The following essay by Christian Zeitz was published as a guest-post at Andreas Unterberger’s website. Many thanks to JLH for the translation:

Austria is a Democratic Dictatorship. Its Law Flows From Subjective Justice and Authoritarian Caprice

by Christian Zeitz^[1]

1. November 17, 2017 was literally a Black Friday.

Reinhard Fellner, a card-carrying Social Democrat as well as chief of “Initiative Social Austria,” was sentenced in provincial court to three months (three years on probation) for denigration of Islam (§ 283 StGb). Any ever-so-small criticism of Islam in the next three years will lead to the completion of the sentence. This is so much more shocking, since he made a very mild criticism, which is far below the level of criticism which would be possible and necessary in a free and open society, to call attention to the dangers endemic to Islam. He simply began to investigate to what extent (terrorist) acts of violence as well as sexual abuse of women, children and animals are connected to Islam. Fellner’s conviction is so much worse because he undertook this attempt in the course of participating in the assessment of a bill published on the Parliament’s homepage. So he was legally convicted for performing the honorable task of an active citizen, participating in the process of parliamentary lawmaking.

The proceeding against Fellner can certainly be called a scandalous trial. The court did not examine several expert assessments by experts on Islam offered by the accused as proof of the truth of his statements. Likewise, witnesses named by the defense were not allowed to testify. Although the document gives no indication of a complainant, the state prosecutor suddenly claimed that the charge had been brought by the IGGiÖ (Islamic Faith Community in Austria) which “had felt insulted” by Fellner. The defendant was also confronted with a newspaper article which had not been in the document before the trial began. To Fellner’s indication that Ayatollah Khomeini, the most significant Shi’ite of the 20th century, had given approval to sexual intercourse with animals, the judge responded that this was not significant and had nothing to do with Islam, since Khomeini was already dead. Altogether, there was no serious effort by the judge or the state prosecutor^[2] to formally align the evidence of Fellner’s criminal activity with the charge. Instead, the judge and the state prosecutor voiced the opinion that hate speech would apply even if the defendant’s claims were true.

The verdict does not concern just a number of oddballs who have chosen Islam-criticism as their strange hobby. It is an expression of the continued pushing of a blatantly political and subjective system of justice being established to enable the unresisted installation of a multicultural dictatorship, population replacement and Islamization. And it is a landmark in the transformation process which is morphing our disappearing democracy into an autocratic rule by mob.

This arbitrary judicial act is the inglorious apex of the years-long persecution of political undesirables using religiously- and subjectively-based punishment. The trail of devastation of the right to free expression extends over several prominent victims of political justice: from Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and Pro Vita head Dr. Alfons Adam to the former Muslim convert Laila Mirzo, whose trial for “denigration of religious teachings” (§ 188 StGb) was adjourned, to be sure, but who was afterwards — because of her Islam-critical stance — denied her right be designated a journalist and Islam expert (February 5 of this year) by Kurier editor Karl Oberacher. An ultimate in judicial partisanship and scurrility is the recent verdict of an Innsbruck court of a €480 fine against a former district head of the “Ring of Free Youth” (RFJ, the Freedom Party’s youth movement), whose Facebook entry celebrated a “piglet barbecue” for Ramadan. (Der Standard of November 15, 2017)

For years, justice has applied subjective and religious law selectively and one-sidedly. While the Christian faith, its God, its commandments and its symbols may be besmirched and denigrated at will without a single prosecution in three decades, let alone a conviction, critics of Islam are habitually legally persecuted, even if their conclusions can be meticulously documented with reference to high religious sources.

2. The purposeful dismissal of freedom of opinion, convictions and scholarship through a selectively and arbitrarily applied religious system of criminal justice is not the only instrument which gives our society progressively more totalitarian characteristics. Relevant mechanisms can also be found in the judicial and administrative realms.

