The pupils in an average fourth-grade class in Germany can do and know less today than 20 years ago, Thilo Sarrazin said in his bestseller “Germany Is Abolishing Itself.” Just recently, his wife Ursula added fuel to the fire and brought attention to the defects in the German education policy among other things in a big Focus Interview. At the center of her criticism was the increasingly reduced pressure to perform in German schools that likely has its origin in the conciliatory course of social pedagogy here. Furthermore, she draws her other-worldly persuasions from the “fear of success” that is common in the leftwing camp that is known not to be limited to the education system, but stems more from a social-political experiment in society. After all, those who foster stupidity in early years can make justified hope of being successful in the long term with stupid policy. Looking at it this way, it makes sense, unfortunately.

Whoever believes these erroneous developments to be limited only to the German education system is in error. In Austria, too – which likewise isn’t blessed with an overabundance of resources – politics appears in a striking way to be jeopardizing the raw material of the land: the renewable intelligence. Voestalpine General Director Wolfgang Eder, who expressed his dismay with clear words in an ORF conversation, reports it more precisely. He said there among other things:

We truly need to instruct the pupils in the first two grades in the ways of basis arithmetic and grammar. (…) In the last ten years we have had a dramatic decline in development, in the education of school graduates.

How glaring the problems themselves in Austria are, nevertheless a country that is know for its good education system, at least in comparison with many German states, is made clear by Eder’s following statement:

Even though we take from the best ten percent of the 1200, 1500, we still have to do supplemental education with these. Ten years ago that would have been no issue at all. That means we are losing the connection in the elementary school area.

For clarification, Eder proceeds to talk about alpine sports: when Austrian ski jumpers “train, train, train” and make it to the edge of the impossible to be at the top of the world, then people are fascinated. However, if this is expected in normal life, then suddenly it’s: “Well-l-l, we don’t really want that.” The whole structure of the education system is in a bad condition just like this, that “something can be achieved only with fundamental changes.” That, however, cannot mean standardization, but “performance.” Eder brought this term to the center of attention and added still:

If we don’t do something for our young people, and if they don’t get representation for their interests, then we, the older generation, must blame ourselves for having bungled and messed up the future of the youth.

Those are clear words, and once again it’s a representative from the economy who dares to speak in plain text. Why similar voices of criticism come so extraordinarily seldom from the mouths of politicians, Thilo Sarrazin showed in Germany recently: Whoever dares to contradict the beautifully painted picture dictated by the established parties has, at best, no more to report, and at worst, a procedure of expulsion hanging around his neck.

The impression in Germany might tend to exist that the conservatives know better how education policy should be executed, after all, black-controlled states like Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg in the rule are on the cutting edge in comparative testing (translator note: black here is the representative color of one of the political parties here in Germany). In the international comparison, however, that is not enough for the top place in the world. Moreover, Thilo Sarrazin’s statement appears itself to be verified in Austria: the pupils’ ability to perform in the past years and decades has dramatically diminished.

In this, the present policy of poor education is laying the foundation for the poverty of tomorrow here as well as there. Because countries like Germany and Austria are, as is commonly recognized, virtually dependent on the innovative powers of their economies. However, they will not be able to keep their high standard if the the pressure to perform in schools – as so much else – is sacrificed on the altar of sociopolitical ideals. In this matter it doesn’t appear now to matter how, when and where which parties have the say. The result varies only slightly – the trend, however, is the same: downward!

As long as concepts like performance and ambitiousness are negatively cast, hardly anything will change in this trend. Actually, the education system appears to be a mirror image of the decline of values in our society. Because the truth is: the one who smokes, drinks and does pot, the one who has sex as a minor, listens to hare-brained music with banal texts, paints the property of strangers and loves to express his opinion with fists, the same is seen in many schools in German and Austrian cities as cool, as strong, as fantastic, as respected. The one, however, that is already interested in physics or math in his early years, reads books and does homework is at best seen as an outsider or a geek – at worst, such pupils are the objects of bullies from the increasingly stupid majority.

It was already that way back when a certain Frank Furter went to school. And it most certainly has gotten worse. Germany is abolishing itself. And Austria is following – as so often – in its footsteps.

(By nockerl / Translation: Anders Denken)

Before the first trial against Wilders failed because of bias by judge Tom Schalken, the prosecution as well as – less surprisingly – the defense pleaded for acquittal. However, even if the prosecution once again calls for acquittal in this new trial, Wilders could still be condemned by this completely newly seated court.

Sabaditsch-Wolff’s criminal trial will continue as reported after an adjournment on February 15th. PI will report on site about this continuing trial. Geert Wilders has now assured the Austrian of his support for this trial.

Geert Wilder’s letter to Sabaditsch-Wolff reads:

The Austrian anti-Jihad activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff presently stands before court in Vienna because she has told the truth about Islam. Her case strongly resembles mine and those of other people in Europe that have just been accused, stand before court, were condemned and rendered silent because they dared to speak out against Islam. Elisabeth is a courageous woman whose ironclad defense of personal freedom, the freedom of speech and the search for truth is inspiring for all of us. She is a beacon not only for Austria but for the whole world.

Elisabeth has my complete support in her opposition to the oppression being put upon her. And I support her especially in her defense against the charge by the court in Vienna that is putting forth an attempt to bring her to silence.

It is important to defend those who are being charged by the State because of their convictions. We have to exercise our right to free speech on their behalf. If we don’t express our opinions today for people like Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, we will all be rendered silent.

(Translation: Liz, Europe News)

The Austrian has gotten support that is urgently needed in which she has managed to achieve a small but 2,500 Euro expensive partial victory, but she must also defend herself against a false assertion by media.

