Whale Oil inciting anti-Christian/anti-Muslim anger

Whale Oil posts continue to try to drive up anger and intolerance towards Muslims in New Zealand, while trying to claim that Christians are the victims of an unfair lack of sympathy.

After the Christchurch mosque attacks here was an effort made by some, including here on Your NZ, to attack politicians (mainly Jacinda Ardern) and media for what was claimed to be a disparity between reacting to and reporting of one of the only and by far the worst terrorist attacks in new Zealand, compared to one f many attacks in Nigeria in a long running internal war.

From a New Zealand there was little comparison between the two, but that didn’t stop attempts to equate them and to dump on anyone who hadn’t reported them in a similar manner.

Soon after the bombings in Sri Lanka this meme was launched as if it was prepared for. One of the first to attack was nasty UK alt-right activist Katie Hopkins, who slammed Jacinda Ardern for responding differently to an attack in a foreign country to one in the country she is Prime Minister of.

This was supported repeated in social media here. It’s as if they are trying to be some sort of speech police, condemning anyone who doesn’t word their condemnations to their satisfaction. But it also looks like an attempt to paint ‘Christians’ as the victims, and to drive up anger against Islam and by association Muslims.

David Farrar ridiculed the Hopkins effect at Kiwiblog: Defending Jacinda from Katie Hopkins

Jacinda Ardern is not the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. She is the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Why on earth would she do anything in response to an attack in another country, except the normal expressions of sympathy?

I still don’t get how people get so worked up over a display of empathy to the Muslim community in New Zealand. It was genuine and a great idea.

The sensible comparison is would she have done the same if another religious minority was slaughtered in New Zealand, and I am sure the answer would be yes. If 50 Jews had been killed while praying at a synagogue in New Zealand, then Ardern would probably have worn a kippah or yarmulke as a sign of respect and empathy.

There’s so much legitimate stuff to criticise Ardern on, that it drives me crazy that people get worked up on this.

Of course being attacked by Katie Hopkins is akin to being savaged by Chloe of Wainuiomata.

That’s an unfair comparison, more Kiwis will have heard of Chloe.

But as has become the norm at Kiwiblog, comments ran in the other direction, likke this well upticked comment from Simonp:

I think the point is that no Muslim leader would show empathy for any Christian attack in the same way and that Jacinda did. Equally, Jacinda wishes the Muslim community happy Ramadan but fails to wish the New Zealand happy Easter. It comes across as fear and pandering and could embolden extremists. Hopkins was challenging Jacinda to make an equally bold statement in support of Christianity.

Not really. Hopkins was attacking Ardern for showing sympathy and empathy for Muslims in New Zealand, but not naming Christians as victims in Sri Lanka in her first brief official response.  Ardern referred to “bombings there on Easter Sunday”, a fairly obvious Christian reference. She also referred to “an attack in Sri Lanka while people were in churches and at hotels”, which seems sensible given the hotel attacks were not obviously targeting one religion over any others.

Nukuleka:

Virtue signalling is virtue signalling and is no sign of genuine grief. It is merely a form of superfluous and superficial egotism. There may indeed be genuine sympathy felt beneath the outward ‘look- at -me’ show, and sincere grief felt – that is for no-one to judge- but there is never a need to wave a flag, or don a hijab in this instance, to let the world know just how sincere and deep your feelings are. Such people deserve mockery.

‘Virue signalling’ is one of those pejoratives that I have difficulty knowing what people actually mean – or if they know what it means. Is Hopkins virtue signalling? She certainly promotes the virtues of Christians and slams the virtues of Muslims, as do a number of commenters at Kiwiblog (some argued against).

While Kiwiblog simmers and seethes beneath the surface in comments threads, Whale Oil also drives a religious divide in posts.

Whale Oil has championed Hopkins for years. They (they now being under the management, guidance  and apparent control of Juana Atkins)  jumped on the Hopkins bashwagon following the Sri Lanka attacks.

‘Whaleoil staff’ posted the first Hopkins tweet as Tweet of the Day on Monday, which haad some predictable responses, including this from ‘Sunshine’:

Christians all over the world are hunted at the moment not because they are Christians, but because they represent western civilisation. Ardern and her ilk want to ‘fundamentally transform’ the west, as Barry Soetoro once said.

That is laden with conspiracy theorising (actually they are not theories, they are dirty memes) – in particular, that it is a clash of civilisations with Christians as the victims.

The following day Atkins posted Things that make me go hmm under ‘SB’ (one of her pseudonyms), where she nitpicked Theresa May tweets on the Christchurch and Sri Lanka attacks, followed by another ridiculous Hopkins quote:

Why does Islam always matter more to Christian leaders?

That doesn’t even make sense to me. It prompted typical (for a tightly controlled forum like Whale Oil) responses, like this from Boondecker:

“Violence against churches and hotels… ” – what an odd thing to say/tweet in the circumstances. There appears to be a very strange but obvious disconnect when you become a political leader. No wonder they’re rated even below car and insurance salesmen in terms of trustworthiness (the mainstream media are the only crowd that’s worse).

“Violence against churches and hotels” is fairly accurate for a brief generalised tweet. ‘Churches’ is synonymous with ‘Christian’:

church
noun
1. a building used for public Christian worship

And several hotels were also bombed.

Yesterday the anger meme was promoted in Growing anger over anti-Christian terror denialism

Anger is growing around the world at the blatant disparity and hypocrisy of the media and political elite in their reactions to terrorism, depending on who the victims are.

Of course no proof is provided that anger is growing anywhere. What this looks like is an attempt to grow anger in New Zealand.

Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. It shouldn’t matter who the innocent victims are: Muslims in a market in Quetta or in a mosque in Christchurch, or Christians on the streets of Rome or in churches in Sri Lanka. But, as we are seeing after the Easter carnage in Sri Lanka, it matters very much to the media-political elite who the victims are.

Christians are way down on the Victim Totem Pole.

Not at Whale Oil, where they are playing the ‘Christians are victims in a clash of civilisations’ card hard.

As per the standard narrative, no matter who is shredded by terrorists’ bombs, the real victims, as far as the media-political elite are concerned, are always Muslims.

That’s just pathetic nonsense.

But it’s dangerous nonsense. Whale Oil, with Atkins leading the charge now, is trying to drive up anger and division between Muslims and Christians.

