The essay below by Andreas Unterberger is follow-up to his previous article on the trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. Our German translator JLH has this to say about it:

In the comments section to this piece, Elisabeth’s lead lawyer, Michael Rami, takes note of the Terrorism Prevention Law and some of the government’s desired additions, whose effect, as he points out will allow the state to force its citizens to adopt certain, extremely vague “values.” At that point, as he notes, 1984 is not far away.

His translation of the new piece from Dr. Unterberger’s website:

Now the Pope in the Dock, Yet!
by Andreas Unterberger
November 23, 2010

The next thing for the out-of-control prosecutor’s office will no doubt be to put the Pope in the dock! You have to come to this conclusion when you compare the questions an Austrian citizen in court had to answer, to that which the Pope says in a book of interviews presented at the same time in Rome to a worldwide uproar.

But apparently the prosecutors are waiting for the usual charge to be made by the “News”, which is kept afloat by ads from innumerable SPÖ politicians. As they did with now-defendant Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. The trial was adjourned.

At any rate, Sabaditsch had to justify herself against the charge of identifying Islam itself as the problem and not, as is apparently the opinion of the politically ubercorrect lady judge, merely a few, isolated Islamists. This question, testifying to boundless cluelessness, was asked at almost the same hour as the presentation of the Pope’s new book, in which Benedict XVI dares to say: “It became obvious that Islam must clarify two questions: namely, its relationship to violence and to reason.”

So it is “Islam”, not just a couple of anarchists. Thousands of times, and quite rightly, it has been charged against Islam as a whole that a series of justifications of violence against non-Mulsims can be found in the Koran, and that the majority of scholars of Islam abjure reason-oriented interpretation of Koranic text.

Fortunately, the “News” and the red leaders of the Viennese prosecutor’s office will no doubt protect us from the Pope being allowed to say such a thing again without being punished. They should at least confiscate his book, since otherwise it will, with Thilo Sarrazin’s book, become by far the the biggest seller of the year, all efforts of the leftist media to the contrary notwithstanding.

Speaking of the prosecutor’s office. Prosecutor Hans-Peter Kronawetter had to admit during the proceedings that he only “heard excerpts” of the audio recording of the incriminating lecture by Sabaditsch-Wolff. Not to be believed. A highly paid exponent of the justice system is threatening someone with three years in prison and does not even take the trouble to listen to the entire, allegedly incriminating audio tape.

For those who have forgotten. This is the same Mr. Kronawetter who unconstitutionally accepted criminal investigations concerning a (naturally non-leftist) parliamentary representative, without bothering about parliamentary immunity. And of course without repealing it later.

The really easy question for the home audience: What would happen in any independent private business if a co-worker constantly bumbled like this? But in the Viennese prosecutor’s office, nothing is done to him, because he is only engaged in a fight against the political right. And recently, as is well-known, that makes the rule of law inoperative.

P.S. On the same day, yet a third shocking report to read: a Pakistani Christian woman barely escaped an execution, to which she had been sentenced and has now been freed by an “act of clemency” on the part of the president. She was sentenced because she had replied to Muslim women who were trying to convert her: “Jesus lives, but Mohammed is dead.” Because of something like this, a person in an Islamic country is condemned to death on the grounds of Islam. And in Vienna, they have to justify themselves with an accusation from the “News,” because Islam as a whole is criticized here.

A gang of nine culturally enriched young men in the English city of Derby has been convicted of grooming and pimping underage girls, some of them as young as twelve. A Mohammed Coefficient for the entire gang is not yet available; however, for the two leaders it is 50% 100%.

In other news, there is fear that the financial crisis will spread to Belgium, whose public debt is at 100% of GDP, and which has been without a government for six months. Meanwhile, Portugal’s planned austerity measures — including cutting wages and raising taxes — have caused a massive strike of public workers, all but shutting the country down.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to 4symbols, A. Millar, Barry Rubin, C. Cantoni, DF, Fjordman, Gaia, GB, heroyalwhyness, Holger Danske, Insubria, JD, Kitman, Srdja Trifkovic, 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.

Certain clichés have taken root in our culture since 9-11. One of them is the solemn declaration that “if such-and-such happens, the terrorists will have won.”

The “such-and-such” varies, depending on the political and cultural inclinations of the person who says it. It may refer to the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, or the building of the Ground Zero mosque. The person who says it may be making an impassioned plea for legalizing gay marriage, or imposing gun control — “If we don’t do it, the terrorists will have won.”

However, just because the sentiment is sometimes used in absurd ways doesn’t mean it’s never apropos. For example, if I have to be naked-scanned or have my generative organs groped at the airport, then I think the terrorists have won. It’s not a huge victory for them, like, say, flying the crescent and star flag over the Capitol would be. But it’s a victory nonetheless.

There have been quite a few of those little victories in the last few years. Businesses stopped giving away promotional piggy banks. Molly Norris went into hiding. Juan Williams was fired from NPR. Kurt Westergaard has to live in a specially fortified house under constant police protection.

And the Danish TV network SBS is afraid to run a comedy series about incompetent Muslim terrorists. There’s been a new terror warning in Denmark, and it has the TV executives cowering under their beds.

