Majorityrights News > Category: Christianity

DM, “Rapist who ‘took away childhood and innocence’ of girl, aged 11, is jailed for 15 years” 3 April 2016:

Mohammed Amin, 27, seduced his victim by throwing notes through her bedroom window, a court heard.
 
  Mohammed Amin cried when the judge sentenced him

A rapist who lied about his age and took away the “childhood and innocence” of his 11-year-old victim has been jailed for fifteen years.

Mohammed Amin, 27, seduced her by throwing notes through her bedroom window, the court heard.

He was sentenced at Cardiff Crown Court on Friday after pleading guilty to raping the girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons.

The court heard how Amin was jailed for six months last year for sexual activity with the same girl but this was on the basis he had kissed her and had inappropriately contacted her on Facebook , Wales Online reported .

The truth was he had coerced his victim, who was aged 11 and 12 at the time of abuse, into a sexual relationship which lasted around 18 months, the court heard.

The abuse came to light after the girl confided in a member of staff at her school.

Prosecutor Ieuan Bennett said the girl was interviewed by police and said she and Amin had become “boyfriend and girlfriend”.

He added: “It appears the defendant realised the relationship was inappropriate because he told her not to tell anybody else about the it as he might go to prison.

“She explained they would sometimes go in his car to Cardiff Bay for a day out and she would go to his flat almost every day.

“It seems the kissing started almost on the first day of them becoming friends.

“He wrote her notes and threw them up through her bedroom window. One said ‘Will you go out with me?’.”

Amin initially lied about his age, saying he was 22-years-old, but later admitted to being 26-years-old.

The girl told him she was 14 but she later admitted to being 11-years-old early on in the relationship.

She said Amin’s response was: “I don’t care”.

When asked by police why she didn’t tell them sooner about the more serious accusations, the girl said she didn’t want Amin to go to jail but over time she had come to realise the effect the relationship had had on her.

There are really two important stories for White Nationalists that TNO has exposed in an article regarding Trump’s campaign.

First, that Trump has denied affinity with Matteo Salvini, the head of Italy’s anti-immigration party, Lega Nord. This denial came after Trump had garnered Salvini’s support and publicly commended him.

Secondly, what was a (((dead ringer))) from the start about the (((out of no-where))) viability of Trump’s Presidential Campaign has been corroborated by his son - i.e., that Trump’s (((campaign)) gained (((support))) by his agreement to denounce and challenge the Iran deal.

TNO, “Trump Rudely Dumps Italy’s Salvini”, 4 June 2016:

Donald Trump has rudely dumped Italy’s Lega Nord leader Matteo Salvini, saying he “never wanted to meet him” and “didn’t even know him”—only a few weeks after meeting and posing with the European populist.

In April this year, Trump met up and posed for pictures with Salvini at a rally in Wilkes-Barre, northeastern Pennsylvania, and, according to the La Repubblica newspaper, expressed the hope that Salvini would become the prime minister of Italy.

Now, however, Trump has completely reversed his positon. In an interview with journalist Michael Wolff published in the Hollywood Reporter (“The Donald Trump Conversation: Politics’ ‘Dark Heart’ Is Having the Best Time Anyone’s Ever Had,” June 01, 2016), Trump has completely distanced himself from Salvini.

In the interview, when asked about Salvini, Trump declared: “I didn’t want to meet him. I didn’t even know him.”

As Wolff wrote:

I ask if he sees himself as having similarities with leaders of the growing anti-immigrant (some would say outright racist) European nativist movements, like Marine Le Pen in France and Matteo Salvini in Italy, whom the Wall Street Journal reported Trump had met with and endorsed in Philadelphia. (“Matteo, I wish you become the next Italian premier soon,” Trump was quoted as saying.) In fact, he insists he didn’t meet Salvini. “I didn’t want to meet him.” And, in sum, he doesn’t particularly see similarities — or at least isn’t interested in them — between those movements and the anti-immigrant nationalism he is promoting in this country.

