An Appeal to Rectify an Oversight

ESW Luton Feb. 2011

As regular readers know, the Austrian anti-jihad activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff will go on trial again in Vienna on Tuesday morning.

Elisabeth has been charged with “incitement to hatred” and “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” for giving informational seminars about Islam. Tuesday will be a big day for her: a verdict may well be delivered in court that day. If she is convicted — which is a distinct possibility — she will then begin the difficult and protracted process of appealing the verdict all the way to the European Court of Human Rights.

We will live-blog her court appearance on Tuesday. This is a pivotal event, so stay tuned.

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

In today’s post about the 2011 CPAC conference in Washington D.C., Pamela Geller reminds her readers of the FDI event that she and Robert Spencer organized at CPAC this time last year. She mentions the list of speakers she featured at the event:

Last year I brought the world’s leading counter jihadists to CPAC: Wafa Sultan, Simon Deng, Anders Gravers, Steve Coughlin and others, to educate the CPACers on the jihadist threat — the political third rail.

Those who followed last year’s proceedings will notice the prominent absence of Col. Allen West and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff from this list. Elisabeth’s speech was popular with the audience that day, and earned a standing ovation. Videos of her presentation and that of Col. West went viral over the internet in the weeks after the event.

FDI poster

The absence of Elisabeth’s name from the listing of last year’s podium speakers is perplexing, given the fact that she is approaching a critical moment in her case. It is also disturbing that neither Atlas Shrugs nor Jihad Watch has posted any coverage of Elisabeth’s trial since last October.

We can only assume that this oversight on the part of the American Counterjihad’s most prominent bloggers is the result of two busy people who have many demands on their time, rather than a deliberate omission.

If there are any policy disagreements between the parties involved, we urge them to recall Ronald Reagan’s observation: “The person who agrees with you eighty percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a twenty percent traitor.”

One behalf of the common cause, we call on Mr. Spencer and Ms. Geller to rectify this oversight and express public support for Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff at this crucial moment.

There is more on Elisabeth’s case at the Save Free Speech appeal.

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
        23   The Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Day 1
        27   The Time That is Given Us
        28   ESW at Trykkefrihedsselskabet
    Dec   5   An Oasis of Civilization in a Desert of Barbarism
        22   An Unusual Hobby
        23   In Demand Everywhere
2011   Jan   14   ESW: Thoughts Before a Trial
        14   Live-Blogging the Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Part Two
        16   ESW: A Submission to the Court in Vienna
        18   The Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Day 2
        21   Elisabeth’s Voice, Phase Two
        28   Geert Wilders Supports Elisabeth’s Voice
    Feb   5   Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Luton
        10   A Dangerous Mindset

13 thoughts on “An Appeal to Rectify an Oversight

  1. Permit me to note a potential pattern in the omissions:

    Both of those omitted are people not born into Islam that come from non-Islamic countries who, nonetheless, have either lived or fought in Islamic countries and, due to high-level involvement (be it diplomatic circles or military rank), therefore, carry exceptional weight in their words.

    Such relatively expert knowledge could be seen as posing direct competition with respect to the authority of Ms. Geller and Mr. Spencer. Of whom, at least one if not both, have previously demonstrated an exaggerated sensitivity to any competition for the spotlight.

  2. I too hope they rectify the situation. Although I must say I have been bothered by the vibe that Ms. Gellar and Mr. Spencer have been putting across over the last year or so. The vibe being that the counter jihad is their property and should be approached and passed through them for their stamp of approval. I know some people may want to scratch my eyes out for saying this but that is just the feeling I get. And it started with the anti- ground zero Mosque rallies. I hope I am wrong because they are two very important people in this struggle, and when anyone tries to “own” a cause it can only lead to bad things.

