“Silence is Not an Option”, a Speech by Elsiabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff at Ahavath Torah Congregation, Boston

“Silence is Not an Option”

Below is the prepared text of speech given last night by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff at the Ahavath Torah Congregation in Boston.

“Death Can Be Silent – The Present State of Free Speech in the U.S., Europe and Beyond”

Speech given by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
Ahavath Torah Congregation, Boston
June 17, 2013

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am here tonight to discuss the ominous and growing threat to free speech in the Europe, the United States, and the rest of the Western world.

I’ve never been to a synagogue before — although I have visited many mosques! I’m humbled to stand here before you. Thank you, Rabbi, for inviting me and giving the me the opportunity to exercise my freedom of speech.

He and I have a connection: his paternal grandmother was an Austrian, and if his English weren’t so good, we would be able to get by in Yiddish and German.

I’ve just recently learned that the audience for my talk may be larger than I had previously thought. In addition to the listeners gathered here in Stoughton, my words may be recorded by NSA and digitally stored in a huge database — all part of the struggle against “terror” and “violent extremism”. Since this congregation is a non-profit organization, the IRS may also be listening in, just to make sure that what I say here is compatible with your tax-exempt status.

If my words ever happen to be passed on through the social media, the person who posts them may be subject to criminal penalties. Yes, that’s why U.S. Attorney Bill Killian went to Manchester, Tennessee a couple of weeks ago: to discuss using federal civil rights laws to punish those who make critical remarks about Islam.

Such is the current sorry condition of free speech the United States of America.

If it’s that bad here, what must conditions be like elsewhere? This nation used to be a beacon of liberty, the shining city on a hill that inspired the entire world — what has happened to it?

I can tell you from my own experience that Europe has slid even farther down the slippery slope to tyranny.

We, too, live under constant surveillance by our own governments.

The security services in Britain and Sweden are entitled by law to record and store all forms of electronic communications — telephone, text messaging, internet usage, and so on.

But Europe has gone beyond mere surveillance. Member states of the European Union have implemented what is commonly known as the “Framework Decision”, which is a directive that requires all countries to pass laws that criminalize public incitement to “hatred” against “a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin”. This directive came into force in November 2010, and is binding on all states that signed the Lisbon Treaty.

So, as you can see, we Europeans don’t have any fundamental law that protects us as your First Amendment protects you. Our fundamental laws — which are created by unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels — actually give license to the state to persecute us. We have no protection from state repression if we choose to criticize Islam.

Most countries in Europe have been gung-ho to implement the EU’s diktat. So many people have been harassed, detained, arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for criticizing Islam that it would be impossible for me to mention them all. To read a full list, even if it were possible to compile one, would take several hours at least.

But let me give you a brief representative sample of Europeans who have been persecuted by their governments for their opinions on Islamization:

From Britain: Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, a.k.a. Tommy Robinson, the founder and leader of the Islam-critical English Defence League, has been tried repeatedly on various contrived charges, and convicted on some of them. Late last year he spent several months in solitary confinement before he even made his first appearance in court.

From Denmark: Lars Hedegaard, a well-known journalist and historian, was tried for describing in a private conversation the tendency for Muslim men to rape their underage female relatives. He was acquitted by a lower court. The prosecutor appealed the case to a higher court, which overturned the acquittal and fined the defendant 5,000 kroner. He appealed the decision to the Danish supreme court, which overturned the conviction again.

From Finland: Jussi Halla-aho, a journalist and local politician, was tried for giving examples in his blog of things about immigrants that were now illegal to say. He was convicted and fined, and lost his appeals to all higher courts. He also lost his position within his party, the True Finns.

From France: Philippe Val, the editor of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, was sued by a Muslim group for publishing the Danish Mohammed cartoons. He was acquitted in court.

From Germany: Michael Stürzenberger was tried for using a photo of Heinrich Himmler as an analogy with Islam. He was acquitted, but the prosecutor is appealing the verdict to a higher court.

From the Netherlands: Geert Wilders, the leader of what may now be the most popular party in the country, was put on trial not once, but twice for expressing his opinions on Islam. After a lengthy and expensive court process, he was acquitted in both cases.

From Sweden: Carl P. Herslow, a local politician, posted a campaign placard of Mohammed and his wife Aisha, with the caption: “He is 53 and she is 9: Is this the kind of wedding you want to see here?” He was charged with “incitement against an ethnic group”, tried, and eventually acquitted.

From Switzerland: Avi Lipkin, a.k.a. Victor Mordecai, was tried and convicted of “inciting hatred or discrimination against a person or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin or religion”. His “crime” was committed during a discussion about the upcoming referendum on the minaret ban, when he read verses from the Koran requiring Muslims to hate Christians and Jews. He was convicted.

