Saturday, February 13, 2016

Free Speech vs. Islamic Law?

Gatestone Institute
Facebook  Twitter  RSS

Free Speech vs. Islamic Law?

by Denis MacEoin  •  February 13, 2016 at 5:00 am
  • The law regarding freedom of speech and of religion, as it exists in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, is already compelled to protect all citizens and to extend that protection to non-citizens who come to American shores.
  • Are Muslims in need of greater protection? According to the FBI's 2014 Hate Crime Statistics, there were 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes in the U.S. that year: Of those, 56.8% were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Jewish bias. 16.1% were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Muslim bias.
  • "We cannot agree that prohibiting speech is the way to promote tolerance, and because we continue to see the 'defamation of religions' concept used to justify censorship, criminalization, and in some cases violent assaults and deaths of political, racial, and religious minorities around the world." — U.S. Ambassador Eileen Donahoe.
  • Again and again, Muslim individuals and organizations have released documents to define Islamic human rights, and in each instance, all rights are restricted to those given by God and are subject to the phrase "according to the Shari'a."
The U.S. Congress, on December 17, 2015, passed House Resolution 569 and referred it to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The resolution is headed: "Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States." The problem is that the law regarding freedom of speech and of religion, as it exists in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, is already compelled to protect all citizens and to extend that protection to non-citizens, be they businessmen or tourists who come to American shores: "Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." No democracy should believe otherwise.
The House of Representatives' Resolution 569 introduces the following Whereas clauses:

To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to
14 East 60 St., Suite 1001, New York, NY 10022

Healthy Institutions Don't Boycott Israel

Middle East Forum
Promoting American Interests

Facebook  Twitter  RSS  Join Mailing List
Follow the Middle East Forum

Related Articles
·         Are Muslims the New Jews?

Healthy Institutions Don't Boycott Israel

by Alexander H. Joffe
The Federalist
February 11, 2016
Be the first of your friends to like this.

Among the enduring strengths of the Israel boycott movement are its ability to convince certain types of people that the cause is not only just but successful. But with whom are those arguments effective? There is a strong contrast between institutions governed by rules and evidence and those controlled by emotion.
Negative examples are ample: the European Commission's relentless demands that products from Israeli communities in the West Bank be specially labeled, the refusal of the student government at Vassar College to fund a J Street group on the grounds that "Zionism is an inherently racist ideology," violence directed at Jewish participants at the National LGBTQ Task Force's Creating Change conference, the demand that singer Matisyahu denounce Israel as a condition for performing at a Spanish reggae festival. Many more could be cited.
There is a strong contrast between institutions governed by rules and evidence and those controlled by emotion.
A look at the boycott movement's failures, and successes, tells us much about the worlds in which it is embedded.
Those diverse worlds—of universities and academic associations, liberal Protestant denominations, the European Commission, far-left protest movements and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), far-left Jewish groups, and Islamists—are failing, in the sense of intellectual coherence, the ability to persuade, and basic morality. Some, like liberal Protestants, are actually shrinking fast. But that doesn't mean they will lose in the end.

Few Organizations Are Discriminating Against Israel

Reality is different from how the movement portrays itself. Successes, in terms of convincing institutions to boycott, divest from, or legally sanction Israel, are meager. Global industries are uninterested in excluding Israel. Investment in Israel is rising, especially from Asia. Even trade with Europe is unimpeded. No university or corporation has sold its stock in companies, like Intel or Caterpillar, for doing business in Israel. Claims of the movement's success are therefore misleading; misrepresentation is part of its tradecraft.
Successes, in terms of convincing institutions to boycott, divest from, or legally sanction Israel, are meager.
For another thing, backlash against boycotts is growing, particularly at the state level. Legislators in Florida and California have followed the lead of Ohio, Illinois, and South Carolina in proposing laws that would prohibit anti-Israel discrimination by state agencies, including pension funds. Remarkably, similar controls are under consideration in Britain, where the Conservative Party has proposed to restrict the ability of local councils and pension funds to discriminate against Israel on political grounds.
Even at universities, where pro-boycott activists have occasionally managed to manipulate or coerce student governments into passing boycott and divestment resolutions (while harassing Jewish and pro-Israel students), in no case have university administrations, much less boards of trustees or investment managers, followed suit. To the contrary: Israel boycott and divestment resolutions are regularly denounced. It is one of the few signs that universities remain under the control of responsible adults.

