Indonesians Govt to Send 5,000 Muslims to Australia

 to Obtain Doctorate Degrees, With a Focus on Islamic Studies

Jakarta. The directorate general of Islamic education at the Ministry of Religious Affairs signed a cooperation agreement with the Australian Technology Network of Universities (ATN) to send 5,000 Indonesian students to Australia for their PhD studies, at the Embassy of Australia in Jakarta on Wednesday (10/08).

The director general, Kamaruddin Amin said that the agreement will help university lecturers further their education, especially in the field of Islamic studies.

“The vision is to develop Indonesia into a center for Islamic education, especially being a Muslim majority country,” Kamaruddin said.

He added the program has been backed by the government, with Rp 500 billion ($38.2 million) allocated in the state budget which will be used to fund student scholarships. He also revealed that the program falls in line with the ministry’s plans to build an international Islamic university in 2017 in Sawangan, Depok, West Java.

The scholarships given by the ministry will also be issued to students who wish to undertake other career paths, as ATN believes that a PhD will help Indonesian students venture further in their careers and help develop the country.

According to ATN executive director Renee Hindmarsh, the collaboration will not only strengthen the relationship between Australia and Indonesia, but will also help provide the students access to a world-class education.

“We hope that students who choose to study in one of our member universities will be able to graduate and step into the professional world and be able to create jobs for the future,” Hindmarsh said.

ATN is a consortium consisting of five Australian universities which are Queensland University of Technology (QUT), University of Technology, RMIT University, University of South Australia and Curtin University.

 

 

 

Source

Advertisements

THE AFL is offering 10 “diversity trainee” positions worth $34,000 a year exclusively to Muslim youth

THE AFL is offering 10 “diversity trainee” positions worth $34,000 a year exclusively to Muslim youth as part of a Federal Government-funded program.

To be eligible for the positions, which span a range of areas including social media, administration, finance and marketing, applicants must “be from Muslim background”, and “have recently completed secondary school”.

“Workforce participation is a pivotal issue impacting the Australian Muslim community, especially Muslim young people,” the job listings read.

“To help assist Muslim young people make that step into employment, the Federal Government has provided funding support for 10 traineeships for Muslim young people to work across the AFL industry over a 12 month period to gain critical work experience and job skills.

“The AFL in turn has partnered with AFL SportsReady to offer a unique traineeship opportunity as part of the Bachar Houli Employment Program.”

The Turnbull government earlier this year announced the traineeships as part of an additional $625,000 in funding for the AFL’s long-running Bachar Houli Cup and Leadership Program.

Bachar Houli, the AFL’s Multicultural Ambassador, is Richmond’s star player and considered a mentor and role model for young people in the community.

Houli was a guest at Malcolm Turnbull’s pre-election Iftar dinner celebrating the end of Ramadan.

The “selection criteria” for the AFL positions advertised in Victoria and Queensland specify that applicants “must be from a Muslim background”, with a disclaimer noting that the action constitutes a “special measure” or “equal opportunity measure” under the respective state anti-discrimination laws.

In NSW, which is the only jurisdiction without a clear “special measures” provision in its anti-discrimination legislation, the listing reads: “Applicants from a Muslim background are strongly encouraged to apply for this position”.

NSW applicants must instead have “a demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the Muslim faith”, “a demonstrated knowledge and understanding of multicultural communities”, and “a demonstrated ability to communicate sensitively and effectively with diverse communities”.

The fulltime positions receive the National Training Wage Award plus superannuation, which comes to slightly over $34,000 for the 12 months.

The AFL offers a number of similar positions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander school leavers as part of its diversity traineeship program, which provides “employment path ways and skill development in young multicultural and indigenous people aged 15-19”.

On the funding announcement in May, Justice Minister Michael Keenan said the program “contributes to a resilient and harmonious society united around shared values of mutual respect, freedom of speech and freedom of belief”.

“It uses sport as a great way to embrace diversity while providing students from Islamic schools with the opportunity to learn to play football in a fun, non-competitive environment,” he said.

The 2016-17 program includes funding for “AFL-hosted Iftar and Eid events held nationally during Ramadan to engage with communities and foster improved cultural education and awareness”.

Last week, a political furore erupted over a $7000 scholarship reserved for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex high school students.

