ESW: My Report on USA Trip #6

Posted on by Baron Bodissey

Earlier this month Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff paid a visit to the Washington D.C. to take part in the annual ACT! For America conference, and take in the Tea Party sights on Capitol Hill. Below is her report on the trip.

Report on USA Trip #6

September 12, 2015

by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
Executive Board member, Pax Europa

I travel to Washington DC — the wretched beehive — on an annual basis, first to attend theACT! For America Conference and Legislative Briefing, and secondly, to use the opportunity to brief selected members of Congress about the current state of affairs in Europe.

Naturally, the so-called “Iran Agreement”, which was to be decided in Congress, was at the top of everyone’s mind and list. However, other topics of discussion were the extent of the present immigration catastrophe in Europe, plus the broad and worrisome encroachments on freedom of expression in Germany and Austria.

During my briefings I raised the issue of the accelerating loss of freedom of speech, using selected examples to illustrate what I was describing. For instance, there are confirmed reports of snitching among co-workers with regard to the so-called asylum-seekers — employees are warned not say or write anything disparaging about these poor “migrants”. In another example, a bus driver in Germany was fired for wearing a t-shirt manufactured by a companydeemed right-wing extremist. And finally, a young apprentice working for Porsche was fired for posting a — undoubtedly — less than intelligent comment on Facebook. He was never given a chance to apologize.

I also discussed questionable decisions made by the Austrian judiciary. One case in point was a judge’s allowing for Heinz-Christian Strache, the leader of the largest opposition party, to be compared to Adolf Hitler. On what grounds, you ask? “Because it is based on objective fact.”

In this connection, I would like to draw attention to the new amendment to criminal law, which will be in force at some point this fall. It will include the punishment of mental crimes, and calls for the unconditional acceptance of certain facts, such as genocides recognized by the court, including Srebrenica and Armenia.

For more about this illiberal new law, see this translated article.

Concerning asylum-seekers, migrants, and refugees: I discussed the lack of any definition for illegal entry to Austria. The Schengen Agreement is responsible for the open internal borders, and calls for strong external border control in Greece, Italy, Malta and other countries at the periphery of the EU. Schengen has shown itself to be ineffective, and should be considered a failure. This comes as no surprise to those critics who have been vilified for many years for pointing out this ineffectiveness.

Who is vetting the hundreds of thousands mostly young and strong men? Who can guarantee that there are no ISIS fighters among the trekkers carrying the latest cell phones and wearing what appears to be designer jeans? Should the EU not take seriously ISIS’ threats to sending mujahideen disguised as refugees? And, in a disgusting move, the Austrian chancellor insinuated that the Hungarians’ reaction to the current situation, namely applying and adhering to Schengen rules, are a reminder of “dark times”. We are indeed witnessing dark times, but certainly not of the sort Mr. Faymann alluded to. We are witnessing the demise of the nation state, of the rule of law, of freedom.

What should we do about this state of affairs? First, we must leave the broken and ineffective Geneva Convention. It no longer serves a purpose and worsens the situation. Second, a state which cannot secure its borders is no longer a state: secure our borders! Immediately! Third, we must vet every single person entering the Schengen area. If this fails, we must protect our own borders and leave Schengen. And finally: Why not just follow laws instead of breaking them? This should apply to the EU and its member states as well as the refugees.

The EU is dishonest, both to its population and to the migrants. There is no money; we are all essentially broke. There are no jobs to be had, especially for low-skilled workers with no language skills. Moreover, there is dishonesty in the public narrative. No dissenting opinions are allowed: many parents are now actively telling their children to either shut up in school or utter “The migrants are so poor,” so that there are no repercussions. The media isgleichgeschaltet again; there is a complete lack of balanced discussion in the newspapers, the radio and television. There is a level of brainwashing that Goebbels would have been proud of. He must be smiling up from hell.

Only a handful of journalists have so far asked questions about two major problems:

1. Why are these migrants/asylum-seekers/refugees permitted to choose which country to go to? This is contrary to the Geneva Convention.
2. Why are the Middle Eastern countries not taking in their religious brethren?

In my briefings with Congressmen Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Jeff Duncan (R-SC) as well as retired USAF General Thomas McInerney and retired Admiral Ace Lyons, I noticed a high degree of knowledge. This is very encouraging. There was special concern about European limitations on freedom of expression, since this stands in stark contrast to the First Amendment. This was also made clear to me upon entry to the USA, by the responsible immigration official. (The official asked why I had a visa in her passport, since Austrian citizens can enter the USA on a visa waiver program.)


Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Caroline Solomon, Thomas McInerney

Another fixed point was participation in the presentation on the Iran agreement, which included more than two dozen of the best-known US conservatives, and the Tea Party. For further information in English, see the American Thinker.

Despite the heat, thousands of demonstrators showed up on Capitol Hill to express their dislike for and rejection of the agreement. It was interesting to learn from Congressman Gohmert that the agreement was not to be evaluated as such, but as an international treaty, and yet through a legalistic trick, was not being brought to Congress as a treaty. This has consequences for the effectiveness of congressional votes, but also for us in Europe, because this agreement is a dangerous one for world peace, as was noted in the course of the ACT! For America conference by countless members of congress and analysts.


Brigitte Gabriel

Clearly, one of the high points was meeting Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the author of four books and a former refugee. An incredibly warm-hearted woman who radiated calm, while still bringing a great deal of knowledge and insight in her speech. The most important statement in her comments was the call for a functioning constitutional state, with all that entails.


Valerie Price, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

At the end of the week, CBN’s Erick Stakelbeck interviewed me, with the interview scheduled to air on September 22.


Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff with Erick Stakelbeck

On the basis of the countless personal contacts — the renewal of old ones as well as the establishment of new ones, I consider this trip one of the most successful in recent years. All planned appointments could be kept, which certainly could not have been expected considering the events of the week regarding the Iran agreement.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

More photos:


Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff with Rep. Jeff Duncan

Valerie Price and ESW at the Capitol Hill Tea Party

I owe a debt of gratitude to JLH for translating the German-language report I presented to BPE, which was adapted to make this report.

Posted in Free Speech, Report | Leave a comment

Anti-Semitism: The Need to Focus on Perpetrators

Posted on by Baron Bodissey

Below is the intervention read by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, representing Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Session 15 “Freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief: Ensuring the collective dimension of freedom of religion or belief”, Warsaw, September 30, 2015.

Intervention by Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa

OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting

Working Session 15

Specifically Selected Topic: Freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief: Ensuring the collective dimension of freedom of religion or belief

Anti-Semitism: The need to focus on perpetrators

Distinguished delegates, OSCE representatives.

The Annotated Agenda is very explicit in addressing the rising problem of anti-Semitism in the participating States. Anyone with even the least understanding of history should be surprised that this problem can emerge again, even though it should have been buried deep in the ruins of Berlin in May 1945.

However, the scourge of anti-Semitism has returned, and we need to deal with it quite urgently. Europe has over the last century suffered significant loss of its Jewish population, either to emigration or to outright genocide, and that loss of valuable cultural heritage must not be repeated.

From the field of criminal justice, it should be clear that focusing on victims of crime does not suffice. We need to identify perpetrators, as Sherlock Holmes did, identify them, and bring them to justice.

This effectively means that we need to put an end to the evil of tolerating intolerance.

This also means that when British schools drop the Jewish Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, they are doing exactly the opposite of what we urgently need. Teaching the truth about the Holocaust should be categorically more important than Islamic ‘religious sensitivities’.

What we need to do is to identify and confront the sources of anti-Semitism, and to take appropriate action to delegitimize and marginalize such ideas. If that means we need the courage to identify and counter such ideas in books and scriptures considered ‘holy’ in some circles, so be it.

BPE thus recommends:

  • That OSCE pS refrain from any form of contact with Hamas, Hezbollah and other anti-Semitic organizations.
  • That ‘religion’ must not be a cover for promoting anti-Semitic sentiment and action.
  • That teachers are supported in teaching about the Holocaust, even in the face of Islamist pressure.
  • That any public grants or privileges are revoked from organizations promoting anti-Semitic dogma.

See: www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/dropping-the-holocaust-from-history-lessons-what-some-schools-are-doing-so-that-they-avoid-offending-muslim-students

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

Posted in Free Speech, Report | Leave a comment

The Tyranny of Bad Definitions

Posted on by Baron Bodissey

Below is the intervention read by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, representing Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Session 13 “Combating Hate Crimes and Ensuring Effective Protection and against Discrimination”, Warsaw, September 29, 2015.

Intervention by Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa

OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting

Working Session 13

Specifically Selected Topic: Combating Hate Crimes and Ensuring Effective Protection and against Discrimination

The Tyranny of Bad Definitions

When working with topics as basic as fundamental freedoms, freedoms currently under attack using the concept of “hate crime”, it should be self-evident that one needs to apply very high standards of precision, caution and democratic principles. Failing that, the powerful tools of international law and human rights instruments can potentially fall prey to hostile intent and misuse.

