April 08, 2016

Berlin police RAID APARTMENTS and ARREST residents for 'anti-refugee' social media posts

Rebel Staff
 

Censorship in Europe is out of control and in Berlin things are getting downright scary.

According to a report on Breitbart, Berlin Police conduced a large scale raid on internet users Wednesday and ransacked ten different apartments.

Mobile phones, narcotics and weapons were confiscated. Nine suspects, aged 22-58, were arrested and are accused of posting messages critical of migrants, migrant helpers and anti-semitic slogans on Facebook and Twitter.

RELATED: UK police hope arresting man for 'offensive' Facebook post about refugees 'sends a message'

Police spokesman Stefan Redlich said that while the men did not know each other, they shared anti-migrant views and were considered by police to be “right-wing extremists”. There was no evidence of a planned conspiracy to commit crime among them.

Redlich justified the raids by saying they were potentially “people who just once expressed their hate-opinion.”

Of course, as we've documented in the past, Facebook and other social media sites have been actively censoring opinions that go against Angela Merkel and the German government's view on refugees.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-05-17 13:18:00 -0400
It does not matter what religion you believe in.But I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SOMEONE THAT WANTS TO KILL OR CONTROL YOU FOR THEIRS.
commented 2016-04-11 16:39:47 -0400
You are funny Ronnie, thanks for the laugh. I’m probably as old as your mother if not more so I’ll take it as a compliment not as an insult as you intended.
⊂( ̄(エ) ̄)⊃
commented 2016-04-11 10:00:43 -0400
HYACINTH commented 20 hours ago
“pendantic” oh ouch Ronnie – not. Seemed you learned a new 5 cent word though. Keep up the good work, someday you’ll work your way up to the 50 cent words.

I learned more words than that before you were filling up your diaper.
commented 2016-04-10 14:19:22 -0400
“pendantic” oh ouch Ronnie – not. Seemed you learned a new 5 cent word though. Keep up the good work, someday you’ll work your way up to the 50 cent words.
⊂( ̄(エ) ̄)⊃
commented 2016-04-10 13:01:31 -0400
Ron Christensen said: "JOHN DEWAR commented 20 hours ago
and now the government is being racist to its own people, time for a new government, all Muslims in western countries must be deported.

I rest my case!
Total ignorance."

There is no case. The adherents of Islam will do as they are told by their Imams, regardless of how the mindless left apologize for the violence of the “religion of peace”. There is overwhelming historical evidence of the violence perpetrated by the adherents of islam world wide, and in recent events, despite being defended by the mindless left!
commented 2016-04-10 09:08:41 -0400
JOHN DEWAR commented 20 hours ago
and now the government is being racist to its own people, time for a new government, all Muslims in western countries must be deported.

