“Sharia is incompatible with the principles of democracy.”
Below is the speech given at today’s free speech rally in Amsterdam by the French anti-jihad activist Gandalf (“The Younger”, of VV&D and the Alliance to Stop Sharia):
Below is the speech given by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff today at the free speech rally in Amsterdam. In it you can hear Elisabeth’s own description of the criminal charge she faces in Austria for “hate speech”, and what brought it about:
Readers who wish to donate to Elisabeth’s defense fund should visit the Save Free Speech site. The defense fund is not under her control, and disbursements from it will be made solely to pay her legal fees.
Scroll to the bottom of this post for links to previous posts about Elisabeth’s case.
A phone report from Dutch and British participants in today’s free speech demonstration in Amsterdam:
There were 34 arrests today for violence and disorder, mostly hooligans from the Antifas and Ajax, and none from among our people.
The only arrests on our side were four people who did not have ID cards, which is an administrative offense.
We have proven to the Mayor and the Government (and the media) that we are peaceful, non-violent demonstrators who want only to advocate for free speech.
The video below was taken at today’s free speech rally in Amsterdam.
This is not the TV network’s version of this interview, so the sound is somewhat confusing. But most of what Paul says comes through loud and clear. Pay special attention to the last twenty seconds or so:
The EDL’s rented van, which was smashed up by Antifa (no injuries, fortunately):
Photos are starting to come in from the free speech demonstration in Amsterdam. This one shows Paul Weston giving his speech. Notice all the police in the background:
How do you think the Dutch MSM is covering today’s demonstration in Amsterdam?
Read this report from RNW, and prepare not to be surprised:
British Extremists Show Support for Wilders
A small group of protesters belonging to Britain’s extremist English Defence League has gathered in Amsterdam to show support for anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders.
Watched by a large police force, the protesters gathered in fenced-off port area just west of the capital. Police succeeded in preventing confrontations with Ajax football fans staging a counter-protest. Police arrested a dozen people, among them four Britons and several Ajax fans.
Elsewhere, some 500 people attended a rally organised by the Platform against Xenophobia. No incidents were reported there.
The English Defence League, formed in 2009, says it wants to stop the spread of Islam, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England.
Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders is currently on trial on charges of group insult, inciting hatred and discrimination. A retrial was ordered a week ago after a review panel ruled that the judges had created an appearance of bias.
Update: Paul Weston in German at Europe News .
Below is the speech given at today’s demonstration at Generatorstraat in Amsterdam by the British author and former Parliamentary candidate Paul Weston.
Hello. My name is Paul Weston, and I represent the International Free Press Society.
And I am standing here today because our liberal elites have betrayed our countries to Islam.
Forty-two years ago the British politician Enoch Powell made his famous “Rivers of Blood” speech, in which he stated that “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.”
Our politicians today do the exact opposite. They actively promote a preventable evil.
But eighty years ago one man, Winston Churchill, was very clear about preventing a clear and present evil, Herr Hitler and the Nazis. But Churchill was a lone voice crying in the wind of appeasement, and the carnage that could have been avoided came with a vengeance.
And today Europe finds itself in much the same position. Even as Islam grows demographically, territorially, and militantly, it is promoted as the “religion of peace” by the same type of cowardly, careerist politicians who once appeased Hitler.
Islam was not the religion of peace to Winston Churchill. He described it as the religion of blood and war.
Anyone with a knowledge of the foundations and history of Islamic expansion knows this to be the truth.
Mohammed was a warlord. And a very good warlord indeed. By the time of his death he had militarily defeated and converted most of the pagan and Christian tribes of the Arabian Peninsula.
After his death Islam rapidly expanded at the point of a sword, defeating ancient civilisations and overrunning continents as it did so.
And today it is within Europe, it is within the West, and it is calling for what it has always called for: total Islamic domination. And if we wish to resist, then they will use terror against us.
