No age of consent? No problem. According to Die Welt, Germany’s Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional for the Fatherland to refuse to recognise all child marriages that have been lawfully conducted abroad.
“In the specific case, it was about a Syrian refugee couple, who had fled in August 2015 over the Balkan route because of the war to Germany,” reports the outlet. “The couple had previously been legally married on 10 February 2015 in a Syrian Sharia court. The husband was 21 years old on his wedding day, his wife was at the age of 14.”
Upon immigrating to Germany from Syria, the couple was separated following registration in the Schweinfurt facility. The 14-year-old girl had been placed in a youth welfare facility for female underage refugees; her appointed guardian was the Aschaffenburg youth welfare office. Her 21-year-old husband had no contact with her and was not even informed of her whereabouts.
For those who claim #socialism is compassionate and fair, read this headline: “Venezuelan Women ‘As Young As 14’ Escape Socialism By Selling Sex, Hair And Breastmilk.” Need I say more?
Women fleeing socialist Venezuela have taken to capitalism in order to survive; selling sex, hair and breastmilk as they make the perilous journey into neighboring Colombia in search of a better life.
As Fox News‘ Hollie McKay reports, the Colombian border city of Cucuta is virtual chaos – as “Rail-thin women cradle their tiny babies, and beg along the trash-strewn gutters. Teens hawk everything from cigarettes to sweets and water for small change.”
The young, the old and the disabled cluster around the lone Western Union office – recently established to deal with the Venezuelan influx – in the hopes of receiving or sending a few dollars to send home. Without passports or work permits, the Venezuelans – many with university degrees or decent jobs in what was once the wealthiest nation in Latin America – are now resorting to whatever it takes to survive. –Fox News
“Breaking Stereotypes, Shattering Boundaries, dispelling misconceptions….”you know the drill.
World Hijab Day Encourages All Women to Wear Veil in Solidarity with Muslims
The World Hijab Day (WHD) non-profit organization launched its 2019 campaign Wednesday, encouraging women and girls of all faiths, backgrounds, and ethnicities to “voice their choice” of wearing the headscarf for 24 hours on February 1, in solidarity with Muslim women across the world.
This is the official poster of #WorldHijabDay’19! The hashtag for WHD’19 is #FreeInHijab. It’s time for you to flood your social media with this hashtag & educate those who label hijab as a symbol of “oppression.” It’s time for all of us to voice our CHOICE of #hijab!
“#FreeInHijab is the much-needed hashtag for our current global situation where women in hijab are labeled by media as oppressed and symbolically imprisoned,” Nazma Khan told Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency (AA).
“More than 70 global ambassadors from over 45 countries have been involved, and women from around 190 countries participate in the annual event,” Al Jazeera noted last year.
The question is of course whether “the man” was a Muselman or not:
A man has hijacked a bus and drove it into a crowd of people in China’s city of Longyan, killing 8 people and injuring 22 others. The attacker is believed to have entered the bus armed with a knife and caused panic.
CANADIAN CLERIC: CONGRATULATING CHRISTIANS FOR CHRISTMAS IS WORSE THAN MURDER
These a$$holes are now all over the western world preaching this bile:
“A witness saw a man shoot with a Kalashnikov-style weapon in the direction of the window of a restaurant on Avenue Louise,” spokesman Ine Van Wymersch said. “At the location, the police found three bullet impact marks.”
The prosecutor’s office says there is no indication the incident was of a terrorist nature and no suspect has been identified. Forensic and ballistic investigators have been dispatched.
Not long ago the political left were the guardians of free speech. Along with tech tyrants, the left today has gone from protecting speech to enforcing speech. Even to the point of penalizing you if you say the wrong thing in public. You can lose your job and livelihood. Welcome to the era of simply ‘shut up and nod.’
CrossTalking with Emmanuelle Gave, Lionel, and Daniel McAdams.
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s “Media Strategy in Countering Islamophobia and its Implementation Mechanisms” describes one part of its strategy as: “To call media professionals to develop, articulate and implement voluntary codes of conduct to counter Islamophobia. The OIC and its Member States should be vocal in calling media professionals to use the power they have with responsibly through accurate reporting.” What, however, if those two requirements — accurate reporting and countering Islamophobia — conflict with each other?
“Free expression is the base of human rights, the root of human nature and the mother of truth. To kill free speech is to insult human rights, to stifle human nature and to suppress truth.” — Liu Xiaobo, Chinese dissident and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, author of Charter 08.
“Man… does not have to accept a lie.” — Václav Havel, in his 1978 essay, “The Power of the Powerless”.
“… if you lived, as I did, several years under Nazi totalitarianism, and then 20 years in communist totalitarianism, you would certainly realize how precious freedom is, and how easy it is to lose your freedom.” — Miloš Forman, Czech-American film director.
It boggles the mind that any Western society would choose to forfeit the values of critical thinking and free speech. The fact is that where these values end, the West ends as well. (Image source: iStock)
The freedom to express oneself without fear and the tolerance for opposing viewpoints are what binds otherwise diverse, democratic societies. In the United States, this freedom is protected by the Constitution, with only very specific limits, the key one of which was imposed in 1969, following a landmark Supreme Court ruling in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. According to that ruling, inflammatory speech cannot be penalized unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
The discussion of the boundaries of free speech is one that continues to arouse controversy, both in the US and abroad. It basically centers on the extent to which a country agrees with American Founding Father and fourth president James Madison, who said: “A man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.”
A quick glance at the headlines this morning almost made me spill my coffee. This imagined disaster of course did not unfold as I guard my coffee like a guard, well, my coffee. But the news that did bring me close to the precipice was an article in The Australian outlining the two main candidates to topple the hapless Theresa May.
Put your hand up if Boris Johnson was one of your immediate picks. Yes? Well done, you win a prize of watching me drink my coffee. So who is your second pick to go forth and save England? Waiting, waiting. Not sure?
Why, it’s a Pakistani Muslim called Sajid Javid. And it seems that he’s the front runner.
It looks like the Tories are determined not to deliver Brexit in any meaningful form, but to simply out-progressive the progressives.
Okay, I’ll answer it: blonde girls and the song about them is as Danish as it gets. Mo Ansar, a raving Mohammedan agitprop on speed dial by RT for all things Islamic, is most certainly not. Multiculti is a crime against humanity. Integration or assimilation of Mohammedans is not possible. The large scale import of Islamic savages is destructive and must be reversed.
Danish politicians have defiantly sung a national folk song about a blonde girl, after a foreign teacher forced a top university to apologise for using it. The non-Danish teacher at the Copenhagen Business School was offended by the song for associating Denmark with a ‘young blonde girl’.
Vlad Tepes video of the Danish Parliamentarians singing the song in one of the chambers of Parliament.
Translation….Change the facts to keep the truth suppressed !
Labour’s London Mayor Sadiq Khan has called for the Metropolitan Police’s gangs matrix to be overhauled because the vast majority named are young, black men.
A review for the London mayor found that three-quarters were under the age of 25 and 80 per cent were black, with the authors saying that it was a higher proportion than were likely to be perpetrators or victims of gang violence, reportsThe Guardian.
Alleging potential racial discrimination, the review, published Friday, said, “We must acknowledge the possibility of conscious or unconscious bias against young black males in London – whether the term ‘gang’ is now heavily racially loaded and that this perception that a gang is often comprised of young black males, and ergo that young black males are often in a gang, either directly or unconsciously influences the enforcement focus of the police and subsequent actions of the justice service.”
Enochs words should be ringing in our ears like jingle bells right now,the globalist replacement programme continues unabated.
The ruling, which effectively opens the door to legalizing Sharia-based child marriages in Germany, is one of a growing number of instances in which German courts are — wittingly or unwittingly — promoting the establishment of a parallel Islamic legal system in the country.
Native Germans are the custodians of the country
Congressman Steve King in an interview with Hagen Grell. He appeals to Germans to be proud of being German.
Who would have thought that in 2018 it would be deemed controversial to uphold the principle of free speech? Whatever else the events of this year have taught us, it is now clear that the fundamental human right to express oneself as one sees fit is under threat. With both major political parties supporting further hate-speech legislation and varying degrees of press regulation, and with Silicon Valley tech giants routinely censoring their users, the time is ripe seriously to consider how we might retaliate against the creeping authoritarianism of our age.
Those who were active in the civil-rights movements of the ‘New Left’ in the Sixties and Seventies understood that free speech is the linchpin of all other struggles for equality. But today it is mostly well-intentioned activists on the left who are calling on the state to constrict the Overton window. Worse still, in a world in which social media have become the de facto public square, and online platforms are controlled by powerful likeminded CEOs, we are left with the paradoxical phenomenon of self-identified leftists seeking to empower huge corporations to set the parameters of acceptable thought.
One of the most troubling developments over the past year has been the politicisation of our law-enforcement agencies. The government recently launched a new campaign to tackle hate crime, defined on their website as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim, or anybody else, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice’ towards any of the five ‘protected characteristics’ (race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability). It’s not clear why acts that are already criminal should require a separate category at all, let alone on the grounds of ‘perceived’ motive.