Hate Hoax Germany by Green Party Councilor

Hate Hoax Germany by Green Party Councilor

Manoj Subramaniam

Manoj Subramaniam, among other things, painted swastikas onto his property and claimed he was being subjected to sustained harassment by far-right extremists. It was proven fake hate crime.

Manoj Subramaniam, a 33-year-old former local Green councilor in the German town of Erkelenz, alleged last July 2022 he had been subjected to sustained acts of harassment by anonymous right-wing extremists. He showed police evidence of the abuse he had received, which included a threatening letter with a razor blade inserted and a swastika drawn onto his vehicle in red paint. Link

A Litany of Fake “Hate Crimes” LINK

“Right-wing extremists are threatening political volunteers to silence them. Thank you, Manoj Subramaniam, for not being silent and raising your voice,” stated Lamya Kaddor, a member of the Bundestag

Subramaniam subsequently resigned from his position as a local councilor, and Erkelenz District Court issued the disgraced politician a penalty order of €3,600 for faking criminal offenses, a fine he appealed.

complaints against the court decision were finally withdrawn after a court ruled the amount of the fine to be final.

Subramaniam has since returned to his post as a local councilor despite the criminal conviction and fine being upheld by the appellate court.

Toronto Imam; Some Hadith are Invented

Toronto Imam; Some Hadith are Invented

Toronto Imam Shabbir Ally is intervened in 2017 about hadith that predict future events.

I’m Aisha your host. In today’s segment we will continue our discussion on taking a balanced approach to Hadith, with a focus on Hadith relating to the future. How much of a critical lens should we apply towards these Hadith? As always let’s discuss with our expert Dr. Shabbir Ali.

Imam Shabbir Ally: For example, if somebody in the past noticed that children are not respecting their parents and we know that it is a Quranic prescription that we respect our parents. If they coined a statement showing that the Prophet PBUH said that the time will come when children will not respect their parents, obviously depicting this as a bad thing. So that is credited to the Prophet PBUH, even though he did not say it. But he could have said something like that. In any case, the Quran said it. If that is using our modern times it’s not difficult for anyone. But what happens is when we have things like Hadith depicting a black flag rising over Syria. We know that there was commotion among Muslims in that time following the death of the Prophet PBUH. Mu’awiya [The Second Fitna was a period of general political and military disorder and civil war that lasted 12 years.]  had set up his Caliphate in Syria, counter-Caliphate to that of Ali. And there are all kinds of hadiths about the pious people of Syria. Hadith praising people of different regions and having some relevance to the conflicts that arose among Muslims at that time. Then it is conceivable that some of these narratives are actually later inventions that were credited back to the Prophet PBUH as though he said these in advance… But what this means for me in sum is that it shows how Muslims could have developed a narrative about the prophet PBUH, crediting things back to him which he could not have said because if he gave all of these descriptions about the Dajal there is no way that the companions would have thought that this Jewish boy in Medina could have been the Dadjal.

So just as we briefly wrap up, what do you think this problematic Hadith relates to specifically. For example the Dadjal is impacting problems that we are seeing today, for example, radicalization?

Imam Shabbir Ally: Well, but it’s actually impacting us in two ways, One is that, when Muslims are thinking about these futuristic Hadith, they’re thinking that, okay, eventually something will be the solution to our problems. The Dajjal or Jesus will come back, kill the Dajjal, establish a reign of peace, and whatever. So we’re futuristic in our thinking. So we leave things lying as they are, thinking that doesn’t matter. If we have the problems now, we don’t have to solve them. Somebody else will come to solve our problems in the future, either the Maddi or Jesus, or in some other way. The second thing is this radicalization you’re talking about. Now when we require of Muslims to believe in both of these narratives, as the Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani tries to do. Then it’s too much for the modern mind. The modern mind goes two ways. Either the modern mind rejects this altogether and says okay I’ll be a Muslim in a superficial way but I won’t, you know, go deep into this because it’s obviously problematic to the core. The other reaction, the other fork in the road, is for someone to say, yes, it looks odd and it looks unbelievable, but I believe it. And this attitude leads to a kind of strictness, a radicalization, an attitude that says we are right and we know that we’re right. We don’t care who says that we are wrong. Their reasoning and their intelligence must be bad. So this traditionalism and radicalization now is something that leads the Muslims to think that we need to impose Islam on people because there’s no way people are going to believe in all of these. Everything that we know to be Islam is too convoluted, too self-contradictory and too fantastic, incredible. People are not going to believe in this if you just preach it to them. So when I am going to preach it to them, we’re just going to impose it on them. We are going to set up an Islamic state and force those who don’t want to believe to just simply conform to the dictates of the Islamic State. In the meantime, we will be the true believers. This is the radicalization that we’re seeing in modern times. It has many different causes and roots. This to me is one of the causes the kind of traditionalism and anti-intellectualism that has characterized the path that we choose to follow in the face of these contradictory narratives. Complete Video

Read Trump Campaign’s letter threatening legal action against CNN for systemic bias

Read Trump Campaign’s letter threatening legal action against CNN for systemic bias

Following the release of undercover videos produced by Project Veritas showing CNN’s systemic bias against President Trump, the Trump’s campaign informed on October 16, 2019 CNN President Jeff Zucker that it plans to sue him and his network.