Yet still our treasonous politicians call it the “religion of peace”, and tell us that if we refuse to share such a fantastical and ridiculous notion, that if we choose to believe Winston Churchill’s argument that Islam is a religion of blood and war, then we will be sent to prison.
Of course it is not a religion of peace. Its founder was a warrior, and the highest honour bestowed upon a Muslim is the promise of hordes of scented houris and an eternal leg-over in the after life, achievable not by being a good Samaritan, but by dying as a martyr in the physical battle to expand imperialist Islam.
Islam literally means submission. What kind of a religion can possibly call itself submission?
Islam divides the world into two spheres. The House of Islam (submission) and the House of War. What kind of religion defines itself by military conquest?
Yet our leaders tell us we cannot criticise Islam because it is a religion, whilst the organisation of the Islamic conference, in cahoots with the united nations is striving to make any criticism of Islam illegal.
But Islam is so much more than just a religion. It is a political, social, legal and structural blueprint which totally dominates a devout Muslim’s life, and wishes coincidentally to dominate all devout non-Muslims’ lives as well.
It is profoundly illiberal and it is profoundly undemocratic. It does not believe in the man-made laws of democracy, preferring instead to adhere to the absolute word of Allah, as interpreted by an illiterate 7th-century desert dweller.
And our politicians have imported this illiberal and undemocratic ideology into the liberal democracies than make up the West, and then they dare to criminalise us when we object to this!
But how can we not criticise Islam? Can our politicians really protect it as a religion and therefore place it out of legal reach?
When homosexuals are hung from cranes, is this political Islam in action or religious Islam?
When adulterous women are buried up to their shoulders in sand and stoned to death, is this political Islam or religious Islam?
When Muslims who wish to leave Islam are issued with death sentences, is this political Islam, or is this religious Islam?
When wives and daughters are slaughtered to protect their families’ honour by husbands fathers and uncles, is this political Islam or religious Islam?
If it is political, then it must be denounced as evil and barbaric. If it religious, how can it possibly not be denounced as the same? What is evil is evil and what is barbaric is barbaric and cannot be exempted from criticism because it is sheltered by the word “religion”.
In criminalising free speech, our socialist leaders reveal their dictatorial ambition. The mark of a free society is freedom of speech. To take this away is a totalitarian act, made all the worse because freedom of speech is our only defence in the peaceful opposition against the foreign totalitarian ideology of Islam.
And I hope this irony is not lost on you. In order to protect and advance a foreign totalitarian ideology, our own rulers are prepared to adopt native totalitarian means to stop us defending our democracy and our freedom.
The West lives in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Islam does not. They signed up instead to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.
But they have a very important caveat: when sharia law collides with human rights law, guess which law prevails?
Quite so. Sharia is the top trumps when it comes to human rights.
This is like a signatory to the Geneva convention murdering and torturing prisoners of war, and being given a pass at a war trial because it was “part of their religion.”
And when our politicians today excuse Islam as a religion of peace and allow them to set the rules both at home, at the European Union, and at the United Nations, then our politicians are betraying their countries and they are betraying their people. They are committing treason.
“Can one commit treason in a time of peace?” people may ask. But are we really at peace?
We may not consider ourselves at war with Islam, but Islam considers itself at war with us.
And it is a war we are losing. Territorially, demographically, politically, and democratically.
In fact, it is a war of aggression on two fronts. Radical Islam on the one, and left-wing treason on the other.
Our children are told to celebrate multiculturalism and Islam, without being told the real history of violent expansionist Islam.
Instead, they are told that their own history, their religion, their culture, their traditions, their very being, is just a litany of imperialism, racism, murder and slavery. This is a proven psychological technique designed to render an enemy helpless, or to quote Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “in order to destroy a people, you must first sever their roots.”
Any government that does this to its own people, to its own children, is a government that deserves, manifestly deserves, to be overthrown.
Can anyone really argue that a government that praises the foreign invader whilst psychologically and legally stripping away the defences of its people is a government that is not guilty of treason?