Salvini responded:

When asked why Trump would distance himself in this way, Salvini told the La Repubblica that this “makes me laugh…that interview is unbelievable. I assure you, a dozen emails were exchanged in preparation for that meeting. I didn’t jump from an airplane with a hat and flag.”

[...]

Whatever the reason, the reality remains that Trump’s public repudiation of Salvini is a clear indication that the maverick businessman-turned politician is starting to be “brought into line” by the establishment.

Another disturbing recent revelation about Trump has come with the claim by his son Eric that the decision to run for president was driven primarily by the “deal” struck with Iran over that nation’s mythical “atom bomb” project.

Related Story. by Compulsory Diversity News - Dear WN, “before the cuck crows, three times Donald will three times deny ye.”

When asked about Salvini, Trump declared: “I didn’t want to meet him. I didn’t even know him.”

Along with a Muslim Mayor, this is another way to extend the bounds of Abrahamic jurisdiction

Stretching the truth of home and jurisdiction the Jewish way - fishing wire atop poles circumscribing a protracted area to designate the new parameters of “home”, so that Orthodox Jews will not be “violating the Sabbath” within its extended bounds -  an extensive area of London designated as theirs exclusively.

With the new London Mayor, it also goes to show that they are prepared to live alongside Muslims and that they believe that they know how to do that. Of course its alright for Jews to discriminate and have their own sacrosanct territory.

DM, “Jewish plans for London ‘eruv’ zone ringed by six miles of fishing wire to avoid restrictions on the Sabbath could create ghetto, say critics,” 1 June 2016:

Fishing wire would be suspended from 18ft poles to create a boundary

Eruv would act as extension of home’s walls giving Jews more freedom

Concerns that proposal to Camden Council could lead to ‘ghettoisation’

But architect says eruv would make people feel more part of community

 

                 
Top left is an example of poles topped with fishing wire surrounding a protracted area of London (in purple) symbolizing their “Orthodox home” so that they can avoid Sabbath rules prohibiting activities “outside the home” on Saturdays.

A six-mile perimeter could be created around an area of North London to help Orthodox Jews avoid restrictions on the Sabbath.

Fishing wire would be suspended from tall poles to create the boundary for what would become a huge eruv, acting as an extension of the walls of a home which would give Jews greater freedom.

But there are concerns the proposal to Camden Council by a group of synagogues could lead to ‘ghettoisation’ of the area, following similar fears raised in another application nearby in 2014.

[...]

WHAT IS AN ERUV? HOW A HOME’S BOUNDARIES CAN BE EXTENDED

An example of an eruv, which acts as an extension of a home’s walls and gives Jews more freedom

An example of an eruv, which acts as an extension of a home’s walls and gives Jews more freedom

Observant Jews have to try to avoid violating a religious law that bans them from working on the Sabbath, which includes carrying anything around - except within their homes.

But an eruv extends the boundaries of their properties, meaning they can follow the same rules within this area when outside the home.

It is created using physical features such as walls and then filling in the spaces with fishing lines connected between poles to enclose land.

Pushing things in public is also forbidden on the Sabbath, so an eruv allows people with wheelchairs or pushchairs to use these outside.

Within an eruv Jews can carry items such as house keys, books, essential medicines, extra clothes, reading glasses and crutches.

The idea of the eruv is to help Jews follow the ideas of the Sabbath by making it enjoyable without breaking the rules that keep it holy.

This means Jews still cannot carry things that cannot be moved on the Sabbath such as mobile phones, pens or wallets.

       
Jewish homo Milo Yiannopoulos flaunts YKW orchestration of the alternative right tentosphere in Trump rally at U.C.L.A.  - audience gobbles it up.

With hipster cursing he promotes his (((Catholicism))), tells atheists to “lighten up”, get with the new Trump wave ... those “leftist’ cunts” (((leftist cunts))) had their day.