One of the interesting things about this story is that the Danish government helped fund a vulgar slapstick comedy series about jihad. A government minister is actually trying to compel the network (a private corporation, if I understand it correctly) to air the series, since the program has already been paid for. He says he doesn’t want to “interfere with the editorial independence of SBS”, but that’s disingenuous. Of course he does — he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Many thanks to our Danish correspondent TB for bring this to our attention, and to Anne-Kit for translating two articles from today’s Politiken. I’ve included a trailer for the TV series, so the embedded video is below the jump (to thwart the “Blogger bug”) followed by the two newspaper articles.

First, the trailer for “Terror Cell” (WARNING: the language in this video is not PG-13):

The first article from Politiken, published this afternoon:

Danish TV Station Too Scared to Air Terror Satire

Omar Marzouk is furious that SBS “is too afraid to take the p*** out of extremists”.

It is hard to understand the TV company’s concern over comedian Omar Marzouk’s satirical series “The Cell”.

That is the opinion of Henrik Bo Nielsen, Director of the Danish Film Institute.

The Institute has contributed millions of kroner to the series.

“I think it is unfortunate that they have chosen not to air the series. This is a very funny satirical series, and I have not seen anything that would give me cause for concern”, says the Director, who has seen excerpts from the series.

Moved, changed, postponed

The series, which was completed two years ago, was to have been SBS’s major satire venture.

Initially SBS changed the title of the series, which is about a bunch of useless European terrorists, from “The Terror Cell” to “The Cell”.

Then it was moved from Kanal 5 to the less viewed “6’eren”. And now the series has been postponed indefinitely.

According to Jesper Jürgensen, Head of Information at SBS, the series may offend some of their advertisers. And the current terror threat against Denmark has also played a part in the decision to drop the series.

Furious author

A weak argument, says the author of the series.

“I am furious that SBS is too scared to broadcast a series that takes the p*** out of extremists”, says Omar Marzouk to newspaper BT.

SBS is obliged to run the series within one year of receiving government funding of DKK4.5 million.

Extension

This deadline was extended to 6 December, and now the Ministry for Culture has granted the TV company an extension until 6 June 2011.

Otherwise they will have to pay back the grant.

The series stars Omar Marzouk, Nicolas Bro, Ramadan Huseini and Simon Juul as the useless terrorists.

The second article from Politiken, published a bit later this afternoon:

Run “The Cell” or Pay Up

Minister demands grant for terror series refunded if series not screened.

Minister for Culture Per Stig Møller [Conservative Party] warns SBS that the TV company will be presented with a bill if a government funded satirical series is never screened.

At issue is comedian Omar Marzouk’s satirical series “The Cell”, which SBS TV initially moved, then changed its title and finally shelved indefinitely citing the heightened terror threat against Denmark.

“If they do not screen the series they will have to pay back the money, because they were given public service funds to broadcast programmes on the commercial channels. We have given them until the summer of 2011 to screen the series, and if that doesn’t happen they will have to repay the money”, says Per Stig Møller to Berlingske.dk.

“The Cell” is a satirical series in 12 episodes whose original title was “The Terror Cell”.

More than two years ago SBS TV was granted DKK4.5 million from the public service fund of the Danish Film Institute to produce the series.

“Self-censorship”

On the other hand Per Stig Møller points out that he has no desire to interfere with the editorial independence of SBS.

The Minister for Culture warns in principle against abstaining from screening the series out of fear.

“You must never abstain from doing something out of fear, for then you have imposed self-censorship out of fear. This would mean that whatever scared you into not doing what you would have otherwise done, has won. Then you have allowed yourself to be scared, and those that scared you have won. So you must not do that”, says Per Stig Møller.

This news story was shown yesterday on Canadian television. It describes an attempted honor killing by a culturally enriched gentleman in Toronto who ran down his daughter and two other family members with his minivan. The confessed would-be murderer will serve four years in prison for his vehicular attack.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for YouTubing this video:

For a complete listing of previous enrichment news, see The Cultural Enrichment Archives.

Our Austrian correspondent AMT sent a tip about this essay by Andreas Unterberger, and included this note:

Andreas Unterberger has hit the nail on its head and succinctly analyzed the sad state of affairs in Austria. However, after yesterday’s trial there is some hope that freedom of speech may remain. We should not hold our breaths just yet.

Many thanks to JLH for the translation from Dr. Unterberger’s website:

Freedom in the Dock

by Andreas Unterberger
November 22, 2010

Austria is on the path to becoming a totalitarian state. That will be clearer than ever this Tuesday. The justice system is actually prosecuting a woman for making critical statements about Islam.

Seminar lecturer Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff — in the cabinet of Wolfgang Schüssel in the 1990s, and later active at several embassies in the Arab world — will be accused of making Islam-critical statements. Meanwhile, in Austria, for time out of mind, every discriminatory act or word against the Catholic church goes unpunished.