On June 17, 2017, the traditional “March of the Family” took place. While, on the Ring, decorated tractor-trailers growled along holding thousands of strident figures from every earthly and unearthly realm and hellish rubbish heap, displaying their painted genitals and writhing to a never-changing techno-rhythm — on Albertinaplatz, dedicated custodians of life and representatives of a Christian picture of marriage and family were having a peaceful demonstration. Nearby, lesbians with spiky, pink hair and hollow-cheeked stoner faces were chanting “If Mary had aborted, we would have been spared.” As the representatives of the culture of life formed up to march toward the Schottentor, hooded leftists blocked the passage to Josefsplatz and threw themselves at police who had arrived to protect the supporters of family. Shortly thereafter, the leader of the police detachment informed those in charge of the demonstration that violent and armed anarchists were waiting at the Freyung and in Schottengasse. He had been given too few personnel to control the situation. Serious injuries were not out of the question. He would urgently recommend halting the march and pulling back to Albertinaplatz. If not, the sponsors of the march would bear the responsibility for the consequences. The director of the demonstration sadly decided to turn around — very sadly, since the main purpose of the march had been to strike up conversations with passersby in the lively areas of the Freyung^[3] and Schottengasse, and pass out flyers. What other purpose could there be in a public demonstration than to come into contact with the people and influence opinions?

Already, at the annual preliminary discussions with authorities, the organizers of the “March of the Family” found that the officials were limiting their operational space as much as they could, to hinder and/or corral them.

This example demonstrates that the full right of demonstration exists only for leftist and radical leftist groups. The announced demonstrations of all organizations and groups advocating for protection of life, preservation of cultural identity and self-determination of peoples, or opposing population replacement, Islamization and global cultural socialism are obstructed by the leftist mob, with the indulgence of authorities. Apparently because the ruling elites feel they are being impeded in the unfolding and execution of their ideological agenda. Radical leftists do the dirty work, while police and other authorities curtail, shorten or even dissolve announced, peaceful demonstrations — always, of course, citing the security requirements of the public. Besides the “March for the Family,” the experience has been similar for “Young People for Life,” the “Identitarians” and “Pegida Austria.”

3. Even these repressive measures do not exhaust the arsenal of illegal pressure and force within the supposedly constitutional structures of the Republic of Austria. This encompasses the deliberately selective use of public resources to accomplish ideologically motivated grand plans, which are in no sense democratically legitimized.

On June 2, 2017, the philosopher and cultural scholar Dr. Astrid Meyer-Schubert received a message from two colleagues (names known to me) — both being fellow members of the board of the organization IGPPM (Interest Group for Pre- and Peri-natal Psychology and Medicine). They gave her an ultimatum to give up her membership on the board and leave the organization within three days. They said they had been contacted by a member of the Ministry of Science and Technology and put under pressure. The organization was under consideration for financial support for its scientific studies. The ministry representative declared that further cooperative work was impossible “since the member in question has a negative effect on the reputation of public endeavor.” Meyer-Schubert’s two colleagues informed her that she had unacceptable political views and must therefore be purged from the organization. Meyer-Schubert, who comes originally from the women’s emancipation movement, had been critical of mass immigration and the sapping of Europe’s cultural identity. Her new book, “Ahead of its Time. On the Revitalization of Europe’s Christian Identity,” had just appeared. Meyer-Schubert paid the ultimatum no mind. Thereupon, the other members of the board called a general meeting to dissolve the organization and re-constitute it without Meyer-Schubert. And did just that. That is how the ministry’s support was paid for.

Criticism of mass immigration or the “immigration jihad” is no longer tolerated at the political level. Enforcement officers and official apparatus that have nothing to do with the specialized material of a field are put in service to damage undesirables in their careers and personal advancement, and/or damage them existentially, in order to accomplish the transformational agenda of the EU and its like-minded states. Use of material marginalization of oppositional forces is an established method of all autocracies to remove “disturbances” by critics of the system and dissidents. The creation and use of economic dependencies has been established in 21st century Austria as one of the most potent weapons of elite dominance. This is a successful way of creating as many courtiers and system lackeys as possible.

4. These three examples and their evaluation may suffice to demonstrate how the constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of expression, freedom of speech, academic freedom and freedom to demonstrate have been systematically hollowed out and are now only used selectively. It can be definitively shown that for years the same groups have been deliberately deprived of the use of these rights and consequently of a participation in the democratic decision-making process. Both in their philosophical positions and in their social/class membership, these groups show considerable breadth, but may be characterized by the following common attitudes and/or characteristics:

