ELISABETH IN LA WITH FREEDOM FIGHTER CARTOONIST BOSCH FAWSTIN AT AMERICAN FREEDOM ALLIANCE CONFERENCE…….

ESW and Bosch Fawstin

Bosch Fawstin:

Here I am, drawing another Mohammad cartoon at American Freedom Alliance‘s conference on Western Civilization and Islam, this time for Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff. She told the truth about Islam and was convicted for it by the Austrian Supreme Court. And yet she still tells the truth about Islam.

Posted in Free Speech | Leave a comment

ESW in Dallas: “Europe is Careening Over the Multicultural Cliff”

Posted on by

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff has just returned to Austria after an extended visit to the United States, where she was invited to speak by various anti-Islamization groups in different cities.

On April 21 Elisabeth spoke in Dallas, Texas at an event sponsored by the Dallas chapter of ACT! For America. She was introduced at the event by Lt. Col. (ret.) Allen West. Below is the prepared text for her speech.


(L-R) Lt. Col. (ret.) Allen West, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Rabbi Jon Hausman, Dallas, April 21 2016

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me to speak to ACT! for America here in Dallas, Texas. These are perilous times we are living in. Advocates for freedom on both sides of the Atlantic need to stand together!

For the past nine months Austria and the rest of Western Europe have undergone a profound transformation, one that will inevitably change the face of Europe permanently. I refer, of course, to the migration crisis, which began in earnest last summer, and is continuing as I speak to you. As the weather warms up and spring gives way to summer, we may expect the crisis to intensify even further. More than a million immigrants arrived in Austria and Germany via the “Balkan route” last year, and at least as many are expected to come this year — probably significantly more.

These migrants are generally referred to by our political leaders and the media as “refugees”, but this is hardly the case. Not only are most of them from countries where there is no war to flee from, but they are also overwhelmingly young Muslim men, of fighting age. In other words, the current crisis is actually an instance of Islamic hijra, or migration into infidel lands to advance the cause of Islam. The hijra goes hand in hand with jihad — once enough Muslim migrants have settled in the target country, violent jihad can begin.

It should be quite clear by now that the jihad phase has already begun in Western Europe. The most recent instances were the massacres in Paris and Brussels, which were acts of jihadcarried out by Muslims. Some of the terrorists were in fact “refugees” who had pretended to be “Syrian” and came in with the migrant wave.

And all of them were fighting jihad in the way of Allah, as instructed by the Koran.

I could take up my entire time slot tonight talking about the European migration crisis, and never do more than scratch the surface. However, I’d like to discuss one aspect of the crisis that is very important: the manipulation by the mainstream media of the news about the migrants.

A single example from a beach in Turkey will help give you an idea of what is going on. The image that sparked Western interest in the crisis was the widely-publicized photograph of the dead toddler on the beach in Turkey. That photo is an example of media manipulation. Not about the fact of the baby’s death, but what was done with his little body once he was dead. There is now ample evidence that the body was moved and arranged in place so that the most heart-wrenching photo could be taken. Furthermore, the father of the child was not a poor helpless refugee trying to escape to freedom, but an accomplice of the people smugglers who piloted the boat, who irresponsibly brought his family with him.

For journalists working for Der Spiegel or Le Figaro or The Guardian or CNN, the media narrative is more important than the truth. And the media narrative was (and is) that poor innocent refugees are drowning because they are left to die by evil Europeans.

Those facts about the incident never made it into public consciousness. Not like the image of the pitiful corpse at the edge of the waves — that’s the kind of story that the Western media love to dish out, especially when it promotes the media narrative. It’s also the kind of story that Western audiences love to lap up — it’s what Gates of Vienna, the website I’m associated with, calls “Dead Baby Porn”.

Dead Baby Porn tugs the heartstrings of well-meaning Westerners. It reinforces all their presuppositions about current events. It gives them a vicarious frisson about the poor, suffering child. And, in their response, it makes them feel morally superior when they join the clamor to open their country’s borders to the unfortunate “refugees”.

