The fifth annual Forum of the UN Alliance of Civilizations met in Vienna on February 27th and 28th, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was one of the attendees. She has filed a account on what she observed, and discusses the larger ramifications of the AoC in the ongoing Islamization of the West.

The report below is the final part of a three-part series. Previously: Part 1, Part 2.

Reflections on a World Gone Mad
Part 3: Implementing the results

by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

How does the Alliance of Civilizations propose to implement its strategies of re-education? In order to achieve alignment with demands voiced by the OIC, the Alliance aims to address youth, education, media, and migration, picking up initiatives proposed by the OIC:

 

1.		Intercultural and interfaith dialogues
2.		Media education
3.		Teaching religion in school
4.		Governmental, university, and civil society programs and initiatives “that educate and empower Muslim immigrants in the US and Europe”. (Bat Ye’or, p. 163)

 

Concerning education, it was Kofi Annan who, back in 2004, urged the “need to unlearn the habit of xenophobia, that people are taught to hate by leaders who exploit fear, ignorance or feelings of weakness.” In order to combat this, we must engage in the process of unlearning the stereotypes about the “other” or “the others”, unlearning the habit of xenophobia, and unlearning intolerance.

And what better way to accomplish this evil than to re-educate youth? This constitutes Goebbels-like indoctrination at the lowest and weakest level of society, our children, who are to be conditioned to tolerate even the intolerable.

Would that include tolerance of religiously sanctioned domestic violence? Just a cultural matter which must be respected. Acceptance of the death penalty for apostasy? A minor matter which inter-religious dialogue can talk away. A woman receiving only half of what her brother inherits, as sanctioned by religious law?

So this is suddenly no longer a matter of fundamental rights after all, and must be unquestionably respected in the name of diversity? And why is there nothing said about religious and cultural norms and practices which promote hatred of Jews, Christians and apostates, those institutions which oppose freedom of expression and which see blasphemy as a serious moral vice, or even a capital crime to be punished according to sharia law?

How does one square this circle of preventing one thing — undefined hatred, according to the Alliance — by allowing and “safeguarding” something else — freedom of expression? I have asked the OSCE about this apparent contradiction, but then again, neither the OSCE not the UN has any misgivings about this discrepancy.

Sampaio even goes as far as to question whether “existing legal instruments on freedom of thought, conscience and religion are capable of meeting the new ongoing challenges.”

 

Once re-education through changing laws and norms has been successfully implemented, the Alliance will turn “to a wider strategy: education about all religions and beliefs so that myths and misconceptions can be seen for what they are.” This is to be followed by media literacy in order to prevent the media and the internet from being used to spread hatred, whilst safeguarding freedom of opinion and expression. (Sampaio address to the OSCE Conference on Tolerance and Non-discrimination in Astana, June 2010).

We now turn to the youth who are seen as a crucial participants in the Alliance. In the so-called Concept Paper presented to the attendees of the Global Forum, we are told that “experts and participants endorse nurturing dialogue, starting at a young age [my italics], and to create public space for inclusive cross-cultural, inter-religious and intra-religious interaction”, in addition to teachers’ awareness of their social and moral responsibilities. How are thesesocial and moral responsibilities defined? Whose morals are to be taught? These are innocuous words without any substantive meaning and it seems this is intentional.

To underscore the importance of their contribution to the Alliance of Civilizations, the youth held their own one-day forum prior to the Global Forum. Here some of the recommendations presented to the Global Forum, beginning with a group discussion on the topic of Integration — Diversity, multiple identity and social inclusion [pdf]:

Recommendation 1:

Creating polylogue between various stakeholders including civil, government, business community with an aim to enhance political and active participation of minorities in society to ensure and / or create long-term social inclusion and integration. We propose this through including migrant histories in the political discourse of host nations, by highlighting and replicating best practice outreach and affirmative programs and actions and by ensuring that outreach is comprehensive and inclusive through political campaigns/elections.

Recommendation 2:

To achieve a successful inclusion crossing language divides and creating a sense of community, we recommend to provide children with free education equally in their mother tongue and the main language spoken the respective region/country, create an international open source platform where migrants can share their experiences, needs and best practices to achieve mutual benefit and to guarantee equal and free access to quality of language education for refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants, regardless of their legal status.

Group discussion on the topic: For a new narrative on migration [pdf]:

Recommendation 1:

Form a task force which includes all stakeholders -especially migrants -to develop practical solutions through a multi-perspective approach in order to depoliticize the narrative of migration.

