The “Westfälische Nachrichten” :

Rheine (dpa/lnw) – The trial of a young man from the Münsterland, who allegedly boxed his girlfriend’s baby to death in the womb, will likely come before the court again. The defense has filed an appeal against the sentence, a judicial speaker said upon inquiry by the dpa news agency.

In the previous week, the Rheine regional court sentenced the German-Afghan to two years and nine months juvenile detention. According to the judgment, the 21-year-old intentionally dealt his girlfriend heavy fist blows to the belly during a quarrel last March.

At that time, the 19-year-old girl was in her seventh month. The baby died two days after an emergency Caesarean section. Ther had been arguing before the attack because the woman had allowed herself to be examined by a male gynecologist for the first time. If the appeal stands, the case will come bfore the Münster regional court. The accusation states illegal abortion.

Strictly speaking, the accusation reads accusation of pregnancy termination of an especially serious nature according to § 218 StGB. But to write something lik this wouldn’t have been politically correct. In the feminist view, any pregnant woman has the right to “terminate” the life of her unborn child

PI articles about the subject:

» Baby Boxer Gets 2 Years and 9 Months
» Unborn Child Punched to Death: Trial Starts Tomorrow
» Muslim verprügelt schwangere Ehefrau in Rheine

Posted by PI / Translation: Anders Denken

The “Rheinische Post” writes:

Fatal Quarrel Over Gynecologist Visit: Because he allegedly killed the baby of his girlfriend by boxing, a 21-year-old from the Münster region must now go to prison for two years and nine months.

The Rheine district court sentenced the young man on Wednesday for illegal abortion. According to the court, he intentionally dealt his female partner a heavy pounding in the belly during a quarrel last March. The 19-year-old was in her seventh month of pregnancy. The baby died two days after an emergency Caesarean section.

The cause of the quarrel was a gynecologist visit. The pregnant woman had had a gynecological examination on the day of the crime – for the first time by a man. “That didn’t please you,” the judge told the accused during sentencing. The German with Afghan roots had made serious accusations against his girlfriend. It later led to the attack. The judge said of the act: “There is no reason for such a thing, and there is no justification. The child was viable. According to everything we heard, he came into the world healthy.”

The 19-year-old girlfriend comes from a German Catholic family. She had always been treated by a woman. She had found out only in the treatment room that this time a man would be operating the ultrasound machine – and allowed it. She was in the seventh month. When her partner came into the practice and saw that, he was silent right away, then later enraged. “He was upset that a doctor examined me. It wasn’t the first time that he was jealous.

He visited her late in the evening. There was arguing. “I said: I don’t want to be with you any longer. That’s when he freaked out.” He beat her with his fist in her belly. “He said: ‘You will not bring my child into the world alive,’” the delicate woman described and then cried.

A court physician who examined the child stated: “We usually see such injuries in court medicine after traffic accidents where pregnant women were involved.”

When one considers that unborn handicapped children can be killed with a shot of poison up until right before the birth in the Federal Republic of Germany, this was an exemplary sentence for the protection of life. PI reader Mike P. from Rheine observed the trial for us:

Unfortunately, I read only this morning around 9 that the trial of the accused Sherzai for interruption of pregnancy would take place. I was then on site around 10:50 in order to observe this procedure.

A camera team from WDR as well as a local reporter were on site for reporting. The newspaper reporter especially gave everyone without exception the impression of a 60s liberal, from his clothing to his actions, the do-gooder reporting was already set for the next few days.

In the process of various pauses, I was able to speak with a few of the victim’s loved ones as well as the victim herself. The victim told me that she was hassled many times for an interview especially by the WDR reporters, but she constantly told them that she didn’t wish to make a statement.

Outside the familiar surroundings of the victim, however, I wasn’t so clever during the whole course of the trial. For her loved ones were Germans, German-Turks or Turks. A young German-Turk girl told me that she, too, had been together with the victim and that back then he would break out in uncontrolled fits of violence because of his jealousy. Besides that, it was read out in the trial that the accused came from a very devout home; his family was able to flee from Afghanistan in the turmoil of war, and that the father had also been violent.

Furthermore, it was reported that the accused was no stranger. Thus, between 2007 and 2009 he attracted attention many times for driving without a valid driver’s license, and, in spite of much prompting, did not carry out his community service.

The district attorney saw a certain lack of maturity in him and asked for 2 years and 6 months juvenile detention for the accused.

And even though the newborn lived two days after the emergency delivery, the trial proceeded only on the basis of interrupted pregnancy and not due to negligent or intentional homicide.

The defense argued that it couldn’t be proven 100% that the massive, blunt impact on the belly of the pregnant woman was really responsible for the death of the child and called for acquittal.

However, that had already been presented before in a believable fashion by the medical consultant. According to him, only a serious traffic accident or even the massive hits to the belly of the pregnant woman could ultimately produce fatal injuries for the baby.

After short deliberation, the judge read the sentence around 3:20 p.m.: 2 years and nine months.

After the trial, I asked the defense attorney whether he would challenge the sentence. He told me that he would first have to examine the files and the sentence and to be able to plan further steps.

Therefore, whether and how this story continues remains to be seen…

By the way, Ahmad Sherzai is meanwhile under investigation for extortion. The presumed victim: his own mother.

PI articles on the subject:

» Unborn Child Punched to Death: Trial Starts Tomorrow (English)
» Muslim Beats Pregnant Wife in Rheine (German)

Posted by PI / Translation: Anders Denken

GMX.de reports:

The trial against a 21-year-old from Rheine will begin Wednesday. The man allegedly threw several boxing punches at the belly of his highly pregnant girlfriend that resulted in her unborn child dying.

The cause for the brutal outbreak was allegedly a gynecological examination of the pregnant woman by a mail doctor, which the practicing Muslim could not reconcile with his faith.

The unborn baby suffered cranial hemorrhages in the womb from the heavy punches. The child was brought into the world via Caesarean section; however, two days later it succumbed in the hospital to the serious injuries.