Overly broad or purposefully vague definitions lend themselves to misuse by enemies of free, secular societies, as has historically been the case previously in non-democratic societies. Possibly the best-known example of this is the term “Enemy of the working class”, used by the Soviet Union to discredit, stigmatize and persecute the critics of a fundamentally broken system. As long as the Soviet system had moral authority, this strategy worked. When the system was exposed, it failed.

This strategy was successful until the system lost moral authority and was exposed.

In order to promote the genuine rule of law, democracy and freedom, the tools of international law require clear definitions and clear limits to the power that authorities hold over non-criminal citizens. In case of doubt, it is best to err on the side of caution — that is, on the side of less control, restriction and punishment, and in particular to uphold the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Unclear definitions can be misused by governments and other institution of power to repress, marginalize and stigmatize inconvenient persons, their opinions, or even the topics they intend to discuss. Good laws and guidelines protect against such attacks on freedom of expression and media. Bad (usually overly broad) laws will be used by enemies of freedom to further their goals.

We need to be able to recognize and counter such problems and strategies today, as we were able to previously.

Ladies and gentlemen, seeking to control the details of how citizens may or may not act or express themselves cannot constitute the Rule of Law, cannot constitute freedom. It is our old enemy: Tyranny.

Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa therefore recommends:

  • That definitions of terms used in OSCE documents always be provided, possibly by reference.
  • That terms with overly broad or unclear definitions should not be used in OSCE documents, also in order to secure that well-meaning decisions cannot be exploited by enemies of free societies.
  • That care be taken to not incite a mob mentality through the use of poorly defined terms.
  • That the Rule of Law principle of “innocent until proven guilty” be kept in mind and applied.

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

Posted in Free Speech, Report | Leave a comment

Should We Tolerate Intolerance?

Posted on by  

Below is the intervention read by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, representing Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Session 14 “Tolerance and non-discrimination II, including: Combating racism, xenophobia and discrimination, also focusing on intolerance and discrimination against Christians and members of other religions”, Warsaw, September 30, 2015.

Intervention by Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa

OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting

Working Session 14

To what extent can we tolerate intolerance?

Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished delegates.

We are gathered here in order to discuss how to prevent and eliminate discrimination against individuals or communities on the grounds of religion or belief in the exercise of fundamental freedoms in all fields of life, including equal rights of believers and non-believers.

However, these fine intentions cause us to be confronted with the paradox of tolerance. In the words of Karl Popper:

If we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Fortunately, this paradox lends itself to an easy resolution: In order to defend tolerance, we must have the courage to remain intolerant towards intolerance, with vigilance and diligence.

We, the defenders of human rights, democracy and free, secular societies have no obligation to be tolerant of those with different ideological aims. OSCE pS cannot have any obligations to be tolerant of ideologies, organizations or individuals opposed to fundamental OSCE principles.

Suppose we have a religion that has a core tenet that adherents of other religions, such as Jews and Christians, are to be condemned, and non-believers or adherents of other religions even more so. The fundamental right of freedom of belief grants anyone the right to believe so; this is not an issue. However, there is no fundamental right to act in accordance with such beliefs, for doing so would limit the freedom of others, which is not permissible in a society protecting fundamental freedoms.

Ladies and gentlemen, in defense of our free, secular societies, we have the right to not tolerate religious mandates to despise Christians, Jews or others. This directly implies the right to not grant any privileges to organizations promoting such views, to have them controlled by our security organizations, and to have them dissolved under the law, discrediting their leaders and their ideology.

BPE thus recommends:

  • That our security organizations investigate the ideologies of any and all religious groups.
  • That any religious group promoting anti-Semitism and similar views be re-categorized as political.
  • And that any such group be held legally responsible for how they motivate their members.

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

Posted in Free Speech, Report | Leave a comment

BPE Intervention Session 12: “Tear Down These Walls!”

BPE Intervention Session 12: “Tear Down These Walls!”

Below is a video of the intervention read by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, representing Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Session 12 “Combating Hate Crimes and Ensuring Effective Protection against Discrimination”, Warsaw, September 29, 2015.

Note: The audio track was taken from the official sound system at OSCE, which was evidently experiencing technical problems. As a result, the quality of the sound is degraded, although Vlad Tepes did what he could with it:

Read the text of this intervention

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

Posted in Free Speech, Speeches | Leave a comment

Daniel Greenfield: In Austria Call For Killing Jews is Legal, Elisabeth’s Calling Mohamed a Pedophile Isn’t

From Front Page Magazine:

Austria: Calls for Killing Jews Legal, Calling Mohammed a Pedophile, Illegal

charlie-hebdo-mohammed-719078

It’s not anti-Semitism. It’s anti-Zionism. You can tell because it involves Hitler and killing Jews.