Recommendation 2:

Make the path to citizenship easier.

As expected, the content is a bit shallow. The language bears a remarkable similarity to that of the Alliance.

The message of the two-day Global Forum may be summarized as follows:

Islamophobia, xenophobia, and racism must effectively be countered by even more dialogue and more funding.

The only concrete result the Global Forum presented to the participants and the media might be summed up as follows:

“More dialogue for more dialogue, which needs more funding.”

A plenary hall full of Neville Chamberlains smiling benevolently and chanting in a single unified voice:

Peace in our time with the help of dialogue and harmony!

We strive for unity in monocultural dhimmitude!

For more on the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, see the OIC Archives.

The fifth annual Forum of the UN Alliance of Civilizations met in Vienna on February 27th and 28th, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was one of the attendees. She has filed a account on what she observed, and discusses the larger ramifications of the AoC in the ongoing Islamization of the West.

The report below is the second in a three-part series. Previously: Part 1.

Reflections on a World Gone Mad
Part 2: Ignoring the central problem of our times

by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Waving its magic wand of laws, treaties, and human rights, the Alliance of Civilizations ignores what I would argue is the central problem of our times:

Are we talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and other international human rights instruments?

Or are we in fact discussing matters in terms of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which defines human rights according to the sharia and contradicts all other human rights conventions?

Indeed, the words human rights were mentioned only twice (!) during the entire opening plenary, while at the same time the words peaceful dialogue, harmony, intercultural dialogue, discrimination against Muslims, xenophobia, mutual respect and Islamophobiawere repeated ad nauseam. Universal human rights were left hanging on the coat racks.

The AoC, represented by AoC High Representative Jorge Sampaio from 2007 until 2013, generally shies away from solid explanations:

… the Alliance gives special attention to improving relations between the so-called Western and Muslim societies by deconstructing prejudices, misconceptions and stereotypes that fuel fears, feed hostility, ignite tensions, and spark violence; by promoting education for valuing cultural diversity and learning how to live together with our differences and commonalities. (Sampaio, speaking at working breakfast with Kevin Rudd, Australian MP and Minister of Foreign Affairs, October 2011)

These pompous words deserve closer scrutiny.

“so-called Western and Muslim societies”

Why does Sampaio use the words “so-called”?

Are societies defining themselves as secular, democratic societies which observe the rule of law and which consider men and women equal before the law not indeed Western?

Do Muslim societies not conform to sharia law, which in fact does not acknowledge the equality of men and women?

Do Muslim societies not in fact segregate themselves willingly in European cities like London, Paris and Rotterdam?

And finally, why is there no priority for China, Russia, or South American countries? Could it be that they have no serious conflicts with the West?

deconstructing prejudices, misconceptions and stereotypes

And what might these prejudices, misconceptions and stereotypes be exactly?

Is the gang-rape of white British girls by Asian Muslim men considered a misconception?

Or is the openly Muslim hatred of Christians, as demonstrated by the torching and/or desecration of churches in Nigeria, Egypt, Iraq, and Indonesia falsely seen as stereotyping?

Isn’t it much more convenient not to ask questions like these in order to escape having to answer them?

feed hostility, ignite tensions, and spark violence

Do not those chanting “kill the infidels wherever you may find them” or “Jews back to the gas chambers” feed hostility?

Who ignites tensions and sparks violence?

The non-Muslims obstetrician who is forcibly removed from the delivery room by the Muslim father-to-be?

The Muslim youth gangs roaming the streets of Rotterdam hunting down and harassing Jews?

by promoting education for valuing cultural diversity and learning how to live together with our differences and commonalities

As a result of this violence, hostility and tension (by members of so-called Muslim societies), we need more education. Of course! This the perfect way to deal with violence, hostility, and tension!

Moreover, what are the commonalities uniting Western and Muslim societies?

Where is the evidence that there is, in fact, anything that binds these two societies together?

There is more, of course!

 

[The AoC] tries to restore trust and understanding within and among communities by promoting education for cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue and understanding, and fighting against misconceptions, stereotypes, prejudices, discrimination, racism and hate speech; it contributes to reinforc[ing] human security, peace and development worldwide.

I will skip all the brainwashing in the first part of this paragraph. But what on earth is “human security”?

What is the definition of “peace”? The absence of war, or perhaps the Islamic definition of “peace”, the future time when all the world has accepted the authority Allah and his apostle?

But now we come to the definition of dialogue. Finally!

However one defines it, dialogue is a democratic method aimed at resolving problems through mutual understanding and concessions, rather than through the unilateral imposition one side’s views and interests.

