By Hüseyin DOĞRU
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Built to fight foreign interference, Europe’s security apparatus is now turning on its own people. Muslims and critics of Israel are first in line.
On 8 October 2026, the European Parliament passed a deeply Islamophobic resolution on “Islamist entryism”. Behind the text is the hand of the European People’s Party, the conservative bloc that holds sway over EU politics. Backed by the liberals of Renew Europe and the far right, it was put to a vote and passed 381 to 167. The resolution is put forward as a way to shield European democracy from extremists, but its provisions are enough to give pause to anyone with an eye on the future of our rights and freedoms in Europe.
Take for instance the matter of “hatred of Israel”. The resolution puts this undefined notion forward as an indicator of ideological radicalisation, while also sounding the alarm on the “instrumentalisation of anti-discrimination frameworks”. One has to wonder at the implications: does this mean that a campaign against discrimination or even criticism of a state under accusation for war crimes can be subsumed under the EU’s widening net of security threats?
This resolution is more than an assault on a Muslim population already demonised in Europe; it is part of a broader, unexamined shift in the Union where dissent is viewed with suspicion. I am living with the consequences of it.
From foreign interference to domestic dissent
For years, the EU has been building a security apparatus around the alleged threats of disinformation, foreign interference and hybrid warfare.
Central to this is Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI), a framework developed largely in response to “Russian information operations”. The EU’s diplomatic service describes FIMI as a “mostly non-illegal” pattern of behaviour that can negatively affect political processes and values.
The definition is telling in what it leaves out. Political officials, not judicial ones, are left to decide what constitutes a manipulation of European values and what does not. What becomes of political critique and journalism when their arbitrary judgments are applied?
In May 2025, the EU sanctioned me and my media company, red., under its Russia-related hybrid-threats regime. My alleged offence was my journalism, particularly my coverage of Palestine solidarity protests in Germany, which the EU claims supported Russia’s efforts to destabilise Europe. The evidence against me consists of screenshots of factual posts from red. and my personal social media accounts, most of them reporting or criticism of German domestic and foreign policy. Not one page of the evidence dossier so much as mentions Russia.
Without a criminal charge, trial or conviction, my bank accounts were frozen and I was banned from working and travelling.
Then there is the question of administrative sanctions. The EU will say due process is observed since one can take them to court, but by the time a judge is sitting in on the case the damage has been done. Livelihoods are in ruins, bank accounts frozen and lives in disarray, all while the sanctioned individual endures years of expensive and politicised legal wrangling to have restrictions lifted. It is an extraordinary power to wield; the punishment is meted out first and the chance to contest it later, with no need to prove criminality. Violate a sanction and you face prosecution and prison, even if your only offence was buying nappies for your own babies, which could be deemed to have circumvented the rules.
On 8 October, the same day Parliament voted on “Islamist entryism”, the EU Council renewed the sanctions regime I am listed under until October 2027 and reinstated the reasons for my listing. The new text still describes the protesters whose university occupation red. covered as “anti-Israel rioters”. To justify the renewal, the Council cited a Parliament report from September on hybrid threats. One institution supplies the political mood, another uses that mood to put names like mine on a list.
The enemy within
The Islamist entryism resolution takes this logic in another direction. “Entryism” refers to political groups infiltrating established institutions to influence them from within. In this case, the Parliament warns that Islamist networks are using charities, youth organisations, universities and other parts of civil society to gain influence over European politics. The idea was imported from Paris; the resolution leans on a May 2025 report by the French interior ministry, the same ministry that once governed Algeria’s Muslims as colonial subjects.
The threat is no longer just a foreign power supposedly interfering in European affairs. Now the EU is turning its attention to an enemy within.
The phrase has a history. In July 1984, Margaret Thatcher told Conservative backbenchers that Britain had fought the “enemy without” in the Falklands and now faced the “enemy within”. She meant the striking miners.
The way in which the resolution singles out “hatred of Israel” as a sign of radicalisation without defining the term is noteworthy. A couple of paragraphs on it concedes this is not a bar to “legitimate criticism” of the state, yet it offers no guidance on how the line between the two will be drawn, or by whom. Since when has hostility to a government been cause for suspecting extremism? Or are we to assume Europeans must love Israel? One might ask whose interests are really being served. The European Commission tells us the EU was Israel’s top trading partner in 2024, with €42.6 billion in goods. To call for an end to that trade or an arms embargo is not a danger to democracy, but to the business interests of Europe.
