Den flere gange straffede Abdallah Boumezaar tilstod mandag at have skudt de to unge kvinder. “Siden han mistede sin far, har han ændret sig fuldstændigt,” siger hans mor. Hun vil hyre en advokat til sin søn. “Jeg vil påberåbe mig sindssyge.” I samme artikel siger hun “Min søn er ikke en morder” trods det at han har tilstået, og så kommer man i tvivl om ikke hele familien burde påråbe sig sindssyge.

French police say a man has confessed to killing two female paramilitary gendarmes who were shot dead with a gun belonging to one of them. The officers, who were aged 29 and 35, were killed in the village of Collobrieres, in the Maures mountains near the southeastern town of Toulon.It is believed to be the first time two female gendarmes have been killed in the same incident in France.France: Two Female Police Officers Shot Dead

Mördaren var Abdallah Boumezaar en 30-årig algerisk stenhuggare. Boumezaar hade släppts i höstas efter att ha avtjänat sex års fängelse för narkotikabrott och väpnat rån. Han hade nyligen dömts till en villkorlig dom för grovt våld mot sin mor. Han bodde nu i den lilla byn Collobrières med knappt 2.000 invånare. På söndagen hade han rånat en kvinnlig granne på hand- väskan. Då han blev igenkänd spårade kvinnans make upp honom och ringde efter polisen.

Gendarmeriet (den halvmilitära polisen på lands-bygden) sände två kvinnliga poliser till byn.Den storväxte Abdallah slog ned överkonstapeln, stal hennes pistol och sköt båda poliserna. Den 35-åriga överkonstapeln, mor till två små barn, dödades omedelbart genom flera skott i ansiktet.Den 29-åriga konstapeln försökte ta skydd i en gränd, men sköts i ryggen. Arab mördar två kvinnliga poliser i Frankrike.

Dagen i dag er verden af igår

Jeg vil ikke påstå, jeg kan overskue den forfatning EU er i, men hvis bare halvdelen af hvad denne EU-tilhænger skriver er sandt, så ser det skræmmende ud. Ikke mindst fordi mange af Europas politikere heller ikke kan overskue det, selvom de foregiver at kunne:

We spent most of yesterday on a beach in Devon — the family and me, that is. The sun was shining, the sand golden; gentle surf washed the shore against a backdrop of soft woods and green fields rising from the shore. I mention these holiday scenic details only to make the point that our world yesterday — and yours, too, I expect — looked pretty much the way it did the day before and, for that matter, in years gone by. Because this is so, because no bombs are dropping, nor Viking hordes sacking villages nor dinosaurs roaming city streets, it is difficult for us all to get our minds around the notion that hell is a’popping; that Europe is in the early stages of what will probably prove its gravest and most frightening tumult of our lifetimes. Europe’s on the brink of probably the gravest and most frightening tumult of our lifetime

Bawer: ”Anti-Jihad Critics Spared a Show Trial in Norway

Well, as it turned out, I didn’t end up testifying at the trial of Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik after all. As I reported here back in April, Breivik’s lawyers put together a long list of Islam critics, myself included, whom they were calling as “expert witnesses.” The summonses we were sent in the mail made it clear that under Norwegian law we were obliged to testify. If we refused to comply, we would be subject to fine and imprisonment.

Fortunately, I was not without resources. Thanks to help from the Legal Project, an activity of Daniel Pipes’s Middle East Forum, I had been able to retain a lawyer, who, at my request, sent a splendid letter to the defense in which he spelled out the legal absurdity of my reclassification as a “regular witness.” Thanks, apparently, to that letter, my name was dropped from the witness list. (Peder Nøstvold Jensen, otherwise known as Fjordman, also managed to extricate himself from this circus – also, I gather, with help from the Legal Project – but I will leave it to him to tell his own story.)

Geir Lippestad, the head of the defense team, demonstrated his utter failure to understand the principles underlying my objection to testifying when he cracked at a press conference on June 1: “It’s a bit funny that those witnesses who are most preoccupied with speaking out, and who possibly think they’re not getting the opportunity to speak out, go into hiding when they get the opportunity to speak out and have the attention of the entire international media.” As if he were doing me, or anyone else, a favor – giving us a desirable forum for our views! – by pressing us into the role of witnesses for a mass murderer.

Lippestad, alas, isn’t alone. Too many people involved in this case have proven themselves incapable of grasping a very elementary point: namely, that in a democracy, you don’t haul writers into court to be grilled about their political views. Indeed, it has often seemed as if the trial were taking place in a hermetically sealed chamber, apart from ordinary considerations of simple reality and of the most fundamental notions of individual rights. “This is a trial,” Rustad wrote to me the other day, “that is oblivious to the world outside.” Bingo. Not only are the judges operating in a world of their own invention; the Norwegian media, noted Rustad, have made clear their lack of interest in a serious debate “about the future of liberal society.”Anti-Jihad Critics Spared a Show Trial in Norway