France: Human Rights vs. The People

French politicians seem to believe they are elected NOT to defend French people and the French nation, but to impose a “human rights ideology” on society.

On August 13, the Administrative Court in Nice, France, validated the decision of the Mayor of Cannes to prohibit wearing religious clothing on the beaches of Cannes. By “religious clothing,” the judge clearly seemed to be pointing his finger at the burkini, a body-covering bathing suit worn by many Muslim women.

These “Muslim textile affairs” reveal two types of jihad attacking France: one hard, one soft. The hard jihad, internationally known, consists of assassinating journalists of Charlie Hebdo (January 2015), Jewish people at the Hypercacher supermarket (January 2015) and young people at the Bataclan Theater, restaurants and the Stade de France (November 2015). The hard jihad also included stabbing two policeman in Magnanville, a suburb of Paris, (June 2016); truck-ramming to death 84 people in Nice on Bastille Day (July 14), and murdering a priest in the church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, among other incidents. The goal of hard jihad, led by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and others, is to impose sharia by terror.

The soft jihad is different. It does not involve murdering people, but its final goal is the same: to impose Islam on France by covering the country in Islamic symbols — veils, burqas, burkinis and so on — at all levels of the society…

The same jihad is being waged in Canada aided and abetted by the asshole in Ottawa.

  • Mark DeFord Eletion

    “French politicians seem to believe they are elected NOT to defend French people and the French nation, but to impose a “human rights ideology” on society.”

    Not just the French. That same ideology is pervasive in most, if not all, western “democracies”.

    There is a big problem with that ideology. It fails to recognize human rights of the majority, where there is any minority group aggressively claiming to have some kind of disadvantage. To remedy that, minority groups are given artificial advantages. Under that ideology, how long should those advantages be given? Until the minority group becomes the majority, takes power, and on its own, stops complaining of being disadvantaged, gives up its previously awarded artificial advantages, and bestows them on a genuine minority. That new minority would include the former majority.

    But there is no guarantee that a former minority group would ever do all of that, or even any of it.

    The basic idea of democracy is that majority opinion should rule. In the west today, minority opinion rules.

    • The centre cannot hold. The cultural marxism of the human rights industry ultimately eats its own.

  • A Hamilton Guy

    I’m thinking of getting a fairly large dog. He WILL be well trained. On his daily walks we may possibly pass the shiny new mosque being built around the corner. Being a dog, he will probably do what dogs do on any post available. Will they be offended?