(((Breitbart))) is recommended as the new hipster youth media.

Milo at U.C.L.A.

#Tentosphere

    #DavidDukeNoFriendofPoland

             
              David Duke is no friend of Poland; neither was Hitler or Friedrich

On many occasions David Duke has claimed that Nazi Germany was offering genuine peace - “22 peace offers” - to the West and only wanted back some places taken from Germany by The Versailles Treaty. He says nothing about the truth of the matter, which was that Hitler had obvious tactical reasons to not want to fight on two fronts and have his agenda for lebensraum in the east interfered with.

The peace offers were an obvious ruse to anybody. It is clear that Hitler was a war monger, had in mind lebensraum up to the Urals and intended to kill those Slavic peoples who fought against his plan to subject them as helots.

There is no excuse for ignoring that and for David Duke to present himself and Nazi Germany as sympathetic to Poland.

He completely ignores the fact that Poland had already fought and defeated the Soviets - who were on their way to Germany had they not been stopped by Piłsudski at Warsaw.

He talks about Soviet atrocities as if it is an either/or between the Soviet killing and the Nazi killing. Typical of Nazophiles, he edits the time line of events as it suits him - focusing after the Nazis stabbed Poland in the back with the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact.

Here is what Duke says on May 24, in a conversation with Professor Kevin MacDonald:

David Duke (sympathetic tone): Isn’t it true that hundreds of thousands of Poles were shipped-off to gulags, were stripped of any job, even a way to make a living, because they might have been seen as an enemy of Jews or enemies of the communist regime in Poland and the communist regime was absolutely controlled by Jews.

And in fact when the communists came into Poland it wasn’t the Germans who executed Polish prisoners. In fact the Germans, after they won, they paroled most of the Polish officers. They didn’t even keep them in prison during the whole war.

Sure, they were “liberators” of Poland. Where is Lana to add chorus?

Duke continues: The communists came in and we had the Katyn forest massacre; where they literally murdered 15,000 of the cream, of really intelligentsia of the young men of Poland; massacred them in the Kaytn forest. During the time of ‘46, the communists were putting people in prison, they were torturing Poles; they were sending people to the gulags even in Siberia from their own homeland. They were killing an awful lot of people; and the Jews were right at the head of this and that was the reason why the people in those areas rose up to fight the Jews; because of this horrific horror that was going on that was much worse than any program that was committed.

Kevin MacDonald corrects him: “pogroms”, then adds..

Much worse. The fact is that the Jews [inaudible] on the Soviet Union and when they came in in 1939; the fact is that they supported communism, they hated Polish nationalism and that there were so many Jews in the government, especially in the secret police and so on. It was really something that was made to order for anti-Jewish reaction.  And it was there, I think it was 1967, they finally deposed this very Jewish dominated government; and quite a few of them just left for Israel. They weren’t really Poles they didn’t feel any uh, you know, feeling towards Poland and they just left for their homeland.

Duke: Let’s talk about the beginnings of the war and what happened here; in terms of the second world war. We can actually just start off by the fact that during the 1920s and 30s that tens of millions of people were liquidated; murdered in Russia; murdered in Ukraine; Jews dominated the secret service and the NKVD; and the other communist apparatus that tortured countless numbers of Russians; murdered millions of people; in Ukraine alone there was something like 7 or 11 million people that died, starved to death, women, children, elderly ...and this was all done, of course, in peace time.  This was not done under the aegis of war; but for some reason, the anger of the media, the international media over which the Jews have control, like the New York Times, and the movie industry of this country, the entertainment industry of America and Europe, which were also heavily influenced; weren’t saying the big evil of the world was communism, they were saying the big evil was the Germans. And when the war began of course, it wasn’t just the Germans attacking the Poles over the city of Danzig and a few other issues, the Bolsheviks came in, the communists came in from the east, took about half of Poland, and where the Germans treated the Polish prisoners of war decently, we find out later that the Russian, not really Russian, but the Jewish led Bolsheviks of the time; and the Jewish led murderers, commissars literally caused the mass murder of the entire Polish army officer corps; of the country - 15,000 at Katyn. And yet, we had a media and we had governments of the west by the west who had so much influence by the Jews, they weren’t saying that we should declare war on Russia; Britain and France, they didn’t declare war on Russia, no - they declared war on Germany. A war that ultimately took the lives of 55,000 million of Europeans and really caused the communist take-over of half of Europe; and countless millions more who were victims.  What are your thoughts on that sir?

