Latest news with #Mahmoud
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Transport for NSW threatens to deregister Sydney driver's car over numberplate
A Lebanese-Australian has been forced to hand in a set of number plates after Transport for NSW said they 'may give rise to controversy or public disagreement'. Mahmoud, who lives in Greenacre in Sydney 's south-west, was told by Transport for NSW last month that it would deregister his 'FU2IDF' number plates if he didn't turn them in. Mahmoud registered the plates in 2024 as 'my silent protest' in response to the Gaza War between Hamas and its allies and Israel. The war is the deadliest for Palestinians in the unresolved Israeli–Palestinian and Gaza–Israel conflicts dating back to the 20th century. 'My wife is Palestinian. Her family has had people killed since the start of the occupation in 1948. They've been displaced, they can't go home. So this is raw for us,' he told the publication Deepcut. Mahmoud received a letter from Transport for NSW on June 30 telling him to return his plates within 18 days or risk losing his registration. 'Transport for NSW has policies that prevent particular number plate content being displayed,' the letter read. 'This is related, but not limited to, content that has a religious theme, is discriminatory, is political, promotes violence, has a sexual reference, promotes drug taking/drinking or may be deemed to give rise to controversy or public disagreement. Mahmoud shows off the letter he was sent by Transport for NSW on June 30 'Transport for NSW has determined that these number plates may give rise to controversy or public disagreement and must be returned.' Mahmoud claimed his free speech rights were being taken away as he protests the war in the Middle East and Israel's treatment of Palestinians. 'I thought this was a free country where people can express themselves and their opinions,' he said. 'Some people find my number plate offensive, but the murder of tens of thousands of women and children isn't offensive to them.' Mahmoud even told a story of how a NSW police officer pulled him over before asking about the number plates. 'He was adamant that he wanted me to disclose what the plates meant. Once I disclosed what it meant, he actually shook my hand,' Mahmoud said. Mahmoud will turn the plates in, but has no plans to stop speaking out about the situation in Gaza. His other vehicle - a Toyota LandCruiser - has information about the Israel-Palestine war printed on the back. 'People see my car and give me the thumbs-up all the time. I want to spread that awareness so people understand the reality of what's been going on in Palestine for decades.'
New York Post
9 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Post
The left is a cult — and parents can fight it, with Supreme Court's blessing
Photo by John McDonnell/For The Washington Post via Getty Images In a landmark ruling last month, the Supreme Court slapped down a public-school district's mandatory lessons on sexual topics for young children — and gave parents the power to push back against leftist indoctrination in school. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, parents in Montgomery County, Md., argued that mandatory teaching of LGBT-themed books violated their families' religious beliefs. They didn't seek to remove the books — only the right to opt their children out of lessons that used them. The court backed them. Advertisement The district's instruction promoted the idea that gender is fluid and interchangeable, a notion that runs against the teachings of every major monotheistic religion: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Its LGBT teachings are part of a secular belief system that deliberately aims to supplant those traditional faiths with a new one. Leftism today increasingly functions not merely as a political ideology but as a full-fledged secular religion, complete with its own moral code, dogmas, rituals and rules of excommunication. Advertisement Like traditional religion, it offers a comprehensive worldview, one centered not on God or transcendent truth but on the sacredness of personal autonomy, identity and self-expression. Its doctrines — absolute tolerance, sexual liberation and equity over equality — are treated as unquestionable axioms, enforced with the fervor of religious orthodoxy. Public rituals like pronoun declarations, land acknowledgments and DEI trainings serve as liturgical acts of belonging and penance. Advertisement Sacred symbols like the pride flag or protest slogans function as talismans of moral clarity, and dissent from the liberal consensus results in a kind of modern heresy trial: cancellation, professional ruin or public shaming. The leftist 'priesthood' comprises media elites, academics and HR professionals, who act as interpreters and enforcers of the faith. Even its eschatology is religious in tone, offering visions of a utopian future once all bigotry is eradicated. By giving its adherents meaning, identity and moral purpose, leftism fulfills the role organized religion once did. Advertisement And the progressive religion isn't just a belief system — it's a doomsday cult. Consider any discussion of climate change. Suddenly, leftists become apocalyptic preachers warning of imminent destruction: rising seas, burning forests, uninhabitable cities — all brought on by sinful human