip. Of course, no
action will be taken against CAIR as long as Barack Obama is in the White
House.
…
Islamic terrorism constitutes a
clear and present danger to the United States, as understood by the language of
the Smith Act. Hence, patriotic American statesmen and organizations should
rise up and sound the warning that America has been penetrated by her deadliest
enemy. – READ
ENTIRETY (SEDITION: CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER; By PAUL
EIDELBERG; Conservative
News and Views; 6/14/16)
For clarity, the Smith Act was amended because a thought of
criminal activity is not unconstitutional. The Act was amended that actions
planned and/or acted upon fits the Constitutional parameters. Here is an
excerpt of some of the history the Act’s amendments:
Under a 1956 amendment to the Smith
Act, if two or more persons conspire to commit any offense described in the
statute, each is subject to a maximum fine of $20,000 or a maximum term of
imprisonment of twenty years, or both, and is ineligible for employment by
the United
States or its agencies for five years after conviction. The
Smith Act, as enacted in 1940, contained a conspiracy provision, but effective
September 1, 1948, the Smith Act was repealed and substantially reenacted as
part of the 1948 recodification, minus the conspiracy provision. On June 25,
1948, the Federal general conspiracy statute was passed, effective September 1,
1948, which contained the same provisions as the deleted conspiracy section of
the original Smith Act except that the showing of overt acts was required and
the maximum penalty became five years' imprisonment instead of ten (18 U.S.C.A.
§ 2385). The general conspiracy statute became operative, with respect to
conspiracies to violate the Smith Act, substantially in the same manner and to
the same extent as previously.
The conspiracy provisions of the
Smith Act and its provisions defining the substantive offenses have been
upheld. An intent to cause the overthrow of the government by force and
violence is an essential
element of the offenses. The advocacy of peaceful change in
U.S. social, economic, or political institutions, irrespective of how
fundamental or expansive or drastic such proposals might be, is not forbidden.
A conspiracy can exist even though
the activities of the defendants do not culminate in an attempt to overthrow
the government by force and violence. A conspiracy to advocate overthrow of the
government by force or violence, as distinguished from the advocacy itself, can
be constitutionally restrained even though it consists of mere preparation
because the existence of the conspiracy creates the peril.
The point to be realized is Religious Freedom does not
protect members of a religion if they actively prepare and work to overthrow
the government of the United States Republic. Multicultural Diversity
encourages a divisiveness that emboldens treason, sedition and/or rebellion.
Americans should not fear Multiculturalist political
correctness to tell their Representatives and Senators to be wary of any
religion – not just Islam – that advocates the overthrow of the U.S.
government. Even if it means shutting down donations from nations or foreign
NGOs that have a design to undermine or destroy the American Constitutional
Rule of Law. Or shutting Mosques (or perhaps White Pride Identity Churches)
that ACTIVELY (as defined by treason, sedition and rebellion) place
their beliefs above the Rule of Law.
These thoughts were inspired by the recent actions of the
Austrian government that has done exactly what I have described above about
Mosques and subversive monies from foreign entities.
Chancellor
Sebastian Kurz announced the measures in a news conference
Kurz
said a hardline Turkish nationalist mosque in Vienna is going to be
closed
The
Arab Religious Community that runs six mosques will also be
dissolved
Ankara
quickly denounced the move, saying the move 'is a reflection of the
anti-Islam, racist and discriminatory populist wave' in Austria
Austria said today it could expel up to 60 Turkish-funded
imams and their families and would shut down seven mosques as part of a
crackdown on 'political Islam' that was described as 'just the beginning',
triggering fury in Ankara.
Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said the government is shutting a
hardline Turkish nationalist mosque in Vienna and dissolving a group called the
Arab Religious Community that runs six mosques.
His coalition government, an alliance of conservatives and
the far right, came to power soon after Europe's migration crisis on promises
to prevent another influx and clamp down on benefits for new immigrants and
refugees.
In a previous job as minister in charge of integration,
Chancellor Kurz oversaw the passing of a tough 'law on Islam' in 2015, which
banned foreign funding of religious groups and created a duty for Muslim
societies to have 'a positive fundamental view towards (Austria's) state and
society'.
'Parallel societies, political Islam and radicalisation have
no place in our country,' Kurz told a news conference outlining the
government's decisions, which were based on that law.
'This is just the beginning,' far-right Vice Chancellor
Heinz-Christian Strache added.