[Note: WN typically do not manage to consider that maybe Hitler should not have invaded Eastward; after having already been granted the valuable Sudetenland and having been told that there would be war if he invaded further; while the Sudetenland was precious to Czech and perhaps contestable on historical grounds].

Unfortunately, KM endorses Duke’s totally one sided and highly selective account of history:

KM: Absolutely. I think um, in general, what these Jewish organizations will respond to all that is that “these people were not really Jews”, they didn’t identify as Jews so a big part of my work, when I wrote a chapter on Jews and the Left in The Culture of Critique… but these people did identify as Jews, it takes some close reading of the issues..  you have to go in there and show that it does make a difference.

The next day, May 25, David Duke has a program titled, “Dr. Duke interviews the leader of TradCatKnight who destroys Christian Zionist Lies.” Duke, the “friend of Poland”, talks with a Polish Catholic guy, who uses all these bizarre interpretations of the Abrahamic religion, talking about how the true Christianity will emerge and the Jewish head of the NWO will emerge in Israel, etc. - some anti-Christ figure from The Book of Revelation, no doubt, causing us all to get into a highly rational war on behalf of the true Jews.

David Duke is taking advantage of this Abrahamic fool, who has his eyes on scripture and his interpretations, not on this world, the world Jews care about; and this world, where they once led a Soviet Revolution that was even more murderous than Nazi Germany, but this world, where Nazi Germany mirrored Judaism, their unanimity for one people - Germanics - and not only a demonstrated willingness, but the protracted realization of killing that led to the killing of 55,000 million Europeans because Hitler could not cooperate with nationalists to the east, but started a war that might even out-do his idol, Friedrich the Great, in his eastward territorial conquests - and in which he aspired not only to rid his realm of Jews, but to take-over and subjugate the lands and the people of the lands eastward, up to the Urals; quite willing to destroy anyone who would oppose those objectives.

Roman Dmowski, wise to the need to exclude Jews but his nationalism was too right-wing.

Were there Jewish elements which had infiltrated Germany’s neighboring countries? Yes. Were there native nationalist elements in those countries which were aware that this alien and nefarious element needed to be purged - yes. Were they aware of the danger and willing to fight the Soviets? Also yes. It was incumbent upon a statesman to work with those elements. Lebensraum and a plan for subjugation of Slavic peoples does not accord with the principle of ethnonationalism; nor did Nazi Germany represent White nationalism - it represented Prussio-German imperialism.

In terms of truth, trust and relations, it is not going to do any good proceeding with the denial of Nazi Germany’s imperfection.

One of the difficulties with the philo-Nazism of WN is that they partake of one of its cottage industries - blaming Poland, itemizing Germany’s “superiority in every way” and cataloging Poland’s “perfidy”.

You don’t build good relations that way, you start wars through reciprocally escalating diatribe - when you have to be on constant vigil against a people who believe in their infallible right to destroy you, that makes it extremely difficult to say, hey, you know, my side had this, that or the other thing wrong, could have done better here and here is/was the way to correct that: which I would like to do - but it’s hard when the other side is making itself into another side rather than a partner, by constantly dishonestly insisting that it was perfect, a victim and that your side was pure evil or perfidy without circumstance.

Józef Piłsudski - wise and capable against the Soviets, but his nationalism was too civic, allowing for Jewish inclusion

If I were dealing with a more reasonable audience than Nazophilic WN, the place where I would go next in criticism of the Poland of the era would be this - of Piłsudski’s pragmatic brand of nationalism, which was (much) more propositional than it should have been.

Although Piłsudski respected Germans and German nationalism - good; and although he despised the Soviet Union and fought them successfully - also very good; he did not yet appreciate the need to eject the YKW from Polish nationalism. He believed that it was a practical necessity to include them in order to have sufficient fighting strength. And so long as Hitler had imperialistic designs of lebensraum, that, the necessity to include the YKW, could have been true in some unfortunate, short term sense. Roman Dmowksi (the father of Polish nationalism) however, recognized the perfidy of enfranchising Jews into the Polish nation. While he was more anti-German than Józef Piłsudski, his disputes with Germany were not imperialistic, but local - regarding Poznan, Leszno, Pila, Bydgoszcz, Torun, Gdansk and a bit beyond Gdansk, into Pomerania. But not even this was anywhere near as far west as the Polish/German border is today. Even by Dmowski’s designs, Germany still included Breslau (Wroclaw), Stettin (Szczecin), Konigsberg (Kaliningrad); in fact everything not far west of the towns he sought to reclaim.

It does no good to say that Hitler’s only dispute and designs were to win these particular areas for Germany, that Hitler was only taking defensive measures against the Soviets (as Duke constantly claims) and that it was all the fault of Poland. Hitler wanted lebensraum and not only did he design to take all of Poland, all of Czechoslovakia, all of Belarus, all of Ukraine and Russia up to the Urals; not only did he ignore the fact that there were staunch anti-Jewish and anti-Soviet forces in all of these places, he was perfectly willing to turn their people into slaves where he temporarily succeeded; into helots or material for Germanicization at best, were his designs to hold sway; and perfectly willing kill them if they fought for their ethno-states.

The Atlantic, “How Donald Trump Speaks to—and About—Minorities” 3 May 2016:

Does the presumptive Republican nominee see African Americans and Hispanics as part of the American “we”?

Lucas Jackson / Reuters

Celebrating his big win in Indiana—and his elevation to presumptive nominee of the Republican Party—Tuesday night, Donald Trump spoke at Trump Tower in New York City, where he delivered a promise to heal the deep fractures in his party.

“We want to bring unity to the Republican Party,” he said. “We have to bring unity. It’s so much easier if we have it.”

Do Black Votes Matter to Donald Trump?

That will be a tall order. But as a general-election candidate, Trump will need to win over more than just Republicans. In his inimitable way, he pledged to bring together the rest of the nation as well.

“We’re going to bring back our jobs, and we’re going to save our jobs, and people are going to have great jobs again, and this country, which is very, very divided in so many different ways, is going to become one beautiful loving country, and we’re going to love each other, we’re going to cherish each other and take care of each other, and we’re going to have great economic development and we’re not going to let other countries take it away from us, because that’s what’s been happening for far too many years and we’re not going to do it anymore,” he said. (That’s a single sentence, if you’re keeping track at home.)

Trump faces significant obstacles to achieving that unity, particular with blocs that are not white men. Seven in 10 women view him unfavorably. It’s even worse with minorities. A recent Gallup poll found that 77 of Hispanics view Trump unfavorably. A Washington Post poll pegged that number at eight in 10, seven of them “very unfavorable.” An NBC News/Survey Monkey poll found an astonishing 86 percent of African Americans had a negative view of Trump.

One reason for those atrocious ratings is the way Trump speaks to and about minorities, which was on display during his victory speech Tuesday.

“We’re going to have great relationships with the Hispanics,” he said. “The Hispanics have been so incredible to me. They want jobs. Everybody wants jobs. The African Americans want jobs. If you look at what’s going on, they want jobs.”

Part of Trump’s rhetorical power is his supercharged used of “we,” a method that persuades people across the country that they are part of a larger movement, and somehow share with Trump his aura of wealthy and luxury. (It’s the same technique he’s used to sell real estate for years.) In the midst of his spiel about all the ways “we” would make America great again, Trump tossed in this passage about minorities.

His phrasing is telling. First, it suggests that for Trump, blacks and Hispanics aren’t part of “we”—“they” constitute separate groups. Perhaps that’s an accidental, unthinking division, but subconscious racial division is no less dangerous. Second, it shows him assuming that minority concerns can be reduced to economics. That view is perhaps unsurprising for a man who has spent his career trying to accumulate wealth, but it is a two-dimensional view of black and Hispanic Americans.

The fact that his policies simply don’t line up with what most African Americans want in a president is one reason his numbers with black voters are so bad. Another factor is a presidential campaign driven in large parts by divisive appeals to racism and bigotry against Hispanics, Muslims, and other groups. Trump also has a long history of racially charged incidents, from alleged tenant discrimination to his strident reaction to the Central Park Five.

The entertainer has long spoken about minority groups with the outdated formulation involving a definite article: “I have a great relationship with the blacks. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks,” he said in 2011, using language that undermined his claim. He’s said similar things about “the Hispanics.”

Changing the way Trump speaks about African Americans and Hispanics won’t solve his problems with those groups, but if he wishes to unify the country, beginning to speak about them as though they are part of the American populace would be a good place to start.

Way to go right-wingers. As usual, the real Republican men are too rational to see race…these men are color blind, love everybody.

This loving domestic unity is going to be good for European EGI, going to be good for the economy - Asia is going to buy its products.

TNO, How Obama Order Opened Border, 11 April 2016:

Barack Obama’s Executive Action on immigration, which provided a free break for nonwhite invaders who entered the US before January 1, 2014, created an “open border” situation with Mexico, the head of the National Border Patrol Council (NPBC) told the US Congress.

NPBC president Brandon Judd told the House Judiciary Committee that Border Patrol agents were instructed to take invaders’ “word for it” that they had been in the US before that date, even though they were dripping wet after just having crossed the Rio Grande River.

Judd said that Border Patrol agents were ordered to “release dripping-wet illegal immigrants at the Rio Grande unless they actually see them climbing out of the river.

“This has created what amounts to an open border with Mexico,” Judd said.

The agents were, he continued, given the orders verbally soon after President Obama laid out plans for limiting immigration enforcement in 2014.

“We have apprehended illegal aliens just north of the border who are still soaking wet from crossing the river. If they claim, as increasingly they are doing, that they have been here since January 1, 2014, we will process and then release them,” Judd said in written testimony following up on questions from a hearing earlier this year.

“They are still wet from the river and miles from any civilization and on their word alone we release them unless we physically saw them cross the river,” he said. “This policy de facto creates an open border with Mexico for any illegal alien who wants to claim that they were here before 2014.”

The January 1, 2014, date was part of Obama’s “enforcement priorities” he laid out in November that year, which were designed to remove the threat of deportation to the vast majority of the illegal invaders in the US.

The Obama plan consists of giving long-time illegal immigrants “lower priority” for deportation in favor of recent border-crossers, and those with gang ties or who have amassed serious criminal records in addition to their immigration violations.

The rule meant that those illegal immigrants already in the pipeline for deportation were told they could have their cases dropped if they met the new cutoff and didn’t have serious criminal records.

Judd said that the invaders had quickly learned to “game the system,” and if apprehended anywhere, simply said that they had arrived before 2014—and Border Patrol agents had been instructed to simply “take their word for it” even if it was patently untrue.

Judd added that under the verbal directions, agents have been told to fingerprint illegal immigrants and process them to see if they have serious criminal records.

But those that claim to have been here since 2013, and who don’t show up with problems in their criminal history, are released into the US rather than held for deportation.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican and Judiciary Committee Chairman, agreed, and said that the order had led to more illegal immigrants trying to make the trip into the US.