Ah yes, dialogue is democratic. How is it democratic?

Who decides what, and at which ballot box?

I would argue that dialogue is a method of imposing problems that cannot be solved through mutual understanding, tolerance and inclusion.

Regarding concessions: doesn’t the OIC impose its views on the Western, non-Muslim world by extracting concessions on freedom of speech?

Isn’t the OIC’s view unilateral, in that any criticism of Islam must be considered Islamophobia and thus punished in a court of law?

Does the Muslim side, as represented by the OIC, offer concessions in any way?

Jorge Sampaio also specifically addresses Islamophobia in one of his many speeches. He notes that:

Although there is currently no legally agreed definition of Islamophobia, nor has social science developed a common definition, it is well known that this term stands for “prejudice or discrimination against Islam and Muslims. [It] covers attitudes and action against Muslims based on unjust stereotypes and criticism of Muslim beliefs that can be seen as undermining fundamental rights. (Speech held at Roundtable in Rio 2012)

Sampaio adds the usual rhetoric that Muslims are not an undifferentiated group and there are many differences in religious beliefs, so that we “really need to avoid stereotypical generalizations” — in other words, we need to avoid saying something that would actually be truthful: that the West and Islam are locked in an irreconcilable conflict.

But Sampaio would never admit this. No, he adds that “Muslim societies add a substantive bulk of common values that can be summed up, according to available surveys, in ‘people’s sincere adherence to Islam’ that they feel denigrated by Westerners.” Of course, he conveniently neglects to mention those common values shared by the West and Islam. Might this be because there are none?

And so the Alliance holds a special responsibility in confronting Islamophobia, we are told. Not a peep about the hundreds of thousands Christians and Hindus currently persecuted in the Muslim world. Not a word about apostates, many of whom are at risk of being killed by Muslims. No, this game is all about peace and harmony, and it is an inclusive one, a platform for dialogue and cooperation.

Inclusive in that it excludes apostates.

Inclusive in that criticism or dissent are unwelcome.

Inclusive in that genuine NGOs such as the International Civil Liberties Alliance or representatives of civil society other than those personally invited (and most likely vetted) by the Alliance are not welcome.

Or could it be that the Alliance wants to prevent something entirely different? If apostates like Dr. Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Kacem El Gazzali or Sabatina James were to address the forum, the narrative of the Muslim as a victim would be exposed for what it is: blatantly false. These brave men and women would be a voice proclaiming the truth loudly and clearly. They would demonstrate that no matter how often the Alliance proclaims that “in spite of being a system of beliefs, a religion doesn’t imprison its believers in it” (Sampaio speech in Bern, Switzerland, October 14, 2010), the truth remains entirely different.

Let us turn to the classic sharia manual, Reliance of the Traveller, and what it has to say about apostasy:

Chapter O8.0: Apostasy from Islam (Ridda)

(O: Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst.)

o8.1When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

If the above does not constitute a prison, then I don’t know what does. Either Sampaio doesn’t want to know this, or he knows it and chooses to ignore it — but then, in the latter case, he is being dishonest. I would argue that he is an outright liar. Mr. High Representative has the moral duty, if nothing else, to scrutinize religious teachings before making claims.

And he doesn’t leave it at that. He goes on by throwing the secular society under the bus:

In our modern times we are witnessing the resurgent role of religions almost everywhere. […] People now talk about God all the time and fundamentalists of all kinds [here he lists all religions] are growing and have been very vocal in their request to express their faiths in the public sphere… […] Extremism is a challenge for all communities.

As a matter of fact, this is blatantly untrue. The only religion demanding to express its faith in the public sphere is Islam. Judaism generally does not make that demand, and the Christian faiths have found their place in a secular society.

And while we’re at calling for definitions: what constitutes extremism? If one were to exhibit a preference for a secular society, with democratic values and based on the rule of law — rejecting Islamic sharia law — does this make one an “extremist”?

Not to be unfair to Mr. Sampaio, he did address secularism in a 2011 conference on Jewish-Christian-Muslim Interfaith Dialogue in Hungary:

How do we best ensure that secularism continues to be the safest basis to preserve the core of democratic principles and values?

Thankfully, he provides the solution in the same speech: Interfaith dialogue should be promoted at large.

To repeat: in order to safeguard secularism we need more inter-religious talk?

What do adherents of religions talk to secularists about? Where is the common ground? What do we want, a secular society or theocratic regime?

Next: Implementing the results

For more on the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, see the OIC Archives.