Behind the Sabaditsch trial — even if it should ultimately result in a not-guilty verdict — is of course stupid partisan political calculation: since the comments were made at a Freedom Party function, the belief is that the rise of the FPÖ [Austrian Freedom Party] can be combated in this way. As a next step in consequence of the show trial, the funds allocated for the Freedom Party’s academy can be removed. As the ruling parties have in the meantime decided to do, to the cheers of the Greens.

Almost simultaneously with the bringing of the charge against Sabaditsch-Wolff, probably the most depressing document of postwar Austrian legal history became public: a precise documentation by the longstanding president of the supreme court, Johann Rzeszut, which shows how very much the prosecutor’s office thwarted the pursuit of the accomplice in the kidnapping of Natascha Kumpasch.* A copy of his communication to all parliamentary groups may be found in its entirety in the internet.

It is not new that the Red and Green, in the face of steady electoral losses, are ever more willing to turn from the voting booth to the courtroom. Similarly, every dissident in the countries of Eastern Europe after 1945 was persecuted by the communists through show trials. (Something that the Social Democrats, among others affected by that, should remember). Similarly, with political trials, the Nazis criminalized dissidents by the thousands.

It is just disturbing that a minister of the ÖVP has also given permission for such a thought trial. Which, to be sure, merely confirms current judgements on the intelligence and foresight of this minister. Even more disturbing is the fact that not a soul in the ÖVP will stand up and advocate for freedom of expression. At any rate, ÖVP has long been the first party, among the meager Austrian offerings in this regard, to represent the values and convictions of classical liberalism.

In the case of the SPÖ, this kind of tradition came to an end with the departure of Bruno Kreisky. Recall wistfully how patiently he confronted the democracy-hostile and violent stupidities of his own party’s young (whose exponents then ended up with the Greens).

Even if Sabaditsch-Wolff’s every statement were nonsense, that must not be a cause in a constitutional democracy to bring her to trial. For in other venues too, pure foolishness is spoken, hate-filled theses on class warfare are drummed out, and other similar things.

The condition of justice is also symbolized by the fact that the charge against Sabaditsch-Wolff stems from, of all people, a reporter from the News — that is, from a paper that embodies all the negative aspects in domestic journalism (and happily is suffering from a steady loss of readers).

Naturally, it must not only be allowable to dispute with Islam pointedly and critically — it is urgently necessary. Anyway, the sacred books of Islam designate unbelievers — that is all others — as “worse than animals.”

Sabaditsch-Wolff, to her credit, has revealed many abuses that have arisen because of the advance of Islam: public swimming pools closed to non-Muslim women; kindergartens that no longer serve pork; girls who are not allowed to ski. And everyone who cares about the future of Europe must deal with the fact that most terrorists on earth have an Islamic motivation; that in all countries where it is in the majority Islam means restriction of human rights; that critics of Islam are exposed to threats and real mortal danger worldwide and for years on end; that Muslims from Pakistan to Egypt carry out bloody persecutions of Christians.

Austrian jurisprudence is walking in the footsteps of that of the Netherlands, which has likewise allowed leftist radicals to use criminal trials to badger critics of Islam.

The most prominent example is electoral winner Geert Wilders. In the Wilders trial, a judge even tried to secretly influence an expert witness against the defendant. To be sure, there are independent instances which show the judge to be biased and have caused the trial to start over from the beginning. Especially scurrilous in the Wilders trial is the fact that even the prosecution has for a long time been requesting a dismissal that Wilders be set free. (He had compared the Koran with Mein Kampf.)

In our case. however, Claudia Bandion-Ortner’s prosecuting attorneys are on the rampage.

By contrast, a shocking poll by an institute for research into youth culture (close to the SPÖ) taken among Arab and Turkish young people living in Vienna is being shelved immediately. 45% believe that Jews have too much influence on the world economy and 37.9% believe that Hitler did “a lot of good” for people. This is being ignored while criticism of Islam is being punished with imprisonment. Indeed, the young Muslims in great majority are choosing “correctly.”

In Germany, on the contrary, there are still courageous politicians, who point out the problems connected with Islam. Wolfgang Bosbach (CDU), chair of the domestic affairs committee, has pointed out that religions can supply motives for violence and this is the case with Islam rather than with Christianity. The German family minister, Kristina Schröder, confirms — like the German philologists’ association — a growing hostility to Germans among Muslim youth. She advocates severe punishments up to expulsion of criminal and integration-resistant young people. She dares to say, “There are mosques where values are transmitted that clearly do not belong on the foundation of our constitution.”

Really, the Austrian media should quickly grasp the fact that the steady constriction of freedom of expression impacts the media above all. They could learn from an impressive example from, of all places, Bolivia. As protest against a new anti-racism law, the large newspapers there appeared for a full day with an almost blank front page. The only text read: “There is no democracy without freedom of expression.” The newspapers fear that the law could be used as a pretext for closing newspapers for spreading or justifying racism.

Apparently, Bolivian journalists are smarter than ours. And braver.

Finally, it is not just about Sabaditsch, but about recalling our most central basic values. It is about our central demand: Hands off freedom of expression!