consumption. The rhetoric is absolutist: Salvation can only be achieved through strict adherence to new commandments — no meat, no plastic, no air travel and total obedience to technocratic elites. Like all cults, dissent is forbidden and skepticism is blasphemy. Climate anxiety drives the young to speak about the future with a mix of fatalism and fanaticism. It's not science but a deeply moral narrative of sin and penance driving this hysteria, dressed in the language of reason but pulsing with religious fervor. Advertisement The Montgomery County parents fought for the freedom to protect their children from the gender-ideology components of this progressive belief system, but that's just one facet of this new secular faith. They were right: The public-school system has become a vehicle for all kinds of indoctrination, preaching a broad secular orthodoxy that runs counter to the beliefs of families of faith. The LGBT content at issue in Mahmoud is just one chapter in that gospel. In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Montgomery County school board 'requires teachers to instruct young children using storybooks that explicitly contradict their parents' religious views, and it encourages the teachers to correct the children . . . when they express a degree of religious confusion.' Advertisement That same dynamic is at play across the curriculum, as public schools push all forms of progressivism on impressionable kids. It's time to fight back against the whole of the leftist religion, not just its more outrageous tenets — by confronting the cult's fire-and-brimstone, end-of-days theology too. That means demanding that science education in our schools must be grounded in reason, not fear. Public schools have no business sermonizing to children about the apocalypse. Leave that to the actual religions. Advertisement Armed with the Mahmoud ruling, public-school parents now have a legal foundation to resist when schools impose teachings that violate their most deeply held beliefs. They don't have to accept every lesson as mandatory — they can demand opt-outs, request transparency and challenge curriculum choices that cross the line from education into ideology. Parents can start by asserting their right to review lesson plans, attending school-board meetings and organizing locally to resist a broader secular agenda dressed up as neutral instruction. Advertisement The Supreme Court made it clear: The state can't force kids to absorb beliefs that conflict with their family's faith. Now it's up to parents to make their schools abide by that principle. Bethany Mandel writes and podcasts at The Mom Wars.
Qatar Tribune
2 days ago
- Health
- Qatar Tribune
87 killed in Israel raids at aid site, children dying of malnutrition
Agencies At least 87 Palestinians have been killed since dawn in Israeli attacks across Gaza, with dozens of children dying from malnutrition during Israel's punishing months-long blockade. Among the victims on Saturday, 14 were killed in Gaza City, four of them in an Israeli strike on a residence on Jaffa Street in the Tuffah area, which injured 10 others. At least 30 aid seekers were killed by Israeli army fire north of Rafah, southern Gaza, near the one operating GHF site, which rights groups and the United Nations have slammed as 'human slaughterhouses' and 'death traps'. According to Al Jazeera Mubasher, Israeli forces fired directly at Palestinians in front of the aid distribution centre in the al-Shakoush area of Rafah. Reporting from Deir el-Balah, Al Jazeera's Hani Mahmoud said the Israeli army opened fire indiscriminately on a large crowd during one of the attacks. 'Many desperate families in the north have been making dangerous journeys all the way to the south to reach the only operating distribution centre in Rafah,' he said. 'Many of the bodies are still on the ground,' Mahmoud said, adding that those who were wounded in the attack have been transferred to Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis. Amid relentless daily carnage rained upon starving aid seekers and the ongoing Israeli blockade, Gaza's Government Media Office said 67 children have now died due to malnutrition, and 650,000 children under the age of five are at 'real and immediate risk of acute malnutrition in the coming weeks'. 'Over the past three days, we have recorded dozens of deaths due to shortages of food and essential medical supplies, in an extremely cruel humanitarian situation,' the statement read. 'This shocking reality reflects the scale of the unprecedented humanitarian tragedy in Gaza,' the statement added. Israel is engineering a 'cruel and Machiavellian scheme to kill' in Gaza, the head of the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) said on Friday, as the world body reported that since May, when GHF began its operations, some 800 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid. 