For it is not only the criminal trial alone that is taxing Elisabeth’s powers and for which she needs support. Also, to proceed against false assertions and reports costs time, nerves, energy and, yes, even money. A libel of Sabaditsch-Wolff currently comes to 2,500 Euros. But those media who have spread a false statement don’t have to bear the sum, rather the victim does. Just for the incorrect report that she said “Euro-Islam is s—” to be removed from the world, she has to come up with this amount for attorneys and court costs. In truth, she actually said: “Euro-Islam is wishful thinking.”

An editor of the Austrian Press Agency put the false report into circulation whose version was picked up by many “Media of Quality.” The APA, which describes itself as leading medium, has become a medium of agony for the one involved.

In Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s case, 2,500 Euros and a few attorney’s letters later now concede that not just the newspaper “Die Presse” but also ORF (Austrian Radio / TV) are to have spread said false report. However, other media, such as the “Tiroler Tageszeitung” newspaper for example, are with a retraction still excluded so far.

Those who wish to help Elisabeth not only with words can find out means for donating on her website.

By doing so, he doesn’t just help himself to the “Tele-Diagnosis,” as the video of his various statements shows:

(Photo above: HC Strache at the beginning of December in a visit with the Israeli Army – the halo was still invisible at that time / Translation: Anders Denken)

The Jerusalem Declaration contains among other things the following passage:

[…] After the totalitarian systems of the 20th century were overcome, mankind presently appears to be facing a new worldwide totalitarian threat: fundamentalist Islam. We see ourselves as a part of the worldwide battle by the defenders of democracy and human rights against all totalitarian systems and their enablers. Therefore we stand on the forefront of the battle for the community of Western-democratic values.

By virtue of this, we reject that cultural relativism that, under the pretext of respecting foreign cultures and traditions, tolerates the fact that people, especially non-Islamic minorities, are limited in their right to freedom, equality and codetermination in sectors of the Muslim cultural circle. […]

Israel, being the only real democracy in the Near East, is more important to us as a contact in this tough region of the world. A region that in past decades has had to deal constantly with extremism and terror. We profess Israel’s right to existence without reservation within secure and internationally recognized boundaries. Likewise, the right of Israel to self-defense against all acts of aggression, especially against Islamic terror, must also be accepted. We believe that this must be possible while concurrently respecting human rights as well as the political rights of the Arab population.* […]

*FREEDOM PARTY addendum: THE FREEDOM PARTY harbors reservations against this statement and replaces it with the following statement: The recognition of human rights – even those of the Arab population – must be self-evident.

Mölzer and Strache indeed concluded after their return to Austria that they had gone too far in the trip to the front lines of Israel with an unavoidable portion of their own party (Strache in the PI interview, starting around 8:20 min).

The reaction by Altermedia Deutschland (German language Nazi forum) to Strache’s 7/12/2010 “Jerusalem Declaration” could be a gentle hint of the “thinking” in this faction:

All chatter about this declaration [Jerusalem Declaration – PI] aside, this statement makes it clear that the “rightwing parties” have signed on to this document and have made themselves willing vassals of the State of Israel and its Diaspora sectors. It is therefore not erroneous to see them from now on as nothing more than a kind of fifth column in the service of international Jewry that is simply using so-called Islamism as an image of hostility [not bold in the original – PI] so that it can battle any opposition to its interests.

This was already clear beforehand to those knowledgeable about the political material, however, the above declaration can be well understood as an ultimate outing by said parties for the general public, after which no conventional, benevolent or intentionally misunderstanding doubt remains in various groups about their true nature.

And thus the party leadership is apparently forced again to back down in order to appease the internal opponents of Strache’s expressed Islam-critical and pro-democratic/pro-Israeli positions and insignificant actions like the wearing of a Jewish-religiously stipulated head covering by Strache as is usual for all visitors of the Western Wall.

It is above all regretful that the FPÖ leadership, and especially Heinz-Christian Strache, are unable to break down certain animosities toward Israel because of opposition within the party. Strache, together with the party leadership, underestimated how intense the debate would become inside the FPÖ. Nevertheless, he himself and some of his party comrades apparently misjudged the mood within the party, or at least underestimated it. Whether Strache ever produced a contented character in the forced distancing from Israel and pro-Israeli positions after his return is to be dealt with some other time.

For starters, Andreas Mölzer’s reaction after the return is interesting. Like the interview he gave to the Austrian news magazine Profil where he states that the FPÖ has always “declaratively distanced itself from antisemitism.” When questioned whether the FPÖ is operating on their position as stated in Mölzer’s own weekly newspaper “Zur Zeit” in accordance with a “Talmudic delusion of annihilation,” the mastermind of the party opinedthat there was an “disposition toward state terrorism” in Israel’s case. Stating this is not necessarily antisemitism. Just as important to the “history book of the party” is the assertion that it is indeed psychologically cumbersome for the Israelis when they have to pull playing children off the street and head for bunkers in order to protect them from rocket attacks. But for the Palestinians it is even more brutal because an Israeli air attack kills many more people. The conclusion that one side intentionally murders civilians, at least takes into account their death and proudly sends its own children to their death, while the Israeli side tries in its battle against those whom Mölzer would indeed otherwise call “Jihadistic Islamists” to prevent any injury to those not a part of it is well beyond Mölzer.

In another place as well, the European parliamentarian doesn’t jump high enough. In his own newspaper named above, “Zur Zeit”, he takes issue with a sympathetic article printed by PI there, and the “leadership” of the blog that traveled with him, and as an alleged example wanted to drive the Palestinians one and all into the desert:

Truly he owes it to his readers to tell where he gets this from, but it doesn’t manage to reach them. More important, however, is the unseen connection by party intellectuals of cause and effect between Islam and mass immigration.

Yes to Islam, but not at home

After Mölzer first explains the obligation of the area to his readers, that one is required to put a kippa on at the Western Wall, he puts forward how much Austria’s libertarians fought against the islamization of Europe and mass immigration, but that they still respected Islam as one of the world’s great religions.

It is apparently too much for those who develop profound policy papers for the party, who campaign with “homegrown, not Islam,” to recognize just how much mass immigration is caused by Islam in the originating countries to begin with. Should it have escaped the amateur historian, just how much the oppression of people by Islam influences the living conditions in the native countries? With a proper amount of ignorance, one would only be in the position to overlook how much the economic conditions in the Islamic countries can be traced back to the religion, that is to the archaic lifestyle conveyed by that religion, if not by the absolute model of Muhammad, and on the other hand, how much they lead to the mass immigration to Europe that is bemoaned by Mölzer. One doesn’t necessarily have to have read Max Weber in order to recognize the connection between the religious orientation and the economic result. A peek at the Islamic world brings these connections closer together.

The FPÖ should as a party first answer the question, in what circumstance do fewer people emigrate from Tunisia, for example, to Europe? When would mass immigration to Europe as Mölzer bemoans it be more probable? When secular powers or religious powers have the long-term upper hand? Those who stand on the side of the people in Tunisia hope for a strengthening liberation, and not that Islam shapes life in North Africa in even narrower terms than was the case anyway up until now. But in this case it at least continued to fall back on the “respect for the great world religion.”

Or should Mölzer recognize an ally in Islam that is agreeable to him as long as it doesn’t develop its effects in his area? If this question should be answered in the affirmative, then the question of a common enemy could hardly be asked.

Therefore, Mölzer finds Islam to be a wonderful thing as long as it doesn’t take place in Austria. While Strache in the PI interview declares Israel to be still on the front line in the Clash of Civilizations, Mölzer evidently thinks that Islam will stay clear of neutral(!) Austria if one “respects” it above all in other countries as a world religion and explains away the undesirable developments by it as “Islamism.” But perhaps he believes Islam will spare Austria as the only land on the old continent, or that the “playing” with an Islam that still in the minority is like snuggling with a sweet baby tiger. But what speaks for this assumption, especially for the fact that the tiger cub wouldn’t soon grow into a dangerous beast of prey and tear apart its “neutral” playmate?

Elisabeth and her lawyer will be ready to prove the truthfulness of everything said in the seminars, underlining that this is about the right to tell the truth without fear of legal punishment. For telling the truth can never be illegal in a free society.

As was the case last time, we will be reporting live from the court room, giving details and highlights of the proceedings. Further, we have upgraded on the photo side of things, for better pictures during the day.

The hearing starts at 9:00 CET. The first report can be expected at around 10, and this time will be simultaneously translated into German, and possibly French.

Follow the proceedings on Tuesday 18th at this link.

(Source: Savefreespeech.org)

The Austrian Krone newspaper reports about this unimaginable scandal of justice:

Helmut G. (picture) was busy mowing the grass in his yard on a Friday afternoon. “And because I was simply in such a good mood, I began to yodel and sing a few songs,” the retiree said in a conversation with the “Steirerkrone.” That didn’t please his neighbors – devout Muslims – at all. At the time, they were together at their house for prayer time because of the call on the loudspeaker in the courtyard.

“Didn’t want to sound like the muezzin”

A few felt their practice of religion was being disturbed by the lawn-mowing 63-year-old – and promptly registered a complaint with the police. “The reason stated was that my yodling sounded like the call of the muezzin,” Helmut G. shook his head in disbelief. “I had absolutely no intention of imitating it,” the lawn-mowing senior reaffirmed.

The court, however, didn’t believe him and sentenced him to a hefty fine – on Friday, the appropriate statement rolled into view. Helmut G.: “The Muslims don’t comply with any rules; unfortunately, we neighbors constantly have problems…”

So, this is just how it is in the Europe of the 21st century – and even yodeling retires will have to get used to that little by little.

(Found on SOS Austria)

(Speech held at the conference against the Islamisation of our countries in Paris, Dec 18th 2010)

When you discuss Islam and/or sharia law, have you been accused of being an Islamophobe? A nazi? A xenophobe? A bigot? A misunderstander of Islam (copyright R. Spencer)? Have you been verbally attacked by well-meaning friends who belong either to the Leftist/Liberal spectrum and believe in the Religion of Respect and Anything Goes, or who in principle agree with you, but are sooo very afraid for you and suggest that you stop what you’re doing to stay alive. (What does that tell us about the Religion of Peace?)

I think I can safely assume that most of you, if not all, have at one point or another been subjected to some or all of the aforementioned accusations. I can certainly testify to that. But I can also tell you that I have been hauled into court to face trial for saying what I believe is the truth; a truth that many, especially those of the ruling elite, do not like to hear. Sadly, it seems that in a discussion, when one side has no real argument, he or she resorts to personal attacks. “This woman [as if I didn't have a name!], she is a hate preacher. She can’t say that! She may be right, but she can’t say that!” Can’t say what? That sharia law is contrary to any of our secular laws? That its legal provisions include gender apartheid as well as killing of those who leave Islam or exercise the right to free speech. That sharia prescribes amputation of limbs and crucifixion even though Article 5 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights postulates that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Well, guess what? That is precisely what was eventually found in the charges!

Ladies and Gentlemen!

In fall 2009, I was asked by the largest Austrian opposition party to hold a three-part seminar on the topic of Islam and the Islamization of Europe. I did this by quoting from the Quran, the hadith, the sunna. I also quoted well-known Muslim politicians like Erdogan, Ghadafi, Arafat, or the former Algerian prime minister. Little did I or the attendants know at the time that a young journalist had infiltrated and recorded the first two seminars without my knowledge. The left-wing magazine then decided to report me to the authorities, who in turn charged me with incitement to hatred. Let me quote the relevant paragraph:

By virtue of § 283 of the StGB, a person is deemed culpable of incitement:

(1) who incites or instigates in a manner liable to jeopardise public order an inimical act against a church or religious community established in the country or against a group determined by their affiliation to such a church or religious community, or to a race, people, tribe or state, or

(2) who agitates against or insults in a manner defamatory to human dignity or endeavours to condemn one of the groups defined in para. (1).
The crime is liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years.