Ankara quickly denounced the move, and
Turkey's presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin said on Twitter: 'Austria's
decision to close down seven mosques and deport imams with a lame excuse is a
reflection of the anti-Islam, racist and discriminatory populist wave in this
country.'
Scroll down for video
Chancellor
Sebastian Kurz (pictured)
said the government is shutting a hardline Turkish nationalist mosque in
Vienna and dissolving a group called the Arab Religious Community
Interior Minister Herbert Kickl of the far-right Freedom
Party (FPOe), the junior partner in Austria's coalition government, said: 'The
circle of people possibly affected by these measures - the pool that we're
talking about - comprises around 60 imams.'
Kickl was referring to imams with alleged links to the
Turkish-Islamic Cultural Associations (ATIB) organisation, a branch of Turkey's
religious affairs agency Diyanet.
The interior minister added that the government suspects
them of contravening a ban on foreign funding of religious office holders.
The ministry said 40 of them had an active application for
extending their residency and that a number of these had already been referred
to immigration authorities, where a process for expelling them was underway.
Once family members were taken into account, a total 150
people risked losing their right to residence, Kickl told a Vienna press
conference.
Seven mosques will also be shut after an investigation by
Austria's religious affairs authority sparked by images which emerged in April
of children in a Turkish-backed mosque playing dead and re-enacting the World
War I battle of Gallipoli.
'Parallel societies, political Islam and radicalisation have
no place in our country,' said Chancellor Sebastian Kurz of the ruling
centre-right People's Party.
The photos of children, published by the Falter weekly,
showed the young boys in camouflage uniforms marching, saluting, waving Turkish
flags and then playing dead.
Their 'corpses' were then lined up and draped in the flags.
ATIB itself condemned the photos at the time, calling the event
'highly regrettable' and saying it was 'called off before it had even ended'.
One of the mosques targeted by Friday's measure was in the
Favoriten district of Vienna.
The government said it had been operating illegally and that
it was under the influence of the far-right Turkish political movement, the
Grey Wolves.
Worshippers arriving for Friday prayers were met with a sign
on the door reading 'closed' in Turkish and German.
Kursant, a 26-year-old, told AFP: 'I've been coming to this
mosque frequently since I was a child, I've had lessons here, I've never heard
anyone at the mosque, any of the employees, express any Salafist opinions.
That's laughable.'
Six other mosques are being closed down, three in Vienna,
two in Upper Austria and one in Carinthia.
All but one of the mosques affected belong to the 'Arab
Religious Association,' according to the government.
But while Turkey's presidential spokesman on Friday lambaste
the measures as 'anti-Islam' and 'racist' move, other European far-right leaders
welcomed the announcement.
Marine Le Pen, the leader of the French Front National, said
on Twitter: 'Austria is taking things in hand and showing that 'when you want
to, you can!''
Last week Turkish President
Recep
Tayyip Erdogan (pictured) attacked Kurz, saying: 'This immoral
chancellor has a problem with us'
Matteo Salvini, head of Italy's League and interior minister
in the new government, also tweeted his approval, saying: 'Those who exploit
their faith to endanger a country's security should be expelled!'
Turkey's relations with Austria have long been strained,
with Kurz calling on the European Union to break off negotiations on Ankara
joining the bloc and banning Turkish politicians from campaigning in Austria
for upcoming elections.
Austria, a country of 8.8 million people, has roughly
600,000 Muslim inhabitants, more than half of whom are Turkish or have families
of Turkish origin.
Around 360,000 people of Turkish origin live in Austria,
including 117,000 Turkish nationals.
Last week Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan attacked
Kurz, saying: 'This immoral chancellor has a problem with us'.
'He's throwing his weight around and making a scene,'
Erdogan went on.
Both Kurz, of the centre-right People's Party (OeVP) and the
FPOe made immigration and integration major themes in their election campaigns
last year.
The topic had been pushed up the political agenda by the
migrant crisis of 2015-16, which saw more than 150,000 people seek asylum in
the country of 8.7 million.
In Friday's press conference Kurz was keen to emphasise that
the action was being taken under legislation to regulate Islamic associations
that he himself brought in as a minister in the previous government and which
had so far - in his opinion - not been used often enough.
The conservative Kurz became chancellor in December in a
coalition with the anti-migration Freedom Party.
In campaigning for last year's election, both coalition
parties called for tougher immigration controls, quick deportations of
asylum-seekers whose requests are denied and a crackdown on radical Islam.
The government recently announced plans to ban girls in
elementary schools and kindergartens from wearing headscarves, adding to
existing restrictions on veils.
