Why a Jewish exodus from Europe is the beginning of the end of our civilisation

ADMIT it. Like me, you’re prejudiced. In my case I call it ‘detestophobia’ – a visceral loathing of those who hate others, simply based on their creed, colour or religion.

So what’s yours? People of Afro origin, wily Oriental gentlemen – from whom we supposedly derived the odious acronym WOG – or that enduring favourite, the Jews?

All discrimination is irrational, but some hatreds are beyond absurd, like a woman I once met with a prejudice against redheads, since she believed it a trademark of Celtic ancestry and she loathed the Irish.

At the Simon Wiesenthal Centre’s Museum of Tolerance, in Los Angeles, it’s assumed everyone harbours bigotry by degrees; it’s just a matter of pricking consciences to out it.

After a brief welcome – and before inviting visitors to enter through one of two doors – the guide says, ‘Search your hearts and honestly pick whichever best identifies you.’

Above one door is a sign marked: ‘Prejudiced’; above the other is one beckoning the ‘Unprejudiced’.

After an uneasy pause for reflection, visitors unanimously elect the door marked ‘Prejudiced’. It’s as well they do, because the portal marked ‘Unprejudiced’ is locked.

Named in honour of the legendary Nazi hunter, the centre’s mission is to generate change through education by not only confronting the scourge of anti-Semitism – the world’s oldest hatred – but all forms of prejudice, while promoting human rights and dignity for all.

VISION OF EVIL: 'If we had no Jews we'd have to invent them', said Hitler

VISION OF EVIL: ‘If Jews didn’t exist, we’d have to invent them’, said Hitler

It’s a noble, praiseworthy aim. But 70 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the death camp where millions of Jews perished – alongside homosexuals, opponents of the Nazis, the mentally and physically disabled, and others branded as subhuman ‘untermenschen’ – the Wiesenthal Centre’s challenge for mankind to confront horrors its racism unleashed is being ignored, forgotten or defied.

The exhortation ‘Never again’ is being replaced by ‘Whenever again’, nowhere more so than in Europe, cradle of the Enlightenment yet crucible of persecution and intolerance.

And, once again, Jews are at the forefront of loathing, almost to the extent that anti-Semitism is trendy, whether it emanates from the malevolent Left or the putrid far-Right.

For two millennia Jews bobbed like corks on the tide of societies wherever they chanced to settle, their existence an ongoing litmus test of how civilised a civilisation purported to be.

Few, if any, European nations can take historical pride in how they treated their Jewish citizens, irrespective of the huge contributions Jews made to all aspects of the fabric of their societies – from culture, commerce and science to political philosophy, philanthropy and inter-faith cohesion.

Yet, they have never ceased to be less than handy scapegoats to divert the masses attention away from the real causes of their misery – greedy, ruthless, oppressive overlords.

As Hitler noted, ‘If the Jews didn’t exist, we’d have to invent them.’

Inexplicably, in defiance of the lessons of history, anti-Semitism never entirely disappears, but morphs into contemporary formats.

Today the existence of Israel is a neat overlay on the vile, old tapestry of Jew hatred, since it can be sanitised as ‘anti-Zionism’ and the Jewish people’s ancient right to a state can be twisted into a vindictive denial that an historical wrong should be righted.

This is a particular hobbyhorse of the Left, who, rather than praise the only flourishing democracy in the cauldron of Middle East hate, revile it for having the temerity to succeed.

Instead, squaring this circle of lunacy, holier-than-thou, pseudo-liberals regard as a cause célèbre murderous terrorists, who slaughter political opponents, persecute Christians, execute homosexuals and denigrate women in the name of a 7th Century credo.

Such hypocrisy was repellently evident in BBC reporter Tim Willcox’s interview with the daughter of Holocaust survivors during the memorial march in Paris two weeks ago, commemorating the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the slaying by an Islamo-fanatic of four Jews in a kosher supermarket.

Standing with her Muslim friend, the woman reflected on how afraid French Jews felt, noting, ‘The situation is going back to the days of the 1930s in Europe.’

Willcox replied crassly, ‘Many critics of Israel’s policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well.’

BIASED BROADCASTER: The BBC's Tim Willcox incensed viewers with his crass comments during the Charlie Hebdo commemorations in Paris

WILLCOX COCKS UP: The BBC’s Tim Willcox incensed viewers over his crass comments to a Jewish woman during the Charlie Hebdo commemorations

Conflating the Israel-Arab conflict with the murders of French Jews in France was just the sort of inane slur that features all too often in radical Left media, of which BBC News is a leading light.

And, after a wave of condemnation, Willcox’s lame, Tweeted apology – ‘Really sorry for any offence caused by a poorly phrased question…it was entirely unintentional’ – cut little ice with incensed viewers, since he is no stranger to similar controversy.