As we reported last week, the fifth annual Forum of the UN Alliance of Civilizations met in Vienna on February 27th and 28th. The official goals of the AoC consist of vague feel-good bromides, but practically speaking, its primary purpose is to implement the program of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. In particular, the AoC is keen to crack down on “defamation of religions”.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff attended last week’s events in Vienna. She has filed a account on what she observed, and discusses the larger ramifications of the AoC in the ongoing Islamization of the West.

The report below is the first in a three-part series.

Reflections on a World Gone Mad
Part 1: Chamberlain is cloned!

by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

“One of the major tasks of our generation is to build a global community, where people of all persuasions can live together in harmony and mutual respect.”
— Karen Armstrong, AoC goodwill ambassador

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.”
— George Orwell

“Dialogue means persuasion through threats, ‘cross-cultural understanding’ is translated as submission.”
— Bat Ye’or, in Europe, Globalization
and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate

In past decades, there has been a more or less covert movement to deliberately dissolve the sovereignty of nation-states, particularly in Europe. Decisions regarding politics, culture and information which should be taken on a national or even a local level have been relegated to a great extent to an international level represented by organizations such as the Anna Lindh Foundation or the Alliance of Civilizations, both of which are, putting it mildly, obscure and unknown to the public. The sinister instruments used in these organizations are called “dialogue”, “peace and harmony”, “partnerships”, and “multiculturalism”. According to eminent scholar Bat Ye’or:

Europeans are hemmed by a game of multiple mirrors, which radiate at every level and into infinity, prefabricated opinions in accordance with political and cultural agendas, of which they know nothing and often disapprove, but which they finance with their taxes. […] This opaque, elitist system undermines democracy. It also lacks visibility, doubling and multiplying itself like a hydra into networks and sub-networks. (Bat Ye’or, Europe, Globalization and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate, p. 125-6)

The setting could not have been more bizarre: the Vienna Hofburg, the hub of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, all glitzed up and shiny, hosted the most undemocratic event imaginable outside North Korea’s borders. The Austrian monarchy can be hailed a beacon of democracy compared to the Alliance of Civilizations, which celebrated its 5th Global Forum in Vienna, sucking up financial and other precious resources and taxes along the way and producing — unsurprisingly — no tangible results.

More than 1,000 men and women attended this forum, young and old, clergy and imams, from near and far, all in perpetual smiles, chatting with each other in the imperial hallways about how to make the world a better place, all the while ignoring the usual elephant in the (Hofburg) castle. Peace and harmony for 72 hours, then it was a collective exodus to the airport to return to reality. In fact, for these 72 hours, the Forum completely negated the outside world, as if the inter-religious tensions existed only in the minds of a few loonies, and if there were only more talk about peace and harmony, these loonies would acknowledge their idiocies and disappear in history’s dustbins. Irksomely, these men and women constituted a non-elected body, for not one spoke for himself, but rather identified with a group, most likely with a Muslim group.

In light of the Alliance’s evil machinations, and before we delve into the actual meeting, it is well worth the effort to examine its origins and aims. The 2004 attacks in Madrid perpetrated by “Muslim extremists” shocked Spain, toppled its (conservative) government, and gave birth to the creation of the Alliance of Civilizations, which — in the words of the inimitable Bat Ye’or —

 

“would operate in the political and cultural spheres of the rapprochement of Islam and the West, thereby fulfilling the wishes of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation). […] This fell to a UN strategy on a world-wide scale. […] This project was not [Spanish prime minister] Zapatero’s but the OIC’s — Zapatero merely became their European representative.” (p. 93)

The Spanish university professor Isaias Barrenada argues that the name of the Alliance itself is misleading, lacking correspondence with its content. Furthermore, he adds, “it is very difficult to define ‘civilization’, which tends to be identified with religion and culture. What constitutes a civilization today? Who represents it? Who speaks on its behalf? The Center for Inquiry [pdf], in turn, condemns the Alliance’s lack of “discussion of Islamist movements and organizations world-wide; the question of tensions between Islamic law and government and universal human rights norms.”

Then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan then set about selecting personalities for the Alliance’s so-called High Level Group which would be in charge of solving the clash of civilizations once and for all. The members of the HLG were not elected nor did the public even know about the creation of this group, nor does any member represent a secularist organization. This is significant, since the HLG adopted the Islamic view of history, shifting all the blame onto the West for any and all conflicts. Colonialism and Zionism, of course, are at the top of the list of shame.