I rest my case!
Total ignorance.
commented 2016-04-10 09:06:48 -0400
I condem any bigot in her who lumps all of Islam together and cannot separate the radicals from the moderates. To fail to differentate the two is a radical and dangerous idea. There are many haters in here who are draw by Levant’s hatred and abhorrent ability to suck them into his hatefest. I couldn’t care less how the pendantic Hyacynth claims that Islam and Christianity cannot be compared—she is simply wrong. What I am confident about is the fact that the radical Christians who hate rather than love are a very small minority in Canada and can be swiftly and smartly discredited for their nonsense, bigotry, and ignorance. The right claims intolerance by the left as an excuse to perpetuate their ugly ignorance. Yes I am intolerant of the bigots and haters in here. I despise them. They can FOAD.
commented 2016-04-10 00:29:11 -0400
Hyacinth. I do care about the image of the conservative party of which I belong. Not that I can control what people think. Some will believe whatever they want despite anything we say or do however I am a bit disturbed by the conduct of some of us which at times is bigoted and I would suggest all of us desire to influence others. Certainly when I post here it is not simply so I can read my own post. it’s not that I have some grandiose expectation of having a following or starting my own movement but simply to encourage people to employ better logic and before they jump to making accusations to maybe try and gather more facts.
commented 2016-04-09 20:17:54 -0400
If you want to really know Islam, get to know Muhammad and that will tell you all, because he lived as ‘Allah’ instructed him…he is the only one who knows Islam and so learn about him…the rest are just interpreters. (Same goes for Jesus as far as knowing Christianity)
commented 2016-04-09 16:17:45 -0400
Edward,
You and I differ on this, I do not hope to influence anyone intentionally. I am an avid reader (both online and printed books), I usually offer info (info/links/sites related to the topic of an article) that I’ve come across, if others choose to read it or ignore it then that is up to them. You seem to care too much what others think, your posts read as if you are deeply concerned with image. I am simply stating how it reads not that I care, no offense intended. No doubt you are relieved to be over the flu, it is an unpleasant thing to suffer from. Must run, daylight is a wasting, things to do.
commented 2016-04-09 14:46:28 -0400
Hyacinth: I am not even the least bit bothered personally about the comments that individual made about priests but was only using that to demonstrate the kind of logic being employed by extremists. It is full of leaps of logic, outright inventions and silly personal slanders. If I am a apologist it is for conservatives. All of us would like to see this site and the conservative movement grow (hopefully we all feel that way), but I do get embarrassed when I see people using the same types of leaps in logic employed by the anti-Catholic person I spoke with. I have no problem with people questioning or challenging the Catholic church. I do as well but I try to limit my critique to historical facts and disagreements on dogma. Do I think the catholic church had a problem with a rape culture and cover up? Absolutely. Do I think that makes it OK to say all priests are pedophiles? No. Does that make me a Catholic apologist? I’m not even Catholic but simply trying to be fair and using my personal experience to demonstrate that invalidity of the other guy’s comment. Do I think it is a leap in logic when people on this site accuse people who don’t respond of going into hiding? Yes. I have a life outside of this site as much as I enjoy it and I am sure others do as well. Do I think some use multiple identities coming on here? Entirely possible but hard for me to prove so I don’t invest much time or energy into what is close to impossible to prove. Not only that even when I suspect that is true it is possible that I am wrong. Which is why I try to avoid making accusations I can’t prove. Do I think I have the right to tell others how to think? Of course not but I think we all hope to influence people. I hope to influence people to try to avoid making leaps in logic if possible and I hope to influence those who wonder if we are a bunch of bigots that we do have legitimate concerns and that we are not just repeating the same attitudes expressed towards any new group of immigrants that have come to Canada in the past. As far as my health. As far as my health. I just got over the flu and am in great health.
commented 2016-04-09 14:23:29 -0400
Edward, the following comment of yours “But then look at Christianity with all of it’s divisions some of which deny the deity of Christ yet still define themselves as followers of Jesus.” Where did you get this? I am probably going way out on a limb here but by definition “Christianity” there would be an implication that fundamental to this belief is the deity of Christ. Else why use the term Christianity? And your comment regarding I knew some too, hardly a valid basis for discernment. I have to ask you , and this speaks directly to your I knew some too statement, why have so few stayed to fight the oppressor? If we look to the USA ostensibly a Christian society during the civil war, 650,000 died fighting for what they believed in. All I see coming out of the middle east are some individuals getting their asses kicked at best and the remaining hoards turning tail and running. Perhaps you having known a few can answer that.
commented 2016-04-09 14:05:51 -0400
Edward,
I didn’t take your comment as directly aimed at me, but rather I do have the tendency to ramble on time to time hence it could appear that way. The problem with writing versus speaking is that it is more difficult to clarify what one means, one can vocalize a thought faster than writing it down with correct grammar.

“If I a m an apologist it is not for the bad behaviors or doctrines that allow bad behaviors I am apologizing for the stupidity of those who cannot make that distinction …. and I am frankly embarrassed. " Perhaps that is where you err, are you your brother’s keeper? No, it is said to first take the plank out of your eye before trying to remove the splinter from your brother’s. I would suggest perhaps simply ignoring what you find too stupid, that’s why I stay away from the CBC blogs they are brimming with so much stupidity it offends the senses. Also, you nor I nor anyone else has the right to tell others how to think, not only is that beyond offensive it is also what is at the base or root of the hostility. People are getting very tired and angry at being continually told what to do think and act and its not just by their government, but by MSM, and by the socialists in general. People are sick of being told to be submissive, be accepting, be a doormat, open your wallets and hearts, that Canadian tradition will be put to the trash heap to accommodate all incoming cultures, and so on. Its been building for years, now we are simply seeing it more clearly because more people have reached their tolerance level. During Trudeau Sr. reign one could not state their anger except to a friend or relative, now anyone can blog, have their own web site etc. MSM can no longer control the news either, so people are becoming more informed than years ago and this changes many things. I don’t take much personal, I suggest the same for you, life’s too short to develop an ulcer over what he or she blogged, everyone is entitled to their opinion even if we disagree with it.