Otherwise, soon, as now in many lands, every Turk who denies the genocide against the Armenians will have to appear in court. And every US citizen who denies the genocide against the Indians. Every Muslim who treats homosexuals as inferior. Every Frenchman who glorifies the war-starter Napoleon. Every Protestant who denigrates the Catholic Church. Every Catholic priest who, like a Belgian bishop recently, calls AIDS “immanent justice.” Or every leftist demonstrator against pro-lifers who carries a sign like “If Mary had aborted, we would not have to put up with you.”

None of them comprehend that with Sabaditsch-Wolff their own freedom of expression is threatened. Certainly these questions can be commented on intensively and passionately. However, a constitutional democracy can only function if everyone can debate every question in complete freedom. With ever so stupid and ever so obnoxious as well as ever so clever pronouncements. If this freedom of expression is taken away, then the move toward totalitarianism can longer be held back.

Should it happen in the future that only comments from a particular political direction are punished, then we are no longer on the way to totalitarianism. We arrived long ago.

*

A 10-year old girl is kidnapped and held until she escapes at age 18. The perpetrator disappears and the lead investigator mysteriously commits suicide.

Photo courtesy of SOS Heimat.

Depending on which source you read, 10, 11, or 15 terrorism suspects were arrested today in Europe on suspicion of plotting jihad attacks in Belgium. The suspects were arrested in Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands. American intelligence provided information to their Belgian counterparts which helped lead to the arrests. The suspects were also tracked through their use of Jihad websites.

In other news, Ireland is in the midst of political chaos following the government’s decision to accept an EU bailout. Meanwhile, Greece is having to enforce even greater austerity to meet the EU’s debt guidelines, Portugal is thought to be next in line for a bailout, and Germany says that it cannot keep bailing out profligate fellow members of the Eurozone indefinitely.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to Amil Imani, C. Cantoni, DF, Fjordman, Gaia, GB, heroyalwhyness, ICLA, KGS, Nilk, Reinhard, Steen, 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.

The following report came in a press release from Cyprus Action Network. It concerns a debate about the partition of Cyprus, and the illegal Turkish actions that keep the island divided.

British Members of Parliament speak like Kyrenian Refugees

On Tuesday the 16 November 2010 an emergency meeting took place in the House of Commons in London with Cyprus as its item.

At the same time president Christofias is travelling to New York, when Sir David Hannay attempts a comeback to the scene with statements through Arab TV station Al Jazira calling upon the Greek Cypriots to accept his rejected monstrosity so called “Annan Plan“ (with some modifications he says), British Members of Parliament debate in depth the Cyprus issue in the House of Commons and speak with a Kyrenian refugee voice! They hammer Turkey head on, and the Turkish Cypriots for their myths, crimes, destruction and desecration of occupied Churches and cemeteries, cultural heritage, for barbarism and huge violations of human rights, the case of the missing people, the need for all Turkish invading troops to withdraw, for the settlers to withdraw and the return of Greek Cypriot refugees to their stolen land and properties and many more…

The MPs have criticized heavily their colleague MP and ex Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary Jack Straw for his despicable article in The Times calling for partition and one even insinuated that he may have been “paid” to write it.

The British MPs spoke and called for all those things the Greek Cypriot refugees demand, only to be regarded by some of their own people as… racists and nationalists simply because they are an obstacle in the implementation of the racist bizonal bicommunal federation.

You are forwarded the full text of the House of Commons Hansard Report on the debate on the 16th November 2010 on Cyprus. The discussion starts from paragraph 212WH and finishes at paragraph 232WH.

Also you are forwarded the video link to watch the full debate as it took place in the House of Commons.

The Cyprus High Commissioner, Mr. Alexandros Zenon, was present at the debate, as was the new Minister for Europe Mr. David Lidignton.

PDF of Cyprus Debate

Thank you,

Fanoulla Argyrou, London , 18.11.2010

Below is a news story about today’s artillery attack by North Korea on a South Korean island. It includes security camera footage of one of the shells exploding:

Hat tip: Her Royal Whyness.

The French Defence League has released another video. This one is about the halal food scam, and the way it imposes a hidden tax on halal meat (which is not even marked as such).

The tax, of course, is the mandatory sharia-imposed zakat, which is a compulsory “charity donation” used to fund jihad, among other things.

Many thanks to Bear for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling. To avoid the Blogger problem, I’ve placed the video below the jump, followed by a complete English transcript:

Transcript:

00:00
00:04
00:08
00:12
00:16		Is presenting
00:20		The organizations that certify halal
00:24
00:28		There exists diverse organisations that certify halalaution:
00:32		They all take a hidden fee, the Islamic tax
00:36		In the best of cases, it will be used for construction…
00:40		of new mosques, maintenance of new mosques, and the maintenance of existing ones.
00:44		To build koranic schools where sharia will be taught.
00:48		Per kilo of halal meat the Islamic tax…
00:52		is 10 to 15 centimes on the Euro.
00:56
01:00		Tax on Dhimmis. AN ISLAMIC TAX IN FRANCE! halal…
01:04		An Islamic tax in France paid by YOU
01:08
01:12
01:16		Worse yet, some organizations are affiliated with the Islamic Brotherhood (Ikhwan)
01:20		…and this money is used for other cruel …
01:24		joyous acts from an intolerant sect, that is violent and …
01:28		dominating.
01:32
01:36
01:40		By buying halal, you become …
01:44		Complicit in Islamic terrorism.
01:48
01:52
01:56
02:00		and you participate in murders to our compatriots in Iraq or Afghanistan.
02:04
02:08
02:13
02:17
02:21
02:25
02:29
02:33		Ask yourself this question:
02:33		Ask yourself this question: These soldiers, did they fall under a bullet or under a bullet of halal?
02:37
02:41
02:45		Impose the mandatory marking of Halal products and its derivatives.
02:49		SIGN THE PETITION!
02:53
02:57
03:01
03:05
03:09		French Defense League
03:13
03:17