Working with other organisations, maintaining certain associations or allegedly misusing anti-discrimination campaigns can also become grounds for suspicion. Among the warning signs the resolution lists are “the recurrence of certain partnerships”, “proximity to already identified networks” and even “the production of activist reports”.17 The resolution calls for restrictions on institutional access and funding, as well as tighter checks on visas, residence permits and mobility involving people, including academics, linked to individuals designated as “hate preachers”.
Even the European Network Against Racism is cast in doubt, its funding said to raise “serious questions”. When an anti-racism body is conflated with entryism, the whole concept is made to look suspect. Under the terms of the resolution, a professor could be slapped with travel restrictions because of a tenuous association with a so-called “hate preacher”, having broken no law in the process. We have seen this sort of thing before. In 1972, Germany’s Radikalenerlass saw the domestic intelligence service vet some 3.5 million public sector applicants. Communists and others on the left were dismissed or denied their jobs as teachers, postmen or train drivers for who they were rather than any act they had committed.
The resolution also tells us which Muslims Europe is willing to tolerate. It promises support for “Muslim representatives” who defend democratic values and resist “Islamist pressure”.22 The good Muslim, in other words, is the one the state approves of.
Not being legally binding does not make the resolution any less alarming. The Parliament has rubber-stamped the idea that lawful activity is a security risk, laying the groundwork for enforceable restrictions down the line. The same rationale once used to counter foreign interference is now being turned on organisations and people here in Europe.
Repression in the name of democracy
Both the FIMI sanctions regime and the Islamist entryism resolution are justified in the name of defending democracy and protecting European values. Yet the EU is increasingly treating the exercise of those very freedoms as grounds for suspicion.
None of this is happening in a vacuum. Europe is rearming on a scale not seen since the Cold War (the Commission’s ReArm Europe plan alone aims to mobilise up to €800 billion) while standing by Israel through the destruction of Gaza. A state preparing for war needs a quiet home front. Those who object, to genocide abroad or to paying for rearmament with cuts at home, have to be recast as foreign agents or fifth columnists.
What counts as “hatred of Israel”? Who decides when fighting discrimination becomes “instrumentalising” it? When does criticism of EU foreign policy become foreign interference? And how many connections does it take before a journalist, academic or activist is branded a security threat?
These are not abstract questions for those of us already living with the consequences. The EU’s authoritarian turn exposes the limits of its professed liberal values, where freedom of expression and political participation are celebrated until they challenge the interests of capital and the states that serve it. Liberal democracies have always kept a second rulebook in the drawer, for strikers, communists and the colonised.
What began as a campaign against foreign interference is increasingly being turned against dissent at home, with Muslims and critics of Israel, already among the most marginalised and harassed people in Europe, first in the firing line. But they won’t be the last. Trade unionists, climate activists and anyone who stands in the way of the war economy should take note.
While Europe’s political establishment continues to congratulate itself on defending democracy, the machinery for silencing its opponents is being built in plain sight.
Original article: braveneweurope.com
Those concerns intersect with a European Parliament resolution adopted on October 8th calling for a coordinated response to what MEPs describe as “Islamist entryism”. The connection concerns overlapping organisations and questions of influence, not an established explanation for the violence.
The chronology matters. Parliament adopted its resolution nine days before the October 17th violence described in France. The vote was therefore not a response to those events. It reflected an existing concern among a parliamentary majority that Islamist networks could use associations, educational initiatives and institutional partnerships to build political influence within Europe.
Tabled by the European People’s Party, the resolution passed by 381 votes to 167, with 15 abstentions. It calls for closer scrutiny of EU funding, stronger checks on institutional partnerships and an assessment of whether individuals or entities linked to the Muslim Brotherhood meet the legal criteria for inclusion on the EU terrorist list.
The clearest organisational overlap is the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations, or FEMYSO. On October 9th, the organisation publicly supported students demonstrating in France and Belgium, calling for better educational conditions, adequate funding and protection of peaceful assembly. Its statement framed the mobilisation as a campaign over education and fundamental rights.
FEMYSO also features explicitly in Parliament’s resolution. MEPs criticised its invitation to the European Parliament on September 21st by members of The Left and the Greens. They called for organisations they associate with the Council of European Muslims, including FEMYSO, to be denied access to EU institutions, removed from the EU Transparency Register and excluded from institutional events where participation could legitimise alleged Brotherhood-linked influence strategies. These are Parliament’s assessments and demands, rather than judicial findings.
In France, the Washington Examiner has reported that Étudiants Musulmans de France, or EMF, repeatedly promoted the demonstrations through social media. The newspaper describes EMF as a FEMYSO member and reports allegations of Muslim Brotherhood connections, which EMF denies. Its reporting places the organisation within the debate over mobilisation and ideological influence.
The resolution’s significance lies partly in its focus on networks rather than formal membership alone. Parliament argues that political influence can operate through recurring partnerships, opaque financing, associated organisations and structures reconstituted under new names. It wants a common European methodology for identifying such patterns, rather than relying solely on whether an organisation formally declares an affiliation.
For the European Commission, the principal requests concern money and transparency. MEPs want an overview of EU funds awarded to people or entities suspected of Brotherhood or political-Islam links, alongside greater traceability through funding chains and stronger checks on partners and beneficiaries. Parliament also calls for scrutiny of foreign funding and transnational partnerships, particularly those involving actors linked to Qatar or Türkiye.
Those requests must be distinguished from decisions already taken. The non-binding resolution does not itself ban the Muslim Brotherhood, designate FEMYSO as a terrorist organisation or automatically withdraw funding. It asks the Council to assess possible terrorist listings under the applicable legal criteria and urges the Commission to use existing financial safeguards. Further action would require separate institutional decisions.
The European debate does not remove the French government’s responsibility to explain its handling of the unrest. Reuters reports that Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu acknowledged intelligence and deployment failures, while Interior Minister Laurent Nunez also accepted a share of responsibility. Authorities have assigned 200 investigators to identify those involved in the violence, and parliament is establishing an inquiry into the disorder.
Nor does scrutiny of ideological networks resolve the grievances behind peaceful mobilisation. Student demands over educational conditions and public funding remain substantive political questions. Treating all demonstrators as participants in an Islamist project would obscure the diversity of the movement and make it harder to distinguish legitimate advocacy from attempts at political exploitation.
Parliament’s own resolution draws an important boundary: it states that Islam must not be equated with political Islamism and that protecting Muslim citizens from discrimination is a democratic obligation. That distinction should guide any investigation of organisations, funding or institutional access. Scrutiny must concern identifiable conduct and demonstrable relationships, not religious identity.
France’s unrest and Parliament’s vote meet at a question of accountability: how should democratic institutions examine organisations seeking influence within legitimate social movements, and what evidence should justify restrictions on funding or access?
The answer cannot rest on association alone. Investigators must establish who committed or directed violence; EU institutions must examine funding and partnerships against clear legal standards; and governments must address the public-service grievances that brought peaceful demonstrators onto the streets.
The October 8th vote gives political weight to closer European scrutiny of alleged Brotherhood-linked networks. France’s unrest makes careful scrutiny more urgent—but also makes precision more important. A credible response must distinguish political advocacy from covert influence, and both from criminal responsibility.
The first state to be ruled by Al Qaeda might not be in Afghanistan or the Arab world—and its ruler might be a former whiskey-drinking rock star. In April, the Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims ("JNIM" in Arabic) led an uprising in the African nation of Mali, killing Defense Minister Sadio Camara, breaking open a prison holding thousands of inmates, and besieging Bamako, the capital. The fighting was still underway as of August.
Mali is not the only place threatened by a JNIM takeover. The West African branch of Al Qaeda is active in a belt of countries known as the Sahel. Its leader, Iyad Ag Ghali, was the former percussionist for the rock band Tinariwen. He now leads a campaign to stamp out the "music of Satan." Perhaps the one saving grace for Sahelian metalheads is that puritans can't get along with each other: The JNIM is locked in a war with the rival Islamic State Sahel Province.
The Sahelian civil wars are a testament to the failure of the global war on terror. Despite spending $355 billion on African counterterrorism from 2001 to 2021, the U.S. government has been unable to stop Al Qaeda or related Islamist groups from taking root across the continent. A study by the Pentagon's Africa Center for Strategic Studies found a 101,300 percent increase in terrorism fatalities from 2002 to 2022, mostly concentrated in the Sahel and Somalia.
These wars demonstrate that the solution to terrorism isn't maximum violence. President Donald Trump launched four times as many airstrikes against Somalia in his first 18 months of his second term as the U.S. did over the past four years combined. U.S. military aid has flowed to repressive governments across Africa with little respect for their citizens' rights. Since 2020, there have been coups d'etat across the Sahel by military men promising that they can do the dirty work that civilian leaders are afraid of. Many of them were trained by the U.S. government. The new regimes have imported Russian mercenaries with a reputation for brutality and no real restraints on their activities.
"People need to forget about the question of democracy," Ibrahim Traoré, leader of Burkina Faso, declared in April.
Instead of restoring order, these heavy-handed tactics have caused more chaos. The military juntas in the Sahel are plainly losing to the JNIM. While the Russian fighters have no difficulties massacring civilians or mutilating prisoners, they have found it much harder to face people who can actually shoot back, facing repeated battlefield humiliations. Meanwhile, the U.S.-led campaign against al-Shabab, the Somali branch of Al Qaeda, has stalled out despite the heavier use of airpower.
The African war on terror began shortly after the U.S. campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. To some extent, the U.S. created the very threats that it is trying to fight in Africa. Somalia had been at civil war since the fall of socialism, and in the early 2000s, the CIA began funding Somali warlords to stop the rise of Islamist revolutionaries. The (relatively moderate) Islamic Courts Union took over anyway in 2006—uniting Somalia for the first time in more than a decade—and the U.S. encouraged neighboring Ethiopia to invade. When al-Shabab emerged to fight the Ethiopian invaders, the U.S. tapped a former leader of the Islamic Courts Union to lead a new Somali government.
Soon after the Ethiopian-Somali war, President George W. Bush created the Pentagon's Africa Command, and Congress budgeted $500 million in aid to militaries in the Sahara Desert and the Sahel. At the time, the main Islamist threat to that region was a mostly defeated insurgency in Algeria.
But the Libyan civil war in 2011 created terrible new monsters. Soon after President Barack Obama intervened in support of the Libyan revolution, weapons and hardened fighters from Libya flooded the ethnic Tuareg region of Mali, which declared independence a few months later. Soon after, Al Qaeda and its affiliates took over the Tuareg rebellion. With the Malian government coming close to collapse, France intervened in January 2013 and made many of the same mistakes that the U.S. did in its own war on terror.
Ag Ghali, the current leader of the JNIM, got his start as a Tuareg nationalist. A leaked U.S. embassy cable from 2008 called him a "proverbial bad penny" who enjoyed "playing both sides" and had ties to Islamist and secular nationalist rebels. By the time of the French intervention, he was fully committed to Islamic theocracy. In 2017, he united Islamist rebels across the Sahel under the banner of Al Qaeda. That same year, four U.S. Special Forces troops were killed in Niger by the Islamic State group, which was busy uniting Ag Ghali's rivals.
Despite the failures of the Sahelian governments to stop Ag Ghali—and their willingness to ally with Russia—the Trump administration is eager to double down on supporting them. The U.S. government increased intelligence sharing with Mali in 2025, and as of July it was considering a direct military intervention against the JNIM, according to The Washington Post. But every American escalation on the continent has produced the enemy that the next one had to fight.
The post America Is Spending Billions To Fight the War on Terror in Africa. The Terrorists Are Winning. appeared first on Reason Magazine.
© Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times
A group of gunmen stormed a Christian church in Jordan during a funeral Friday, killing nine people and injuring more than two dozen, according to authorities.
The shooting took place at a Greek Orthodox church in Karak, about 55 miles south of the capital, Amman.
Jordanian Health Minister Ibrahim al-Budour said Saturday that one critically injured patient remained hospitalized at Prince Ali Military Hospital in unstable condition.
Government spokesperson Mohammad Momani said Saturday the attackers subscribed to "extremist takfiri ideology," which brands people who reject a strict interpretation of Islam as apostates or nonbelievers. Terrorist groups such as ISIS have invoked takfiri beliefs to justify killing Muslims, Christians and Jews.
BISHOP ROBERT BARRON: THE WAR ON CHRISTIANS IS REAL, AND THE WORLD CAN NO LONGER STAY SILENT
Karak is home to a sizable Christian minority, and Momani sought to emphasize that Christians are "part of Jordan's national fabric."
It remains unclear whether the gunmen were affiliated with any terror group, and Jordanian authorities have not announced any arrests in connection with the attack.
Footage shown on Jordanian state television showed two gunmen armed with what appeared to be pistols approaching the church and opening fire, The Associated Press reported.
A third man carrying what appeared to be a semiautomatic rifle joined them moments later, before all three rushed toward the church.
TWO SUSPECTED GUNMEN DEAD, TWO IDF SOLDIERS KILLED IN WEST BANK SHOOTING
Photos and videos from witnesses show broken glass and pools of blood inside the church. After the location was secured by police, two bodies covered with blankets were seen outside the church.
Dorgham Halasa told the AP that intense gunfire erupted in the church some 15 minutes after the funeral service began. People began running, he said.
Halasa said he didn't see the gunmen but said others he spoke with reported seeing at least four of them. Jordanian authorities had not confirmed the number of attackers as of Saturday.
On Friday, King Abdullah II said Jordan will "confront the terrorist act that targeted Karak with the harshest penalties."
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
"Whoever imagines that the bullets of treachery can divide the ranks of Jordanians will fail in his endeavor before our steadfastness and unity," he added. "Our deepest condolences to the families of the martyrs, and our wishes for recovery to the wounded."
Jordan announced three days of national mourning after the attack, according to the state-run Petra News Agency.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The riots in France and across Europe are a direct assault on Western civilisation, fuelled by decades of 'progressive' denigration of our cultural inheritance and the sowing of division, says Kevin Donnelly.
The post Riots in France Are an Attack on Western Civilisation appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
© Pool photo by Robin Buckson
Saudi Arabia executed two Bangladeshis on October 14 but Dhaka’s response was conspicuously restrained. Its consulate in Jeddah reportedly sought formal confirmation and the foreign ministry requested details. Officials then reassured Riyadh that bilateral relations would remain unaffected. Public sentiment, reflected in a flood of angry and frustrated social media posts, stands in sharp contrast […]
The post Dhaka’s silence on Saudi executions puts remittances over lives appeared first on Asia Times.
Le Pen leads with 32-36%. France’s minorities are preparing their exit.
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
According to an Ifop poll for the newspaper Marianne, nearly half of Muslims and Jews would consider leaving the country if Marine Le Pen were to emerge victorious in the presidential election next year. 20% of them would “certainly” do so.
Which candidate would cause you to leave France? This is one of the questions posed by the Ifop poll for Marianne, released on Thursday, October 15. The study reveals that a significant proportion of Muslims and Jews say they are prepared to leave the country if Marine Le Pen wins the 2027 presidential election.
Some 46% of that number are planning “leaving France to settle in another country,” while 20% say they will “certainly” take the plunge. More broadly, 40% of younger French people say they have made plans to leave. Among voters of La France Insoumise, the figure rises to 43%. Furthermore, 44% of Jewish citizens responded that they would consider leaving the country.
Marine Le Pen’s rise to power could create “significant obstacles” and generate “high levels of fear and insecurity,” Francois Kraus, director of the political division at Ifop, explained to journalists. More than eight out of ten Muslims fear an “increase in attacks and discrimination” against them. This concern is particularly relevant in the context of the National Rally’s plan to ban the wearing of the Islamic veil in public spaces. Confirmed at the end of August by MP Jean-Philippe Tanguy, the new measure would impose stiff fines on offenders and is expected to be included in Marine Le Pen’s platform for the 2027 presidential election. To circumvent the legal hurdles that such a ban might encounter, the presidential candidate is reportedly considering putting it to a referendum.
Meanwhile, only 27% of Muslim respondents would be willing to “conceal [their] religious affiliation on a daily basis,” for example, by ceasing to wear the headdress in public (18%). More broadly, 41% of those surveyed, regardless of their religion, would refuse to “respect laws” they consider “unjust.” This distrust affects three out of four Jean-Luc Melenchon voters and nearly half of civil servants (45%). According to the latest Ifop-Fiducial poll, Marine Le Pen maintains a significant lead in the first round. Depending on the scenario, the National Rally candidate is in first place with between 32% and 36% of the total vote.
While Le pen has remained antagonistic towards Islam in France, she has often cast herself as a protector of the Jewish people in the country.
In 2024, she remarked, “The best shield for French people of the Jewish faith is the National Rally. It is the only movement that has the will, the conviction and the means to fight Islamist fundamentalism, which is the major danger facing them.”
Yet, nearly as many Jews said they would leave the country under a Le Pen presidency as Muslims.
Schools in north-eastern Italy have banned pork products in school meals to make them acceptable to Muslim migrants, meaning traditional dishes like prosciutto, porchetta and pasta all’amatriciana are off the menu.
The post Pork Banned in Italy’s New Muslim-Friendly School Meals appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
An activist who painted Churchill red was cleared of criminal damage and juries have deadlocked over alleged support for Hamas. What’s to be done when jurors reject the moral premises of the law, asks Anna Stanley.
The post Jury Trials on Trial: Can Justice Survive Political Polarisation? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Nearly half of Muslim and Jewish respondents in a major French poll say they would consider leaving the country if Marine Le Pen wins the 2027 presidential election, according to an exclusive Ifop survey for the magazine Marianne.
The poll found that 46 percent of respondents identifying as Muslim would contemplate “leaving France to settle in another country” under a Le Pen presidency. Of those, 20 percent said they would “certainly” take that step. By comparison, 21 percent of the overall population expressed a similar willingness to leave.
The figure is part of a broader set of findings on identity, secularism, and anticipated reactions to a National Rally (RN) victory. Eighty-one percent of Muslim respondents believed a Le Pen win would lead to a rise in discrimination against their community. Twenty-seven percent said they would consider concealing their religious identity in daily life, including 18 percent who would stop wearing the veil in public.
Similar sentiments appeared in other groups polled.
Forty percent of the youngest cohort of French voters, 43 percent of France Unbowed (LFI) voters, and 44 percent of Jewish respondents said they would consider leaving. The survey also recorded elevated support for civil disobedience in some cohorts. For instance, substantial shares indicated they would refuse to respect laws they viewed as unjust.
Notably, while Le Pen has been antagonistic towards Islam in France, she has often cast herself as a protector of Jewish life in the country.
In 2024, she said, “The best shield for French people of the Jewish faith is the National Rally. It is the only movement that has the will, the conviction and the means to fight Islamist fundamentalism, which is the major danger facing them.”
Yet, nearly as many Jews said they would leave the country as Muslims.
Le meilleur bouclier pour les Français de confession juive, c’est le Rassemblement National. C’est le seul mouvement qui a la volonté, la conviction et les moyens de lutter contre le fondamentalisme islamiste qui est le danger majeur qui pèse sur eux. https://t.co/pggWHgzITu
— Marine Le Pen (@MLP_officiel) May 6, 2024
François Kraus, director of the Politics and Current Affairs division at Ifop, described the results: “The arrival in power of the candidate favored by the polls risks creating significant obstacles and generates high levels of fear and a sense of insecurity.”
The National Rally has long advocated tighter controls on immigration, greater priority for French nationals in housing and employment, and restrictions on Islamic veiling in public spaces. Le Pen has indicated she would not impose an immediate ban on the veil upon taking office but would put broader restrictions to a national referendum.
Previous Ifop work has documented rising religiosity and support for more rigorous interpretations of Islam among younger French Muslims, including significant shares prioritizing Islamic norms over French civil law on issues such as inheritance or ritual slaughter in certain scenarios. Remix News reported on this poll last year.
Figures on the right treated these results as evidence of failed integration and the dangers of demographic change.
Currently, Le Pen has frequently led first-round voting intention polls, making her the favorite to win the presidential election.
It is important to note that many groups claim they will leave a country if their preferred candidate does not win an election, but actually leaving is an entirely different story. The 46 percent figure for Muslims and 44 percent for Jews is only an expressed willingness or contemplation in a hypothetical scenario, not concrete plans to leave France.
The reality is that family ties, employment, and economic realities mean that leaving is far harder in practice.
The post Nearly half of Muslims and Jews would consider leaving France if Le Pen wins 2027 presidential election: poll appeared first on Remix News.
Khan is set to replace Smith as the most popular surname for newborns next year following a surge in immigration and a decline in the native birth rate, according to an analysis of official data.
The post Khan to Overtake Smith as Most Common English Surname appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
If the day should ever come where Islamophobia gets concrete legal backing in Europe, it could be soon.
The European Parliament (EP) just voted to “condemn the strategies of Islamist entryism” and to develop ways to disrupt Muslim political movements in a resolution on 8 October.
Some 381 out of 720 MEPs worry Muslims are seeking to infiltrate democratic institutions, weaken European rule of law, gender equality, and what they deemed “European values”.
And almost every one of the centre-right and rightwing MEPs in the house voted to surveil EU funding for anti-racism organisations, so as to ensure none of it gets into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The brotherhood is a transnational Muslim group founded in 1928 in Egypt, involved in religious revival, social welfare, and political activism.
But according to a French government memo from May 2025, as well as the EP resolution, it is guilty of “entryism”, to sabotage French democracy.
The EP resolution and French memo were dubbed “a political witch-hunt targeting racialised people – particularly Muslim, migrant and refugee communities” by academics and civil society, like the European Network Against Racism (ENAR).
The group called the EP motion “a stain” on the EU Parliament, belonging “within the tradition of discredited far-right conspiracy theories.”
ENAR is among those the EU has sought to defund, due to rightwing views that its work aligns with Islamist threats.
The Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations (FEMYSO), a pan-European anti-Islamophobic group, which also risks EU defunding, said it had faced “relentless targeting and demonisation.”
Young Muslims in Europe were being forced “to choose between their identity and their right to belong,” FEMYSO president Hiba Latreche told EUobserver.
And the EP “witch-hunt” resolution, which was drafted by the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) group and authored by its French MEP, Céline Imart, comes at a bad time for this demographic.
Advocacy group Collective Against Islamophobia in Europe (CCIE) recently looked at 876 incidents of anti-Muslim hatred in Europe in 2025.
Four out of five incidents targeted Muslim women, 41 percent of which involved discrimination or violence linked to their headscarves.
Disturbingly, the documented episodes “occur predominantly in public or institutional spaces, highlighting the persistence of forms of institutional racism.”
But seeing as the EU Commission’s own anti-Muslim hatred group has been inactive since 2024, the prevailing view in Brussels appears to be that rampant Islamophobia in the EU is less of a problem than the imputed influence of a nebulous Islamic movement from Egypt, which is better known for providing social care to deprived communities, than aiming to overthrow French president Emmanuel Macron.
The EP motion did not legally bind the European Commission to propose new anti-Muslim Brotherhood measures.
But it did enforce a stereotype of Muslims “as acting in a nefarious, dangerous, anti-democratic manner, until proven otherwise,” said Omran Shroufi, a political science researcher at the Free University of Brussels.
Rightwing EU politics is pushing young European Muslims into a lose-lose, or Catch 22 situation.
The notion of “entryism holds Muslims to an impossible standard, where non-participation in public life is a sign of disinterestedness, a lack of civic duty and the growth of parallel societies, whilst active engagement in civic life is treated with suspicion,” Shroufi told EUobserver.
The centre-right EPP group used to represent a moderate EU mainstream.
But now it had joined with open racists on Europe’s far right to be “effectively calling for an institutionalised form of discrimination, where Muslim communities need to prove their European and democratic values – whatever these are supposed to mean – before being allowed a seat at a table,” Shroufi said.
Why bother knowing anything when you can just study yourself? Steven Tucker charts the gloriously fraudulent rise of academic 'Me-Search'.
The post Get a Grant, Study Your Own Skull: The Self-Obsessed Rise of Academic ‘Me-Search’ appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
British imams are openly preaching that husbands can beat wives who refuse sex – and the police are doing almost nothing about it.
The post The British Imams Telling Men to Beat Their Wives for Refusing Sex appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
A video is making the rounds in French social media showing a group of French youngsters profaning a church while chanting a rap song that glorifies the Islamic terrorists Mohamed Merah and Salah Abdeslam.
The post French Youngsters Chant Rap-Hymn to Islamic Terrorists While Profaning Church appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Comedy clubs are begging for taxpayer bailouts, the BBC is censoring classic sketches and Muslim activists are trying to ban John Cleese. British comedy is becoming less funny by the day, says Steven Tucker.
The post The Tragedy of British Comedy appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Login