The outcry among the ruling elite in Austria was ear-splitting. High-ranked politicians, bishops, rabbis, and imams were asked to comment about the contents of a seminar they had never attended. A well-known Muslim university professor, asked by the magazine to analyze some of my controversial statements, even came to the conclusion that I am just like Osama Bin Laden!

In a matter of hours, my personal life was turned upside down. Some of my friends distanced themselves from by asking me to stay away from gatherings where Muslims may have shown up. The media completely ignored me and found the story of a Kosovar family blackmailing the government into granting them humanitarian asylum, after the umpteenth denial of the same, more interesting and captivating. “We do not see the need to report the idiocies of this woman [again, no name],“ one liberal left-wing newspaper answered a curious enquirer. What does it matter that the Kosovar family broke the law and that I merely quoted the Quran? You can’t say that!

Interestingly enough, instead of silencing me, the magazine’s questionable actions have made me popular. All of a sudden, many people were outraged by what had happened to me and wanted to hear my side of the story. However, no one in Austria wanted to hear me; it was the Americans who were shocked, which was not surprising given the provisions of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution guaranteeing absolute freedom of speech, something we Europeans are in sore need of. I was invited to speak at the launch of the Freedom Defense Initiative, at the National Conference of ACT! for America, both in Washington DC. I spoke in Berlin at a rally for the Citizens’ Movement Pax Europa, as well as at the European Freedom Initiative rally in Amsterdam. The Danish Free Press Society in Copenhagen wanted to hear my take on freedom of speech. Just two weeks ago, I conveyed to my Israeli hosts the importance of Israel in the fight against Islamization. And today I am here in Paris to tell you about my trial. I was not silenced, nor will they ever succeed in silencing me!

Ladies and Gentlemen!

By November 28, 2010, the member states of the European Union were required to implement an innocuous-sounding legal provision known as the “Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia”, or, more fully, the “Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.” According to the final article of the Framework Decision, “Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by 28 November 2010.”

Why does this matter to the cause of free speech in Europe?

If you read the full text of the Framework Decision (which may be found in the legislative section of the EU’s website), you will learn that “Each Member State shall take the measures necessary… to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable”. Such “intentional conduct” includes “conduct which is a pretext for directing acts against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.”

Based on what has recently happened to Geert Wilders and me — and earlier to Gregorius Nekschot, Jussi Halla-aho, and numerous others — we can all guess who will be punished under this provision of the Framework Decision: those who criticize Islam.

Ladies and Gentlemen!

It was not until October that a court date was set for my case. I had to discover this fact in the press — in NEWS, the same left-wing magazine that brought the original complaint against me. I was not officially notified of my hearing date until several days later.

The evidence used against me at my trial several weeks ago was a transcript of a tape of my lecture, provided to the court by the same socialist magazine. It included words that were not spoken by me, and words that were not spoken in public, which therefore were not a violation of the law.

But my case is not really about the law. It is a political trial, and like the trials of Geert Wilders and Jussi Halla-aho, it is intended to silence someone who speaks out against the barbaric nature of sharia law.

Above all else, it is intended to discourage anyone who might consider following in my footsteps. The oligarchs who rule Europe are determined to prevent any frank discussion among their citizens of Islam and its legal doctrines.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

These are the methods of a totalitarian state.

They are more successful than those of the Nazis and the Fascists and the Communists because they are accomplished quietly and peacefully, with no need for concentration camps or gulags or mass graves or the shot in the back of the neck in the middle of the night.

They are surgical strikes executed via our legal systems, and they are quite effective. Between the summary punishment carried out against Theo Van Gogh and the EU Framework Decision applied though our courts, there is no room left for us to maneuver.

We are systematically being silenced.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am not a victim. I intend to stand up for what is right. I will defend what needs to be defended. Above everything else, I will exercise my God-given right to speak freely about what is happening. Freedom of speech is the single most important freedom we possess.

I am doing this for my daughter, and for her children, for those who will have to live in the world we are now preparing for them. I am doing what our grandparents should perhaps have done during the 1930s, when their own freedoms were under threat.

This is our time. This cup will not pass from us.

I am reminded of a passage in J.R.R. Tolkien’s famous trilogy, The Lord of the Rings.

It is an exchange between Frodo the hobbit and Gandalf the wizard, and it concerns the perilous quest on which Frodo and his friends have been sent.

Frodo says: “I wish it need not have happened in my time.”

Gandalf responds: “So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is time for us to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

* * * *
In speaking these words, I might be subject to arrest. I could be charged under the provisions of the Framework Decision, and extradited to the country that charged me using a European Arrest Warrant, escorted by the European Gendarmerie.

This is not an imaginary scenario; it is a very real possibility.

It is true that only a few people are likely to undergo such an ordeal. But it only takes a few people.

How many people have to endure what Mr. Wilders and I are enduring before everyone else gets the message?

How many examples have to be set before the rest of the European population understands the new rules, and is cowed into submission?

And we must remember to whom they will be submitting in the end. They will be submitting to our successors in Europe. They will be submitting to our replacements.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We must remember that the word for submission in Arabic is Islam.

When there are enough Muslims living in Europe — and it doesn’t have to be a majority of the population, just somewhere around fifteen or twenty percent — we will be living under Islamic law, and not the laws that presently govern us.

We will no longer enjoy what constitutional rights remain to us now. Our rights will be completely prescribed and delimited by sharia. Women will become the virtual chattel of men. Christians and Jews will be driven out or forced to convert to Islam. Atheists and homosexuals will be killed.

The European Union would consider these words to be “hate speech”. Under the Framework Decision, they would be classified as “racism and xenophobia”, and I could be prosecuted for saying them.

But they are in fact the simple truth.

Anyone can verify them by studying history. Anyone who chooses can read the Koran and the hadith and the Sunna of the Prophet.

Widely available official treatises on Islamic law confirm that my description is not “hate speech”, but a plain and accurate reading of the tenets of Islamic law.

It has become obvious that to tell the truth about Islam is now considered “incitement to religious hatred”.

It is now clear that non-Muslims who reveal the tenets of sharia law to the public are “denigrating religious teachings”.

If we meekly accept these rules, then we are acquiescing in the imposition of sharia law in our own nations. And I, for one, will not sit silently while this happens.

I don’t want my daughter to live under sharia.

Our time is short. If you and I do not envision an Islamic future for ourselves, then we must speak out now.

If we wish to preserve the right to speak and publish freely, then we must exercise it now.

I wish this need not have happened in my time. But it has.

We must make full use of the time that remains to us.

» Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Common Project of: Politically Incorrect, Gates of Vienna, Vlad Tepes Blog, EuropeNews

(From Zwiebelsuppe / Translation: Anders Denken)

And so, now the expression “Without compromise against direct incitement” appears, of course, in a totally different light – for here “definite incitement” is made equivalent with criticism against the wearing of headclothes by Islamic women. The juxtaposition of “direct incitement” with criticism of unequal treatment of man and woman – which is what the headcloth stands for in Islamic culture – is, of course, pure insolence. What a nasty method for catching votes from uninformed citizens at the cost of disadvantaged women.

Or to put it in the words of the interim party head or the Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (Alliance 90/The Greens) party, Ekin Deligöz:

“The headcloth is a symbol of oppression of women. Those who require of women that they wear headclothes turn them into a sexual object that needs to be covered up.”

P.S.: The Austrian Greens suffered a loss of two percentage points in the October 10 Vienna election for the regional parliament…

» maria.vassilakou@gruene.at

Like Mr. Wilders, she faces trial for reporting factual information about Islam. Her “crime” was to conduct public seminars in which she described Islamic doctrine, quoted from the Koran, and explained to her listeners what she considers the dangers of Islam.

Like Mr. Wilders, Elisabeth has been charged with “hate speech” for her words. Unlike Mr. Wilders, however, Elisabeth is a private citizen, a wife, and the mother of a small child. She lacks the major resources necessary to defend herself against the well-funded organs of the state which seek to persecute her.

Elisabeth will go on trial in Vienna on November 23rd, in what is clearly a political action intended to silence anyone who dissents against the prevailing multicultural orthodoxy.

We, her European and North American supporters, have formed Elisabeth’s Voice to ensure that she is not silenced. By appealing for financial aid, we hope to ensure that her defense is well-funded. By appealing for publicity, we hope to ensure that her case is well-known, not just in Austria and the rest of Europe, but across the entire Western world.

Americans may think that Elisabeth’s is a uniquely European plight, and has nothing to do with them. But make no mistake about it: the same repression is on its way to the United States of America. As the recent cases of Molly Norris, Juan Williams, and Derek Fenton demonstrate, free speech may already be taken away by non-juridical means. Dissent is even now being silenced in schools and on college campuses, and politically incorrect expression is cause for dismissal from both public and private employment.

The same types of “hate speech” laws that were used against Elisabeth in Austria are being prepared for the United States through the work of the United Nations. At the initiative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the UN is on the verge of requiring all member states to pass laws criminalizing “the defamation of religions, including Islam.”

Your president, Barack Hussein Obama, has indicated his support for the UN’s proposed resolution. Time is running out for all of us. If we don’t stand up now for people like Geert Wilders, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, there will be no one to stand up for us later, when our turn comes.

Links to detailed information about Elisabeth’s case may be found at the bottom of this post, along with a link to her legal defense website where you may donate to her cause.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Elisabeth’s Voice calls on the American blogosphere to support Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in her fight for the right to speak freely.

Of the hundreds of American blogs who have not yet spoken out on behalf of Elisabeth, we appeal to a dozen of the most prominent and influential American voices:

First and foremost is Jihad Watch, which is the single most authoritative source on the web for accurate and scholarly information about the dangers posed by Islam. Its founder, Robert Spencer, has helped Elisabeth in the past through his Freedom Defense Initiative last February. We appeal to Mr. Spencer to step forward and renew his support for Elisabeth.

Atlas Shrugs has been in the forefront of publicizing and raising citizens’ awareness of the ongoing Islamization of America. Pamela Geller’s work in opposing the Ground Zero mosque is unsurpassed. With Robert Spencer, she was also a partner in the Freedom Defense Initiative last winter. We appeal to Ms. Geller to renew her efforts on behalf of Elisabeth.

National Review’s The Corner is one of the most popular political blogs in the American blogosphere. Its contributors include Jonah Goldberg, John Derbyshire, Andrew McCarthy, Jay Nordlinger, and other prominent conservative writers. We appeal to The Corner to come to the aid of Elisabeth and her right to speak freely.

Gateway Pundit is the best single non-MSM source of news and commentary in the United States. Jim Hoft is tireless and committed in his service to conservative principles and traditional values. We appeal to Mr. Hoft to add his voice to ours in support of Elisabeth.

Hot Air specializes in video reporting and political commentary, and follows the most controversial American issues with close attention. We appeal to Hot Air to extend its coverage to include the videos, images, and articles about Elisabeth’s case.

Ace of Spades HQ offers unfettered and no-holds-barred commentary on major American political issues. Ace concentrates on election politics, but also focuses on civil-liberties issues. We appeal to Ace to decry the suppression of Elisabeth’s civil liberties.

Hugh Hewitt is better known as a radio host than a blogger, but his blog was prominent during the 2004 election season. His book Blog inspired the formation of many small political American blogs. We appeal to Mr. Hewitt to inspire us again by taking up Elisabeth’s cause in the name of liberty.

Daily Pundit is one of the longest-established American blogs. Its founder, Bill Quick, has the distinction of being the man who coined the term “blogosphere”. We appeal to Mr. Quick to help bring Elisabeth’s case to prominence in the blogosphere which he so aptly named.

Instapundit is the the oldest and most famous politically-incorrect blog in America. Glenn Reynolds has enriched the new media with his wide-ranging coverage of social, technological, and political issues. We appeal to Mr. Reynolds to enrich us with his support for Elisabeth’s freedom.

Michelle Malkin concentrates on political and social issues, with a particular focus on the damage done to the United States by President Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic Party. We appeal to Ms. Malkin to publicize the damage being done to all our freedoms by the case against Elisabeth.

Power Line, like Instapundit and Michelle Malkin, was one of the major blogs that helped expose the forged “Killian memo” during the 2004 election campaign. Two of its contributors are lawyers, and the blog often focuses on legal issues. We appeal to Power Line to focus its valuable energies on the legal travesty that is the case against Elisabeth.

TigerHawk is a New Jersey blogger who covers political issues and national security. He stands in occasionally for Wretchard at the Belmont Club, and is an expert on the intricacies of behind-the-scenes machinations in American political affairs. We appeal to TigerHawk to expose the machinations of the corrupt political elites who are bringing Elisabeth to trial.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
The European Union, which includes Austria, is a corrupt and undemocratic superstate with totalitarian aspirations. The oligarchy running it has determined that the millions of Muslim immigrants now living in Europe — and the millions more the EU plans to bring in — are necessary to secure the power base for the unaccountable bureaucrats who now oversee what passes for European governance.

Hence their need to silence people like Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff who speak out against mass immigration and the dangers of Islamization. To help maintain the population in a state of sheep-like passivity, Elisabeth must be silenced.

But Elisabeth will not be silenced.

The Austrian court may take away Elisabeth’s voice, but while we yet have our own, we will speak for her.

We are Elisabeth’s Voice.

We are:

Tundra Tabloids
Europe News
Politically Incorrect
The International Civil Liberties Alliance
Vlad Tepes
Gates of Vienna

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Those who wish to contribute to Elisabeth’s defense fund — which is not under her control, and may only be used to pay her lawyers — should visit the Save Free Speech legal defense website.

Previous posts about the hate speech case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:

Donate now:

(Gates of Vienna, Elisabeth’s Voice 21 October 2010 By Baron Bodissey)

Below is a press release (pdf, German) issued yesterday on behalf of Elisabeth by BPE Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa (Citizens’ Movement Pax Europa). Many thanks to JLH for the translation.

BPE Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa -Press Release on the Litigation Against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
Gemmingen, October 20, 2010

On September 15, 2010, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff learned through the media that she — like Netherlander Geert Wilders and Canadian Ezra Levant — had been charged with “hate speech” and “denigration of religious teachings”.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s “offense” is to defend freedom of speech and much more against a tsunami of barbarism and against the politically correct silence and hushing-up. The subject of the complaint is the mere fact that she even gives Islam-critical seminars. For example, the indictment charges her with “hate speech” for the following statement: “Sharia is a definite no-no. We want no gender apartheid, no ghettoes, no social and cultural discrimination, no polygamy, no theocracy, no hate…”

At the international level, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff represents Citizens’ Movement Pax Europa as well as being a delegation leader at conferences of the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) in Vienna and Warsaw. She also offers Islam-specific seminars for various hosting organizations.

Today it became known that Elisabeth is to be tried on November 23, 2010, beginning at 9:00 a.m. by the Viennese Regional Court, Wickenburggasse 122 (Room 311 — Third Floor).

The simple fact that only a few hours are foreseen for the entire trial argues that this is a legal farce and a conviction is lying fully prepared in a drawer. Elisabeth will under no circumstances accept a guilty verdict. Rather, if necessary, she will take it to the European Court.

Elisabeth needs your help. Please help within your means. She is not only defending herself, but also standing up for freedom of speech for all of us in Europe. Further information on the website.

BPE — Branch Office
i.A. Conny Axel Meier, General Secretary

It is nearly incomprehensible how much the German mediascape ignores the sensational results in Vienna. Of course, PI won’t go along with this kind of action:

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wollf is the representative for the Citizens’ Movement Pax Europa with the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Collaboration in Europe, and is often on the road doing presentations as an Islam critic. In one of these events there was a left-oriented Journalist present who recorded the presentation and registered a complaint about her. The state attorney’s office fetched the bone like a good attorney’s office should and pressed charges.

In Austrian judicial circles, it is probably still not recognized that the Quran is the one acting seditiously – and not the one quoting from it. In the framework of the BPE protest “For democracy and human rights – against ideologies antagonistic to freedom” last Sunday, the Munich PI group held an interview with Elisabeth Sabbaditsch-Wolff.

Interview Part 1:

Interview Part 2:

Sabaditsch-Wolff will have to defend herself with an attorney in court against the lobby of Islam trivializers. The memory of politician Susanne Winter is still fresh, where she was sentenced to a punitive fine of 24,000 Euros and a conditional confinement of three months in January 2009 for sedition and belittlement of religious teachings in Austria.

Therefore, Sabaditsch-Wolff is depending on the solidarity of every Islam critic in Europe. Whoever has a couple of extra Euros for the defense of freedom can donate to the following trust account:

Transfers from Austria:
Raiffeisen Zentralbank
Account Number: 42908021602
Routing Number: 31500

International Payments:
Raiffeisen Zentralbank in Österreich
IBAN: AT513150042908021602
BIC: RZBAATWW

Account Holder: Öffentlicher Notar Mag. Martin Scheichenbauer, Hemmaweg 5, A-9342 Gurk

For/Re: Sabaditsch-Wolff

(Text & Interview: Michael Stürzenberger / Text Translation: Anders Denken / Camera & Video Editing: Obambi / English Video Translating Liz & Henrik / English Video Editing: Vlad Tepes / Photos: Roland Heinrich – Munich PI Group)

After the length of the trial due to her statements in November 2009 should have given the Vienna district attorney enough opportunity to undertake a fair and legal procedure, which should have ended up directly in an immediate dismissal anyway, the the prosecutorial authority in Vienna would rather create a media spectacle. And thus, the Islam critic was to find out from the newspaper that an action is to be brought against her.

As already was the case in the US blog “Gates of Vienna“, Sabaditsch-Wolff also confirmed to PI that neither she herself nor her attorney were informed of the action. Moreover, the latter according to the media contacted the Justice Department and requested a bill of writing to be sent regarding the action. The progress of the further process, therefore, cannot truly be evaluated by the accused who has been pilloried by the media, nor by her attorney.

That kindled a flame under the roof. The publicist Robert Misik asked argumentatively:

“With the old railroads that functioned so well back when?”

Ulfkotte countered:

“You’re implying now that I’m a Nazi. I would like that those, regardless of whether they’re in Austria, the Netherlands or somewhere else, who don’t integrate in Europe, who show themselves resistant, who attract attention, who bring us problems, the ones who also don’t have citizenship, those are the ones I would like to return to their countries of origin. And indeed exactly like these originating countries do it. When a German says something like this, he is a Nazi. The other receives a pat on the shoulders. I’m saying, I don’t want certain demographic groups here. Period. When I can’t afford them financially.”

On hearing this, Tarafa Baghajati, of the “Initiative of Muslim Austrians” lost it:

“That is fascist! When a politician says that, I have worries of a new fascism. Therefore, we must say, “resist the urges.”

Ulfkotte:

“Erdogan, therefore, is a fascist, then?”

Udo Ulfkotte has already written of the incident in an article. Things became to exciting for ORF host Michael Köhlmeier, and he ended the turbulent round. Here is the whole show:

Highlights of the 90-minute talk show:

7:29 Statement by Thilo Sarrazin regarding the problems with Muslim immigrants

8:48 Udo Ulfkotte: “In Austria things are changing like everywhere else in Europe. Do we want this development?”

10:44 Tarafa Baghajati: “Sarrazin’s book is a plagiarism of Broder’s ‘Hurra, we’re capitulating.’ It is a fallacy that Muslims are a foreign part of society. They are a part of Europe and citizens on an equal footing.”

14:21 Seyran Ates, attorney and women’s advocate: “These announcements at the Frankfurt airport on Ramadan are a wrong signal. At the same time, Christians need to hold back on their celebrating at Christmas in order not to insult the sensibilities of the Muslims.”

16:56 Hannelore Schuster, Citizens Initiative Dammstrasse: “In the 20th district of Vienna, only Turkish can be heard. Many locals are moving away, they don’t intend to wait until they have to speak Turkish”

20:43 Robert Misik, publicist: “Sarrazin said, Muslims had a stupid gene (…) The deficits of immigrants occur only on the basis of lacking educational and integration policy”

28:10 Hannelore Schuster: “We are being mobbed in the street”

31:50 Tarafa Baghajati: “Quit always painting political Islam on the wall”

32:46 Udo Ulfkotte: “Everywhere we have Muslim immigrants in Europe there are problems. For example Marxloh — the miracle has failed. Police don’t have the heart to go there anymore. In Berlin, police and security forces have to be present at the public pools.”

37:17 Seyran Ates: “It’s doggone difficult to argue critical of Islam among Muslims. They tel me, you are a bad Muslima. You deserve to be killed.”

49:09 Udo Ulfkotte: “Mrs Ates, who many Islamic associations stood on your side when you were threatened?”

49:23 Seyran Ates: “None. Because they have a different mood within their associations.”

51:32 Udo Ulfkotte: “I find it furthermore straight up that almost all Islamic associations have been infiltrated by radical groups. I am solidly convinced that many of these groups can be traced back to the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Baghajati, according to my understanding, has most intimate ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.”

At that, Tarafa Baghajati smiled, “Which community? Which society?

Udo Ulfkotte: “And he supports Hamas.”

54:51 Robert Misik: “It’s piled on high, and at the end it reads: Us against the Muslims.”

59:52 Tarafa Baghajati: “It is dangerous what Ulfkotte is saying. The formation of an Us-sentiment to overcome economic crises. On the back of minorities. Now, it’s the Muslims. Before, it was the Jews. (…) In your book, you’re spreading untruths. That deceit, theft, extortion of protection money, etc. are seen as a legitimate extension of Jizya. That is total nonsense.”

61:50 Udo Ulfkotte: “If these things aren’t true, then I would have hundreds of complaints of sedition tied around my throat. Everything is supported by original sources.”

62:32 Hannelore Schuster: “How things are all belied by the media. The ATIB (author’s note: the Austrian version of DITIB) has offered nothing of dialog, done nothing. If I would go to them and speak, I would have a head member before me who understands no German, even though he has been in Austria for 40 years.”

67:15 Seyran Ates: “What happens in Islamic associations is often not transparent. (…) There is a deep nationalism. Paired with religious fundamentalism. I am a Turk. And I am Muslim.”

71:22 Udo Ulfkotte: “Now, let’s talk about repatriation! I would like to talk about how the problems can be solved.”

Thomas Schmidinger, politologist: “Are you speaking of deportations?”

Udo Ulfkotte: “No, I’m not talking about deportations.”

76:20 Hannelore Schuster: “The Austrian government does not know what’s going on in the 68 ATIB mosques, what’s being preached there. The imams preach in Turkish.”

79:48 Robert Misik: “We have to turn down the heat on this religious cultural battle, Us against the Muslims.”

83:00 Udo Ulfkotte with the elaboration about repatriation commissioners described at the beginning of the article.