The following television report takes an inside look at private Islamic secondary schools in the UK, and the things that are included in their curricula. Most of these schools are funded and administered by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, so the contents of their schoolbooks — death for homosexuals, hellfire for the kuffar, and amputations for thieves — will come as no surprise to regular Gates of Vienna readers.

It has caused quite a stir in Britain, however. And the fact that this investigative report came from the BBC, of all places, has made its impact even harder for the ruling oligarchy to ignore.

BBC Panorama: British Schools, Islamic Rules (Part 1)

BBC Panorama: British Schools, Islamic Rules (Part 2)

Hat tip: DF.

In this morning’s live-blogging report on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s “hate speech” trial in Austria, we mentioned that Robert Spencer was one of the potential expert witnesses who might be called when the trial resumes in January. Elisabeth herself also mentioned Mr. Spencer’s offer of help during her interview last week in the New English Review, excerpts from which were reposted here.

That appears to have changed: Elisabeth says Mr. Spencer has withdrawn his offer of assistance as an expert witness. While this news is dismaying, it is fortunate that Prof. Hans Jansen and Wafa Sultan are both still willing to appear on her behalf. Professor Jansen is Dutch, and assisted Geert Wilders at the latter’s recent trial. Prof. Jansen is one of the foremost Arabists in the world. Wafa Sultan, originally from Syria but now living in America, is a Muslim apostate. She is a psychiatrist specializing in the tyranny of the theological and political ramifications of Islam.

In other words, Elisabeth has excellent, expert witnesses who can stand by her during the coming ordeal of her trial. Nonetheless, the absence of Mr. Spencer is a keenly felt setback. No one can take Mr. Spencer’s place when it comes to speaking eloquently about the danger of Islam.

I have been privileged to hear Mr. Spencer speak twice, both times in October 2007. The first occasion was in Antwerp, where he gave a talk to a gathering of Vlaams Belang members. His presentation impressed everyone. He spoke again two days later at the Counterjihad Brussels conference. Both lectures were lucid and inspiring.

Mr. Spencer’s work, his wisdom, and his ability to respond to those who promote Islam as a “Religion of Peace” have earned him a unique place as a leader in the Counterjihad. Come January, his knowledge and eloquence will be sorely missed in Vienna.

The trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff for “denigrating religious teachings” begins today in Vienna. For those who are unfamiliar with the case, see the list of previous articles at the bottom of this post. This post will stay on top for a while, and updated as required. Later material will be added at the top.

This is an historic moment. Those who are not paying attention now will wish they had in years to come. The Bard’s words are fitting:

And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

— William Shakespeare, from Henry V

Note: The times given here are Helsinki time, which is an hour later than the time in Vienna. They are seven hours later than EST.

Final update 14:34 (7:34am EST): The remainder of the hearing has been postponed until January 18th, so it seems that Elisabeth’s ordeal will be dragged out for at least several more months. Those of you who are religious, please pray for her.

Below is Henrik’s final report for the day:

The NEWS journalist Dolna was called as witness. Technicalities of her recording equipment were discussed by the judge, including the fact that of the first seminar, only half an hour was recorded.

The judge inquired about some of the statements quoted being from breaks, not from the seminar proper. Only three to four persons heard those, not 32 or more, the criterion for a statement being “public”. This is important for legal reasons, as only statements made to a large group can be punishable.

The judge dug further into the methods of the journalist. Why did the journalist quote statements made in the breaks, not part of the lecture? The journalists says “For journalistic reasons”. Also for dramaturgic reasons, that it makes for a more dramatic and catching article.

Further, the judge asked if it was made clear in advance that the journalist would be recording the seminars. She responded that she had not told anyone, as her work constituted “investigative journalism”, a journalistic tool.

The lawyer probed further into the issue of the quotes being part of the prepared seminar, or offhand comments in the breaks.

Next, the events concerning the opera “Idomeneo” were discussed. The background is that the performance of this classical Mozart piece by Deutsche Oper Berlin, which was cancelled due to Islamic pressure. The director had added decapitation of Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad to the original play. Fear of unrest caused the play to be cancelled. The well-known German magazine Focus had, in that context, written that we should under no circumstances cave in to pressure like this.

This rounded off the day after roughly three hours of hearings. Since there is a need to play the complete recordings (eight hours) from the seminars, the next hearing was scheduled for January 18th.

The proceedings had a serious breach of procedure: The journalist from NEWS.at had not been summoned as a witness, yet was permitted to take the stand. Witnesses are not permitted to be present at the hearings before they are summoned. The defense lawyer will look into possible consequences of this.

This is the end of reporting for today. Please join us on January 18th 2011 for more news from the frontiers of defending the free societies of the West.

Live-blogging of the trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff will resume on January 18th. In the meantime, I ask everyone to please publicize her case. We need to light a fire under the fundaments of the Austrian oligarchs who brought about this travesty of “justice”.

Update 13:54 (6:54am EST): The hearing was adjourned for the day at 12:08 local time. The afternoon session was skipped, because they will have to play the whole tape, which will take extra sessions.

A photo, courtesy of SOS Heimat:

Henrik will have a final report on this morning’s session.

Live-blogging in German at SOS Heimat.

Update 13:06 (6:06am EST): Live-blogging in Dutch at the Amsterdam Post.

Update 12:40 (5:40am EST): The lawyer continues to ask Elisabeth to explain various statements:

Lawyer:		What is meant by “We are decadent”?
Elisabeth:		That is the point of view of Islamic fundamentalists.
Lawyer:		What is meant by “We do not want Sharia here, full stop”?
Elisabeth:		Free, secular societies is what we want.
Lawyer:		What is meant by “Islamic law is not compatible with free societies, we need to understand this.”?
Elisabeth:		Islam is a whole, and this whole is not compatible with free societies like the Austrian.
Lawyer:		Did you see any veiled Muslim men?
Elisabeth		(laughing): No, this is an obligation only for women.
Lawyer:		You were referring to Paris, Brussels, Rotterdam. What is the meaning of that?
Elisabeth:		This is a reference to the no-go zones, where Sharia is effectively the law. There immigrant youths torch cars, throw stones at the police, etc.
Prosecutor:		Are each and every one of these persons Muslims?
Elisabeth:		The majority are.
Lawyer:		What is meant when you say: “How many times have we been told that Islam is a Religion of Peace?” Is this an incitement to hate or violence?
Elisabeth:		I do not mean to incite hatred or violence. We need to be informed, make people aware, inform our politicians and write letters to the newspapers.
Lawyer:		What is meant by “We do not want gender apartheid, polygamy”?

Elisabeth explains polygamy in Islam, and the fact that this is a reality in Europe, today.

Elisabeth finally tells about the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the absolute right to express ones’ opinions, as a fundamental prerequisite for a sound democracy.

At this point, more people have arrived. There are 18 seats for the audience, 30-35 listeners total.

Update 12:06 (5:06am EST): The significant event at this point of the trial is the unwrapping of ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper. It is commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English.

They are using the Revised Edition (published 1991, revised 1994), which is “The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ’Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices”, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. This an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law, because it is certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo.

The defense lawyer goes through some points of the charges, asking Elisabeth:

Lawyer:		You said: “Muslims kill due to Islamic teachings. Christians also kill, but not due to their religious teachings.” Are there not verses in the Bible that encourage killing?
Elisabeth:		Not in the New Testament, and not actively used today.

The defense lawyer explains the death threats against Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the security she needs to live under.

Elisabeth tells about the killing of Theo van Gogh, and the Quran quotes used to justify that.

Lawyer:		“Are there child marriages in Islamic countries?”
Elisabeth:		“Yes, for example Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan. Also the late Ayatollah Khomeini recommended paedophilia, and the current Iranian President Ahmadinejad recommends his teachings.
Elisabeth:		According to Islamic law, these marriages are legal and justifiable.
Lawyer:		Are corporal punishments, like chopping off of limbs, part of Islamic law?
Elisabeth:		Yes, this is described for instance in Reliance of the Traveler.

[The defense lawyer and Elisabeth have explained about the classical Sunni Islamic book Reliance of the Traveller, unwrapping a fresh copy in court.]

4:50 am EST: I just got up, and am catching up with what has been written so far at Tundra Tabloids, which will be mirrored at the Save Free Speech website.

Henrik Ræder Clausen is present at the court, and is communicating with KGS, who is posting all this. Henrik says Austrian TV is outside the courtroom with a camera crew

10:34 (3:34 am): Opening remarks

The room has seats for 15, but 25 spectators are there. ATV and other press asks for comments, but on advice of the lawyer ESW says “No comments now, after the hearings”.

The judge informs ESW about her rights, that all she says can be used against her.

The public prosecutor makes a short summary of various conclusions from ESW, taken out of the context from eight hours of lectures. Without the context, they sound ominous, like speaking of a “Burqa ghost”, comparing her statements to those of Susanne Winter, mentioning that Muhammad married a child of six, as well as the risk that we will eventually have a civil war.

The defense lawyer speaks of the principles of gender equality, freedom of religion, and the lack of reciprocity that exists in Islam, for example that other religions cannot be freely exercised in several Islamic countries. That ESW grew up in Islamic countries and has experienced the situation of women there directly.

He continues to explain that the statements mentioned were taken seriously out of context, and that some were not public, and thus not relevant to the case. And that we should play the eight hours of recordings to understand the context.

He proceeds to invoke three expert witnesses who will testify that ESW speaks the truth:

• Wafa Sultan
• Hans Jansen
• Robert Spencer

10:53: The judge inquires if we are talking about Islamic extremism, or of Islam as such?

Elisabeth explains that we are talking Islam as such, as defined by its scripture, and quotes Erdogan that there is no moderate Islam anyway.

The judge accepts that we can play the tapes.

Then proceeds to ask about us being lied to 24 hours a day. Elisabeth explains the concept of Taqiyya. The judge says: “That is your interpretation”, to which Elisabeth responds: “No, this is the canonical interpretation”.

Next question is: “Is Islam in a never-ending war with the West?”

Elisabeth refers to history and newspapers to document that, and that Jihad has at times been considered a pillar of Islam.

11:15: The “burqa ghost” story is related.

Elisabeth took a photo of a woman in a burqa in Meitlinger Hauptstrasse, Vienna, and told about this in her seminars. It is difficult to figure out why the public prosecutor finds this offensive, not to mention illegal. The defense asks about this. Elisabeth explains a few things about freedom for women — all women — to decide for themselves.

A reference is then made to debates at OSCE, where she discussed child molestation, and says: Christian cardinals molest children in conflict with their religion; Muslims in line with theirs. As background the marriage between Muhammad and Aisha is related, as documented by several Hadith authors.

Paedophilia is discussed, in light of Muhammad being the perfect example for Muslims, as stated in Quran 33:21. That means everything Muhammad ever did or said, which is in the hadith.

Elisabeth explains what the hadith collections are, how they constitute an indispensable part of Islam, due to 33:21 and similar suras. And emphasizes that she is not making up statements, merely quoting canonical Islamic scripture.

Henrik Clausen: [Now apostasy — more later]

11:34: The Judge opens a discussion if we’re talking of “All Muslims” here.

Elisabeth says no, for most Muslims do not know what is in the Quran, which is in a language (Arabic) they do not understand, and thus place their confidence in the imams for interpretations.

Their exchange:

Judge:		“Is every Muslim a Jihadist?”
Elisabeth:		“No, not at all. But Jihad is an obligation for Muslims.”
Elisabeth:		“Converts, not cultural Muslims, are problematic.”
Elisabeth:		“This is about the teachings of Islam, not about Muslims.”
Judge:		“You said Muslims in the seminars?”
Elisabeth:		“Yes, in context that is needed to understand the relevance of this.”
Judge:		“What percentage of Muslims are Jihadis?”
Elisabeth:		“I do not know. Not the majority. One promille [per thousand] is enough to be a problem, though”.

Then the quote about “Islam is s***” is debated. Elisabeth points out that she was debating, using visual quotes, if it is legal or punishable to say “Islam is s***”. Thus, what we are discussing here is the meta-question:

Is it illegal, or punishable, to debate the legality of saying: “Islam is s***”?

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

2009		Dec		5		Fighting a Hate Speech Charge in Austria
				11		Heckling the Counterjihad
				14		Whose Law?
				17		Defaming the Muslims of Pinkafeld
2010		Mar		11		A Mother and an Activist
				20		An Austrian “Hate School”
				22		Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff at the Freedom Defense Initiative
				29		Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and the Wiener Akademikerbund
		Sep		9		“Islam is a Political Ideology Disguised as a Religion”
				16		“Justice Must Not Be Made the Handmaiden of Sharia”
				17		The Truth Does Not Matter
		Oct		11		Interview With Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
				16		Is the Truth Illegal in Austria?
				20		A Court Date for Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
				21		BPE Press Release on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
				22		Elisabeth’s Voice: An Appeal
				23		Elisabeth’s Voice: A Follow-Up
				24		Raising Our Voices
				25		Elisabeth’s Voice is Growing
				27		Elisabeth’s Voice: More Information
				27		A Bit More Media Attention?
				28		We Are Elisabeth’s Voice
				30		Elisabeth’s Voice in Amsterdam
				31		Mark Steyn Joins Elisabeth’s Voice
		Nov		2		Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: Target of Western Shariah
				6		Anatomy of a Discussion with a Leftist Journalist
				8		ESW in the WSJ
				10		“The Left is Very Much the New Far Right”
				11		Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Versus the State of Denial
				17		Elisabeth’s Voice: An Update
				15		The New English Review Interviews Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
				20		Live-Blogging the Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
				20		The ESW Defense File

This Irish government finally caved in to pressure and accepted a bailout from the Eurozone, with additional help from the British government. The decision caused some of the smaller Irish parties, including the Greens — who objected to the planned austerity measures — to withdraw from the governing coalition. This forced Prime Minister Brian Cowen to call new elections for January, although he will not resign until after the new budget has been approved.

In other news, the Cordoba Initiative — the group behind the Ground Zero Mosque, headed by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf — has applied for a $5 million grant from the fund set up to help rebuild Manhattan after the 9-11 attacks.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to Barry Rubin, C. Cantoni, CSP, DF, DF2, Don Vito, Fjordman, Gaia, ICLA, Insubria, KGS, Kitman, Mary Abdelmassih, Nilk, Srdja Trifkovic, Swenglish Rantings, 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.