'Under our watch, Gaza has become the graveyard of children [and] starving people,' UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini said. Mass displacement As the Israeli military announced on Saturday that its forces attacked Gaza 250 times in the last 48 hours, Israeli officials have continued to push a plan to forcibly displace and eventually expel Palestinians. Earlier this week, Defense Minister Israel Katz announced a plan to build a so-called 'humanitarian city' which will house 2.1 million Palestinians on the rubble of parts of the city of Rafah, which has been razed to the ground. But Palestinians in Gaza have rejected the plan and reiterated that they would not leave the enclave. Rights groups, international organisations and several nations have slammed it as laying the ground for 'ethnic cleansing', the forcible removal of a population from its homeland. Israeli political analyst Akiva Eldar told Al Jazeera on Saturday that the majority of Israelis are 'really appalled' by Katz's plan, which would be 'illegal and immoral'. 'Anybody who will participate in this disgusting project will be involved in war crimes,' Elder said. The message underlying the plan, he said, is that 'there can't be two people between the river and the sea, and those who deserve to have a state are only the Jewish people.' As Israel announces its intention to force the population of Gaza into Rafah, Middle East professor at the University of Turin, Lorenzo Kamel, told Al Jazeera that the expulsion of Palestinians from their land and their concentration in restricted areas is nothing new. In 1948, 77 years ago to this day, 70,000 Palestinians were expelled from the village of Lydda during what became known as the 'march of death'.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Real Reason the Supreme Court Defines Anti-LGBTQ+ Beliefs as Religious
After Mahmoud v. Taylor, the latest in a string of court cases offering substantial protections for certain people's free exercise of religion, many questions remain. Among them is this one: What can religious beliefs be about? In Mahmoud, a multireligious coalition of families, with a named claimant who is Muslim, won the right to exempt their children from public school materials that include LGBTQ+ content. The group argued, and the majority of the Supreme Court agreed, that five storybooks advanced moral lessons that posed a 'very real threat of undermining' the parents' sincere religious beliefs and thus interfered with their right to 'direct the religious upbringing of their children.' Opponents, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent, have argued that the decision gives license to religious believers to contest any material they find objectionable. Conservatives claim that the slope is not so slippery, that it won't be a free-for-all. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court and quoting the 1972 case Wisconsin v. Yoder, explained that for students to opt out, the material must be presented in a way that is 'hostile' to their religious beliefs and imposes a 'pressure to conform.' Lawyer and author Asma Uddin asserted that the ruling is a 'narrow holding' that addresses 'a specific kind of burden, not every discomfort or value clash.' Which beliefs count, then? It is no coincidence that the sentiments in this case are about sex and gender. For many Americans, including judges, it is obvious that such a (conservative) belief would be religious. This leads us to two types of counterexamples: Can more-progressive beliefs about sex and gender be recognizably religious? And can conservative or right-wing beliefs about other topics, such as race, also be religious? Some progressive or liberal believers have won free exercise cases in recent years. In Indiana, a multireligious group of women, not unlike the parents in Mahmoud, contested the state's abortion ban. They successfully argued that the ban burdened their consciences and violated their religious freedom. Becket, the legal organization that represented the parents in Mahmoud, argued against these women, alleging that their beliefs were not religious but in fact political. The Indiana women won, as the state court found that the abortion ban did violate their religious consciences and burden their religious exercise. Nevertheless, that Becket (whose slogan is 'Religious Liberty for All') was on either side of these two cases, siding with religious freedom claimants in one and against them in the other, shows how progressive religious beliefs often face more scrutiny. The religiosity of anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs, conversely, is taken for granted. Alito quoted one school board member who, amid the conflict that led to the Mahmoud case, compared these parents to 'white supremacists' or 'xenophobes.' The justice doesn't provide enough text for us to determine whether the member was actually equating these beliefs to white supremacy or xenophobia (although why shouldn't they?). Alito seems to include this statement as evidence of animus by some board members to these parents—and also to signal that he might understand that racism and anti-LGBTQ+ positions are qualitatively different. In doing so, he raises the question of how such beliefs would be handled. It recalls his dissent in Obergefell, 10 years ago, lamenting that the legalization of same-sex marriage would 'be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.' Religious freedom has become a way not to assent, but from which 'new orthodoxies' will students be exempt? Under Mahmoud, there is no clear reason why parents would be unable to opt out of students' exposure to any viewpoint with which they disagree, even if the normative implications are 'subtle.' Likewise, there is no reason to assume that anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs are religious but racist