headerphoto


Rutgers: Fecklessness (and Deceit?) in Motion




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk

 Rutgers University has been plagued with a series of anti-Semitic incidents in recent years, some of which have been reported on this site. It is clear that the university administration is unable or unwilling to protect Jewish students on campus from the pro-Palestinian activists like the Students for Justice in Palestine chapter.

So in the recent spate of anti-Semitic violence sweeping the nation during the last round of fighting between Israel and the Hamas terrorists in Gaza, the chancellor and provost of the New Brunswick campus, Christopher Molloy and Francine Conway respectively, issued one of those vague statements condemning anti-Semitism without actually naming the principal perpetrators. That appeared on May 26. 

But even that was unacceptable to the SJP, who protested the statement.  And guess what.  Molloy and Conway apologized to the poor offended SJP Brown Shirts on May 27.

That prompted a response from Jewish on Campus, a  Jewish advocacy group at Rutgers.

I have checked a number of sources for this story. This article from Volokh Conspiracy ( May 28) includes the full texts of the relevant statements. That is important.

In an interesting twist, on May 29, the president of Rutgers, Jonathan Holloway, issued a statement that Rutgers had not apologized, nor ever would, apologize for standing against anti-Semitism.

May 29, 2021

"Rutgers deplores hatred and bigotry in all forms.  We have not, nor would we ever, apologize for standing against anti-Semitism.

Neither hatred nor bigotry has a place at Rutgers, nor should they have a place anywhere in the world. At Rutgers we believe that anti-Semitism, anti-Hinduism, Islamophobia and all forms of racism, intolerance and xenophobia are unacceptable wherever and whenever they occur."

Jonathan Holloway
President and University Professor

Here is today's (May 29) Daily Targum (Rutgers campus newspaper) reporting that statement.

Yesterday (May 28), Daily Targum published this story on the matter. 

Note there are links to the original statement condemning anti-Semitism as well as the university apology to SJP and Palestinians. Both of those links, however, go back to today's disclaimer by Rutgers. Not only are the links inaccurate as to advertised content, but they are dated one day after the article first appeared. 

Now I am cross-posting articles on this story from other sources.

Algemeiner  (May 28) Note that in this article too, the original condemnation and the apology links are replaced by the May 29 disclaimer.

Jewish Journal (May 28) Same thing with both links. They both open up with the March 29 disclaimer.

Daily Caller (May 27). Same issue with both links.

New York Daily Post  (May 28) Same issue with both links.

And Fox News.

There may be an innocent explanation for all this, perhaps someone just made an error with the links. That error could not have been on the part of all the above sources reporting the story. God knows how many others have that same issue. The error must have happened within the Rutgers administration and multiple other outlets just cut and pasted it. 

It just seems odd that all links reporting the initial May 26 condemnation of anti-Semitism and the subsequent apology on May 27, are routed to the May 29 disclaimer by Rutgers President Holloway.

*Update (May 30): Here is an update from Legal Insurrection after we notified them of the above information. 

And The College Fix here.

Oklahoma Says No to Critical Race Theory




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


Hat tip Legal Insurrection

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt (R) has signed a bill that will ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory in the state's public schools and universities. Oklahoma thus becomes the second state (after Idaho) to prohibit this new kind of racist teaching.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/05/oklahoma-gov-stitt-signs-bill-banning-critical-race-theory-from-public-schools/

This does not mean that students will not learn about the history of slavery and Jim Crow. It does not mean they won't learn that all people are created equal. What it means is that they won't have to suffer through lessons in how one race is inferior to another. Because if you are teaching that all white people are inherently racist, that is what is being peddled-that there is something deficient about white people.

Make no mistake: CRT has been concocted by people who want to divide the American people and create a never-ending cycle of resentment on the part of minorities and whites vis-a-vis each other. It is one thing to teach true history, and that includes slavery and segregation. It is quite another to condemn an entire group of people and America in general. America today is not the America of 1955.

Let us hope that 48 other states will follow the lead of Idaho and Oklahoma. Who says that New York and California have to lead the nation?

