Om nu "uttalanden av judiska organisationer" är nyhetsvärdigt enligt FT, varför skrev man inte om det franska judiska centralrådets krav efter terrorattacken? Där kräver man fortsatt massinvandring, statligt stöd till imamer, mindre yttrandefrihet och större krigsinsatser i Mellanöstern.
Citat:
Armed with his supposed moral authority, Cuckierman naturally made a number of demands and suggestions:
France’s tradition of secularism (laïcité) should be abolished in order to finance “moderate” Muslim clerics: “It is unhealthy that in France mosques are financed by foreign countries. There should be an Islam of France with imams who speak French and who respect the values of the Republic. Perhaps we should, even in violation of the law of 1905 [instituting secularism], have France pay the imams.”
State control and censorship of social media should be reinforced: “[Social media] are complicit, perhaps implicitly, in the acts committed because they facilitate, in a few weeks, the transformation of a good Catholic peasant of the southwest into a jihadist [sic!]. It is time that the entire world put pressure [on social media] so they react as they successfully did to remove pedophilia from social media.”
More wars in the Middle East, possibly with boots on the ground: “We are in a world war, Pope Francis said so. Therefore the West should wake up and be ready to fight in a strong way on the ground too. The Islamic State is enemy number one.”
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/11/head-of-french-jewish-lobbys-solutions-to-paris-attacks-more-muslims-more-wars-and-more-censorship/
Varför är det ena uttalandet en FT-nyhet, men inte det andra?
