Germany is still in denial about its terror nightmare
An empty pram lies forlorn, on a street covered in debris and police tape. In Munich, a failed Afghan asylum seeker has driven his car into a crowd. Among the injured are a mother and her small child, who are still struggling for their lives. Like many German mothers, I find myself wondering how safe it is to push my 14 month old daughter through the town where we live.
Farhad Noori, the alleged attacker named by German media, injured 39 people. Born in Kabul in 2001, he came to Germany as an asylum seeker in 2016. His asylum application was subsequently rejected but he appealed.
His case dragged on for three years and, even though it ended with a decision that he could be deported, he was given a temporary residence permit instead. He became a bodybuilder and a security guard, gaining 68,000 followers on Instagram for pictures of him posing at bodybuilding competitions.
That left him free to allegedly attack the crowd in a white Mini Cooper near a demonstration organised by the trade union Verdi, who a few weeks ago criticised the German right for wanting to reform the country's absurdly lax asylum policies.
For Germans, this sort of attack is becoming normalised. Only a fortnight ago, another Afghan asylum seeker, armed with a knife, attacked a kindergarten outing in a park. He murdered a two-year old Moroccan child and the 41-year old man who intervened to protect the children.
Yet, the German political class seems largely indifferent. When the Vice President of the Bundestag Katrin Göring-Eckardt was recently asked on a talk show about trying to get rid of dual national criminals, she responded, 'I think that has damned little to do with people's everyday lives'. This sentiment echoes the now infamous (and hubristic) declaration by Angela Merkel during the 2015 Syrian refugee crisis: 'Wir schaffen das', 'we can handle this'.
Ordinary Germans clearly disagree, which is why the two leading parties in this month's election are both on the right: the CDU and AfD.
Whether that will change things remains to be seen. The 'Brandmauer' or 'firewall' means that the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is shamed into not cooperating with the more hardcore Alternative for Germany (AfD), which leaves the right divided.
When the CDU dared to accept AfD votes on a non-binding motion to tackle migration issues, it led to staffers in their Berlin HQ having to be evacuated to escape left-wing protestors. Rolf Mützenich from the Social Democratic Party (SPD) accused the CDU of having opened 'the gates of hell', and party leader Merz even faced internal opposition.
If the firewall still stands after this month's election, then the chance of reform on immigration is low, because the left-wing parties will be able to block it. That will mean more nightmarish stories like that of Christoph R, a young CDU member who had his throat cut in his own apartment by a Guinean asylum seeker, who went on to attack a Ukrainian woman. Once again, his asylum case had been rejected but, nonetheless, he was given temporary residence because he could speak German.
Over and over again the same story plays out. Asylum seekers, often known to the authorities, and with no right to be in the country, go on to commit horrific crimes against innocent people. There are around a quarter of a million foreigners who have been told to leave but haven't. Almost none will do so, and they are rarely forced to go by the authorities.
Mainstream German politicians face a simple choice. Either they accept that the asylum crisis needs to be tackled, or the firewall has to fall so that a united right can put an end to it. The only question is how many innocent Germans they will allow to suffer before this happens.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
How a Luxembourg village divided Europe
I am in the most EU-ish bedroom in the EU. That is to say, I am lying in a refurbished room in the handsome 14th-century Chateau de Schengen, in the little village of Schengen, Luxembourg. From my casements, opened wide onto the sunny Saarland afternoon, I can see the exact stretch of the river Moselle where, on a boat floating between Germany, France and Luxembourg, the Schengen Agreement was signed in 1985. This was the agreement that sealed Free Movement as Europe's defining ideal – one whose consequences are still unfolding. I've been in Luxembourg for a week, on assignment, and this week has given me an insight into why the nations of the EU undertook their bold, remarkable experiment of no more borders. The first and obvious motivator was war. Luxembourg can look oddly new, or newish. Ancient-sounding villages are full of blocky 1960s houses. Supposedly medieval churches are clearly modern, lacking the rich patina of age. This is because they were all flattened in war – especially the last German offensive of the second world war, the Battle of the Bulge – which raged across snowbound Luxembourg from December 1944 to January 1945. As a result, much had to be rebuilt or heavily restored. Reviving international trust took even longer, as the war