Where Israel-Hating Thrives

But the opposite is true in student governments, which are regularly co-opted by pro-boycott forces and their far-left allies. So too are campus politics at large, increasingly dominated by retreaded New Left politics of pique, the Black Panther revivalism of Black Lives Matter and Ferguson, the Occupy movement's watery socialism, and neo-Victorian anti-rape protests, against a backdrop of incoherent rage over cultural appropriations and grievances, many so small as to be labeled "micro-aggressions."
It is also not surprising the anti-Israel movement also finds limited success in local "human rights commissions" and city councils—but only in places like Cambridge and Portland, where students who never fully grew up maintain the adolescent tone of local politics.
The very idea of education and the mission of the university have succumbed to the politics of rage.
A similar attitude of wide-encompassing anger applies to academics, particular academic organizations. The Israel boycott resolution adopted by the National Women's Studies Association is especially notable in this regard. Their resolution is motivated ostensibly by "intersectionality" and the "interconnectedness of systemic forms of oppression," predictably personified by Israel. Such a complex formulation of a traditional animus is neither a sign of clear thinking nor a healthy discipline.
These are signs of intellectual and moral failure, the collapse of any ideal animating the very idea of education and the mission of the university beyond the politics of rage. They portend ill for society, for there is no doubt that the activism of professors and students alike has poisoned countless classrooms.
In contrast, the rejection of an anti-Israel resolution by the American Historical Association is heartening. It suggests, unlike in women's studies, "American Studies," or anthropology, that an academic discipline which is still actually about something academic may be salvageable, before it descends down the rabbit hole of "relevance" and "social justice."

The Borders Between Rationality and Rage

But campus radicalism and "social justice" also have their limits. Despite decades of anti-American agitation, America has still not been transformed into a socialist paradise. Reality burns away many collegiate fantasies and idylls, and the sheer hysteria and accompanying intimidation of campus protests today is likely to alienate as many students from causes as attract them. That alienation is quantifiable in plummeting enrollments in the humanities and social sciences, the epicenter for anti-Israel and anti-American agitation. Another index is rising anger from parents, although skyrocketing costs play an equal role with politics.
Despite decades of anti-American agitation, America has still not been transformed into a socialist paradise.
It is also worth pointing out that calls for boycotting Israel have not impeded the actual mechanism of the university, the daily life of operations and finances, the churn of students and flows of money. Giving to universities, including, paradoxically, by Jewish donors, remains at record levels. Apparently the body and certain higher functions remain alive even as large parts of the brain have turned rabid. Of course, a university comprised of administrators, "diversity coordinators," and part-time instructors hardly deserves the name. But rules and procedures associated with the profitable business of being a university are not easily overthrown in the name of "social justice."
The recent decision by a Spanish court to award damages to an Israeli university, located inconveniently across the "Green Line," when a Spanish agency illegally excluded its students from an international technology competition, is also notable. It suggests that certain higher social functions, namely the judiciary, have not been completely infected by the virus of anti-Israel bias. In this respect it will be interesting to see the result when the European Commission's blatantly discriminatory labeling regulations for Israeli products from communities in the West Bank enters court or World Trade Organization arbitration.

The Flight from Responsibility Accelerates

There are striking contrasts between how Israel boycotts are treated by rules and results-based institutions, like legislatures, courts, and pension fund managers, and institutions ruled by emotion that have no oversight, like academic organizations, student governments, the European Commission, or the NGO sector. By exempting themselves from rules, and in some cases from the political process as a whole, the latter are often uniquely in synch with Israel boycotters, and the pro-Palestinian movement, which put the Palestinian cause above examination and exempt it from criticism.
The flight towards ideological politics and away from practicality and responsibility is a growing problem in the West.
But the fact that some institutions with real responsibilities, like British councils and labor tribunals, could contemplate Israel boycotts in the first place is another sign that politics have been infected. While the Labour Party continues to deny it supports Israel boycotts, numerous members of Parliament believe the opposite, both to pander to constituents and as a matter of personal conviction, economic consequences and morality be damned. Similar trends are evident in the progressive wings of the Democratic Party.
The flight towards ideological politics and away from practicality and responsibility is a growing problem in the West. This will intensify, precisely as a function of cascading social and political disasters, especially the collapsing Middle East and social unrest resulting from mass immigration to the West. Pressure to focus on the unique evil of Israel and away from these self-inflicted wounds and their progressive policy causes will be enormous.
But in a world of human rights abuses by ISIS, Russia, Iran, and others, the health of institutions can be measured in part by how they stand up to calls to boycott Israel. Corporations and judiciaries, and occasionally even academics, each with greatly differing mandates, have the potential to stem the flows of bias and hatred. There may even be hope for universities. The trends are not positive, nor are they so terrible to give up all hope that with strong leadership from above sense may prevail.
Alex Joffe is editor of The Ancient Near East Today, the monthly e-newsletter of the American Schools of Oriental Research. He is also a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

To subscribe to the MEF mailing lists, go to

CAIR whines about Cargill and Ariens not bowing to their pressure for Salah prayer times, blames bigotry

CAIR whines about Cargill and Ariens not bowing to their pressure for Salah prayer times, blames bigotry.

Cargill, Inc. and Ariens Company stopped allowing Muslim employees from tacking excessive breaks to meet Salah times for Muslim prayer.  The Council on American Islamic Relations attempted to pressure Cargill, Inc. and Ariens Company officials to allow Muslim employees to take extra breaks for Salah prayer times even though it placed a hardship on the companies and was unfair to other employees.  Florida Family Association sent out email alerts to show support for Cargill, Inc. and Ariens Company officials.  Thousands of people sent emails to the officials at both companies.

The International Business Times reported on February 11, 2016:  As Workers Lose Jobs Over Prayer Break Disputes At Cargill And Ariens, US Muslim Advocates Are Unnerved.  The report states in part:

These episodes have left advocates for Muslim rights in the United States feeling anxious.

“We’ve been dealing with this for more than a decade, this exact situation, production-line, Somali workers [taking prayers], it’s the same all the time,” said Ibrahim Hooper, communications director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “And that’s why we’re wondering, ‘What’s different now?’ The only thing we can see that’s different is the rise of anti-Muslim bigotry in our society.”

Click here to read the full report at the International Business Times. 

CAIR would rather engage in name calling than recognize the growing work force of Muslims demanding special prayer time breaks slows production and is unfair to other employees.

The International Business Times report stated in part:  “employers must ‘reasonably accommodate’ an employee’s religious beliefs or practices unless doing so causes the company ‘undue hardship,’ for example, if accommodation is costly, puts workplace safety at risk or infringes on the rights of other employees.

It is encouraging to see these companies refusing to bow to CAIR’s demands to allow Sharia doctrine to prevail over judicious corporate policy.”  Notes David Caton, Florida Family Association President.
Thank you for supporting Florida Family Association’s email campaigns.


Florida Family Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 46547, Tampa, FL 33646-0105
Telephone 813-690-0060

The Long War Journal (Site-Wide)

The Long War Journal (Site-Wide)

Posted: 13 Feb 2016 09:15 AM PST
The Taliban and al Qaeda have a vested interest in halting the spread of the Islamic State in Paktika, given the province's importance to the two jihadist groups.
Posted: 13 Feb 2016 07:52 AM PST
Shabaab, al Qaeda's official branch in East Africa, has issued a statement claiming responsibility for a failed airliner bombing on Feb. 2. The group portrays the bombing as part of its ongoing war with "Western and apostate intelligence" services, but doesn't explain how its adversaries in the CIA and other spy agencies were specifically targeted.
Posted: 13 Feb 2016 06:00 AM PST
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has invested significant resources to prop up Bashar al Assad's regime. Qods Force Commander Qassem Soleimani, who oversees all of the Shiite militias active in Syria, is directing operations in the battle of Aleppo.
Posted: 11 Feb 2016 10:30 PM PST
The UN's mission in Mali continues to be one of the most dangerous peacekeeping operations in the world.

CAUGHT RED-HANDED: Omar Khadr's secret overseas video call with other Guantanamo Bay inmates

The Rebel

The mainstream media says Omar Khadr, the war criminal and Al Qaida murderer, is a new man.

They say he’s a gentle lamb now. They say he has put terrorism behind him. Maclean’s magazine even put him on the cover of their Remembrance Day edition, calling him a “victim”.

I never believed it. Because if a man is willing to murder you, he’ll probably lie to you, too. And Khadr has never renounced the jihad.


Well now we have proof that Khadr is still who he always was. Here is a photo from a pro-terrorist Facebook page, showing Omar Khadr having a video call last month with other former Guantanamo Bay inmates.

It’s a shocking photo. Conferring with other Al Qaida extremists overseas probably violates his bail conditions.

I wrote to Khadr’s lawyer, Dennis Edney, to ask him if he even knew about Khadr’s secret video calls. Click here to see my report on the subject, and Edney’s bizarre answer.

How do you feel that this Al Qaida terrorist is loose on our streets?

Yours truly,

Ezra Levant

P.S. The mainstream media will never tell you facts like this, because it contradicts their official narrative of Omar Khadr being an innocent victim, and the western democracies being evil. Please forward this e-mail to your friends — I guarantee they won’t have heard of it.

P.P.S. If you support our independent journalism, please consider chipping in to help keep us going. Unlike the CBC or Maclean’s magazine, we receive no government subsidies. Please click here to contribute now.

The Rebel · Canada

You can also keep up with Ezra Levant on Facebook.


The Muslim Man’s Sexual “Rights” Over Non-Muslim Women

The Muslim Man’s Sexual “Rights” Over Non-Muslim Women

The only thing "infidel" women are worth.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. 

In word and deed, in Islamic and non-Islamic nations, Muslim men appear to think that non-Muslim women—impure “infidels”—exist solely to gratify their sexual urges.

First, consider the beliefs and actions of those committed to waging jihad for the cause of Allah, such as the Islamic State:

In the moments before he raped the 12-year-old [non-Muslim] girl, the Islamic State fighter took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the right to rape her — it condoned and encouraged it, he insisted. He bound her hands and gagged her. Then he knelt beside the bed and prostrated himself in prayer before getting on top of her. When it was over, he knelt to pray again, bookending the rape with acts of religious devotion. “I kept telling him it hurts — please stop,” said the girl, whose body is so small an adult could circle her waist with two hands. “He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to” Allah.

Yet such behavior is not limited to fanatical jihadis, who have “nothing whatsoever to do with Islam,” as most fools and liars will assure us; rather it permeates the totality of Islamic culture.

Consider recent events in Pakistan: three Christian girls walking home after a hard day’s work were accosted by four “rich and drunk” Muslims—hardly ISIS candidates—in a car. They “misbehaved,” yelled “suggestive and lewd comments,” and harassed the girls to get in their car for “a ride and some fun.” When the girls declined the “invitation,” adding that they were “devout Christians and did not practice sex outside of marriage,” the men became enraged and chased the girls, yelling, “How dare you run away from us, Christian girls are only meant for one thing: the pleasure of Muslim men.”  They drove their car into the three girls, killing one and severely injuring the other two.

Or consider the words of human rights activists speaking about another Muslim man’s rape of a 9-year-old Christian girl: “Such incidents occur frequently. Christian girls are considered goods to be damaged at leisure. Abusing them is a right. According to the community’s mentality it is not even a crime. Muslims regard them as spoils of war.”

Once relegated to third world countries like Pakistan and ISIS-controlled areas, the subhuman treatment and sexual abuse of “infidel” women is becoming a common fixture in the West.

Thus recently in Germany, a group of Muslim “refugees” stalked a 25-year-old woman at night, hurled “filthy” insults and taunted her for sex.  One told her that “German women are there for sex,” before reaching into her blouse and trousers and groping her.

These recent stories from Germany and Pakistan are identical—Muslim men harassing non-Muslim women on the assumption that it’s their Islamic right and privilege—except for one difference: the German “infidel” escaped with her life, whereas the Pakistani “infidel” was murdered for refusing to gratify the sexual desires of her Islamic accosters.  As Islam’s presence continues to grow in Europe, this difference will quickly fade.

Already there are other, more subtle similarities between “third world” Pakistan and “first world” Germany.  In the report about the manslaughter of the three Christian girls in Pakistan, we find that “Other girls in the local area are now too scared to travel at night and are being accompanied by the men in their families.”  In Germany, “The latest reports from Dortmund [where the “German-women-are-there-for-sex” anecdote transpired] paint a terrifying picture of a city where it is now unsafe for women to go out at night for fear of being attacked and raped by refugees.”

Indeed, less than a month earlier, on New Year’s Eve, 1,000 Muslim migrants, also apparently thinking that non-Muslim women exist for one thing, went on a raping spree in Cologne and elsewhere, leaving hundreds of “infidel” women violated, beaten, and traumatized—the same way “infidel” women living in Muslim-majority nations often feel.

Of course, well before the migrant crisis, Europe had and ignored ample lessons concerning what happens when Muslim populations grow.   In Britain alone, where a large Muslim minority has long existed, countless British girls in various regions have been sexually abused and gang raped by Muslims who apparently deemed it their Islamic right.  Said one rape victim: “The men who did this to me have no remorse. They would tell me that what they were doing was OK in their culture.”   Days ago a judge told 12 Muslim men that they “took such terrible and heartless sexual advantage” of a 13-year-old British girl before sentencing them.

A Muslim imam in Britain confessed that Muslim men are taught that women are “second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority” and that the imams preach a doctrine “that denigrates all women, but treats whites [meaning non-Muslims] with particular contempt.”

Another Muslim convicted of rape in a separate case told a British court that sharing non-Muslim girls for sex “was part of Somali culture” and “a religious requirement.”

And there it is: Whether seen by “pious” Muslims as a “religious requirement”—as cited by an ISIS rapist to his 12-year-old victim—or whether seen as part of Pakistani (Asian) and Somali (African) culture—in a word, Islamic culture—the subhuman treatment and sexual degradation of non-Muslim women and children by Muslims who deem it their “right” is apparently another “exoticism” the West must embrace if it wishes to keep worshipping at the altar of multiculturalism.

Tags: Islam, Men, Women

Frank Gaffney: Southern Poverty Law Center Is Acting as a Surrogate Group for Islamic Supremacists

Frank Gaffney: Southern Poverty Law Center Is Acting as a Surrogate Group for Islamic Supremacists

Frank Gaffney, the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, tells One America News Network that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is attempting to silence him for speaking out about the threat posed by radical Islam.

He appeared on Tipping Point with Liz Wheeler this week, defending his organization against the assault from the left wing SPLC.

Gaffney said that the SPLC used to be a legitimate civil rights organization, but now the group is a militant left wing outfit that targets pro-freedom groups.

“These days … It seems as though the Southern Poverty Law Center is now mostly about trying to suppress freedom of speech by people like us and others they disagree with politically,” he explained.
Gaffney, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan as an Assistant Secretary of Defense, said the SPLC has gotten into the business of defending “totalitarian, repressive, and supremacist” Islamist groups.

The “ultimate hate group” is the one that adheres to Islamic Sharia law, he explained.

A recent survey showed that about 25 percent of American Muslims are aligned with the “Sharia doctrine,” he said.

Gaffney speculated that the SPLC will soon categorize the Center for Security Policy as a “hate group,” after the leftist organization penned a hit piece against him.

“On Monday evening, presidential candidate Donald Trump announced that Muslims, including US citizens, should be banned from entering the United States,” the SPLC stated. “In his statement he linked to a poll conducted by the Center for Security Policy (CSP), an organization founded by the notorious anti-Muslim extremist Frank Gaffney,”

“Gaffney has a long history of demonizing Muslims and using CSP to publish misleading reports about alleged “creeping Shariah” in the United States,” the article adds.

Forget about booking a hotel room in Ontario, Canada any time soon

Forget about booking a hotel room in Ontario, Canada any time soon

dynamic_resizeCANADIANS, tourists, and other visitors cannot book hotel rooms in several Ontario hotels because they are filled with Canadian soldiers who have been kicked out of their military bases in order to house thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees…all funded by Canadian taxpayers, under orders of the Islam-pandering Trudeau Regime.

I suppose the upside is that at least the soldiers are in the hotels, not the Muslim freeloaders.

Rebel Media is reporting, as they warned about last week, that Canadian soldiers are being kicked out of their homes on military bases and Muslim migrants from Syria are being flown in to live in our soldiers’ homes. PM Justin Trudeau has promised to bring in 25,000 Syrian migrants by the end of February 2016.


At Canadian Forces Base Trenton (below), soldiers were busy working as housemaids to prepare the barracks for 950 Syrian  Muslim refugees


Ezra Levant has a better idea: “We should house these refugees in Parliament. Seriously. Not the actual chamber of the House of Commons, but all the offices around them. Surely that’s a lesser convenience and humiliation than is being done to our troops. After all, MPs are the ones who support this. Why, with the Liberals, are soldiers always our punching bags?”

SIGN OUR PETITION against it at now.



Why Islam is a feminist issue: Most Muslims lead decent lives. But, ignored by the PC brigade, mass migration and multi-culturalism have encouraged, among some, a deeply worrying contempt for women

Why Islam is a feminist issue: Most Muslims lead decent lives. But, ignored by the PC brigade, mass migration and multi-culturalism have encouraged, among some, a deeply worrying contempt for women 

The mass migration into Europe of people from North Africa and the Middle East is one of the most significant cultural, social and economic challenges of our time.
Its repercussions will be of historic significance. And yet, gripped by impotence, we appear to have no coherent strategy for dealing with these seismic events.

We veer from hysteria at the sight of dead children washed up on Greek beaches to xenophobic fury at the news of migrants molesting Western women in public.
Politicians dither and recite cliches, while pressure groups issue politically correct platitudes. We are paralysed by inaction. And it’s easy to see why.
Hundreds of migrants who arrived by train at Hegyeshalom on the Hungarian and Austrian border walk the four kilometres into Austria in September last year
Hundreds of migrants who arrived by train at Hegyeshalom on the Hungarian and Austrian border walk the four kilometres into Austria in September last year

This influx in particular — these poor souls who risk life and limb to cross icy seas in pursuit of something, anything, that is not the brutality of war — are some of the most traumatised people on the planet.

Back home, many of them were doctors, nurses, teachers, artists. But after being cooped up in a rotting boat on the dangerous seas, they are like desperate animals, wild-eyed and shivering in the glare of the TV news camera lights.

How can we, as a compassionate, generous nation, not be alive to their plight?
We invite them in, we offer them hospitality. We bask in the reflected warm glow of our good deeds, foreign aid and fine words.

No wonder we’re so hurt and angry when, instead of falling to their knees in gratitude and embracing our way of life, they too often remain segregated within their own communities, refuse to engage with mainstream Western culture and — in extremis — commit acts of barbarity towards some of the most vulnerable in our societies.

Refugees - some with children - walk towards the Serbian border from a nearby transit centre on Friday
Refugees - some with children - walk towards the Serbian border from a nearby transit centre on Friday

I’m talking, of course, of the gangs of Arab and North African men who rampaged through Cologne on New Year’s Eve, accused of terrorising and raping German women.

Of the asylum-seekers accused of attacking girls at a teenage rock festival in Sweden last summer.

Of the gang of Afghan migrants filmed attacking two German pensioners on a train who intervened to stop them harassing a young woman.

Of the Somalian ‘teenager’ recently charged with stabbing to death a Swedish woman helping to run a young asylum- seekers’ hostel in Gothenburg. (This week, a migration agency ruled that the 6 ft migrant is an adult, not the 15-year-old child he claims to be.)

And it is not just the actions and cultural practices of some of the most newly arrived that gives us cause for concern.

In Britain, we have read about case after case of the wicked grooming rings of predominantly Muslim men who preyed on vulnerable white girls in Rotherham, Oxford, Bristol, Lancashire and Manchester.

Last week, three men from Manchester’s Somalian community were jailed for the gang rape of a white teenage girl (none of them showed a scrap of remorse — quite the opposite, in fact).

And this week a gang of 12 men of Pakistani origin were jailed for gang-raping a 13-year-old white girl in West Yorkshire.

Here and across Europe, too, we’ve seen countless examples of forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honour killings and the many injustices perpetrated by Sharia courts — particularly against women.

How we arrived at this unhappy state of affairs in this country is a tale of cultural imperialism in reverse.

Starting out with the best of intentions, over the past century we have invited many other nationalities to the UK.

It most cases, this has been all to the good. British cultural and economic life is all the richer for it. But there are, sadly, a few exceptions. And I’m afraid the most troubling is Islam.
Refugees arrive by train at a transit centre near northern Macedonian village of Tabanovce before continuing their journey to Serbia on Friday
Refugees arrive by train at a transit centre near northern Macedonian village of Tabanovce before continuing their journey to Serbia on Friday

Neither at peace with itself nor with the rest of the world, there are aspects of Islam that seem irreconcilably at odds with the British way of life.

In particular, they run counter to what we believe about the freedom of the individual to practise his or her sexuality and the right of women to equality.

As a woman and the mother of a 12-year-old girl growing up in London whose godfather, one of my oldest friends, is gay, what’s going on frightens me.

My daughter is nearly the same age as some of the young girls so appallingly abused in Rotherham and, indeed, the girls from the Yazidi community of northern Iraq who were raped and sold as sex slaves by Islamic State fighters.

And you can imagine what her godfather thinks of the barbarians of Islamic State who throw from rooftops young men accused of being homosexual.

I know full well that were I not blessed with a British passport, were I unlucky enough to have been born in such war zones, I would probably be dead by now, having been deemed too old for use. My daughter would have been defiled and my son pressed into becoming a murderer.

It’s awful to have to say it like that, but it’s true.

The fact that there are hundreds of millions of sane, decent, perfectly civilised followers of the Prophet Mohammed in this world should not make us blind to this reality. Like it or not, there is an ugly side to Islam.

Now, slowly but surely, it is beginning to insinuate itself into our culture.

Yet even now, with these realities brought into sharp focus by the sex attacks in Germany and Sweden, there are many, particularly on the Left and in the liberal media, who impose an insidious political correctness that prevents us from discussing any of this like grown-ups.

Acknowledging the nature and origin of one particular threat we face in Europe is not intended, nor should it be interpreted, as a slander on the majority of Muslims. It is simply a long-overdue reality check.

Some migrants clutched yellow plastic bags as they left the Macedonian transit centre and made their way into Serbia on Friday
Some migrants clutched yellow plastic bags as they left the Macedonian transit centre and made their way into Serbia on Friday

So what is that threat? It’s brutally simple: a culture of misogyny that Western feminists have worked so hard to eradicate within our own societies is starting to re-assert itself. It is invading our shores via individuals and groups who hail from parts of the world — much of Africa and swathes of the Middle East — that are still stuck in an atavistic, patriarchal way of life.

And that instead of standing up for our hard-won freedoms, we allow ourselves to be bullied into ceding ground by an achingly liberal media — particularly the BBC — and cowardly politicians who are running scared of minority pressure groups and fearful of being branded racist.

You have only to look at the response of the German authorities to the New Year’s Eve attacks to realise how real that threat is.

They downplayed events almost to the point of covering up the truth, wary that the situation was too ‘sensitive’ for the public to deal with.

Indeed, worrying evidence is emerging that the German media acted in cahoots with the authorities to censor such stories.

Similar things are happening here. You only had to listen to an absurd apologist on Radio 4’s Today programme, who tried to argue these sorts of attacks were ‘common in many cultures’.

Or the Labour transport shadow minister Jess Phillips, who said that Cologne-style sex attacks are only the kind of thing that goes on in Birmingham every week.

Consider, too, the Labour councillors who, fearful of losing the crucial support of Pakistani voters, failed to act upon what was going on under their very noses in the Rotherham child grooming scandal, in which 1,400 vulnerable girls were routinely exploited by gangs of Asian men for 16 years.