The media feed the public a steady stream of photos and videos that feature pitiful migrant women and children. We see them looking through the razor wire towards “freedom”, weeping, cooking their food over a campfire, and being pushed back by border guards. Yet these images are so misleading that they constitute disinformation.

The ugly fact is that the overwhelming majority of the “refugees” are healthy young men who either have no wives and children, or left them behind to seize the opportunity for hijra into Europe. They come from Afghanistan, Morocco, Eritrea, and Pakistan, but they acquire forged or stolen Syrian passports so that they become “Syrian”, and thus qualify for VIP status in the flood of refugees.

We are being deliberately manipulated. The Western public is being manipulated into supporting the migration of fighting-age Muslim men into Europe. They are being manipulated into joining the crowd of starry-eyed people holding up “Welcome Refugees” signs in European train stations. And they are being manipulated into paying for all of it through their donations to various NGOs whose mission is to aid the “refugees”.

Yet their donations do not cover the entire cost. It’s a very expensive proposition to send refugees from Anatolia to the Greek islands, and then through Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Austria to Germany. It’s not just the payment to the people-smugglers who take them across a few miles of the Aegean and dump them just off the beach on Lesbos, although that is expensive enough. From there they are carried by ferry to the mainland, housed, clothed, and fed. When they continue their journey, they ride on buses and trains almost the entire distance — they walk only a few hundred yards to cross each border, getting out of a bus in one country and boarding another one in the next.

This is yet another way in which you, the Western public, are being manipulated by the media. All those photos and videos of endless columns of refugees walking along dusty roads carrying their children and pathetic belongings — those are not representative of the migrants’ journey. A typical shot would show hundreds of young men sitting on buses with air conditioning and upholstered seats. But you don’t see many of those, do you?

Someone is paying the costs of all this. Public donations cover only a small portion of the billions of dollars paid out to transport migrants. The governments of the countries involved pay some of the cost. And the European Union pays some of it. And there are multiple indications that George Soros and his Open Society Foundations are bankrolling a lot of the process, including the printing of maps and helpful instructions for the “refugees” in multiple languages.

Make what you will of all of this. No matter what their motives are, the internationalists who push for global governance and a borderless world are expending vast amounts of money to fool the European public and move millions of Muslim immigrants into Western Europe. Europe will become more “diverse”, whether it likes it or not.

And if, as a consequence, terror attacks have to kill hundreds or thousands of people, and women have to be gang-raped, why, those are just unfortunate side-effects.

You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs, you know. Especially white European eggs.

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

The migrant crisis is just the beginning of what might be called the “kinetic phase” of the deconstruction of European nation-states. Last summer’s events were not a new crisis. They were simply a continuation of an ongoing long-term process.

The constant flow of migrants across the Mediterranean into Europe has been going on for at least a decade. It picked up speed after the “Arab Spring” began in 2011, and especially after Moammar Qaddafi was murdered. Then the flow of migrants accelerated greatly last summer because President Erdogan of Turkey stopped interfering with the boats of the people-smugglers.

And now the European Union has paid an enormous amount of protection money to Mr. Erdogan in return for his promise to do what he used to do for free — stop the traffickers’ boats from crossing the Aegean to Greece.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the flow of migrants into Europe is an intentional process on the part of EU leaders. Many of them —especially German Chancellor Angela Merkel — are on record saying how important it is to invite all this “diversity” into Europe. The recent tsunami has obviously taken them by surprise, but it is exactly what they wanted — just not this fast.

They didn’t want the immigrants entering this quickly because the indigenous people of Europe might become alarmed by the influx and take action to throw their leaders out of office. This would not do. Those leaders want native Europeans to remain asleep so that the process of population replacement can be completed before they realize it.

No, it wasn’t supposed to happen this way. But now the European people are waking up, and change is in the air. It may be too little, too late — but awareness is finally dawning.

Population replacement is only one of the strategies employed by those who want to deconstruct the nation-states of Europe. In order to complete the process without a hitch, the native populace must be kept under control. Existing cultural institutions such as the Church and patriotic organizations must be discredited and weakened so that people are unable to form networks and organize against what is being done to them. Ideally, they would beunaware that such organizing is even possible. They must remain atomized, divided from one another, and under the full control of the state — the EU superstate, that is.