The news sparked renewed debate around the controversial topic of “reverse discrimination” or “positive discrimination” based on gender, sexuality, race or religion.

Muslim cleric says Cologne sex attacks were the victims’ fault Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3408033/Muslim-cleric-says-Cologne-sex-attacks-victims-fault-wore-PERFUME.html#ixzz4GzfuX6i3 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Imam sammi

A Cologne imam has said the victims of the New Years Eve mob sex attacks had themselves to blame because they wore perfume.

Sami Abu-Yusuf added that he was not surprised the girls were sexually assaulted, groped and raped, because of the way they dressed.

Hundreds of women were attacked by a mob of men in Cologne’s city centre on New Years Eve, with the number of alleged sexual assaults now tallying up to 521, including three rapes.

‘The events of New Year’s Eve were the girls own fault, because they were half naked and wearing perfume,’ Mr Abu-Yusuf told Russian TV according to Breitbart.

‘It is not surprising the men wanted to attack them. [Dressing like that] is like adding fuel to the fire’.

 

Source

Saudi offer to build 200 mosques in Germany

for Syrian migrants is slammed as ‘cynical’ because the Kingdom has not offered to take any refugees themselves

  • Saudi Arabian King Salman will fund construction programme in Germany
  • Politicians say the offer is ‘cynical’ because of the nation’s foreign policy
  • They argue that Saudi Arabia should help by taking in some migrants
  • Also say that they are creating refugees with military campaign in Yemen 

Conservative politicians in Germany have attacked an offer from Saudi Arabia to build 200 mosques in the country for the ‘spiritual needs’ of the Syrian refugees arriving daily in their thousands.

Andrea Scheuer, general secretary of the CSU party in Bavaria which is Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ally in the state, called the offer ‘cynical’ given that the Kingdom is making thousands of refugees of its own in its military campaign in Yemen.

‘No, it is more than cynical. This is no Muslim Brotherhood. Where is the solidarity in the Arab world?’ he asked, given that the Kingdom has not offered to take in refugees fleeing from the civil war in Syria.

Andrea Scheuer, general secretary of the CSU party in Bavaria which is Chancellor Angela Merkel's ally in the state, called the offer 'cynical' given that the Kingdom is making thousands of refugees of its own in its military campaign in Yemen

Andrea Scheuer, general secretary of the CSU party in Bavaria which is Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ally in the state, called the offer ‘cynical’ given that the Kingdom is making thousands of refugees of its own in its military campaign in Yemen

Stephan Mayer, domestic policy spokesman of both the CSU and Merkel's CDU in parliament in Berlin, agreed with him, saying Germany needs solidarity with the refugee crisis, not a cash donation for 200 mosques

Stephan Mayer, domestic policy spokesman of both the CSU and Merkel’s CDU in parliament in Berlin, agreed with him, saying Germany needs solidarity with the refugee crisis, not a cash donation for 200 mosques

The offer comes as tens of thousands of migrants head to the Hungarian border, many of them on their way to Germany, which is expecting 800,000 migrants this year alone

The offer comes as tens of thousands of migrants head to the Hungarian border, many of them on their way to Germany, which is expecting 800,000 migrants this year alone

Thousands of migrants continue to gather at Hungary border

Stephan Mayer, the domestic policy spokesman of both the CSU and Merkel’s CDU in parliament in Berlin, agreed with him, adding: ‘Germany does not need a cash donation to build 200 mosques but solidarity with the refugees.’

The offer comes as tens of thousands of migrants head to the Hungarian border, many of them on their way to Germany, which is expecting 800,000 migrants this year alone

Many newspapers expressed outrage that Germany would ever consider such an offer from a country which practiced an extreme form of Islam which includes punishments such as stoning, flogging and limb mutiliation.

The offer was apparently made through diplomatic channels and surfaced in Lebanese newspaper al diyar towards the end of last week.

According to the report, the mosque construction programme was the idea of the absolutist Saudi monarch King Salman. He is content to give the asylum seekers a wide berth in his own land, fearful as he, and the other arch conservatives who assist him, of them importing a form of political dissent that they believe would threaten the auotcracy.

CDU Deputy Chairman Armin Laschet said: ‘Instead of talking about funding mosques, Saudi Arabia should be thinking about taking refugees and ending financing of ISIS.’