Whale Oil has also actively promoted gun rights including the ‘right’ to own military style weapons. The blog attracts people who like firearms, and it attracts people who see Christians as victims, who see ‘Western civilisation’ under threat, and see Islam and Muslims as the threat.

As the 50 Christchurch murders showed, it only takes one person to believe this sort of persistent inflammatory claptrap to escalate things into extreme violence.

Probably all of the posts and most of the comments at Whale Oil would fall short of any hate speech laws – certainly the laws we currently have. But the sum of all the parts, the ongoing inciting posts (often multiple in a day) and the comments in support, looks like a campaign of hate and intolerance and division. It is difficult to legislate against that.

But this sort of campaign of fear mongering and hate should be called out for what it is, and should those who are responsible for it.

Katie Hopkins (and others) ridiculous attacks on Ardern

There were ridiculous criticisms of and attacks on Jacinda Ardern after the Christchurch mosque attacks, for what she said and what she wore in sympathy, support and solidarity with New Zealand Muslims. She (and the media) were attacked for not giving equal condemnation to an earlier attack inn a long running civil war situation in Nigeria.

This has risen to new levels of absurdity after the suicide bomb attack on hotels and Christian churches in Sri Lanka in the weekend.

One of those leading the over-reaction alt right brigade attacks is Katie Hopkins, from the UK.

There are a number of ridiculous things about that stupidity, particularly considering an unprecedented attack in your own country is quite different for a Prime Minister than an attack somewhere else in the world where there is a history of terrorism.

Ardern did quickly send condolences to Sri Lanka – Prime Minister sends condolences to Sri Lanka:

“New Zealand condemns all acts of terrorism, and our resolve has only been strengthened by the attack on our soil on the 15th of March. To see an attack in Sri Lanka while people were in churches and at hotels is devastating.

“New Zealand rejects all forms of extremism and stands for freedom of religion and the right to worship safely. Collectively we must find the will and the answers to end such violence.’’

She expressed similar sympathy and condemnation in person, this was widely reported by New Zealand media.

NZ Herald reported on Hopkins’ attack: Outspoken British columnist Katie Hopkins tries to roast Jacinda Ardern over Sri Lanka attacks

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is ignoring a swipe by a British columnist over yesterday’s attacks in Sri Lanka which have left hundreds dead.

Katie Hopkins, a columnist and former contestant in the 2007 The Apprentice TV show, has hit out at Ardern, saying she now expects her to be “dressed as the pope, ringing church bells across #NZ and praying in Latin in Parliament by noon”.

But many Kiwis have come to her defence with one replying, “whatever the Prime Minister does will be immeasurably more welcome and useful than anything you have ever said,” while another tweeted “if this dreadful event had happened in NZ … then our PM would be leading the nation through its grieving and empathising with the victims’ families.”

Hopkins sprayed her bile around the UK too.

Is Hopkins trying to dictate what Prime Ministers should say in reaction to international atrocities? I doubt that’s her intention, it looks more like she is trying to drive up intolerance and hate of Muslims, by playing a ‘poor me’ Christian card.

Hopkins hasn’t been alone in this sort of stupidity. from comments on a Kiwiblog post Christians slaughtered in Sri Lanka yesterday:

sooty:

Cindy will be covering her ears and singing,
LA, LA, LA LAA!

Engelbert Humperdink:

So, Cindy’s gonna wear a big cross to show solidarity, and post armed guards on the churches in NZ? Yeah, right.

All the world’s majority Muslim country leaders gonna speak out against this attack on Christians? Yeah, right.

Will there be indifference shown to the deceased and injured – even though they are people of color – by leftists because, after all, it’s ‘just something some people did’ and ‘it’s part and parcel of living in a big city’? Yes, there will be, as per Ilhan Omar and Sadiq Khan.

Ultima:

Obviously Christianity is the cause of of this terrorist act, Cindy should urge the Sri Lankan govt to ban Christianity and semi-Christianity.

Commenters at Kiwiblog and Whale Oil childishly call Ardern Cindy because (I think) she said she didn’t like being called that.

Luke Piewalker:

Of course we will see a tearful handwringing Ardern holding a cross … nah didn’t think so

vand:

Will this be said?
The Sri Lankan Prime Minister told Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern the best help she could provide in the wake of the Sri lanka attacks would be sympathy and love for Christian communities.

burt:

Christian prayers on national radio it will be then with the platitudes of ‘They are us’.

I posted Ardern’s statement to show that she had condemned the attacks, and that was downticked by 22 people (as of now).

Rachael Memberry responded:

i don’t agree, we have had CHCH shoved in our face for the last month, since Jacinda has so much political capital, especially now that she hasn’t expended any for the CGT she, as the leader that we are told that she is, should be contacting members of the Muslim community to decry terrorist attacks, not just when they are the victims of them but when they are the perpetrators also.

The Muslim community in New Zealand are not the perpetrators.

Engelbert Humperdink:

As a globalist shouldn’t she be expecting the practice of what she preaches locally to take place everywhere? Shouldn’t she now be calling for the suppression of a group of brown supremacists, and the banning of their manifesto, their Koran? if you think that’s absurd, I agree with you it’s a reach, but is not absurd. Absurd is what she did; absurd is where she set the bar. Of course all of her apologists don’t expected to be judged by the standards she set. That’s why she has to keep getting tongue-bathed by the New Zealand media (one example: recent social media resurrections, which I suppose is fitting for Easter time) to kKeep her popularity high enough / stay in office.

burt:

Are there different degrees of concern with regard to mass murder?

Obviously there are differences depending on what occurred and where it occurred. I’m fairly sure that burt and and others at Kiwiblog don’t show equal concern for all attacks around the world – they tend to ignore other attacks on Muslims.

It was worse at Whale Oil, with Hopkins tweet put up as a post (by the gutlessly anonymous ‘Whaleoil staff’) – Tweet of the day. This fed some predictable responses.

ibdkiwi:

But wait…hold the presses, this is breaking news: someone just told me the Prime Minister is donating $300M to Sri-Lanka to buy-back all the bombs, well; not all of them, just the assault-bombs, ‘so this sort of thing can never happen again’. Can anyone confirm if this story is true?

Smoke & Mirrors:

Has she mentioned ‘Christians’ yet?

BlokeinAuckland:

Nope. Or that it was muslims as perpetrators.

If Only:

Excellent comment but Katie forgets its still an Easter Holiday in NZ and our PM never works during the holidays – she is a member of a union after all. Perhaps we shall see her play dress up and ring bells tomorrow.

Nutta:

To be fair, JA put out comment condemning the terrorist act yesterday, not long after the event. No, I’m not even remotely a cheerleader.

Dave:

Not really, more likely her office put out a Press Release yesterday

I saw Ardern personally condemning the attacks on TV news. A lot of this is petty uninformed dissing. And it went on.

At least ‘SB’ put her pseudonym initials to another post feeding a string of more nonsense – Facebook comment of the day. The most recent comment:

Surprisingly, Jacinda hasn’t offered to pay for all the funeral expenses!

Sadly this is the stupid level of much of the discussion on terrorist atrocities, deliberately stoked by Katie Hopkins.

Shameful, disgraceful attack on Golriz Gharaman by ‘David Hughes’

Green MP Golriz Gharaman has been the target of frequent attacks in social media. She highlighted this one that combines an attack on her with an attack on Muslims posted on Facebook yesterday:

The whole image (from Facebook):

That’s bad, and it’s sad to see this sort of thing continuing. Members of Parliament (or anyone) should not be targeted with this sort of scurrilous misinformation and abuse.

Ghahraman confronted him on Facebook:

Golriz Ghahraman Given you know I’m not Muslim and my family had to leave Iran due to persecution by a purportedly Islamic regime, this is both a lie and hate speech. Be ashamed.

But he seems far from ashamed. He also posted further accusations, plus this:

As to your moronic charge of “hate speech”, fiddlesticks, you don’t even know what that might be beyond some infantile catch cry for your sycophants.

But I do love that we live in a liberal Democracy where we can have this discussion confident that we have the right to freedom of expression and the exchange of ideas enshrined in some of our most important legislation whilst being very well protected from the excesses that occasionally raise their ugly heads (an example of one such lying excess is attached for your elucidation).

Our laws around freedom of expression are very comprehensive, allowing us to exercise our God given right to freely express our ideas (New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Sec 14 reinforced by Sec 5 & 6) whilst protecting people from ugly excesses (Human Rights Act 1993: Sec 61 etc, sec 131, etc and Summary Offences Act1981: sec 3 & 4 etc).

We also have a range of legislation to protect people from defamation and libel as well as a huge body of legal precedents to tell us exactly where the courts have ruled the boundaries are and what crosses them.

So he thinks he is legally justified in posting this sort of thing.

You perhaps need to spend some time reading through the relevant Law Reports. They are truly as fascinating as they are educational.

I will never be ashamed for speaking out against hateful people who would destroy my country and deliver us to our enemies.

And he thinks he is morally justified. I think it is morally repugnant from David Hughes.

This is a shameful and n insidious religious and political attack.

According to some comments it has been reported to Facebook, but as of now it is still up, and getting some support amongst the criticism.

There does seem to be hate in Hughes’ speech, and it is likely to encourage or provoke more intolerance and fear and hate – it has attracted some support.

This David Hughes (if that is his name)  deserves to be shamed.

I think that at times Gharaman has gone to far in what she has promoted, and what she has supported in controlling ‘hate speech’, but with ongoing attacks like this it’s understandable that she might get frustrated and may want something done to stem this sort of dirty politics.


Note: comments on this post should be confined to the Facebook post and what it means for politics, religion and free speech, whether this sort of ‘free speech’ is appropriate, whether it should be limited by law, and what should be done about it.

Please don’t divert into general or historic criticism or commentary on Ghahraman or Muslims.

 

Addressing misinformation on Islam and Islamophobia

A comment by ‘theSailor’ deserves some attention.

According to Dr. Tony Costa, professor of world religions at the University of Toronto, the concept of “Islamophobia” was created by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s specifically as “a way to stifle any criticism of Islam.”

This is wrong. Wikipedia on Islamophobia:

The term was first used in the early 20th century and it emerged as a neologism in the 1970s, then it became increasingly salient during the 1980s and 1990s, and it reached public policy prominence with the report by the Runnymede Trust‘s Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia (CBMI) entitled Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All (1997). The introduction of the term was justified by the report’s assessment that “anti-Muslim prejudice has grown so considerably and so rapidly in recent years that a new item in the vocabulary is needed”.

Dr Tony Costa: Tony Costa Christian Apologetics – “This website is dedicated to the defense of the Christian faith and providing answers to the hard questions regarding biblical Christianity. Its purpose also serves to encourage Christians by properly equipping them with the tools to defend their faith in a coherent and intelligent manner. In so doing, they fulfill the great commandment to love the Lord their God with all their mind. (Mark 12:29-30) Finally, our hope is to minister to the absence of spiritual discernment so prevalent among Christians in the present day.”

“Tony believes his mission to the Christian church as a whole is to call attention to a very serious threat. This includes the proliferation of various cults, the occult, the New Age Movement and World Religions. Most of these groups seek to camouflage themselves as “Christian”, while at the same time denying the historic orthodox teachings of Christianity. It is imperative that all Christians, in both the clergy and laity recognize this threat to prepare and equip themselves to defend the Gospel of Jesus Christ while at the same time boldly proclaiming it. (Jude 3; 1 Peter 3:15)

theSailor:

A recent, very disturbing judgement by the European Court of Human Rights shows just how effective it has been. The UN also has been pushing hard for many years to have criticism of Islam banned throughout the world. We should ask ourselves why.

We should ask ourselves why these claims have been made, because they seem to be quite inaccurate.

Defamation of religion is an issue that was repeatedly addressed by some member states of the United Nations (UN) from 1999 until 2010. Several non-binding resolutions were voted on and accepted by the UN condemning “defamation of religion”. The motions, sponsored on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), now known as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation,[1] sought to prohibit expression that would “fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences”.

From 2001 to 2010 there was a split of opinions, with the Islamic bloc and much of the developing world supporting the defamation of religion resolutions, and mostly Western democracies opposing them. Support waned toward the end of the period due to increased opposition from the West along with lobbying by religious, free-speech, and human rights advocacy groups.

The UN Human Rights Committee followed this in July 2011 with the adoption of General Comment 34 on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1976 that binds signatory countries. Concerning freedoms of opinion and expression, General Comment 34 made it clear that “Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant”.

General Comment 34 makes it clear that countries with blasphemy laws in any form that have signed the ICCPR are in breach of their obligations under the ICCPR.

theSailor:

There are some worryingly naive views expressed on here. When Islam starts extending its iron fist into your community, commencing very quietly and ‘peacefully’ under the guise of “tolerating other faiths”, it is time to be very concerned indeed.

That’s absurd scaremongering.

A “phobia” by definition is an “irrational” fear, and a fear of Islam is not irrational to anyone who has researched it, and read of distant lands that have made the fatal mistake of tolerating it, such as Europe and Britain.

Phobia by definition is “An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.”  (Oxford).

It is irrational to fear one thing like ‘Islam’ when it is not a single thing, it is a religion that has billions of followers and many different flavours and aims.

It as irrational to fear ‘Islam’ as it is to fear ‘man’.

Islam is not a spiritual belief system; it is an earthly overlord – like its instigator – whose driving compulsion is to cover the world with itself, killing or converting any human standing in its way.

That sounds like an irrational fear being expressed.

Welcoming such an intolerant, violent, brainwashing collective organism into your society will inevitably end in tears, as history has shown.

Spreading fear and loathing of a different religion seems to be mostly done by intolerant people who have been brainwashed by a collective organism.

Millions of Muslims are undoubtedly passive (as distinct from peaceful), but the cult that rigidly controls them is not.

‘Passive but not peaceful’ is an insidious form of mass blaming and fear mongering. There is no singular ‘cult’ that controls all branches and followers of Islam, just as there is no cult that controls all of Christianity or any other large religion.

No more than is a man-eating tiger, for all its millions of strands of soft, passive, fluffy fur; not one of which, for all its passivity, will ever condemn the teeth.

A man-eating tiger representative of all cats.

There are radicals and cults within Islam, just as there are within Christianity.

Both try to demonise many because of the actions of a small few.

I think there may be more dangers to new Zealand from intolerant Islamophobes trying to stir up fear and division than there is of radical Muslim actions.

Inaccurate, divisive and inflammatory posts are not acceptable here, they will be deleted or dissected, and those who persist in posting them will lose their freedom to comment unmoderated.

Atkins still promoting and stoking Islamophobia at Whale Oil

Whale Oil has stoked and promoted intolerance against Islam and Muslims for years, with generalised attacks and mass blaming common from both Cameron Slater and Juana Atkins (posting as SB, commenting as spanishbride). Slater has dropped out, but Atkins has kept up her campaign of prejudice and denigration.

There was a slight pause when the Christchurch mosques were attacked, but it didn’t take long for Atkins to resume stoking the Islamophobic fire, pouring oil at the Whale. If anything it has increased.

On Monday Atkins (SB) posted Things that make me go hmm

She first quoted from a Stuff article (Whale Oil bases many of their posts on mainstream media articles, despite slamming the quality of media and claiming to be an alternative).

Woman forced to leave Auckland pool over claims her bikini was inappropriate

A woman was left flabbergasted after she was told her bikini was inappropriate to wear at a public pool.

Yvette Harvie-Salter, 26, was at Albany Stadium Pool, on Auckland’s North Shore, on Saturday with her partner to use the adults only sauna and spa – something she has done three times a week for the past two years.

She was told her bikini from Glassons was not appropriate swimwear and some women had complained about what she was wearing for the “last little while”.

Harvie-Salter said she had been wearing the same bikini for the past few months but was told she couldn’t wear it at the pool and was asked if she had any other bikinis at home.

[…] “Her words were ‘it’s not a rule at Albany Stadium Pool but all these mums have complained’,” she said.
“She pretty much didn’t take a bar up of it and she said ‘well you’ve got to wrap up. You’ve got to put a towel around you if you are wanting to walk around wearing that bikini’.”

[…] “It just feels like body shaming, really,” she said. “I am really hurt by it.”

Harvie-Salter said she saw men at the pool all the time wearing “tiny little Speedos” and they had never been told to cover up.

She said she refused to cover up her bikini and as a result, had to leave.

[…] McGee said there were no rules banning certain types of swimwear at Auckland Council pools.

Here is the whole Stuff article:  Woman felt forced to leave Auckland pool over claims her bikini was inappropriate

What SB did not quote (apart from the last line) was:

​Rob McGee, head of active recreation at Auckland Council, said he was disappointed a customer was made to feel unwelcome at the pool she regularly used.

“On behalf of the lifeguard who spoke to the customer and the team at Albany, I would like to offer a sincere apology to the customer.

“We are sorry she was made to feel uncomfortable, and the lifeguard who passed on the feedback from other pool users now realises this wasn’t the right thing to do.”

McGee said Harvie-Salter, who rightly felt offended and upset, was given a refund and left the pool.

“She was never asked to leave, however we understand her decision. We will be contacting the customer directly to apologise and ensure she knows she is welcome back anytime.”

McGee said there were no rules banning certain types of swimwear at Auckland Council pools.

So it seems to have been an overstepping by a lifeguard, and annoyed swimmer, followed by an apology and an assurance. Not a big deal overall.

But Atkins didn’t leave it at that. She tacked on summaries of three old Whale Oil posts:

Mount Roskill brings segregation and apartheid to public pools in New Zealand – by SB on march 19, 2017

The headline says, “Women-only swim night ‘very popular’ among Muslim community” but it was the Muslim community that asked for and was provided with segregated swimming lessons. A public pool is being partially closed one night a week to give Muslim women the opportunity to enjoy some uninterrupted time in the water

In that post Atkins also said:

This is how segregation will be spread throughout New Zealand’s public swimming pools. By denying the obvious truth that this is a special segregation created to meet the needs of the Muslim community they are sugar-coating it with the falsehood that fat women will benefit from the classes being available. Anyone who buys that lie deserves a New Zealand where the Muslim community successfully brings Apartheid to our public swimming pools. Once they have achieved that concession New Zealand wide it will be spread to our public beaches, our schools and elsewhere. It is called cultural Jihad,destroying our freedom and equal rights from within our society and the well-meaning but naive idiots in Mount Roskill are letting them.

You don’t help people to integrate by pandering to an oppressive culture. You help them to integrate by making it clear which aspects of their culture are unacceptable inside our society. I predict that Mount Roskill will become the first Muslim suburb of Auckland. They have taken control of a public pool and it will not be the only public facility that they will pressure to become ” culturally appropriate.

Covert Islamic segregation at Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre by SB on March 24, 2017

In Auckland WaterSafe were upfront about their Islamic segregation policy. They openly provided a rate payer funded Muslim Women’s Swimming programme for 12 years in Mount Roskill. At some point, they decided to go under the radar and re-named it the Womens’ Swimming programme but not everyone got the memo and up until Whaleoil broke the story ( admittedly 12 years too late) it was still being advertised and timetabled as Muslim Women’s Swimming lessons.

SB concludes:

Wellington Council like Auckland Council is providing Sharia compliant swimming lessons for Muslim women. They have gone to the trouble of putting lipstick on the pig but it is still a pig.

She went to the trouble of being deliberately offensive.

Step two: curtains around the public pool by SB on May 19, 2017

Useful Infidels think that my posts about the Muslim women only swimming programme at the public swimming pool in Mount Roskill (that had been provided on the tax payer’s dollar for twelve years quietly under the radar) was no big deal. I was making a mountain out of a molehill, and what harm did modest Muslim women pose to our society by segregating themselves from the public eye in a public swimming pool? My premise that it was only step one in a slow but relentless march towards the Islamification of New Zealand society was ridiculous they said.

These three posts from two years ago appear to have no connection to this week’s bikini story, which made no reference at all to anything to do with Islam or Muslim. Atkins has used her old posts as an excuse to continue her campaign of prejudiced Muslim bashing.

And she seems to have achieved her objective – generating Islamophobia in comments.

jonno1:

Sadly, my second thought for the reason for the ban was what this post implies. The first was that perhaps the bikini was a bit skimpy, until I saw the photo of a perfectly ordinary item of swimwear. The reference to mums also makes no sense as the spa is described as adults only. Still, the Albany Stadium Pool management can quickly clear this up by clarifying the source of the complaint. Yeah, right.

Poppa:

I’m surprised Jacinda didn’t turn up at the time (just by coincidence) and let her borrow her headscarf to cover up which ever bits somebody found offensive.

Hans:

This is a lot like hate speech, if a person finds it offensive it’s considered hate speech. This is a slippery slope, if i was that women i would get my friends together and hopefully one is a lawyer and see what happens. I bet they don’t get the police because the council cant just make up rules on a day to day basis.
They have to abide by the law, this is not Iran or the 1930’s, i would dare them to arrest me and see how that plays out. The only way to stop this rubbish is right at the start before it gets life of it’s own.

Ian:

There will be a lot more behind this rubbish than meets the eye . . . we now must compete with an unelected unwanted PM, dangerous Greens, and Islam if we want to keep our sanity.

Tracy:

It is a bikini – it is appropriate swimwear for a pool. If the overweight middle aged judgmental “mothers” don’t like it then either go somewhere else or put the biscuit tin down. I am saying this as a middle aged overweight mother clutching the chardonnay & chocolate for dear life. How dare the lifeguard ask her to leave based ion the whining of a group of self entitled minority stay at homers (I am guessing) who are jealous of the younger thinner model. I hope she returns with a group of her bikini clad size 6 posse in tow & splash about right in front of the complainers judgey faces.

Unlima Siempre:

It’ll be Islamic women that are complaining.

Dave:

I want to reverse this complaint. A woman has been told she cannot wear her Burka at an Auckland Council Swimming pool, as its a swimming pool and the weight of the fabric is dangerous in the pool as it will get wet and heavy.

Wonder how that would go down with the perpetually outraged??

spanishbride obviously had no problem with the discussion she had prompted, joining the Muslim-bashing  thread:

I think i should take some time off work this week and go for a spa with my daughter. It sounds relaxing. I have a lovely navy bikini that needs an outing. I’d like to see them try to boss her around. Yeah, sounds like a plan.

And this wasn’t an isolated example. The following day SB posted Now they are coming for our ANZAC day

And so it begins. Cultural and historical ANZAC commemorations are shut down. Two ANZAC day parades so far in New Zealand have been cancelled that I know of and I am sure that there will be more to come. One is the Papakura ANZAC parade. The other is the Matakana ANZAC service.

The reason given for the cancellation of one of them is the threat of “Vehicular terrorism.” Trucks of peace in other (politically incorrect) words.

I can’t imagine that the high terror threat is coming from Greenie eco-Fascists as Tarrant described himself. Why would they target an ANZAC day parade? I can’t imagine White supremacists targeting ANZACS either. I wonder where the threat could possibly be coming from?

It’s obvious where threats of intolerance, division and potentially violence are coming from – Atkins. One comment (from Tiger):

I can’t imagine that the high terror threat is coming from Greenie eco-Fascists as Tarrant described himself. Why would they target an ANZAC day parade? I can’t imagine White supremacists targeting ANZACS either. I wonder where the threat could possibly be coming from?

spanishbride was also active in comments:

This is not surprising. We are merely following in the footsteps of Europe where Jewish celebrations have been cancelled by the government who said they could not protect them. It starts happening after the first terror attack and then the next year they find an excuse to cancel it again and before you know it historical and cultural celebrations have been removed due to the ongoing terror alert.

Juana Atkins appears to be managing Whale Oil now, and controlling content. She seems intent on continuing to stoke insidious Islamophobia.

The persistence and volume of these niggles and attacks and fearmongering posts and comments, orchestrated by Atkins, makes me wonder whether Whale Oil could be labelled a hate site.

Whale Oil’s golden rule of commenting:

Each comment should:

  • be on the topic of the post
  • add information, a point of view or a contribution of some substance and
  • be respectful and do no harm to others.

While the volume of Islamophobic comments appear to be ‘on the topic’ (or intent of the topic), and add points of view adding substance to Atkins attacks and provocations, she makes a mockery of “be respectful and do no harm to others”.

 

Understanding the ideology of the Christchurch killer

Understanding the ideology of the Christchurch mosque mass murderer may help prevent a repeat of something so bad happening again, or at least reduce the risks.

Mark Durie gives some good explanations in The Christchurch Killer’s Anti-Humanist Ideology

In the wake of the horrific Christchurch shootings, we need to thoughtfully engage with the ideology which influenced it. Just before the massacre, the self-confessed killer, Brenton Tarrant, distributed what is being called a manifesto, in which he unashamedly describes what he was about to do as a “terrorist attack”, and gives and account of his ideology.

We need to understand this ideology, not to give it a platform, but to learn and to equip ourselves to stand against such hatred.

Is Tarrant an Islamophobe?

Tarrant chose Muslims as a target, but his hatred is directed at all non-white immigrants. It is their “race” he objects to. He has nothing to say about Islam as a religion, making no mention of Muhammad, the Qur’an, or the Sharia.