here was brutal. In little towns like Diekirch, teenage Nazi conscripts casually gunned down innocent civilians in the streets. The angered Allies felt no huge need thereafter to take German prisoners alive. The yearning to overcome this evil trauma – and reconcile – was one big driver of the EEC, which reached its frontierless, post-national apotheosis here in Schengen. But another was sheer practicality. Yesterday, my local guide, Anna, told me how she once had to show her passport every day to cross the Moselle to and from Germany. She can remember the queues and frustration. She recalls a crimped, claustrophobic Europe – like an office with too many cubicles. Nowadays the quaint old customs houses have been turned into tourist bureaux or posh chocolatiers, and everyone breezes between countries with total freedom. The other day I drove a meandering route through the rustling green winelands and must have crossed between Lux and DE half a dozen times, barely noticing. At its best, Schengen is indeed wonderful. But there's the geopolitical rub. Schengen at its Platonic best is magnificent. In practice, it may be turning into a tragic failure. A primary reason is migration – not within Europe, but without. To illustrate my point, Anna told me another story of Luxembourg. She explained how, in the 1970s, the now-prospering little Duchy required workers. As she put it, with bracing candour: 'We chose the Portuguese because they were poor and wanted the work, but also because they are European, Christian, Catholic, like us. We felt they would assimilate.' And so they have. You can see unexpectedly good selections of Douro wines in Luxembourg supermarkets. Otherwise, the 15 per cent of the population that is Portuguese is barely discernible. Schengen might, perhaps, be in much less trouble if every other country had followed those careful Luxembourg policies. But they didn't. France drew people from its old empire – Algeria, Morocco, sub-Saharan Africa. Germany imported millions of Turks, then another million Syrians under Merkel's idealistic Willkommen policy of 2015. Britain turned to the Caribbean, then Pakistan, India, Bangladesh. Combining open internal borders with sovereign external migration policies – inviting millions from far outside Europe – was, in retrospect, bound to create a problem. It's like a flat share where everyone agrees to leave their doors open and split the rent, but each person gets to invite their own guests, who then stay forever, use the bathroom, and host loud parties. Irritation is guaranteed. Some housemates will get seriously annoyed. Take, for example, the Somali migrant population in Holland. Tens of thousands of them moved to the UK under Free Movement. The UK could do nothing to stop this – as Britons duly noted. This is one example of how Free Movement, which peaked with Schengen, led quite directly to Brexit. It was perhaps sheer bad luck that Schengen coincided with one of the most ill-conceived experiments of recent times: multiculturalism plus mass immigration. Or maybe it wasn't coincidence, and they derive from the same well-meaning, liberal universalism – only this time taken too far. Frontiers are intrinsically sad – divisions within humanity made all too real Whatever the case, as I write this in my room in the Chateau de Schengen, I can also read the daily and unhappy news that springs from Europe's mass immigration experience: of riots and deaths in France following the football victory of Paris Saint-Germain; of another call for an inquiry into rape gangs in the UK; of a hard-right Polish politician becoming president, vowing to keep Poland migrant-free; of once-peaceful Sweden – now 'the bombing capital of the West'. Or I can read about de facto blasphemy laws in Britain and Denmark, introduced to placate militant Islam. And I can read of endless terror shifting across Europe untracked, leading even mainstream politicians in Germany, Austria, Italy to argue for the suspension of Schengen. Yes, of course there are multiple good, successful stories of integration and assimilation across Europe. But for many Europeans, judging by the remarkable electoral shift to the hard right, the good is now majorly outweighed by the bad. Is there any hope for that faded but shimmering Schengen ideal of a borderless Europe? I'd like to think so. Frontiers are intrinsically sad – divisions within humanity made all too real – even if Robert Frost knew what he was talking about when he said 'good fences make good neighbours'. The day is closing here in the Chateau de Schengen, and the summer sun sets lazily over the Auxerrois vines. They have a nice restaurant in the hotel, which has a classic French menu. I want to eat French food in Luxembourg while looking at Germany. It feels Schengen-y. But as the waitress brings my tranche de foie gras maison, the capricious Luxemburg weather turns. It's been in the forecast for a while – now it has arrived: a cold wind from the Ardennes is sweeping down the Moselle valley. The rain lashes the ancient gardens, and the waiters drift toward the windows, watching as the parasols surrender to the storm.