Here is the text of the letter sent to CNN:

Dear Mr. Zucker and Mr. Vigilante:

This firm is litigation counsel for President Donald J. Trump and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. We write concerning your biased reporting practices relating to our clients. The terms “you” and “your” in this letter shall collectively refer to CNN Broadcasting, Inc., CNN Productions, Inc., CNN Interactive Group, Inc., the website located at CNN.com, and all broadcast television stations owned, operated or affiliated with the foregoing.

Your website expressly represents to the public, in writing, that you are “journalists,” “truth seekers,” “united by a mission to inform, engage and empower the world,” and you “stand for excellence in journalism and [your] products.” See https://www.CNN.com/About (emphasis added). Your slogan is “The Most Trusted Name in News”. Your Facebook account claims you are “widely known to be – the most trusted source for news and information.” Your anchor, Don Lemon, stated on June 6, 2019, as a keynote speaker at Financial Times Live Future of News: “We don’t profess to be a liberal network, we’re a news network … we have a commitment to the truth and to facts, which has really been paramount, especially always at CNN.” Mr. Zucker said in an interview with Variety, published on August 2, 2016: “[O]ur air, as opposed to others’, is truly fair and balanced.” (Emphasis added.)

Statements like “excellence in journalism,” “most trusted source for news and information,” “commitment to the truth and to facts” and “truly fair and balanced” are statements that would be widely considered throughout the journalism community and news industry as journalism that complies with industry-accepted codes of ethics, including the Society for Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. That code — written by journalism experts for practicing journalists (available at https://www.SPJ.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf) (the “Code”) — provides in pertinent part:

“Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest … in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.” (Emphasis added.)

“Journalists should:

“Verify information before releasing it.”

“Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.”

“Label advocacy and commentary.”

“Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information.”

“Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.”

“[A]void political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.”

“Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.”

“Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.”

(Emphasis added.)

Recently released video footage of individuals alleged to be your employees (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XZmugtLv4) (the “Footage”) indicates that your reporting relating to President Trump is contrary to your own mission and the aforementioned Code of Ethics. Your own employees appear to state that CNN is focused on trying to “take down President Trump,” driven by a “personal vendetta” that Mr. Zucker purportedly has against him, rather than reporting the news in an objective manner. In the Footage, your employees appear to state that CNN attempts to make its reporting appear neutral and unbiased, when in fact its reporting is far from neutral and highly biased against the President. Among other statements, your employees appear to state the following: Nick Neville, Media Coordinator at CNN, states:

“Jeff Zucker, basically the president of CNN has a personal vendetta against Trump”

“[Jeff Zucker has] had an ongoing feud with Trump since The Apprentice” (where Zucker was a producer)

“I totally want to do just like the truth, the dogged reporting. But then you have higher up executives like Zucker and other people, who are saying we gotta make profits…so it turns into like certain things that you do are trying just to attract viewers, then it becomes kind of a comedy show” “Don Lemon comes on, he makes you think he’s objective news, but he’s blatantly opinionated. So either disclose where you’re coming from or get someone whose a little bit more objective. Don Lemon…love him or hate him he’s blatantly anti-Trump, he’s blatantly left. So maybe Don Lemon could disclose that, but CNN makes it appear as though we have 24 hours of unbiased news, that’s not true.”

Cary Poarch, a CNN employee in the Washington, D.C. bureau, states:

“CNN purports to be facts first, and that’s just not the case”

Christian Sierra, a Media Coordinator at CNN, states:

“There’s just nothing we can do if Zucker wants impeachment every single day to be the top story … He wants impeachment above all else”

“I hate how everything is all Trump all the time now, everyone at the network complains about it, they hate covering Trump every day”

“Our Democratic interviews are like softballs, compared to the Republicans”

The aforementioned examples are merely the tip of the iceberg of the evidence my clients have accumulated over recent years. We also expect substantial additional information about CNN’s wrongful practices to become known in the coming days and weeks. Never in the history of this country has a President been the subject of such a sustained barrage of unfair, unfounded, unethical and unlawful attacks by so-called “mainstream” news, as the current situation.

Your actions are in violation of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.), among other applicable laws, by constituting misrepresentations to the public, to your advertisers, and others. Accordingly, my clients intend to file legal action against you, to seek compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, reimbursement of legal costs, and all other available legal and equitable remedies, to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Please contact the undersigned to discuss an appropriate resolution of this matter, which would include a substantial payment of damages, as well as all other appropriate measures that are necessary to fully address the magnitude of the situation. This letter is not intended as a full or complete statement of all relevant facts, applicable law, causes of actions or legal remedies, and nothing herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of my clients’ rights, remedies, claims or causes of action, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.