The incident in Rheine is not at all unique. For example, in 2007 in Dutch The Hague, a woman and her unborn child fell in danger of their lives because her Muslim husband refused to allow a male assistant to help in the delivery. In order to prevent further escalation, the head doctor at the time had the woman brought to another hospital, in spite of incipient labor pains. It was a risky transport for mother and unborn child – both remained temporarily under threat of life.

Another stock incident the same year was cause for headlines in Belgium. Here as well, a Muslim husband insisted during a delivery that a male anaesthetist called for the procedure be replaced with a woman. An intervention that was necessary for the life of the unborn baby due to a heart defect had to be interrupted for a full two hours. Ultimately it was agreed that the patient be completely covered in cloths – only the area where the anaesthetist applied the anaesthesia remained uncovered.

Above all, the incident in The Hague, that was discussed in the medical journal “Medisch Contact,” caused strong debate about the treatment of Muslim women by male doctors. In it, the “Royal Dutch Medical Association” (KNMG) took the strict position against the religiously motivated demand of an exclusively male treatment. In the statement of their position, it said: “It cannot be allowed for patients to prescribe whether we assign a man or a woman to the service. It also cannot be allowed that patients demand that they do not wish to be treated by a male, female, black, homosexual or Chinese doctor. (…)

The outcome of the trial ought also to be of special interest for right-to-life individuals.

Addendum: In a previous version, we had written that the issue regarding the injured individual had to do with a Muslima. However, this wasn’t correct. We apologize for the error.

Posted by kewil on PI / Translation: Anders Denken

*Translator’s Note: A Swabia is a region in the German state of Bavaria with a rich historical background. A Swabian is a person from that region, and a Swabophobe is one who holds a hatred for Swabians. In this context, Swabian is being used as a natural born German.

**Translation of poster: Swabians in Prenslauer Berg / Narrow-minded, crazy about surveillance in the neighborhood and no mind for Berlin culture / What do you really want here???

Der SPIEGEL reports:

It has become known that the 51-year-old previously convicted of being a sex offender abused a seven-year-old girl at the end of January. According to statements from the police, the man spoke to the child on January 26th on her way home from school. Then he lured the girl into an underground parking garage and committed the act on her there. The crime occurred in downtown Dortmund.

The 51-year-old, according to a report from “Der Westen”, was sentenced in 1992 for multiple abuses on boys. After a judgment handed down by the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR), he had to be released from preventive detention. In September 2010, he moved to Dortmund.

The ECHR had objected to the prescribed or extended security detention in Germany as withdrawal of freedom contrary to human rights. The Supreme Court therefore decided at the beginning of May in the context of the ECHR that the regulations were unconstitutional and violate the fundamental right to freedom.

Since the girl could not give a dependable description of the man, the investigations didn’t lead to the arrest of the perpetrator. It was only after the evaluation of a saliva sample by the regional criminal investigation bureau that a DNA match could be determined.

The man, who had lived in the Düsseldorf region before moving to Dortmund, admitted to the crime while accompanied by his attorney. He is to be brought before the magistrate on Friday.

According to reports in “Der Westen,” the man was considered a model example of resocialization by police and therapists, which is why the observation ceased at the end of 2010.

Critical bloggers warned of the possible consequences of the buckling by German Supreme Court judges. Are the ladies and gentlemen in the red robes still judges, or is it necessary now to speak of accomplices in bowing to a foreign justice decision to the detriment of one’s own people, even though just a few months after a sex offender was sentenced to fines for the now exposed crime in another case in Germany (we reported)?

(By Team Quotenqueen for PI / Translation: Anders Denken)

(By Michael Böthel / Translation: Anders Denken)

The SHZ (Schleswig-Holsteiner Zeitung) reports:

It’s a solid case for the Kiel district attorney: an accused father has murdered his daughter in order to cover up the fact that the child is his. In the trial against the 69-year-old on Monday before the state court, the district attorney called for a life sentence. It was demonstrated that the man of Turkish origin killed his 29-year-old daughter the beginning of February 1996 in Trappenkamp (Segeberg district) and buried the body in a garage.

With the murder, he intended to cover up the fact that the victim was pregnant by him, District Attorney Achim Hackethal stated Monday before the state court.

Hackethal also proposed the assessment of an exceptional severity of guilt because the accused took not just one life but two. In addition he made his younger daughter an unwilling accomplice for almost 15 years. He forced her to remain silent and threatened her with death if she would reveal the secret.

Under pressure from the mother, the younger sister broke silence

Only the sister of the murder victim can be thanked that the horrible deed was ever brought to light, the prosecutor said. For the 29-year-old wasn’t missed because she was living illegally with her family after the expiration of her tourist visa. Thus, her death would not have caught the attention of the authorities. Her father explained her disappearance to her mother by saying she was picked up by the police and was deported to Turkey.

He carefully sent the mother on a convalescence vacation during the time of the crime, Hackethal stated. After that she asked about her child year after year and would not let up. Under pressure from the mother, the younger sister broke silence and filed a complaint. The accused was placed two days before Christmas 2010 under arrest. Two teeth and a few bone remnants were found in his garage. The accused apparently overlooked them when he exhumed the daughter and got rid of her elsewhere

The sentence is expected on Wednesday

Hackethal has called the statements by the sister completely verifiable. In contrast, the assertions of the father that he knew nothing of the pregnancy and hadn’t planned the crime were refuted by the hearing of evidence. The accused intended to cover-up the crime of “sleeping with relatives.”

The victim was a very shy woman leading a withdrawn life with psychological issues, Hackethal said. Due to illegal residence, she remained constantly out of sight. During the trial, the other daughter, the son and the wife had described the accused as the violent family tyrant who grossly abused the oldest daughter and the son. His brutalities against the victim had already early on reached such a degree that the mother, out of concern for her life, took her to relatives in Turkey back in the 1980s.

The defense called for acquittal on the grounds of “reasonable doubt for the accused.” Up to murder and homicide, all crimes have a statute of limitations. If what the accused asserts is true, then he must be acquitted. The verdict is expected Wednesday.

