Wednesday, 27 July 2016
Pope Francis canonises Swedish convert who saved Jews from the Nazis
6 June 2016
Catholic Herald
Pope Francis proclaimed two new saints on Sunday: a Lutheran convert who hid Jews during the Second World War and the Polish founder of the first men’s religious order dedicated to the immaculate conception.
Francis called Swedish-born Elizabeth Hesselblad and Stanislaus Papczynski “exemplary witnesses to this mystery of Resurrection” during the canonisation Mass in St Peter’s Square. Poland’s President Andrzej Duda and first lady Agata Kornhauser-Duda attended the ceremony.
Hesselblad saved the lives of 12 Jewish members of the Piperno-Sed families by hiding them in the convent in Rome where she was superior from December 1943 until the capital’s liberation on June 4, 1944.
Israel’s Holocaust centre Yad Vashem bestowed on her the title “Righteous Among the Nations.” It said Hesselblad never tried to convert those she saved but instead insisted “that they say their Hebrew prayers and fulfil other obligations of their religion.”
Hesselblad, who was baptised in the Reform Church, migrated to the United States where she worked as a nurse and converted to Catholicism. She later moved to Rome, where she became a nun and dedicated her life to her religious order. She died of natural causes in 1957 and was beatified in 2000.
She is Sweden’s second saint in 625 years, following St Bridget, who was canonised in 1391.
Her canonisation comes ahead of Francis’s scheduled trip to Sweden later this year to mark the 500th anniversary of the start of the Protestant Reformation.
Stanislaus of Jesus and Mary, as he is known, supported hospitals and shelters for the poor and cared for the sick in 17th-century Poland. In his early years he himself experienced serious sickness and begged in the streets.
“Papczynski preached mercy and encouraged people to do acts of mercy,” the Polish episcopate said on its website.
His crowning achievement was founding the order of Marian Fathers, which preached the cult of Holy Mary.
Papczynski was born in 1631 to the family of an ironsmith in the village of Podegrodzie, in southern Poland. He had one brother and six sisters, and died in 1701.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/06/06/pope-francis-canonises-swedish-convert-who-saved-jews-from-the-nazis/
Ed-' Pope' JPII has already been canonised , but 'Popes' John XXIII and Paul VI are also in the process of being canonised. All the Vatican II Popes are being legitimised, which is an inversion of the Traditional Church. The Jews have been told that the Old Covenant is fine for them. This confirms that the new new overarching faith is really 'Holocaustianity'
'Anti-Semitism' Row Splits Far Right in Germany
Daily Telegraph - Thursday 7th July 2016
by Justin Huggler, Berlin
Dr Gedeon has since resigned from the party after talks with Ms Petry, but Mr Meuthen and his followers have refused to return.
“Anti-Semitism cannot and must not have any place in the AfD,” Mr Meuthen said. He described the split as a “painful but necessary step”.
The AfD national executive dramatically sided with Mr Meuthen and the rebels, releasing a statement refusing to recognise the party’s own MPs who had not resigned.
“The board distances itself from those members who did not leave the parliamentary group with Jörg Meuthen. From now on we recognise only Jörg Meuthen and the MPs who support him as representatives of the AfD,” it read.
Ms Petry has tried to hold the party together, urging Mr Meuthen and the rebels to return.
“The division of the party must end now. This is a betrayal of AfD voters,” she said.
But the dispute has left Ms Petry looking increasingly isolated in the struggle for control of the party.
A rival faction which includes Mr Meuthen and two other prominent leaders, Alexander Gaulan and Björn Höcke, want to prevent her leading the party in next year’s general elections.
The power struggle has left the AfD unable to capitalise on recent developments which have strengthened far-Right parties in other European countries, such as Brexit and the court-ordered rerun of presidential elections in Austria.
Spiegel magazine described the dispute as a “veritable power struggle” which “could be the start of a disintegration process that takes hold of the entire party”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/anti-semitism-row-splits-germanys-far-right-afd-party/
by Justin Huggler, Berlin
![]() |
Frauke Petry, AfD party leader |
A far-Right German party which inflicted serious losses on Angela Merkel earlier this year is facing a damaging split which could jeopardise its chances in 2017 general elections.
More than half the Alternative for Germany (AfD)’s MPs in one of the country’s regional parliaments have left the party in a row over anti-Semitism.
Behind the dispute lies an increasingly bitter power struggle for control of the party, which has pitted the party leader, Frauke Petry, against the rebel MPs, led by Jörg Meuthen.
The AfD dealt out heavy losses to Mrs Merkel’s Christian Democrat (CDU) party in regional elections in March campaigning on an anti-immigrant platform.
The party has since adopted an openly anti-Muslim agenda, and is running at 14.5 per cent in the national opinion polls.
But the latest row means it has effectively lost one of its most significant gains in the March elections, after 13 of its 23 MPS in the Baden-Württemberg state parliament resigned the party whip.
The dispute began over writings by another of the party’s MPs, Wolfgang Gedeon, a former doctor.
Dr Gedeon claimed denial of the Holocaust was a legitimate expression of opinion, and described those convicted under Germany’s Holocaust denial laws as “dissidents”.
Mr Meuthen sought Dr Gedeon’s expulsion from the AfD but was unable to win a required two-thirds majority, and so led his supporters out of the party in protest.More than half the Alternative for Germany (AfD)’s MPs in one of the country’s regional parliaments have left the party in a row over anti-Semitism.
Behind the dispute lies an increasingly bitter power struggle for control of the party, which has pitted the party leader, Frauke Petry, against the rebel MPs, led by Jörg Meuthen.
The AfD dealt out heavy losses to Mrs Merkel’s Christian Democrat (CDU) party in regional elections in March campaigning on an anti-immigrant platform.
The party has since adopted an openly anti-Muslim agenda, and is running at 14.5 per cent in the national opinion polls.
But the latest row means it has effectively lost one of its most significant gains in the March elections, after 13 of its 23 MPS in the Baden-Württemberg state parliament resigned the party whip.
The dispute began over writings by another of the party’s MPs, Wolfgang Gedeon, a former doctor.
Dr Gedeon claimed denial of the Holocaust was a legitimate expression of opinion, and described those convicted under Germany’s Holocaust denial laws as “dissidents”.
Dr Gedeon has since resigned from the party after talks with Ms Petry, but Mr Meuthen and his followers have refused to return.
“Anti-Semitism cannot and must not have any place in the AfD,” Mr Meuthen said. He described the split as a “painful but necessary step”.
The AfD national executive dramatically sided with Mr Meuthen and the rebels, releasing a statement refusing to recognise the party’s own MPs who had not resigned.
“The board distances itself from those members who did not leave the parliamentary group with Jörg Meuthen. From now on we recognise only Jörg Meuthen and the MPs who support him as representatives of the AfD,” it read.
Ms Petry has tried to hold the party together, urging Mr Meuthen and the rebels to return.
“The division of the party must end now. This is a betrayal of AfD voters,” she said.
But the dispute has left Ms Petry looking increasingly isolated in the struggle for control of the party.
A rival faction which includes Mr Meuthen and two other prominent leaders, Alexander Gaulan and Björn Höcke, want to prevent her leading the party in next year’s general elections.
The power struggle has left the AfD unable to capitalise on recent developments which have strengthened far-Right parties in other European countries, such as Brexit and the court-ordered rerun of presidential elections in Austria.
Spiegel magazine described the dispute as a “veritable power struggle” which “could be the start of a disintegration process that takes hold of the entire party”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/anti-semitism-row-splits-germanys-far-right-afd-party/
Sunday, 13 March 2016
Anti-gay adoption magistrate’s sacking is ‘deeply shocking’
The Christian Legal Centre’s Chief Executive, Andrea Minichiello Williams, inset, has described the sacking of Christian magistrate Richard Page, above, as ‘modern day madness’.
Her intervention, according to Christian Concern, came after Page, 69, had been removed from office by the Lord Chancellor after sharing his personal conviction in a media interview that there is not enough evidence to show that placing children in the care of same-sex couples is in their best interest.
He insists that same-sex adoption is not “what God or nature intended.”
Said Williams:
The Lord Chancellor has removed Richard from the magistracy for allegedly being ‘prejudiced’ and for speaking out in the media about what has happened to him.
This unmasks the face of the new political orthodoxy; it is unkind. It tries to silence opposing views and if it fails it crushes and punishes the person who holds those views.
To remove someone like Richard from the bench is modern day madness. He has a lifetime of public service, expertise in mental health. He is motivated by his Christian faith and a deep compassion for people.
The media interview took place on 12 March 2015 with BBC news reporter Caroline Wyatt. In the interview the Kent magistrate said:
My responsibility as a magistrate, as I saw it, was to do what I considered best for the child, and my feeling was therefore that it would be better if it was a man and woman who were the adopted parents.
Page was first challenged by his seniors in late 2014 when, after hearing an adoption case, he could not agree with his fellow magistrates that placing a child into the care of a same-sex couple was ‘in the child’s best interest’.
He was subsequently reported for his actions, reprimanded, and
Forced to attend re-education training, which he duly did.
Page’s media comments were again brought to the attention of his seniors and an investigation was carried out by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office’s disciplinary panel. They recommended to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor that he should be removed from office.
Page believes the political move by the government to place children with same-sex couples lacks any solid, reliable psychological or educational research concerning the effects on children.
Commenting on his sacking, Page, aged 69, who has worked in the field of mental health for 20 years, said:
As a magistrate, I have to act on the evidence before me and quite simply, I believe that there is not sufficient evidence to convince me that placing a child in the care of a same-sex couple can be as holistically beneficial to a child as placing them with a mum and dad as God and nature intended.
I am surprised that the Lord Chancellor should seemingly pander to the new political orthodoxy when what it amounts to is social experimentation on the lives of the most vulnerable children in our communities.
To punish me and to seek to silence me for expressing a dissenting view is deeply shocking. I shall challenge this decision as it is illiberal and intolerant. It is vital the family law courts always have in mind the best interests of the children.
I cannot believe that the establishment is trying to silence someone like me who has served it wholeheartedly all of my working life.
Page is being supported by the Christian Legal Centre and its Standing Counsel, human rights barrister Paul Diamond.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/internet-explorer/manage-delete-browsing-history-internet-explorer#ie=ie-11-win-7
Thursday, 10 December 2015
Germany one step closer to banning right-wing party
08 Dec 2015:-
They are often referred to as Nazis, and in 2003, German lawmakers failed in an attempt to outlaw the party. But now, it seems more likely that the extremist NPD will get banned. EurActiv Germany reports.
On Monday (7 December), the Federal Constitutional Court announced that it would be initiating proceedings against the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), with three hearings scheduled for the early next year. The Court will deliberate on the Federal Council's (Bundesrat) request to ban the party on 1, 2 and 3 March.
With the beginning of proceedings formally confirmed, it becomes more and more likely that the Court will decide to ban the party, as previous attempts to outlaw it have stumbled at this stage. They will be presided over by Andreas Voßkuhle, president of the Constitutional Court.
The Bundesrat submitted their request that the party be banned in December 2013. The German government and the Bundestag both declined the opportunity to lend their support to the attempt. All three joined forces to try and outlaw the political movement in 2003, but when it was revealed that undercover agents working on behalf of the German secret services had infiltrated the party's inner circle, the Constitutional Court had no choice but to throw the case out. There was enough suspicion that the agents had been responsible for encouraging or inciting the actions of the right-wing group for proceedings to be terminated.
In the current case, the Constitutional Court requested that any "evidence" gathered by undercover agents be removed. The Bundesrat announced in May that clandestine operations against the party had ceased.
Numerous politicians have praised the decision to carry on with the case. Bavaria's interior minister Joachim Herrmann (CSU) praised the German regions for their preparation. He told a German newspaper that, "Obviously we have a strong argument, otherwise the Constitutional Court would not have set a date."
Herrmann's Saxon counterpart Holger Stahlknecht (CDU) said, "This is a great result. We have already gained more ground than the first attempt to ban them." However, the chairman of the Bundestag's Committee on Internal Affairs, Ansgar Heveling (CDU), warned that, "Banning the NPD will not be enough to combat the threat of extremism."
The President of Munich and Upper Bavaria's Jewish community, Charlotte Knobloch, called for more action to prohibit right-wing parties. "The ban is well overdue. 'Die Rechte' and 'Der III. Weg' should be outlawed as well," she said.
A new Nazi party?
The Bundesrat has attempted, in its 270 page application, to establish a relationship between the NPD and the Nazi party, particularly in regard to anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Additionally, remarks from leading NPD figures have been cited, in which they have called for the "system" to be "abolished".
According to Article 21 of the constitutional law, parties are unconstitutional if they use violence to try and destroy democracy. The Constitutional Court has previously stated that in order for parties to be banned, they must show a "combative and aggressive attitude towards the existing order".
The Bundesrat also put forward that the NPD is responsible for creating an "atmosphere of fear", especially in parts of east Germany. It referenced instances of "intimidation and threats against mayors and local politicians". People who oppose right-wing extremism have felt threatened by the party. The group's stance against asylum seekers, a particularly relevant factor given the refugee crisis facing the EU currently, was also cited by the Bundesrat.
Banning a political party is one of the most effective weapons available in a democracy’s arsenal. It has been implemented twice in the past, first against the Socialist Reich Party (SRP) in 1952 and then the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in 1956.
A potential final hurdle for a ban could prove to be the European Court of Justice, which would only class the decision as proportional if it finds the party to have a significant impact on the political landscape.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/justice-home-affairs/germany-one-step-closer-banning-right-wing-party-320220
[Ed - 'extremist NPD'. The occupation parties should take a look at themselves - their creed is a feminised version of Stalinism combined with reverse National Socialism]
Wednesday, 11 November 2015
‘Richard Wagner Square’ To Be Renamed ‘Refugees Welcome Square’ In Snub To German Patriots
A square in the Leipzig old town named for 19th-century German romantic composer Richard Wagner may be renamed to help promote a “cosmopolitan and tolerant” city.
Initially suggested by a group of hard-left anti-borders activists masquerading as a “
citizens’ initiative”, the name change of Richard Wagner Platzes to ‘Refugees Welcome Platz’ has now been taken up by the city council with support from the Green party bloc.
City spokesman, pro-migrant campaigner, and Green politician Christin Melcher said of the change she is supporting: “We stand for a cosmopolitan and tolerant Leipzig. The renaming of a central square as Refugees Welcome Place is also a symbol of a new culture of welcome in Leipzig”, reports the Saschen Depesche.
City council Green colleague Norman Volger, in a spectacular moment of honesty a
admits the move is intended as a deliberate snub towards Germany’s insurgent right wing movements.
The Leipzig branch of the Patriotic Europeans Against The Islamisation Of The West (PEGIDA) protest group meet regularly at Richard Wagner Platzes, and the erasure of the memory of an important figure from German history could be a bitter blow to the group, which campaigns for traditional European culture. Mr. Volger wants the new ‘Refugees Welcome Platz’ to stand as a sign against PEGIDA, who he calls ‘inhuman racists’, and that “Leipzig is no place for racism”.
Richard Wagner, born in Leipzig in 1813, is a towering figure in the German psyche for his role in influencing the unification of Germany into a single state in the years leading up to 1871. His operas drew heavily from romantic and dramatic Germanic folklore and his essays called for a single German identity, rather than disparate kingdoms as it was during much of the 19th century. The Richard Wagner Platzes was named in 1913 in honour of the composer, celebrating the centenary of his birth.
A number of groups have moved to oppose the proposition, including the Junge Union. The German equivalent of the Young Conservatives, the group has warned against allowing faddish political beliefs to influence place names, remarking that while majorities shift within democratic systems, it is not healthy to constantly change place names, reports the Leipziger Internet Zeitung.
The International Association of Wagner Societies has reacted with fury at the suggestion the square in the composer’s home town might be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. They said in a statement “Richard Wagner was born in Leipzig and is one of the greatest artists of the 19th century.
“Since the 100th anniversary naming in 1913, the city has been honouring one of its greatest sons. This must remain so! Anyone against the cultural and political nonsense, which is directed against the interests of our city and its citizens, and wants to raise his voice, can sign a petition during business hours at our office”.
A new petition has been launched online, and the discussions in the comment section on the page provide an illuminating insight into the perspectives of those tousling over Richard Wagner Platzen. One writes that he refuses to sign the petition, because “according to Wikipedia, Wagner was a convinced anti-Semite. My attitude is refugees welcome”. Another contributor asks in response to the comment that if Wagner is to be removed because of his anti-Semitism, why is it right to welcome Muslim refugees who have increased anti-Semitic attitudes in the community of late.
Renaming squares and streets is an emerging cultural battleground in Europe, as leftist groups on city government boards seek to erase cultural histories and inconvenient reminders as soon as they seize power. Breitbart London reported on two such examples in July where Spanish authorities insulted the memories of right-wing figures by renaming their squares after LGBT-lobby campaigners.
Plaza Margaret Thatcher was one such square, with her memorial to be torn down and the place renamed for Pedro Zerolo, a left-wing gay anarchist who died this year. Following that, it was reported the square dedicated to noted Catholic scholar Juan Vázquez de Mella would also be renamed after a gay rights campaigner.
Source:-
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/05/richard-wagner-square-renamed-refugees-welcome-square-snub-german-patriots/
‘Oliver Lane 5 November 2015
Monday, 5 October 2015
Germans could lose jobs and children for posting anti-mass immigration views on Facebook
by Steve Goode • October 4, 2015 •
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has asked Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of Facebook, to stop Germans from making comments against mass immigration on Facebook
.
In Germany, Facebook is now being patrolled by the Voluntary Self-Monitoring of Multimedia Service Providers, a government affiliated group which seeks out people who express “radical” opinions.
Their definition of “radical” seems to mean anything they don’t agree with. It can range anywhere from making threats, to simply talking negatively about immigrants.
(Whoops, radical old me – I have used the “i” word. We’re supposed to call them “newcomers” now.)
Merkel is still not happy – she has asked Zuckerberg at a UN summit in New York to do more to filter comments she disagrees with, so people cannot read them.
Facebook has agreed to carry out this mass censorship, and in future will be working with the Voluntary Self-Monitoring of Multimedia Service Providers.
Censorship means one thing: they have lost the debate. Merkel HAS lost the debate so she simply tries to stop her opposition from talking.
At first she was screaming “racist” and “nazi” at them. For once, that didn’t work. Now she has moved on to legally censoring their opinions.
In case you didn’t know, Merkel wants Germany, and Europe as a whole to bring in as many non-White immigrants as possible in order to get rid of the White majority.
This is White Genocide because policies and laws have been put in place to make this happen. When there is a deliberate attempt to get rid of a group – no matter what the methods – it is always classed as genocide.
Recently, Merkel has said Europe should protect its borders. Do not be fooled – she still wants White Genocide, but she has been forced by a massive public backlash to bring an end to open borders.
“And for Europe, this means we of course need to, above all, protect our external borders across Europe – and protect them together – so that immigration to Europe is orderly,” she said.
“But it also means we must take on more responsibility for countries where the causes for people to flee are, or where there are a lot of refugees, such as in Lebanon, Jordan or Turkey,”
http://whitegenocideproject.com/germans-could-lose-jobs-and-children-for-posting-anti-mass-immigration-views-on-facebook/
Monday, 14 September 2015
Merkel’s grandstanding on Syrian refugees will lead to many more deaths at sea
The incentive is greater for people to risk the perilous journey to Europe
12 September 2015
Of all the irresponsible decisions taken in recent years by European politicians, few will cause as much human misery as Angela Merkel’s plan to welcome Syrian refugees to Germany. Hailed as enlightened moral leadership, it is in fact the result of panic and muddled thinking. Her pronouncements will lure thousands more into the hands of unscrupulous people-traffickers. Her insistence that the rest of the continent should share the burden will add political instability to the mix. Merkel has made a dire situation worse.
On Tuesday last week, Germany declared that any Syrian who reaches the country can claim asylum there. In the days that followed, 25,000 arrived at Munich central station and that number is growing fast. Some trains from Austria have been diverted to other German cities to ease the pressure. Merkel now wants to use her clout to distribute these refugees around Europe — arguing that EU plans to resettle 160,000 may not be sufficient.
The current wave of migration started about 15 years ago, an unforeseen side-effect of globalisation. It has been vastly intensified by the chaos which followed the Arab Spring, and particularly the civil war in Syria. The EU’s responsibility is laid out in the Dublin Convention of 1990, which decrees that refugees must claim asylum in the first European Union country that they reach. This crucial safeguard was torn up by Merkel when her government declared that it will be ‘responsible’ for processing the claims of Syrians. The Dublin rules were made for a reason: to save lives, as well as to protect Europe’s borders. German panic has imperilled both priorities.
The welcome that has been given to refugees in Germany is remarkable. But encouraging these people to continue their journey is risky. The 71 refugees found dead in a lorry on an Austrian motorway last month might still be alive today had they ended their journey in Budapest. Some 7,000 refugees are estimated to have passed through Vienna during one day this week, but fewer than 100 claimed asylum there, choosing instead to head on north. Austria is rich, but Merkel’s promise exerts such a pull that people don’t want to stop until they reach Germany.
The distinction between refugee and economic migrant is also being elided. Many of the Syrians making this journey are fleeing war, but many others are fleeing camps in neighbouring Jordan or Turkey. The incentive to do this is growing, because life there is becoming harsher. As Michael Moller, the head of the UN’s Geneva office, warned this week, these millions will ‘get up and leave and come to Europe’ unless conditions in the camps improve. Iraqis are also joining in; extra flights are being laid on from Baghdad to Turkey as people go on the move in the belief that Merkel has created a window of migration opportunity that may not last. It is at this point that the distinction between refugee and immigrant, on which European law is based, breaks down.
The economic pull is exacerbated because, unlike in previous times, the residents of the refugee camps have access to mobile phones and information. They know that Germany has said it expects to accept 800,000 asylum-seekers this year (a figure greater than the population of some EU members). They will have heard about — or seen — the welcome being given to refugees arriving there, the reception committees and the politicians holding placards saying ‘refugees welcome’. All of this will encourage many more to embark on the perilous journey to Europe.
The European Union’s energies would be far better spent improving life in the camps and finding ways to allow people to work there, as Professor Paul Collier suggested in these pages last month. The camps should be properly funded. The UNHCR claims it currently has a $795 million funding gap in its Syrian operation. France has given a fraction of what Britain has to this work, which puts a rather different perspective on François Hollande’s insistence that Britain must take on more of the refugee burden. No country in Europe has given more to the refugee camps than Britain.
Another danger of Merkel’s open-door policy is that it may make Syria’s recovery from civil war harder. By accepting those who have managed to make it to Europe, rather than those still in the camps, Germany is, intentionally or not, cherry-picking the more prosperous members of what used to be Syrian society, those who have sufficient resources to pay the traffickers. Without them, their ravaged country is far less likely to make a recovery once the fighting eventually stops. As the French foreign minister Laurent Fabius warned this week, ‘If all these refugees come to Europe or elsewhere, then Isis has won the game.’
Compounding Merkel’s folly is her desire to impose mandatory refugee quotas on the rest of the EU. (Britain won’t be part of this, we are one of the countries with an opt-out.) Forcing countries to accept refugees they don’t want is bound to boost support for populist anti-immigrant parties. German public opinion might be strikingly liberal on these issues — it is important to remember that, before her recent announcements, Merkel was being criticised for not doing enough to help — but opinion in other European countries is far less so. Strong-arming recalcitrant eastern European countries into taking a significant numbers of refugees will push politics to the nationalist right in these countries. In France, Marine Le Pen has already been making political hay out of Merkel’s actions.
Given the disaster unfolding on the continent, it’s odd to see Britain coming under pressure to become more like Germany. The Prime Minister’s decision to accept refugees from the camps, rather than send thousands more into the hands of people traffickers, seems to demonstrate a better understanding of the issue. To criticise the Prime Minister for not taking those refugees who have already reached Europe is bizarre; it seems to play into the hands of the people-traffickers, who would be pushing for their customers — those who have reached Europe — to be given priority over those who are still on the Syrian border.
Many in Cameron’s circle are furious at Merkel. There is a suspicion that, as one of the Prime Minister’s confidants puts it, ‘This has more to do with what happened in Europe 70 years ago than what is happening today.’ There is also anger at the criticism being directed at London from other European capitals. One Downing Street figure says that if Britain were not supporting the camps on Syria’s borders, at least a million more people would be coming to Europe. And we should remember those who aren’t even in the camps, those who have been forced from their homes but remain trapped inside Syria.
To save lives, Europe needs to stop people from thinking that if they take the risk of trying to cross into the European Union, then they will be able to claim asylum. This means turning around the boats that attempt the journey, and paying for processing stations in Turkey and Egypt. This may be hard, but there is nothing compassionate about giving desperate people false hope.
Britain can be the voice of sanity in this debate, while others panic. Cameron can point out that refugees and migrants who are already in Europe are not in imminent fear for their lives. Those gathered at Calais trying to cross the Channel might have once fled Syria, Somali or other war-torn countries — but they are now risking their lives to leave France, which is another matter entirely.
Merkel’s actions, now, will be hard to correct: her words cannot be unsaid. She has exacerbated a problem that will be with us for years, perhaps decades. More than 40 per cent of those who applied for asylum in Germany in the first half of this year came from the former Yugoslavia; the last of its wars ended 14 years ago. Handling all of this correctly will require true statesmanship, which means thinking through consequences. Merkel is failing that test spectacularly.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9628872/merkels-big-gesture-on-syrian-refugees-will-lead-to-many-more-deaths-at-sea/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)