“Word has spread around the world about the administration’s lax immigration policies and now we see unlawful immigrants gaming the system and the administration’s so-called ‘enforcement priorities’ to come here,” said Goodlatte, after listening to Judd’s testimony.

Rerevisionist: April 11, 2016 at 6:33 pm - “Obama’s ‘own country’ is not the USA.”

Pardon the source, but this article not only well explains the draconian anti-abortion law that Poland’s PiS party is set to pass, but also prompts the question as to what other insane laws the new Polish government will institute.

An additional danger for White Nationalists is to be anticipated by Jewish commandeering of the inevitable popular backlash.

Daily Beast, “Poland’s Coat Hanger Rebellion Against a New Anti-Abortion Law” 6 April 2016:

Poland’s Catholic Church and conservative government may have figured a draconian new “pro-life” law would have general acceptance. They were wrong.

When Catholic priests issued decrees during morning mass last Sunday calling for the country to institute a complete ban on abortions, Poland erupted in protests. The initiative was not unexpected, but the surge of opposition caught many by surprise as men and women took to the streets waving wire coat hangers, symbols of the deadly “back room” abortions that take place when all legal means to terminate a pregnancy are exhausted.

The purpose of the priests’ coordinated speeches was to launch a petition and gather churchgoers’ signatures that could then be used to begin a legislative campaign in the country’s parliament, the Sejm. A “pro-life” organization called Fundacja Pro quickly gathered the required 1,000 signatures. But when the group made its intentions known during the course of the previous week, many Poles started organizing opposition on Facebook.

In just two days, they drew together over 65,000 concerned activists and laid the groundwork for Sunday’s protests, but stopping the momentum of the draconian legislation is going to be a long, tough fight.

Current law in Poland allows abortions only in three drastic situations: when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest; when the life of the pregnant woman is in danger; or when the fetus is severely damaged. This is already one of the most restrictive abortion laws in all of Europe, forcing many women to seek out underground abortions or travel outside of Poland to countries like Slovakia. But in the eyes of Poland’s Catholic Church, this policy is too lackadaisical.

The draft of the new legislation was written by an organization called Ordo Iuris (Rule of Law), whose stated aim is to “promote a legal culture based on respect for human dignity and rights.” The draft was promptly endorsed by the Polish Episcopal Conference, which acts as the central organ of the Catholic Church in Poland. The conference’s widely disseminated notice on the new law explained that it supports it because the 5th Commandment specifically states “Thou shalt not kill,” and thus life must be protected from beginning—from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg—to its natural end.

The wording of the law itself is simple but the implications are sweeping: “Every human being has the inherent right to life from the moment of conception,” reads its article I. “The life and health of the child from conception remain under protection of the law.”

On April 4, the Polish television network TVN reported that the law would lead to prison terms of up to three years for causing the death of a child once conceived. The same would apply to anyone who assists with or encourages the termination.

Critics looking at the possible legal ramifications were appalled. Pawel Kalisz of the Polish website Natemat wrote that the wording of the law could include as accomplices the woman or girl’s doctor; the friend driving her to the clinic; the dad who wrote her the sick note for the day off from school; the friend who brought her medication from abroad. Everyone.

Others noted that, in theory at least, rape survivors and children will be forced to give birth; women who might die due to their pregnancy will have no way to terminate it legally; a miscarriage might be punished with a sentence, as fetal murder will enter the criminal code;

Also, the state will have the right to bypass a person’s constitutional rights in order to protect unborn children; since prenatal testing is connected to a very small risk of miscarriage, it will be banned and doctors performing it might face criminal charges; and the morning-after pill will be categorized as an early abortion tool and thus completely banned (as will IUDs).

As one protester pointed out as well, women who discovered early on that their fetus had zero chance of surviving the pregnancy would be forced to live with the misery of carrying the baby for months and months until the inevitable conclusion.

