“I’ve seen cats being played football [soccer] with. I have seen cats with their legs torn off and their eyes gouged out. We see cats that have had their heads torn off, and ones that had skin ripped away, or had their legs and back broken.”
The above is the testimonial of a Danish Animal Protection worker, as translated by Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels. But don’t expect the wider Left to get on the case anytime soon. Not only are the atrocities being committed abroad, in the suburb of Vollsmose in Denmark, but the perpetrators are from a “protected” group: Muslims.
Moreover, those who do try to address the problem find themselves unprotected: Vollsmose appears to be a “no-go zone,” where an animal-protection worker was run out of the neighborhood and prevented from aiding an injured cat.
Most focus on Islamic-world animal cruelty involves “Halal” slaughter, which dictates that an animal mayn’t be stunned before being killed (it must be conscious) and that it must be slaughtered by way of having its throat cut with a knife. (A 2015 investigation found heinous animal abuse at a British Halal slaughterhouse.) But in Vollsmose — near Denmark’s third-largest city, Odense — the cruelty isn’t driven by a religious mandate but purely by sadistic impulses.
The aforementioned animal-protection worker, who has received death threats on Facebook and is going by the name “Anya” (FYN, the Danish source originally reporting the story, knows her real name), stated that she reported approximately 100 cases of animal cruelty in Vollsmose over five years. She said, “The worst [case] was a litter of kittens huddled around with their guts hanging out because they had [their] stomach[s] cut open,” related FYN.
Therese S. Wilbert, director of Danish cat-welfare group Cats Safeguard, reports that while most animal abuse in Denmark is committed by adults, the culprits in inordinately Muslim Vollsmose are usually children under 10. One might wonder what their parents are teaching them (and not teaching them) and why this cruelty isn’t addressed by the local adults.
Wilbert says that in Vollsmose, “The degree of cruelty to cats [is] worse than we usually see in Denmark.” Her organization received 20 to 25 reports of animal cruelty in 2016 alone, but she says the figures are probably far higher due to a lack of reporting.
Note that many crimes go unreported to authorities in Muslim-dominated no-go zones, as locals desire to handle matters “in house,” applying Sharia law, as if occupying a nation within a nation.
The reality of Muslim no-go zones has been scoffed at by the mainstream media, and Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo even threatened to sue Fox News in 2015 after it reported on such zones in her city. Yet the experiences of a female Danish animal-protection worker (it’s not clear whether or not this also was Anya) run out of Vollsmose tell a different tale.
The worker first encountered a problem on March 26, when youths in a vehicle harassed her and one of them ran his finger across his throat, which, of course, is a characteristically Islamic symbolic death threat (decapitation).
But it was the next day, when the same female volunteer returned to help an injured cat, that the real trouble began. Approximately 10 young people, including the youths from the car from the day before, assaulted her. As Sennels relates it, “The young men stopped the animal ambulance, opened the ambulance door, stole the ignition key, tore at the woman’s hair and shouted in her face. The car’s taillight was smashed and the car was bumped.”
It’s also reported that the assailants threatened to kill the volunteer. The woman only escaped because one of the more level-headed youths returned her car keys, allowing her to flee the scene.
Interestingly, video of the incident was captured and is available here.
The animal-protection agency no longer sends personnel into Vollsmose (respecting territorial claims, I guess). Most telling, however, was Danish animal-rights official Henrik Bucholdtz’s explanation for the assault. As Nyheder.TV2.dk relates it, (edited for grammar and style), the Muslim assailants “might have felt angry at the woman rescuer because she arrived in the area in one of Animal Protection’s expensive ambulances with flashing lights on the roof and a logo on the side.”
“We might have been mistaken for the authorities, but we are a voluntary organization that only wants to make a difference for animals and nothing else, says the animal-rights chief.”
In other words, the worker was only attacked (supposedly) because the locals thought she was a government official, entering a no-go zone that doesn’t exist and is a figment of overactive right-wing imaginations.
It also should be noted here that it wasn’t conservatives who originated the no-go-zone story. It was the New York Times Magazine — in a 2007 essay entitled “The Battle Over the Banlieues,” which explored the 2005 Muslim rioting in big-city French suburbs (called the “banlieues”). As Jonathan S. Tobin put it in a 2015 article “‘No-Go Zones’ Are Not a Conservative Meme,” the Times essay “did not shy away from the fact that many of these places [no-go zones] had become all but off-limits to those who did not trace their origins to North Africa.”
This problem gets worse all the time, too, with a new report indicating that eight more no-go-zone areas (that don’t exist) in Sweden have now been labeled “especially vulnerable.”
Of course, nonexistence can appear reality when your eyes are closed. As to this, the Danish animal-protection officials said in response to their treatment in Vollsmose, “We are deeply puzzled.”