In the words of the former Victims’ Commissioner, Louise Casey, who almost a year ago published her report into the abuse: ‘By failing to take action against the Pakistani heritage male perpetrators . . . in the borough, the council has inadvertently fuelled the Far Right and allowed racial tensions to grow. It has done a great disservice to the Pakistani heritage community and the good people of Rotherham as a result.’

The truth is that multiculturalism — the philosophy that all religions and cultures are equal — has so far not worked.

Allowing very closed immigrant communities to take over parts of cities and, in some cases, entire towns, has not been healthy for the integration of all Britons.

Worryingly, it too often results in racism and the re-emergence of the foul prejudices of the Far Right.

Trevor Phillips, the former head of the equalities watchdog, said recently that Muslim communities are not like others in Britain, that the country should accept they will never integrate and that it is disrespectful to assume Islamic communities would change. Yet isn’t that absolutely the wrong message?

Many indigenous Britons love the thought of living in a vibrant, multiracial Britain; what they don’t love is the idea of having their own traditions and freedoms undermined.

That is why, when we hear of Sharia courts undermining the British rule of law and depriving Muslim women of their rights, we should not simply chalk it up to ‘cultural differences’.

We should denounce such behaviour as wrong and unacceptable in a modern, civilised society.

And when schoolgirls of African heritage are flown to that continent in the summer holidays to have their genitals cut or their Pakistani contemporaries are kidnapped and pressed into forced marriage that, too, must not be tolerated. Not because these are traditions practiced by Muslims. But because they are, quite simply, wrong — whatever belief system you happen to espouse.

And yet anyone who dares to point this out is immediately accused of bigotry.
But if we cannot discuss, openly and honestly, how we feel about the growing presence in society of a group of people who openly despise our way of life, how can we hope to find a way through our differences?

It is time to accept the facts, unpleasant as they are, and ask: why is misogyny endemic among certain sectors of Muslim society — and what can we, as women, do about it?

David Cameron was recently heavily criticised when he said it was important for Muslim women in this country to learn English. Yet surely he is right that if the tens of thousands of women who can’t speak English — whether they are 16 or 60 — aren’t helped to learn it, they will not have opportunities in education and employment that should be open to them in our liberal society.

Of course Islam is not the only religion built on misogyny. Christianity, and in particular Catholicism, has historically had a warped attitude to women at its heart.

We venerate the Virgin as the only truly good woman who ever lived, a woman who conceived a male savior in chastity to deliver us from the actions of Eve, that wicked, weak-willed temptress whose lust and betrayal brought misery upon the world.

When you think about it, that’s pretty anti-women.

French gendarmes patrol the 'Jungle' migrant camp in Gande-Synthe where 2,500 refugees from Kurdistan, Iraq and Syria live on Thursday
French gendarmes patrol the 'Jungle' migrant camp in Gande-Synthe where 2,500 refugees from Kurdistan, Iraq and Syria live on Thursday

But the key difference between the misogyny in the Bible and that in the Koran is that no one in their right mind would interpret the former word for word.

Those who do — Christian fundamentalists — are rightly seen as bonkers by the rest of the Christian community, a remnant of a bygone age.

It took hundreds of years for feminists — male and female — to extricate society from the clutches of the medieval Church.

The efforts of the Suffragettes and the work of 20th-century feminism was the culmination of that lengthy process, bringing about a permanent change in cultural, legal and social attitudes, and a shift in the balance between the sexes from one based on the innate superiority of men to the present uneasy state of equality.
It’s not perfect, but it’s a lot better than it used to be.

The problem with certain Muslim communities is that they have not yet made that step.

In powerful countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, the Koran is not so much a manual on how to live a civilised and fulfilling life as a set of immutable instructions.

Women in those countries may still be under the thumb of their male oppressors, but we in Europe are not.

We cannot allow our liberal and tolerant instincts to obscure the fact that many Muslim men in our midst simply do not approve of our way of life.

That attitude, ultimately, is the origin of the attacks on women in Germany.