A Man’s Place is Under the Sink

Popeye the Plumber


2011 Winter Quarterly Fundraiser, Day Four

Just before dinner last night Dymphna summoned me downstairs to address an emergency in the kitchen: a plumbing leak under the sink. She caught it early, and the amount of water that had escaped was minimal.

Unfortunately for our family, I am not at all handy around the house. If it goes beyond duct tape or a hammer and a nail, I’m not much good at it. In fact, the nail will likely be hammered in crooked. I’m hopeless at anything that requires real skill — if the problem can’t be solved by a combination of common sense and jury-rigging, a professional has to be called in.

Walt the PlumberFortunately for Schloss Bodissey, last night’s plumbing caper was within my range. The sink trap had gradually been pushed back and eventually popped the joint on the connecting pipe above it. Fixing drain pipes is like rewiring a lamp — a bit of thinking and a minimum of skill, and the problem is solved. Especially when PVC pipe is involved.

While I was under the sink, I was strongly reminded of our relatively recently straitened circumstances, which require that we avoid calling a plumber (or other professional) if at all possible. This hearkens back to the time when I was an artist, back when we were really poor — having to call a plumber in those days constituted a major financial disaster. I remember lying on my back in a pool of freezing water behind the bathtub one night about thirty years ago, when the pipes froze and burst during a vicious cold snap. Pipe wrench, crowbar, screwdriver, pipe dope — I don’t want to go through any of that again if I can possibly avoid it.

For a few years, while I was programming for a living, all of that changed. We could afford a plumber whenever we needed one, no problem! What a luxury.

Our plumber of choice is a woman, a tough burly country girl who runs her own business out of a pickup truck. If I were a real man, I could never call in a female plumber, or risk losing my Testosterone Certificate. But I don’t care — she’s easygoing and competent, and I love to talk to her while she lies on her back under the sink in a pool of water.

But not these days, not if I can help it. Hard times are upon us once again.

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


Tip jarHard times are upon everyone else, too, it seems.

We’re getting a lot of donations this fundraiser, possibly even as many as we usually do. But the amounts tend to be modest these days — everyone’s pocketbook is a lot slimmer than it was a few years ago.

It’s deeply inspiring to realize how willing people are to share what little they have with the Counterjihad cause. For that we are eternally grateful.

Yesterday’s contributors checked in from these places:

Stateside:

California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, New York, and Pennsylvania

Far Abroad:

Australia, Ireland, Italy, and the UK

Thank you all for your ongoing generosity.



The tip jar in the text above is just for decoration. To donate, click the tin cup on our sidebar, or the donate button. If you prefer a monthly subscription, click the “subscribe” button.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 2/18/2011

Gates of Vienna News Feed 2/18/2011The big drama today was Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s triumphant arrival in Cairo, but while the celebrations went on in Tahrir Square, violence and unrest continued throughout the Middle East. The Shia majority in Bahrain is following the example of its Sunni brothers in North Africa and demonstrating in the streets. Violence flared again in Yemen and Algeria, and more than 20 people were killed in Libya in clashes with the police. Meanwhile, unknown assailants slit the throat of a Catholic priest in Tunisia. No motive has been established for the murder.

In other news, the mother of the Chechen suicide bomber who killed 36 people at a Moscow airport last month has apologized on television to the victims and their families.

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

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Caroline Glick, DF, Fjordman, Insubria, JD, KGS, Kitman, LAW Wells, 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.

Sentence First — Verdict Afterwards

The Red Queen and Alice

‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first – verdict afterwards.’

‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’

‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.

‘I won’t!’ said Alice.

‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

‘Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) ‘You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’

At this the whole pack rose up into the air, and came flying down upon her: she gave a little scream, half of fright and half of anger, and tried to beat them off, and found herself lying on the bank, with her head in the lap of her sister, who was gently brushing away some dead leaves that had fluttered down from the trees upon her face.

‘Wake up, Alice dear!’ said her sister; ‘Why, what a long sleep you’ve had!’

From Chapter 12 of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland
by Lewis Carroll

Unlike Alice, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff does not have the luxury of waking up from the surreal judicial drama into whose rabbit hole she so recently fell.

Like the Queen and the King of Wonderland, the prosecution and the judge in Elisabeth’s case apparently settled on the sentence long before considering a verdict. Elisabeth’s trial was as nonsensical as that of the Knave. Like Alice, hers was the only voice of sanity in a courtroom full of madmen.

But the rabbit hole goes even deeper than that. The judge in the case, Bettina Neubauer, convicted Elisabeth for saying that Mohammed was a pedophile. There’s only one problem: Elisabeth never said any such thing. As the transcript of her seminar demonstrates, Elisabeth in fact said that “Mohammed had a thing for little kids”, the plain facts of which even the judge was forced to accept.

ESW seminar transcript


In other words, the judge in Elisabeth’s trial, acting on her own initiative, put words into Elisabeth’s mouth and then convicted her for saying them.

If only The Hon. Neubauer were the Red Queen in a pack of cards!

If only we could all wake up from this feverish nightmare!

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


Elisabeth did, however, use the word “pedophilia” in her seminar, but only to describe what Susanne Winter had done to earn her own “hate speech” conviction. Elisabeth sent us a note this morning explaining all of this:

In my seminar I described a conversation with my sister.

It was January 2007, I think, and my sister called me about the scandal Susanne Winter had caused by saying what she said. I told her that it was public knowledge that Mohammed had married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine. I then said that if this isn’t pedophilia, then what is?

She said, no, you can’t say it that way, you have to word it differently, more diplomatically.

I said, well tell me how. She was silent — she didn’t know.

What’s important here is that I was recounting a story that happened before Winter had been convicted, and it was the only time on record that I actually used the word.

In all other instances I circumvented the word by saying “Mohammed had a thing for little kids”, knowing that Winter had been convicted for saying what she said.

And still, judge Bettina Neubauer called me a “repeat offender” and fined me heavily.

Here are the exact words I was found guilty for [see also the German transcript above]:

7.   One of the biggest problems we are facing today is that Mohammed is seen as the ideal man, the perfect human being, the perfect Muslim. It is imperative for a devout Muslim to copy Mohammed. This is not according to today’s standards or our way of life or laws. This is because he was a warlord, had had plenty of women, to put it this way, and he had a things for children. And according to our standards he was not a perfect human. As a result we are faced with huge problems, because Muslims are in conflict with democracy and our value system.

[… ] and when we speak about the Al-Bukhari collection of hadith you can be certain that this is recognized by all [Sunni] Muslims. And it is in Al-Bukhari where we can find the information about Aisha and sex with children.
 

8.   I remember talking with my sister — and I have recounted this story a few times already — about Susanne Winter’s infamous talk. My sister called me on the phone, saying, “Oh my God, did you tell her that?” “No, it wasn’t me, but you can find it in the books, it’s not a secret.” She: “But you can’t say it that way.” Me: “A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do you call that? Give me an example. What do you call it if not pedophilia?” She: “Well, you have to use a circumlocution, be more diplomatic.” My sister is symptomatic. We have heard this so often: “Those were different times.” I say, No, [this behavior] wasn’t OK back then and it is not OK today. Period. And this (old men marrying young girls) is still happening today. This is never to be condoned.

Readers should not go by the fine of €480. What’s crucial here is the fact that I was fined 120 “day rates” of €4, because I am a housewife with no income. If I had income, the actual fine would have been much higher. It’s the “day rates” that make the fine a hefty one.

Susanne Winter was fined €24,000 euros, because she makes 10,000 euros a month.

The letter sent to Elisabeth by her lawyer is also apposite to this discussion. Many thanks to JLH for the translation:

Gheneff-Rami-Sommer
Attorneys at Law

To: Mrs. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

February 15, 2011

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Trial
112 HV 144/10g, Regional Criminal Court Vienna

Dear Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff,

As you know, the main trial in the above-named case took place on February 15, 2011.