Facebook postings from a Turkish man showing Adolf Hitler, with a statement praising the death of Jews, are a legitimate expression of criticizing the Jewish state, the spokesman for the prosecutor office in the city of Linz, Philip Christl, said on Tuesday.

“I could have annihilated all the Jews in the world, but I left some of them alive so you will know why I was killing them…,” Ibrahim B. wrote on his Facebook page in December.

[…]

Between the Wuppertal case in Germany, in which attempting to burn a synagogue was considered criticism of Israel, and this, it’s clear that there is no distinction whatsoever between the most violent and bigoted forms of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

They are one and the same. Just ask old Adolf. And if you can’t find him, ask Ibrahim and Christl.

Meanwhile Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was dragged into court and convicted for stating the fact that Mohammed was a pedophile.

The judge ruled that Sabaditsch-Wolff committed a crime by stating in her seminars about Islam that the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a pedophile (Sabaditsch-Wolff’s actual words were “Mohammed had a thing for little girls.”)

The judge rationalized that Mohammed’s sexual contact with nine-year-old Aisha could not be considered pedophilia because Mohammed continued his marriage to Aisha until his death. According to this line of thinking, Mohammed had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to older females because Aisha was 18 years old when Mohammed died.

Pointing out a historical fact about Mohammed is a crime. Praising Hitler’s murder of Jews is fine if you’re a Muslim.

This is what the European legal system now looks like. History repeats itself.

FPM Read the entire piece here.

Posted in Free Speech | Leave a comment

Iconoclast: myth of islamophobia: The Vienna – phoenix connections

 

Here is a recent marching event highlighting the persecution of Christians in Muslim lands.

PrayerMarch

Iconoclast: The Myth of Islamophobia: The Vienna – Phoenix Connections

The Myth of Islamophobia   4-20-14

This was the 20th anniversary of the film Forrest Gump  and it was featured all week on the AMC cable TV channel.  There is the fabled line repeated at various touching moments in this now classic movie uttered by the fictional character’s mother portrayed by the Hollywood  actress  Sally Fields,   dying of cancer.  Forrest portrayed by Academy award winner actor Tom Hanks: later said in the film, “Momma always said: life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get”.  Watch a You Tube segment, here.

That could be the tag line for the Easter Sunday production of The Lisa Benson Radio Show on the Salem Radio Network broadcast from Phoenix on KKNT 960 AM that aired today. There was also a subtext, the program connected Austrian human rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf in Vienna with Rabbi Jonathan Hausman who had sponsored a talk by her at his synagogue   in Stoughton, Massachusetts in 2013. Her appearance was part of the Irwin and H. Ethel Hausman Memorial Speakers Series.  It was all about the leverage of networking in the counter-Jihad international community.

Earlier in Holy Week of both Passover and Easter, Lisa Benson had called me to tell me of her experience of being the captive passenger in a cab she got into at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor airport.  It was driven by an Islamist Sudanese who spying her Jewish star on a necklace and locked her in for a wild journey to her home at high speed trying to convert her.  This occurred after a week and a half away on the east Coast in Washington, DC.  That was scary enough.  Now she asked me on a phone call for advice on   a suggested topic for today’s Easter Sunday broadcast.  I advised her that she might consider addressing CAIR’s relentless Islamophobia attacks against the film Honor Diariesabout the issue of misogyny in Muslim Majority countries.  We discussed the attack against the film’s executive producer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Somali apostate, author of the acclaimed biographies, Infidel and Nomad. Ali is a vigorous defender of women’s and girl’s rights in these Muslim honor shame societies.

Benson might consider addressing the topic of CAIR’s assault on free speech under the First Amendment of our Constitution.  This was buttressed by an interview I had just concluded last weekend with Brooke Goldstein of The Lawfare Project who had confronted a CAIR spokesperson on a Fox News program with host Megyn Kelly of The Kelly File.  The program on Fox News Cable TV illustrated CAIR’s Islamophobia charges against Ms. Ali and the film’s Jewish producers at the Clarion project.  Watch this You Tube video of the Fox News Kelly Files segment, here.   Then there was   Brandeis University’s President Frederick Lawrence cowardly succumbing to a lynch mob composed of 86 signers of a letter from the Near Eastern and Judaic Studies faculty and the leaders of the Muslim Student Association chapter. He withdrew an honorary doctorate for Ms. Ali and as commencement speaker.  As to who might join me in a discussion of this topic, I suggested Rabbi Hausman.