Next, “As I defened them having been a former Catholic this person then accused me of being a catholic apologist and even a Jesuit spy and said it was sick ….” If memory serves, we had this conversation once before. I still think you should let that go, you do yourself no good hanging onto that memory even if it provides an example to stress your point when you post. Some things are worth remembering while some are best forgotten.
commented 2016-04-09 13:22:23 -0400
and now the government is being racist to its own people, time for a new government, all Muslims in western countries must be deported.
commented 2016-04-09 11:37:36 -0400
Hyacinth: I think you are taking my comments too much as addressed to yourself when in fact my original comment was a rebuttal to Lad Reme who made a crude comment about “sweet gentleman” the words sweet only having appeared since I recently mentioned I knew some Muslims who were that.. My point in mentioning Christianity was to not try to do a side by side comparison of beliefs but simply to demonstrate that beliefs can and have evolved. So people cannot simply say all this or all that. When we start saying all this or that we are in fact choosing not to use our heads and shutting off our minds from having to make those difficult distinctions. If I a m an apologist it is not for the bad behaviors or doctrines that allow bad behaviors I am apologizing for the stupidity of those who cannot make that distinction and think it is OK to say all Muslims or all Christians or all Jews are this or that. That is the very essence of bigotry> I should not even need to defend this but I see so many comments on here by people and I am frankly embarrassed. It is similar to a conversation I had with a man several years back when this person was trying to impugn all Catholic priests for the actions of some. As I defened them having been a former Catholic this person then accused me of being a catholic apologist and even a Jesuit spy and said it was sick that I was defending rapists. I was not defending rapists but the ones who had never raped anyone and had no desire to. I had been around many Catholic priests growing up and never had them act in a sexual manner even though I was alone with many of them. he then suggested perhaps it was because I was an ugly kid. This is the kind of mind set I find myself dealing with. When you start saying all Muslims or all Jews or all Christians it really says more about the person making the comment than the recipient. As I have stated sufficiently. I do think we have legitimate problems and the way we convince the public of the legitimacy of these problems is not by acting like a bunch of survivalists ready to run to the hills and hide in fall out shelters.( Please do not think I am directing my comments directly at you but at some of the comments of those who make it sound like they are stocking up on weapons and preparing for the U.S. to Nuke Canada or some other form of preferred Armageddon). And by the way you cannot compare anything directly with complete accuracy or “truthfulness” as unless it is exactly the same they will always have differences. Of course there is differences and always will be in any comparison of any two subjects. The whole point of my post was not initially directed at you Hyacinth but at some of the people here who fail to make any distinctions whatsoever and in some cases would not recognize a Sikh from a Muslim they are so steeped in their ignorance.
commented 2016-04-09 08:17:06 -0400
Edward,
Sorry to say this but you are an apologist. At no time throughout Christianity, from its inception to that of reformation to that of the present can you compare Christianity to Islam, just cannot be done with accuracy or truthfulness due to their vast differences not only in the historical context but the actual teachings (some would phrase that as their doctrines).

Islam – based upon the pagan worship of a moon god, the religion itself created by the invading warlord himself who took a child for a bride. Islam advocates death to non-believers (non-muslims) and that of forcibly conquering of lands, you are to be murdered if you leave the faith or deny it. The early passages of the Quran are the ones that contain peaceful passages and are abrogated by the latter passages which advocate hatred and warlike mentality.

Christianity – formed after Jesus’ death by his followers and based upon the worship of Jesus and his teachings [Judaic roots]. Jesus, it could be argued, was more of a wandering scholar (healing the sick, preaching, teaching), it is also the belief that he never married though archeologists and historical scholars dispute that. He may have been an agitator to the establishment but by no means can you compare him to a warlord as is the main character in Islam. Christianity advocates tolerance of the non-believer, you will not be murdered for leaving the faith nor for denying it. The Old Testament contains violent passages which is abrogated by the New Testament, Jesus himself taught to disregard the old teachings except for two laws. I could go on and on, but I’d probably bore readers.

You twist words very well which is another reason I call you an apologist Edward, for example “They were well liked by everyone (staff included). They never attempted to rape anyone.” Why did you feel the need to put such tripe as “they never attempted to rape anyone” into your argumentation – that is an apologist’s tactic – that is deflecting not quantifying.

I had written “If they truly believe in the quran and what their imams teach but do not act on it they are still rapists at heart and in mind (but not body).” Yet here you include as an apologist would that “There are also people who contribute to this site( Tarek Fatah, Raheel Raza, who I believe still classify themselves as Muslims but do not adhere to the fundamentalist interpretations of the Koran.” Which again is not what I had mentioned. I am and was referring to those that “truly believe” as Islam currently is (7th century mentality complete from cover to cover of their text and teachings). I am not referring to people such as Terek or Raheel who both actively advocate for a total reform of Islam (a reformation discarding all violent teachings – the latter portion of the text).

If you wish to get off topic, and by your post seems to be the tactic, then lets look at statistics:
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons). After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%. At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare: Bosnia — Muslim 40% Chad — Muslim 53.1% Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%. From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels: Albania — Muslim 70% Malaysia — Muslim 60.4% Qatar — Muslim 77.5%Sudan — Muslim 70%. After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide … 100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim but that’s not the case – Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

So if I read your post as intended then you are basing your knowledge on a handful you personally know, but by proven statistics it falls under the very first category “As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone”. As you see I too can argue in a circle if you like, but it still skirts the original comment of “a rapist at heart or thought”, which is again different from being an actual rapist.

I do agree with one thing that you wrote, “There is no easy way to identify what a person really believes when the government is rushing to bring in large groups with insufficient vetting and paper work.” There is no way period (rush or no rush), people lie its human nature, it is actually in their quran to do so if it aids their cause. As their religion is, without a reformation, it should not be tolerated in any Western country because its doctrines are simply incompatible as proven in Germany, Sweden, France, UK, and so on. However, I also agree with Terek on some of his articles that if Islam reforms, just as Christianity reformed, just as Judaism reformed, then yes it could become compatible. But that is simply a pipe dream for all one has to simply look at what the imams preach, literally thousands of examples on the net, these imams have zero desire to have their religion reformed.
commented 2016-04-09 07:02:34 -0400
@ Edward Jobin commented 5 hours ago
Hyacinth: As I have stated on a prior occasion. I have known several Muslims who were sweet individuals. A couple of them ran a coffee shop and were surrounded by a completely female staff. They were well liked by everyone (staff included). They never attempted to rape anyone. Another person was a former neighbor who has to meet his family in Britain because if he were to go back home he would risk be killed. There are also people who contribute to this site( Tarek Fatah, Raheel Raza, who I believe still classify themselves as Muslims but do not adhere to the fundamentalist interpretations of the Koran. That is what makes the whole situation extremely difficult. There is no easy way to identify what a person really believes when the government is rushing to bring in large groups with insufficient vetting and paper work. My point is simply not all Muslims believe the same things and it would do the peaceful ones an injustice to lump them in with everyone else even if it would seem rational to think that if Mohamed himself taught and acted a certain way that those who claim to be following him should act that same way. But then look at Christianity with all of it’s divisions some of which deny the deity of Christ yet still define themselves as followers of Jesus.
_____________________________________________________
I know / knew a couple o sweet islamics as well. One had worked for a Brit contractor for 8 years. The other was a driver for a major player in that contracting firm. Both had been out to dinner with the bosses, both had invited the bosses to family parties and so on. Both were making way more than any of the locals. They all looked to be tight as hell.

This happened to be in an eastern European country.

Not a war zone.

One day they came to work and started killing everyone in the office. Including a distant family member of mine.

So – edward john – you fucker – take your lying bullshit down the road and fuck right off.

If you never forget this you will never go wrong.

“There are no moderate islamics. They ALL will do as they are told. They ALL will come to the call.”

Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. Seems you are one. Would love to shove some of that cake you are trying to make right back in your hole.
commented 2016-04-09 01:54:07 -0400
Hyacinth: As I have stated on a prior occasion. I have known several Muslims who were sweet individuals. A couple of them ran a coffee shop and were surrounded by a completely female staff. They were well liked by everyone (staff included). They never attempted to rape anyone. Another person was a former neighbor who has to meet his family in Britain because if he were to go back home he would risk be killed. There are also people who contribute to this site( Tarek Fatah, Raheel Raza, who I believe still classify themselves as Muslims but do not adhere to the fundamentalist interpretations of the Koran. That is what makes the whole situation extremely difficult. There is no easy way to identify what a person really believes when the government is rushing to bring in large groups with insufficient vetting and paper work. My point is simply not all Muslims believe the same things and it would do the peaceful ones an injustice to lump them in with everyone else even if it would seem rational to think that if Mohamed himself taught and acted a certain way that those who claim to be following him should act that same way. But then look at Christianity with all of it’s divisions some of which deny the deity of Christ yet still define themselves as followers of Jesus.
commented 2016-04-08 22:58:08 -0400
Thought and speech police.

Common the world over.

We have them in Canada.

Remember those kangaroo human rights courts?