Many well remember, last November, a BBC News 24 debate when political guru Jo Phillips suggested to him that UK Labour leader, Ed Miliband, was losing the support of that well-worn racist canard, the so-called ‘Jewish lobby’.

Far from condemning her inflammatory remark, Willcox added tinder to the flames, saying, ‘And a lot of these prominent Jewish faces will be very much against the mansion tax (one of Labour’s promises if it wins the May 7 UK General Election).’

If similar sentiments had been aired against Muslims, I’d imagine Willcox would probably be job-seeking.

At best, though, the hideous events of Paris awakened a consciousness that Jews are still a barometer of how civilised is an entity that professes itself a civilisation.

Manuel Valls, the Prime Minister of France – which has a long and dishonourable record for its treatment of Jews – insisted the country needs to protect its 500,000-strong Jewish community, ‘lest France itself be destroyed.’

But, with synagogues, Jewish schools and institutions now guarded 24/7 by the military, it is a damning indictment of a nation whose motto is ‘Liberty, equality and fraternity.’ Small wonder Jews are leaving France in droves.

ANTI ANTI-SEMITISM: Theresa May, the UK interior minister, joins the outrage against the rise of Jew hatred across Europe

ANTI ANTI-SEMITISM: Theresa May, the UK interior minister, joins the outrage against the rise of Jew hatred across Europe

Uber-liberal Sweden – where Jews fear displaying any outward sign of their faith, like a skullcap or Star of David – is little better, as are other European nations with open-door immigration policies.

In Britain, anti-Semitic attacks trebled in 2014, prompting Interior Minister, Theresa May to lament, ‘I never thought I would see the day when members of the Jewish community would say they were fearful of remaining here.’

But, arguably the most telling comment came from Frans Timmermans, vice president of the European Commission, who recalled that mistreatment of Jews had always been a harbinger of ‘trouble ahead for European societies.’

What is lost in the hand-wringing is, one way or another, the Jews are not alone as a minority, because, one way or another, we all are members of one – even if it boils down to having ginger hair.

Which is why I recall the words of anti-Nazi German theologian and concentration camp internee, Pastor Martin Niemöller, who noted, ‘First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.’

Advertisements

Britain needs no lectures on human rights from Europe’s bullying court

Charles Dickens expressed his low esteem for the legal system in Oliver Twist, by penning the immortal line, ‘The law is an ass.’

If the European Court of Human Rights had existed in Victorian England, the great novelist and social commentator might have reached a far more withering verdict…that it is a bullying buffoon, for too long arrogantly riding roughshod over the laws and parliamentary voices of its 47 member states with thuggish zeal from its ivory tower in Strasbourg.

And last week it proved beyond a scintilla of doubt it’s no longer fit for purpose by upholding appeals against ‘life-means-life’ sentences by three of the most callous, brutal murderers ever brought to justice.

One was Jeremy Bamber, who, in 1986, murdered five members of his family – including his parents and two young nephews – in a bid to snatch a large inheritance. He even tried to pin the crimes on his mentally ill sister, whom he also shot.

Another, Douglas Vinter, stabbed his wife to death in 2008, less than three years after being released from jail for a previous murder.

The third, Peter Moore, killed four gay men in 1995 for perverted sexual gratification.

Yet, in their blustering inanity, the Euro judges decided that whole-life tariffs, which force murderers to die in jail, are ‘inhuman and degrading’.

Naturally, they ignored the ‘inhuman and degrading’ treatment meted out to the victims or the sentiments of the British people and lawmakers, who believe certain heinous criminals are beyond redemption.

The ECHR also failed to take into account that, after abolishing capital punishment in 1965, life sentences sometimes meant lifers would go the distance and currently 49 are subject to that fate.

MULTIPLE MURDERER: Jeremy Bamber killed five of his own family, but the ECHR rules his 'life-means-life' sentence breaches his human rights

MULTIPLE MURDERER: Jeremy Bamber killed five of his family, but the ECHR ruled his ‘life-means-life’ sentence breaches his human rights

Inevitably, the ruling will bring succour to Moors murder, Ian Brady, and Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper. And no doubt their legal teams are beavering away now on appeals to the robed primates of Strasbourg – especially after Brady failed to convince a court he was bad, not mad, and should be transferred from a mental facility to a prison, so he can legally starve himself to death.

If this latest ECHR judgement was a one-off aberration it could almost be excused. But it wasn’t, because it followed a litany of crackpot rulings that make a mockery of UK justice.

The Abu Qatada farce was indisputably the most contentious, since it hamstrung a national government’s will to rid itself of an evil fanatic – described by a High Court judge as ‘Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe’ – who entered Britain illegally and urged his followers to kill British troops.

Yet it took eight years of toil by five Home Secretaries (Interior Ministers) to get rid of the monster and shrug off the ignominy piled on a nation that evolved one of the first, fair, moral codes of justice – reaching back to the 13th Century Magna Carta – by a bunch of foreign appointees, many from lands where freedom is still as shiny as a new euro.

Rightly, countless precedents in English criminal law were enshrined in the European Charter for Human Rights, codified in 1953 by the Council of Europe after the horrors of World War Two, especially the Holocaust.

These formed the basis for the ECHR when it was established in 1959 as a court of last resort.

The problem is, during the ensuing 54 years, it has extended its remit well beyond the intentions of the founding fathers and its power grab now vetoes the democratic will of its constituent parts.

JUSTICE ON TRIAL: Euro judges ignore the human rights of murder victims and member nations

JUSTICE ON TRIAL: Euro judges ignore the human rights of murder victims and member nations

The result is practically any ne’er-do-well who can’t convince anyone from a magistrate to a Supreme Court judge of his innocence can take the gripe to Strasbourg and bog the legal system down for years, not to say rack up vast legal aid costs (£1.7M in Qatada’s case).

Unsurprisingly, ‘human rights’ has become one of my learned friends’ financial honey pots, as the number of appeals to the ECHR exploded from 8,400 in 1999 to 57,000 a decade later, with 119,300 pending.

Meanwhile, Strasbourg’s meddling goes far beyond individuals and into national affairs of state, as demonstrated by its demand for the UK to give convicts the right to vote, despite prevailing public opinion insisting felons forfeit that privilege during their time behind bars.

Now, finally, after years of scorn from Strasbourg, a British Home Secretary – namely Theresa May – is making more than noises about quitting the jurisdiction of the ECHR.

Obviously, this doesn’t please Dean Spielmann, the Luxembourg judge and president of the court, who warns, ‘Any member state who would leave the Council of Europe, who would denounce the convention, would lose its credibility when it comes to promoting human rights also in different parts of the world. It would be political disaster.’

Spielmann isn’t the first judge to talk codswallop through his wig (not that they wear them in Strasbourg). But he’s entirely mistaken to criticise a nation, whose legal system is still one of the envies of the world and has sufficient in-built safeguards to ensure justice is done and seen to be.

GUILTY VERDICT: Ex-UK Home Secretary, David Blunkett, puts the ECHR in the dock

GUILTY VERDICT: Ex-UK Home Secretary, David Blunkett, puts the ECHR in the dock

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights generally have no issues with how the UK dispenses law.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of countries who have signed up to the UN Convention on Human Rights who barely pay lip service to the concept.

So Spielmann and his ECHR cronies might like to heed the wisdom of David Blunkett, who oversaw the ‘whole life’ sentencing legislation as Home Secretary in 2003.

‘Whatever the technical justification the Strasbourg court may have, it is the right of the British Parliament to determine the sentence of those who have committed crimes and for democracy to have the will of the people implemented. To do otherwise can only lead to disillusionment, mistrust of, and a dangerous alienation from, our democracy itself,’ he noted sagely.

I rest my case.

Britain should take French lessons in how to get rid of Islamo nasties

Zoot alors – or words to that effect! Here I am, breaking the habit of a lifetime and actually singing the praises of French politicians.

First, let me state emphatically this is entirely unrelated to President Francois Hollande’s crass mismanagement of an economy that’s stinks worse than an over-ripe Camembert, where recession deepens and a record 3.22 million – 10.6% of the workforce – are jobless.

Indeed, I’ll even desist from naming and shaming the host of Champagne Socialists in Hollande’s regime, who put the flushest of Old Etonians in David Cameron’s Cabinet to shame when it comes to piling up the moolah.

So what am I doing extolling the virtues of Gallic lawmakers and some of their loonier edicts – retaining a 35-hour week and thinking you can compete with the Germans…words fail me – whose peccadilloes are very much in keeping with notoriously lax, French political custom and practice?

Where France excels, however, is in its attachment to the principles of La Révolution of 1789, when aristos were trundled off to the guillotine in tumbrels without so much as a by-your-leave trial (okay, okay…there was a pretence of one, but it was a foregone conclusion they’d always end up several inches shorter later that day).

Today, it applies rather differently, but nonetheless with the same ruthless efficiency.

Because, when it comes to dealing with nasties – particularly of the Islamic persuasion, foaming at le gob with notions of imposing sharia rule on the nation where liberté, égalité, fraternité were invented – the French retain the final word…and it’s ‘Non!’

Instead of ‘Off with their heads’, nowadays it’s ‘Au revoir and off you go’ and Abdul, Ali or Mo are on the first plane out of Paris De Gaulle to be delivered to from whence they came.

MOCKING JUSTICE: But hate preacher, Abu Qatada, wouldn't have escaped expulsion in France

GOING, GOING…NEARLY GONE: Hate preacher, Abu Qatada,  has  agreed to quit the UK, but he wouldn’t he have escaped French expulsion  for so long

So why has Britain been stuck with the ogrish spectre of Abu Qatada, who made a mockery of five Home Secretaries’ attempts over the last 10 years to deport him back to his native Jordan, where he has been convicted on terror charges in absentia.

At least, the odious, hate preacher – who arrived in the UK on a false passport in 1993 and was described by a judge as ‘Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe’ – threw in the towel yesterday (April 10) and agreed to hop it home, once a new treaty guaranteeing him a fair trial is ratified.

However, had he chosen La Belle France instead of Angleterre in the first place, he’d already be banged up in an Amman jail, counting his prayer beads and ruing his luck.

Like Britain, France is a liberal democracy, a member of the EU, a signatory to the convention on human rights and, likewise, at the mercy of the boneheads who sit in judgement at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. Unlike Britain, it is also a member of the Schengen Bloc, so its borders are porous to the sort of people you’d rather not have sharing a garden fence.

Moreover, even with several million Muslim votes at stake, French politicians have passed edicts banning religious symbols – principally the burqa – in public.

Meanwhile, between 2001 and 2010, the French expelled 129 Islamic headbangers while Britain’s Home Secretary, Theresa May, and four of her frustrated predecessors managed to shift only an abysmal nine nasties deemed to pose a threat to national security.

And, bizarrely, France’s Interior Minister didn’t have to jump through legalistic hoops, scurry back and forth to Arab countries – like Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt, whose justice systems are similarly as whiffy as over-ripe Camembert – gaining assurances the jihadi detritus being returned to sender would be treated fairly.

On the other hand, Mrs. May went to immense pains to wring out of the Jordanians guarantees Qatada would not be tortured or that any evidence used against him had not been tainted by brutal interrogation.

This baffling double-standard hasn’t escaped the attention of counter-terrorism expert, Dr. Frank Foley, whose new book, Countering Terrorism in Britain & France (Cambridge University Press), highlights the discrepancies between the Gallic and Anglo approaches to eradicating the dangers posed by extremists.

His conclusion is it that the framework of Britain’s legal system – and how it differs from that across the Channel – is as much to blame as that deservedly much-maligned, judicial joke, the ECHR.

Foley says, ‘In France, individuals only have limited means of preventing their deportation, because of the relevant legal regulations and because of the swift expulsion practices of the French authorities.’

NO, MINISTER: Like her four predecessors, Home Secretary Theresa May can't get rid of Qatada

NO, MINISTER: Like her four predecessors, British Home Secretary Theresa May couldn’t get rid of odious Qatada

There, an appeal does not immediately suspend expulsion, so an individual can be deported and afterwards petition a judge to overrule it from the discomfort of his homeland.

Foley explains, ‘The authorities have pre-empted such legal moves by putting the individual on a plane home within just a few days of the order being issued.’

Nor is France particularly fazed by the niceties of other nations’ notions of justice.

‘The French courts have not overturned any of the government’s deportation decisions on the basis that radical Islamists face a risk of torture or mistreatment if they are returned,’ reports Foley.

However, in Qatada’s case, neither did UK courts. Since 2001, British judges twice upheld efforts to boot him out. And, in 2007, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission agreed Jordanian assurances were enough to override human rights fears. This was upheld in 2009 by the Law Lords, who also ruled that it wasn’t for British courts ‘to regulate the conduct of trials in foreign countries’ or decide on the merits of evidence.

So what was Qatada – who demands Jews and converts from Islam (plus their kith and kin) be murdered and declared it is forever open season on annihilating Americans – still doing dodging Jordanian justice in Britain, while in possession of an £800,000, 4-bedroom house in West London, courtesy of the taxpayer?

The problem stems from various UK governments’ tardiness in reacting to jihadis in the Nineties, when they could have copied the French example and closed a glaring loophole.  Had this been done, a legal cottage industry defending the indefensible wouldn’t have mushroomed, costing millions in Legal Aid, and would have subverted European meddling.

Instead – as Qatada’s case disgracefully demonstrated – knowing Strasbourg would overrule them, powerless UK judges began caving into Abu’s appeals…until Friday’s voluntary game-changer.

So while liberals may insist the French judiciary is more arbitrary and authoritarian, there’s no denying in Britain, with all its traditions of free speech and civil liberty, the law is an ass when it comes to dealing with nasties like Qatada.

Which is why – just before I wash my mouth out with lye soap – I’ll say, ‘Vive la France!