After your supplemental interrogation, the requests for evidential interrogation of witnesses Wafa Sultan, Hans Jansen and Robert Spencer — previously not dealt with by the court — were rejected, because the court of first instance perceived their statements to be valuations (“subjective assertions”), to the content of which the requested witnesses could contribute nothing. The request to question Ilse Albrecht was refused because she would only have been able to testify subjectively whether she was upset or angry at your comments on Mohammed.

In conclusion the welcome verdict was announced: You were exonerated of the charge of incitement according to § 283 StGB. The court found your statements on Islam permissible in the sense of Art 10 MRK, since according to this regulation criticism must be made in a provocative manner. Our arguments were agreed to in their entirety.

You were found, however, to have committed the offense of § 188 StGB (denigration of a religion) because of your statements in the seminars of October 15, 2009 and November 12, 2009 about Mohammed and his sexual intercourse with nine year-old Aisha. The judge’s basis for that focused on the circumstance that the offense of § 188 StGB is an abstract criminal threat, and therefore the mere aptness to cause offense was sufficient to qualify as the crime. What was incomprehensible was the judge’s conclusion that Mohammed’s sexual contact with nine-year-old Aisha was not pedophilia, because Mohammed continued his marriage to Aisha until his death.

Punishment was set at 120 per diem payments of €4, in total €480 or an alternative sentence of 60 days imprisonment.

Further, the costs of the trial must be paid.

The verdict does not have the force of law. since we as well as the prosecutor have announced the intention to appeal by reason of invalidity and because of the remarks about culpability and sentencing.

We have four weeks after receipt of the copy of the verdict to execute the appeal.

With warm greetings, I remain

Dr. Michael Rami

Take a deep breath, everyone, and think about the implications of the above material.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted for stating the plain facts: the prophet Mohammed had sex with a nine-year-old-girl. She never used the word pedophilia; she simply described in everyday language the prophet’s… ahem… tastes.

The statements she made are not considered false by observant Muslims. They are written down in Islamic scripture, and are considered correct and authoritative by virtually every Islamic scholar and theologian.

These scriptural passages are not considered offensive to Muslims when they are recited in a mosque or a madrassa. Mohammed was the perfect man, so by definition his actions cannot be offensive. They are in fact exemplary. That is why Muslim men continue to marry little girls to this day.

Elisabeth’s statements are offensive because they were made by a non-Muslim in public, and brought discredit upon Islam in the eyes of other non-believers.

This offense is referred to as “Islamic slander”, and is a grave violation of Islamic law. Under sharia, the penalty is death.

But it is only illegal under sharia.

Monday’s verdict had nothing to do with Austrian law, or European law. It was based solely on the unwritten laws of politically correct Multiculturalism, which absolutely forbids the offending of Muslims.

This entire judicial farce was necessary in order to establish a sharia-based precedent in Austria. Whether Bettina Neubauer realizes it or not, her role in the case was to enforce Islamic law in the country formerly known as Austria.

Welcome to the Caliphate.



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   An Appeal to Rectify an Oversight
        14   ESW: Submission III to the Court in Vienna
        15   ESW: The RT Interview
        15   The Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Day 3
        16   Time to Say Thank You
        18   Convicted for Calling Muhammad a “Paedophile”

Convicted for Calling Muhammad a “Paedophile”

Elisabeth's Voice banner


Henrik Ræder Clausen has compiled a lucid and thorough analysis of the case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, and the questionable — dare I say ludicrous? — legal sleight-of-hand which was used to convict her.



Convicted for calling Muhammad a ‘paedophile’
by Henrik Ræder Clausen

In Austria, calling Muhammad a ‘paedophile’ constitutes illegal denigration of “religious teachings”. This is what Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was found guilty of in an Austrian court. Read on for an analysis of the puzzling verdict.

Acquitted and convicted

There is now a conviction against Austrian citizen Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (ESW), who stood trial on a charge of “incitement to hatred” at a series of seminars educating about political Islam and the challenges we face. The case was closed on February 15th 2011 by judge Bettina Neubauer, who gave the following verdict to ESW, who was also convicted of being a “Repeat offender”, in spite of this conviction being her first:

  • Acquitted on the charge of incitement to hatred
  • Convicted for denigration of the teachings of a legally recognized religion.
  • Punishment: 120 day fines for a total of 480 euros.

This verdict deserves analysis and scrutiny.

The original charges

Acquittal first: The charge of incitement to hatred was originally the main point of the case. The defence has countered that charge in two different ways:

First by going through factual details of the lectures, documenting that everything said there was firmly based on Islamic source material, for instance Reliance of the Traveller from the Al-Azhar University in Cairo. The defence even shouldered the cost of an authorized translation of relevant passages into German, so that they might be accepted by the court. The judge took the documentation into the case, and the public prosecutor did not challenge the validity of it.

Second, the defence had recordings from the seminars played in court, demonstrating that they had been held in a peaceful tone, going through the substance of the material taught, letting the audience ask about detail they had not understood immediately.

Playing the recordings made another important point, namely that some of the quotes used by the prosecution as being from Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff were in reality from members of the audience, and that quotes from the lectures had been mixed with out-of-context comments from small-talk in the coffee breaks.

The public prosecutor, who had made no statements or comments since his initial statement in the first hearing, did not challenge this interpretation.

During the first hearing, the defence had made the prosecutor admit that he had not gone through the primary evidence in the case (the audio recordings), but had instead relied on a transcript provided by the journalist from the Austrian magazine NEWS.at, who filed the original police report.

The expected acquittal

After having gone through this material at the first two hearings, the audience of the case had a clear expectation that ESW would be acquitted of the charges and have her name cleared. But at the end of the second hearing, the judge added an unexpected twist to the case:

She inquired of ESW about her comments that the actions of Muhammad would today be considered ‘paedophilia’. While ensuring a nod of approval from the prosecutor, she then extended the charges to also encompass “Denigrating the teachings of a legally recognized religion”.

The defence attorney requested time to work on this additional charge, as he had not prepared defending his client from this point of view.

An inheritance from the Austrian-Hungarian Empire

It might sound odd that the judge can extend the charges in a trial as she sees fit, but that is actually possible under Austrian law. The charge was specifically for denigrating the teachings of a religion recognized by the Austrian state.

This recognition was granted in 1912 through the law Islamgesetz, which had as its primary purpose to integrate Bosnia-Herzegovina more fully into the Empire, and Bosnian soldiers more effectively into the Imperial army. Since Bosnia-Herzegovina was lost to the Empire after World War One, the original purpose of the law was gone. However, it remained on the books, and for that reason Islam and its teachings enjoy special protection under Austrian law.

Understanding ‘paedophilia’ correctly

Having a legal ban on denigrating the teachings of Islam can be problematic, for many unpleasant points are made in the Quran, including those concerning Jews, the position of women, ‘hypocrites’ who call themselves Muslims but refuse to go to war for the Cause of Allah, and not least statements against ‘infidels’, who do not consider Muhammad a prophet or Allah worthy of their devotion.

But in spite of the extensive references made to unpleasant Quranic passages in the lectures held by ESW, this was not the point of the charges.

Instead, they focused on what had earlier earned Susanne Winter a conviction, to wit: That according to modern standards, Muhammad would be considered a paedophile. It was well thought-out by the judge to first confirm from ESW that she had mentioned the subject before extending the charges, and it was this specific point that led to the conviction.

What is paedophilia?

First we need to understand what ‘paedophilia’ actually is. From The American Heritage(r) Stedman’s Medical Dictionary:

“The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.”