As the situation has worsened for the last decade or so, the European Union and its member states have cracked down on free speech. Bringing in so many migrants has accelerated the Islamization of Europe, which tends to be unpopular. Increased crime, more rape and harassment of women, the insistence that schools must serve halal foods and male students receiving permission to refrain from shaking their female teacher’s hand — these are all things that citizens dislike. But from the point of view of EU leaders, there is no going back — the migration must proceed; it’s a necessary part of the plan. Therefore, people must not be allowed to discuss these things nor urge their leaders to make changes. Instead, the criticism of Islam and Islamization must be forbidden. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations call it “defamation of religion”, and it has now been criminalized all across Europe. The EU is for all practical purposes enforcing sharia law on its indigenous residents.

Ten years ago, when I first began this work, the number of political prosecutions for “hate speech” in Europe was very small — the cases could be counted on the fingers of one hand. But that number has been increasing steadily ever since, and is now rising exponentially. There are now hundreds, perhaps thousands of cases every year in which people are prosecuted for racism, incitement, and discrimination simply for criticizing Islam or mass immigration. Unfortunately, many of those prosecuted are being convicted and fined. And, horribly enough, some are being sent to prison.

There are many, many cases of people being prosecuted for speaking the truth about Islam. Far too many for me to tell you about them all. I’ll discuss my own case in a few minutes, but first I’d like to say a few words about two friends of mine.

The first case is that of Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom — the PVV — the most popular political party in the Netherlands. If an election were held today, the PVV would win at least twice as many seats in parliament as any other party. After the current government falls, Geert may very well become the next prime minister.

Yet the government is prosecuting him for what he said about Moroccan immigrants. His first court appearance was last month, but the trial was postponed until next fall.

He is being charged with “discrimination” for asking his supporters at a rally whether they wanted “more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands”. The charges against him were brought after thousands of complaints had been filed with the police — on pre-printed forms that police themselves had handed out in Muslim neighborhoods, and that imams had distributed to their illiterate congregants, many of whom had no idea what they were signing.

In other words, Geert Wilders was set up. His outspoken opinions about Islam, immigration, and the EU are considered unacceptable by the Powers That Be, and he must be stopped at any cost and by any means. His trial is a travesty, a farrago of justice. To call it a “kangaroo court” would be an insult to the world’s marsupials. A more fitting term would be “show trial”, just like those ordered by Stalin in the 1930s against his political enemies.

This is not the first political trial that Geert Wilders has had to endure, nor is it the second. This is the third time that the Dutch state has prosecuted him for “hate speech”. The first ended in a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct. In the second he was acquitted. But the establishment will not be satisfied until it has convicted him and ended his political career, so it is putting him on trial again.

Another friend who is being persecuted by the state is Tommy Robinson, who was one of the founders of the English Defence League and was its leader for five years. Tommy has been brought to court by the British government numerous times. All of those prosecutions — the “hate speech” charges and all the others — were trumped-up affairs carried out for political purposes.

Tommy’s most recent conviction was for “mortgage fraud”, a minor crime for which no one else has done jail time. In fact, members of parliament have done exactly the same thing, but were never even charged. Tommy, on the other hand, was sentenced to eighteen months in prison.

While Tommy was inside, he was locked up with hardened Muslim criminals who wanted to kill him. He was repeatedly attacked and beaten up, and ended up in the prison hospital more than once.

On one occasion he was locked in a cell with several Muslim prisoners. Tommy had learned beforehand that one of them was planning to throw a mixture of boiling water and sugar in his face. This nasty brew is called “napalm” by the criminals who use it, and it can cause horrible burns, much worse than those caused by simple boiling water. Tommy acted pre-emptively and beat up the man who intended to throw it on him.

It is this incident for which he was recently charged. Thanks to the efforts of a group of women who through crowd-funding raised more than enough money, Tommy was for the first time able to retain a top-notch lawyer. He was acquitted and is now a free man.