Daily Mirror
5 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Passengers flying with major airlines to face new 4 hour rule at airports
In a huge blow to Brits, EU countries have green-lighted controversial plans to lengthen the wait time before delayed passengers can claim compensation for both short and long-haul journeys Customers flying with some big name air operators on short-haul flights have been hit with a brutal four-hour warning over a controversial shakeup. After 12 years of wrangling, EU countries have green-lighted plans to lengthen the wait time before flyers can lodge claims for delayed flights. Currently, passengers have to be delayed by more than three hours before qualifying for compensation. However, under the new stipulations - which still have to be negotiated with the European Parliament before they become law - short-haul travellers will only be eligible to claim compensation after being delayed by four hours or more, while those on longer journeys will have to sit tight for a six-hour hold-up before they can lodge a compensation claim. It's not all bad news though, as EU nations have also agreed to increase the amount of compensation for those delayed on short-haul journeys from €250 (approx £210.47) to €300 (£252.56). But, passengers hit with delays on long-haul flights could see their compensation reduce from €600 (£505) to €500 (£420). The trade body Airlines for Europe (A4E), which represents companies such as Ryanair, easyJet and Lufthansa, and The European Consumer Organisation, the BEUC, both slammed the rules - arguing it would deprive the majority of passengers from being able to claim compensation. This is because most delays are only between two and four hours. "Europe has been waiting for transparent and workable passenger rights for 12 years and member states have fallen at the final hurdle to deliver," A4E said. "Member states have diluted the European Commission's original proposal and introduced even more complexity." According to Yorkshire Live, German members of the European People's Party have also expressed their disapproval, stating that 'decreasing the rights to compensation for air passengers would be a step in the wrong direction'. "Reimbursement after a three-hour delay has been standard for many years and should remain so," they added. A senior EU diplomat is believed to have said that 'no politician wants to say more than four hours' at risk of dampening Europeans' holiday plans. The news comes amidst accusations by 16 consumer protection associations from 12 Member States against seven budget airlines for imposing unfair charges on passengers' hand luggage. "The European Court of Justice has made it very clear that hand baggage is an integral part of the basic ticket price. Normally, there is no surcharge on the price as long as the hand luggage is of a reasonable size," explained Steven Berger, a solicitor with the European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC). "All we're seeing is a proliferation of airlines charging for this baggage... We're calling for very clear rules. Passengers must be able to take one piece of luggage, a small suitcase or a rucksack." He added: "At the moment, there are two different opposing positions among the member states in the Council. On the whole, you have the camp of the member states that are going to defend the three hours to be able to benefit from the right to compensation and others that are going to ask for five hours and nine hours based on distance. So right now this is really the big source of conflict." *Prices based on EUR to GBP conversions at the time of writing.
Daily Mail
9 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Vile LA rioters target agents at their hotels and threaten to 'burn them' as law enforcement faces death threats
In vile posts calling for violence against law enforcement, the hotels where federal agents are staying in Los Angeles have been released online, with one agitator saying 'burn them.' The exact address of where Border Patrol agents stayed in Ranch Cucamonga, California just outside LA was posted on Instagram by a self-proclaimed 'leftists'. 'ICE at Hilton, car filled goggles, tuff ties, and riot shields,' the video said, even though the cars were clearly marked Border Patrol, which is a sister agency of Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE. Border Patrol has been called in to help ICE as it carried out immigration arrests in Los Angeles last week. Additionally, Border Patrol has always been able to operate within 100 miles of the US-Mexico border on its own. 'Burn them,' posted Instagram users @bobbygee57_ in response to the reel showing the agent's location. 'Got a match,' asked @joseflocas. Another user urged others to damage the tax-payer funded vehicles. Some of the commentators urges violence against Border Patrol agents 'Pop the tires and use spark plugs to break their windows.' Border Patrol agents have since relocated. 'A lot of hotels are compromised,' one agent on the ground told He speculated they might have to sleep inside federal buildings to stay safe. The agency's intelligence team had been notified of the threats against its officers. A second post made unverified claims that ICE agents had been kicked out of a hotel in Pasadena. It shared the new hotel address where the they posters claimed the agents were moving to. The @Stopicenet account shared an image of a Border Patrol truck engulfed in flames. A Free Palestine group shared instructions on how to organize against the cops in LA, saying peaceful protests don't work. 'Riots downtown are great, but what can you accomplish in small numbers, wearing a mask at night, with your phone at home,' posted @solidaritysfl. 'Showing up to a sidewalk protest with protest marshals empowers counterrevolutionary entities (liberals) to drain all the energy and radicalism into Instagram photo ops and call-your-representatives nonsense. That's not going to work. It never has. There are so many other options. If you're all alone, show up to your local Food Not Bombs (in a mask) and let's talk. We are everywhere.' Federal officials have made if clear that violence against agents will not be tolerated. 'Our law enforcement officers are just doing their jobs. Violence and intimidation against federal law enforcement will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,' ICE posted to X. 'Assaulting, harassing and doxing ICE officers and special agents is against the law. The Justice Department will prosecute you for these federal crimes!' Assaulting, harassing and doxing ICE officers and special agents is against the law. @thejusticedept will prosecute you for these federal crimes! — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (@ICEgov) June 9, 2025 While most of the protestors in LA have been peaceful, some have turned to violence, including setting cars on fire and throwing items at police during demonstrations The Trump administration has argued that agent safety is one of the reason the president took the unprecedented step of calling in the national guard, despite opposition from both the governor and mayor of LA. While most protestor in LA have been peaceful, some have set cars on fire and hurled items at officers and their vehicles since the clashes started on Friday.