  3. Dear Baron, here is Pamela Geller’s list:
    “This year we will be bringing the national discussion of the second phase of the September 11th attacks, the Ground Zero mosque, to CPAC on Friday in the Maryland ballroom. Nelly Braginsky, mother of 38-year-old Alex, Joyce Boland and Mr. Boland who lost their son, Eileen Walsh lost her firefighter son, Dr. Rosaleen Tallon, who lost her firefighter brother (USMC) and is Family Liaison for Advocates for 9/11 Fallen Heroes, Sally Regenhard, Vice Chair, 9/11 Parents & Families of Firefighters and WTC Victims, who lost her firefighter son, who was a former USMC Recon. Sgt who served this country for 5 years before joining the FDNY, Rose Leonetti, 911 family member, and Ilario Pantano, North Carolina candidate for Congress 2012 and extraordinary veteran and freedom fighter…”
    There is no Simon Deng or Wafa Sultan either. Allen West is in congress,now there are others who need her support. Also, this seems to be concentrating on the families of 9/11, specifically an American event.

  4. Juniper,

    Please use the link originally provided, and read the paragraph that was quoted. You will find that it’s accurate.

    Anything else?

  5. Juniper —

    You evidently failed to read the post closely.

    I was not referring to the list of speakers for this year’s event, but to Ms. Geller’s recapitulation of the list for last year’s event.

    If you look at the passage quoted, you’ll notice that ESW’s name has been mysteriously redacted.

  6. Clearly, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have abandoned Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff to her fate – whatever that may be.

    Somewhere on the internet, Pamela Geller was quoted as saying that Geller considered Sabaditsch-Wolff to be ungrateful for failing to provide Geller with either a first story and/or exclusive about her trial on Geller’s blog. In my opinion, I believe that Geller’s point of view is that Geller paid (probably her personal money) for Sabaditsch-Wolff to come to the USA to speak at CPAC last year and raised Sabaditsch-Wolff’s American profile – and Geller seems to have expected that Sabaditsch-Wolff should have rewarded Geller with a first story and/or exclusive about Sabaditsch-Wolff’s trial.

    In the midst of Geller being quoted as being very upset with Sabaditsch-Wolff, Geller’s business partner Robert Spencer “waffled” about whether he would act as an expert witness for Sabaditsch-Wolff’s trial. First, Spencer was listed as a witness; then, Spencer stated that he was not a witness; and then, Spencer finally agreed to be a witness.

    By the time that Spencer agreed to help Sabaditsch-Wolff, Sabaditsch-Wolff had evidently and understandably decided that other expert witnesses might be more reliable than Spencer. Thus, Sabaditsch-Wolff ultimately declined Spencer’s final delayed offer of help.

    My level of disappointment with Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer on this particular issue is EPIC.

    It is inexcusable that Geller and Spencer have intentionally failed to cover the trial of Sabaditsch-Wolff.

    The anti-jihad movement owes a great deal to both Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, BUT their treatment of Sabaditsch-Wolff has been less than professional.

    On the other hand, Sabaditsch-Wolff should probably have been more politically savvy about how she handled the press situation with Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.

    Live and learn….

  7. While Geller and Spencer have both done some outstanding work, I think that they may have succumbed to the notion that they personally are as important as they cause they’re fighting for.

    Note here Geller starting to sign her emails as Pamela Geller, leader of [whatever the name of the organisation she invented is], author of [whatever the name of her book is], owner of [whatever the name of her blog is] etc. It’s always a danger that becoming well known and having people listen to what you have to say will inflate your own ego somewhat. It’s understandable – but it’s unfortunate.

    I know for a fact that Geller used less-than-complimentary language about Sabaditsch-Wolff in the context of her legal situation, and that Geller had an issue about funding an earlier trip by Sabaditsch-Wolff to the USA.

    It’s interesting that the Baron wrote an article elsewhere on the subject of people involved in this whole ‘counterjihad’ project getting along, rather than allowing any personal differences to interfere with what we’re all supposed to be doing.

    Maybe Geller’s just jealous because Sabaditsch-Wolff can pull off the casual ‘sweatshirt & jeans’ look so well!

Comments are closed.