The real issue behind all these arrests is that Tommy speaks the truth about the danger to the British people posed by Islam. But he is no longer being prosecuted for “hate speech” offenses — the state does not want the substance of what he says to aired in an open courtroom and discussed in the national media. Therefore other types of infractions must be found and other charges brought. The current case against him is simply the latest example of the repressive tactics being employed by the totalitarian British state.

So here’s the plan: Lock up the most charismatic leader the British Counterjihad has. Put him in with his most dangerous enemies — Muslim criminals who have promised to kill him. Make sure that the guards are absent or looking the other way when the trouble starts. Then, as far as the sharia-compliant British state is concerned, the problem has been solved.

The UK, like all the other enlightened governments of Western Europe, has abolished the death penalty. But there’s more than one way to kill a political nuisance — you don’t have to march him up the steps to the gibbet, put the noose around his neck, and open the trapdoor under him.

What is happening to Tommy Robinson is capital punishment by alternative means.

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

And now for my own case.

In early 2008 I began a series of seminars in Vienna, under the auspices of the FPÖ — the Austrian Freedom Party — explaining to members and other interested parties what Islam, the Qur’an and the hadith really teach, along with basic tenets of Islamic law. In my presentations I discussed the consequences for democracy, freedom and human rights today.

For the next year and a half the interest in my seminars grew, and attendance increased. The success of my lectures drew the attention of Austrian leftists, who are determined to discredit and destroy the work of those who criticize the tenets of Islamic doctrine. To them we are “racists”, “fascists”, and “Islamophobes”. Unbeknownst to me, the left-wing magazine NEWS sent a reporter to one of my seminars to make a surreptitious recording of it.

As a result, in late November, 2009, a criminal complaint was filed against me for “hate speech” . From an Austrian left-wing point of view, my offense was compounded by the fact that my seminars were held under the auspices of the FPÖ. Despite its popularity with Austrian voters, the FPÖ is reviled as a “xenophobic” party by leftist media and politicians.

The complaint against me was not filed by the state, but rather by NEWS magazine, the publication whose reporter had infiltrated the seminar. For the next ten months the possibility of a formal charge was left hanging over my head, but I received no official word about what might happen to me. All I could do was retain legal counsel and wait.

In April 2010 I gave a deposition to the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Prevention of Terrorism. After that there was nothing from the prosecutor’s office. Finally, on September 15, I learned that a formal charge would be filed against me. A few days later I received official notice from the court: my trial date would be November 23, 2010.

During my trial the issue of pedophilia came up, in light of Muhammad’s status as the perfect example for Muslims, as stated in Quran 33:21. I explained what the hadith collections are, and that they constitute an indispensable part of Islamic scripture. I emphasized that I had made up none of what I said, but simply quoted canonical Islamic scripture concerning Muhammad’s conduct, including his marriage to a little girl named Aisha.

The trial was then adjourned until the following January. At the second hearing, excerpts from the seminar recordings were played back, demonstrating that the original charge of “incitement to hatred” was unjustified.

The judge then discussed my statement that the conduct of Muhammad is exemplary for Muslims, and took particular issue with the statement “What would this behavior be called today, if not pedophilia?” — which was a reference to the prophet’s marriage to a six-year-old girl.

Evidently aware that the charge of “incitement to hatred” was never going to fly, the judge, at her own discretion, eventually announced a new charge: “Denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.” My defense was unprepared for this, and requested that the trial be adjourned.

When court reconvened in February, events moved swiftly to a close. The judge decided that the language used in my seminars did not incite hatred, but the utterances regarding Muhammad and pedophilia were punishable. In particular, the judge found that the use of “pedophilia” was factually incorrect, as this is a sexual preference solely or mainly directed towards children. The judge stated that this cannot apply to Muhammad, who was still married to Aisha when she attained the age of 18. Thus, I was found not guilty on the count of “incitement to hatred”, but guilty on the charge of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion”, to be punished with a €480 fine or 60 days in prison.

The charge on which I was convicted was ludicrous on the face of it. Not only did I never say that Muhammad’s actions constituted “pedophilia”, but Muhammad’s actions — which were undisputed by the court — included having sex with a nine-year-old girl. If I had said what I was accused of, it would have been nothing more than the simple truth, and unremarkable to any normal, sane person.

