The state prosecutor had called for the Christians’ acquittal last July, noting that the youthful plaintiffs in the case had given contradictory testimonies and no credible evidence had been produced to prove the charges. But the new judge assigned to the case in November accepted prosecution lawyer demands to call another dozen witnesses to testify.

“Of course our clients are distressed by this,” [defence lawyer Haydar] Polat told Compass, noting that the two Christians are being required to attend and hear the new prosecution witnesses, some of whom deliberately fail to appear in court. “All these extra witnesses are being called simply for the purpose of prolonging the case. There is no other purpose.”

The European Union has been adamant that Article 301, the law under which Topal and Tastan have been charged, must be changed if Turkey wishes to be admitted to the EU.  The government keeps promising to do so, but has yet to present actual legislation.

Turkey’s prime minister, justice minister and president have declared repeatedly over the past two years that amending the law was both needful and “high on their agenda.”

But last week AKP [Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party] deputy Nihat Ergun admitted that although a revised draft of Article 301 was completed, it had been shelved indefinitely.

In related news today, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has responded to recent allegations by the chief prosecutor that the AKP is determined to turn Turkey into an Islamic state governed by Sharia law.  He is considering a legal change that would remove much of the chief prosecutor’s power.

Previous related posts:

• Turkish police knew of plan to kill Hrant Dink, but did nothing
• Accused Christians should be acquitted, says prosecutor
• Turkish Christians fined for “illegal collection of funds”

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will stay away from the meeting to avoid seeing Mugabe gloat over his propaganda victory.  European Commission president José Manual Barroso says he “fully respected” Mr Brown’s decision to boycott.  Yeah, right!

Gordon Brown should learn that dealing with dictators like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is an inevitable part of being a world statesman, the president of the European Commission has said.
. . .
"If you are an international leader then you are going to have to be prepared to meet some people your mother would not like you to meet. That is what we have to do from time to time," he said.

Neville Chamberlain couldn't have said it better.

What does Mr Barroso say when he does not “fully respect” decisions by European heads of state?

Previous related posts:

• Mugabe miffed because not invited to France-Africa summit
• Mugabe to Annan: Get lost

Summing up the collective woes of the three countries in the region, Semneby said on October 2 that although Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan share history, they lack a common identity. Soviet attempts to impose unity failed, Semneby says, and now the three countries are each in the grip of "old-fashioned, ethnically exclusive" nationalism.

Semneby said Europe could help remedy this situation.

"Given the rivalries between and inside the countries, this identity has to be larger than the region itself," he said. "An additional layer of identity, a European identity, is what comes to mind here. For such an identity, or for such a layer of identity to work as a catalyst for bringing this broken region together again, the countries and the communities in the region need, however, to understand that this identity is based on much more than just interests, but is fundamentally based on common values."

Given the wonderful success the EU has enjoyed uniting the countries of Western Europe, one would hope he’s joking.  Belgium, home of EU’s capital of Brussels, is politically paralysed and on the verge of breaking apart.

Belgium, like the EU, is a Frankenstein creation

To understand Belgium, imagine that the Union flag no longer flies over Britain or the Cross of St George over England. Imagine an alien flag fluttering from the spires and flying above official buildings across the land. The flag is not the red, white and blue of British Union, symbolising a shared national history stretching back centuries, but the azure field and 12 gold stars of the European Union.

Then imagine that your rulers tell you that you are not, in fact, British but that you are a European, a stranger in your own land.

For many Belgians, this experience is the reality of everyday life. It lies at the heart of an identity crisis that has robbed Belgium of a government for the past 115 days and threatens the country's very existence.

Another reason to fear, rather than embrace, an EU-sponsored “European identity” is that the EU runs roughshod over local democracy.  Is that what they mean by “common values”?

European Court Upholds Decision to Penalize Poland for Pro-Life Law
Asserts supremacy of EU standards over sovereignty of individual nations and their laws

The countries of the South Caucasus have very difficult problems, but it’s hard to believe that the EU could make them better off in any important respect.

1) Mouloud Sihali, Algerian. Lived at Finsbury Park mosque, breeding ground of Islamic terrorism. Described in court as “unprincipled and dishonest”. Illegal immigrant.

2) Yonis Dirie, Somalian. Drug addict, armed robber and burglar. Convicted of raping a young woman in London. Illegal immigrant.

3) Tul Bahadur Pun VC, Nepalese. Won the Victoria Cross for taking out a Japanese machinegun post in 1944 in Burma single-handedly. Now 84, of unblemished conduct, suffering from heart problems and diabetes and would like treatment here. Legal applicant.

4) “AS”, Libyan. Islamic extremist involved with Milan terrorist group. Court accepts that he is likely to try to kill us all again quite soon. Illegal immigrant.

As the headline says, this one’s easy.  I’m sure everyone has guessed that #3 is the reject.  Rod Liddle of The Sunday Times of London elucidates.

Old Pun’s application was rejected because – and here’s another punchline, in case the first wasn’t funny enough – he “failed to demonstrate” that he had “strong ties with Britain”. How much stronger do you want? There can be hardly a soul who wouldn’t be happy to have Pun here. And not one who could make a case for allowing Dirie, the robber-rapist, say, to get preferential treatment. Some of us would have happily dispatched him back to Mogadishu strapped to a missile.

But even if British authorities wanted to deport dangerous foreigners, they may not be permitted to.  Thanks to an EU directive, don’t cha know?

Up to 3,000 foreign criminals will be released from prison on to Britain's streets without any attempt to deport them, Government papers have revealed.

A note sent to probation staff says as few as 250 convicts from European countries will face even preliminary deportation proceedings every year.

It pins the blame on an EU directive which rules that committing a serious crime is no longer sufficient grounds for removal.

Neither is the Government's desire to deter other foreign nationals from committing a crime in this country.

The directive covers not only native-born Europeans, but also those born elsewhere who have subsequently been issued passports by EU member countries.

In order to deport a convicted felon who falls under the directive’s provisions, authorities must prove the felon is “highly likely to re-offend”  and poses a "present, genuine and sufficiently serious threat" to society.

So much for Home Secretary John Reid’s mandate to ensure that all foreign criminals are subjected to deportation inquiries after completing their sentences.

Previous related posts:

• UK immigration process “makes Bleak House look like summary justice”
• What has the UK Home Office done wrong now?
• Clarke sacked
• Violent crime up in the UK

'Let's not say on one side we have such pure, white and furry partners and on the other a monster that came out of the forest and instead of legs has claws and horns growing,' Putin was quoted as saying of the EU and Russia.

Fortuitously, Mr Putin denied the hideous nature of his government on the same day that participants at an upcoming international congress of journalists expressed grave concerns about the safety of their Russian colleagues.

In a separate session before the opening of the congress, participants discussed a global campaign against the continuing murders of journalists in Russia.

In chilling footage shown at the start of the session, a female television journalist can be seen stumbling as she chases after a soldier while gunshots are fired overhead.

Participants at the May 28 discussion were convinced of the need to challenge the Russian government and its failure to adequately protect journalists.

But with no government officials present, some speakers said the debate was unlikely to change anything.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) says that Russia is, after Iraq, the most dangerous nation for journalists.  According to the IFJ, 289 journalists, including 47 women, have disappeared or been killed in Russia since 1993.  Journalists are also victims of assaults, dubious police actions against editorial offices, and cyber-attacks.

The graphic image first appeared on the front cover of the [UK] Spectator last July.  This post seems an appropriate spot to re-run it.  No “claws and horns”, but you get the idea.

Previous related posts:

• Happy New Year, Belarus: Your gas is about to be cut off
• Russia on the ascendant against divided West
• Russia no longer a politically free, democratic country
• Democracy not on the agenda at meeting of world’s largest democracies

What could have brought that on?  His government has enacted severe restrictions on abortion.

Marc Litvine, an EU liaison for Nicaragua, said that for the current EU leadership, the issue of the legality of abortion “is linked to aid programs against poverty and to the rights of women,” therefore, “we hope that the new government will be capable of opening the debate and discussing it outside the passion of the electoral season.”

In an interview published in “El Nuevo Diario” of Managua, Litvine said the EU is “concerned” about the criminalization of abortion, and he called the move by the Nicaraguan Congress to pass the law “hurried” and criticized lawmakers for what he called the lack of debate.

Commenting further on sovereign domestic issues in Nicaragua, Litvine said, “That’s where I see one of the contradictions of the new government; it claims to be progressive, very modern, and it is going backwards because for us (the pro-life law) is a step back.”

Mr Litvine revealingly equates “modern” and “progressive” with unrestricted killing of unborn children.  That’s the attitude that has brought much of Europe to the brink of demographic collapse.

Daily Telegraph leader/editorial writer Daniel Hannan finds a delicious irony in the EU’s pressuring Nicaragua to adopt a moral principle held dear by Eurocrats.

During the Iraq war, Euro-sophists kept telling us that it was not for the US to impose its values on the world and that it was up to Iraqis to decide their own future. Fair enough. So why is it that, when it comes to hectoring Africans about the death penalty, or ordering South Americans to form a supra-national bloc in mimicry of the EU, or insisting that abortion be made easier, Brussels suddenly comes over all colonialist?

If abortion is a fundamental human right, why isn’t parliamentary democracy? If the EU can demand the former in Nicaragua, why can’t the US demand the latter in Cuba?

More evidence that democracy doesn’t seem to be worth much in Brussels.

Previous related posts:

• Children of Men
• Time running out for German welfare state
• Much of the western world will disappear in our lifetimes
• Childless adults feeling oppressed

Until now, marrying a mother or father-in-law has only been allowed if a husband or wife has died, and both parties are over 21, or they have been lucky and wealthy enough to secure their own personal Act of Parliament exempting them from the 1949 Marriage Act.
. . .
The draft order amending the law was nodded through the Commons on Tuesday, without a debate, and is due to cross its final Parliamentary hurdle today, when a committee of peers is also expected to give it nothing more than a cursory look.

Last night, a Church of England spokesman made it clear that it would have preferred not to see the changes, but conceded that the court ruling meant the Government had no choice. He said: "We regret that it has been judged necessary to make such a substantial change.

"Retaining a legal impediment to marriage between parent-in-law and child-in-law, at least in cases where the younger party is under the age of 21, would have been our preferred outcome."

However, the spokesman welcomed the inclusion of a "conscience clause" for clergy which allows individuals to refuse to carry out a marriage ceremony between in-laws.

Hold it right there.  “A conscience clause”?!  That’s unconscionable!  It gives those backward Christians carte blanche to discriminate against children- and parents-in-law who only want society to recognise, sanction, and approve their relationship.  What could possibly be wrong with two people showing their love for each other?

The Labour cabinet must have been asleep when that dastardly conscience clause was slipped into the order.

Or is it that in-laws who want to get married are not (yet) a socially endorsed oppressed minority?   They’d better form a lobby group right away to call attention to themselves their victimisation at the hands of fundamentalist bigots.

h/t: Brendan Carlin at Little and Large

Previous related post: If you think Labour is insufferable now, just wait

"The full veil runs contrary to the achievements of the European civilization," Schaeuble told reporters after a meeting with the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee.

Schaeuble, whose country currently runs the agenda-setting EU presidency, said that communication with other people was a responsibility for the European citizen.

"You cannot communicate with the person wearing it (the full veil)," the minister said, adding: "Our communication is also to a great extent non-verbal."

The minister opposes making the face veil illegal, but he wants EU leaders to make clear that the veil is incompatible with European culture and civilization.  He also proposed that the EU should encourage education of imams and Muslim children—in the language of the respective EU country.  No word on whether European Muslims will go along with that.

Mr Schaeuble recently defended a German Green Party legislator who received death threats after she spoke against wearing the niqab in public.

h/t: Big News Network.com – Breaking Religious News

Previous related posts:

• Bavaria and Antwerp restrict wearing of headscarves; Egypt restricts face veils
• German legislator urges Muslim women to remove head scarves, receives death threats
• Jack Straw is right about the veil, says daughter of Kashmiri immigrants
• Spectator trifecta on European Islam

Joachim Wuermeling, a high-ranking economics ministry official said Germany planned not to implement the EC's changes.

It was up to member states how they fulfilled their Kyoto Climate Protocol targets, he said.

Germany felt relaxed about a possible law suit if the EC sued as it could take years to be resolved, which was not in the Commission's interest, he said.

Germany is the European Union’s biggest single polluting nation.

h/t: Greenie Watch and Blue Climate

Previous related posts:

• EU threatens to hold Canadian politicians responsible over Kyoto
• Europe’s GHG emissions increase again
• Germany upsets environmentalists over industrial emissions target

In an interview given hours after she was nominated, one of Ms Royal’s closest advisors said it is her position that Britain must choose between the European Union and the United States.  In her view, apparently, the UK cannot be close friends and allies of both.

Gilles Savary, a French MEP and her spokesman and foreign affairs adviser, spoke exclusively to The Daily Telegraph, revealing her EU policies in detail.

He set out a vision of an ambitious new EU treaty, replacing the EU constitution which has been in limbo since French and Dutch voters voted against it last summer.

Britain would be asked to sign up to the new treaty, but if it rejected calls for increased protectionism, an EU foreign minister, convergence on tax rates and moves to create a European army, then France and her allies would agree a treaty among themselves, he said.

Tony Blair's successor as prime minister, whether Gordon Brown or David Cameron, now faces an inevitable crisis over Europe after France chooses its next leader in April.
. . .
"Great Britain is absolutely indispensable to the European Union. It is great nation, a global power. But the question the English have to answer is – do the English consider the English Channel to be wider than the Atlantic? We on the continent have the right to deplore the fact that Great Britain appears to consider the Channel is wider," he said.

Mr Savary sees three “clubs” in the EU: an "ultra-Atlanticist" club, led by Great Britain; an “unfortunate” nationalist club centred in eastern Europe; and a club of European unity, led by France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.

Nicolas Sarkozy will almost certainly be Ms Royal’s main opponent for president.  His centre-right Union for a Popular Majority (UMP) party will officially designate its candidate in January.

Whoever wins will face the challenge of reversing France’s economic decline and attending to turmoil arising from communities of immigrants and their descendants who are procreating much more quickly than native Europeans.  The French secular state model will be sorely tested.  So far, however, Ms Royal seems more concerned with putting the English in their place.

Previous related post: Britain coming to share France’s view of Muslim veils: Villepin

Given the cancelled Canada-EU summit, European leaders have made it clear that if Ottawa reneges on its Kyoto commitments, the other signatories to the protocol will hold to account the politicians responsible for that failure.

It’s a shame the story ended just when it was beginning to look interesting.

I have a few questions.  How exactly do EU members propose to "hold to account" Canadian politicians?  What exactly do they plan to do?

Even more importantly, where has the EU been for the past decade?  The Liberal Government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien signed the Kyoto protocol in 1997; greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continued to rise during the rest of his time in office.  Liberal Paul Martin took over as PM in December 2003; GHG emissions continued to go up.

During the eight years that Liberals governed Canada after Kyoto was signed,  emissions rose virtually unabated, yet the EU did not try to intimidate any Canadian politicians.

Stephen Harper has been prime minister for less than one year, and only now does the EU warn “politicians” to bring Canada into line on Kyoto—or else.  There wouldn’t be any political motivation behind the EU’s new-found role as Canada's GHG enforcer, would there?  Perish the thought.

The EU’s bluster is impossible to take seriously, especially when EU member countries are failing miserably to restrain their own GHG emissions.

No word yet on whether the EU intends to hold Japanese politicians responsible for Japan’s failure to reduce its emissions.

Previous related posts:

• New projections show EU falling short of Kyoto targets
• CO2 emissions up in Europe, stable in US
• Spot the comedian

Mr Dimas said that, on unchanged policies, seven countries – Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain – would exceed their individual emission limits, which are binding under EU law. Even with extra measures, Spain is projected to exceed its 1990 emissions by 51.3% in 2010, compared with an allowed increase under Kyoto of 15%.

Spain's annual economic growth is nearly 4%, one of the highest rates in western Europe, but it has suffered from extreme weather prompting greater use of fossil fuels. Ireland is projected to reach 30% above 1990 levels by 2010, against an allowance of 13%, and Portugal 42.7% higher, with an allowance of 27%.
. . .
Mr Dimas is to propose that civil aviation be brought within the EU's CO2 emissions trading scheme and is considering legislation for car manufacturers.

The European Regions Airline Association has said that, if aviation is incorporated into the carbon emissions trading scheme, airlines could move out of the EU.

ERAA spokesman Simon McNamara said that for legal reasons the scheme would be difficult for the Commission to impose on companies based outside the EU flying in Europe, which might encourage airlines to relocate outside of Europe.

h/t: Greenie Watch

Previous related posts:

• Europe’s GHG emissions increase again
• CO2 emissions up in Europe, stable in US