beliefs or that pro-LGBTQ+ beliefs are not. This is a blinkered and shallow understanding of religion that crumbles under historical or sociological scrutiny. Another key point of disagreement between the majority and the dissent is whether these books 'merely expose' students to the existence of LGBTQ+ people or actively promote a certain moral stance. What neither fully acknowledges, though, is that complete neutrality, in which no values are learned, is neither possible nor desirable. There can be more of a facade of neutrality if a scrutinized text merely presents society as a multicultural melting pot than if it offers an explicit view of the state's position on morality. Sotomayor takes the pluralistic, melting-pot approach to neutrality, writing that public schools 'offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society.' Those differences, as she sees it, quoting the 1987 court, make public schools 'at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny.' While this approach is laudable, its problem is that some parents' 'faiths and backgrounds' seek to annihilate some others. Many conservative religious people, especially white evangelicals, believe that they face persecution and discrimination through inclusion. However, LGBTQ+ people's existence, including children's, is actually under attack. As is public education generally. Alito argues that Uncle Bobby's Wedding, one of the five books considered in the case, 'presents a specific, if subtle, message about marriage. It asserts that two people can get married, regardless of whether they are of the same or the opposite sex, so long as they 'love each other.' ' As Sotomayor says, if we can opt out of even 'subtle' messages, chaos will reign and student learning will suffer as book after book is carted off due to individual complaints. It matters, as Justice Clarence Thomas notes in his concurrence (for different reasons), that the case is about classroom books, not sex education. Children's literature is generally not a subtle genre. Didacticism often subsumes narrative, with popular titles including Hands Are Not for Hitting and Everyone Poops. Although these may seem to be less controversial statements than one conveying that everyone should be able to marry someone they love, Sotomayor is right; allowing all sorts of exemptions will make teaching much more difficult because schools and children's books are full of lessons that parents might object to, for whatever reason. But this case was not about just any reason. It was about sex and gender, which brings us back to this question: Why, in the court's view, are conservative approaches to sex and gender so obviously religious? And what else is religion about? Even with a Muslim claimant, this assumption seems to reflect the Christian right's decades of mobilizing around sex and gender issues. At the end of this Supreme Court term, the intersections of religion, schools, and parents are tangled and confusing. The justices nearly allowed for the creation of the nation's first explicitly religious public charter school. Parents can opt out of public school instruction that interferes with their child's religious upbringing. At the same time, parents cannot opt into gender-affirming care for their own children. Other observers have pointed out the seeming contradictions between Skrmetti and Mahmoud: Parents can shield their children from books about gay people, but they can't make medical decisions for them. What, exactly, is the scope of 'parental rights' now? And how do parental rights relate to religious freedom in the right to 'direct' children's religious upbringing? Let's conclude with two thought experiments. First, what might it look like to contest Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care, the same one the court upheld in Skrmetti, with a religious freedom argument citing Mahmoud? Could a religious parent in Tennessee not argue that the state's ban on gender-affirming care interferes with their child's religious upbringing? If they believe, sincerely and religiously, that trans expression is sacred or that God has made their child trans, then banning their gender-affirming health care undoubtedly poses 'a very real threat of undermining' their religious beliefs. Such a case's chances of success would depend, at least in part, on whether courts could recognize those beliefs as authentically religious. Second, instead of progressive religious views about gender, what about other conservative religious views? What would happen if, for example, the parents in Mahmoud took issue with the fact that Uncle Bobby's Wedding appears to portray an interracial wedding? Or imagine a slightly different book, with a white Uncle Bobby marrying a Black woman, or a Muslim Uncle Bobby marrying a Jewish woman. Would the case's outcome be different? Conservative beliefs about sex and gender are legible as religious largely because of the Christian right's decades of organizing and the prominence of its campaigns against the rights of women and LGBTQ+ people. Its particularities have been taken as generic 'religion.' If judges fail to recognize the religiosity of other beliefs about sex and gender—or of conservative beliefs about other topics—it is the result of these campaigns, not because these judges understand American religions as they are actually lived, practiced, and believed.
Telegraph
6 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Iran pushes tens of thousands of Afghans back into hands of Taliban in ‘security' crackdown
Iran is rounding up hundreds of thousands of Afghan immigrants and pushing them over the border into the hands of the Taliban. The victims, who include thousands of women and girls, are being left to fend for themselves at a dusty and inhospitable border crossing where temperatures regularly reach 45 degrees and there is little in the way of food or water. Iran is using espionage allegations as a pretext for the mass arrests and deportations following the recent conflict with Israel. Nearly 450,000 refugees, many of whom arrived in Iran since the Taliban swept back to power in 2021, have been kicked out since the beginning of June and numbers have soared since the war with Israel, UN agencies have said. These deportations have affected more than 114,000 people in just a few days, including the separation of 5,000 children from their parents. Those targeted by the regime also reported suffering widespread abuses including beatings, arbitrary detention. The Telegraph spoke to Afghans in Iran, at the border, and in Afghanistan who said the regime in Tehran is targeting them to divert public attention from its 'humiliation' by Israel in last month's 12-day war. Mahmoud*, an Afghan refugee working as a labourer in Tehran, said he was detained at a bakery, and when he asked why, the officers began beating him – slapping his face and kicking him in the stomach to force him to reveal his address. 'They kept hitting me all the way to my house, calling me a nasty Jew and Israeli,' he said. He said the violence continued once they entered the home. His sons were beaten, and the family was given just 20 minutes to pack. 'They treated us like criminals, you wouldn't even treat an animal like that,' he said. 'They handcuffed everyone, loaded us into a van, and even during the ride, they hurled sexual insults at us. We had documents there and had done nothing wrong.' He then found himself with a group of Afghans in a detention centre in the Iranian capital, where he was beaten again. 'Four of them would come and start beating us with pipes and cables, and four would be waiting, then the other four would come and beat us,' Mahmoud recalled. He added: 'Women and children were screaming, the children were thirsty. They left us under the sun for three days before sending us to the border. Even then the ordeal was far from over. 'Along the way, they took our phones, money, and even women's jewellery,' he said. 'They wanted to torture us to make sure we never return.' Many of those arriving in Islam Qala have never set foot in Afghanistan before, having been born and raised in Iran. But the Islamic Republic insists they should call the war-torn country home and they are now struggling to survive in a border town that even locals describe as 'hell'. The border crossing is lined with makeshift shelters and belongings – torn bags, children's shoes, and photos carried by the wind litter the ground. It is regularly battered by dust storms and heavy winds which push mountains of sand along the road to the nearest city, Herat. Mousa, a 32-year-old truck driver, said he was violently arrested, dragged into a van, and sent to the border without warning. 'I was arrested inside a bank while trying to withdraw money,' he said. 'I showed them my documents, but they didn't care. 'They took me to a camp and then straight to the border. I have nothing with me and no idea how things work here.' He was forced to leave everything behind – his family, his savings, and his car, which was still parked outside the bank. 'They would have taken it all,' he said. 'My children are too young, and my wife can't manage alone. My plan is to get a passport and return – I can't survive here.' Afghanistan – where 90 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line amid an economic collapse – cannot absorb the waves of people arriving, the Taliban government admits. A senior Taliban official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Telegraph that the Afghan government is facing its biggest challenge since capturing Kabul almost four years ago. 'The regime in Tehran has never liked our people. Now they're angry at the West, and Afghans have become their most convenient target,' the official said, adding that the government has been holding multiple cabinet meetings every week to discuss the crisis. 'Each time, the conclusion is the same – we are overwhelmed. Our people are hungry, and they don't even expect a good lifestyle or internet – they just want food. Our neighbours are not treating us well – we pray God will help our nation.' The people of Herat have mobilised in support of the large numbers of newcomers arriving in Islam Qala. Many have taken deportees into their own homes and cooked meals and taken food to the border. Locals are offering free transport from the border to the city, and grassroots groups are covering bus fares to help returnees reach their home towns and villages in Afghanistan. But they cannot help everyone. 'A human catastrophe is unfolding in Islam Qala,' said one local taxi driver. 'Girls as young as ten, beautiful but with faces faded like flowers left too long in the sun – or like fish gasping after being pulled from a river. I cried for them.' In late May the Iranian authorities ordered all undocumented Afghans to leave the country by July 6, a move potentially impacting four million people out of an estimated population of six million. While the millions of Afghans living in Iran had long been made economic scapegoats by the regime, the crackdown has evolved into something far more dangerous following the military confrontation with Israel. Daily deportations surged fifteen-fold during the 12-day war, from 2,000 to over 30,000 people per day, as the Iranian authorities channelled domestic rage toward a vulnerable minority. Raids on homes, workplaces, and construction sites have become common, as have beatings, while deportation is now effectively state policy. Many Afghans are now being arrested on charges of spying for Israel – an accusation many fear enough to flee Iran voluntarily – while xenophobia has soared. 'The regime has turned the whole nation against us,' said Rulloah, an Afghan civil engineering graduate now working as a day labourer in Iran. 'They're taking revenge for their defeat,' he said. 'People have been told not to sell us bread, give us work, or let us into parks and restaurants. Anyone who helps us can be fined or even charged.' He described how police arrested one of his relatives while he was digging a pit for £3 a day. Armed officers pulled him out of the hole, covered in dust, and began beating him. They then took a few small drones from their vehicle, photographed him with them, and took him away. 'He can't even read, but they insisted he was making drones,' said Rulloah. 'An Iranian friend who saw him being arrested called me. Fearing they would come for his family too, I went to his house and took his wife and four children to a relative's home.' In another case, a father of two, whose wife had died of cancer a few months earlier, left his 2-year-old son and 4-year-old daughter locked inside their home in an eastern Iranian city while he went to a nearby shop. He was arrested and taken away, and three days later, neighbours found the children dead, relatives of the man told The Telegraph, adding that they had no information about his current whereabouts or condition. The crackdown has also created opportunities for exploitation of a vulnerable population. Some Iranian landlords have sought to take advantage of the situation by refusing to return rental deposits to Afghan families forced to leave, while many employers have reported their own Afghan workers to the police to get out of paying months of unpaid wages. Some Iranians who owe money to Afghans use the same tactic to escape repayment. Thousands have had their phone sim cards blocked, while goods are also being sold to Afghans at higher prices than to Iranians. In Afghanistan, a lack of resources means there is no end in sight to the crisis. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is seeking $2.42 billion in funding for its 2025 Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan for Afghanistan. But only 22.2 per cent has been secured to date. Because of the large numbers of people arriving, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the UN's migration agency, has had to drastically reduce the cash assistance it offers to returnee families at the border from $2,000 per family to just $156, said Amy Pope, the IOM's Director General. Critical funding gaps hinder the ability of IOM and partners to provide assistance, reaching only 10 per cent of those in need, she said. 'Families are arriving with nothing but the clothes on their backs, exhausted and in urgent need of food, medical care and support. 'The scale of returns is deeply alarming and demands a stronger and more immediate international response. Afghanistan cannot manage this alone.'