A(n immigrant) person, who continues in such activity should not be kept in a German detention hotel. Halfway proper followup for this would be an operative intervention to free him from his perversion along with subsequent deportation. The verdict is expected on Wednesday. PI will report on this.

Mister President, you could not be more wrong. For almost seven years now, I have not been a free man. I lost my freedom in 2004. I live as a prisoner with guards without you having convicted me. Without protection I am even less certain of my life than I am now. Mister President, you would not use the words “free man” if you could change places with me for one week.

Mister President, members of the court, I am here as a suspect again today. I have said so before: This penal case is a political trial. An attempt is being made here to silence a politician who speaks on behalf of one and a half million people and who already pays a heavy price for that every single day. Formally, only I stand on trial here, but in practice the freedom of speech of millions of Dutchmen is on trial.

This trial is not merely a political trial. It is also an unjust trial. When you look at the order of the court (to prosecute me) it is clear that the verdict has already been passed. The court has issued an order to prosecute me in which it concludes that I am guilty of incitement to hatred. The court has concluded that my statements as such are of an insulting nature. The court has concluded that I am guilty of the most serious charge: the incitement to hatred and discrimination. The court has concluded that it expects that the criminal prosecution will indeed lead to a conviction. Mister President, members of the court, the court has already done your job. Long before I was brought to trial before you, I was found guilty and was condemned. Hence my right to a just trial has been violated.

Alas, this is but the tip of the iceberg. Without any doubt, the judges who presided this case have conveyed a semblance of partiality. I have been denied 15 of the 18 witnesses whom I wanted to call. Every high representative of the judicial power has given his view on this case, and often to my disadvantage. But Counselor Schalken was the worst.

Counselor Schalken, who co-authored the decision to prosecute me, makes a habit of discussing my trial and arguing his case at elegant dinner parties for intellectuals. Counselor Schalken dined with my witness, Mr Jansen – note that he was one of the only three witnesses whom I was allowed to call – three days before Mr. Jansen was to be interrogated by the court. During this dinner Mr. Schalken TRIED to influence Mr Jansen. The fact that he did not succeed is irrelevant.

Mr. President, members of the court, stop this unfair, political trial. Respect our Dutch freedoms. If this trial continues, despite the fact that the principle of the presumption of innocence has been violated, and if I am convicted, not only my freedom will be infringed, but also the right of all Dutch people to hear the truth. The 19th century black American politician Frederick Douglass, the son of a slave, put it as follows: “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”

Mr. President, members of the court, I end with a quote of George Washington, who said: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” Mr. President, members of the court, do not let this warning become reality. Stop this charade, this political trial where I have already been convicted by the court even before I was a suspect. Stop it now. If you do so, and I passionately hope you will, this will benefit freedom of speech as well as the respectability of the judicial power and the rule of law.

(Geert Wilders, Final remarks at his trial, Amsterdam, May 2nd, 2011)

Together with Jerusalem and Athens, Rome is the cradle of our Western civilization – the most advanced and superior civilization the world has ever known.

As Westerners, we share the same Judeo-Christian culture. I am from the Netherlands and you are from Italy. Our national cultures are branches of the same tree. We do not belong to multiple cultures, but to different branches of one single culture. This is why when we come to Rome, we all come home in a sense. We belong here, as we also belong in Athens and in Jerusalem.

It is important that we know where our roots are. If we lose them we become deracinated. We become men and women without a culture.

I am here today to talk about multiculturalism. This term has a number of different meanings. I use the term to refer to a specific political ideology. It advocates that all cultures are equal. If they are equal it follows that the state is not allowed to promote any specific cultural values as central and dominant. In other words: multiculturalism holds that the state should not promote a leitkultur, which immigrants have to accept if they want to live in our midst.

It is this ideology of cultural relativism which the German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently referred to when she said that multiculturalism has proved “an absolute failure.”

My friends, I dare say that we have known this all along. Indeed, the premise of the multiculturalist ideology is wrong. Cultures are not equal. They are different, because their roots are different. That is why the multiculturalists try to destroy our roots.

Rome is a very appropriate place to address these issues. There is an old saying which people of our Western culture are all familiar with. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” it says. This is an obvious truth: If you move somewhere, you must adapt to the laws and customs of the land.

The multicultural society has undermined this rule of common sense and decency. The multicultural society tells the newcomers who settle in our cities and villages: You are free to behave contrary to our norms and values. Because your norms and values are just as good, perhaps even better, than ours.

It is, indeed, appropriate to discuss these matters here in Rome, because the history of Rome also serves as a warning.

Will Durant, the famous 20th century American historian, wrote that “A great civilization cannot be destroyed from outside if it has not already destroyed itself from within.” This is exactly what happened here, in Rome, 16 centuries ago.

In the 5th century, the Roman Empire fell to the Germanic Barbarians. There is no doubt that the Roman civilization was far superior to that of the Barbarians. And yet, Rome fell. Rome fell because it had suffered a loss of belief in its own civilization. It had lost the will to stand up and fight for survival.

Rome did not fall overnight. Rome fell gradually. The Romans scarcely noticed what was happening. They did not perceive the immigration of the Barbarians as a threat until it was too late. For decades, Germanic Barbarians, attracted by the prosperity of the Empire, had been crossing the border.

At first, the attraction of the Empire on newcomers could be seen as a sign of the cultural, political and economic superiority of Rome. People came to find a better life which their own culture could not provide. But then, on December 31st in the year 406, the Rhine froze and tens of thousands of Germanic Barbarians, crossed the river, flooded the Empire and went on a rampage, destroying every city they passed. In 410, Rome was sacked.

The fall of Rome was a traumatic experience. Numerous books have been written about the cataclysmal event and Europeans were warned not to make the same mistake again. In 1899, in his book ‘The River War,’ Winston Churchill warned that Islam is threatening Europe in the same way as the Barbarians once threatened Rome. “Mohammedanism,” Churchill wrote – I quote – “is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. […] The civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” End of quote.