Swedish Politicians Cry Crocodile Tears for Female Victims




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


In Sweden, 5 women have been murdered in the past three weeks.  That has led Prime Minister  Stefan Löfven to issue a statement on Facebook lamenting the fact that there is a real problem of violence against women by men in his country. Meanwhile, Member of Parliament, Annie Lööf asks, where is the outrage? The below article from SVT is translated by Fousesquawk.

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/lofven-det-har-fyller-mig-med-vrede

Löfven: "This fills me with anger"

Updated today 12:23. Posted today 12;14

Caption beneath photo: "For man's violence toward women to end, it is men who must change, " writes Stefan Löfven on Facebook.

Prime Minister Stefan Löfven is also reacting to the murders by close relations in recent weeks. He now promises that the government will invite organizations and authorities to see what measures are needed to prevent this in the future. 

"This fills me with anger, and one cannot feel anything but the deepest contempt for men who humiliate, beat and murder women," he writes.

Five women have been killed by men in the past 3 weeks. This has awakened debate over how society is actually handling this.

"Where is the outcry from society? From my political colleagues? Where are the commissions, the tough ones?" wrote Annie Lööf (C) on Facebook Sunday.

"A Societal Problem"

On Sunday evening, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven reacted in a post on Facebook. The Minister for  Equality, Märta Stenevi (MP), earlier in the day, called for a party conference on the violence. Now Stefan  Löfven is also promising that the government will invite several organizations and authorities to see what measures can be taken to counteract it.

"Men who expose women to these heinous crimes should be punished, but men's violence on women should not be reduced to individual cases. It is a societal problem which must be fought with all of society's collective power," writes Löfven 

"Men must change"

According to Stefan Löfven, male violence against women and gang crime are the government's two main priorities in criminal policy.  He highlights the new sex crime legislation and increased possibilities of ankle monitors and (restraining orders) as examples of what the government has already done. But he says at the same time that more must be done.

"For men's violence against women to end, it is men who must change," he writes.

He continues: We need to talk with men about what real manhood is, that it is not beating or harassing."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But there is much more to this story. First of all, we must ask just who is responsible for a disproportionate share -if not most- of this violence against women. Here is an article from Sweden that we reported on just a few weeks ago.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2021/02/sweden-majority-of-convicted-rapists.html

It should be noted that nowhere in Löfven's Facebook post did he say one word about the involvement of immigrants, particularly Muslim immigrants, in this problem. According to the prime minister, it is just men. The fact is that as prime minister, he has presided over an insane immigration-refugee policy that has turned Swedish towns into gang warfare zones and made the country the rape capital of Europe.

And as for Annie Lööf, she is a fine one to be complaining. She is a liberal who advocates for even more immigration and acceptance of refugees into Sweden.

So Sweden will now appoint a blue-ribbon commission to "study the problem" and see how they can convince men to act like civilized human beings. If they really want to solve the problem and make their country safe for women again, they need to change their immigration policies. That is not to say stop all immigration, but they need to look elsewhere in the world to find immigrants who will assimilate and contribute to their society. They also need to toughen up their sentencing. Convicted rapists in Sweden are getting off with ridiculously light sentences, and in most cases, even avoiding deportation.

The sad fact is that these Swedish government leaders have blood on their hands.


How Quickly Will the Boulder Attack Disappear From the News?

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



 

The dust is not yet settled on yesterday's terrorist attack in Boulder, but it seems the news media and the Biden administration have settled on the narrative. For them, this is a gun control issue and a mental health issue, and that's that. There is ample information out there that indicates an Islamist motive behind the attack, but we don't hear about it from the mainstream media. Right now I would say that the go-to sources for information related to that angle are Jihad Watch and Understanding the Threat. Disturbing, Islamic-related information was discovered on the shooter's Facebook page before it was shut down. Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa's name reportedly came to the attention of the FBI in association with another person of interest who was on the FBI radar. (That was reported by the NY Times.) It is also reported that President Biden was briefed on the shooter's reported ISIS sympathies.

Does mental illness play a role in this incident? Possibly, but that excuse had been used repeatedly by media and authorities in Europe. Charles Manson had a mental issue. We could go on and on. It is true that we have a mental illness crisis in our country. As for the gun control issue, there are valid arguments as to why a guy like this-with a violent history, albeit in high school- could be able to purchase an assault weapon.