CDU Deputy Chairman Armin, left, Laschet said: 'Instead of talking about funding mosques, Saudi Arabia should be thinking about taking refugees and ending financing of ISIS'

CDU Deputy Chairman Armin, left, Laschet said: ‘Instead of talking about funding mosques, Saudi Arabia should be thinking about taking refugees and ending financing of ISIS’

the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board has a different understanding of the word ‘victimisation’ than the rest of the English speaking world.

Well, the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board has done it again.

It’s referred another complaint from the world’s most offended man to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Actually, it’s referred eight more complaints from Garry Burns against me to the Tribunal.

You can see Garry’s website and the nice pictures he puts up of me here.

For those who don’t know, Garry Burns is the man who offered to provide my address to Islamic organisations, forcing me to move my family for their safety. That’s how ‘anti-discrimination activists’ roll.

By the way, the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board thinks I’ve ‘victimised’ poor Garry by pointing these facts out. That’s how anti-discrimination boards roll. As a result, I face another costly legal proceeding and the prospect of a fine of up to $100,000. And if any fine is awarded, it’ll line Garry’s pockets.

It seems that the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board has a different understanding of the word ‘victimisation’ than the rest of the English speaking world.

As they say in the business, threatening the lives of conservatives can be rather lucrative, especially if they dare to talk about it. I know. Garry copied me in on an email he sent a while back to other homosexuals encouraging them to lodge complaints against me so that they could seize my house.

However, we’ll look at this whole ‘victimisation’ caper another time.

Today I want to focus on one complaint. The one about me linking to an Andrew Bolt article on Facebook.

You can see that Facebook post below:

Bernard Gaynor

I disagree with Andrew Bolt. The battle for homosexual marriage is not over.

But I do agree with these points that he raises today:

“But what will they now say to three adults wanting that right? To four?

Samuel Alito, a Justice of the US Supreme Court, asked just that last month, asking us to imagine “four people … all consenting adults, highly educated … What would be the logic of denying them the same right?”.

Let’s get specific. What would same-sex marriage advocates say to Sheik Khalil Chami of the Islamic Welfare Centre, or Keysar Trad of the Islamic Friendship Association, who want polygamy allowed for Muslims.

Saying yes to same-sex marriage does not mean ending an argument.

It means opening new ones, with the survival of marriage at stake.

Are the new inheritors of the marriage tradition up to the awesome responsibility of defending the institution they are about to change?”

You can see that Facebook post below:

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FBernardGaynorBlog%2Fposts%2F691061477704987&width=500

You can read the complaint here.

You can read the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board’s initial letter notifying me of the complaint here.

You can read the Board’s letter notifying me that it had referred this complaint to the Tribunal here.

It states that the matter is being referred to the Tribunal because the President thinks it can’t be conciliated. It also states that the relevant section of the legislation was attached. But it wasn’t.

For the record, the President asked me if I would be willing to enter into conciliation this many times:

So I’m not sure how he arrived at his conclusion. Maybe Hey Hey It’s Saturday’s Plucka Duck machine has found a home in the black hole that lives in the basement of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board.

At this point, I would like to bring in S.90C of the Anti-Discrimination Act (NSW) 1977. It states:

90C Progress reports

The President must, as frequently as is reasonably convenient and, in any event, at periods not exceeding 90 days, give notice to the parties to the complaint of the steps taken for the purpose of the investigation.

The eagle-eyed among you will have noticed that the Board’s initial letter was dated 6 August 2015 and the referral letter was dated 25 July 2016.

By my calculation, there are 354 days between those two dates.

The President’s progress reports about his ‘investigation’ are linked here.

You’ll notice that there is no link. That’s because the President of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board seemingly does not obey the statutory regulations he administers. Again, that’s how anti-discrimination boards roll.

They don’t follow their own laws, but they insist on applying them to citizens living in other states who are not subject to them.

I’m sure it makes sense to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board, even if I can’t follow it.

Anyway, I rang the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board to ask them about this little oversight last week. A lovely lady named Ms Connie Santiago answered the phone. I believe her title could well be ‘Official Grand High Commissar of Bureaucratic Excuses, Soulless Destroyer of Common Sense and Chief Advisor to the Committee Entrusted with Undermining Legal Processes’.