I’ve often described the native inhabitants of Sweden as “persons of Swedish background”. This is not a joke — it’s an English translation of the official terminology employed by the Swedish state to describe the fair-skinned blue-eyed Swedish-speakers who made up all but a miniscule part of the Swedish population prior to 1970. What we used to call “Swedes” are now “persons of Swedish background”, just as Finns living in Sweden are “persons of Finnish background”, Somali immigrants are “persons of Somali background”, and so on.

This nomenclature is a deliberate attempt to subvert the basis of society itself by distorting the language to change the way Swedes think about themselves. The oligarchs who govern the European region formerly known as Sweden are certain that they have the moral justification and legal authority to create the perfect multicultural state. Singling out a specifically Swedish identity as essential to the culture and integral to the state is a sin against Multiculturalism, and must be suppressed. “Swedishness” itself is to be devalued and discounted.

To that end, the Swedish Parliament has voted to change the country’s constitution to reflect the new consensus. Since Parliament voted in favor of the change both before and after the latest general election, the revised constitution must now come into force in 2011. There is no going back.

To get an idea of the nature of the Brave New Constitution, we’ll take a look at a couple of media articles. First, from Stockholm News:

The Swedish constitution to be changed

The Swedish constitution will be changed next year. The final decision in the Riksdag will be made on Wednesday, but since almost 95 percent of the MPs will vote yes, it is only a formality.

To change the Swedish constitution you need two separate decisions in the Riksdag. Between the two decisions there need to be an election. However, since changes in the constitutions normally are the result of cross block border negotiations, it is difficult for the voters who are against the changes to do anything about it at the election that separates the two parliamentary votings.

All seven parties that had seats in the Riksdag last electoral period voted in favor of the changes in the first voting in June this year. Only the Sweden democrats, elected to parliament for the first time this September this year, will vote no in the second voting next week.

Some of the changes:

• The Riksdag shall vote about the Prime Minister after every election. Today, if there is an unclear parliamentarian situation, the government can continue to govern and it is up to the opposition to call for a vote of no confidence and force them to resign.
  […]
• The Swedish membership of the EU becomes a part of the constitution.
• It will be written in the constitution that the ability of Sami- and other ethnical, linguistic and religious minorities to keep and develop their culture shall be promoted.
• The current requirement regarding Swedish citizenship for some higher state positions is removed. One such position is the national prosecutor (riksåklagare) which might be held by non-citizens in the future. The requirement on Ministers to have been Swedish citizens for at least ten years is removed…. [emphasis added]

So the EU has been written into the constitution, foreigners may hold high office, and ethnic separateness will be officially promoted.

Ice News has more:

New Swedish constitution recognises Saami

The newly drafted Swedish constitution has declared that the Saami are no longer an ethnic minority but a fully-fledged people.

While the wording of the agreement sheds little light on the new implications for international law, most legal experts agree the move will theoretically strengthen the rights of the indigenous Saami.

Professor of international law, Ove Bring, told the media that the mere mention of the Swedish Saami as both a people and a minority under the constitution would be of major significance. “Traditionally, a people has a stronger right to autonomy that a minority,” said Bring. “A people have political rights, while an indigenous group has cultural rights.”

The issue has been a bone of contention since an earlier draft of the new Swedish constitution listed the Saami as an ‘ethnic minority’, triggering widespread condemnation from the country’s indigenous community, reports Siku News.

The choice of the Saami (or Lapps) as poster children for the Multicultural Utopia is no accident. The Saami have lived in Sweden for thousands of years, since before the ancestors of the Swedes arrived. They are non-militant, picturesque, and pose no threat to the political order. Who could object to the Saami?

The multicultural Trojan Horse has been painted in the likeness of a Saami family with reindeer and colorful costumes so that it may sneak in with all the Somalis, the Albanians, the Iraqis, the Afghans, and all the other barbaric Muslim peoples now arriving in Sweden by the tens of thousands. The Saami are being singled out for protection to help prevent any attempt to discredit the institutionalization of Sweden’s suicidal multicultural policies.

The main point, however, is that Sweden’s EU membership has become part of the Swedish constitution along with multiculturalism. That’s what the new text is about — affirming Sweden’s status as an officially multicultural EU member state.

As the Icelandic article says: “A people have political rights, while an indigenous group has cultural rights.”

Swedes, of course, have neither.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Moderaterna (the Moderates) is the ruling party in Sweden, although it governs together with other center-right parties in a parliamentary coalition. Jimmie Åkesson and Kent Ekeroth, two leaders of the upstart anti-Islamization Sverigedemokraterna (the Sweden Democrats) recently wrote a debate article for SVD.

Moderaterna’s reply was telling:

“Vi ser stora fördelar med att öppna upp för utländska medborgare att ha samhällsbärande positioner.”

Translation: “We see great benefits to opening up for foreign citizens to have positions of power in society.”

In other words, they’re making it easier for immigrants to gain political power, and are stating it proudly and openly.

Welcome to the all-new multicultural Nordic paradise! We hope you enjoy celebrating diversity with us!

Oh yes, one more thing before we forget — a special reminder for persons of Swedish background:

Don’t forget to pay your taxes!

Hat tip: Reinhard.