It will get dramatically worse over time.
commented 2016-04-08 20:18:23 -0400
This is unacceptable , these cops deserve what the future holds, i would never do this if i was a cop, no matter who told me to.
commented 2016-04-08 20:10:04 -0400
Germany you have lost my tourism dollars. Never will go there for fear of being arrested for free speech.
commented 2016-04-08 19:42:50 -0400
Police around the world know of imam preaching hatred towards the west. Why are they not being arrested?Their arrests would also be totally justified
commented 2016-04-08 19:26:13 -0400
Simple solution number 1. Everyone who believes in free speech re-post the allegedly offensive comments. Fuck the left wing fascist scum!
commented 2016-04-08 19:08:40 -0400
The catch 22 is that once studying Islam and Sharia law you decide Islam is not for you, reportedly roughly 33 percent of the worlds Muslims think you should be killed if you change religions, the act of apostasy.
commented 2016-04-08 19:05:51 -0400
“I believe that at present, this wouldn’t happen here in the fore seeable future;…unlikely to happen here”

An eternal optimist or is that just denial?
commented 2016-04-08 19:02:21 -0400
Edward Jobin commented 1 hour ago
“…. Regardless of what you say all Muslims are not rapists and before anyone thinks I am defending anyone’s evil actions. Simply not true but making foolish comments solves nothing.”

Yes and No. Their quran and imams clearly define the lowly status of females – Basically females are on earth to be used, abused, and to serve as the male sees fit. If they truly believe in the quran and what their imams teach but do not act on it they are still rapists at heart and in mind (but not body). If they act on it then they are rapists at heart, mind, and body.
commented 2016-04-08 18:35:08 -0400
It appears that there is no editing option on here, in order to amend my posting, which is too bad. It would be handy to amend a posting in order to correct grammar, spelling, spacing and punctuation.
commented 2016-04-08 18:29:06 -0400
Ezra, as a former Lawyer, and current Journalist; I’m certain that you will agree, and understand, that “Black Letter” law is not always legal, if it is unconstitutional, and cannot be enforced.

Two separate ways that the constitution can be legally encroached upon, is when the “Notwithstanding” clause is being used under section 99, and under section 1 of the Constitution Act, which I believe has a limited time frame, rather than lapse into perpetuity. Sect 1 , is an exception to the other provisions of the Constitution Act, which allows for reasonable encroachment, for a demonstrable and justifiable reason, but only for specific reasons that can be justified, and for only a limited degree that it is considered necessary, in a free and democratic society.

This would really open up a fiery parliamentary debate, that would probably have some Liberals disagreeing (I hope), as well as the Greens, the NDP and the Conservatives, which would erode the legitimacy of the government to impose such an action. I don’t think that Trudeau would ever go this far, as to alienate his support base, by taking such a draconian and ham fisted political action, that probably wouldn’t be supported by the Supreme Court anyway, if it were ever to happen. The government of the day, can try and draft all the legislation that it wants, but it won’t amount to a hill of beans, if it cannot be enforced, in a court of law.

The judges can show no favour either way, and must maintain the publics confidence in the judiciary, by remaining neutral, and applying the laws that are on the books, but must also keep in mind that the Charter, or rather the Constitution Act, is the supreme law of the land, and cannot be usurped by any other law that contravenes the Constitution Act, which includes the Charter, as previously mentioned.

My case in point is this; the cops have to act with lawful authority in order to carry out a police action, and this lawful authority usually comes in the form of a court order, or a warrant, and if this police action is deemed to be illegal, because of the reasons of the action are unconstitutional, I can see no reason why the police would carry out the raid in the first place, without lawful authority.

The office of the Crown Attorney, is also an impartial actor, in the sense that it is acting on behalf of the public; the Crown will usually determine the merits of the charge, before charges are laid, and will decide whether there is enough evidence in order to secure a conviction, or whether the charge is even lawful, which might or might result in a dismissal. I believe that the Crown would not support the charge, because of its lack of legal merit, its unconstitutionality, and because of little or no likelihood that they would even secure a conviction.

The cops, while not legal experts; they know that they too have to act within the confines of the law, and in my opinion, will also seek a legal opinion whenever unsure where they stand in a law enforcement capacity, especially when it falls into a grey area of the law.

I believe that at present, this wouldn’t happen here in the fore seeable future; I believe that any proposed legislation would have to meet the test of constitutionality, and would require an amendment to the constitution, which would allow for such legislation to be drafted, as it is no longer considered unconstitutional. As I’m sure you will agree, amendments are a long and painstaking process that does not come easy; this is my unqualified legal opinion, so what is yours ?, in your personal opinion, as a former lawyer ?, and why should this story even concern us, if it is unlikely to happen here ?