Lisa Simpson's Presentation

The real African refugees are white South Africans escaping racial violence.

B̴̢̨̢̡̨̧̨̢̨̡̧̙̻̥̞̳̣̮͔̱̤̲̹̪̝̟̗͓̭͍̰̼̙̩̮͎̞̬̺̳͍̰͔̝̘̰̭̗̞͎͚̖̳͉͇̲̘̣̺̯̗̳͉̣̪̟͔̗̟̬̬͕̠̙̘͓͕̟̲̙͕̼̲̻͕̤̟̩̘̯̭̬͙̠͎̘̳͉̘̠͔̙̘̹͔̯̬̟͔̰̼̟̺̤̰͓̟̜̻̱̤̤͚̜̭̙̫̱̩̹̮̬̩͓̹̹̞̖̰̖̣̥̫͔͍̜̻̹͚̯͚̹͈̩͈̥͔͇̥̺̞̠̞̗̮͚͈̗̝͊̾̆̎̃̏̈́̄͐͆̊̏̽̾̅̈́̂͂̑̈́̃̓̑̿̍̑͂͌̌͂̄̃͒̅̌̇̅̊̀̎̔͒͛͂̌̒̿̒͐͐̾̔̄͊̇͊̿̌̎̈́̊̓́̽̍̄̄̈́̽̎̒̐̑̀̑͑̓̈́̾̽̇̆̅̀̍̓̒͘̚̚͜͜͜͜͜͠͝͠͠͠͠ͅͅͅͅͅͅÂ̷̛̛̛̛̙͙̗̩͍̻͊͒͂̈́̊̎͌͑̏̌͋̆̂̇̇͂̽͐́̀̓͛͐̓͊̓͒̄̒̆̈́͑̿̿̎́̾̑̀̊͑͗̈́́͛̈́̓́̅͆̊͌̆̂̑̈́̈́̆̿̿̀̈́̎͐̔͒̋̇̽̉́̄̀͑̾̀̋̿̒̈̿̃́̈́̇̈͌̏̾̽́͛́̓̂̋̈̈́͋̈̈̈́̎̋͒̏́̅̚̕̕̕͘͘̚͘͘̚̕͝͝͝͝͝C̸̢̛̛̛̛̛̛̛͍͇͎͈͂̎̓̃̿̈́̄̈́́͛̒͆̅͒̏̊͒̂̈̊̽̍̂̄͊͋̅̒̐̃̈̈́̿͗̓͛̍̓́̎̅̃̒̃̋͛̈́͋̅̅͐̍̏͒̏̀̂͗̒̈́̾̄͆͛̆̒͆̄́̋́̈́̉͆͆̓͑͗̈́̓̾̽̐̒̎̓̀̀̽̐̇̋̈́͌͐̋͊͑̋̒͋̐́͛̿̈́̎̈́̐̍̓̋̅̃̿̏͐̀̂̇̓̀̔̑͛̽͋̿̈́̔̌͐̓̉̐̈́́͌́̂̔́̓͒́́̈̌͋̈́͛͆͂͛͋̉̾́̍͒̈́̿̉̽̔͑͛̌͆͆́̈́͒̒̈́͂̈͌̇̄͒̔̀̆̔͊̓̿̄͒̐́̅̏͆̌̂͒̏̚̚̚̚͘͘̕̚̕̚͘͘̕̕̚͝͠͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͝Ơ̶̡̢̢̨̛̛̠̖̣̹̞̱̥̖̖̣̭̬̼̳͚̦̱͉̬̾̾͌̄͐̄͊̊̓͊͒̏͆̈̈̒͐̀̐͗͑̍͒̀́̍̓̈́́̓̂̇̌͑̆̔͂̏̒̑̍͗̿̈͆̓͗͐͆̏̂̎͘͘͜͝͠͝N̸̢̡̧̧̡̧̡̛̤̝͙̩̼̺̮̜̖