She told me that the Board did not believe it necessary or reasonable to provide me with a progress report blah, blah, blah. Then she said I would need to put my query in writing if I wanted more detail.

At that point, I was filled with indignation of the righteous variety. I may have even lost my temper.

Just so you know, I have already asked the President numerous times in writing why he fails to provide progress reports about his alleged investigations. He has not responded once. I believe it’s because he doesn’t ‘do’ investigations at all. He, and the entire NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, simply exists to destroy respondent’s lives.

That’s how anti-discrimination boards roll.

I also informed Ms Santiago – again – that the Tribunal ruled last year that there was no jurisdiction to hear complaints under the Anti-Discrimination Act (NSW) 1977 against people living outside New South Wales. You can read this ruling for yourself here.

I was told that that this ruling made the matter complicated. I’m still not sure how. In my mind it makes the matter very simple for the President to decline. And just so you know, the President has the power to decline complaints under the Act for this very reason. Or even for any other reason for that matter.

True, good ol’ Garry is appealing this decision. It may be overturned. But for the sake of all Australians, I hope not. Garry’s conduct should be confined to the state of New South Wales and the poor sods who voted in the government that funds the bureaucracy that exists only to process his never-ending complaint-a-thon (in fact, Gazza is responsible for almost all homosexual vilification complaints in the entire history of New South Wales).

This appeal now sits somewhere between the NSW Court of Appeal and my diminishing bank account. I understand that both the state of New South Wales and the Commonwealth are set to intervene. Who knows where it will end up?

But we do know where the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board wants it to end up.

It wants to be able to prosecute any Australian – indeed any citizen in the world – for the most mundane opposition to homosexual political activism.

It wants to be able to prosecute people like Andrew Bolt by proxy and without even notifying them that their words are about to be investigated in a legal proceeding.

Finally, it wants to be able to hold one person responsible for the actions of another.

This is totalitarianism, bureaucratic abuse and oppression straight out of 1984.

We can see this when we look at the complaint in detail. And we must remember that it is a complaint that I haveincited hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of homosexuals. Yet the complaint focuses almost entirely on the words of other people published under license with Facebook.

I did not publish these words. I did not author them. Other people did.

Yet the Anti-Discrimination Board, with all its secret investigatory powers, seems to be unable to comprehend this. Again, it seems suspiciously like the Board just doesn’t ‘do’ investigations and instead works as a rubber stamp for Garry Burns who, unfortunately for many reasons, has admitted many times that he is obsessed with me.

Thank you, Lord, for providing my purgatory here on earth.

So the Board is pushing ahead with the case against me, even as it fails to include Facebook, Andrew Bolt or anyone else who was actually responsible for writing or publishing the words that offended poor Garry so greatly in the complaint.

The entirety of my own words in this complaint are these:

I disagree with Andrew Bolt. The battle for homosexual marriage is not over.

But I do agree with these points that he raises today:

There is simply no way that any reasonable person could find that these words have incited anything, least of all hatred. As such, it’s probably proof that no one reasonable works at the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board.

These words are clearly about homosexual marriage. So the Board is attempting to silence political opposition to homosexual marriage at a time when we are supposed to be having a national ‘debate’ and a plebiscite to legalise it.

And they clearly refer to an Andrew Bolt article, which I linked to. In order to demonstrate that I have not incited anything, I’ll now need to demonstrate that Andrew Bolt’s article has not incited anything either. That’s because this complaint is also about my link to that article.

It’s an artful way of putting Andrew Bolt on trial. And it’s deceptive too. The Board has decided that Andrew Bolt does not even need to be made aware of this complaint. As such, he is not able to defend his own words. However, I have notified Andrew Bolt of this situation.

At this point, I hope that all journalists and publishers are filled with the greatest concern. And they should be: the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal has already set a precedent that it can make findings that internet publications breach the Act, even though the actual author is not a party to the complaint or able to defend his writing. Instead, the publications came before the Tribunal via prosecutions of third parties that had linked to them.

It’s trial by stealth where the defendant is not able to defend himself at all. And it’s conducted in a division headed by a magistrate who helps to fundraise for homosexual legal organisations, even while she’s sitting in on matters where those outfits are representing complainants. That’s a clear breach of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal’sCode of Conduct.

I write about that here.

And this same magistrate was also recused from a matter involving Mr Burns because evidence was presented that she held private conversations with him. You can read that ruling here.

In Andrew Bolt’s article he resigns himself to accepting that homosexual marriage will be legalised.

I disagree with him on that score.

But I do agree with him on his reflection that legalising homosexual marriage will result in calls for polygamy, especially from the Islamic community. Apparently, the Board wants debate about this issue silenced too.

It’s time for the New South Wales Attorney General to intervene and end this entire farce.

When the Parliament of New South Wales passed the Anti-Discrimination Act (NSW) 1977, it wanted people to be able to express opinions. That’s why it legislated that the Act would not make unlawful:

a public act, done reasonably and in good faith, for academic, artistic, religious instruction, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and expositions of any act or matter.

However, Garry Burns, the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board and the old NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal teamed up to decide that basically nothing was reasonable or in the public interest. The Tribunal found that Victorian political candidate, Tess Corbett, was not entitled to this defence, even when she was asked on the campaign trail in 2013 about her views on proposed changes to anti-discrimination laws.

If a political candidate, presumably letting voters know what they think, is not able to express views as part of a debate or discussion about any act or matter in another state altogether, then no one is.

By the way, Garry Burns is pursuing Tess Corbett for contempt because she has not apologised in the Sydney Morning Herald to him. If he is successful, Tess could even end up in jail.

Some might say that this latest complaint won’t be successful; that the Tribunal will find in my favour again on jurisdiction and also fair public comment. Given the way things have gone in the past, that is some assumption to make.

Furthermore, it misses the point. This entire process is the punishment. Even if I win, it comes at my financial detriment. And it is a no cost tribunal, meaning Burns is unlikely to ever pay. In fact, the Tribunal has even ruled that I must pay his costs in an earlier appeal, even though I won it. That matter is now in the NSW Court of Appeal as well.

And if you are wondering how this has all come about, ponder this fact: the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board proudly reports to the NSW parliament that it consults with the Sydney Beat Project. This organisation exists to lodge complaints against police when they arrest homosexual men for engaging in acts of public indecency and it wants sex in public decriminalised.

Someone’s perverting justice in New South Wales and it’s not me. And if you’re expecting a response from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, don’t hold your breath. They’re protected by statutory secrecy provisions that mean they never have to be publicly accountable for their abuse of process and power.

Like I said, someone’s perverting justice in New South Wales.

If we can’t ban halal meat, we should at least let people know when they’re buying it

The UK now carries out more halal slaughter than the rest of Europe. Most of us eat halal meat unwittingly on a daily basis, since it is sold in most major outlets, including big brand-name supermarkets, without being labelled as such

The EU’s 2009 Slaughter Regulation requires all animals, including poultry, to be stunned before slaughter. Stunning is defined as any intentionally induced process which causes loss of consciousness and sensibility without pain, including any process resulting in instant death.

President Sarkozy says that halal is the 'issue which most preoccupies the French' AFP
President Sarkozy says that halal is the ‘issue which most preoccupies the French’ AFP

The UK has invoked the “religious exemption” from the EU’s “slaughter directive” and in practice now carries out more halal slaughter than the rest of Europe.  Traditional halal meat is expected to be killed by hand and must be blessed by the slaughterman. The exception allows for animals to be slaughtered without being stunned first.

The halal market is worth £2.6bn in Britain alone, and the export market is also growing particularly in the Middle East.  Most of us eat halal meat unwittingly on a daily basis, since it is sold in most major outlets, including big brand-name supermarkets, without being labelled as such.

No one knows at present what form Brexit will take.  Will we still be part of the “single market” and therefore bound by common rules?  Will we, on the contrary, be free to develop our own set of rules and standards, even if these go beyond EU requirements?

Personally, I much regret that the UK invoked the “religious exemption” in the first place.  I don’t believe that religious convictions, however deeply held, justify unnecessary cruelty to animals – a position which, I am glad to say, has been vigorously maintained for some time by organisations such as the British Veterinary Association, the Humane Slaughter Association and the RSPCA.  I would be happy to see specific UK legislation, drafted to replace the EU slaughter directive, explicitly preclude the “religious exemption” from pre-stunning requirements.

I recognise, however, given the strength of feeling in some quarters (and given the explicit commitments in the Conservative 2015 Manifesto to “protect methods of religious slaughter”), that “dropping the religious exemption” may be difficult to achieve in the present context, however desirable in the long term.