That was an alphabetical list, but I left out Austria, because that case is my own.

Fascist totalitarianism has returned to my country. This time it does not come with the ring of jackboots on the cobblestones. No one’s door is battered down in the middle of the night. No cattle cars haul innocent victims away to an unknown destination.

This is a soft totalitarianism. It wears a business suit, smiles, and speaks in reasonable tones in the name of tolerance and diversity.

This time its victims are the natives of Austria, who are being deliberately replaced with a violent, barbaric, alien culture.

I am one of those victims.


For a number of years I have been giving educational seminars on Islam, sponsored by the Austrian Freedom Party. They are designed to educate people about the realities of Islam.

I learned those realities first-hand: I have lived in Iran, Kuwait, and Libya. As a little girl in Tehran, I watched the beginnings of Khomeini’s revolution. I was held hostage in Kuwait when Saddam Hussein invaded in 1990. And I watched people dance for joy in the streets of Tripoli on 9-11.

My experiences made me want to understand what lay behind all the ghastliness I had experienced, so I spent a lot of time researching Islam, and then began teaching others what I had learned. I told them that Islam did not respect free speech or other human rights, and was particularly brutal in its treatment of women. I explained that these characteristics derive directly from the totalitarian Islamic doctrines. In Islam, brutal repression is not a bug — it’s a feature.

My seminars became more popular, drawing a larger audience. As a result they drew the attention of the Multicultural Left, which is very influential in Viennese politics.

On two separate occasions in the fall of 2009 a leftist magazine, NEWS, sent an undercover reporter to secretly tape my lecture. They then turned the tapes over to the authorities and filed a complaint against me for my “hate speech”. In October 2009 I learned that I was under judicial investigation only through NEWS magazine — before I received any notice from the court.

For almost a year the investigation proceeded. Then, in October 2010, I was informed of my indictment and impending trial — once again, by reading it in NEWS, not through any official notification.

The trial began in November of that year and continued until the following February. The case eventually focused on my description of a phone conversation with my sister, in which I referred to Mohammed’s sexual relationship with Aisha. My sister was appalled at the thought that I might call Mohammed a “pedophile”. I said, “What else would you call a man who has a thing for little girls?”

This statement was what the court chose to highlight, along with various “hostile” remarks about Islam. However, it became obvious partway through the trial that it would not be possible to use these things to convict me under the charge that had been laid, which was “incitement to hatred”.

As a result, 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.”

When the verdict was handed down in February 2011, I was acquitted on the first charge, but convicted on the second, and fined.

It was clear that the judge was determined to find a charge under which I could be convicted. The convoluted logic for her decision was this: it was not factually correct to say that Mohammed was a pedophile, because although he had sex with a nine-year-old girl, he remained married to her until she was of age. That is, he proved that he only liked little girlspart of the time, so he couldn’t have been a pedophile.

I know that sounds like a passage from a dystopian fantasy by Phillip K. Dick, but it’s not — it really happened, in a court of law, in the city of Vienna, the country of Austria, in the Year of Our Lord 2011.

The reality of Modern Multicultural Europe has merged with dystopian fantasy. As Humpty-Dumpty said to Alice, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we have stepped through the looking glass into a strange new world.

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

I appealed my conviction to the highest court in Austria, but lost. My final hope is the European Court of Human Rights, but that is a very lengthy and expensive process. My case is currently pending, and the final chapter of my story has yet to be written.

What I find interesting is that the story about Aisha was central in my case, just as it was with the case against Carl Herslow in Sweden. Mr. Herslow and I pointed out the same thing — that a middle-aged man should marry a little girl who plays with dolls is an abomination. We remind our fellow countrymen that this is something that all right-minded people find appalling.

Our descriptions of the issue are entirely based on the facts. There is no need to embroider the truth — it is laid out clearly in authentic hadith by the most authoritative Islamic scholars. Muslims believe that Mohammed had sex with a nine-year-old girl, and they also believe that Mohammed is the perfect man, to be emulated by all pious Muslims. This is why even today Muslim men routinely marry nine-year-old girls — and often much younger ones.

Carl Herslow and I simply felt that this story is one that the Western world should be told.

We never deviated from the truth. We never exaggerated the story or added false material to it. We told it like it was.

Yet to doing so is “denigrating the religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” and “incitement against an ethnic group”.

How can this be? How can telling the simple truth about what Islamic scripture says insult that religion?

In order to understand, we need to take a brief look at Islamic law, or sharia. In particular we need to know what Islam means by “slander”. To a Muslim, the word means something entirely different than it does to you and me. We think of slander as a malicious lie told with the intent to harm another person. But that isn’t what Islamic law means when it mentions the word “slander”.