̹͇̫̟̩̪̜̙̮̟̺̱͓͕̲̦̣̪͕̜̪͎̻͔̯̫̯̺͈̻̫̻̤̯̮̫̲̻͕̝͎͍̻̙̻̩̰͈͚̬̉͆͆̿̅̾̓̏̅̈́̀̊͋̋̎̃̀̉͊̾̑̇̿͋̏́̋̊̓͋̓̎̒̒̓͊̋̎̃͛͐̄͗̔̉̍̄́͛̎̃̒̓͗̔̓̒͗̂̄̋̉̃͐̓̑̔͑̍̾͋̈́͌̈́̑̔͆̉̍͛̒̈́̒̓̿͊̆̎͒̃̓̑̏̓̀͋̋̾̊͂̏̌̐̀͂́̇́̽̆̈́̆͒͐͗̌͑͛̉̈́̉́͛͋̆͌̈́̈́̾̑̿͊́̔̉̆̇̿̐̏͊͐̏̂̄̈́̏̅͛̂̏̈́͒̑̍̅̄̐̆̃̂͛͆̈́̔̓͂͛͑̅͒̃̋̃̎̀͋̌̑̏̂̌̓͆͒͒̊̄̐̎̇͑̌̑̆̀̇̌͗̍̓͑̎̓̿͑͐̿̄̆̈́͑͂̑͊̅̍̕͘̚͘̕͘̕̕͘͘̚̕̚̚̚͘̕͘͝͠͝͠͝͠͝͝͝͝͝͠͠͝ͅͅͅͅ ̵̧̧̧̧̢̢̢̨̨̡̨̡̨̧̡̨̧̧̨̡̡̧̡̛̙̯̰͇̟͇͇̯̞̰̩͖̹̭̩̖̖͖͉̯͍̤̹̗͙̮̹̼͈̖͔̱̟̺͈̥̯̥̲̲͉͓̥͍̭̱̠̮̝͇̮̘̠͔̲̫͔͙͍̤̠̥͇̖͙̜̜̩̥͍̮̤̟͓͍̥̤̦̗̹̭̣̝̗̻̠͍̼̮̟̫͉̝̩̭̤̗̦̘̞̰̗̪̦̪̼͈̫͔̭̤̙͔̗̮͈̭̫̜̻̺̫̝̥̫̳̲̣̲͍͎̰̥̱̮̞̮͙̣͓̮̣͙̀̔̃̎̔̃̂͒̈́͑̐̀̀̈́̂̿͑͊͋͛̒̆͑̂̔̉͂̐̂̑͐̑̒͆̊̈̎̅̓͘̕̚͘͜͜͜͝ͅͅͅͅD̷̢̨̧̧̧̨̢̛̛̛̛̛̛͉̮͙͍̞̹̬̼̟̯͍͕̠͈͎̫̣̳̦̫̫͓̹̬̺̻͖̪̠̻͓̼̬͖͙͕͉͈̜͕̞̟͔͚͇̮̩͖̮̙̺̰̝̜̗̗͇̰̤̱͈̲̜̼̫̗̦̪̪̼̣̞̲̘̥͖̟͇̓̾͂̾̽̔͒̎̅͐̿̈̀͌̐̈́̀̋͋͂̈́̄̊̀́̍̂̀̂̂̂̽͋̒̽̓̒͗̔̿͋̎̓͌̈͑͒̀̉͊̂̐́̈́̀̂̋͂̐̇̇̈́̀̊́͛̄̈͛̑̈́͗̋̅͗̀̌͛̿͆͊̉̀͌̋̃̄͒͊͑̉̈̈́̾̋͊̊̌͆̆̿̒͑͌̄̉͑̀̑̌̿͗͐̒͂̈́̉̊̆̿̆̆͆̃́̐͌͐͋̽̑͊̈́̊̎̌̓̎͌̉̃̀̓̑̋̓́̈́̊́̉͑͑̀̂̄͌́̔̃̈́̏̊̈́̈́͒͐̍̌͐̈̒̓͒̀̏̇͒̓͊͘̚̚͘̚͘͘̚̕͘̕̕͜͜͜͠͝͝͝͝͠͠͝͠͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͝ͅƠ̶̧̢̧̧̛̛̛̛̛̛̺̭̼̥̦̤͕̟̘̩̠͚̮͕͚̳͓͉̳̯͍̮̠͈̣̗̹̯͈̳