The HLG, in the name of the Alliance’s 100-plus members, decided — without any democratic process or discussion — that “world conflicts are reduced to conflicts between the privileged and the poor, between the powerful and the weak, because […] poverty leads to despair and alienation.” (Bat Ye’or, Europe, p. 94) An action plan was recommended to “reduce conflicts through affirmation of mutual respect between peoples, creating a relationship that gives special attention to relations between Western and Muslim societies.” (p. 95) All of this takes place in the hope of reducing hostility and promoting harmony among nations and cultures of the world. Apart from the fact that these plans will influence millions of people in Europe and the United States and Canada, none of these millions of citizens have been informed of, let alone asked about, the Alliance’s deals and plans, while the interests of the OIC are being implemented through the backdoor. Before we move on, a few questions come to mind immediately:

 

1.		What does reducing hostility mean?
2.		What is the definition of harmony?
3.		What does the promotion of harmony entail?

But apparently there is no need for any definition, as we shall see later. Makes dialogue and harmony much easier, doesn’t it?

Bat Ye’or’s assessment of the reports issued by the High Level Group is devastating. They are

“unilateral, granting the United Nations, the OIC and international organizations the right to determine the policies, laws, culture and thought processes of [500] million Europeans [and Americans]. It is an international, multipolar, fascist-type and totalitarian government that carries out such a cultural inquisition [that] would replace their democratically elected national systems. Conclaves acting without the public’s knowledge insert their decisions by means of networks, partnerships and ‘representatives of civil society’, who have been elected by no one but themselves and paid by mysterious humanitarian ‘foundations’ aiming at world ‘peace and justice’. (pp. 108-9)

Next: Ignoring the central problem of our times

As reported here early this morning, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations met today in Vienna to… well, to do whatever it is alliances of civilizations do.

Actually, the goal of this Alliance is quite clear, even if it is not stated explicitly: to impose the will of the United Nations on all Western countries, especially those that have not yet implemented laws against “defamation of religions” as demanded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

We are approaching endgame in the OIC’s long march through the major international institutions of Western culture. It began with the announcement in 2005 of the ten-year plan to end Islamophobia in the West, and the establishment of the Islamophobia Observatory shortly thereafter. These were obviously not enough to meet the Ummah’s needs, so it shifted its focus to other institutions. The OSCE must have also proved disappointing, as it is not high-profile and offers no prominent global platform.

The OIC has had better success with the General Assembly of the United Nations, taking virtual control of the organization by means of the votes of its 56 member states (57 if you count “Palestine”). However, this too is insufficient from the point of view of the embryonic World Caliphate. To establish full control, a permanent seat on the Security Council is an absolute necessity. The would-be Caliph — Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who obviously aspires to an office higher than prime minister of Turkey — has made it clear that Islam must be granted such a seat.

The process now unfolding before us on the international scene mirrors the “Civilization Jihad” launched long ago by the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. With the installation of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, the Ikhwan has now positioned all its American pieces on the board in preparation for the final takedown of Israel. To secure their international geopolitical position, the Brothers and the OIC need to complete their takeover of the United Nations.

Today it seems they are very close to achieving success in — what shall we call their operation?

Perhaps the “Alliance of Civilization Jihad” would be most fitting.

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

Henrik Ræder Clausen and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff were in Vienna to attend and report on today’s event, the 5th Global Forum — UN Alliance of Civilizations. Elisabeth sent the account below, which includes some of Henrik’s material.

The Clash of Tectonic Plates
by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

There was a big media campaign in Austria in advance of today’s Global Forum of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) in Vienna. The minister of foreign affairs touted the event, and the government took out full-page ads on Sunday in all the major the major Austrian newspapers.

Today’s forum was not like the OSCE — there were no NGOs or organizations from civil society. Only state representatives of individual countries and United Nations officials were invited to participate at the podium.

The presenter who opened the morning’s events was a very good-looking woman from the Al-Jazeera network in Qatar. She spoke flawless English when she introduced the new high representative of the Alliance of Civilizations, Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser — who is also from Qatar. Afterwards she told the assembly:

“The influence of Qatar reaches way beyond its borders.”

And indeed it does. No one should forget that for almost five decades Qatar was the residence-in-exile of the Egyptian cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

A series of world leaders, among them UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, gave speeches for the occasion. Vuk Jeremic, the president of the General Assembly of the United Nations, also addressed the audience. He quoted both the Koran and the Bible, reciting a verse from the Koran stating that Allah created everyone equal, and then gave his interpretation:

“This directs us to live in harmony, since we have a common lineage.”

The theme of the meeting was “We Need Responsible Leadership”. Human rights were not on the agenda, and were mentioned only twice in the main speeches in the plenary. There was no real discussion.

One of the functions of today’s event was to honor Jorge Sampaio of Portugal, the outgoing high representative of the UNAOC, and to welcome the Qatari Nassir Al-Nasser, who is replacing him.

In his address Mr. Sampaio spoke of the successes of the Alliance, but never mentioned any of them specifically. Mr. Al-Nasser told his listeners that a “diversity of culture leads to a diversity of knowledge.” He and other speakers decried the persistence in the world of discrimination, intolerance, and xenophobia.

Such was the substance of this momentous event in Vienna. My report could easily have been scribbled on a 3×5 card and filed away for posterity, were it not for the participation of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Mr. Erdogan was treated like a rock star. He was the main attraction of the event, and a substantial presence from the Turkish media guaranteed that he would be featured in news reports at home. His manner, his bearing, his oratory, and his arrogant self-assurance reminded me of — dare I say it? — Adolf Hitler. He obviously knew that he was the Man of the Moment.

 

Mr. Erdogan described the current world situation as “the Muslim tectonic plate versus the Western tectonic plate.” I wondered, how does this fit in with an “Alliance of Civilizations”? It sounded more like the “Clash” to me, the very conflict that this organization was allegedly founded to prevent.

Later on, at the press conference, Mr. Erdogan went on record stating that Turkey provides the Syrian rebels with “every kind of support”, all the while lamenting that 70,000 are dead and the West is not doing enough.

So he is not being at all bashful about his view of Turkey’s new prominence in Middle Eastern affairs.

And not just in the Middle East — he has his sights set on Europe and the United Nations, too, which is why he came to Vienna to bestow his wisdom on a rapt audience. One of his most important tasks was to demand a full seat “for religions” on the UN Security Council.

He said:

I am making an appeal to the world. Does the Security Council represent the whole world?

No, the world is not represented by the Security Council.

And do they represent all religious groups? This is the fundamental problem.

The Alliance of Civilizations needs to look at Security Council of the United Nations. And the Alliance of Civilizations needs to establish an alliance with the Security Council.

Religions are not represented on the Security Council.

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

Additional Notes

 

• The press conference afterwards was facilitated by the press secretary of the Austrian foreign minister. I’m certain that he recognized me, and knew not to call on me when I raised my hand, even though Henrik and I both had press credentials and were registered for the event.
• Only six questions were allowed during the press conference. Three of them were from Turkish television, one was from Reuters, and one was from Austrian television.
• A side session at the meeting was all about controlling the media to provide a more positive “narrative on immigration”.
• “Palestine” is always the top item on the agenda. Israel, of course, is not really part of the “Alliance”.
• Mr. Erdogan’s statement about Syria was in response to a question (which he did not answer): “Should the US stop arming the rebels?”

Three years ago last Wednesday we posted for the first time about the “hate speech” charge filed against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria.

Elisabeth had been active in the anti-sharia movement for a number of years before she was charged; in fact, she had been giving her informational seminars on Islam for several years before I first met her at the Brussels Conference in 2007. Long before she was brought before the Vienna Star Chamber, she had proven herself a gutsy activist for the European Counterjihad.

Regular readers are already familiar with Elisabeth’s case, but for newcomers, a brief review is in order. In the fall of 2009, unbeknownst to Elisabeth, the left-wing magazine NEWS sent a reporter to one of her seminars to make a surreptitious recording of it. She learned through that same newspaper — not via the court — that a charge was to be filed against her. In late November a criminal complaint was filed against Elisabeth for “hate speech” under Austrian law.

Her “crime” was to tell the attendees at her seminar that Mohammed “had a thing for little girls”. Notwithstanding the authentic hadith of Bukhari (among others), which establishes the factual nature of her utterance, she had committed the crime of offending Islam, and the Austrian establishment was determined to bring her to justice.

For almost a year she was left hanging; her case finally came to trial in November 2010. The original charge was “incitement to hatred”. On the second day of the trial, the judge at her own discretion added a second charge, “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.” Elisabeth was eventually acquitted on the first charge, and convicted on the second. She appealed to the highest court of appeal in Austria, which decided against her in December 2011.

The next level of appeal is to the European Court of Human Rights. For most of this year, Elisabeth’s lawyer has been preparing her case for Strasbourg, and now the time is approaching when the ECHR will hand down a decision.

Unfortunately, Elisabeth’s defense fund is all but exhausted. Thanks to the generosity of all those who donated in 2010 and 2011, Elisabeth’s legal team was able to continue to act on her behalf since the appeal was filed early this year. However, such actions are expensive.

There is no such thing as “pro-bono” in Austria — every step of the process has to be paid by the defendant. In the United States, numerous civil liberties groups would jump at the chance to take up Elisabeth’s cause. But Europe is different. Most worthy causes are state-funded, so that private altruism — including pro-bono legal help — is all but unknown.

For this reason we are reactivating the “Elisabeth’s Voice” appeal. As most of you know, Elisabeth refused to be silenced, or even slowed down, by the decision against her. She continues to give her seminars, and has spoken out frequently at public events. In July of this year she shared the reading of the Brussels Declaration with me at the Brussels Conference of 2012.

Perhaps her most effective work for our cause has been her attendance and interventions at various meetings of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe, as part of a team representing Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa,International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA), ACT! For America, and other civil liberties organizations. See the most recent post on the OSCE for a track-back to all the excellent work that these dedicated activists have accomplished.

The OSCE doesn’t garner much in the way of headlines. It’s not as exciting as dumping pigs’ blood at mosque sites, or burning Korans. But in the long run it’s more effective, because the quiet infiltration and co-opting of international organizations is one of the most crucial strategies employed by the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC.

At some point, those of us who intend to preserve Western civilization must stand athwart history and yell “Stop!” The OSCE seems an appropriate place at which to begin our concerted resistance.

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

As part of her appeal for new donations to her fund, Elisabeth sends this message to all her readers and previous donors:

One year ago I was preparing for my final court appearance. Back then, I was still hopeful that some kind of legal sanity existed in this country. It was painful to be proven wrong and realize that — wittingly or unwittingly — Austria has become sharia-compliant. Even more irksome was the fact that I was literally forced to pay the fine of 480 euros.

I become more despondent when I consider the gulag-like United Kingdom, which is currently resorting to the incarceration of those who defend democratic and liberal values while granting bail to criminals who rape, rob and reap the financial rewards of a country blinded by the illness of Multiculturalism. It is sickening to witness, and very frightening.

While we all watch in horror what transpires in the United Kingdom, Sweden and Norway, my brilliant and able lawyer, Dr. Michael Rami, has been busy keeping the Austrian legal system busy, trying to convince those sharia-compliant idiots legal experts in the justice system that they have made a grave mistake. Since early 2012, my case has been pending at the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg. Dr. Rami is (still) optimistic about the outcome. I say: We shall see.

On the home front, the court system is still forced to deal with the issue of whether the word “pedophilia” is being used with its exact scientific significance. The case is now being handled in the Procurator General’s Office, which has already ruled the case well-judged.

You may remember that there were quite a few questionable occurrences during the trials. One example: According to the court, I should have been aware of the contents of the judgment against Susanne Winter and, therefore should have refrained from repeating her words.

So I am supposed to be informed by all judgments made in courts every single day. How ludicrous! Dr. Rami agrees:

“The appeals court has propounded a new fact for assessing guilt, namely the fact that ‘the accused has paid no attention at all to the nearly identical situation in the judgment of the supreme provincial court in Graz, but rather obstinately denied it.’ And yet, nothing was said about this verdict of the Graz court or the conviction of Dr. Susanne Winter in the statements of the accused, nor in the proceedings of the lower or the appeals court.”

In addition, I was also “ambushed” during the trial when the judge introduced her theory of “pedophilia” — or the lack thereof in Mohammed’s case: because royalty in the Middle Ages married off children, there is no proof of Mohammed’s behavior being motivated by anything but love. The Procurator General’s Office opines that all is well, but Dr. Rami disagrees:

“The procurator sees no breach of the ban on ambush (surprise), since the argument of the court that child marriages were widespread in Europe was not addressed ‘as a fact decisive for guilt and subsumption, because this statement was not the object of the accusation.’

“The Procurator General overlooks the fact that she was convicted, because the court assumed she was not concerned with a factual debate, since she had accused Islam of child marriages even though such had been widespread in Europe.

“It is incomprehensible that the Procurator general discounts this mistake by the court, but a few pages later refers to precisely this passage by the court, according to which the accused was not concerned with a factual argument.”

Finally, Dr. Rami told me he has studied everything about Islam in depth, and has done and is continuing to do everything in his power to win this important case. He added that the courts were probably very surprised at our tenacity.

This tenacity, however, comes at a price. Every time Dr. Rami submits papers to the court, I am presented with a bill. And my fund is all but depleted. This means I will not be able to pay the fees for the next document submitted to the court.