It should be reiterated that not all of the above reports may turn out to be factual. But it certainly appears that our media wants to bury any Islamic terror motivation on the part of the shooter. No decent person wants to incite retaliation against innocent Muslims, but if this was an Islamic terror attack-lone wolf or otherwise- the public needs to know the risks out there. Is it going to up to the blogosphere to uncover the truth?

Niger: 58 Dead in Apparent Jihadist Attack




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk

Hat tip Actu Niger and Jihad Watch





On Monday, terrorists in Niger attacked villages killing 58 people. The attackers are believed to be jihadists allied with Islamic State of the Greater Sahara, who have been active in the area where the attack took place.

Niger is a former French possession and the official language is French. The below article is from the Niger news outlet, Actu Niger. The translation is by Fousesquawk.

 https://www.actuniger.com/societe/17051-insecurite-un-deuil-national-de-3-jours-apres-le-massacre-de-58-civils-vers-banibangou-officiel.html

Insecurity: Three days of national mourning after the massacre of 58 civilians in Banibangou (Official)

In s statement read on public television on Tuesday evening, the government announced that fifty-eight (58) people were killed and several others wounded in an attack Monday, March 15, that targeted villagers returning from the weekly market of Banibangou (Tillaberi Region). The armed assailants also burned two (2) vehicles, took two (2) others, and set fire to several grain sheds.

After this new tragedy, the government decreed three (3) days of national mourning beginning Wednesday, March 17 according to the statement read on public television by the ministry spokesperson. Flags will also be lowered to half-staff during this period throughout the country.

Government Statement

On Monday, March 15, 2021, in the afternoon, groups of unidentified, armed individuals attacked four (4) vehicles transporting passengers returning from the weekly market of Banibangou (Tillaberi Region) and leaving respectively to the villages of Chinagoder and Darey Dey. These individuals proceeded cowardly and cruelly to carry out targeted executions of the passengers.

At the village of Darey Dey, they killed people and burned grain sheds.

The balance sheet (toll) for these barbaric acts is as follows:

- Fifty-eight (58) people killed

- One person injured

-Several grain sheds and two (2) vehicles burned

- Two vehicles taken

Security provisions have been strengthened in the zone, and an investigation has been opened to find the perpetrators of these criminal acts and bring them before the courts.

In this painful circumstance, His Excellency, President of the Republic, Chief of Staff, Supreme Chief of the Armed Forces, and the government send their saddest condolences to the families of the victims and wish a speedy recovery to the injured.

A national period of mourning of three days has been decreed beginning Wednesday, March 17, 2021. The flags will be at half-staff throughout the national territory.

The government calls on the population for increased vigilance and reaffirms its determination to relentlessly continue the fight against criminality in all its forms.

May God bless Niger and its people!

Thank you.


Niamey (Capital) 16 March 2021

Minister Spokesperson of the Government Zakaria Abdouraham


Sweden: Common Sense From an ex-Muslim in the Wake of Terror Attack in Vetlanda




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


Hat tip Det Goda Samhället. Translation by Fousesquawk.


Mohamed Omar is a Swedish poet and part of the staff of the conservative Swedish outlet, Det Goda Samhället. He was born in Sweden and is an apostate from Islam. He also goes by the name of Eddie. 

In this op-ed, Omar sharply criticizes Prime Minister Stefan  Löfven for his lax immigration policies and his recent statement that the terror attack in Vetlanda this week by an Afghan refugee had nothing to do with immigration. His op-ed is translated by Fousesquawk.

https://detgodasamhallet.com/2021/03/07/mohamed-omar-sjalvklart-har-terrorn-i-vetlanda-med-invandring-att-gora/#more-40848


March 7, 2021

Mohamed Omar: Of course, the terror in Vetlanda has something to do with immigration

When a fanatical Muslim screams, "Allahu Akhbar" and blows himself up in Stockholm, that has nothing to do with Islam. And when an immigrant stabs people with a knife in Vetlanda, that has nothing to do with immigration.

Prime Minister Stefan Löfven has previously explained that he has the greatest respect for Islam, that he has never criticized the religion, and he will never do so.