̫̦̗͈̟̗̺̥̼͕̭̦͓̼̰̳͉͈̖̦̰̜̣̩̥̣̗̘̯͚̪̱̭̤͎̤̥̟̘͙̽̿̑̋̔̂̊̾̽͒͐̓̅̈́̊̂͂̌̊̉̎́̍̄̂͋͒̈́̆̋̉̔͐̓͑͒̋̀̊̉͌͆̆͐̂̒́̌̂͒̍̃͛̾͐̐̀̃̀̈̔́̏́̂̈́͂̃̓̈́̅̋͑̿̽̓̈́̆͒̄̔̑̿̌̃̇͋̉̂͑̂̃̆͆̏̄̇̈́̈́̌̓̈́̽̐̅̋̂̓͆̈̉̇̊̅͌͛́̅́̒̉̊̅̂̎̄̉́̈́͛͛̿̒̏̽̋̑̋̎̌̂͑̌̅̄̒̀̾͋̈́̎̾̅̆̊̍͋̄́̓̎͑͊̑̆̆̊̎̈͘̚̚͘̚̚̚̚̚̕̕̚̕͜͜͜͜͜͜͝͝͝͝͝͠͝͠͝͝͠͝͝͝͝͝ͅͅĘ̵̨̧̨̨̢̧̛̛̛̝͖̼̗͉̜̬̟̩̮̺͕̝͔̳̝̦̼̥͇̬͓͇̳̳̦̠̭̟̬̗͔̞̗͖̞̟̼̠̥̖̻̪̘̰̲̺͔̫͇͓̣̘̠̪͇̘͓̗̳̺͇͓̠͚̣̠̯̱͎͔̣̪͍̲̥̹̩̗̯͖̰̭̲̪̱͚͔̜̗͔̗̜̮̠̜͕̙͇̻̟̞͉͖̲̘͂̉͌͂͗̊̌͛̌̑̓̃̒̋͋̒̀͒̽͆̑̄͗̑̾̈́̈́̇͒̾̇̓̓̆̏̑̒͑̋̿̉͆̄̅̒́̊̑̊̍͆̿̏̿̈́̋̓͐̾́̇̍̔͌̽͂̆̈͛̈́̈́̊̈̋̅̓̿͗͌̐̃͗̀̐̂̈́̐̇̎͊̒̌̏̑̈́̊̿̈̾̔̃̆̿̑͐̈́͌͐͗̌̆̒̈͑̈́̅͒̎́̐̽͂̈́̈́͐͐̃͆̾̿͊̽͒̈̏͊̔́̓́̍̓̇̾͐̓̓̊͛̎̉̋̐̑͋̈́͂̇̑́̿͗͑̽̋̽̓̉̈̄̂͌̌͌̀̿̀͌̓̄̄̈́̏̊̈́́͗͒̈̊̅̿͐̋̓̃̎͐̔̒̉͆̓́͐̀̄̒̓͛̈́̊̇͐͘̕̚̚͘͘̚̚̚̕͘̕̕͘͜͜͜͝͝͠͝͝͠͝͝͝͝͠ͅͅͅͅS̴̢̨̡̡̢̢̧̧̛͙͉̙̗̹͉̺̠͉̦̺̜̖͎̻̹̼̣̤̮͎͚͇͙̼͈̜͓͙̘͍̤̠̤̪̺̗͓͎͈̙͇̩̼̰̰̣̝̬̲̞͙̬͕̱̠̰̰͎͉̤̥̖̫̞͙̬̝̝̞̩̜̰̤̲̩͙̹̥̫̝͓̗͈͍̱̳̖̙̦̠̭̝̳͉̰̣̘̟͔͍̲̩͕͈̠̯̈́̎̓̏̀̒̅̌̏͑́̅̍̈́̓̍́͆͒̍̊̎̓̎͊̀̆̈̍̀͒̽͑̈́̑̋̀͌͛̌̇̄͌̽͛́̇́͗̔̆̆̀́̒̇͂̇̒̇̊̄̂̆̆́̐͌͛̀͑̎͆̿͑̿͌͆͗͂̏̍̂̂͛̅͑̽̀̚͘͘̕͠͠͝͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅͅ ̵̃̅̔̏͑̅͐̋̉̓́̀̋͂̑̎̍̈́̑̅͐͋̌̍͆͊̃̕͘͘͝