I am appealing once again to the generosity of the thousands of supporters of freedom of speech. I will continue the fight, if that is your decision. I will not give up.

A very blessed Christmas to you and your family and may freedom prevail! Our children deserve no less.

Thank you.

Anyone who wants to contribute may visit Elisabeth’s Voice and make a donation using PayPal. Or, if you prefer, you may send a bank transfer using the following information for international payments:

Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich
IBAN: AT513150042908021602
BIC: RZBAATWW

Made out to: Public Notary Mag. Martin Scheichenbauer, Hemmaweg 5, A-9342 Gurk

Below is a video of the statement made by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff during Session 1 of the annual Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna yesterday (November 8, 2012).

The session’s topic was “Freedom of Association: obstacles to the full realization of this right and ways to overcome them.” Elisabeth spoke on behalf ofBürgerbewegung Pax Europa (BPE); see yesterday’s post for the full text of BPE’s statement.

She raised the issue of intimidation against proprietors of restaurants willing to host events; in particular, one that was organized by DIE FREIHEIT in Munich. The owner of the proposed venue had been threatened repeatedly by phone, and was forced to cancel the event when she was told by Munich authorities that her concession might be revoked by the city if she did not cancel the event.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is an Austrian activist for Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa (BPE), a lecturer on Islamic politics, and a victim of sharia-compliant “hate speech” laws.

Below is the speech given by Elisabeth at the Brussels Conference on July 9, 2012. Many thanks to Europe News for recording this video, and to Vlad Tepes for uploading it:

From the Gates of Vienna: As we reported last month, when Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff appealed her “hate speech” conviction to a higher court in Austria, the earlier verdict was upheld. She stated afterwards that she would not pay the fine. To do so would effectively recognize the legitimacy of an unjust and tyrranical legal decision.However, it turned out that it was impossible not to pay the fine: the Austrian judicial system has ways of compelling compliance. What happened to Elisabeth is described in the essay below.

Why I decided to pay the fine
by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

This past Thursday I asked the notary public in charge of my defense account to pay the now infamous €480 I was fined for my words the Austrian state deemed “an excessive assessment.”

You will recall that I was adamantly opposed to handing over nearly €500 to the government. I still feel this way. And I am still willing to go to jail. However, the legal constraints imposed on me have forced me to change course, and hand over money to the very state that has prosecuted and criminalized me for speaking the truth.

This is the story of what happened.

The terms of the verdict required me to pay 120 “day fines” of € 4 each, giving a total of €480, or spend two months in jail.

What was omitted from the court’s pronouncement was the fact that there is a step between the payment of the fine and going to jail: the bailiff would enter my family’s apartment with a warrant in an attempt to collect something worth €480. This might be anything, from my laptop to jewelry to the sofa.

Only if he were unable to make the necessary collection would I have to go to jail. In order to manage that, I would have to assault the bailiff — something that goes against my nature. So I really had no choice: I would have to pay the fine, one way or the other.

I found out about all this only fairly recently. As a result, I made a quick decision: I would pay the fine, much as I hated doing it.

My daughter’s well-being was also factored into the equation. Although she was a beacon of strength during the trial, I noticed a gradual change in her. She was clearly suffering, and that is something that I as a mother could not accept.

I believe in standing up for free speech, even if I put myself at risk. But I will not put my daughter at risk. The Austrian state has already victimized me. I will not permit them to victimize my daughter, too. It is my obligation as her mother not to do something that would scar her for life. If my daughter suffers, I suffer as well.

Rest assured that I loathed paying that fine. I still strongly resent the state’s decision to limit my freedom of speech.

I will continue my protest. We are not giving up, but merely changing our tactics.

I ask you to continue to support me and my fight for the right to freedom of speech. By extension, I am fighting for the rights of everyone, including those who are unaware that their rights are under threat.

If we do not stand up for our freedoms, we will lose them. Therefore I will continue to stand strong.

With your help, freedom will prevail!

My paying the fine does not mean I will cease fighting the verdict. As a matter of fact, if I raise enough funds, we can and will take this to the European Court for Human Rights.

Anyone who wants to contribute may visit Elisabeth’s Voice and make a donation using PayPal. Or, if you prefer, you may send a bank transfer using the following information for international payments:

Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich
IBAN: AT513150042908021602
BIC: RZBAATWW

Made out to: Public Notary Mag. Martin Scheichenbauer, Hemmaweg 5, A-9342 Gurk