Paedophilia as a mental state rather than action

It is worth noting that paedophilia is a mental state (being sexually attracted by children), not an actual act (having sexual relations with children). Paedophilia is not punishable in and of itself, although possession and distribution of child pornography is in many countries. Sexual relations with minors, on the other hand, are obviously criminal and punishable.

Another detail was decisive for the result of the case, namely that ‘paedophilia’ has different meanings to the general public as opposed to among specialists. To the general public, a ‘paedophile’ signifies a person who actually engages in sexual activities with minors, that is, child molesters. For good reason, this is what concerns ordinary people, and parents in particular: actual acts that put children at risk. The word is used this way, for example, in this Telegraph report.

Among professionals, however, the word covers the urge to primarily have sexual relations with minors. The urge is what matters, not whether or not that urge has led to actual child molestation.

Judge Neubauer in her verdict pointed out this distinction between paedophilia as a mental attitude as opposed to paedophilia as actual actions, and underscored that in professional circles this label applies to the mental state of having one’s primary sexual attraction directed to prepubescent children.

Mohammad acquitted of paedophilia

On this basis, judge Neubauer found that it was not legally acceptable to apply the label ‘paedophile’ to Muhammad, for two distinct reasons:

1.   Apart from the marriage to Aisha, which was formalized when she was 6 and consummated at the age of 9, Muhammad had many other women, in wedlock, as mistresses, or as war booty. This documents the fact that Muhammad did not have a primary sexual attraction directed towards minors.
2.   The marriage, and thus the sexual relations with Aisha, did not end when she reached puberty, but continued until she was 18 and Muhammad died. This further underscores the fact that Muhammad was not attracted to her primarily due to her being a minor.

Illegal denigration of Muhammad

For this reason, judge Neubauer found that using the label ‘paedophile’ was unreasonable and constituted an illegal denigration of Muhammad, that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff had therefore made herself guilty of denigrating the teachings of a legally recognized religion, and was thus convicted to pay 120 “day fines” for a total of €480 for her offence.

The fact that the word ‘paedophile’ has a different meaning to non-professionals, and that ESW is not a certified expert in the field, was not assigned any significance in the verdict.

Did Elisabeth actually call Muhammad a ‘paedophile’?

As a matter of fact, no.

What she did do was something different, namely refer to his ongoing sexual relationship to the prepubescent Aisha, who was 9 years old when the relationship began, stating:

“If this does not constitute paedophilia, what does?”

She was clearly referring to what Muhammad did, according to Islamic scripture, not to himself as a person. This is in line with common usage of the word ‘paedophilia’, is understandable to just about everyone, and by referring to actual acts of having sex with minors, it is about child molestation, not about Muhammad as a person. It now appears that calling sex with minors ‘paedophilia’ is outside the legal limits in Austria.

Conviction, at any cost?

For those who have followed the case closely, it might appear that the judge has actively sought to convict Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, or that a decision might have been made to get her convicted, no matter the means needed to do so, and at any cost to the system.

The cost just might turn out to be quite significant.

The public prosecutor, since his initial presentation, did not say much during the case, and the charges against ESW were extended at the initiative of the judge.

It is also remarkable that the verdict is based on a possible error in categorizing the sexual preferences of Muhammad as described in the Hadith, rather than on teachings from the Quran, which otherwise is generally considered to constitute the religious teachings of Islam.

Logical consequences

Fortunately law is logical, and thus one can rightfully deduce some consequences from the verdict:

1.   It can constitute a criminal offence to use a label wrongly, even if that usage is in line with how it is applied by the general public.
2.   The judge takes it as proven that Muhammad had a lasting sexual relationship with a minor. Strangely, she considers it an illegal denigration to apply the label ‘paedophilia’ to this behaviour.
3.   As the law is only concerned with “Religious teachings”, rather than “Founders of religion”, “Behaviour of religious persons” or similar things, this verdict must imply that the life and conduct of Muhammad — including his sexual conduct — constitute an integral part of the “Religious teachings” in Islam. This interpretation is in line with Quran 33:21 and fundamentalist readings of Islam.
4.   Under Austrian law, Islam has a remarkable degree of protection from criticism, and this verdict extents this protection to Muhammad, who is now protected from criticism. Other religions, say Buddhism, do not enjoy a similar protection of their teachings or founders.

Since the life of Muhammad, as chronicled in detail in Islamic scripture (Sirat, hadith, and to a lesser degree the Quran), is to be considered an integral part of Islamic teachings, it may become legally problematic to criticize persons, norms or actions justified by his example. That would include the lack of women’s rights in Islam, denigration of Jews and ‘infidels’, incitement to violence and murder of critics and opponents, and other troublesome examples from the hadith.

Denigrating the conduct of Muhammad outlawed?

At the time of Muhammad, child marriages were seemingly an accepted tradition on the Arabian Peninsula, these marriages often being parts of political alliances. This is also the case with the marriage to Aisha, whose father Abu Bakr later became the successor to Muhammad, the first caliph.

Her age (6 at the time of marriage, 9 at the time of its consummation) is documented in a long list of hadith stories, in particular from Bukhari, who according to Islamic tradition is considered flawless in his ability to select which stories about the life and conduct were genuine.

Al-Tabari in vol. 7 page 7 of his 39-volume chronicle mentions that of all the women Muhammad had, only sleeping with Aisha would inspire him to Quranic revelations. Under Austrian legal precedent it would now be punishable to express a negative opinion about this.

That the example of Muhammad is used to justify child marriages even today is a fact that seems to have escaped the attention of the judge. Reports about child brides and their aged husbands now routinely appear in the Western press, but even though we hear these stories over and over, few seem willing to stand up for the rights of these minor girls. Even the sheikhs, the persons learned in Islamic law, do not take action or in any way use their authority to stop child marriages.

That the life and example of Muhammad in its entirety should constitute “Religious teachings”, protected from criticism under Austrian law, is a notion so absurd that it cannot be permitted to stand.

Denigration of Khomeini’s book should be permissible

One might then wonder if the book by Ayatollah Khomeini, Tahrir-ol-vasyleh, which also endorses sexual relations with minors, would as well be protected from criticism under Austrian law.

Initially, the answer would be ‘No’, for the Austrian law explicitly recognized the Hanifi school of Sunni Islam, not teachings of Shia Islam, to which Ayatollah Khomeini belonged. But in 1988, the law was changed [pdf] to include the teachings of all Islamic schools, and thus it would appear that denigrating teachings like this would also be punishable under Austrian law. And, as above, Khomeini does seem to know the life story of Muhammad, and is in line with a fundamentalist reading of it as being an unconditional example for Muslims and all mankind to follow.

Filing an appeal is obvious

In sane times, it should be an obviously flawed case for the Austrian state to punish its citizens for speaking out against having sex with minors. However, common sense appears to have been on holiday in this case, which thus far has produced a verdict based on a quite narrow interpretation of a word otherwise commonly used as ESW did, whether that word was correctly applied or not.

Then, regardless whether the word ‘paedophilia’ was applied correctly or not, a citizen in a free society should in any case to express himself as he sees fit, including having the right to make the occasional mistake, without having to fear being dragged to a court in expensive and exhausting lawsuits opened by the State.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who declares herself a feminist engaging in the debate about Islam for the sake of her daughter, is for obvious reasons rejecting the verdict and the stain on her criminal record it would imply. The verdict was appealed on the spot, so the case will now be brought before an appeal court. In the hearings before this court, we will probably be going through somewhat embarrassing details from the life of Muhammad in order to establish if these can rightfully be considered religious teachings.

The developments in this case are best followed at english.savefreespeech.org. This is also where it is possible to support Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff economically. This is urgently needed, for in contrast to the prosecution, which is funded by the state, she has to foot all her expenses personally.



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   An Appeal to Rectify an Oversight
        14   ESW: Submission III to the Court in Vienna
        15   ESW: The RT Interview
        15   The Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Day 3
        16   Time to Say Thank You

Will Egyptian “Democracy” Reconquer Jerusalem?

Yusuf al-QaradawiYusuf al-Qaradawi is an Egyptian-born fundamentalist cleric and a prominent leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Ikhwan has been suppressed by the Egyptian establishment for decades, so Sheikh Qaradawi has lived in exile in Qatar for almost fifty years.

Now the Egyptian establishment has collapsed at last, and today Yusuf al-Qaradawi returned triumphantly to Cairo and spoke to a crowd of thousands of cheering supporters in Tahrir Square.

Al-Ahram gave a brief account of his appearance in its live blog this afternoon:

12:19 Yusuf al-Qaradawi gives the Friday sermon from a podium in Tahrir Square to the hundreds of thousands in attendance. He praises the January 25 revolution, describing it as an “educated” one. Al-Qaradawi adds that it was not only Mubarak Egypt’s youths defeated, they also defeated injustice and oppression.

12:33 Al-Qaradawi extols Egyptians to persevere with their revolution as it “continues to build a new Egypt” and should be “protect[ed] from hypocrites.” He condemns the regime for being the source of sectarianism in Egypt while in “here in Tahrir”, Christians and Muslims strove side-by-side for their revolution.

12:40 Al-Qaradawi praises the army’s statements on democratic transition and asks them to liberate Egypt from Mubarak’s cabinet.

12:56 Al-Qaradawi calls on the “brave Egyptian army” to open the Rafah crossing so that Gazans can receive the supplies they need. Turning his attention to arab leaders, he says: “Don’t fight history, you can’t delay the day when it starts. The Arab world has changed.”

Voice of America described the occasion:

Thousands of supporters of Egypt’s democracy movement are gathered in Cairo’s Tahrir Square Friday for a day of celebration marking one week since President Hosni Mubarak stepped down.

A leading Muslim cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi called on the Egyptian army to listen to the will of the people and bring fresh faces into Mr. Mubarak’s former cabinet, which still includes many of the former president’s allies.

The cleric also called on the Egyptian people to be patient with their new leadership. The Egyptian army, which has popular support, has assumed control of the government until elections can be held.

Based on this account, the Sheikh would seem to be a mild-mannered sort of fellow, the kind of “moderate” we can work with. No mention of the inflammatory rhetoric he has used in the past — or perhaps VOA is unaware of it.

The News has a bit more:

The influential Sunni scholar Yusuf al Qaradawi addressed the huge crowd during a Friday prayer sermon.

Praising the revolution, he called on Arab leaders to listen to their people.

Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born cleric who has lived in Qatar since the early 1960s, is considered to be a leading intellectual and religious figure, with close links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The group was officially banned under the Mubarak regime, though its activities were largely tolerated.

Next comes a brief mention of an incident that takes some of the shine off the “Cairo Spring”. Like the beating and gang-rape of Lara Logan, we can expect the MSM to discuss this development as little as possible:

In a troubling incident during Friday’s events in Tahrir Square, Google executive Wael Ghonim — who emerged as a leading democratic voice in the Egyptian uprising — was barred from walking onto the stage by security guards.

When Ghonim tried to take the stage, men who appeared to be guarding Qaradawi barred him from doing so. Ghonim left the square with his face hidden by an Egyptian flag.

Have Sheikh Qaradawi and Mohammed El-Baradei met face-to-face yet? I expect the latter to receive a similar treatment at the hands of Egypt’s new hero. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is evidently setting himself as the Khomeini of the Egyptian revolution, and now he has the wind at his back.

The Christian Science Monitor has further details:

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a leading Egyptian Islamic theologian popularized by Al Jazeera, returned to Cairo today to deliver a stirring but overtly political sermon, calling on Egyptians to preserve national unity as they press for democratic progress.

“Don’t let anyone steal this revolution from you — those hypocrites who will put on a new face that suits them,” he said, speaking to at least 200,000 who gathered for Friday prayers in Tahrir Square, the epicenter of Egypt’s uprising. “The revolution isn’t over. It has just started to build Egypt … guard your revolution.”

The massive turnout and Mr. Qaradawi’s warning that the revolution is not complete demonstrate that if the military drags its feet on reform, another uprising could begin. And while his sermon was nonsectarian and broadly political, the turnout was also a reminder that political Islam is likely to play a larger role in Egypt than it has for decades.

[…]

And while he praised Egypt’s new military rulers, he warned that they must quickly restore civilian rule.

“The real message here was, ‘Don’t mess with us Egyptians,’” says Shadi Hamid, research director at the Brookings Institute’s Doha Center in Qatar, who joined the crowd at Tahrir today. “It’s a clear message to the military, warning them that people are still willing to come out in massive numbers and it’s going to continue indefinitely if needed.”

[…]

“Qaradawi is very much in the mainstream of Egyptian society, he’s in the religious mainstream, he’s not offering something that’s particularly distinctive or radical in the context of Egypt,” says Mr. Hamid. “He’s an Islamist and he’s part of the Brotherhood school of thought, but his appeal goes beyond the Islamist spectrum, and in that sense he’s not just an Islamist figure, he’s an Egyptian figure with a national profile.”

Now we know that Yusuf al-Qaradawi is in the “mainstream”, even though he’s an Islamist. It’s likely that devout Sunnis agree with him on most issues, including his stance on the status of women and the prescribed punishments for adultery, theft, and apostasy.

MEMRI has the most interesting summary of the Sheikh’s speech:

During massive demonstrations at Cairo’s Al-Tahrir Square, where crowds were estimated at one million, Friday prayers were led by International Union of Muslim Scholars head Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi.

Al-Qaradhawi was leading prayers in Egypt for the first time in many years.

In his sermon, he expressed his esteem for Egypt’s young people for their accomplishments in the revolution against “the tyrannical pharaoh” Hosni Mubarak, and said that the revolution belonged to all Egyptians, both Muslim and Christian.

Al-Qaradhawi called on the young people to contribute to the building of the country, to preserve their unity, and to prevent the revolution from being snatched from their hands. He praised the army’s announcement of support for democracy and elections and for the establishment of a committee for changing the constitution.

He asked the army to disband the new government and to free the political prisoners, and promised that the Egyptian military would not be less patriotic than the Tunisian military.

Addressing the Arab leaders, he called for them to listen to the will of the people, because no one can change the wheels of history.

In a special mention of the Palestinian issue, Al-Qaradhawi asked the Egyptian army to open wide the Rafah crossing and to pray for the re-conquest of Jerusalem by the Muslims, so that he and the Muslims could pray in security at Al-Aqsa Mosque. This part of his sermon was cheered and applauded by the crowd. [emphasis added]

To summarize what we know thus far about Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi:

1.   He’s a mainstream Sunni Muslim.
2.   He’s a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
3.   He’s an “Islamist”.
4.   He enjoys widespread popular support.
5.   He wants to open the border crossing from Egypt into Gaza.
6.   He wants to summon his fellow Muslims to reconquer Jerusalem from the Zionists.

So tell me again: why should we not be worried about the Muslim Brotherhood taking part in an Egyptian government?

What makes Western leaders think that the above won’t cause them any problems?

Maybe they think it will just cause problems for the Israelis, so it doesn’t really matter.

Remember, this is what the Ikhwan says before it’s in power, before it has its Islamist hands on the levers of state control, before it can command the police or the army.

What do you think the Egyptian situation will look like this time next year? Or in five years’ time?

A Sense of Place: Where We’ve Been

2011 Winter Quarterly Fundraiser, Day Three

When we began blogging we had a clear idea of which issues we thought were important but both of us knew that where we were headed was an unknown. It is one thing to have goals — in this case, to both fight against the undermining of Western culture by Islam and to rally people to Israel’s defense in order to further protect that culture. It is quite another to understand where this Garden of Forking Paths would lead us. Sometimes it is a blessing not to know the future.

We never planned to be a portal to Europe for Americans, but that’s what happened. Our job description grew in small, almost off-hand ways in the beginning. Then it became a long walk through the valley of the shadow of death for a while, and now it is something we never dreamed: a true, multi-continental effort that even crosses the equator. Who’d have thought?

The beginning of our journey toward things European occurred with a post I wrote in April 2005, “Buy the Book”. I’d found a news story on Middle East Online, of all places, on Denmark’s Queen Margrethe II. Their editorial interest lay in Danish royalty’s opinions about Islamic fundamentalism:

Queen Margrethe of Denmark


[She] warned against the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Denmark and the world in a new book out on Thursday, saying people must on occasion “show their opposition to Islam”.

“It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and very lazy,” she said in the authorized biography “Margrethe” written by journalist Annelise Bistrup.

While she did not specifically refer to fundamentalism, she spoke of “these people for whom religion is their entire lives”.

This was a shocker. A European leader who spoke plainly about the problem?? Where was Queen Elisabeth? Never mind; we’d already seen Prince Charles in his jalabiya.

We became immediately interested in this Queen Margrethe and in her country.

As it turned out, her subjects returned our interest. And, of course, we were developing a correspondence and mutual interests with another Scandinavian, Fjordman — whom I later named “The Dark Prophet of Norway”. He has continued to live up to his soubriquet.

Tip jarWe focused on these countries, especially the problems being swept under the rug by Sweden… only Fjordman kept pulling up the rug and pointing to the sweepings. The takeover became harder to ignore; the active collusion of the Swedish government to flood the country with Muslim immigrants while refusing to discuss the resulting problems was shocking. True, what Islamic countries did to and against their citizens was barbaric, but these things — honor killings, rapes, attacks on Jews, etc., — were happening in Europe, in one of the wealthiest, most sedate of the modern welfare states on this planet.

The learning curve on the fact of the Islamization of Europe by a flood of immigrants was not an easy one to master. It ran contrary to everything we thought we knew about “civilized” Europe, an ancient place full of distinct cultures and languages. It’s deeply unsettling when everything you thought you knew turns out to be wrong.

The Anglo-Saxon world, if you excluded the sovietization of the UK, felt more secure. But that, too, was an illusion, as we were to discover. Slowly, as the idea of a Counterjihad alliance was born, we turned to the earlier voices who had warned us: Bat Ye’or, Oriana Fallaci, Phyllis Chesler, Mark Steyn. The rigid criminalization of speech into categories of hate — in Canada, in Denmark, in Austria, in Finland — was essentially disturbing. In our own country it was more subtle and less marked.

Denmark’s newspaper, Jyllands Posten brought things to a head with the Motoons. Or rather, they began the process. When the cartoons were originally published, they were little remarked upon in the Arab world. An Egyptian newspaper ran an account of the story, but there was no public pushback until…until a Danish imam made a tour of Middle Eastern countries with copies of the cartoons laced with much uglier pictures he’d inserted himself, just to get the conflagration going.

He succeeded quite well. Most Western media refused to run the cartoons. Middle Eastern countries began a boycott of Danish products. Arab politicians and diplomats began their pressure on Denmark’s Prime Minister to punish the newspaper. No matter how often it was explained to them, the concept of free speech didn’t sink in. It can’t. Free speech is as far from Sharia Law as you can get.

Meanwhile, Europe continued down the Yellow Brick Road with the so-called Constitution (now the Treaty of Lisbon) that no European country wanted but everyone got anyway. It’s clear that if the economic hard times don’t destroy this artificial union, the cultural cracks will certainly widen enough for all the bureaucrats in Brussels to eventually fall in.

The Counterjihad alliances in Europe have continued their work with one another. People from very different places have come together, moving past their language barriers to weave an informal, robust network of information-sharing. Would that the groups in America cooperated as cohesively as our allies across the Atlantic.

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


Among the many surprises in this journey has been the continued level of interest by wise Americans who want to know what is going on beyond our borders. Yes, we have a large European audience, but it is smaller than our readership in the U.S. This gives me hope that beyond our differences and beyond the distances involved, we can work to our mutual benefit to defeat those who would have us live under some universalist yoke, be it transnational oligarchs or Islam’s various — and lethally opposed — versions of their unrealistic Ummah.

Many Americans realize we are no longer separated from others by distance or by disparities in wealth. Our economic ruin, whether deliberate or not, will serve to bring our expectations into line with the rest of the world. We have learned the folly of throwing money at problems that were created by money in the first place.

Americans who read Gates of Vienna are conservatives. The rare liberal who wanders in doesn’t stay long. They are, for the most part, fiscal conservatives. Their social philosophies regarding marriage, abortion, etc., are probably more varied. The fact that these subjects don’t come up much for discussion is obvious: other things have taken a back seat to our survival as a Western-based culture. In that respect, Israel is our canary in the coal mine. If we don’t ensure that she has air to breathe, we’re the walking dead ourselves.

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


Our donors today, some of them coming in multiples from the same place, are:

Stateside:

California, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas

Near Abroad:

Canada

Far Abroad:

Australia, Iceland, and the UK

Many thanks to all of you, in all of your diverse places. Your generosity keeps us going.



The tip jar in the text above is just for decoration. To donate, click the tin cup on our sidebar, or the donate button. If you prefer a monthly subscription, click the “subscribe” button.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 2/17/2011

Gates of Vienna News Feed 2/17/2011Tensions are rising on the Italian island of Lampedusa, which has experienced such a large influx of refugees over the last several weeks that more than a quarter of the population is now Tunisian. More than 5,500 refugees have arrived in Italy since the beginning of the year. Meanwhile, the provisional government in Tunisia is calling up army reserves to help contain the continuing civil disturbances.

In other news, China’s rate of inflation continues to increase, with prices up almost 5% in the past year. Food prices are leading the way with about a 10% annual rate of inflation.

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

Thanks to Andy Bostom, C. Cantoni, DF, Insubria, Steen, Zenster, 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.

Instructions for the Dutch Voter: Stick it to the PVV!

The Netherlands will hold provincial elections on March 2, and Geert Wilders’ party (the PVV) is poised once again to do well. The entrenched forces of reaction are determined to stop the PVV, and are running a no-holds-barred campaign against it.

Our Dutch correspondent Timo alerted us to a particularly disgusting political TV spot put out by the left-wing opponents of Geert Wilders. He explains the title of the commercial and its context:

“Guide on what to vote against* — Freedom” [i.e. the Party for Freedom]

In this commercial the leftist people in Holland have hit bottom by using kids in their campaign against the PVV. There will be provincial elections in Holland on 2 March 2011. Instead of focusing on their own parties, the leftists are using kids to repeat Geert Wilders’ “worst” (i.e. most offensive when seen out of context) statements about Islam. The upshot is that if you vote for the PVV, the CDA, or the VVD, your kids will be fed with hate the moment they are born.

* Explanation of the title:

“Stemwijzer” is normally a Dutch website with a list of questions which helps people choose the right party if they haven’t made up their mind yet. The word “tegen” in front of the word gives it a meaning of against — “counter-vote advisor”, tegenstemwijzer.

Timo also points out the illustrious company these lefties are keeping in their exploitation of children: the Nazis, who frequently used children for their propaganda, and Hamas, who send them out as suicide bombers. To that I might add the infamous “Daisy” commercial — a countdown to nuclear war featuring a little girl — that was put out by President Lyndon Baines Johnson during his 1964 election campaign against Barry Goldwater.

Many thanks to Timo for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling. The video plus a full transcript are below the jump:



Transcript:

0:00   We have a huge problem with Muslims.
0:02   Scum! That’s what I would call them.
0:04   We’re selling our country to a devil called Mohammed.
0:08   And no one seems to resist.
0:10   Native people are reproducing themselves more slowly
0:12   than foreigners.
0:13   We have to stop Muslim immigration.
0:16   In about 20 years you’ll be able to find them everywhere.
0:18   Let’s take back our streets!
0:20   Islam is a backward culture.
0:24   Why shouldn’t we begin by taxing the hijab? Headscarf taxes!
0:28   The time has come for the big cleanup of our streets.
0:32   I’d say: Let the polluter pay for it!
0:34   Scum! That’s what I would call them.
0:36   Scum! That’s what I would call them.
0:38   Scum! That’s what I would call them.
0:40   I say what I think!
0:41   You still have the chance to vote for a future without the PVV.
0:44   Therefore vote against the coalition!
0:46   And this time don’t vote for the CDA or the VVD.
0:48   At our website —tegenstemwijzer.nl — you’ll find your alternative!

Happy Birthday to the Organ-Trafficking Capital of the Balkans

Three years ago today the state of Kosovo was forcibly carved out of Serbia and given its independence by the United States and the European Union. The Western powers were determined to show how friendly and non-discriminatory they were towards Islam, so they created an Islamic gangster state in the heart of the Balkans.

Mind you, they didn’t have any problem discriminating against Flanders, which deserves its own state far more than do the Kosovars. But, hey — you can’t make a multicultural omelet without breaking eggs, you know.

Hashim Thaçi has the official title of prime minister of Kosovo. Before he won that gig he ran the gangster guerilla army known as the KLA. After the United States intervened in Serbia in 1999, Mr. Thaçi and the Kosovars were able to operate with impunity, trafficking heroin and underage girls all across Europe.

Late last year Dick Marty, a special rapporteur for the Council of Europe, released a report that confirmed what had long been a rumor: during its war for independence the KLA had systematically killed both their Kosovar opponents and Serbian prisoners to harvest their organs and sell them on the black market. Hashim Thaçi, now a respected political leader was specifically implicated in the report.

To make matters worse, a recent WikiLeaks release has revealed that the UN and NATO knew all about Mr. Thaçi and his vile commercial affairs, but chose to ignore the fact and elevated him to the office of prime minister anyway.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for YouTubing this news report about Kosovo from Canadian TV:

Ten Questions for Tommy Robinson

Tommy Robinson and the Metropolitan Police


The Dutch Defence League and the Amsterdam Post recently collected a list of ten questions for Tommy Robinson, the leader of the English Defence League. Many thanks to Timo of the DDL for sending along Mr. Robinson’s answers.



Ten Questions for Tommy Robinson from the Amsterdam Post and the DDL

Introduction

EFI logo“Ten Questions” is a initiative launched by the Dutch Defence League and the Amsterdam Post. Periodically readers and members are given the opportunity to ask questions of certain people who are active in the front line against the Islamisation of their country or the threat of sharia law. This initiative was designed to give the people of Holland a better insight into these people or the organizations they represent.

The answers are published on several websites in Holland, Germany, and the rest of the world (ICLA, Amsterdam Post, Gates of Vienna). Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was the first one, Tommy Robinson the second.

1. G. Deckzijl:

How big is the support for the EDL in the UK, and is anti-Islam resistance growing in the UK?

We’ve been holding demonstrations in cities all over England, and each time we manage to attract thousands of supporters. We’re doing well, but we’re still growing. We’ve got a new website, we’re making new alliances, we’re being taken more seriously by the press, and last week, just before the EDL returned to where it all began — my hometown of Luton — the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, gave a speech that echoed a number of the things that we’ve been saying. We started as a small band of people protesting against the treatment of the Royal Anglian Regiment by Muslim extremists, and now we’re looking at upwards of 75,000 supporters.

So resistance is definitely growing, but we’re still getting some unfounded criticisms. For instance, I don’t think it’s fair to say that we’re simply ‘anti-Islam’ — we’re opposed to the terrible things that Islam has brought with it — the support for terrorism, the oppression of women, the intolerance of other religions and other lifestyles, the self-imposed isolation and rejection of the most basic British values. Islam’s got to be held accountable, it’s got to change — but above all else, it’s these things that we need to fight against.

Groups like ours are really only called ‘anti-Islam’ because people are either too scared to criticise Islam, or they don’t realise that there are many good reasons for these criticisms. People have been purposefully kept in the dark by the politicians, by the media, and by those who want to convince us that Islam is simply the religion of peace. Now we’re being told that critics of Islam are all ‘Islamophobes’ (as if we’re all suffering from some kind of mental disorder!) — our opponents really are getting desperate.

What we do believe in is freedom, democracy and individual rights. And we believe that British culture is pretty good at celebrating these things. If we’re to properly resist the threat posed by Islam then we’ve got to convince people that being ‘anti-Islam’ means not being afraid to make important criticisms — it doesn’t mean being ‘far right’, it doesn’t mean being an ‘extremist’ — it means recognising the problems and not being afraid to talk about them — it means doing your bit to defend your country and its ideals.

I’d judge our success by how willing people are to actually talk about Islam — how much they’re willing to challenge it. The more people realise that the media and the government have been covering up the problems, the more they’ll look to the EDL to help voice their concerns — and the more supporters we have, the easier it’ll be to make the politicians listen. Things are getting better, but there’s still a long way to go.

2. Ingrid, Wachters, Fummifan, Frans Groenendijk:

The EDL has had a lot of negative publicity in the press. They were associated with neo-Nazis and football hooligans, who are suspected of joining the EDL just to cause trouble and give the EDL a bad name. Is there any truth in it, and did the EDL succeed in distancing itself from Nazi sympathizers, and what does the EDL do to improve its reputation? For example: were you able to convince Maryam Namazie (onelawforall.org) of your distance from the BNP?

I don’t like that we’re constantly being asked to convince people that we’re not Nazis, hooligans, or members of the BNP. I’d prefer it if people looked at what we’re saying, and asked themselves whether it’s compatible with the views of any of those groups. Last week in Luton I made clear that we’re not at all interested in race, and that I’d rather stand with one proud black patriot that a thousand scumbag racists. Why would I say that if it wasn’t true? I don’t say one thing to journalists and another to our supporters — I’m very open about my views, and we’ve published a mission statement on our website, for anyone who’s still unclear.

Yes, people have tried to use the EDL to cause trouble — but we always deal with them swiftly. At our local meets, the division leaders are constantly working to educate new members as to what we’re all about, and to make sure that people aren’t joining up for the wrong reasons. We’ve also introduced stewards at our demonstrations to help identify and remove troublemakers.

We want to have an open membership policy — to let anyone join, whatever their background, whatever their political beliefs, whatever their skin colour, whatever their religion — so that means that it’s important that anyone wanting to join does understanding what we do and do not stand for. Back in the early days we were filmed burning a swastika — we thought we’d made it pretty clear then — both to our opponents, and to our potential supporters. The EDL is about opposition to a dangerous form of Islam, and the protection of our country. That’s it.

The people that still call us all those kinds of things (racists, fascists, etc) are actually the ones that are guilty of the sort of prejudice that they’re accusing us of. We don’t demand that every Muslim convince us that they’re not an extremist — so people shouldn’t make similar demands of us. Maryam Namazie is an Iranian Communist — but we don’t ask her to prove that she’s not some kind of dangerous Stalinist. So, I don’t know if we’ve managed to convince Maryam that we’re not connected to the BNP — she should be able to work it out for herself.

3. G. Deckzeijl, Veteraan:

Is it possible to stop this Jihad talk by hard cold facts? Why for example are the black Jihad flags not forbidden?

Facts are of course important, and we’re doing all we can to tell people things we feel they need to know, as well as encouraging them to find out about Islam for themselves. But it’s difficult to convince people of things when the media will immediately find a so-called ‘moderate Muslim’ who will tell everyone that we’ve just misunderstood the issue, that Islam is the religion of peace, and that it’s us who are being offensive.

We have plenty of facts, but the constant message from the media and the government is that we don’t understand them.

What this means is that although we hear about crimes where Islam has played a part almost every day, many people still refuse to accept that there is any connection at all. It’s almost as if it’s too obvious, that if the connection was real then the government would be doing something about it. People take the government’s silence to mean that there’s not really a problem — not that the government has no idea how to deal with it.

The black Jihad flags aren’t forbidden because so few people actually recognise what they are, and because so many people would happily pretend that there aren’t all these problems with Islam.

4. DSV:

In Europe, we see various counter jihad movements popping up: next to the EDL and its affiliates in other countries, there is SIOE, the Paris Manifesto movement, Geert Wilders planning to go international, political parties like Die Freiheit in Germany and a plethora of anti-Islam(ist) blogs.

Do you see any movement towards a pan-European umbrella organization, which would be strong enough to influence (or counter) national or European legislation, with respect to the ongoing Islamisation of Europe? Does the EDL work towards establishing such a movement? In relation to this: Which are the preferred partners of the EDL, both in Europe and elsewhere? Whose views do you most identify with?

We recognise that radical Islam is a global problem, but we’re mainly concerned with doing what we can in this country — as are the other defence leagues, and similar organisations, in their respective countries. The more successful we become, the more we’ll be able to help our foreign allies.

That said, we are proud to be members of the European Freedom Initiative (EFI), a group whose member organisations fight to preserve freedom of speech, and who oppose the spread of Islamism and Sharia law.

As for whose views we most identify with, that’s difficult, because it’s not like we’re a political party — there are lots of different views already within the EDL. As long as other groups believe in the values that we do — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, support for democracy, equal rights for women — and share our belief in the need to criticise and expose militant Islam, then they’re welcome to become part of our growing network.

Our friends in the EFI certainly share with us a number of key concerns and beliefs, and we look forward to working with them more in the future.

5. Veteraan DDL:

Is there going to be an umbrella organization for the different Defence Leagues that are forming?

It’s difficult to say exactly what’s going to happen in the future. We are seeing defence leagues, loosely based on the EDL model, cropping up all over the world. We’re proud to have inspired these people, but at the moment we don’t think there would be much point in creating any new umbrella organisation. We’re in regular contact with most of these groups, and we look forward to supporting each other’s efforts.

6. Frans Groenendijk:

What is your relation to UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) and vice versa? The UKIP is not anti-Islam. Is the EDL planning to start a political party in the future?

We have no plans to become, or to found, a political party. But we cannot discount the possibility of having to adopt a more political stance if our politicians continue to fail the British public. We are working to defend principles that are more important that party politics. Radical Islam isn’t just a threat to certain types of political parties; it’s a threat to the whole system of liberal democracy, because it wants to replace our laws and our politics with Sharia Law.

That’s one of the reasons why we’re such a diverse organisation — we have supporters with all different kinds of political views (it’s also one of the reasons why it’s ridiculous to call us ‘far right’). We want to pressure all politicians of all parties to start addressing the issues, to stand up for freedom of speech, and to make clear that they will not ignore the threat posed by radical Islam.

At the end of the day, we’d only enter politics if we were forced to by inaction — if none of the political parties listened to us. But I believe that we have the momentum — the growing support — to make sure that they will.

We’ve received quiet words of support from all of the main political parties in the UK, but have yet to agree a constructive working relationship with any of them. We do not wish to be party political, but we are more than willing to cooperate with those with whom we find common ground (be they political parties or other organisations). We would hope that the ruling Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition would begin to take seriously our concerns, because a clear and consistent message from government that acknowledged the extent of the problems we face, and which demonstrated a sincere commitment to overcoming them, would do a lot to reassure the people of Britain.

David Cameron does seem to be making some positive steps — but he’s got a long way to go to prove that he’s really on our side.

7. G. Deckzeijl, Templar NL:

Is the EDL aware of the meaning and existence of Taqiyya and Tafsir? Do you think that a moderate Islam exists, or is that part of their strategy?

Yes, we’re aware of the terms. Taqiyya is lying to protect or advance Islam — it’s a common tactic of Muslim organisations that pretend to be interested in building bridges between communities, when they’re only really interested in looking after their own interests, or which want to hide their real intentions. We should also mention Kitman: the strategy of pretending to accept the laws and beliefs of your enemy, whilst all the while plotting against them and looking to undermine them — a strategy very familiar to those who would push for Sharia in the UK.

Tafsir is the study and interpretation of the Koran, Hadith and Sunnah by scholars of Islam. It’s something that has so-far failed to produce a convincing blueprint for peace between Islam and ‘the West’.

We don’t always think that it’s helpful to divide Muslims into ‘moderates’ and ‘radicals’. Whilst there is some truth to it, we’re talking about people — who are rarely simple. I think it’s better to say that what we call ‘radical Islam’ is far more influential and widespread than most people realise. In some towns and cities, even in Britain, it threatens to dominate the local Muslim population.

Obviously some radicals do realise that it’s a good idea to appear to be moderates (and we’ve seen reports from organisations like the Quilliam Foundation that show that many supposed moderate Muslim organisations are actually infested with dangerous radicals). But I don’t think you can take that as evidence that there aren’t plenty of decent Muslims who love this country and are genuinely ashamed that others hold such intolerant views.

However, there are many opinion poll results out there that suggest that these people may actually be a minority. Regardless of the exact numbers, I think it’s undeniable that radical Islam is far too influential a force in Britain — and serious questions need to be asked if we’re to work out how to deal with it. Why, for instance, does tafsir continue to help justify the actions of the radicals and extremists rather than supporting the growth of so-called ‘moderate Islam’?

8. rias politica:

What are the possibilities of achieving a formal prohibition of the Sharia courts in GB?

We believe that it would be possible to attempt legal challenges against judgements handed down by Sharia court, but ultimately our success would rest on the political will needed to combat these courts. Judges can only operate within the law, and subject to the common consensus — and I don’t think they’ve had enough run-ins with Sharia courts to consider them a serious threat as yet.

If we’re going to prevent things from getting that far, then we need to educate people about the role Sharia courts play in undermining our laws, perpetuating intolerant and oppressive behaviours, and helping to keep the Muslim population segregated from the rest of society. Only the government is in a position to outlaw Sharia courts, and that won’t happen until we’ve won a lot more arguments.

9. DutchViking, Templar:

Will the government ever wake up before it’s too late? Do you think that politicians in GB and Europe will come to their senses and listen to groups like the EDL, or will it have to come entirely from the people?

I think they’ll listen, even if they never admit that we played an important role in convincing them that something must be done. As I mentioned earlier, David Cameron’s said some things recently that do give us hope. But even though he’s started echoing what we’ve been saying, he’d never acknowledge that he’s responding to the pressure that we’ve been putting on him. Instead, he’ll pretend that we hold extreme views — that we’re part of the ‘far right’ — even if he does come round to agreeing with exactly what we’ve been saying.

There’s still a lot of resistance to criticism of Islam. There are still a lot of people that think we need things like ‘multiculturalism’ because we should still feel guilty about the British Empire — so they hate anyone who isn’t ashamed of this country. The more people reject that view — whether they support the EDL or not — the better position we’ll be in.

10. Nederlander:

How far is the EDL prepared to go in the fight against Islamisation?

We may need to change tactics at some point along the way, but we shall always remain peaceful — anything else would be counterproductive. We believe in the need to defend certain rights and freedoms from the threat posed by certain forms of Islam, and we’d never do anything to undermine those very same rights and freedoms.

Exactly what needs to be done to turn the tide of Islamisation depends largely on Islam itself — on its ability to reform, adapt and conform to Western culture, laws, politics and respect for human rights. Of course, it also depends on the willingness and strength of conviction of individual Muslims to be part of this process.

11th Bonus Question:

What can the people in The Netherlands and on the rest of the continent do to support you?

You should focus on what you can do in your own countries. We’d love to see you at our demonstrations, and would hope to lend you our support when we can. But what we’d really like to see would be you having your own successes, inspiring us to continue doing what we do, and setting an example of what can be achieved. In The Netherlands you have Geert Wilders — a politician unlike most of the others — who is committed seriously addressing the root cause of the problems of Islamic extremism. In The Netherlands you have the potential to achieve a great deal, and to be an example to the rest of the world. Best of luck to you all, and thank you!

Where Y’All From?

Melita, Pop. 3


2011 Winter Quarterly Fundraiser, Day 2

The title of this post echoes the way people in this part of the world customarily greet someone they haven’t met before — assuming, that is, that there are two or more someones in question. After the handshake (generally accompanied by “Howya doin’?” on both sides), the strangers are asked to specify their home region so that possible common kin relations may be identified, shared customs acknowledged, the hunting and fishing opportunities in their respective territories compared, and so on.

Mind you, if a stranger’s accent clearly identifies him as someone from farther north than Leesburg, the customary greeting may be withheld. There’s no need to ask him where he’s from, because it’s obvious he’s a Yankee from somewhere in Yankeeland, someplace where nobody cooks greens with side meat, where they have “bubblers” or some such instead of water fountains, and where people snicker at anyone who says “y’all”.

Tip jarA stranger who obviously comes from somewhere south of the Mason-Dixon Line is reckoned at least a distant cousin, since all of our ancestors sent representatives to the capital in Richmond and fought for the same cause.

Besides the Southern accent — which varies considerably from Dallas to Virginia Beach — we Confederates share some other traits. A certain sluggishness of speech. A preference for certain foods cooked in a particular way. A fondness for certain recreational activities, many of them involving firearms or fast cars. A tendency to say “Yes, ma’am” — if we’re brought up right.

Within the Commonwealth of Virginia regions are well-defined and distinct in certain ways, even if they blend into one another at the edges. A Southerner from outside the Commonwealth is usually identified by state, although the coastal dwellers may be distinguished from the mountaineers.

Many people in the Deep South — Alabama and Mississippi, for example — don’t consider Virginians to be true Southerners, but more like quasi-Yankees. I mean, some of us don’t eat grits around here, so how can we call ourselves Southerners?

Personally, I’m fairly tolerant of Yankees, being as how my mother married one. So I go ahead and ask Northerners where they’re from. I like to learn about the topography, customs, and idiosyncrasies of other parts of the world — even Canada.

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


One of the pleasures of this job has been the opportunity to acquaint myself with places farther afield than Topeka or Toronto. Every time we launch a fundraiser, the donations come in from all over the world. More from the USA than anywhere else, but still a real spread of countries and regions.

The current fundraiser has been underway for less than ten hours, and already shows these geographical results:

Stateside:

Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Near Abroad:

Canada

Far Abroad:

Australia, Croatia, Denmark, Slovakia, and the UK.

Some of the exotic locales represented among our donors are familiar to me — especially those in England, since I lived there for a while. But I’ve visited so many places in Europe over the last few years that any number of placenames call up visual memories of towns and cities — Lund in southern Sweden, for example, or Antwerp in Flanders, or the Danish university city Aarhus in North Jutland.

Palaestra et Odevm, University of Lund, Sweden


Australia, however, remains an imaginary landscape for me. Whenever we get a donor from Perth or Melbourne or Sydney, I like to google some photos of the place, just to get the feel of it. But it’s not the same as standing in the sun there and breathing the air.

There are also plenty of places here in the USA that remain mysterious to me. For example, tonight we got a donation from Ann Arbor, Michigan. I know it’s way up there in the colder regions of Yankeeland. I know it’s in the Belly of Beast — a veritable hotspot of progressive political correctness in the heartland of America. But other than that I know nothing about it.

In most places I visit, whether here in America or abroad, people tend to make fun of me for saying “y’all”. Especially in England — those Brits think it’s real hoot to hear a Yank talk like a Southerner.

My response: “Why shouldn’t I say it? I come by it honestly.”

Anyway… Y’all have been right generous towards us, and we really appreciate it.



The tip jar in the text above is just for decoration. To donate, click the tin cup on our sidebar, or the donate button. If you prefer a monthly subscription, click the “subscribe” button.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 2/16/2011

Gates of Vienna News Feed 2/16/2011Unrest has begun in earnest in Libya. Protesters thronged the streets of Tripoli to demand the ouster of Col. Qaddafi. Violence and demonstrations continue across North Africa and parts of the Middle East.

Meanwhile, refugees from Tunisia continue to pour into Italy. Widespread drunkenness among the arrivals on the island of Lampedusa led to a ban on the sale of alcohol to the refugees. The EU has promised to send €100 million to Italy very soon to help them cope with the crisis.

On a somewhat related note, Iran has sent warships through the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean for the first time since the Iranian revolution in 1979, which caused a 32-year rift between Iran and Egypt.

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

Thanks to C. Cantoni, DF, Fjordman, Insubria, JD, Nick, 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.

What Makes Switzerland Sane?

I know my country is insane. I mean, we elected Barack Hussein Obama as our president — so sign the commitment order, right?

To make it worse, even after two years’ of evidence that Mr. Obama is incompetent or malign — or both — he still enjoys the approval of nearly half of all likely voters, according to the latest Rasmussen poll, and stands a very good chance of being re-elected.

Yes, it’s time to put a straitjacket on the American voter.

Things are no better in Western Europe. A flood of penniless refugees is pouring into Italy from North Africa, and the Council of Europe orders Italy not to expel them. The leaders of major European countries pay lip service to the idea that Multiculturalism is moribund, yet they continue to pursue deeply unpopular immigration policies that bring more and more Muslims into their countries, and maintain in place the disastrous anti-assimilation structures that guarantee more and more violent home-grown Islamic zealotry.

So let’s send Europe to the asylum along with the Yanks.

There are, however, pockets of relative sanity in Europe, and Switzerland seems to be one of them. Maybe the Swiss preserved their psychic equilibrium by staying out of the EU. Or perhaps the bracing Alpine air is conducive to optimum neuronal functioning.

Whatever the reason, another example of Swiss sanity is in the news. According to SwissInfo:

Citizenship Refusal Confirmed by Federal Court

An Algerian considered to be too close to his homeland’s Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) has seen his request for Swiss citizenship turned down by the Federal Court.

Judges in Lausanne confirmed an earlier decision by the Fribourg cantonal authorities, which considered the 61-year-old man as still being linked with the FIS.

During the naturalisation procedure he was heard by a Fribourg parliamentary committee. At that meeting, he described the FIS as a political party whose goals were to fight corruption and bring democracy to Algeria.

The committee vetoed his citizenship request in 2009, saying the FIS wanted to create an Islamic state and that it equated democracy with atheism. These positions, it added, were antithetical to Switzerland’s fundamental principles and legal system.

Note: the European Union would not allow this man’s documented radical tendencies to keep him out of Europe. What’s more, no country of the EU would be allowed to send him home, because he might face torture and execution — deporting him to his contry of origin would violate EU human rights laws.

The article continues:

The court agreed, adding that the decision was not discriminatory. It pointed out that the refusal was largely based on the fact that the man had not distanced himself from FIS doctrine or its terrorist activities, presenting the movement as a democratic party.

The man was a member of the FIS until 1992, when it was officially disbanded, and served as its secretary-general in the Algerian city of Oran.

This was an eminently sensible ruling by an eminently sensible federal state.

It’s a depressing sign of our times that such a small, mundane, normal immigration decision by a Western country is a notable anomaly.



Hat tip: C. Cantoni.