One of the best sources on Sunni Islamic law is an authoritative manual known as Reliance of the Traveller. In Chapter R, “Holding One’s Tongue”, we learn that “slander” means “to mention of your brother that which he would dislike.” Further on we are told:

“In fact, talebearing is not limited to that, but rather consists of revealing anything whose disclosure is resented… The reality of talebearing lies in divulging a secret, in revealing something confidential whose disclosure is resented. A person should not speak of anything he notices about people besides that which benefits a Muslim…”

That is, if you say anything that is resented by a Muslim or does not benefit him, then you have slandered him under sharia law. It doesn’t matter whether what you say is true or false,but only whether it makes Muslims look bad.

Muslims are quite aware that they look bad whenever the story of Mohammed and Aisha is told to non-Muslims. This is one of Islam’s dirty little secrets that must never be told to infidels. Its telling is resented by Muslims; therefore, those who tell it have slandered Islam.

And under sharia, the penalty for slandering Islam is death. This is the justification behind those infamous signs that say “Death to those who insult the prophet of Islam”.

Now we understand why my words, despite their truth, are considered slanderous by Islam. But the big question is this: Why is an Austrian court enforcing Islamic law?

Why does the court find it appropriate to apply the Islamic definition of slander in a case against an Austrian citizen?

As I mentioned earlier, the same interpretation was attempted in the case against Carl Herslow in Sweden, who fortunately escaped conviction. Similar cases are popping up all over Europe, in Australia, in Canada, and even in the United States. If you run afoul of Islamic slander, truth is no defense. The only consideration is whether what you said harms Muslims.

President Barack Hussein Obama made it clear that the same interpretation of the word “slander” is to be applied from now on in the USA when he said: “The future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

By now it has become obvious that we are in the midst of a widespread, systematic and determined attempt by our political leaders to impose the Islamic law of slander against a hitherto free people. Why is that?

From Sydney to Helsinki, from Los Angeles to Vienna, the de facto imposition of Islamic law is underway. The right of free citizens to utter not just their opinions, but the truth itself, is being denied.

Why is the same thing happening throughout the West at the same time?

The answer, in a nutshell, is this: the infiltration of the political establishment by Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimeen, better known as the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood has been working assiduously since the 1970s to place members of its affiliated organizations in state, federal, and local government here in the United States, and within important transnational bodies and NGOs in the European Union. They have worked patiently and carefully for forty years, keeping their eyes on the long term. It is through their efforts that “jihad” and “Islam” were removed from the lexicon of FBI training manuals. They are the ones who made the term “Islamophobia” mainstream, caused the UN and the EU to equate religion and race, and convinced the EU to designate criticism of Islam as a hate crime.

The persuasive power of “tolerance”, “anti-racism”, and “diversity”, combined with the lure of petrodollars from the Gulf, have suborned our public officials.

We have reached the point where our elected officials, media people, and academics believe that the right of free speech does not apply to those who say bad things about Islam. Not even if those things are true.

And they even believe that this is the enlightened, liberal position to take!

Pushing back against the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda is very tough to do. It will be a long, difficult slog. Overcoming decades of indoctrination will require something close to deprogramming.

The fear of being called a racist has been drilled into the entire populace for many years by the promoters of Multiculturalism. The Muslim Brotherhood shrewdly transformed Islam into a “race” for legal purposes, thereby turning critics of Islam into “racists”. As a result, the man in the street experiences an almost instinctive aversion to saying or thinking anything about Islam that is not bland, positive, and nice.

Countering this entrenched reaction requires a patient, objective program to make people aware of the facts behind the Islamic drive for expansion. This drive is inherent in Islam; it is laid out clearly in the Koran and the Hadith, and it is mandatory for all faithful Muslims. The Islamization of Europe, Canada, Australia, and the United States is a direct application of the core teachings and legal code of Islam.

The most exhaustive material on Islamic doctrine and sharia may be found in the briefings given by U.S. Army Major Stephen Coughlin. To start the ball rolling, presentations based on Major Coughlin’s work might be given in places such as this congregation. You can talk to Rabbi Hausman to learn more about where to find Major Coughlin’s material.

But how to publicize such presentations? That’s the hard part! In general the media will not give our efforts an honest treatment. Those of us who have become prominent in this line of work have learned that fair coverage of what we do is almost unheard of.

As a result, we need to publicize our educational efforts by word-of-mouth and through the alternative media. Local news outlets are more likely to report honestly than the major national networks. Talk radio, social media, Facebook and Twitter, web forums — these are all ways to propagate useful information widely.

Yes, that means that everything you say will be also known by NSA, the CIA, the FBI, and all the other alphabet soup of federal government agencies. There’s nothing we can do about that.