Churchill is right. However, if Europe falls, it will fall because, like ancient Rome, it no longer believes in the superiority of its own civilization. It will fall because it foolishly believes that all cultures are equal and that, consequently, there is no reason why we should fight for our own culture in order to preserve it.

This failure to defend our own culture has turned immigration into the most dangerous threat that can be used against the West. Multiculturalism has made us so tolerant that we tolerate the intolerant.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: Our opponents are keenly aware of our weakness. They realize that the pattern which led to the fall of Rome, is at play today in the West. They are keenly aware of the importance of Rome as a symbol of the West. Over and over again they hint at the fall of Rome. Rome is constantly on their minds.

• The former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said – I quote: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”.

• Yunis al-Astal, a Hamas cleric and member of the Palestinian Parliament said – I quote: “Very soon Rome will be conquered.”

• Ali Al-Faqir, the former Jordanian Minister of Religion, stated that – I quote: “Islam will conquer Rome.”

• Sheikh Muhammad al-Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi Defence Academy, said – I quote: “We will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.”

Our opponents are hoping for an event that is akin to the freezing of the Rhine in 406, when thousands of immigrants will be given an easy opportunity to cross massively into the West.

• In a 1974 speech to the UN, the Algerian President Houari Boumédienne, said – I quote: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” End of quote.

• Libyan dictator Kadhafi said, I quote: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent.” End of quote.

Our opponents are aiming for a repetition of the fall of Rome in the 5th century and want to use exactly the same methods. “The strategy of exporting human beings and having them breed in abundance is the simplest way to take possession of a territory,” warned the famous Italian author Oriana Fallaci.

However, the situation today could be worse than it was when the Roman Empire fell. The Germanic Barbarians who overran Rome were not driven by an ideology. After having sacked Rome, they eventually adopted the Judeo-Christian civilization of Rome. They destroyed Rome because they wanted its riches, but they realized and recognized that Roman civilization was superior to their own Barbaric culture.

Having destroyed Rome, the Germanic tribes eventually tried to rebuild it. In 800, the Frankish leader Charlemagne had himself crowned Roman Emperor. Three hundred years later, the Franks and the other Europeans would go on the Crusades in defence of their Christian culture. The Crusades were as Oriana Fallaci wrote – I quote – a “counter-offensive designed to stem Islamic expansionism in Europe.” Rome had fallen, but like a phoenix it had risen again.

Contrary to the Barbarians which confronted Rome, the followers of Muhammad are driven by an ideology which they want to impose on us.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Islamic Shariah law supervises every detail of life. Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to our values. Respect for people who think otherwise, the equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, respect for Christians, Jews, unbelievers and apostates, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization.

Europe is islamizing at a rapid pace. Many European cities have large islamic concentrations. In some neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. “In each one of our cities” says Oriana Fallaci, “there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” – End of quote.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The multiculturalist Left is facilitating islamization. Leftist multiculturalists are cheering for every new shariah bank, for every new islamic school, for every new mosque. Multiculturalists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

Ladies and gentlemen, what is happening in Europe today has to some extent been deliberately planned.

In October 2009, Andrew Neather, the former advisor of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, confirmed that the British Government had deliberately organized mass immigration as part of a social engineering project. The Blair Government wanted to – I quote – “make the UK truly multicultural.” To achieve this end, 2.3 million foreigners were allowed to enter Britain between 2000 and 2009. Neather says this policy has “enriched” Britain.

Ordinary people, however, do not consider the decline of societal cohesion, the rise of crime, the transformation of their old neighborhoods into no-go zones, to be an “enrichment.”

Ordinary people are well aware that they are witnessing a population replacement phenomenon. Ordinary people feel attached to the civilization which their ancestors created. They do not want it to be replaced by a multicultural society where the values of the immigrants are considered as good as their own. It is not xenophobia or islamophobia to consider our Western culture as superior to other cultures – it is plain common sense.

Fortunately, we are still living in a democracy. The opinion of ordinary people still matters. I am the leader of the Dutch Party of Freedom which aims to halt the Islamization process and defend the traditional values and liberties in the Netherlands. The Party of Freedom is the fastest growing party in the Netherlands.

Because the message of my party is so important, I support initiatives to establish similar parties in other countries, such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, where they do not yet exist. Last month, a poll in Britain showed that a staggering 48 percent of the British would consider supporting a non-fascist and non-violent party that vows to crack down on immigration and Islamic extremists and restrict the building of mosques. In October last year, I was in Berlin where I gave a keynote speech at a meeting of Die Freiheit, a newly established party led by René Stadtkewitz, a former Christian-Democrat. German polls indicate that such a party has a potential of 20 percent of the electorate.

My speech, in which I urged the Germans to stop feeling ashamed about their German identity drew a lot of media attention. Two weeks later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that multiculturalism is “an absolute failure.” Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Bavarian Christian-Democrats, was even more outspoken. “Multiculturalism is dead,” he said.

Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “We have been too concerned about the identity of the immigrant and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.” – End of quote.

Five weeks ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron blamed multiculturalism for Islamic extremism. “We have allowed the weakening of our collective identity,” he said. “Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live […] apart from the mainstream.” – End of quote.

In his speech, David Cameron still makes a distinction between the Islamist ideology, which he calls extremist and dangerous, and Islam, which he says is peaceful religion. I do not share this view, and neither did Cameron’s great predecessor Winston Churchill. Stating that Islam is peaceful is a multiculturalist dogma which is contrary to the truth.

Politicians such as Merkel. Sarkozy and Cameron still do not seem to have understood what the problem really is.

Nevertheless, the fact that they feel compelled to distance themselves from multiculturalism is a clear indication that they realize they need to pay lip-service to what the majority of their populations have long understood. Namely that the massive influx of immigrants from Islamic countries is the most negative development that Europe has known in the past 50 years.

Yesterday, a prestigious poll in the Netherlands revealed that 50 percent of the Dutch are of the opinion that Islam and democracy are not compatible, while 42 percent think they are. Even two thirds of the voters of the Liberal Party and of the Christian-Democrat Party are convinced that Islam and democracy are not compatible.

