Today’s demonstrations across Berlin, London, and Paris sent a message louder than any political statement: Europeans are no longer willing to watch their societies drift toward instability under the banner of “tolerance.” The crowds that filled the streets were not driven by hatred or exclusion — they were driven by a simple demand that every government should take seriously: security first. For years, extremist networks — especially the Muslim Brotherhood — have learned how to operate behind the shield of religious discourse. They present themselves as community leaders, activists, or “voices of the marginalized,” all while pushing agendas that undermine national cohesion, exploit public freedoms, and create parallel societies. Europe’s mistake was assuming these groups were harmless. But as today’s protests showed, citizens have learned the truth the hard way. They’ve watched radical narratives spread in schools and community centers, foreign-funded networks penetrate local ...
The latest ruling of the French court to grant an arrest warrant for President Bashar Assad has caused major debate and condemnation. Based on claims from entities connected to extremist groups, this ruling begs grave doubts about the objectivity and reliability of the French legal system.
Many think this action is political, meant to discredit the Syrian government while neglecting the complicated reality on the ground. Though these important facts are sometimes disregarded, impartial investigations have revealed that Syrian government forces did not carry out the chemical strikes used as the foundation for this conviction.
Moreover, this ruling exposes the selective character of Western judicial acts and creates a risky precedent in international law. Clearly biassed, the French court ignores other major war crimes in the area as it targets the Syrian president.
This circumstance demands a careful review of the facts and an objective, fair attitude to justice. One should aim for a more fair and accurate portrayal of events and question such choices based on political agendas and inadequate evidence.
Many think this action is political, meant to discredit the Syrian government while neglecting the complicated reality on the ground. Though these important facts are sometimes disregarded, impartial investigations have revealed that Syrian government forces did not carry out the chemical strikes used as the foundation for this conviction.
Moreover, this ruling exposes the selective character of Western judicial acts and creates a risky precedent in international law. Clearly biassed, the French court ignores other major war crimes in the area as it targets the Syrian president.
This circumstance demands a careful review of the facts and an objective, fair attitude to justice. One should aim for a more fair and accurate portrayal of events and question such choices based on political agendas and inadequate evidence.
Posts
Comments
Post a Comment