He has been called an Islamophobe and worse in hearings before the Florida legislature on the pending American Law for American Courts (ALAC) legislation. Moreover, Sen. Alan Hays, the Florida Senate sponsor of ALAC, had been accused of being an Islamophobe by representatives of CAIR- Florida and CAIR National for proposing that legislation as “bullying Muslims and other minorities”.  Then Arab American standup comic Dean Obeidallah also accused Hays of being an Islamophobe for sponsoring textbook review legislation as equivalent of “censorship”. The Florida legislation was spurred by citizen activist criticism of the treatment of Islam and Muslim culture in world history texts approved by the Florida Department of Education.   I reached out to Rabbi Hausman who consented to join me on the radio panel.

After several turns of a flier for today’s broadcast I went to sleep late Saturday night and awoke in the middle of the night, found the final version and posted it.  Within minutes of doing that I received an email from Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolf in Vienna offering to call in and tell of her group’s victory in the annual conference by the Office of Democratic Institutions of Human Rights  (ODIHR) of the Organization of Cooperation and Security of Europe (OSCE).  Ms. Sabaditsch Wolf is the leader of the Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa  or Citizens’ Movement Pax Europa (CMPE) a registered NGO.  In the late summer of 2013, CMPE, together with representatives of the International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA), Washington, DC-based Center for Security Policy and ACT! had journeyed to Warsaw for another ODIHR conference on the legal definition of Islamophobia in response to one stated by the Turkish representative.  I wrote her back suggesting that this might be worthy of an interview about what had occurred there and had been covered in a Gates of Vienna (GoV) series of articles last fall.  We agreed to talk about this on a Skype call that occurred this morning.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

More here.

Posted in Report | Leave a comment

Elisabeth’s Voice: The Final Push to the ECHR

 

 

In 2011 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of “hate speech” in an Austrian court for telling the plain truth in her seminars on Islam. As we have noted in previous posts, her case is now pending at the European Court of Human Rights. Her legal costs for the petition are considerable, and she has issued an appeal for contributions to her defense fund.

For readers who are not already familiar with her case, here is a brief timeline of what has happened up until now:

 

October 2010 Elisabeth was indicted in Vienna, Austria, for statements she made in one of her seminars on the ideology and effect of Islam.
February 2011 Elisabeth was convicted of “hate speech” in an Austrian court. In order to obtain a conviction, the trial judge was forced to introduce a new charge, “denigrating the teaching of a legally recognized religion” — during the trial itself.
December 2011 the verdict was upheld by the appellate court, which noted that her statements constituted “an excess of opinion” punishable under Austrian law.
December 2013 the verdict was upheld by the Austrian supreme court, which noted that under the European Convention of Human Rights, freedom of religion overrides freedom of expression. Elisabeth notes that criticism of Christianity comes under the rubric of art, while criticism of Islam is criminal. She says: “There is no political freedom without religious freedom, inclusive of the right to criticize religion.”

The following video shows excerpts from one of Elisabeth’s seminars. Statements such as these have now been criminalized by the Austrian judicial system.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to Rembrandt Clancy for translating and subtitling the audio, and for translating the German text of the slides and superimposing the English version in the video.

Many thanks also to Henrik Ræder Clausen for selecting the clips to be excerpted from the original seminar video, and to Vlad Tepes for uploading the final result:

 

If you would like to help Elisabeth defray the costs of her legal defense, please visitenglish.savefreespeech.org and follow the instructions for donating.

Video transcript:

Al-Ghazali, a very well known, leading cleric of the 11th century says the following:

Imams and their Holy Lies

“Understand that lying is not wrong in itself. If a lie is the only way to achieve a good result [for Islam], it is permitted. Therefore we must lie, if the truth will lead to an unpleasant result.”

Al Ghazali (1059-1111) One of Islam’s most important theologians.

It is not I, who is saying that, . . . that is what Al-Ghazali says.

Let’s hear more of what people have to say. And Muhammed Mermer said as long ago as 1998:

 

“We shall Erect a Theocracy in the Heart of Europe”

It is our historical task to establish in the heart of Europe a theocratic state for Allah and our great Prophet, Mohammed. We shall sweep away these corrupt and degenerate Nazi-Germans.

Mohammad Mermer: 20:2:1998

Once again, it is not I who says that.