This, then, is the political legacy of multiculturalism. While the parties of the Left have found themselves a new electorate, the establishment parties of the Right still harbour their belief that Islam is a religion of peace on a par with peaceful religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and others.

The problem with multiculturalism is a refusal to see reality. The reality that our civilization is superior, and the reality that Islam is a dangerous ideology.

Today, we are confronted with political unrest in the Arab countries. Autocratic regimes, such as that of Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt, Kadhafi in Libya, the Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, and others, have been toppled or are under attack. The Arab peoples long for freedom. This is only natural. However, the ideology and culture of Islam is so deeply entrenched in these countries that real freedom is simply impossible. As long as Islam remains dominant there can be no real freedom.

Let us face reality. On March 8, the International Women’s Day, 300 women demonstrated on Cairo’s Tahrir Square in post-Mubarak Egypt. Within minutes, the women were charged by a group of bearded men, who beat them up and dragged them away. Some were even sexually assaulted. The police did not interfere. This is the new Egypt: On Monday, people demonstrate for freedom; on Tuesday, the same people beat up women because they, too, demand freedom.

I fear that in Islamic countries, democracy will not lead to real freedom. A survey by the American Pew Center found that 59 percent of Egyptians prefer democracy to any other form of government. However, 85 percent say that Islam’s influence on politics is good, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates, and 77 percent say that thieves should be flogged or have their hands cut off.

Ronald Reagan was right when he called Kadhafi a “mad dog.” However, we should not harbor the illusion that there can be real freedom and real democracy in a country where Islam is dominant. There is no doubt that the results of the Pew survey in Egypt apply in Libya, too. It is not in our interest to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Tripoli and install a khalifate in Libya.

Of course, the world has to stop Kadhafi from killing his own people. However, as UN Resolution 1973 stated last week, this is primarily the responsibility of – I quote – “in particular [the] States of the region.” End of quote. Why does a country like the Netherlands have to contribute six F16 fighter jets to enforce the arms embargo in Libya, while Saudi Arabia does not contribute a single plane from its fleet of nearly 300 fighter jets? Arabs are dying, but the Arab countries are shirking their responsibilities.

And one of the major threats of the current crisis is not even addressed by our leaders: How are we going to prevent that thousands of economic fugitives and fortune seekers cross the Mediterranean and arrive at place like Lampedusa? Now that Tunisia is liberated, young Tunisians should help to rebuild their country instead of leaving for Lampedusa. Europe cannot afford another influx of thousands of refugees.

Ladies and gentlemen, It is time to wake up. We need to confront reality and we need to speak the truth. The truth is that Islam is evil, and the reality is that Islam is a threat to us.

Before I continue I want to make clear, however, that I do not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The koran commands Muslims to exercise jihad and impose shariah law.

Telling the truth about immigration and warning that Islam might not be as benevolent as the ruling elite says, has been made a hate speech crime in several EU member states. As you probably know, I have been brought to court on charges of hate speech. That is the paradox of the multicultural society. It claims to be pluralistic, but allows only one point of view of world affairs, namely that all cultures are equal and that they are all good.

The fact that we are treated as criminals for telling the truth must not, however, deter us. The truth that Islam is evil has always been obvious to our ancestors. That is why they fought. It was very clear to them that our civilization was far superior to Islam.

It is not difficult to understand why our culture is far better than Islam. We Europeans, whether we be Christians, Jews, agnostics or atheists, believe in reason. We have always known that nothing good could be expected from Islam.

While our culture is rooted in Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, Islam’s roots are the desert and the brain of Muhammad. Our ancestors understood the consequences very well. The Koran, wrote the historian Theophanes, who lived in the second half of the 8th century, is based on hallucinations.

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,” the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II said in 1391, adding: “God is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonable is contrary to God’s nature.”

For 1,400 years, Westerners have been criticizing Islam and its founder because they recognized evil when they saw it. But then, suddenly, in the last decades of the past century, especially from the 1970s onwards, Western intellectuals stopped doing so.

The moral and cultural relativism of Marxism led the West’s political and intellectual elites to adopt a utopian belief in a universal brotherhood of mankind.

Multiculturalism is a culture of repudiation of Europe’s heritage and freedoms. It weakens the West day by day. It leads to the self-censorship of the media and academia, the collapse of the education system, the emasculation of the churches, the subversion of the nation-state, the break-down of our free society.

While today – at last – our leaders seem to realize what a disastrous failure multiculturalism has been, multiculturalism is not dead yet. More is needed to defeat multiculturalism than the simple proclamations that it has been an “absolute failure.” What is needed is that we turn the tide of Islamization.

There are a few things which we can do in this regard.

One thing which we should do is to oppose the introduction of Sharia or Islamic law in our countries. In about a dozen states in the United States, legislation is currently being introduced to prevent the introduction of Sharia. In early May, I will be traveling to the U.S. to express my support to these initiatives. We should consider similar measures in Europe.

Another thing which we should do is support Muslims who want to leave Islam. An International Women’s Day is useless in the Arab world if there is no International Leave Islam Day. I propose the introduction of such a day in which we can honor the courageous men and women who want to leave Islam. Perhaps we can pick a symbolic date for such a day and establish an annual prize for an individual who has turned his back on Islam or an organization which helps people to liberate themselves from Islam. It is very easy to become a Muslim. All one has to do is to pronounce the Shahada, the Islamic creed, which says – I quote “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” It should be equally easy to leave Islam by pronouncing a counter-Shahada, which says “I leave Islam and join humankind.”

A third measure to turn the tide of Islamization is to reemphasize the sovereignty of the nation-state. The peoples of the free world will only be able to fight back against Islam if they can rally around a flag with which they can identify. This flag, symbolizing pre-political loyalty, can only be the flag of our nation. In the West, our freedoms are embodied in our nation-states. This is why the multiculturalists are hostile to the nation-state and aim to destroy it.