Plenty of majority-Christian countries in Africa though. Probably more devout Christians as a percentage of the population in a lot of African countries than in most of Europe.

In any case, even if they *were* all Muslims, does that change it, if they are genuine refugees/asylum seekers? Are Christian or non-religious refugees less of a threat?

Brush up on Islam and check out sharia law that they implement in every country they become a majority population of.

Just call them their old name, canaanites.

Its what they do. Come in claiming "religion of peace" and be all friendly with the natives. Then when the population reaches majority for making laws, they implement shariah law, first in the civil courts (like the UK now) then as actual law.
Pretty soon you have to pay a fee to live or visit if you aren't Muslim. Then after that female genitalia mutilation follows.

Shariah just refers to Islamic law in general (ie the entire body of law covering every aspect of life, just like most Western legal systems; not just the chopping people's hands off stuff you hear in the media, which is only one small part of it, vaguely similar to how the US death penalty does not equal the totality of "US law"). I appreciate your fears btw.

But TL;DR: it's a bit more complex.

It's not actually practised/applied in all Muslim-majority countries. Turkey is Muslim-majority but doesn't have Shariah as part of the official legal system. Abolished in 1924 by Kemal Ataturk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_on_sharia_law#:~:text=Although%20Turkey%20is%20a%20Muslim,of%20Sharia%20law%20were%20reinterpreted.

Tunisia also uses mainly secular law if I'm not mistaken:

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2022/06/44489/tunisias-new-constitution-to-remove-islam-as-state-religion/

There's a lot of variation across countries in the extent to which Shariah is applied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_Sharia_by_country

https://www.tbsnews.net/world/countries-follow-sharia-law-297286

And it is present to varying degrees in a lot of countries that you might not first suspect that also don't have Muslim majorities, like India.

UK also is not Muslim-majority but has Shariah councils to settle civil matters (at least in England and Wales, anyway). Muslims currently number about 4 million, representing ~6% of the population of ~70 million.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-03-13/debates/F6359089-4205-4EBC-8906-22275E4FDFE7/ContributionOfMuslimsToCommunities

But note that (as per article above):

"Sharia councils have no legal status and no legal binding authority under civil law. Whilst sharia is a source of guidance for many Muslims, sharia councils have no legal jurisdiction in England and Wales."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a750e8040f0b6397f35d531/6.4152_HO_CPFG_Report_into_Sharia_Law_in_the_UK_WEB.pdf

Also, Israel has Shariah courts (throwback from the Ottomans and British who kept the system in place so they've been around a while) and they're not a Muslim-majority country (Muslims make up about 21% of a population of now around 10 million, alongside Jews, Arab Christians, Druze and others):

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/latest-population-statistics-for-israel

https://www.cbs.gov.il/en/mediarelease/pages/2023/population-of-israel-on-the-eve-of-2024.aspx

https://www.gov.il/en/pages/about_sharia

Yes, it's all about how much influence they can exert, in the countries that don't have Sharia yet, it's because the people rebelled at the thought.
The issue is that Islamic holy texts outline and demand this conduct from their followers.
Until a new Islamic prophet comes and has a new revelation that they should stop doing that kinda stuff, it's going to continue.

Well, as to your point about a "new Islamic prophet", that isn't going to happen. Muhammad is traditionally known as "the Seal of the Prophets".

"Seal" in the sense of sealing something shut, like sealing a letter with wax. Muhammad is believed to be the final Prophet/Messenger in a long line of prophets sent by God, starting with Adam (who is a prophet in Islam), and including Noah (Nuh in Islam) and Jesus (Isa in Islam). Jesus is revered as an important prophet in Islam but not believed to be divine, as that is considered blasphemous to Muslims.

In other words, in Islam, Muhammad is the latest and final Prophet ending a long chain of divine revelation, and no other prophet can ever come after him. It's a concept known as the "finality of prophethood".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_the_Prophets

https://fiqh.islamonline.net/en/finality-of-prophethood/

If a person ever did claim to be a "new Islamic prophet", that would be widely considered heretical or blasphemous by most Muslims and that person would be rejected.

(In fact, this has already happened with the Baháʼí Faith, which emerged centuries after the advent of Islam and bases its teachings on both Islam and Christianity along with other faiths. Founded by Bahá'u'lláh, who is believed by Baháʼís to be the latest "Manifestation" of God, continuing a long line of divine revelation that also includes Jesus and Muhammad. It is not accepted by most Muslims. Vaguely similar, perhaps, to how Jews (excepting Messianic Jews) don't accept Jesus as the Messiah or the New Testament as Scripture, or how most mainstream Christians don't accept Joseph Smith and the teachings of the LDS Church/Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses.)

As to your point re Islamic holy texts outlining/demanding "this conduct", it's not entirely clear what "conduct" you're specifically referring to. I'm going to take the liberty of assuming you're talking about the stricter applications of Islamic law (Shariah) like corporal punishment and apostasy laws or the much-quoted "Sword" verse (Qur'an 9:5).

As to your first point about people rebelling against the application of Shariah in Muslim-majority countries, again, as I pointed out above, it's a bit more complex. Not all Muslim-majority countries follow/apply Shariah, and some non–Muslim-majority countries including Israel allow certain elements of Shariah in personal civil matters, but it varies by country how much legal jurisdiction those Shariah rulings have in actual law.

Isn't there an entire sect of Muslims that have new prophets all the time?
Islamic leaders could announce a revelation from God that peace has been achieved and to stop persecuting non Muslims and that Sharia law is no longer necessary.
Or they could turn a lot of it symbolic. There's a lot of ways this could go, but they don't do it.

Okay, I think you may be referring to the Ahmadiyyah sect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya

They believe in *one* new prophet, called Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad

He is not accepted by mainstream Muslims. They view this as a sect or a heresy or sth.

If you're referring to the Baha'i faith, that's a bit different. They believe that God continually gives new revelations.

Like I said, in mainstream Islam, Muhammad is the Last Prophet, end of. It's pretty much non-negotiable.

That's it.

Persecuting non-Muslims? Is this an actual belief in Islam?

Shariah law just refers to Islamic law in general. Saying Shariah law is no longer necessary is a bit like saying "laws are no longer necessary". So you can do whatever you like.

Like the whole legal system ceases to apply.

Well, first up, disclaimer: I'm not a historian/archaeologist so feel free to question any of this, but my understanding is the Canaanites were ancient Bronze Age peoples who lived in the Levant thousands of years ago until around 1200 BC with the advent of the Iron Age and shifting geopolitics.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Canaan-historical-region-Middle-East
https://www.livescience.com/56016-canaanites.html

There's actually some genetic evidence apparently that modern-day Lebanese people share a pretty large amount of DNA (up to 90%) with ancient Canaanites (a 2017 study compared DNA samples from modern-day Lebanese people with that of some ancient Canaanite corpses).

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/genetic-study-suggests-present-day-lebanese-descend-from-biblical-canaanites

Meanwhile, Islam appeared in the Arabian Peninsula in the early- to mid-7th-century, so there's a gap of around 1800 years between the two.

Not quite the same thing. You're possibly thinking more of Palestinians/Lebanese people/inhabitants of that region rather than "Muslims".

Maybe a bit like saying that we should call current inhabitants of the USA by their "real" old name: the Ancient Greeks (?). 🤔

PS Muslim is not the same as Arab. The top 5 largest Muslim populations on the globe are actually not even in Arab countries.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/muslim-population-by-country
https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/muslim-population-by-country

Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria. Followed by Egypt, the first "Arab" country in terms of Muslim population size. (And, even then, a lot of Egyptians don't identify as "Arab". Plus, about 10% of Egypt are Christian (mainly Coptic Orthodox). While we're at it, there are also Christians in the West Bank & Gaza, so if you bomb Gaza you're also bombing Christians.)

https://embraceme.org/christians-in-israel-palestine

Saudi Arabia is pretty far down the list.