I appealed my conviction to a higher court. In December, 2011, the verdict was upheld. Later the case was considered by the Austrian Supreme Court, which upheld the verdict in December, 2013.

I have exhausted my options for justice in Austria, so the case was put before the European Court of Human Rights. It was accepted, and has been pending now for several years.

Whichever way the court decides, the verdict will have implications for citizens throughout Europe, and not just for Austrians. If my conviction is overturned, it will set an important precedent for the freedom to criticize religions and religiously-sanctioned conduct.

If, on the other hand, my conviction is upheld, the situation will be dire indeed. To quote the words of British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey, spoken on August 3, 1914: “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our life-time.”

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

When taken together, the events I’ve described tonight paint a picture of a Europe that is careening over the multicultural cliff. The traditional cultures and nations of Europe are being deliberately deconstructed so that a borderless society with no national identities can be constructed on top of the ruins.

And a borderless Europe is simply a precursor to a borderless global society. This future entity is commonly referred to as the “New World Order” or “global governance”, and it is intended to be an unaccountable worldwide system of management and control modeled on the United Nations. A totalitarian behemoth — to paraphrase what George Orwell said: “If you want a vision of the globalist future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”

However, recent reactions to the European migration crisis indicate that events may not in fact be unfolding as planned. The response of most of the member states of the European Union has been to tighten up their borders and reinstitute border controls. Just last week Austria began fortifying its border crossing with Italy on the Brenner Pass, in anticipation of a new surge of 300,000 immigrants that is expected to arrive in Italy this year. Immigrants don’t want to stay in Italy or Greece — they want to move north to Austria, Germany, Britain, and Sweden, where the welfare benefits are the most generous. The Austrian government is well aware of the northward trajectory of the migrants, and is acting to forestall it, just as it did last winter when it closed the “Balkan route”.

The successive closure of European borders is widely seen as the death-knell of the Schengen Agreement, under which all but two EU countries (plus four non-EU countries) had been effectively borderless for internal travel purposes. When EU political leaders meet to discuss the crisis, it is often with the stated intention of “saving Schengen”. But Schengen is already dead — they just don’t realize it.

Paradoxically, even as they close their borders to more immigrants, European countries are cracking down harder on domestic dissent on the topic of immigration and Islam. In Germany and Britain people are being arrested for posting messages that criticize immigrants or Islam on social media. Police in Berlin recently raided ten residences after their occupants had voiced anti-migrant sentiments on Facebook. A man in Belgium spoke negatively about Muslims who celebrated the Brussels massacre, and was immediately visited at his home by three policemen, who requested that he refrain from such criticism in future.

If European countries are now determined to keep out future migrants, why are they cracking down on citizens who criticize immigration?

The short answer is: there are millions of immigrants already here. Hence they must be placated. If criticizing them makes them angry and causes them to take to the streets in violent demonstrations, then criticism of them must be outlawed.

I don’t need to tell you that most of these millions of immigrants are Muslims. That’s why criticism of Islam must be vigorously suppressed. Notwithstanding the much-trumpeted status of Islam as a “religion of peace”, Muslims in Europe are notoriously prone to violence, and are always ready to take to the streets at a moment’s notice. They may begin with loud chanting and signs that say “behead those who insult the prophet”, but they more than likely will escalate rapidly to throwing rocks, assaulting the police, burning cars, vandalizing property, and other forms of general mayhem.

No, it’s better (and easier) to silence the critics of Islam, in the hope that mob violence may be postponed for a just little while longer.

Exceptions to the general repression may be found in EU member states of the former East Bloc. It seems that people who survived decades under communism are less susceptible to the tyranny of political correctness. An alliance known as the Visegrád Group was formed in Central Europe after the fall of the Iron Curtain and is currently led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary, President Miloš Zeman of the Czech Republic, and Prime Minister Robert Fico of Slovakia. Not only do these countries allow dissent on the issue of Islam, their political leaders are among the foremost Islam-critics — what they say into the microphones in their state broadcasting studios is the same thing that prompted the prosecution of Geert Wilders, Tommy Robinson, and myself.