Not because there is nothing to criticize in Islam, rather Löfven doesn't criticize Islam.

The "unaccompanied child refugee" from Afghanistan who stabbed people on the street in Vetlanda was perhaps no fanatical Muslim. Perhaps, he was not motivated by his Islamic belief.

The prime minister says that the terror in Vetlanda has nothing to do with immigration.

But the terror in Vetlanda obviously has something to do with immigration. Islamic terror has something to do with Islam, and immigrant-terror has something to do with immigration. In Sweden, one needs to point out these self-evident (facts).

For there are people with power and influence who seem to think that 1) Criticism of Islam is a bigger problem than Islamic terror, and 2) criticism of immigration is a bigger problem than immigrant terror.

For us common people, who are not schooled in the sophisticated thinking of politically-correct-isms, this is difficult to understand.

When we let in masses of criminal immigrants, criminality increases in Sweden. If we had not let (them) in, criminality would have been less.

Those who have run the immigration policy seem to think that it is more important to let in foreigners to our country than that we who live here should be safe.

For us common people, that is a strange priority.

We common people do not understand why foreigners who commit crimes are allowed to stay. The "unaccompanied child refugee" who went on attack in Vetlanda had, for example, committed crimes previously. Why was he not sent home?

Stefan Löfven, and those who think like him, think it is more worrisome that Swedes become more critical of immigration than immigrant crime.

We common people cannot understand how a critical view of immigration can be a problem, and it is also more difficult to understand that this should be a bigger problem than immigrant crime.

Criticism of immigration means that one weighs the advantages against the disadvantages. One looks at how immigration has gone so far and asks himself: Has it gone well?

That is what sensible people do. You cannot continue to do what does not go well.

"I condemn this terrible act," says Löfven about the terror in Vetlanda. Those are empty words as long as he cannot criticize his immigration policy.

It is because of Löfven's, and his like-minded (colleagues') irresponsible immigration policy that 7 people were stabbed in Vetlanda.


The Cancer at UC Irvine




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk

This article first appeared in Times of Israel Blogs.


Recently, we reported on the latest BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) resolution that was passed by the student senate at UC Irvine, where I taught part-time 1998-2016. The resolution against Israel passed, and the university quickly issued a statement that they would not abide by it. The damage is that these resolutions, which go on all over the nation in our universities, only direct more negative attention to Jewish students and increase anti-Semitism. Jews are perceived as universally supporting the Jewish state of Israel, which in reality, is not true. Most American Jews support Israel, but some do not. Some even join forces with those who want to destroy the Jewish state. That is the true aim of BDS.

Richard Cravatts, former president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, has also taken note of the latest out of UCI and has written about it in Frontpage Magazine. I am cross-posting it below.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/malignant-tradition-uc-irvines-hate-israel-richard-l-cravatts/

Sadly, UCI has acquired a reputation as a hotbed of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic agitation, largely due to the annual anti-Israel week of events every May. Over the last two decades, I have attended many of those events in order to document them, videotape them, and directly question the speakers. I can tell you, I have seen and heard a lot of vicious people speak at these events. 

As I have always said, 99% of the students at UCI are not involved in this ugliness, but those who are have all but destroyed the reputation of what should otherwise be considered a great university. I blame the administrators at UCI (and the entire UC system) for their weakness in allowing this problem to fester and grow.

In 2015-16, I was active with the Amcha Initiative and others in lobbying the UC Regents to draw up a suitable statement of principles against intolerance that specifically addressed anti-Semitism, as opposed to simply condemning all forms of hate. After all, it was anti-Semitism on campus that was the reason a revised statement of principles was under consideration. In 2016, the UC Regents finalized a statement that included such language. 

https://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2017/06/jewish-organizations-to-uci-chancellor.html

Unfortunately, it has proved to be nothing more than a scrap of paper that UCI can stick in the files of their Office of Inclusive Excellence and show the public that everything is just fine. But since that paper was finalized, UCI has continued to see anti-Zionist weeks every May (at least until the Covid crisis hit), and speakers like Hussam Ayloush (CEO of CAIR in S. California), Rabab Abdulhadi, (professor at San Francisco State University) and Zahra Billoo (CEO of CAIR in No. California) come to campus to spread their poison. Some progress.