The punishment would escalate to up to eight years of jail time for abortions undertaken without the consent of the woman. Furthermore, prison sentences of up to 10 years would be on the table for abortions undertaken while the fetus has the capacity for life outside the womb.

There are some loopholes, but they are narrow and unreliable. The draft law would not make it a crime for a doctor to end the life of a conceived child during the course of a procedure essential to saving the life of the mother. Furthermore, in exceptional cases the court would be able to reduce the jail sentence of a mother who had deliberately caused the death of a conceived child, or waive it altogether.

Although Polish values generally are Catholic and conservative, many Poles marched out of mass on Sunday in disgust when priests read the decree. A video of a woman openly admonishing her pastor went viral across the country. In it, the priest interrupts the woman’s tirade to ask if she has finished with her “political statement.” The irony of this remark was not lost on social media users, with one woman commenting, “Well, yes, because in church, political statements can only be made from the priest’s pulpit.”

The country’s right-wing media, meanwhile, called these protests a provocation against the state.

Although, formally, nothing has yet been codified, the wheels of change have been put into motion says Polish journalist Michał Szułdrzyński. “Now that Fundacja Pro have done their initial signature gathering, they will take it to the Sejm, which will verify the 1,000 signatures and then give the group three months to collect another 100,000 signatures. If successful, this next step would force the Sejm into taking a serious look.”

That’s not nearly as difficult as it sounds.

In 2011, a civic initiative to ban abortion gathered nearly 500,000 signatures and was introduced into the Sejm. At that time however, the lower house was run by the more left-leaning Civic Platform, which rejected the idea. When it was put to a vote, the more liberal Civic Platform party held 208 seats while Law and Justice (known by its Polish acronym PiS) controlled 157. The result of the vote was 178 for and 206 against.

Now, however, the PiS controls 235 seats against the Civic Platform party’s 157, and has embarked on a systematic campaign to stifle and marginalize opposition. PiS could pass the bill on its own, and it’s also got a parliamentary ally, with the third biggest party Kukiz’15, run by musician turned right-wing populist Pawel Kukiz. The Kukiz party holds 40 seats in Sejm, and its leader has also been an outspoken opponent of abortion in the past. With these numbers, the bill will almost assuredly pass.

All of this poses a very real and terrifying prospect for women across the country who fear that the coat hangers they’ve been holding as symbols of resistance might soon become their only recourse against unwanted and unsafe births.

When asked why he believes this is happening again, Szułdrzyński says it’s quite simple. “In the opinion of the Catholic Church abortion is wrong in every circumstance and they feel that as a Catholic country, Poland should pass a law to reflect the church’s position.”

Earlier in the week, Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo was asked on public radio what she thought about this issue, and she said that as a Catholic she supports the proposal. Her remarks sparked outrage and she has now backtracked a bit to say that she was merely giving her opinion as a private person and not making a statement as prime minister.

Her flip-flop sparked ridicule online, with many women questioning why the PM was so personally interested in the wombs of Polish women. Several went on Szydlo’s Facebook page. One, Malina Prześluga-Delimata, decided to notify her, sarcastically, that she wasn’t pregnant:  “Madam Beato, I write to inform you that my cycle runs fine. I received my period on time (the cycle lasts 31 days).” She went on to thank the PM for being so interested in her and in her reproductive potential. “It is fantastic to know that for the moment I will be able to shift responsibility for my breeding to someone else. I will keep you up to date.”

The greatest display of anger, however, was on Poland’s streets, in what might be called the coat hanger rebellion.

Szułdrzyński believes that the ruling PiS party was caught off guard by the backlash. “This has driven great controversy because if you look at recent polls, although most people are against abortion, the overwhelming majority supports the three exceptions as they stand now,” he said.

Here is the organization behind this. Aren’t Abrahamic religions so nice? If some Arab or African converts to Catholicism, he can rape your daughter, be forgiven in confessional, while she is forced to bear the beast soon to be baptized into your biological people’s replacement.