See pie chart here for an example (figures a bit out of date, from 2009, but just to give an easy visual summary):

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslim-population/

So statistically if you picked a Muslim at random, they're more likely to be from South or South East Asia than an Arab country. And I don't think most Indonesians are descended from ancient Near Eastern Bronze Age people...

The Canaanites are an interesting topic to read about though so you get an upvote just for that.

Yes

Hey mate, your image shows a young Muslim woman wearing hijab and smiling. Looks pretty normal to me. She's even wearing the colours of the US flag (or UK/France/a few others). Am I missing something? 🤔 (Is it the Men In Black agents behind her? Is that what I'm supposed to be looking at? 🕴️👀)

Have you met many Muslims or spent time in Muslim countries? I've met countless Muslims and been to a bunch of Muslim-majority countries and never had a problem, bar what you'd expect from people in general (people can be shitty everywhere because they're people). Watch out for taxi drivers, people flogging tacky tourist merch, and if you're supporting the wrong team during the match as I usually do just to troll people lol. 💀

Are you genuinely afraid seeing a woman who looks like that (or her "brother/husband") or am I misinterpreting something? Apologies if so. If you want, we can all arrange to meet for a group coffee and I'll volunteer to be your bodyguard in case they turn nasty lol. (Coffee's on me too btw. What do ya say, buddy?)

She’s also one of the most anti-American members of congress

Ah yes, good old Ilhan. Okay, no worries; doesn't have to be her. Plenty of other people to choose from. Plus I probably can't afford a round of coffee at the Congress café (not made of cash). And she's a busy lady anyway.

So can just be your average Starbucks or whatever. (Just as long as we all promise to behave. No slagging off each other's sacred beliefs and families too much or calling each other fat bastard, or getting into brawls, and we should be grand.)

I'm curious btw. If you don't mind answering sometime (no rush): what does being "American" mean to you? Like can you define what should be included as "core American values"? Like the important stuff, and stuff that is universally applicable across the nation; not whether you like the Super Bowl or McDonald's or surfing/hunting deer, etc.

And then, following on from that, what does it look like to be: a) Pro-American [values]; and b) Anti-American [values]? Just to get a better understanding. Cheers. 🙏👋

To me being American is prioritizing individual freedom and responsibility. Essentially it means to be a libertarian.

Thanks for the response. Would you care to elaborate a bit further? Libertarianism typically means the government having minimal interference in people's lives, right? Stay out of our lives and not micro-manage. I'm all for individual freedom and responsibility too btw (although I also believe in some collectivist sense of responsibility, like following rules to all live in harmony and respect each other's boundaries).

So like people are free to practise their religion (or none) at home, raise their kids in the way the best way they see fit, dress how they wish (no state-enforced dress code), are free to express their sexuality, etc, without government interference telling them what to do, right? 🤔 What do you think?

https://www.cato.org/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism

There are some things of libertarianism that I can’t agree with on a practical basis, but that’s because I believe in morality. That being said, it is not possible to legislate morality. I think expressions of sexuality should be kept private — even the ancient Greeks (who had low moral standards) kept these kinds of things out of their dramas (That’s actually the origin of the term “obscene” — something that, while implied, was not to be shown on a stage). Statistically speaking homosexuals are more likely to molest children (there’s actually a group specifically for that purpose called Nambla — North American Man-Boy Love Association). There may also be people who believe that their sexual expressions should include people who don’t want it from them — that kind of sexual expression should be forbidden — would you agree?

Regarding true practice of religion, or practicing no religion at all, that’s a personal thing. As a religious man, I believe that my faith helps me, and might help others, so sharing it with them helps them, and someone can’t be said to actually believe something unless he practices it throughout his life both publicly and privately. Thus if a child in a public school wants to read the Bible by himself in a free period, or the Quran, Vedas, etc he should be allowed to, since it isn’t forcing someone else to take part.

In a collectivist sense, we agree not to harm one another, steal from each other, or such like, but we don’t actually give up individual rights by agreeing not to hurt each other. We never had such a right, so we couldn’t very well give up such a “right.” Instead we need to use individual freedom to help and serve one another. I do that by helping my employer, and he does it by giving me money for my time.

The French news is not reporting on the rise of hate crimes against Christians in France.