» MDR Radio: Argument between Gerhart Baum and Udo Ulfkotte about Sarrazin
» LVZ: Islam Critic Ulfkotte: Sarrazin Is Right

(Text: Michael Stürzenberger / Video processing: TheAnti2005 / Translation: Anders Denken)

There, the “Freedomization of Justice” is advancing more briskly in the name of societal Islamization and multi-culti state doctrine than in other countries. The case of Susanne Winter 2009 was just the beginning of a catastrophic development that leads directly to a totalitarian state.

Well, it is certainly not the case that the participating actors are willingly submitting themselves to the multi-culti doctrine, or that the majority of them even support it. No politician wants to sacrifice his partisan career, no journalist is willing to risk his job, and no junior jurist wants to botch the promotion by standing against the prevailing ideology of state. It may be necessary, however, to go against one’s own conviction. Compliant followers exist and have existed, always and in every dictatorship.

That nominally independent courts all over Europe have been instrumentalized on the part of the State for the limitation and eventual abolition of free speech with pretexts like “lèse-majesté,” “state security,” “defamation of religions,” or even “insult of Turks,” cannot have become clear only since the puppet trials against Hrant Dink, Susanne Winter, Geert Wilders or Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (PI reported here, here and here.

The Austrian News Agency APA reports:

Islam-hostile passages in a seminar by the FP (Freedom Party) Party Academy held last year could now suffer the beginning consequences. On Tuesday, the advisory council for the state-run promotion of the academy in the chancellor’s office recommended the return of the promotional material used for that purpose. The government, in any case, must formally make the decision in the Council of Ministers. The Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) will defend the cause in court.

It should be noted: Up to this point there is only one complaint of “sedition” against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, only on-going investigations, no accusation, no trial, no sentence. The Islamophile Standard describes the legal situation in the following way:

In April, the Office of the Chancellor, by means of an amendment, put the bars on seditious activities by party academies. It was then decided that, in judgments of sedition, the return of promotional materials would be demanded in part or in full amount –

No sentencing took place (not to mention even an accusation), however, the decision had already been made, independent of the trial’s outcome, of employing the extra-created Lex Sabaditsch. That can mean only two things: either the APA report is incorrect, or politics are providing the guidelines to the justice department just like in North Korea.

In any case, a trial and a judgment should follow. If one would have to wait until a possible criminal trial, then this would speak for independence. The anticipation of a judgment still to be rendered in order to support a retraction, therefore, means that the sentence has already been handed down, and indeed in the Austrian Ministry of Justice. And if that is already happening, then right away it will be preemptively demanded from the FPÖ that they return promotional materials for other projects, such as those for a comic critical of Europe. Criticism against the EuSSR is, particularly for the educational elite, just as bad as criticism of Islam.

Further on in the report:

The controversial seminar took place on October 15 and November 12, 2009. The lecturer equated Islam with fanaticism, extremism and “Islamo-fascism,” and described the Quran as “evil.” There is no “Islamism,” only pure Islam that has been practiced for centuries, as the lecturer said, “But we must be very clear; Islam in itself remains yet hostile; the doctrines of Islam, the substance of the Quran is hostile.”

That there is no “Islamism” but only “Islam,” Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, among others, has also declared many times publicly without once being accused for it. And that the Islam preached and practiced worldwide in its essence is not hostile to the “infidels,” such a thing wouldn’t ever be asserted by a popular Islamic TV preacher like Qaradawi.

But we’re dealing with much more here. It has to do with the foundational pillars of the multi-cultural tyranny of opinion. If these would be undermined by the expression of truth, then the oncoming dictatorship wouldn’t be allowed to make a blunder. The multi-culti doctrine of State has to be defended with all means possible, even at the expense of rule of law. Or to say it with the words of human rights activist and representative of the Citizen Initiative Pax Europa (BPE), Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf:

The question is no more whether the need for political action in the interest of the nation has been encountered. Instead, there has been a shift in what can now be said. Acceptable expressions have been limited to that which is almost already accepted religiously…studies, proofs, facts and clear thought are now seen as irrelevant. Only the multi-cultural ideology counts.

Quo vadis Austria? It’s about to become interesting. This lets us capture a glimpse of Europe’s future. And afterward then, let nobody say, “Yes, and if only we had suspected that!”

(Photo above: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff 2010 in Washington DC / Translation: Anders Denken)

Die Krone reports:

It could be described as a form of “civil war,” what played out Saturday at the stadium swimming pool — being heated up by 35 degrees (95 degrees F) in the shade, sun and alcohol, two smaller groups fell (presumably for no significant reason) upon each other for the time being. “The situation then returned to normal,” eyewitness Inge K. (name changed by the editorial staff) indicated to the “Krone.” A rather deceptive silence, then from one second to the next the situation escalated.

The groups of foreigners became larger, the weapons more dangerous. The rioters began to attack each other with knives and crutches, in addition there was shouting and tirades of cursing until the first ones injured lie bleeding in the grass. The security personnel could only sadly watch this massive brawl, and they alarmed the police. Eyewitnesses fled to freedom. The operations manager, Christian Eisterer, said to the “Krone,” “We will improve the security and employ more personnel for the guests.

The “guests” will be presumably happier with more personnel. So that’s where the issue lies…

(Photo: Pictures from the Vienna Stadium Pool / Translation: Anders Denken)

(Contributor: Werner / Translation: Anders Denken)

On Wednesday in Graz, a sentence amounting to three months was passed and a fine of first level was upheld. Two of the “punishable facts,” however, were waived. The presiding judge, Erwin Schwentner, based his decision on the idea that the other offenses were “just as bad,” but this one was enough for the punishment.

The other evil expressions were “immigration tsunami” and “enemy religion.” Also it is unclear here, whether a religion that calls for the murder of other faiths in its holy book should be classified in new speak as “religion of friends.” George Orwell (1984 sends his regards, and to formulate it like Geert Wilders:

“They just plainly aren’t right together anymore.”

(Contributor: Geheimrat / Translation: Anders Denken)