Now here we come to a more uplifting part of this depressing monologue, because in this part of the battle we are advancing. Slowly, admittedly, but relentlessly, and I think we are now unstoppable.
Geert Wilders here in the Netherlands, René Stadtkewitz in Germany, whose immediate popularity caused Angela Merkel to make an abrupt U-turn and denounce Multiculturalism.
The Sweden Democrats, Heinz-Christian Strache in Austria, the Swiss People’s Party, and in England we await a political movement to pick up the baton from the rapidly growing English Defence League.
And that growth can only accelerate. As more and more people become aware of Islam and become aware of the depth of treason perpetrated by their liberal rulers, and most importantly, as people lose their fear of being labelled a racist — which was a label specifically designed to strip us of resistance against a racially designated invader who uses race as a weapon.
In fact, let us deal with this “racist” label right now. It is not racist to defend your country against an obvious and growing threat. It is not racist to defend your culture, your heritage, and your traditions. It is not racist to work to ensure a democratic future for your children and grandchildren.
If you choose not to defend your country, your culture and the democratic future of your children, then you may well pat yourselves on the back in your non-racist champagne socialist cocktail bars in Islington; you may well love other people’s anti-racist credentials almost as much as you love your own; but there is no getting away from the label I have for you.
You are a traitor and a betrayer of your country, a betrayer of your culture, and a betrayer of our yet unborn children.
And you are a racist, indeed a genocidal racist. Young native Europeans will become a demographic ethnic minority within their own homelands if immigration rates and birth rates stay the way they are for just one more generation.
This can politely be called population replacement. More crudely, it is bloodless genocide.
The United Nations is very clear on this. Their definition of genocide is as follows. Quote.
Article 2.
In the present convention genocide means any of the acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial or religious group.
We have been betrayed.
And one of the saddest aspects of this betrayal is the effect it has had on those old ex-warriors who fought for their countries in recent living memory.
Ex-Spitfire pilot Alex Henshaw died three years ago. He was acutely aware of the political betrayal of his country. He said:
“I feel extreme emotional sadness for the young men I knew that gave their lives willingly for a cause in which we all believed. And I often say to myself that if those young boys would come down now and walk through the villages, through the towns and through the cities and look around and see what is happening to us, they would say somewhere along the line we have been betrayed.”
Yes, Mr. Henshaw, I am afraid you have, and all of you socialist/liberal/left-wing people need to know what you have done.
You need to take a walk around your cities, towns and villages, take a look at the hundreds of thousand of graves standing as testament to the ultimate sacrifice made by our young men in order that you may live in a liberal democracy today.
You need to understand that this a not just betrayal, but a triple betrayal:
And, of course, it is also the betrayal of freedom and democracy.
Because freedom and democracy did not just magically appear. They evolved over two and a half thousand years, rooted in Greco-Roman Judeo-Christian ancestry. And were fought for and defended with much blood and sacrifice.
Democracy and freedom are not the personal possessions of socialist politicians to be handed away, without our agreement, to the descendants of a 7th century desert warlord, who view our attachment to democracy as just a weakness to be used against us.
I do not blame Islam. Fundamentalist Muslims are just doing what it says in the book.
But I do blame our politicians. There are two sides in this civilisational stand-off, and our politicians have sided with the enemy.
So I say to them:
You may well hold the levers of power at the moment, but we are on the rise and we are unstoppable. Do you seriously think you can do what you have done to your own people without repercussion?
You could stop this now if you chose to, by the simple expedient of putting the interests of your own people before the interests of Islam.
But you won’t do that will you? So you put us in an almost impossible position. If we do nothing we must accept our children and grandchildren will one day live under sharia law.
And if we do something, then it must by definition be revolutionary. But we did not start this. You did. Most of us would have been quite happy to mow the lawn, hold down a mundane job, and pay our taxes.
You have made us revolutionaries. And whilst your behaviour suggests you fear Islam more than you fear us, let me tell you something, you lying, betraying, treacherous, socialist careerists:
We might not hold power today, but given another decade, we will, and then we will hold you to account. You will appear before a Nuremberg-style court, and you will be tried for treason, and you will be tried for crimes against humanity, and for the first time in a very long time you will be answerable to us!
This TV news clip is not as current as Elisabeth’s report — it was broadcast before the rally in Amsterdam was fully underway.
Many thanks to Kitman for Youtubing it:
I just got off the phone with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who will shortly be one of the speakers at today’s demonstration at Generatorstraat in Amsterdam. The police moved the demonstration to the new venue at the last minute, and Elisabeth says it is an awful place — a bare patch of grass in the middle of nowhere, far away from anything.
The demonstration, however is a smashing success, according to Elisabeth and others at the site. The remote open location apparently attracted massive media coverage, and Elisabeth has given four interviews so far. While she was talking to me, Paul Weston was being interviewed by a French media outlet.
The “anti-fascists” had gathered at the nearby train station to try to prevent the demonstrators from reaching the site, but they were not successful. Ruffians reputed to be from the AFCA/Ajax football club were at the station, ready for a fight, but were chased away by the police.
Elisabeth says that there is a helicopter hovering over the field, police on horses, and fifteen to twenty police vehicles on the scene. There are more police than civilians.
The English Defence League’s minivan was smashed by the Antifas, and the EDL was asked (reportedly by the British police, strangely enough) to leave the demonstration early.
For that reason Tommy Robinson had to give his brief address ahead of schedule, and made some caustic remarks about the state of free speech in Amsterdam. He showed the audience that he had to wear a bullet-proof vest while addressing them, and had strong words say about the inability of the Dutch authorities to protect peaceful demonstrators. He said it was a disgrace that the mayor had shunted the demo off into the middle of nowhere.
While I was talking to Elisabeth, I could hear Gandalf (“The Younger”, of VV&D and the Alliance to Stop Sharia) in the background speaking to the crowd and chastising the Antifas who were heckling him for their inability to tolerate real democracy.
There will be photos later, and I hear that there are already photos posted here. There will also be video.
Stay tuned.
Another major terror alert was issued today, this one due to a series of suspicious packages shipped by air from Yemen and bound ultimately for the USA. The alarm was raised after a package containing a modified toner cartridge was discovered at an air freight terminal in the UK. Other suspicious parcels were found, some of which contained explosive materials, according to President Obama. The intended targets were reportedly synagogues in Chicago.
Unusual activity was reported at the originating airport in Yemen prior to the suspicious flights. A number of men brought large bags to the regular luggage area instead of the cargo terminal. Uniformed pre-teen boys were acting as luggage handlers. And female passengers in full hijab were passed through screening without having to verify their identity.
In other news, President Obama stopped by Charlottesville, Virginia, today to campaign for our very own Rep. Tom Perriello (Socialist, 5th District).
To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.
Thanks to Bobbo, C. Cantoni, Caroline Glick, CSP, DF, Erick Stakelbeck, Fjordman, Insubria, JD, Steen, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.
Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.
Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.
If I understand it correctly, as of the “Nieuwsuur” presentation, Antifa had not yet filed a permit for a demo, and the Mayor urged them to do so. With his “football-hooligan” spin he woke up the supporters of the Ajax/AFCA organization (or at least its supporters’ “leadership”).
Here’s a translated article from the AFCA website. It’s dated October 28 — which is well after the mayor publicly said he had “solid indications” hooligans would show up:
“Because we do not tolerate (violent) racism and fascism in our city, as in the past already has been expressed on our site, we call each AJAX-supporter with some balls on to next Saturday show that we do not agree with this demonstration. Gather at 13:00 at the station Sloterdijk and form there the trip will be made towards Gerneratorweg.
Note: no violence against police and/or ME (mobile unit; riot police), we only plead for our city, and in this case do not tolerate the EDL in our city!
This message does not mean that we as AFCA are ANTI or PRO Wilders, we are only are against these kinds of Mongols who are rousing public feeling …”
Now the mayor has to stop those “Ajax supporters” — or whoever poses as such — from siding with the fascists of Antifa in threatening an officially permitted demonstration.
The following is the first part of a four-part analysis of Muslim crime in Britain. It was originally published as a pdf on the English Defence League website.
By Pike Bishop
I. Introduction
Why we decided to produce this document
This document is an attempt to accomplish the following three objectives:
| 1. | To draw public attention to the serious and worsening problem of Muslim crime, in the UK specifically, and throughout Western Europe more generally. | |
| 2. | To draw attention to problematic aspects of the response of the UK authorities to Muslim crime. | |
| 3. | To promote a public debate on the implications, short- and long-term, of Muslim crime for Britain and its people. |
Who we hope will read this document
We hope that any and all interested parties will read this dossier. However, we particularly hope that people in the media, academia, the government, and the police force will engage with the serious issues it raises.
What do we mean by ‘Muslim crime’?
Muslim crime is simply crime committed by Muslims. That said, we have a particular concern with violent crime (up to and including terrorism), sexual crime, property crime, and organized crime as committed by Muslims. By the word Muslim, we simply mean all people of Muslim background and upbringing who have not explicitly renounced Islam, irrespective of how devout they are, or how observant of the requirements of their religion.
Why focus on Muslim crime?
Of course, no single type of crime becomes any worse in and of itself simply by virtue of having been committed by a Muslim. Nonetheless, there are good reasons to be concerned about Muslim crime in its own right. These include the following: 1
| Muslims appear to be overrepresented as the perpetrators of serious crime to an extent which is far from trivial (this claim will be justified in greater detail later). |
| Terrorism and terrorism-related offences, a crime category in which Muslims manifestly make up a massively disproportionate fraction of all convictions, impose enormous indirect costs on millions of people for long periods of time. |
| Muslims throughout the West have pronounced and undeniable separatist, supremacist, and subversive tendencies. This being the case, Muslim crime acquires a significance above and beyond that which might be expected, due to the possibility of it being — and being perceived as being — motivated by these tendencies. To rephrase, some crime is ‘just’ crime, whereas other crime will be perceived as being part of an ongoing inter-group conflict, and therefore possess the potential to further provoke that conflict. How much Muslim crime (or white crime, or black crime, or any crime, for that matter) is actually motivated by inter-group conflict is, of course, an empirical question. |
| The rate of growth of the Muslim community in the UK is extremely rapid, in both absolute and relative terms. Unusually high crime rates amongst this population therefore take on a significance they would not otherwise have. |
What qualifies us to talk about crime at all?
This document has not been produced by professional criminologists. However, it has been produced on the basis of a belief that:
| 1. | Citizens engaged in the civic life of their country have both a right and an obligation to consider such key topics as crime and community cohesion. | |
| 2. | Educated people of good will are perfectly well-positioned to draw some provisional conclusions on these subjects on the basis of their own carefully-considered interpretation of information available in the public domain. |
We do not pretend to have all the answers to the questions we pose in this document. Indeed, it is precisely those areas where data are poor, understanding limited, or interpretation difficult that we hope will draw increased attention in the future from criminologists, police officers, and politicians, as they attempt to address the serious problems that now afflict this country.
Given that this document is not academic in nature, we have not felt the need to include all the sources for the facts and figures herein. The more important or contentious the claim in question, the more likely it will be to have a source. More general information may be unsourced. Those who are sceptical about any of our claims are invited to do their own research and make up their own minds. Either way, we are confident that the factual claims made in this document are accurate.
Why do we not discuss terrorism in this document?
With apologies to the Muslim Council of Britain for the hate crime no doubt implicit in our use of the term, Muslim terrorism has been a key public concern for so long now that we consider it to be a fairly well-worked seam. There is little we feel we can add to the discussion on terrorism, so we propose to largely ignore it in this document. We will reiterate, however, what we said above about how the indirect costs of terrorism (police budget, security services budget, airport security budgets, indirect costs through productivity losses, etc.) have not, to our knowledge, ever been calculated with any accuracy. This research should, in our opinion, be conducted so as to enable a better understanding of the costs of the presence of so many Muslims in our country.
II. A Bird’s Eye View of Muslim Crime in Britain
Obtaining a statistical overview of Muslim crime in the UK is very difficult, due to the extremely low quality of the data available, and the problems involved in their interpretation. Every three years the government releases a breakdown of criminal convictions by race. These summaries offer a significant amount of information to the student of crime, but not, sadly, information that is useful in a consideration of Muslim crime. As such, we must look to other sources.
As far as one can tell, there is no breakdown of crime rates or convictions by religion. This is the first hurdle we face in trying to gain an overview of Muslim crime in a broad, statistical sense. A breakdown for crimes such as terrorism-related offenses could undoubtedly be put together relatively easily, but it would fail to give us any insight into any other type of crime.
Given the lack of crime rate data, the most natural step is to look at the incarceration data for different religious groups. The Home Office figure of a Muslim prison population of 11% in 2008 is the obvious place for this discussion to start.2 Comparing Muslims to non-Muslims, and taking the Muslim population of the country to be approximately 4% (2.4 million out of 62 million), we calculate a disproportionality of three for the Muslim population, which is to say that three times more Muslims are in prison than we would expect given the number of Muslims in the country.
More disturbingly, it appears that this disproportionality may grow significantly if we look at high-security prisons. Four high-security prisons seem to have even larger Muslim populations than one would expect from the 11% figure. HMP Whitemoor has a Muslim population of 34%, HMP Long Lartin of 24%, HMP Full Sutton of 15%, and HMP Belmarsh of 22%. However, HMP Frankland has a Muslim population of only 3%, and there are other high-security prisons in the UK (HMP Strangeways, HMP Woodhill, HMP Wakefield, etc.) whose Muslim populations we have not been able to ascertain. Taking a weighted average of these figures to reflect different population sizes at each prison, we arrive at a figure of 18% for mid-2008.3 This figure could well go down if it were recalculated for all high-security prisons, as those for which we do not have data include one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland, which we do not expect to have large Muslim populations. Nonetheless, the figure is a cause for concern, meaning as it does that, in the high-security prisons for which we have figures, nearly 1 in 5 inmates is a Muslim.
A complicating factor in all this analysis is that the phenomenon of conversion to Islam on the part of inmates makes it difficult to know exactly what fraction of the prison population was Muslim at the point of incarceration. According to one estimate, 30% of all people who identify as Muslims in prison converted after being incarcerated, but the accuracy of this figure is difficult to ascertain. It is also difficult to know how many people meeting our earlier definition of Muslim (i.e. being of Muslim background and upbringing and not having renounced Islam) do not identify themselves as Muslim in prison. These factors make it difficult to draw firm conclusions, but it may well be the case that the disproportionality in ‘real’ Muslim incarceration is slightly less than the factor of three calculated above.
There is a great deal more to say on this subject, but we feel that it will be more profitably said subsequent to other discussions. Accordingly, we will take this theme up again in Section VI.
| 1 | The reasons for this definition will become clear later on, in Section V, which features a contribution from Dr. Nicolai Sennels, a psychologist from Denmark. To summarise here, the psychological attributes inculcated by Islam appear to be at least as significant in causing Muslim crime as conscious religious feeling on the part of Muslims. | |
| 2 | In actual fact, this figure was for England and Wales, not the whole of the UK. However, other sources suggest that the figure for England and Wales is now 12%, so taking 11% as our figure for the whole UK will keep our calculations acceptably accurate. | |
| 3 | Of course, this figure is liable to change. Moreover, the estimates it is based on were not all made at the same point in time in 2008. Accordingly, it should be taken as a representative figure rather than an exact figure for an exact moment in time. The current figure could be somewhat higher or lower. |