That is Sheikh Al Qaradawi again. I have already shown him.

Within the framework of annual conference of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in Warsaw, our group veritably destroyed the term islamophobia. We opposed the OSCE by tearing apart a manual for teachers which deals with islamophobia, and we asked why there is this brochure on islamophobia when there is not even a legal definition of it. The authors of this brochure then had to admit to us that they in fact had no legal definition.

This video in no way infringes on the religious freedom of Muslims. They are allowed to continue practising their religion in Austria.

Right?

The prohibition, however, the prohibition against showing the video publically violates the freedom of expression of non-Muslims.

Now look at the pictures. It is permitted to do that: [to submerge a crucifix in urine].

It is permitted to crucify a frog, because it comes under the category of art. But making a film about Mohammed is blasphemy. That is just how warped the world has become!

Right? Good.

The small difference is that criticism of Christianity comes under the rubric of art; and criticism which bears on Islam is criminal. An analysis or criticism, — it matters not at all whether it is this or something else — is no longer possible under such legislation. This criticism, this analysis, will be seen as a human rights violation. To think that such a thing is at all possible today!

And that is what I always say and what I say over and over again, “There is no political freedom without religious freedom, inclusive of the right to criticise religion.”

Good. We are concentrating here on Universal Human Rights and the conflicting Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, — and about which no one actually knows anything, including our politicians, — or they pretend to know nothing, or do not wish to know anything. It is also important for you to know that it is an instrument, an Islamic human rights instrument which has been applied more frequently.

You have heard me mention the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. The OIC countries recognise only the human rights of Islam, and not Universal Human Rights.

Supporters of Sharia must be deported for undermining free and democratic society.

The Sharia, according to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), is incompatible with individual rights. We must say that in no uncertain terms.

And if you (the immigrants), accept the values of our society, and are law abiding, then you are warmly welcome; if not, then you are not welcome.

And here you see a few courageous women, who are doing something to ensure that our life remains the way it is. They encourage all who are present here, men and women, to rise to the limits of your possibilities, to do something; to the limits of your possibilities, to defend our culture, our values, our democracy and our freedom . . . within the limits of your possibilities!

Seminar Participant 1

Right, I was very much happy with all of it, in as much as it is an unbelievably important contribution: . . . for this country is not the country into which I once came into the world and in which I grew up; . . . and it is not the country in which those values are lived which are important to me as a committed European, . . . values which are also important to me as a Westerner and as one who values human rights.

This land is being transformed in increasing measure into a mediaevally religious dictatorship; this land, whose values we developed after harsh, centuries-long battles, and for which our forefathers worked hard; values, complete with the philosophical superstructure and foundations — and its religious background.

That is a society the likes of which has otherwise never been seen, and it is something unique and certainly something worth protecting. Therefore Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff’s contribution is particularly significant, because she exposes and demonstrates here — by the seminars she conducts — the very large extent to which we are not free —

… to what extreme degree we are not free.

Seminar Participant 2

Yes, I think it is very important to attend this seminar, certainly. I am forever learning something new, because one finds it nowhere in the media nor in any newspaper; but one learns it only here.

And I have to be grateful to Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff that she does this in spite of being denounced. One should be grateful to her and I wish her luck in her perseverance through this weather.

Seminar Participant 3

The seminar is very rich in content; it is comprehensive and highly interesting. The reasons why I myself wanted to attend this seminar are that I myself was occupationally employed for four years in the Arab region, and acquired my own impressions. And I think that our culture . . . our ideology, must be defended.

For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, seeElisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.

Posted in Report | Leave a comment

SEE YOU IN STRASBOURG!

 

Posted on  by 

As regular readers know, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is in the process of raising money for herdefense fund in order to appeal her “hate speech” conviction to the European Court of Human Rights.

Although her fundraising post has gone off “sticky”, she still needs your help. If you want to see her achieve victory in Strasbourg, please visit her website and choose one of the donation options.

Elisabeth sent this note to thank all the generous people who have donated thus far:

I always like to say thanks. It means so much to me, simply because I enjoy acknowledging other people’s work. Even more so if people trust me enough to hand over some their hard-earned money to fight for what we hold most dear: our freedoms, especially our freedom of speech (including opinion and conscience).