National identity is an inclusive identity: It welcomes everyone, whatever his religion or race, who is willing to assimilate into a nation by sharing the fate and future of a people. It ties the individual to an inheritance, a tradition, a loyalty, and a culture.

I want to elaborate a bit on this since we are gathered here today in Rome. Again, it is appropriate that we are in Rome. In this city, in 1957, and – what an ironic coincidence – on this very day, the 25th of March, the Treaty of Rome was signed. This Treaty obliges the member states of the European Union to aim for “an ever closer union.”

Unfortunately, this union, like other multinational organizations, has become one of the vehicles for the promotion of multiculturalism. The EU has fallen in the hands of a multiculturalist elite who by undermining national sovereignty destroy the capacity of the peoples of Europe to democratically decide their own future.

The new government in my country, which is supported by my party, wants to restrict immigration. That is what our voters want. But we are confronted by the fact that our policies have to a large extent been outsourced to “Europe” and that our voters no longer have a direct say over their own future.

On account of international treaties, EU legislation prevails over national legislation and cannot be reversed by national parliaments. Indeed, in 2008, the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the EU, annulled both Irish and Danish immigration legislation. The Court stated that national law is subordinate to whatever is ruled on the European level. In March 2010, the European Court of Justice annulled Dutch legislation restricting family reunification for immigrants on welfare.

The ease with which Europe’s political elite conducts an immigration policy aimed at the deracination of Europe shows the insensitivity of this elite. It willingly sacrifices its own people to its political goal, without any consideration for the people involved.

Lower class blue-collar people have been driven from their neighborhoods. There is no respect for their democratic vote. On the contrary, people who do not agree with the multiculturalist schemes are considered to be racists and xenophobes, while the undefined offence of “racism and xenophobia” has been made central to all moral pronouncements by the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and other supra-national organizations. This represents a systematic assault by the elite on the ordinary feelings of national loyalty.

In 2008, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that the member-states must – I quote – “condemn and combat Islamophobia” and ensure “that school textbooks do not portray Islam as a hostile or threatening religion.” – end of quote.

In March 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution criminalizing so-called “defamation of religions.” The resolution, authored by Pakistan, mentions only one religion by name: Islam. With its 57 member states the Organization of the Islamic Conference systematically uses its voting power in the UN to subvert the concept of freedom and human rights. In 1990, the OIC rejected the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and replaced it by the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which states in articles 24 that – I quote – “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” – end of quote.

This “human rights” charade has to stop if Western civilization wants to survive. Human rights exist for the protection of individuals, not religions and ideologies.

The EU’s aim, meanwhile, seems to be to destroy the old sovereign nations and replace them by new provincial identities, which are all clones of each other. Britanistan will not differ from Netherlandistan, nor Germanistan from Italiastan, or any other province of the European superstate in the making.

We must reclaim Europe. We can only do so by giving political power back to the nation-state. By defending the nation-states which we love, we defend our own identity. By defending our identity, we defend who we are and what we are against those who want to deracinate us. Against those who want to cut us from our roots, so that our culture withers away and dies.

My friends, Twenty years after the ordinary people, Europe’s mainstream conservative leaders, such as Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron, have finally – better late than never – come to the obvious conclusion, namely that multiculturalism is a failure. However, they do not have a plan to remedy the situation.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for change. We must make haste. Time is running out. Ronald Reagan said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. If we are free to speak, we will be able to tell people the truth and they will realize what is at stake.

Second, we will have to end cultural relativism. To the multiculturalists, we must proudly proclaim: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Only when we are convinced of that, we will be willing to fight for our own identity.

Third, we will have to stop Islamization. Because more Islam means less freedom. We must stop immigration from Islamic countries, we must expel criminal immigrants, we must forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe already. Immigrants must assimilate and adapt to our values: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Fourth, we must restore the supremacy and sovereignty of the nation-state. Because we are citizens of these states, we can take pride in them. We love our nation because they are our home, because they are the legacy which our fathers bestowed on us and which we want to bestow on our children. We are not multiculturalists, we are patriots. And because we are patriots, we are willing to fight for freedom.

Let me end with a final – and a positive – remark: Though the situation is bad and multiculturalism is still predominant, we are in better shape than the Roman Empire was before its fall.

The Roman Empire was not a democracy. The Romans did not have freedom of speech. We are the free men of the West. We do not fight for an Empire, we fight for ourselves. We fight for our national republics. You fight for Italy, I fight for the Netherlands, others fight for France, Germany, Britain, Denmark or Spain. Together we stand. Together we represent the nations of Europe.

I am confident that if we can safeguard freedom of speech and democracy, our civilization will be able to survive. Europe will not fall. We, Europe’s patriots, will not allow it.

Thank you very much.

If they are proven wrong, they will issue a PUBLIC APOLOGY. Otherwise, if the Koran is found guilty, it will be ‘executed’ in one of the following ways, chosen by an International POLL: 1) Burning 2) Drowning 3) Shredding or 4) Firing squad.

POLL at STAND UP AMERICA! bei Stand Up America (Burning is leading with 69% of the vote).

Ahmed Abaza (picture l.), the prosecuting attorney on the case and founder of the international Christian TV (The Truth TV) and his crew arranged the event and sponsored the invitation of Sheikh Imam Mohamed El Hassan, Mr. Ahmed Paul, Sheikh Abdulla Al Sabah, and Mrs. Manal Faragalla to be a part of this event.
Abaza is a former Muslim who converted to Christianity in 1987.

Sheikh Imam Mohamed El Hassan (picture l.) was invited as defense attorney. He has the difficult challenge to defend the Koran and to prove it’s innocence”. El Hassan ran for the presidency Sudan in April 2010. He is the President of the Islamic Center in Texas, USA, and the Sheikh of the so called Islamic Sofia Way.

Ahmed Paul, (picture l.) invited as expert witness, was a Presidential guard, which is equivalent to a secret service agent, in Egypt. Paul is a former Muslim who knows what he’s talking about. He accepted Christianity 1997 and has served the Lord since that time.