But what we say here tonight is still quite legal — for now, anyway. Until Bill Killian reaches his goal of removing First Amendment protections from the criticism of Islam, our right to say these things is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. I’m not so lucky — I don’t have such a guarantee in Austria. Danes, Britons, Swedes, and Germans also lack that protection.

But you, as Americans, still have the privilege of the First Amendment.

The time to use that privilege is now, while you still can.

The free speech movement depends on people like you. We cannot expect our leaders or our media to preserve our freedoms — it’s up to us.

I’ll close with a quote from a well-known Swedish samizdat writer who writes under the pseudonym Julia Caesar. She has dedicated her life and her writings to exposing what has been done to her country without the consent of its people. In a recent essay called “We Changed Our Lives”, she writes:

We knew that no human being and no political system building their existence on lies could last forever.

We knew the truth always wins.

We knew the truth can break through quickly.

We knew the truth can take a long time and sometimes breaks through with violence.

We knew the truth had been replaced with new systems of lies.

We used to think about the orchestra playing onboard the sinking Titanic. We thought that the musicians perhaps felt a little better than those who ran around on deck in a state of panic. And we had no choice, for that matter. We simply couldn’t manage to watch our country going down.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have no choice. And time is short. The ship is closing in on the iceberg while the orchestra plays and dancers glide across the floor under the party lights.

It’s not just Sweden that’s going down, or the United States, or Austria. The entire Western world is steaming full speed ahead towards that iceberg.

Silence is not an option.

Nothing will keep me silent. I am adamant that my daughter and my daughter’s daughters shall never live as Islamic chattel.

It is our responsibility — the responsibility of all of us — to do what we can now, while change is still possible.

Thank you.

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

Posted in Free Speech, Speeches | Leave a comment

Reflections on a World Gone Mad, Part 3

Posted on  by Baron Bodissey

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 1Part 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.

Posted in Free Speech, Report, Speeches | Leave a comment

Reflections on a World Gone Mad, Part 2

Posted on  by Baron Bodissey

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.

Posted in Free Speech, Report, Speeches | Leave a comment

Reflections on a World Gone Mad, Part 1

Posted on  by Baron Bodissey

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

Posted in Free Speech, Report, Speeches | Leave a comment

The Alliance of Civilization Jihad

The Alliance of Civilization Jihad

Posted on  by Baron Bodissey

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?”
Posted in Free Speech, Report | Leave a comment

A new appeal for funding……….


Mirrored from the GOV: Appealing to the ECHR

Elisabeth's Voice banner 3

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

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-WolffElisabeth 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.

Continue reading

Posted in Support | Leave a comment

Elisabeth raises issue at OSCE meeting in Vienna concerning intimidation of restaurant owners from holding events

First published at The Gates of Vienna:

The Methods of a Totalitarian Society

OSCE logo

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:

Posted in Free Speech, Support | Leave a comment

International Civil Liberty Alliance Calls For International Monitors At Protests In Western Europe


This post is mirrored from the Gates of Vienna:

As noted last night and earlier today, the annual Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is currently underway in Vienna. A four-person Counterjihad team representing theInternational Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA), Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa (BPE), and Mission Europa has been working for the past two days to counter the Islamization of the OSCE.

OSCE Vienna 2012: The Counterjihad Team

Left to right: Othmar Hofmeister (BPE-Austria), Marie-Luise Hoffman-Polzoni (ICLA), Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (BPE-Germany), Harald Fiegl (Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell)

The session’s topic was “Freedom of Association: obstacles to the full realization of this right and ways to overcome them.” The paper below was presented today by ICLA, and has also been posted at the ICLA website.

Continue reading

Posted in Free Speech, Support | Leave a comment

Elisabeth intervenes on the behalf of free speech for the EDL at OSCE meeting in Vienna


First published at the Gates of Vienna:

Below is a video of the intervention made by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff during Session 2 of the annual Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna yesterday (November 9, 2012).

The session’s topic was “Freedom of Association” Elisabeth spoke on behalf ofBürgerbewegung Pax Europa (BPE); see yesterday’s post for the full text of BPE’s intervention.

Elisabeth focused in particular on the plight of the English Defence League, which is effectively suppressed by the British authorities through being denied the right to assemble freely and peaceably. By allowing violent leftists to harass the EDL with impunity, while at the same time intimidating, inconveniencing, and arresting members of the EDL, the police are denying the group its rights under European and UN human rights conventions.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Posted in Free Speech, Support | Leave a comment

ELizabeth Speaks at the ICLA’s Brussels Process Conference on July 9th

Brussels 2012: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s Speech

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:

Posted in Free Speech, Speeches | Leave a comment