Although Tarrant nurtures a number of grudges against Muslims, for example for the history of jihad against Europe, he makes clear that his primary reason for targeting mosques is to incite white people to rise up against immigrants in general, not just Muslims. He would drive them all out if he could.

Worshipping Strength

In Tarrant’s fascist vision, the primary good, overriding all else, is the success and dominance of the race-nation. This is a law-of-the-jungle, survival-of-the-fittest view of morality, which considers it entirely legitimate for one tribe to dominate and destroy another to its own advantage.

Tarrant’s solution to his crisis of white demographic decline is to incite conflict so that whites will be compelled to awaken, radicalise and grow strong. This is what his attack in Christchurch was all about.

Anti-Humanitarian

The deeply anti-humanitarian features of Tarrant’s ideology are particularly troubling, not least because Western societies’ movement away from humanitarianism is a discernible long-term trend, and not just among violent extremists.  Reverence for human life is no longer as dominant a characteristic of Western people’s thinking as it used to be.

…one of the reasons he says he hates migrants is that they come, he says, from groups that are “overpopulating” the world, so, he rants, “kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment”.

A Chaotic View of Past and Present

Tarrant’s ideology is as chaotically self-contradictory as it is revolting. His theory of history and of nations is all over the place: a complete mess.

Mad or Bad?

Is Tarrant a psychopath?  He may be. The vast majority of ordinary people could not kill in cold blood as he has done.

Tarrant’s manifesto and actions are bad, not mad. Driven, cold and calculating, and fully responsible for his actions, he had been captured by an evil ideology, which made him a hero in his own eyes.

How Tarrant was Radicalised

It is necessary to explore Tarrant’s passion over the “great replacement”.  He describes visiting France, and feeling grief-struck by the ebbing away of the French: “The french people were often in a minority themselves, and the french that were in the streets were often alone, childless or of advanced age. While the immigrants were young, energised and with large families and many children.”

In disgust and despair Tarrant pulled over by a military cemetery, overwhelmed, and wept at the sight of crosses from soldiers who were killed fighting in the two World Wars, stretching out to the horizon. He was weeping over their seemingly vain sacrifice.

By his own account, this was how Tarrant was radicalised. That was it. In front of those crosses he demanded of himself “Why don’t I do something?” Then and there he committed himself to violence in the belief that the radicalisation of other Western young men will be inevitable.

If radicalisation is to be prevented, the crucial thing is to short-circuit the progression from lament and trauma to violence. A sense of loss is and will be unavoidable, but a descent into violence need not be. To prevent this outcome moral leadership is required.

The Threat of Tarrant’s Ideology

The greatest threat is that the option of violence might become increasingly attractive to people who have turned their backs on love-thy-neighbour morality, despising it as weakness, and who also feel deeply challenged and uprooted, both emotionally and morally, by our rapidly changing world, not only by rapid demographic shifts, but also by cultural loss, environmental degradation and all of the other ills Tarrant rails against.

The greater the sense of loss, the more attractive the worship of strength could appear.  What ethical alternatives will be made available to those who are tempted by this path?

The Real Battle We Must Face

Calls to suppress Tarrant’s views from being known and discussed are mistaken. The real struggle we face in the West is over moral worldviews which despise the value of human life.

It was Tarrant’s rejection of the inherent value of each and every human life that opened the door to his raging collectivist hatred.  The challenge for us all is to discern and uproot the seedlings of his deadly ideological trend, and to plant something better in its place.

To do this we must understand and acknowledge such thinking, understand how such a worldview might germinate and grow, and be able to trace the paths of its influence, so that we can intervene and oppose it, lest it spread.

But to achieve all this we must take our heads out of the sand, not put them in it.

To understand more it’s worth reading Durie’s whole post – The Christchurch Killer’s Anti-Humanist Ideology

 

 

 

 

 

“Tolerance New Zealand’s real religion”

It should be, but there are still a lot of people who don’t follow it. We should acknowledge that we can all be intolerant, but can all work towards better understanding of and tolerance of other people, other cultures, other religions.

ODT editorial:  Tolerance New Zealand’s real religion

White nationalists, Islamophobes and other hate groups openly extol a clear goal – to separate ”them” from ”us”. In the wake of Friday’s terrorist attack, it seems prudent to confront the myth some believe in: that when it comes to religion in this country, there has never been an ”us”.

Evidence indicates the first humans to set foot in Aotearoa were Eastern Polynesian settlers some 800 years ago who brought religious beliefs with them.

Those beliefs centred around the idea that, through genealogy, all things were connected – hills, rivers, animals, plants – to the Maori themselves. Yet within the several hundred years Maori lived here before European settlement, the way those beliefs were expressed was already evolving and diverging.

Europeans arrived with a variety of takes on monotheism. Catholicism and Protestantism were the major players, but there were others.

The State, of course, was an extension of the British Crown and, as such, it is easy to look back at the last hundred or so years of New Zealand history and conclude we are, and have been, a Christian country.

But the beliefs of those who have settled here, who have journeyed to one of the most far-flung land masses on Earth and made a life for themselves, are far more varied than that. In reality, we have never been a solely Christian country. Since the arrival of Europeans, we have been a nation of multiple religions.

And agnostics and atheists.

A major fallacy in the argument of those wanting New Zealand to ”remain” or ”return” to being as culturally, ethnically or religiously ”pure” as it always was is that New Zealand has never been mono-ethnic, mono-religious or mono-cultural. And it never will. Because our national genealogy is not one of ”purity”.

Far from it. we are a diverse mix of cultures, nationalities, races and religions.

Islam is an ancient religion, born from the same part of the world Christianity was, just a few hundred years later. It is widely practised around the world and has as much right to be considered ”normal” in New Zealand as any other religion does.

Yes, there are radical arms of Islam. There are radical arms of Christianity, too. And of football fans, environmentalists and many more groups besides. It takes an appalling negligence of consideration to believe only the radical arms of a large group of people define that group.

Generalising is common. Like Christians. Muslims. Maori. Asians. Europeans. Colonialists.

All are quite varied, diverse, and there are often mixes and blends.

It is absurd for any New Zealanders to believe Islam has less right to be practised freely, safely and given respect in this country than other religions. Muslim New Zealanders are simply New Zealanders who practise a religion. Religions, while culpable for many unpleasant aspects of history, also bring meaning, stability, guidance and context to billions of people.

We are not a Christian country, despite being a country of many Christians.

We are not a religious country, though we are a country of many religions.