For the past five years I have been fighting a hate speech charge, one that was later turned into a “denigration of religious teachings” charge, and — not surprisingly — have lost all the way to the Austrian supreme court. I am sure most of you already know the details of the case, and even more of you have donated to my defense fund. Without these donations, I would not have been able to pay my exceptional lawyer, Dr. Michael Rami, who has been with me all the way to the supreme court and who has represented me — and us — so valiantly. Without your donations and your generosity, I would not have been able to continue this fight, the fight for the truth, the fight for our God-given right to criticize an ideology driven to eliminate any form of equality, dissent, and our way of life.

I cannot claim to know the outcome of the petition to the European Court for Human Rights. There is no way to know, although the chances appear more favorable than those presented to us in the Austrian court system. What I can promise is that I will never cease to fight for freedom of speech. I will never accept the verdict by the Austrian court system. It is wrong. It is unjust. And most of all, it is dangerous on so many levels.

Please continue your generous support. Not only with respect to the Save Free Speech Defense Fund, but also to Gates of Vienna and Vlad Tepes, as they have been and continue to be crucial to the success of this fight against the inroads of sharia law in our legal systems.

I will never give up and I will never give in.

— Elisabeth

P.S. I also want to thank our translators JLH and Rembrandt Clancy, without whose diligent translations you would not be able to read the verdict in the English language.

JLH had this to say in the comments on Elisabeth’s fundraising post:

 

On of the most important things to know about Elisabeth is that she does not have to be doing what she is doing. When her lawyer demonstrated in their appearance at court in Vienna that he was capable of demolishing the charges brought against her, the court adjourned, twisted itself into a pretzel to produce another charge like a rabbit out of a hat, and convicted her of it, while refusing to hear proposed defense witnesses. Then it set a fine which was admittedly set low enough so she could afford it.

The purpose was not to administer justice, but to intimidate her, like those before her, into going away quietly, thankful not to receive a worse punishment. But, as one of her friends pointed out, it had the opposite effect—what I think of as the William Tell Effect. Tyranny meant to crush, when applied to the wrong subject, reveals an iron will. So Elisabeth has chosen to stand in the path of a tyranny that is rushing down the tracks in Austria and the rest of Western Europe, and in many ways and in many places in the US. And in the process, she is consuming enormous amounts of time and money.

She says she is doing this so that her daughter will not have to live under the shadow of Islam, which oppresses and brutalizes all of its subjects, but women and girls most of all. In fact, she is also doing it for anyone who believes in Free Speech.

As followers of GoV are aware, true democracy is the greatest enemy of both Islam and Western collectivism. When the might of the Habsburg Empire descended on William Tell—as told by Schiller and sung by Rossini—one man’s indignation was enough to start an avalanche of protest that made tiny Switzerland into one of the few bright spots in the political spectrum of Europe today. Elisabeth is not an archer, but she has taken aim at the heart of the Beast, and she is now going to the “court of last resort” which is in the bowels of the monster that is tightening its tentacles on the West. She deserves all the help she can get.

 

 

For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, seeElisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.

Posted in Report | Leave a comment

Final Push to the ECHR

First published at Gates of Vienna

Elisabeth’s Voice: The Final Push to the ECHR

 

In 2011 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of “hate speech” in an Austrian court for telling the plain truth in her seminars on Islam. As we have noted in previous posts, her case is now pending at the European Court of Human Rights. Her legal costs for the petition are considerable, and she has issued an appeal for contributions to her defense fund.

For readers who are not already familiar with her case, here is a brief timeline of what has happened up until now:

 

October 2010 Elisabeth was indicted in Vienna, Austria, for statements she made in one of her seminars on the ideology and effect of Islam.
February 2011 Elisabeth was convicted of “hate speech” in an Austrian court. In order to obtain a conviction, the trial judge was forced to introduce a new charge, “denigrating the teaching of a legally recognized religion” — during the trial itself.
December 2011 the verdict was upheld by the appellate court, which noted that her statements constituted “an excess of opinion” punishable under Austrian law.
December 2013 the verdict was upheld by the Austrian supreme court, which noted that under the European Convention of Human Rights, freedom of religion overrides freedom of expression. Elisabeth notes that criticism of Christianity comes under the rubric of art, while criticism of Islam is criminal. She says: “There is no political freedom without religious freedom, inclusive of the right to criticize religion.”

The following video shows excerpts from one of Elisabeth’s seminars. Statements such as these have now been criminalized by the Austrian judicial system.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to Rembrandt Clancy for translating and subtitling the audio, and for translating the German text of the slides and superimposing the English version in the video.

Many thanks also to Henrik Ræder Clausen for selecting the clips to be excerpted from the original seminar video, and to Vlad Tepes for uploading the final result:

 

 

If you would like to help Elisabeth defray the costs of her legal defense, please visitenglish.savefreespeech.org and follow the instructions for donating.

Video transcript:

Al-Ghazali, a very well known, leading cleric of the 11th century says the following:

Imams and their Holy Lies

“Understand that lying is not wrong in itself. If a lie is the only way to achieve a good result [for Islam], it is permitted. Therefore we must lie, if the truth will lead to an unpleasant result.”

Al Ghazali (1059-1111) One of Islam’s most important theologians.

It is not I, who is saying that, . . . that is what Al-Ghazali says.

Let’s hear more of what people have to say. And Muhammed Mermer said as long ago as 1998:

 

“We shall Erect a Theocracy in the Heart of Europe”

It is our historical task to establish in the heart of Europe a theocratic state for Allah and our great Prophet, Mohammed. We shall sweep away these corrupt and degenerate Nazi-Germans.

Mohammad Mermer: 20:2:1998

Once again, it is not I who says that.

That is Sheikh Al Qaradawi again. I have already shown him.

Within the framework of annual conference of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in Warsaw, our group veritably destroyed the term islamophobia. We opposed the OSCE by tearing apart a manual for teachers which deals with islamophobia, and we asked why there is this brochure on islamophobia when there is not even a legal definition of it. The authors of this brochure then had to admit to us that they in fact had no legal definition.

This video in no way infringes on the religious freedom of Muslims. They are allowed to continue practising their religion in Austria.

Right?

The prohibition, however, the prohibition against showing the video publically violates the freedom of expression of non-Muslims.

Now look at the pictures. It is permitted to do that: [to submerge a crucifix in urine].

It is permitted to crucify a frog, because it comes under the category of art. But making a film about Mohammed is blasphemy. That is just how warped the world has become!

Right? Good.

The small difference is that criticism of Christianity comes under the rubric of art; and criticism which bears on Islam is criminal. An analysis or criticism, — it matters not at all whether it is this or something else — is no longer possible under such legislation. This criticism, this analysis, will be seen as a human rights violation. To think that such a thing is at all possible today!

And that is what I always say and what I say over and over again, “There is no political freedom without religious freedom, inclusive of the right to criticise religion.”

Good. We are concentrating here on Universal Human Rights and the conflicting Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, — and about which no one actually knows anything, including our politicians, — or they pretend to know nothing, or do not wish to know anything. It is also important for you to know that it is an instrument, an Islamic human rights instrument which has been applied more frequently.

You have heard me mention the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. The OIC countries recognise only the human rights of Islam, and not Universal Human Rights.

Supporters of Sharia must be deported for undermining free and democratic society.

The Sharia, according to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), is incompatible with individual rights. We must say that in no uncertain terms.

And if you (the immigrants), accept the values of our society, and are law abiding, then you are warmly welcome; if not, then you are not welcome.

And here you see a few courageous women, who are doing something to ensure that our life remains the way it is. They encourage all who are present here, men and women, to rise to the limits of your possibilities, to do something; to the limits of your possibilities, to defend our culture, our values, our democracy and our freedom . . . within the limits of your possibilities!

Seminar Participant 1

Right, I was very much happy with all of it, in as much as it is an unbelievably important contribution: . . . for this country is not the country into which I once came into the world and in which I grew up; . . . and it is not the country in which those values are lived which are important to me as a committed European, . . . values which are also important to me as a Westerner and as one who values human rights.

This land is being transformed in increasing measure into a mediaevally religious dictatorship; this land, whose values we developed after harsh, centuries-long battles, and for which our forefathers worked hard; values, complete with the philosophical superstructure and foundations — and its religious background.

That is a society the likes of which has otherwise never been seen, and it is something unique and certainly something worth protecting. Therefore Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff’s contribution is particularly significant, because she exposes and demonstrates here — by the seminars she conducts — the very large extent to which we are not free —

… to what extreme degree we are not free.

Seminar Participant 2

Yes, I think it is very important to attend this seminar, certainly. I am forever learning something new, because one finds it nowhere in the media nor in any newspaper; but one learns it only here.

And I have to be grateful to Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff that she does this in spite of being denounced. One should be grateful to her and I wish her luck in her perseverance through this weather.

Seminar Participant 3

The seminar is very rich in content; it is comprehensive and highly interesting. The reasons why I myself wanted to attend this seminar are that I myself was occupationally employed for four years in the Arab region, and acquired my own impressions. And I think that our culture . . . our ideology, must be defended.

 

 

For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, seeElisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.

Posted in Speeches | Leave a comment