By Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
….France is a special case. Algeria was an integral part of France for more than a hundred years, from the 1830s until the 1960s. After Algeria won its war for independence in 1962, Algerians who had remained loyal to France emigrated en masse to the former mother country. They were largely secular, but Islamic radicalism remains dormant indefinitely in any expatriate Islamic population. Three generations later, the descendants of those Algerians — who are native French citizens — are turning increasingly to jihad, and are among the “foreign fighters” who have traveled to Syria to fight in the civil war against the Assad regime.
To compound the problem, numerous other Muslim immigrants from various former French colonies in Africa have settled in France over the past two or three decades. As a result, major cities, especially Paris, are surrounded by a ring of suburbs euphemistically known as “Sensitive Urban Zones”. These are no-go zones for ordinary French citizens. Firefighters and ambulance drivers will not enter them without a police escort. The police themselves enter them only when absolutely necessary, and always in large numbers.
Whenever you see footage of “carbecues” and rock-throwing “youths” in media news reports about France, it is almost always shot in these Sensitive Urban Zones. They are, in effect, areas of the country that are no longer governed by France. The laws of the Fifth Republic have been superseded by Islamic law and tribal law, replicating the failed political structures of the Middle East and Africa.
Similar situations may be found to varying degrees in all the countries of Western Europe. From Gothenburg to Barcelona, from Glasgow to Vienna, large concentrations of Muslims with the same characteristics may be found. Women on the street are veiled. The shop signs are in Arabic, Urdu, and Turkish. All the supermarkets sell halal food only. Pork and alcohol are unavailable.
Non-Muslims who venture into these neighborhoods risk being surrounded, harassed, and beaten up by large groups of Muslim men. If they are unveiled females, they also risk sexual harassment and rape. All may expect to be told: “This is a Muslim area. You are not welcome here.”
Any incident that threatens the honor of a Muslim or hurts Islamic feelings may lead to violent demonstrations, rioting, looting, and arson. This is when you see cars burning in the suburbs of Malmö in Sweden, Oslo in Norway, Berlin in Germany, Brussels in Belgium, Rotterdam in the Netherlands, Paris in France, and Birmingham in England. This is when angry Muslims take to the streets with signs that read “Behead Those Who Insult the Prophet” or “Islam Will Dominate”.
This is also when presidents, prime ministers, and ministers of the interior appear on state television to reassure their non-Muslim citizens that Islam is a religion of peace, and that these rioters and arsonists do not represent the “real Islam”. They reassure their Muslim citizens — on whose votes they increasingly depend — that the government has pledged to spend more money on mosques, community outreach efforts, integration programs, and other forms of groveling appeasement towards the Islamic community.
“Official” Muslims — those who represent Muslim communities in government bodies, or appear as talking heads on state television — repeatedly “deplore” the intemperate words and violent actions of their “extremist” co-religionists. They tell their audience that such behavior actually goes against Islam. Even so, despite their bland reassurances, thousands upon thousands of Muslims keep taking to the street doing the same things, over and over. And politicians keep promising better integration and better education as preventive measures, over and over.
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. How insane are our political leaders?
As I mentioned earlier, I can say all these things because I am in the United States, and enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. If I were to say them in many Western European countries, I would risk prosecution. No matter how true they are. No matter the factual research. No matter the historical accuracy of anything I say.
The truth is no defense is most European courtrooms, when it comes to “hate speech” show trials. It certainly wasn’t in my case. If anything I say “denigrates” Islam, no matter how factual it is, then I have committed a crime….