But there is, happily, another way of rapidly achieving an important step forward as far as the halal issue is concerned and that is to introduce in the UK a mandatory labelling scheme whereby any and all halal meat offered for sale (including for exports) would be clearly labelled as such.

The EU Commission at present is investigating just such an option but it’s likely to be a long time coming. Nor do individual EU member states have much freedom in this area to take unilateral action. Mandatory labelling schemes devised by individual EU member states for application in their own territory are almost always struck down by the EU authorities as being contrary to the principles of the Common Market. And, of course, EU-wide labelling schemes may no longer affect us at all.

But as far as the halal issue is concerned, Brexit might allow us to devise and implement precisely such a national labelling scheme.  The key building block here is of course the operation of informed consumer choice. If the consumer actually knows what he or she is buying, we would – I believe – in very short order see in a major reduction of halal products without at the same time offending the sensibilities of religious groups.

More generally, well-judged “post-Brexit” action by the UK in the field of animal welfare and the environment may act as a spur and a stimulus to our continental, but no longer-EU, partners to up their own game.

Many years ago, the UK banned the rearing of veal calves in crates.  The EU eventually followed suit. UK rules on animal experimentation were eventually followed by EU directives. We may no longer be able to throw our weight around in the EU, but there is a wider world out there – UN specialised agencies, for example – dealing with international animal welfare and environmental matters where we should be proud to take a lead.

Stanley Johnson is a former Conservative MEP, author and journalist. He was the Founder-Chairman of the European Parliament’s Intergroup Group on Animal Welfare and holder of the RSPCA’s Richard Martin Award for Outstanding Services to Animal Welfare

 

 

 

Source

Muslim school boasts not one student is gay. Left looks away

They’d be ripped apart by the Left if they were Christian, but they’ll get away with this on the grounds of their approved faith:

The president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, which runs six schools across the country, has said students are taught they should not practise sex until they are married — and it should not be with someone of the same sex.

“This is something that is clearly spelt out in the Koran and the hadith, that sex is only ­between a husband and a wife who are of the opposite gender and we have absolutely no mandate to change the grace of God,” Keysar Trad told The Australian…

The principal of Al-Faisal college in Sydney’s west, Ghazwa Khan, said the school had never had a child who was gay ­because they were taught at home that being homosexual is “not recommended”.

Source

French Muslim association proposes tax on halal food to fund mosques and fight radicalisation

The levy would fund a foundation for French mosques to reduce foreign funding

An influential group representing French Muslims is proposing a tax on halal food to fund mosques and fight radicalisation in the wake of a seires of terror attacks.

Anouar Kbibech, president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), outlined plans for a new foundation that would help reduce foreign benefactors amid concerns over extremism.

The idea has been supported by politicians on both the right and left, although there are doubts where such a tax could be implemented.

“The idea has existed since the CFCM was founded,” Mr Kbibech told French broadcaster BFMTV.

“We have reached the first step with the signing with of a religious framework in the CFCM’s halal charter, which defines the criteria of halal in France.

“In autumn we will discuss the second part, which is the financial contribution of halal organisations to worship.”

The money raised would go towards paying imams’ salaries and funding the construction and operation of mosques, which cannot receive state support under French law.

The proposal came after Manuel Valls, the French Prime Minister,called for a ban on foreign funding for Muslim places of worship amid concerns over extremism following a string of terror attacks.

“There needs to be a thorough review to form a new relationship with French Islam,” he said.

“We live in a changed era and we must change our behaviour. This is a revolution in our security culture…the fight against radicalisation will be the task of a generation.”

Nathalie Goulet, a French senator for Orne who conducted a report on the issue, said the creation of a central and transparent foundation was a priority but cast doubt on a halal tax.

“Legally, it is not possible to reduce a tax on a religious item,” she told Le Monde.

“And technically, a ‘halal tax’ would be impossible to implement because there is no unity around the concept of halal.

“What would be possible is that representatives of the religion themselves introduce a private fee for service at the time of slaughter, to be set by the community, collected and sent to the foundation.”

There has been continued controversy over the sale of halal food in France, with a supermarket in Colombes ordered to sell pork and alcohol or face closure this week.

Source