1.		They identify with the European culture — considered to be superior — which is essentially based on and determined by Christianity.
2.		They reject a drastic transformation of the population substrata of European states through mass immigration and uncontrolled refugee presence.
3.		They are essentially Islam-critical and oppose the Islamization of European countries.
4.		They are critical of the EU and/or every development in recent years in the direction of centralization and the superstate.
5.		They are critical of a dominant position for the structure of supranational facilities and against the recognizable tendency of a dominance-oriented globalism and the concomitant one-world ideology.
6.		They reject the concept of cultural socialism and the related social reform (from gender insanity to homo-hedonism and the dissolution of sexual identities).
7.		They want an economic system built on personal dedication and accomplishment, and not on politically motivated redistribution and syndicate-like creation of money on credit.
8.		They reject the existing system of money-on-credit as a mechanism for expropriation of the productive energies of the society which have proven themselves as the material booster rockets of national and international neo-socialism.
9.		They build on the traditional concept of the family as an exclusive manifestation of the marriage of man and woman, and wish to protect the human being from conception to natural death.
10.		By and large, they are not institutionally organized or at least not politically unanimous. Consequently, they fundamentally oppose the ruling class of the self-designated elites.

In contrast to their politically manipulated marginalization and denigrating assessment in “public opinion,” we may presume that most of the mentioned activist groups and their issues actually reflect the values of the majority of the population. On the other hand, the great projects of the elites in recent decades were never secured and taken on by way of the will of the people, i.e., through a democratic majority. This is true of organized mass immigration, of the taboo on speaking of Islam and the effectuation of its influence, of the brain drain in favor of the EU. It also applies to the accompanying complete change in the federal constitution as well as the “anthropological revolution” of preferential treatment for genderless androids who can be manipulated as desired and brought in line by the system media, with the help of meta-political indoctrination.

The immigration tsunami of 2015 was the long-awaited, hotly desired by the elites, probably purposely “engineered” servo-mechanism for the overcoming of the democratic constitutional order. In the spring of 2015, the catchwords “no border” and “refugees and Muslims welcome” reflected the opinion of a percentage of Austrian society. The shock pictures of threatening armies of “refugees” at abandoned border posts and on deserted portions of highway broke the indigenous population’s will to fight. The media drumbeat of ever-similar photos of children at “brutal” barbed wire and of the overfilled trafficker boats did the rest. And if entire governments seemed to let these events pass over them as mere observers, how very natural was the people’s reaction to comprehend this “submission to the inevitable” (the literal translation of “Islam”) with paralyzed dismay.

There is not a hint of democratic legitimization for this land grab and the following partial expropriation of the indigenous population. But with the generation of quasi-nomological violence, literally physical realities have been created which can no longer be suspended.

Europe today is a different continent. Austria is a different country than before the “refugee” immigration. Even before now, the rotted-out foundations of multi-party democracies had been undermined and the superstructure of national identities delegitimized by EU centrism. The events associated with the “refugee” crisis and its results have caused a genuine systemic change. In a formal sense, the institutions of state remain the same, but decision-making has come under the hammer of the anti-democratic grand projects of an unchained global fascism.

The ruling class knows they are not democratically representative. So they must clandestinely immunize the systems they control, in order to protect an irreversible social transformation project from condemnation by the public and potential opposition to the system. This is accomplished through use of the judiciary, of administrative enforcement and of security forces as well as ideologically motivated use of public resources for the purposes of hindering, suppressing and threatening opposition and its advocates. All of this occurs deliberately, but appearing to be under its own power and uncontrolled. We should not underestimate the fact that this process is backed up and supplemented efficiently by the state system of informers and surveillance, which has in recent years been expanded with the help of the “Police State Protection Law” (2015).

5. This blog has shown authoritatively several times in the last year that the dictatorship over expression of opinion is intended to be and is being expanded (Wilfried Grießler on June 20, 2017: New Administrative Policy against “discriminatory statements”; Andreas Unterberger on July 1, 2017: Worst Censorship Law in the Last 70 Years in Germany).

In May of this year, the German Minister of Justice, Heiko Maas, gave indications of where this will all lead. At first, he overshot the goal — even for the taste of several of his colleagues in the party and in the government — with the draft of a so-called “Network Enforcement Law.” After modification, this legal project was passed on June 30th. The main objective is to fight “hate comments and false reporting.” With the legal acceptance of the concept of “hate” and the usurpation of authority over what may be seen as true or false, we have reached a new level of despotism.

It is terrifying to realize that the previous Austrian Minister of Justice and vice chancellor of the ÖVP, Wolfgang Brandstetter, also sees himself as a pioneer in the “battle against hate and false reporting in the net,” which he wishes to lead in close harmony with “European partners.” And the intensification he pushed of the “Incitement Paragraphs” — according to which one may not “incite” against foreigners, but may against Austrians (January 1, 2016) is not enough for him. He has also clearly distinguished himself with his favorite project in numerous foreign speeches. Even though he continuously publicly mitigates this intention by swearing that it is not about the creation of new criminal offenses, that is exactly his goal: “Whoever sows hate will reap prison.” (See for example Der Standard of January 1, 2016). “We are taking deliberate steps…against the pugnacity and coarsening of the language.” It is a question of viewing statements that “could lead to violence” from a criminal justice standpoint. (press release of the Ministry of Justice of September 30, 2016). It should be noted that this year’s ÖVP election campaign party program approve an intensification of the law on expression of opinion.

The enforcement of “hate legislation” instigates a judicial dam breach. “Hate” is, of course, not a juridical concept and does not belong in the legal system. It describes an emotional condition whose presence can only be determined with certainty by the acting subject. In everyday life, even when we feel introspectively justified in suspecting that another person’s disposition to act is hatred, and it can be reasoned as the motive for an already committed crime, it is completely unsuited to be seen as an independent crime. Its application as a standard of criminal prosecution will surely lead to draconian arbitrariness and resultant political abuse. If a legal basis for prosecution of “hate speech crimes” is established, it opens an absolutely unlimited space for legal uncertainty, which will put the law-abiding citizen in a situation of systemic non-freedom. If, beyond that, “false reporting” and “fake news” are criminalized, we have reached the final stage of establishing a state “Ministry of Truth.”

6. So many a reader of these lines will find the title overdone or garish. This reaction would certainly not be incomprehensible. But in view of the drama and dynamics of what is happening, it is absolutely necessary to comprehend the scope of the “Road to Serfdom” (F.A. Hayek) our country has been embarked on for long time, and to see it clearly. Control of opinion, administrative arbitrariness and criminal prosecution of Islam-critics is only the tip of the iceberg. This latter is definitive in the despotism of a highly developed elite and the permanent disposal of freedom.

In a society of free people, the right to truth is the basis for all other rights and freedoms. But the truth is not the property of the authorities. The truth is the common property of the citizens. This truth cannot be transferred to the political caste. To be preserved, it must be continually contended for, eked out in the competition of positions. Elements in this competition to discover the truth are doubt, criticism, questioning, impudence, even insult and mockery. In this competition, no position can be immunized by sacred references, or be set upon the pedestal of a new collective morality, in order to gain power over other positions. To be sure, religion has a right to absoluteness — that is true even in a secular and pluralist society. But this absoluteness must not be accomplished through the means of the state, because God can defend himself.

Hindrance of freedom of expression and criticism has been practiced in this country for a long time, as the motor of an unopposed execution of an irreversible cultural and social transformation process. Land seizure, cultural expropriation and theft of the indigenous population’s wealth of traditions are the result. We cannot stop these processes by hoping for the capabilities of a benevolent government. The government can only combat aberrations if the citizens can and are allowed to identify, name and designate them as bad.

A not inconsiderable number of people regard the present coalition negotiations^[4] as one of the last chances to revise our path into the abyss. Such change will not be possible without saving freedom, especially freedom of expression.

In this area, there is the inalienable necessity for the federal government to demand the enacting of the following measures:

• the cancelation without replacement of §§ 188 (denigration of religious teachings) and 283 (incitement) in the Austrian criminal code
• the expansion of people’s advocacy to an effective instrument against official caprice and (ideologically determined) abuse of public resources.
• a clear and principled rejection of all attempts to establish “hate speech” legislation as well as a condemnation of the idea of criminal prosecution of “fake news.”
• a seriously done disclosure of the fundamentals of faith of the Islamic community, in order to establish legal certainty for citizens and authorities in dealing with Islam. This can only be made possible by revising the completely off-target Islam Law of 2015.
• a renewal of the right to assembly and demonstration, with the peaceful operators protected from and privileged over violent and potentially violent attackers (including hindrance as a form of violence), as well as
• immediately held, binding plebiscites on the great, basic, socially and culturally relevant decisions (halting immigration, halting naturalization, gender-based terrorism, lead culture, family model, etc.).

From the first day of its existence, the government should be judged on the implementation of these projects. There is no freedom if it cannot be gained every day.

Notes: