Georg Zakrajsek Convicted of Incitement

An Austrian gun rights advocate named Georg Zakrajsek has been convicted of incitement for posting “Muslims have declared war on all of us” on his website. He has been sentenced to five months in prison, but is free pending his appeal.

This is one of those cases that makes me want to say, “Pick your battles.” In the USA, of course, what he wrote would not have been illegal and would never have prompted a prosecution (although if Hillary Clinton had been elected president, all that could have changed). And his firearms advocacy wouldn’t have been such an issue, since we have the Bill of Rights here — advocacy for the Second Amendment is commonplace.

But Mr. Zakrajsek lives in Austria, and claims to be familiar with Austrian law. He must have known that what he said was fully actionable under the current statutes. Yet he chose to risk public opprobrium and prison anyway, not to mention discrediting Counterjihadists among his countrymen.

Our Austrian correspondent AMT sends this introductory note:

This case is troubling for two reasons:

a)   It shows there is no freedom of expression in Austria, and, more troubling,
b)   Georg Zakrajsek has done the Islam-critical community no favour by declaring that “all Muslims want to kill us”, since he should have been aware of the current laws.
 

There was never any doubt that he would be charged and found guilty under current laws. By appealing the verdict he is making a fool of himself. There is little to no chance he will win an appeal. The law is very clear. Period. Like it or not.

Zakrajsek said he is knowledgeable about the law. Thus he should have known that the incriminated sentence would ultimately lead to a conviction.

Many thanks to JLH for translating this article from ORF:

Incitement: Weapons Lobbyist Zakrajsek Convicted

The weapons lobbyist Georg Zakrajsek was conditionally sentenced Tuesday to five months imprisonment for incitement. He appealed, so the decision is not legally valid.

Georg Zakrajsek, general secretary of the syndicate Liberal Weapons Rights in Austria (WÖ), has a website. In December 2015 he posted an essay which said, among other things: “Muslims have declared war on all of us and are already conducting it. Our traitorous politicians are firmly on their side. They are furthering and facilitating terrorism. But we will lead the struggle against it.”

Charged With Incitement

Two weeks before that, the 77-year-old had posted another passage which disparaged Muslims and included a call to self-defense. The Greens submitted a description of the facts of the case to the state prosecutor’s office in Vienna. The trial took place, but the Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the charge of incitement.

In what appeared to be a packed hall in the Viennese criminal court, the weapons lobbyist defended the condemned comments: “I regard what I said as right. Why should I not write it? The reason for it was the terrorist attacks. Proponents of Islam were at work there,” Zakrajsek pointed out.

Five Months Conditionally

In concluding, the judge stated: “The charge of incitement is justified by the facts of the case. It consists of unacceptable words against a religious community.” In determining the sentence, the defendant’s previous integrity was considered as an mitigating factor. The multiple instances of commission of the act, on the other hand, were considered as an aggravating factor. He was sentenced to five months in prison. The decision is not [yet] legally valid.

33 thoughts on “Georg Zakrajsek Convicted of Incitement

  1. Dear AMT, as your very close neighbor I applaud Mr. Zakrajsek for telling the truth in the time of universal Taqiya. Even if it wasn’t the truth, that Islam is on a march to conquer Europe, why in the world would you lock someone up for being deceived himself?

    To be honest I know too well how Austrians have been brainwashed into anti-hitlerism. So much so that they overlook even the new norm, a police with maschine guns on christmass markets… And many Austrians are still defending Islam… What I don’t understand is where are your free speech laws? Or will you let your hippies run things and lock up everyone who may disagree?

    In any case, Mr Zakrajsek said pretty much what is “official” up here in Boehmen, even our president said it, that muslims are preparing second holocaust, so if you don’t know where to run, you are welcome to hide here, in our free world – what an irony, eh? 🙂

    • There is no free speech in Europe. Unfortunately almost every country has hate laws. We all know hate laws serves only one purpose: suppress free speech as long the government defines what is “hate speech”.

      • If Zuckerberg at FaceAche can use his billions to shut down speech he doesn’t agree with, he will do so. Fortunately, his un-social media is going to get stale. IOW, it’s not just the government that suppresses speech. While I fail to understand how anyone can remain on Facebook after knowing what Zuckerberg does and what he stands for, he has allowed me to see how strong the left’s social suppression really is. The growing fascism in the Catholic Church is a good example of that, but at least there are pockets of push-back. That’s not possible in Zuckerberg’s Zoo.

      • I don’t think so, CrossWare. It is hopefully not so bad with free speech over here. Bohemia has a long long tradition of censorship instituted from abroad. Starting in the 30 years war and the (oh my) Austro-Hungarian Empire, and then 40 years of communism. The result is that Czechs are really not interested in censorship.

        I wouldn’t idealize Bohemia. Its just that Bohemians see censorship as a foreign element, and some of our most important heroes have been executed for speaking the truth. And that is probably why you can say whatever you want around here, not like 5km from here in Austria 😉

  2. Mr. Zakrajsekb in no way discredited counterjihadists.

    The law should not go unchallenged because it is clear. It should be challenged because it is repulsive to free people.

    He is not making a fool of himself by appealing; he is keeping the issue squarely in the public eye. Do you have the legal knowledge so that you are able to determine that an appeal is not warranted?

    Anyway, his words are now known around the world and the court room at his trial was packed, an excellent indicator of high public interest locally.

    As with all these bogus speech suppression laws and trials the government seeks to suppress the truth which Mr. Zakrajsek is plainly telling. Everyone knows it is the truth and the government loses legitimacy every time it is seen to play the part of the Red Queen.

    Bravo to this gent. He deserves our support and gratitude for taking a stand for all of us, not criticism.

    The law, policy, rule, or custom that Rosa Parks challenged was clear too. Should she have desisted because it was clear?

    • Your comparison with Rosa Parks’ deliberate decision to break the law by sitting in a seat on the bus in the front area, always reserved for white people. Even as a kid I thought such actions were brave. I rode the city bus to and from school every day (Catholic schools didn’t have the money for school buses), and often faced a moral dilemma (at least it was in my young mind)

      The dilemma was this: do I, a white person, sit in the back in solidarity with my fellow human beings who were despised for their color, but thereby take up a seat needed by a black woman who was NOT free to sit where she wanted?

      I finally worked it out: black women came out to our white part of town in the mornings to work as maids and returned to their own run-down parts of the city (where the streets weren’t paved) in the late afternoons. The city ran extra buses during those times for both populations, both of us equally disliked, by the way.

      Because I really did believe the nuns’ exhortations about Christ’s message (they taught in the black Catholics schools, too) I was often shunned by my classmates for preaching that message. Yeah, even then I was stubborn: you don’t go with a convenient belief when doing so is obviously wrong.

      Rosa Parks was a hero in my eyes despite the jeering.

      Today there’s not much difference between Black Lives Matter and the Roman Catholic Mausoleum, but back then both movements stood for a moral imperative. That’s why the lone voices like Mr. Zakrajsekb are so important. They harken back even further, to echoes of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who spoke up and acted despite the personal cost.

      BTW, few people know that Bonhoeffer came to the U.S. in his 20s and while here taught Sunday School in Harlem (he was too young to be ordained at the time). Echoes…

      • Do you and the Baron disagree about whether there’s been a “discrediting” here, then, Dymphna, he saying “yes” and you saying “no”? (Perhaps the Baron only meant “discomfiting”?)

        • Dymphna may give you her answer later.

          For my part, I tend to agree with the commenters who see Mr. Zakrajsek’s gesture as an act of admirable defiance against a tyrannical state and an unjust law. But then, I’m an ornery American, and that’s the American way: instinctive defiance of tyranny.

          I’m not Austrian and I don’t think like an Austrian. Our Austrian correspondent AMT provides an Austrian context, which views his specific words against Islam as a clear and knowing violation of the law, and therefore not admirable.

          It goes against the grain with me. But, hey, what do I know? I’m just an American!

          • It goes against my beliefs too, but hey what do I know? I am just a rebellious Hungarian!

        • I think the Baron simply reported on the writer’s assessment without comment – it wasn’t his essay.

          Surely you would know that both of us would see his courage as something to be lauded? Similar to, say, Steve Coughlin, who was forced out of the Pentagon because he wouldn’t stop saying some version of “Islam harms our country”…

          Back when it was news:

          http://www.investigativeproject.org/584/expert-on-radical-islam-fired-from-pentagon

          I’m hoping that with the election of Donald Trump they re-start Major Coughlin’s briefings…and that he gets to do a special one for Trump and his security staff.

    • I agrre wholeheartedly. He has done no disservice to those who oppose Islam. Great to see such bravery from a 77 year old.

  3. It was Shakespeare who wrote that discretion is the better part of valor, words spoken by Falstaff, a man who believed only in satisfying his belly. In Aristotle’s scheme of virtue ethics and the golden mean, wanton bravery is a vice. Caution is preferable to wanton bravery and I and probably most hold that view and feel that this man should have shown discretion. Yet while reading this article, it brought to my mind the martyrs of Cordoba, whom many would consider rash and foolhardy. Most Christians living in Islamic Spain at the time likely held that same view about the Christian martyrs.

    Yet was it Patrick Henry who said give me liberty or give me death? Mr. Zakrajsek may be more moved by this admonition and thus willingly throw caution out the window. He was prepared to make a public declaration of his belief that a great wrong is occurring in his country all the while knowing that his public pronouncement would result in the might of the state coming down upon his head. The conviction of his belief, like that of the Spanish martyrs, is great enough to embolden him to face the wrath of those with power.

    By criticizing him, are we acting like the dhimmi Christians of Islamic Spain who perhaps did not have the strength of conviction like those martyrs, preferring instead to be cautious and to postpone the inevitable in the hope of some unforeseen intervention?

  4. Why even go through the trial appeal nonsense. Just arrest anyone with even the appearance of resistance to the Islamic slaughter. While at it why not get rid of anything unislamic. Infidels, dogs, pigs, whatever. The lot. Do it now before the transfixed westerner wakes up and does the opposite. I think we call that ‘war’.

  5. The warlord declared his war on humanity 1400 years ago,this is simply a matter of public record. The only question remaining is how to make his army lay down their arms and how to prosecute those Westerners that perpetuate the war by mobilising his armies within Europe.

    • The only question is where and when will the chill to let the ladies and boys have their hysterical dance of death with the Muslims end – and a real world ruthless act two for survival begin. The voting in what is left of a fast becoming a multi shambles de-monstrocity indicates that an awful lot of citizens and subjects of the western majority are getting ready to charge.

  6. “(There was never any doubt that he would be charged and found guilty under current laws.) By appealing the verdict he is making a fool of himself. ” What a presumptuous and [redacted] thing to say. Maybe Georg Zakrajsek spoke his mind and he lets himself ground down by the broken wheels of justice to prove a point, to draw attention to a dangerous situation where he thinks the country is headed. But if you call someone’s struggle and sacrifice towards a just cause foolish/embarrassing, please tell me what are the alternatives here. Sit around and take it? (endless stream of migrants, rapes, terrorism, crime, islam becoming the law of the land etc.) Civil war? Really, what’s your solution? To me, Georg Zakrajsek is a hero.

    • Well said, Europe has this tradition of taking on bad governments with their bad laws, and long may that be the case.

  7. That ‘All Muslims want to kill us’ is simply factually wrong, should be evident to all. Certain groups are, for sure but not ‘all’. Let’s get it right. Some Muslims do not interpret their belief system in this way and others are prepared to exact Jyza, a tax on ‘infidels’. Islam is an existential problem enough without offering hostages to fortune by mouthing raw generalizations.

    • I think it is fair to say about the intention of ALL muslims. Not fair to say that all people from the Middle-East and South Asia are doing this. This goes back to the not all muslims and moderate muslim narrative. Islam is an IDEOLOGY, the believers of this ideology are the MUSLIMS.
      Once you prove it to me that “moderate Nazis” are existed and they were nice and lovable then I will consider your thoughts! Just because someone not actively (with arms) fighting, it does not mean not supporting the process. Either with financial support or providing the mass to hide in, spreading propaganda.
      There was an article some time ago here which explains how the “peaceful, moderate” muslims are part of the islamic financial machine: https://gatesofvienna.net/2016/07/sharia-and-the-moral-economy-of-islam-in-the-west

  8. The truth is STILL the TRUTH.
    Just because some some islam-financed ‘law’ is on the books does not mean that the law has any validity (check King Canute for a reference). These laws were crammed into place long ago PRE-INVASION for native-suppression/repression in the NOW.
    Now the only possible response that can be effective is that of MLK’s/Gandhi’s classic
    CIVIL DISOBEDIANCE.
    Such as here.
    Such as NOW!
    If any Austrians had [manly generative organs] (question, are there ANY left in Austria–‘the world wonders’?) the response would be to repeat Z’s truths ad nausiem. Dare the dhimmis in office to try THEM ALL.
    Of COURSE the islamics have declared war.
    Of COURSE the country’s “leaders” have betrayed their people.
    Of COURSE these “leaders” act on the side of the enemy.
    Of COURSE by their actions TERRORISM is facilitated.

    Jeheeeeeezze…………………………………………………………!

    !#@$&!! (Sounds of minds boggling.)

    • Ghandi’s civil disobedience was possible only because the British dared not harm him.

      With MLK, I think there was a cynical calculation by the FBI that “some crazy white guy” would take him out. Like the King family, I don’t think the authorities ever traced the assassin’s roots all the way back to the source.

  9. Please, go back to the best sources available. The whole sentence (hoping this is the correct term; I am German) is on the Web:

    http://www.querschuesse.at/dl/verhetzung.pdf

    including a long citation of Zakraysek; the article by the ORF is biased; of course.

    Phrases like “die Muslime” are not clear in their semantics; could mean “there exist muslims, those which …” as well as “all muslims”. When speaking, the meaning is usually deduced from the context, sometimes the listener will ask. When writing a treaty
    you have to be very careful to avoid such ambiguities.

    Now Dr. Zakraysek has been a notary and should be well aware of such fine points.

    From skipping through the citations, this were carefully designed provocations of the system. If they don’t sentence him for saying what e.g. is common ground on GOV — fine! If they sentence him, this will be a further prove of how little the system cares of it’s native people and anger some more citizens. Dr. Zakraysek probably doesn’t feel he has much to lose, at 77. So he dares — this is how non-violent resistance works.

    • Dr. Zakraysek probably doesn’t feel he has much to lose, at 77. So he dares — this is how non-violent resistance works.

      His age isn’t necessarily germane. If he has family who feel he’s important to them, or if he has unfinished work he wants to complete, then he may view this sentence as having a lot to “lose”. His age isn’t germane to his non-violent resistance, but his personal philosophy about what is important certainly is.

  10. “There can be no peace … . The Islamic movement can and must take power as soon as it is morally strong enough … to destroy the non Islamic power … .”
    Alija Izetbegovic of Bosnia (backed by NATO and the EU).

    “Islam has the right to destroy all obstacles [to Sharia law] in the form of institutions and traditions. It is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems.”
    Sayeed Qutb, co-founder of the Muslim Brotherhood

    Other quotations at:
    http://www.libertygb.org.uk/news/islams-vision-destruction-muslims-speak

    Please, someone pass them on to Herr Zakrajsek.

  11. [wanted to post this message already at about 14:45 CET; now it seems I forgot to send. Please excuse this inconvenience.]

    Please, go back to the best sources available. The whole sentence (hoping this is the correct term; I am German) is on the Web:

    http://www.querschuesse.at/dl/verhetzung.pdf

    including a long citation of Zakraysek; the article by the ORF is biased; of course.

    Phrases like “die Muslime” are not clear in their semantics; could mean “there exist muslims, those which …” as well as “all muslims”. When speaking, the meaning is usually deduced from the context, sometimes the listener will ask. When writing a treaty
    you have to be very careful to avoid such ambiguities.

    Now Dr. Zakraysek has been a notary and should be well aware of such fine points.

    From skipping through the citations, this were carefully designed provocations of the system. If they don’t sentence him for saying what e.g. is common ground on GOV — fine! If they sentence him, this will be a further prove of how little the system cares of it’s native people and anger some more citizens. Dr. Zakraysek probably doesn’t feel he has much to loose, at 77. So he dares — this is how non-violent resistance works.

    Please, go back to the best sources available. The whole sentence (hoping this is the correct term; I am German) is on the Web:

    http://www.querschuesse.at/dl/verhetzung.pdf

    including a long citation of Zakraysek; the article by the ORF is biased; of course.

    Phrases like “die Muslime” are not clear in their semantics; could mean “there exist muslims, those which …” as well as “all muslims”. When speaking, the meaning is usually deduced from the context, sometimes the listener will ask. When writing a treaty
    you have to be very careful to avoid such ambiguities.

    Now Dr. Zakraysek has been a notary and should be well aware of such fine points.

    From skipping through the citations, this were carefully designed provocations of the system. If they don’t sentence him for saying what e.g. is common ground on GOV — fine! If they sentence him, this will be a further prove of how little the system cares of it’s native people and anger some more citizens. Dr. Zakraysek probably doesn’t feel he has much to loose, at 77. So he dares — this is how non-violent resistance works.

  12. This situation in Austria is quite similar to the situation that existed in Germany….the USSR, and Austria back in the forties when it was a criminal offense for people to speak their minds. The only NAZIS in Austria are the functionaries in the judicial system.

  13. The statement that ” Muslims have declared war on all of us ” is not a subjective view from a “fool” at all, It’s a statement of plain fact beyond dispute. The families of more than 550 butchered innocent Europeans these last two years can testify to that.

    Kow towing to biased laws results in people outraged by the drip drip of these laws intended to crush ALL peaceful EFFECTIVE decent over public affairs, becoming dangerously frustrated, we’re forced onto the ever smaller heads of already very small legal pins where we dance in our silent impotent rage. In London you’re “Kettled” by police where unauthorised movement results in instant arrest, on an empty deserted factory estate a year ago in Birmingham England, I saw it at the first peaceful PEGIDA rally.

    This “rage” on the streets by the pro jihad hard left at Universities in the West seems to inhabit a charmed space, how many people burning public and private property and threatening life have been made to pay with THEIR liberty and cash since DT was elected and sworn in ?

    Many decent voters have weapons in Austria, it would pay the state to remember WHO they serve and are answerable to.

    NO, in my view, at 77 he was very brave and correct, to undermine him as some are trying for words that don’t “incite” violence is despicable, unpopular governments must be made to defend their unjust tyranny to the voters in OPEN debate, the more this is done the more likely a peaceful transition of power can be achieved.

    After calling a deputy chief constable a “fascist hyena” to his face 22 years ago because his “officers” were sexually assaulting young girls and punching elderly ladies in their chests in the name of “public order” , I reminded him that while HE had the force, WE had the power. He recoiled in shock, I remained un arrested. yes, I was THAT angry.

  14. Telling it like it is can get you in trouble in Austria. The Austrian “perspective” taken in the article shows even that the author of the article is frightened of the Austrian hate speech laws, which proves the dire state of affairs in that soon to be an Islamic state country.

  15. His statements are honorable and valuable, the latter because they force Austrian political thuggery into the open.

    • Agree. The Austrian thugs will shoot all the messengers if they can, but they like to do it behind closed doors.

  16. The guy should go to the US Embassy and ask for political Asylum.

    That would keep it in the spotlight.

Comments are closed.