Scheich Abdulla Al Sabah (picture l.) of the Royal family of Kuwait, is a former Muslim. He was imprisoned for becoming a Christian. Muslims made many attempts to kill him by lethal injection. He accepted Christianity in 1995. Additionally was invited expert witness and translator, Mrs. Manal Faragalla, whose father was killed by Islamic Sharia Law because of his Christian faith.

You can watch the trial directly on the Facebook page of the event and on live stream at Truth TV. The trial is held in Arabic with English translation:

Video and interview with Dr Terry Jones at KTRH-news Houston, Texas (media with COURAGE in a PC world!!):

You can donate for Stand Up America here.

(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.

For example, the rights of abused women are being sacrificed for the sake of “tolerance.” The generation of unreserved appeasers has buried freedom of speech under the “cultural pollution” of multiculturalism.

See Pat Condell’s newest escapade with German subtitles here:

The radical “Islamic Central Council of Switzerland” triumphantly reports:

During the referendum campaign for the anti-minaret initiative, an Israeli hate preacher toured throughout Switzerland and stirred up the atmosphere against Islam, Muslims and their minarets in the worst conceivable way at events by the PRO-ISRAEL Group in collaboration with the EDU. As it read today in the Sunday press, a Bern investigative judge back in the summer gave him a conditional fine of 50 Swiss Francs per day for 20 days as well as a fine of 300 Swiss Francs. The sentence apparently couldn’t be conveyed to Israel by way of the Federal Bureau of Justice. …

In a little less than an hour, he was able to execute a somewhat chaotic whirlwind attack against Islam and those of its persuasion in the problem of a much too naive attitude of many Jewish and Christian citizens of Switzerland. The minaret question wasn’t that of tolerance or a few towers. The question was an essential one. Will the Swiss still carry the cross on the flag in the future, or will they have to take on the “Turkish flag”? In any case, he was proud to be able to carry out God’s war even in Switzerland. …

Various loosely translated quotes fromthe Qur’an and the Hadiths rounded out the image of an annihilation of Jews, Christians and most definitely all people from targeted religions. No, not religions, he corrected himself, Islam is at best a “psychosis” and is thereby on an equal footing with “National Socialism” and “Communism.” …

Having been made aware of the controversial Israeli’s presence, a group of Muslims attended the publicly accessible meeting at the Thalgut Christian Center in Wichtrach bei Bern. Shocked at the degree of hate being disseminated, they registered a complaint in Bern the next day. Also among the complainants were Naim Cherni, the current general secretary of the Islamic Central Council, and Qaasim Illi, their press secretary.

So, two of the extremist Islamic hate preachers in Switzerland stroll over to the Bern police, file a complaint of racism against a guest speaker from Israel and have their claim legally sanctioned. So, this is how far our justice system has come.

Whoever is unable to cease from shaking hands and conversation or a walk together runs the risk of arrest, flogging and the death penalty.

Die Welt reports:

“That is a horrible regulation,” Hussein Ali from the city of Jowhar said. “I feel as if I am under arrest. I have begun to ignore the greetings of female acquaintances in order to avoid punishment.”

The al-Shabaab edict is being carried out in the city of Elasha as well. Female student Hamdi Osman said that armed individuals searched busses for women travelling alone or that weren’t appropriately dressed. They were beaten because they wore a traditional Somali dress instead of the long, black and shapeless robe that is preferred by the militia.

The new Islamic laws apply to women especially: they are no longer permitted to wear normal clothes, only black, shapeless sack-like robes. Also, what’s under has to be Islamically correct: bras are prohibited. Women are no longer allowed to work outside of their homes and risk their lives if they don’t want their children to starve. And just as prohibited are movies and music. Favorite measures for the punishment of (female) criminals are “public amputations, floggings and stonings.”

Note: The subject of “Sharia and Women” is “surprisingly” not an issue to be found on the German Amnesty homepage, nor on “Urgent Actions” nor on the “Somalia National Report”. As usually, this one pretty much got past Amnesty…

» info@amnesty.de

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)

(By Eckhardt Kiwitt, Freising, Munich PI Group / Translation: Anders Denken)

Let’s look once again sentence-by-sentence at the text of the law in the version that has meanwhile been published (State of the law: December 15, 2010)

§ 130
Sedition

[1]Whoever, in a manner suitable to disrupting the public peace,
1. incites hostility against portions of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them, or
2. attacks the human diginity of others by insulting portions of the population, maliciously belittling or disparaging them, will be punished by incarceration from three months to five years.

Regarding (1) 1.: “… in a manner suitable to disrupting the public peace…”

Who determines what “suitable” is as in possible contrast to “that might be suitable” to disrupting the public peace? On the basis of what criteria – considered to be objective and juristically without error and proven – does this judgment take place?

Regarding (1) 2.: “… attacks the human dignity of others by insulting portions of the population, maliciously belittling or disparaging them …”

Is the human dignity of portions of the population offended by the publishing of caricatures or in exercising criticism of a religion or an ideology? If YES, then in what way!? Is it no longer permitted in Germany and Europe to make caricatures of politicians, Popes, “prophets” or anyone else (on the proper occasion!) or to criticize them objectively?

It hasn’t gotten so far with the limitation of the right to free expression guaranteed in our Constitution in Article 5 Section 1, and it will hopefully get that far.

(2) With incarceration up to three years or punishment of a fine, for those who
1. [commit one or more of the following acts listed under a. b. c. and d. with] writings (§ 11 Section 3) that incite hostility against portions of the population or against a national, racial, religious group or a group designated by its national traditions, or that call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or attack the human dignity of others by insulting portions of the population, maliciously belittling them or disparaging them, or
a) disseminate,
b) publically exhibit, put up, show or otherwise make available,
c) offer, hand or make available to a person under eighteen years, or
d) produce, reference, deliver, keep in stock, offer, announce, extol, undertake to introduce or implement in order to employ them or portions gained from them in the sense of letters a to c or enables another individual in such an application,
2. disseminate a presentation of the content indicated in Number 1 by means of radio, media or remote services.