Nowadays those former communist dictatorships host the freest speech in Europe.

And the Visegrád Group is also resisting the mandatory quotas of refugees that the European Union is trying to impose. Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Poland have all declined to take in any of Mrs. Merkel’s “refugees”. President Zeman and Prime Ministers Orbán and Fico have gone so far as to state that they specifically do not want any Muslimimmigrants — that Islam is incompatible with a free democratic society.

In the most recent example of former East Bloc resistance, on Sunday April 10 Romanian citizens took to the streets to protest a mega-mosque planned for Bucharest. “We fought the Ottomans for eight hundred years — we don’t want any mosques!” — such were the chants of the demonstrators on the streets of Bucharest.

The future of Europe may depend on these stalwart patriots behind what used to be the Iron Curtain. They are leading the way — showing the cowardly political leaders of Western Europe how these things could and should be done.

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

Ladies and Gentlemen,

You may be asking yourselves, “Why should I care about what’s happening in Europe? These things are thousands of miles and an ocean away from here — let the Europeans sort it out for themselves.”

There are two practical reasons why what happens in Europe should be of concern to Americans. The first is that an Islamic ascendancy in Europe poses a security threat to the United States. Not only does Western Europe offer a springboard for the Great Jihad to jump the Atlantic, but there are also stockpiles of nuclear weapons and other advanced armaments in Europe. There are already far too many Muslims in the ranks of the military in France and Britain. What will happen when the tipping point is finally reached, and the sleeper cells are activated?

The second reason is that your own government is attempting to replicate the European model right here in the United States. Under the so-called “Refugee Resettlement Program”, thousands of Syrian “refugees” are being settled all across America. This is being done quietly, whenever possible without consulting local authorities. The U.S. government has acknowledged that it is impossible to vet these migrants properly. Based on what has been happening in Europe, a significant number of those resettled here will be Islamic State terrorists using forged identity documents.

Do you know whether any of these “Syrians” are being resettled near you?

Does your congressional representative have any idea what’s going on? Better ask him!

Europe’s present is America’s future. The massacres in Paris and Brussels are coming here as soon as enough jihad sleeper cells are in place. The first dark cloud of the coming storm appeared last December over San Bernardino, California. When it breaks fully, it will be fierce indeed.

Those who plan a borderless world are just as intent on overwhelming the United States with third-world immigrants as they are France, Germany, and Britain. Undermining national sovereignty is the name of the game, throughout the entire Western world.

Your migration wave includes more Latin Americans than Muslims, but thousands of Muslims are indeed arriving. And an undetermined number of “Latin” migrants who walk across your southern border are in fact Muslims from the Middle East, who have acquired forged papers and learned a little bit of Spanish so that they can pass for Mexicans when they arrive in Laredo or San Diego.

Yes, the Great Jihad will arrive here all too soon.

I urge you to exercise your fundamental constitutional rights while you still can. Speak up and speak out against what is happening at every opportunity. And thank God for your First Amendment! We don’t have that in Europe, and I wish we did — thanks to the Bill of Rights, prosecuting dissenters is much more difficult here in the USA.

And thank God for the Second Amendment! Most Europeans have no ready access to legal firearms. When the “refugees” assault them, invade their homes, and rape their women and children, they cannot defend themselves. The only thing they can do is to call the police — and, as you all know, “when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.”

So I implore you, as American citizens and patriots: Hang on to your hard-won rights! The Constitution is being taken away from you, bit by bit — take action while you still can. You are fortunate to live in the United States, but large forces are arrayed against you. Your enemies — many of whom are right here in America — make no bones about what they intend. They want to eradicate American exceptionalism and make the USA just like Europe — a subjugated state.

As for myself, I will continue to speak the truth, no matter what. I owe as much to my daughter, and her children and children’s children. No matter the final outcome, I want her to be able to say: “My mother did everything she possibly could.”

Europeans and Americans share a common heritage. We must hang together, or we will surely hang separately.

I urge you to stand with me!

Posted in Speeches | Leave a comment

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