In fact, if there was to be any ”religion” that defined New Zealand, it should be a religious devotion to inclusivity, tolerance and openness.

Let that be the New Zealand religion and, in our pursuit of it, let’s ensure Muslim New Zealanders know, feel and trust they are, now and forever, simply Kiwis.

We all have to work hard on accepting differences, and tolerance.

 

New Zealand and the world overwhelmingly defies aims of Christchurch terrorist

Aims of the man who killed 49 people in two Christchurch mosques included trying to divide New Zealand and the world, trying to inflate hate. His atrocities have had the opposite effect.

While there have been isolated attempts at excusing his actions, of victim blaming, and other inappropriate responses, New Zealanders have have overwhelmingly expressed disgust at the mass murder of innocent and defenceless people, and have overwhelmingly shown sympathy and empathy for the victims and their families and friends, and for the whole Muslim community throughout New Zealand.

Vigils for Christchurch mosque shooting victims held across the country

Thousands of people have gathered across New Zealand to mourn the victims of Friday’s terror attack in Christchurch.

At Deans Avenue mosque, people wanting to pay their respects laids flowers at a police cordon, as armed offenders swept the area with metal detectors on Saturday.

In Auckland, thousands of people attended at vigil at Aotea Square, with more planned across the country.

‘We love you’: mosques around world showered with flowers after Christchurch massacre

Mosques in New Zealand and around the world have been inundated with floral tributes and messages of support after a massacre in Christchurch in which 49 Muslims were killed.

The strongest response from the public was in New Zealand, which is reeling in the wake of the worst peacetime mass killing in the nation’s history.

The outpouring of support for the Muslim community was so large that outside some mosques there was nowhere for well-wishers to park. Some messages read: “We love you”, “We are one” and “Forever changed”.

In Australia, the response to the massacre was similarly heartfelt, with tributes pouring into mosques across the country.

The outpouring of support continued in America where people also left candles outside mosques.

In Britain, solidarity was also on show.

Muslim places of worship in Canada also saw tributes.

Typical around the world:

Muslims are New Zealanders, residents or citizens, like the rest of us. They were going about their lives peacefully. Many of them came to New Zealand seeing it as a place safe from awful situations overseas.

It has been reported that victims are associated with a number of countries, including Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia.

New Zealanders, have been out in force around the country and on social media showing their sympathy for those affected by the atrocities, and their solidarity with Muslims and their communities.

Rather than divide the awful events have done the opposite, they have initiated outpourings of peaceful messages, of sympathy, of love, of togetherness.

Kiwis are overwhelmingly demonstrating that, while terrorism cannot always be avoided, the effects can be negated by defying the aims of sick, murderous individuals.

A lot of credit needs to be given to people who helped victims of the shootings on and around the scenes in Christchurch on Friday. People who must have been at risk themselves helped their fellow human beings in need.

The police officers and ambulance officers had very demanding jobs to do, uncertain of the risks of the situations they were putting themselves into. Many of them deserve a lot of praise – when the going gets tough people stepped up big time.

Two police officers, aware in part at least of what had happened, aware of the likelihood the perpetrator would still be armed (he was), rammed and disable his car and apprehended him. This bravery, risking their lives, may well have saved other lives.

Give-a-Little – Victim Support Official Page: Christchurch Shooting Victims’ Fund – currently $2,836,767.17 donated.

A Muslim in Dunedin wrote:

“I live in Dunedin and we have experienced nothing but kindness respect and understanding from everyone we have come into contact with.

I have lived here for three years and have many friends who have helped me to settle here.

Everyone is devastated by this terrible tragedy and it not only deeply saddens Muslims living here but all New Zealanders.

There are people everywhere who are misguided and full of hate. We must learn to love more and hate less. 

We respect all religions and cultures and all people’s regardless of their faith or belief May Allah have mercy for the people who lost their lives.”

We must learn to tolerate more, to love each other and to promote peaceful co-existence of our wide variety of cultures, ethnicities, nationalities and religions and beliefs.

Through adversity, a day of despicable terror in Christchurch, we are becoming better people and a better nation.

We Kiwis unite for a better, more peaceful world.

PRAYER FROM AN ATHEIST

Guest post from Gezza

The only way to cure Islam’s ills is to educate Muslims out of believing the Quran. To do that, you also have to educate the Jews out of believing the Torah & the Christians out of believing the Bible.

All of them derive their basis for belief from the first scribblings of unbelievable myth & bullshit in the Jewish Scriptures, & all are demonstrably false.

All of them, & all other supernatural religions, have become interwoven over centuries into the ethnic, cultural & national identities of scores of religious sects & diverse peoples throughout the globe. They have driven land grabs, wars and strife for eons. False beliefs taught to ignorant people of long bygone ages still lie at the very heart of most of the worst tensions & strife between nations & ethnic groups & cultures around the world today.

Of them all, Christianity, while influential in the development of the better aspects of Western civilisation, especially over the last century, has probably reduced the most in direct influence on Westerners, as secular morality has developed & improved on the limits of the so-called 10 commandments, & the Golden Rule. (Even the Golden Rule is reportedly actually quite common to many religions & societies around the globe, or at least between believers or members of the same group.)

Christians forget that making slaves of people from other nations is still sanctioned by God (& Jesus never countermanded Mosaic Law) in the Bible. It is time people looked at the Torah, the Bible and the Quran only as important historical Books.

The Bible played an undoubtedly important part in the development of Western Civilisation & law, but, when you put the pastor outside, clear your mind of the reinterpretations you’ve been fed by the priestly class, & simply read it plainly, end to end, it is instantly revealed, self-evidently, as merely a collection of 3rd 4th & 5th hand scribblings about historically unsupportable superstitions, myths, magic, & logical & scientific nonsense.

It is the story of a savage, jealous, vengeful, murderous, infanticidal, rape & slavery-condoning God who Christians still say – notwithstanding that he ordered and /or committed these heinous acts – MUST be good! Because he is God. And God is good. So he must have had a good reason for such horrific cruelty & immorality. This is just bizarre. Truly daft that anyone can try to rationalise it with pathetic defences about relative morality meaning it was good behaviour from Jaweh for those times, but it’s not now.

Modern, secular society Christians, as empathetic, intelligent, social, human beings whose ideas of morality have now gone well beyond the Bible’s, would NEVER willingly choose to do these horrible things to other people. With the blinkers of highly selective Christian teachings off – the Judeo-Christian God’s actions & commands are actually evil by today’s standards. Jaweh orders the Israelites to commit murder, genocide, rape, infanticide for heaven’s sake. If he came to earth today, he’d literally be in the dock for crimes against humanity!

The same, & new, maybe worse, errors, horrors, pointless, repressive, oppressive, conflicting, bloodthirsty, outdated regulations, bad science, teachings, & beliefs of superiority over others, dictated by a middle-aged Arab warlord, are set out in the Quran & Hadith that Muslims are forced by their theocratic rulers and family & social pressures to believe & take with them wherever they go.

I don’t hate these religions, per se, but I know beyond any reasonable doubt they are false & well out-of-date.

And I DO hate how the contortions & distortions of these ludicrous scripts can be twisted in the minds of gullible believers, who suspend their rationality, & listen when imams & pastors tell them these clusters of confused crap mean something totally different to what they actually say – really, only out of the instilled fear of everlasting torture if they don’t believe it, or the need of desperate or fearful people to call on some hoped-for divine universal power to help them deal with adversity in their daily lives, and give them vain hope of some vague glorious reward of everlasting life & happiness in a hereafter beyond their inevitable expiry date on this earth.

There is NO actual evidence of any such thing. You won’t be seeing your pet dog or the roast lamb you ate for lunch in Heaven either. (Well, I’m an agnostic really. I can’t absolutely guarantee that there is no more existence for our personalities beyond this earthly lifetime, but it’s such a remote possibility that the probability of our death being our complete end of existence would be well in excess of 99.99999%. And it’s an absolute certainty, in my opinion, that in the unlikely event I’m wrong, any existence beyond our earthly one would not be anything like what’s promised in any of these dreadful Holy Books.)

In my view, all children should be given a secular education. They should be taught, first, written language & mathematics, then logic & reasoning, & science, & then told to forget their preachers, & their parents’ beliefs, & be instructed to just read these Holy texts, without reinterpretation, from start to finish. If, by the end, they haven’t figured out:

“WTF? Who can seriously take this garbled rubbish recited to ancient sheep herders & camel drivers as divinely inspired instructions to humanity?”

they should then learn the history of the people who, it is claimed, wrote them, and of how they spread their religions, and warred over them.

That would, hopefully, be the end of the religions, & when their believing parents finally pass away, they could just bury them respectfully, & then just put their Holy Books on the shelves in the Great Myths & History sections of libraries, & focus on establishing or evolving the fairest & most tolerant sets of values, ethics & laws that fit their own ethnic cultures & customs, settle their border squabbles, & renew good relationships with other people & cultures who live in this world – without this bloody religious dogma continually overpowering their reason & humanity & pitting devout, deluded believers & their descendents forever against each other.

Value your separate customs of dress & hospitality, & languages, & other delineators of your cultural & national identities & borders. Live freely in the places your cultures now belong, or have belonged for centuries, & welcome visitors from different lands who respect your customs while there.

If you move to another place, adapt to their culture. If eventually, in the future, we can all meld together with common evolved values & customs & laws & behaviours, so that borders can effectively disappear, there is maybe hope for a true paradise on earth – but that is a long, long way away yet, in my view.

In the meantime, for heaven’s sake, please, read, THINK, & then throw out all the false Gods that tell you you are a special & favoured people, & that all the other gods & their deluded believers are wrong! Humanity MUST outgrow these mythical supernatural rulers if we are ever to evolve the kind of world we really want.

We need to learn to love & live the life we have to the full. It is the only one we have. We need to grow up & face this fact. It is time for us to put away these childish fairy & troll kings – & become better than them.

From the German far right to Islam

A curious conversion from Alternative für Deutschland to Islam – from Deutsche Welle German far-right AfD politician resigns after converting to Islam:

Arthur Wagner, a politician in the eastern state of Brandenburg, has become a Muslim. His Alternative for Germany (AfD) party entered the Bundestag last year following a populist, anti-Islam campaign.

The far-right, anti-Islam Alternative for Germany (AfD) party on Tuesday confirmed reports in the German media that one of its politicians, Arthur Wagner, has converted to Islam.

Wagner, a leading AfD member in the eastern German state of Brandenburg, resigned his position on the party’s national executive committee on January 11 for personal reasons, AfD spokesman Daniel Friese said.

Wagner, a German of Russian origin, had been a representative of the AfD since 2015. He was a member of the state committee with responsibility for churches and religious communities.

Before joining the anti-Islam, anti-immigration party, he was a member of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU).

Wagner refused to answer questions from the German daily newspaper Tagesspiegel, who first reported his conversion to the Islamic faith.

“That’s my private business,” he told the newspaper. But he said there had been no attempt by the party to force him to resign.

Wagner is not the first far-right politician to convert to Islam, according to the German daily Die Welt.

Arnoud van Doorn was asked to leave Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders‘ Freedom Party (PVV). It later emerged he had taken up the Muslim faith and traveled to Saudi Arabia to perform the Haj (a pilgrimage to Mecca), the Guardian reported.

The AfD campaigned against Muslim immigration.

Support for the party surged after Germany admitted more than 1.5 million refugees and migrants in 2015 and 2016 at the height of the European migration crisis.

The AfD argued that the country was under threat of “Islamization” and demanded stricter border controls to stem the number of newcomers arriving from war-torn and poverty-stricken countries in Africa and the Middle East.

Ironic then that one of their own politicians has been Islamified.

Related links from DW:

Alternative für Deutschland (AfD):

Founded in April 2013, the AfD narrowly missed the 5% electoral threshold to sit in the Bundestag during the 2013 federal election. In 2014 the party won seven seats in the European election as a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists. After securing representation in 14 of the 16 German stateparliaments by October 2017, the AfD became the third largest party in Germany after the 2017 federal election, claiming 94 seats in the Bundestag, a major breakthrough for the party as it was the first time the AfD had won any seats in the Bundestag.

The party has been described as a German nationalist,[2][3][4] right-wing populist, and Eurosceptic party. Since about 2015, the AfD has been increasingly open to working with far-right extremist groups such as Pegida.

Parts of the AfD also have racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and/or xenophobic tendencies linked to far-right movements such as Neo-Nazismand identitarianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany

It seems odd to me that even the English version of Deutsche Welle calls the AfD ‘Alternative for Germany’.

It would be a bit like the Herald calling parties here Die ArbeiterParty or Neuseeland Erst.