Now we have another dangerous ingredient being added to the poisonous cocktail. Thanks to the latest academic creation-intersectionality- all ills of the world can be linked to Israel including the grievances of BLM. If George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis cops, it was partially Israel's fault because they trained that department and taught them the tactic of kneeling on a black suspect's neck-or something like that. And don't think the connection hasn't been made by those who ingest this propaganda. Last May, BLM rioters rampaged through the Fairfax district of Los Angeles, attacking synagogues and yelling curses at Jews from their car windows. It was a pogrom though nobody would admit it. One would think that after such an event, activists might realize that stoking hatred against Jews was a dangerous idea. Not the pro-Palestinian crowd, however. It's full steam ahead, and if they can convince American blacks that the Jewish state of Israel is their enemy too, so what if a few American Jews get beat up?

Shame on the pro-Palestinian movement for stirring up this kind of hate toward American Jews with their lies. And shame on our universities for allowing this treatment of its Jewish students. When I first got involved in this issue at UCI back around 2007, I learned that our university campuses were the focal point for the resurgence in anti-Semitism in the US. Rather than seeing it nipped in the bud, it has metastasized to society as a whole. The only positive aspect is that the issue of anti-Semitism can no longer be denied or swept under the rug. It is there for all to see. And UCI has played a role.

Anti-Semitism: Review of Book Review



Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


I am cross-posting an article by Robert Shrimsley in the Financial Times of London. It is a discussion of modern-day anti-Semitism in reviewing two books on the topic. The two books Shrismley reviews are, "Jews Don't Count" by David Baddiel and "Anti-Semitism Re-visited-How the Rabbis Made Sense of Hatred" by Delphine Horvilleur. 

I have cut and pasted the entire text, which I received from The Israel Group. If you go to the original source, the Financial Times of London, the link to the article requires a subscription to view the entire article. 

I have chosen this article because it makes a very salient point that we must recognize if we are to fight today's strain of anti-Semitism. In the United States, at least, Jews are handicapped by the perception that they are uniformly white-and privileged, in fact, more privileged than most.  In truth, Jews come in many shades of color. In addition, the reviewer correctly points out that it is the left that has chosen to turn a blind eye to the problem.

On the other hand, you will see from the below review that there is scant attention paid to the actual purveyors of today's form of anti-Semitism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Robert Shrimsley | Financial Times of London

Why do people never refer to the “Y-word” in place of the offensive “yid”? Why, when the BBC recently broadcast a reading of TS Eliot’s poetry did it read out the famously and staggeringly racist lines from “Burbank with a Baedeker” when it is inconceivable that it would regurgitate similar abuse of any other minority, even in the name of art?

Why are Jews excluded from diversity or ethnic minority monitoring? Yes, Judaism is categorized as a religion but there is no anti-Semite in history who viewed atheism as grounds for exemption from persecution. How, with the Holocaust still a living memory, do so many on the left feel content to dismiss the fears of one of the most persecuted peoples in history, to regard anti-Semitism as something that matters less than other prejudice, a sort of second-degree offense?

Underlying all these questions is a simpler point and a deeper hurt. Anti-Semitism is on the rise and yet political progressives, the people who ought to be allies and who normally stress the need to listen to the experience of other minorities, seem to suspend those rules when those voices are Jewish. Why is it, as writer and comedian David Baddiel asks in his short polemic, that Jews Don’t Count?

This book is not aimed at witting anti-Semites or at those who are indifferent. It is aimed squarely at people who think of themselves as progressive but seem to have a blind spot when it comes to casual or not-so-casual anti-Semitism. It is a deceptively easy read, the underlying seriousness lightened by personal stories and regular flashes of Baddiel's wit.

Baddiel’s is one of two short new books on modern anti-Semitism. French rabbi Delphine Horvilleur has also tackled the issue and from the perspective of a country where its manifestations have been more vicious and deadly. Her ruminations, while interesting, are too rabbinical, too much like a sermon. But there is one core nugget. The prejudice, she argues in Anti-Semitism Revisited, lies in the view that “Jews are a bit too much the same and a bit too different”. Both too keen to fit in and insufficiently assimilated.

British Jews, stung especially by the rows over anti-Semitism in the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn, will read Baddiel’s book with a combination of recognition and despair. Since Labour’s issues, people have been paying more attention. But, given the upsurge of abuse and violence, the shock has been how loud Jews had to shout for the issue to be addressed and how many people were content to shrug their shoulders at the problem.

The author’s question is less about why anti-Semitism exists than why good people care less about it. And here he is in similar territory to Horvilleur’s. The key is that Jews are not seen as underprivileged or marginalised. They are caricatured as rich capitalists. They are also “too white” for campaigners. This means they are beyond the interest of social justice activists who see racism as a class construct, one in which you need to be economically or socially disadvantaged. For progressives, he writes, “no victory is claimed by championing their experience, and this leads to a subtle — and unconscious — exclusion.” The mission of fighting racism has been repurposed to suit the other political causes of campaigners rather than the needs of its victims.

To this point, Baddiel brings up the concept of “Schrodinger’s Whites”. Jews are both white and not white. Since most pass for Caucasian and are “rich”, they enjoy white privilege. If only someone had remembered to share this insight with white supremacists.

While most victims of racism are looked down upon as lesser people, Jews are both looked down upon but also portrayed as part of a sinister, wealthy, powerful force, an enemy within. This was the rhetoric that paved the way to Auschwitz. But the bias also informs the progressive blind spot. Jews are powerful; they don’t need defending. And some on the far-left even buy into the conspiracy theories.

And this is the most tone-deaf part of the issue, because the peculiar nature of anti-Semitism means that status counts for little. With the Holocaust, the key reference point for the modern fear of anti-Semitism, Jews see that the success, integration and respected place in society of many German Jews did not save them and was even used against them.

Wrapped into this, of course, is anger at Israel, a poster cause for the left. But on this Baddiel, no supporter of Israel, has a simple riposte. The issue of Palestine offers no justification for anti-Semitism in Britain and a good cause does not legitimise racism.

Not all his arguments land. He asks why many who would complain if a film does not cast a trans actor in a trans role (or a white actor in a black or Asian role) think nothing of non-Jew in a Jewish role, even if it is played as a cartoonish stereotype (something he describes as “jewface”). He admits that he does not believe Jews must always be portrayed by Jews. But you have to pick your fights and other groups do struggle harder for on-screen representation. It is the double-standard that troubles him. Likewise in the debate on Eliot’s poetry, there is an argument to be had about censoring literature but it is reasonable to wish for a level playing field.

A criticism will be that this is special pleading by a community whose concerns are far from ignored. One can also argue that recognising a hierarchy of urgency is not the same as having a hierarchy of racisms. Some issues are more pressing. In over five decades in London I have only once been stopped by the police without any reason; this is not the average black experience. But Baddiel acknowledges this, both supporting the focus on Black Lives Matter and noting that at different moments in history some struggles should and will move to the forefront. His appeal is only for equal awareness.

I am not a neutral but this pithy, wry book ought to leave one raging that the accepted nostrums of anti-racism are simply discarded for one of the most persecuted peoples in history.

The one worry is that this will be read mainly by Jews and not by those who need to read it. It should be essential reading for progressives, self-proclaimed anti-racists, and those offering diversity and awareness courses. If it is, then Baddiel will have done a sterling service. If it isn’t, he will have the grim satisfaction of having been proved right.

Jews Don’t Count, by David Baddiel, William Collins, RRP£9.99, 144 pages

Anti-Semitism Revisited: How the Rabbis Made Sense of Hatred, by Delphine Horvilleur, translated by David Bellos, MacLehose Press, RRP£12.99, 140 pages

Robert Shrimsley is the FT’s UK chief political commentator

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the interest of full disclosure, I have read neither book, so I cannot say that the two respective authors have failed to identify the perpetrators. (As Shrimsley points out, Baddiel is no friend of Israel.) But if I have one critique of the review, it would be for what it doesn't say. Like so many discussions of anti-Semitism today, it fails to go into detail as to who the biggest perpetrators are. In my view, this new form of anti-Semitism has taken root on college campuses, thanks to the pro-Palestinian movement against Israel, which is quite well organized. From there, it has metastasized into mainstream society. While there is a reference to the anti-Israel movement, it fails to point out that most anti-Semitism today comes from Islamic quarters. That is, at least, my opinion.