Regarding (2) 1 and (2) 2.: “…Writings (§ 11 Section 3), that incite hostility against portions of the population or against a national, racial, religious group, or a group designated by its national tradition…”

Criticism of Islam or of other totalitarian ideologies cannot be meant by this. The malicious belittlement or insulting or disparaging of Islam critics, for example, as a part of the population, on the other hand, is indeed punishable according to this paragraph!

(3) Incarceration up to five years or punished by a fine for those who endorse publically or in a meeting, deny or trivialize an action indicated in § 6 Section 1 committed under the government of National Socialism in a manner suitable to disrupting the public peace.

Regarding (3).: “Incarceration up to five years or punished by a fine for those who … an action committed under the government of National Socialism …”

This doesn’t apply to us critics of Islam, since – in contrast – we have neither endorsed, denied or trivialized actions “committed under the government of National Socialism.”

(4) Incarceration up to three years or a fine for those who disrupt either publically or in a meeting the public peace in a manner offensive to the dignity of the victim by endorsing, glorifies or justifies the violence and capricious government of National Socialism.

Regarding (4).: “… by endorsing … the violence and capricious government of National Socialism”

Likewise, this doesn’t apply to us critics of Islam, since we neither endorse, nor glorify nor justify National Socialist violence and capriciousness – much to the contrary. We reject it because it is seemingly similar to Islam in broad sections.

(5) Section 2 applies to writings (§ 11 Section 4) as pertains to the contents delineated in sections 3 and 4.

It is inconsequential for critics of Islam because § 11 of the Book of Penal Law (StGB) applies only to individuals and topics. A reference to Islam criticism doesn’t exist in this paragraph.

(6) In the cases of Section 2 and in connection with Section 5, and in the cases of Sections 3 and 4, § 86 Section 3 applies accordingly.

§86 of the Penal Law Book deals with the “dissemination of propaganda material of organizations in conflict with the Constitution.” A reference to Islam criticism also isn’t found in this paragraph. The dissemination of fundamental-Islamic writings of incitement, in contrast, could fall under the punishments according to this § 86 of the Penal Law Book.

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)

Pat Condell comes out in support of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and free speech.

Dnews.de reports:

In Friday’s course, Geert Wilders announced that he was filing a complaint against head judge Tom Schalken for attempted influence of a witness. Article 285a of Dutch law states that influencing of witnesses is a criminal act and punishable with up to four years in prison. Wilders was successful in his charge – the trial must now be repeated, with new judges.

The prosecution attempted to influence one of the witness called for Wilders’ defense: Wilders was solidly upset about the meal of a justice councilman commissioned by the Amsterdam court with Islam scholar Hans Jansen who was supposed to support Wilders statements about Islam.

“Someone who has called for me to be criminally prosecuted has attempted to influence a professional witness. I am asking myself what kind of circus is this that I have landed in here.”

» NZZ: Wilders trial has temporarily failed
» Focus: Judge in trial of rightwing populist declared biased
» WELT: Wilders trial has failed
» Spiegel: Trial against Wilders failed

(Hat Tip: Günther W. / Translation: Anders Denken)

Here are his remarks (Translators: Günther W. and Anders Denken):

On Monday, May 3, 2010, journalist Bertus Hendriks invited me to supper. We have known each other since 1963. Nobody can speak so well about the suffering of the Palestinians as Bertus. After a few glasses of beer, Bertus then told me, however, that the Palestinian problem didn’t really interest him. In any case he made the invitation very pleasant for me.

Besides me, other sought out guests were supposed to come. But he would prefer that the subject of Islam and the Wilders trial be left out. I was supposed to give my professional opinion as an expert witness on May 6th in this trial about the substance of the Quran and about Sharia as was necessary for the trial.

The professional opinion was important, as well come out later, because the court could not imagine that such things as Wilders presented are really in the Quran. Since it is difficult to turn down an invitation from a person with whom one has been a friend for 40 years, I accepted. After all, one should be allowed to think and speak freely behind closed doors.

Usually I am punctual or even somewhat early. The second guest that appeared was no less than Tom Schalken. He greeted me cordially and started immediately into the subject of Islam. In the meantime, I figured out where I knew this man (Note: Introduction, which is normal course in Germany, is not so usual in the Netherlands). All at once, the scales fell from my eyes. My conversation partner was member of the Amsterdam court who had received the request to bring charges against Geert Wilders for incitement of hatred, discrimination and offense against people groups.

I asked him if I could speak freely in his presence. In any case, I knew already that an Islam critic had been torn to shreads by him before the court. That led to confusion among the seasoned jurists. I imparted the wish to my host that I would rather leave because this wasn’t sensible, and would even be dangerous, to hold a conversation with somebody who had the power to confine someone if the conversation wouldn’t go according to his wishes. Right away the mood changed a bit.

After a little coaxing on my part, Tom Schalken promised not to accuse or confine me for the things I said this evening. I was content with this promise. In the meantime, 20 minutes had passed, and other guests arrived. Schalken demanded the same promis from me. Since I didn’t have the authority to confine anybody anyway, I didn’t make this promise. I hoped I could hide my “irritation” well enough. This happened a few days before I was to appear in court.

Meanwhile, the appetizer was served; I didn’t have any more appetite. The hostess had cooked a tremendous meal, but it stll didn’t taste good to me.

Besides myself, all the other guests were members of the PvdA (Note: Social Democratic Party of the Netherlands), or Green links, and besides that jurists. Mr. Schalken tried here and there to be nice to me, but constantly restarted his talk about the Wilders trial. He tried to persuade me that the decision to try Geert Wilders was the correct one. An unemployed actor would certainly have played his role better.

Schalken, who is also a professor at the Amsterdam Free University, made it known that, from a scientific standpoint, there was a great interest in the trial against Wilders, and if this were carefully considered, it would present all kinds of perspectives.

I conceived that this was therefore to be more of an “academic work group” than a trial, so to say, more of a lesson for students than a fair trial among adult people. With the “enjoyment” of dissecting a seriously threatened politician as a laboratory rabbit. Truly, a praiseworthy hobby.

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: