"Muslims will Soon Outnumber Christians in Europe, So Making Muslims Mad at Us is the Very Worst Thing We Can Do!"

Tweet

Jan Jambon

It's okay.
It's okay.
It's okay.
It's okay.
It's okay.
It's okay.
It's okay.
It's okay.
It's okay.
It's not okay but it's too late.

Koen Geens and Jan Jambon are, respectively, the Ministers of Justice and the Interior in the current "centre-right" Belgian coalition government. They, and the political parties they represent, are as responsible as anyone for the current "reality" that they describe.

It goes without saying that contrary to what Jambon claims, it is not the case that "the overwhelming majority" of Muslims in Europe share European values (see below). If it were the case, then Geens and Jambon would not be arguing that we need to get those Muslims on our side. They would already be on our side.

As it happens, the proportion of redheads in the population of the Low Countries is roughly equal* to the proportion of Muslims. But no one lives in fear that rude tweets about Molly Ringwald will set off suicide bomb attacks in Brussels or deadly riots in Breda.    

And of course, Islam has viewed the non-Islamic world as an enemy ever since its founding almost 1400 years ago. What we might think, one way or the other, doesn't change that.    

From The Sun:  

Muslims will soon outnumber Christians in Europe, a Belgian minister has claimed. 

Speaking at a hearing into the Brussels attacks, Koen Geens said the European Community may not realise it “but this is the reality”. 

His comments were followed by Belgian deputy prime minister Jan Jambon warning against Europeans “making an enemy of Islam” describing it as “the worst thing we can do”. 

Speaking at the EU Parliament, Mr Geens said: "In Europe, very shortly we’re soon going to have more practising Muslims than practicing Christians." 

“That is not because there are too many Muslims, it is because Christian are generally less practicing. Europe does not realize this, but this is the reality. 

Mr Jambon then added: “I’ve said a thousand times, the worst thing we can do is to make an enemy of Islam. That is the very worst thing we could do. 

“We have 600,000 to 700,000 Muslims in Belgium and the overwhelming majority of those people share our values. 

“To make an enemy of all of those people, we really will be creating problems. We need to see who the terrorists are, who supports the terrorists, what networks are there to support them. 

“That is who we need to tackle and we need to get all of the rest of the Muslims on our side not working against us.”

*Or at least it used to be roughly equal, say twenty years ago. The current proportion of Muslims is almost certainly higher.

EXCLUSIVE: "Anti-Islam Far-Right Activists" Who Mowed Down Muslim Pedestrian Were Actually (Surprise!) Muslims From Molenbeek

Tweet

Brussels witnessed a number of political demonstrations yesterday. Anti-Islam protesters defied bans on protests while "anti-fascist" (read left-wing fascist) and Muslim counter-demonstrators came out to oppose them. At one point Muslim youths ran through the streets of the heavily Muslim Molenbeek neighborhood, yelling, "let's kill the Nazis!"

In the middle of one of the protests a horrific incident occurred. A white Audi ran a police cordon and then hit an unsuspecting woman crossing the street, throwing her over the hood and running over her legs. The woman, a Muslim who was presumably a resident of the area was severely injured but remained conscious throughout the ordeal.

The tragedy had its surreal side. As the car went through the blockade, a smiling man in the passenger seat took selfies with his phone as police trained their guns on the car. One video even seemed to show the police shooting at the car as it was speeding through. A few seconds later there were gasps and screams from the crowd as the car plowed into the woman.

Here is one video of the incident (yes, that's the song Imagine playing faintly in the background):

WARNING: the next video is quite graphic:

Who were the occupants of the car? Some in the media were quick to explicitly blame the anti-Islam protesters, though there was no evidence that they were part of that group.

TVNZ (New Zealand): Muslim woman run down by anti-Islam protester in Brussels 

Daily Mail: Horrific moment Muslim woman is mown down by grinning far-right activist who then stops to take a PICTURE during anti-Islam rally in the troubled Brussels district of Molenbeek 

Independent: Muslim woman run down by far-right activist during anti-Islamic rally in Brussels 

Others ran headlines that while technically correct, carried a certain implication:  

Evening Standard: Muslim woman 'mown down' by car during far-right protest in Molenbeek 

Huffington Post: Muslim Woman Mown Down At Brussels Anti-Islam Rally In Shocking Incident Caught On Video

The men were arrested and Belgian media soon reported that they were both residents of Molenbeek. A few hours ago, their names were released--or at least their partial names:   

Redouane D

Mohamed B

Mohamed was the man taking the selfie.

We're calling this an "exclusive" for English posts, though the Belgian media is obviously up on it. As yet I have seen no retractions or clarifications from other media.

UPDATE (April 3, 9:00 PM CST): English media are continuing to report the story with misleading headlines. This recent article from the New York Post reports everything about the driver and the passenger except for the fact that they had Muslim names.

Muslim woman run down during ‘far-right’ protest in Belgium 

Two 20-year-old men later walked into the police station while reeking of alcohol in order to turn themselves in for the violent hit-and-run, according to Belgian news outlet La Libre. 

Police said the men were under the influence of alcohol and drugs, in possession of smoke bombs, and claimed they had no recollection of the incident. 

Both men, who are from Molenbeek, were charged with armed rebellion and hit and run, the outlet said.

UPDATE (april 4, 12:00 Noon CST): The Daily Mail just amended its headline, changing "grinning far-right activist" to "grinning driver." So the full headline reads:

Horrific moment Muslim woman is mown down by grinning driver who then stops to take a PICTURE during anti-Islam rally in the troubled Brussels district of Molenbeek

This carries with it the implication that the woman was hit by someone who was part of the "anti-Islam rally." However, the text of the article now states that the first names of the occupants were "Redouane" and "Mohamed."

In the Wake of the Brussels Terror Attacks, Jewish Volunteer Calls Belgian Government Crisis Center and Gets (Surprise!) an Operator Named "Zakaria" Who Tells Him that Israel Doesn't Exist and that the Jews Are Occupiers of Palestine

Tweet

"How can I help you, you filthy Jew?"

This sort of thing is not really surprising. The overall Muslim population of Belgium is 5% to 7%, though it is higher in most major cities, constituting 20% and 25% of Antwerp and Brussels, respectively. Despite what you might hear from Islamophobes like me, some Muslims have "assimilated" or at least they have assimilated in so far as they hold down actual jobs in the mainstream economy (such as working in the IPG Belgium Call Center featured in this story).

Now we can add the polite and helpful but politically opinionated call center operator to the gallery of harmless everyday Muslims--the handsome academic, the nice veiled woman, the pleasant baker--featured in Charlie Hebdo's "How the hell did I end up here?"   

Via Elder of Ziyon from Joods Actueel, translated by The New Antisemite:

At least two Israelis were injured in the terror attacks in Brussels. Israel would like to fly them home and so in order to release them from the hospital, a Jewish volunteer called up the Crisis Center set up by the Ministry for Internal Affairs to ask about the procedure. 

He was told that the Israeli victims could not be sent back to Israel, they can only be sent back to Palestine. The family of the victim is shocked and says that "It's just like Iran here". 

This is not the first time an emergency responder decides a Jewish medical emergency is a good reason to preach for Palestine. During the Gaza war, a doctor refused to treat a 90 year old Jewish woman, and suggested to "send her to Gaza for a few hours"

Here is the recorded conversation in Flemish, followed by a translated transcription:

Contact with the Crisis Centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs 

Wednesday March 30th around 17:00 

XXX: Good afternoon, my name is XXX, I am a volunteer in the Jewish coordination committee of Antwerp. We are contacted by persons… we have 2 persons of the Jewish community that were hurt in the attacks in the airport 

Crisis Centre: Yes sir 

XXX: They are prepared to be transported back to Israel. Our volunteers are busy with it and take care of everything but we received information from the hospital that we need special papers from the police that they can be released. Is this correct and to who should we ask that? Can you tell me more about that? 

CC: That is effectively.. I will take a look. So … they go back to Palestine. 

XXX: Not Palestine, Israel. 

CC: Yes, but that was before Palestine, of course. OK 

XXX: Could you repeat that again, please? What is the name? 

CC: That … Palestine. 

XXX: Can I get your name, please? 

CC: Of course, Zakaria. 

XXX: And you know only Palestine? 

CC: Sorry? 

XXX: You don’t know Israel, only Palestine? 

CC: I know the Jews went to there, that Palestine received (opvangen) them and that there is a war between Israel and Palestine, of course. And the occupation… that’s what's on the news of course. 

XXX: Can you help me with the question I have, or not? 

CC: Naturally, of course. Thus they go back to Palestine and ask that they could get an attestation. Voila, it is noted. 

XXX: Can I have you name again, I didn’t understand it well. 

CC: Zakaria 

XXX: Zakaria? 

CC: That is correct. 

XXX: Zakaria what? What is your last name? 

CC: I am not obliged to give it. 

XXX: OK 

XXX; Thank you very much. 

CC: You're welcome. Bye

EoZ adds this from The Jewish Telegraphic Agency:

Michael Freilich, the editor-in-chief of Joods Actueel, said it “defies imagination” that a Belgian state employee would display the anti-Israel behavior that is commonplace in Arab countries. He also called for punishing the operator instead of issuing the “standard apology.” 

The recording’s release follows at least four recorded cases in which people who either spoke Arabic or wore Muslim traditional garb, destroyed, concealed or removed Israeli flags at an impromptu memorial space set up for the attacks’victims at Place de la Bourse in Brussels. It features many flags, including of Arab countries and the Palestinian Authority.

Charlie Hebdo: "How the Hell Did I End Up Here?"

Tweet

Charlie Hebdo on the Brussels attacks

Almost a year ago we reported that Charlie Hebdo announced that it would no longer draw cartoons of Muhammad. There has been much internal disagreement at the magazine about its direction following the horrific Muslim terror attack of January 7, 2015  and the resulting huge inflow of monies from donations, grants and increased sales.

The current state of he magazine is a topic for another post. But I want to reprint the lead editorial from the first edition to come out after the recent Brussels attacks. It's a rejection of the notion that the problem Europe faces is merely "extremism" or even "Islamic extremism." Instead, to quote the piece, we must ask the deeper question, "how the hell did we end up here?"

Some of you may be annoyed at the way the question is perhaps partially presented at the end, as secularism (good) versus religion (bad). It's a bunch of grumpy French atheists. What do you expect? But the larger points--about "moderate" Muslims, the obligations to think and speak, and what happens when we give those up so as not to offend or worse, out of fear--are spot on. And the piece frames it brilliantly: That harmless academic, that nice veiled woman, that pleasant baker--surely they are not my enemies? Surely it must be wrong to do or say anything that labels or stigmatizes or blames them? How the hell did we end up here, indeed.

A note on the cover. It features Stromae, a "multi-cultural" Belgian rap singer, whose biggest recent hit was “Papaoutai” (Papa, where are you?). Against a Belgian flag, multiple flying body parts declare "Here I am!" Is that sick? Of course. So was Paris, Brussels and Cologne. 

HOW DID WE END UP HERE?

Par Charlie Hebdo - 30/03/2016  

For a week now, experts of all kinds have been trying to understand the reasons for the attacks in Brussels. An incompetent police force? Unbridled multiculturalism? Youth unemployment? Uninhibited Islamism? The causes are numerous beyond counting and everyone will naturally choose the one that suits best their own convictions. Law and Order fans will denounce the haplessness of the police. Xenophobes will blame immigration. Sociologists will rehash the evils of colonialism. Urban-planners will point to the evils of ghettoisation. Take your pick. 

In reality, the attacks are merely the visible part of a very large iceberg indeed. They are the last phase of a process of cowing and silencing long in motion and on the widest possible scale. Our noses are endlessly rubbed in the rubble of Brussels airport and in the flickering candles amongst the bouquets of flowers on the pavements. All the while, no one notices what's going on in Saint-German-en-Laye. Last week, Sciences-Po* welcomed Tariq Ramadan. He's a teacher, so it's not inappropriate. He came to speak of his specialist subject, Islam, which is also his religion. Rather like lecture by a Professor of Pies who is also a pie-maker. Thus judge and contestant both. 

No matter, Tariq Ramadan has done nothing wrong. He will never do anything wrong. He lectures about Islam, he writes about Islam, he broadcasts about Islam. He puts himself forward as a man of dialogue, someone open to a debate. A debate about secularism which, according to him, needs to adapt itself to the new place taken by religion in Western democracy. A secularism and a democracy which must also accept those traditions imported by minority communities. Nothing bad in that. Tariq Ramadan is never going to grab a Kalashnikov with which to shoot journalists at an editorial meeting. Nor will he ever cook up a bomb to be used in an airport concourse. Others will be doing all that kind of stuff. It will not be his role. His task, under cover of debate, is to dissuade people from criticising his religion in any way. The political science students who listened to him last week will, once they have become journalists or local officials, not even dare to write nor say anything negative about Islam. The little dent in their secularism made that day will bear fruit in a fear of criticising lest they appear Islamophobic. That is Tariq Ramadan's task. 

Take this veiled woman. She is an admirable woman. She is courageous and dignified, devoted to her family and her children. Why bother her? She harms no one. Even those women who wear the total, all-encompassing veil do not generally use their clothing to hide bombs (as certain people were claiming when the law to ban the burqa was being discussed). They too will do nothing wrong. So why go on whining about the wearing of the veil and pointing the finger of blame at these women? We should shut up, look elsewhere and move past all the street-insults and rumpus. The role of these women, even if they are unaware of it, does not go beyond this. 

The visible part of a very big iceberg. 

Take the local baker, who has just bought the nearby bakery and replaced the old, recently-retired guy, he makes good croissants. He's likeable and always has a ready smile for all his customers. He's completely integrated into the neighbourhood already. Neither his long beard nor the little prayer-bruise on his forehead (indicative of his great piety) bother his clientele. They are too busy lapping up his lunchtime sandwiches. Those he sells are fabulous, though from now on there's no more ham nor bacon. Which is no big deal because there are plenty of other options on offer - tuna, chicken and all the trimmings. So, it would be silly to grumble or kick up a fuss in that much-loved boulangerie. We'll get used to it easily enough. As Tariq Ramadan helpfully instructs us, we'll adapt. And thus the baker's role is done. 

Take this young delinquent. He has never looked at the Quran in his life, he knows little of the history of religion, of colonialism, nor a great deal about the proud country of his Maghreb forefathers. This lad and a couple of his buddies order a taxi. They are not erudite like Tariq Ramadan, they don't pray as often as the local baker and are not as observant as the redoubtable veiled mothers on the street. The taxi heads for Brussels airport. And still, in this precise moment, no one has done anything wrong. Not Tariq Ramadan, nor the ladies in burqas, not the baker and not even these idle young scamps. 

And yet, none of what is about to happen in the airport or metro of Brussels can really happen without everyone's contribution. Because the incidence of all of it is informed by some version of the same dread or fear. The fear of contradiction or objection. The aversion to causing controversy. The dread of being treated as an Islamophobe or being called racist. Really, a kind of terror. And that thing which is just about to happen when the taxi-ride ends is but a last step in a journey of rising anxiety. It's not easy to get some proper terrorism going without a preceding atmosphere of mute and general apprehension. 

These young terrorists have no need to amass the talents of others, to be erudite, dignified or hard-working. Their role is simply to provide the end of a philosophical line already begun. A line which tells us "Hold your tongues, living or dead. Give up discussing, debating, contradicting or contesting". 

This is not to victimise Islam particularly. For it has no opponent. It is not Christianity, Hinduism nor Judaism that is balked by the imposition of this silence. It is the opponent (and protector) of them all. It is the very notion of the secular. It is secularism which is being forced into retreat. 

Above all, in a sense, this stops us asking perhaps the world's oldest and most important question - "How the hell did I end up here?". "How the hell did I end up having to wander the streets all day with a big veil on my head?" "How the hell did I end up having to say prayers five times a day?" " How the hell did I end up in the back of a taxi with three rucksacks packed with explosives?" Perhaps, very sadly, the only people who are still asking themselves that most important of questions are the unlucky victims. "How the hell did I end up here, six yards away from that big bomb?" 

The first task of the guilty is to blame the innocent. It's an almost perfect inversion of culpability. From the bakery that forbids you to eat what you like, to the woman who forbids you to admit that you are troubled by her veil, we are submerged in guilt for permitting ourselves such thoughts. And that is where and when fear has started its sapping, undermining work. And the way is marked for all that will follow. 

* Sciences Po is an elite French public research and higher education institution.