Why do I say that? After all, we have the historical example of the Third Reich, and we do have a tiny percentage of people in Europe and the US who consider themselves neo-Nazis. They are certainly to be confronted and condemned, but in my view, they are not the main problem today. I still believe that today's anti-Semitism is largely, if not mostly driven by the pro-Palestinian movement, which is largely Islamic, both in the Middle East and the West.

If you look on our college campuses, the anti-Israel movement (which is huge) is mostly driven by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the various campus chapters of the Muslim Student Association (MSA). The main difference between these two organizations, which work hand-in-glove, is that SJP has some members who are non-Muslims, and that the MSA is involved in other issues, such as promoting Islam and other religious activities. However, the SJP was co-founded by Hatem Bazian, a Palestinian Muslim, who also co-founded American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), which is a funding arm of SJP.

They all deny they are anti-Semitic, but they have also been guilty of using classical anti-Jewish tropes in making their case against Israel and those who support the Jewish state.

While European universities are also hotbeds of anti-Israel activity, European Jews face another immediate problem. The wave of Muslim immigration-migration into Europe has literally made the streets unsafe for Jews-and to a slightly lesser extent, everybody else. These migrants, mostly uneducated, bring with them a hatred of Jews based on their Islamic teachings. This is not to condemn all Muslims as Jew-haters, but anti-Jewish feeling (as well as anti-Christian feeling) is deeply embedded in Islamic teaching.

Shrimsley also refers briefly to Black Lives Matter (BLM), which as an organization, supports the Palestinian cause. Just as with Muslims, the left and academia want no part of any discussion as to BLM or the fact that the African-American community- just like the white community- has its share of  anti-Semitism. Are all black Americans anti-Jewish? Hardly, but to the extent some are, it should be discussed openly just as we do with white anti-Semites.

In one sense, I am gratified that the topic of anti-Semitism is rising to the fore of public consciousness. On the other hand, what good does it do to condemn anti-Semitism if you don't name the perpetrators-or you assign the blame solely to one sub-group of the anti-Semites?

Sweden: Afghan Man Gets 10 Months and No Deportation for Sexually Abusing His Daughter




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk

Hat tip Fria Tider. Translation by Fousesquawk. 


Mora (Dalarna), Sweden

The insanity continues in Sweden. While the government continues to ignore the carnage and the rapes going on in the country, thanks to their insane immigration policies, the courts continue to treat offenders with light prison sentences and no deportations in spite of the severity of the crimes. 

In this latest report by Fria Tider, translated by Fousesquawk, we read of a 45-year-old Afghan man convicted of sexually abusing his teenage daughter on multiple occasions, beating her, and getting a sentence of 10 months with no deportation.

https://www.friatider.se/forgrep-sig-sexuellt-pa-sin-dotter-att-kontrollera-om-hon-var-muslim

Sexually abused his daughter to "check if she was Muslim"

-Posted January 25, 2021, 15:27


Caption below photo: Mora (Dalarna) Courthouse

Domestic- An Afghan man, aged 45, in Dalarna, has been sentenced to prison but avoids deportation for having sexually abused his daughter on a number of occasions. He blamed the abuse on his daughter and said that she should pray to Allah for forgiveness, according to the judgment.

The man came to Sweden in 2015 from Afghanistan with his daughter. The abuse against his daughter was committed while the daughter, according to the Swedish population register, was about 14 or younger, until May 2020.

On a number of occasions, he lay down beside his daughter in her bed, kissed her and caressed her breast as he masturbated or pressed his sex (organ) against her and made intercourse-like movements.

The girl testified in court that the father, after the first occasion, explained to her that what happened was her fault and they should pray together for Allah's forgiveness.

When they lived with a  Swedish couple, he would lay next to her in the mornings, (scratch himself) against her and "said that he was checking if she was a Muslim", according to the judgment.

According to the daughter's passport, issued in Afghanistan, she was born in 2005. There has since emerged information, which the girl received from her mother, that she was really born in 2007, and that she is, thus, 13 years old now.

The abuse was discovered in the spring of 2020 when the Afghan beat his daughter in front of their neighbors after she had lost a cell phone. The girl told the Swedish couple what she had been exposed to.

The father, who has several other children in Afghanistan, denied the crime and claimed that he "had only shown (his) love for his daughter when he lay next to her in bed. He also claimed that he "had problems with his penis" with an itchy rash and that it was "hard to control the itching."

The court of Mora has now sentenced the man to 10 months in prison for four counts of sexual abuse against a child and one count of  (physical) abuse. He is allowed to stay in Sweden though since the prosecutor had not urged that he be deported.


The Academic Lynching of Law Professor John Eastman




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


On Wednesday, prior to President Trump's speech to protesters in Washington, Rudy Giuliani spoke to the crowd. He then introduced Professor John Eastman a conservative Constitutional law professor at Chapman University in Orange, California. Eastman described how voting machines were allegedly rigged using algorithms to help Joe Biden get the needed number of votes to defeat President Trump. It should be noted that while both speakers passionately stated their belief that the election was stolen, neither encouraged violence, and neither made any mention of the marching to the Capitol. Yet, in addition to President Trump, both men are being accused of engaging in incitement. In addition, efforts are ongoing by some at Chapman University to have Eastman fired. A similar move is underway at Colorado University at Boulder, where Eastman is a visiting professor. The presidents of both universities have severely criticized Eastman's remarks but are refusing to fire him citing First Amendment protections.

The words of both Giuliani and Eastman can be seen here (hat tip Ugetube.com).

Last month, Eastman first came under fire for joining Trump's legal team in a court filing. He was accused of improperly using his work contact information at Chapman in the filing (hat tip Legal Insurrection). 

Now, in the wake of Wednesday's events, Chapman president Daniele Struppa is facing demands to fire Eastman. In two statements to the campus community, Struppa has condemned Eastman but refuses to fire him.

"This week, John Eastman, a member of the Chapman faculty, played a role in the tragic events in Washington, D.C., that jeopardized our democracy."

That is an inaccurate and very unfair characterization. Eastman had nothing whatsoever to do with the events that took place at a separate location, in this case, the Capitol. As previously stated, he neither encouraged violence nor a march to the Capitol, let alone the storming of the Capitol. He expressed his belief that the election was stolen and outlined his reasons. 

Here is Struppa's follow-up statement to the campus.

In addition, Phil DiStefano, President of the University of Colorado, Boulder, strongly condemned Eastman's speech even while conceding his first amendment rights and refusing to fire him.

While the presidents of Chapman and Colorado University are correct in defending Eastman's First Amendment rights and refusing to bend to the demands to fire him, their characterizations of Eastman's words and actions are unfair. As to the December issue when Eastman joined the Trump legal team, our recent history is rife with incidents when university professors have appeared on Capitol Hill to testify, and their university affiliations were prominently noted. Did we not know that Anita Hill was a professor at the University of Oklahoma when she leveled charges against Clarence Thomas in his Supreme Court confirmation hearings? Even Joe Biden should remember that. He presided over the hearings. What about when the Brett Kavanaugh hearings were taken over by the accusations of Christine Blasey Ford? And who was Christine Blasey Ford? A professor at Palo Alto University. That was hardly kept from the public as she testified. And how about that Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan, who came to Washington to testify at Trump's impeachment hearings that the President had, indeed, committed impeachable offenses (in her opinion). We all knew she was a Stanford law professor. It was right there on the TV screen. How many times has that prominent Harvard Law Professor, Lawrence Tribe, weighed in on controversial issues, often on Capitol Hill, with his Harvard affiliation prominently displayed? Perhaps we should leave Hill and Ford off the list because, after all, they were the alleged victims, but don't tell me that university professors who enter the political arena are supposed to hide their credentials and pose as shoe salesmen. If it's OK for Pamela Karlan, it's OK for John Eastman.

To sum up, what we have here is an attack on Eastman for taking the side of President Trump in the election controversy. In academia, that is considered an unpardonable sin. To link him to the violence at the Capitol is wrong. That, however, will not stop the campus Jacobins from continuing their attacks. It is a sad commentary on the state of our universities today.