Alice Weidel: “I do not want to see our public spaces paved over with praying Muslims”

Alice Weidel is one of the new leaders of AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany) who may well be elected to the Bundestag later this month. In the following video Ms. Weidel expresses her opposition to — and her distaste for — the growing practice of Muslim public prayer in Germany.

Many thanks to Oz-Rita for translating and subtitling this video:

For more on Alice Weidel and AfD, see the post at Rita’s place.

Video transcript:

00:08   Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. I’m happy
00:12   to see you tonight in such great numbers.
00:16   Well, on the way here
00:20   I was reflecting on when I was here the last time.
00:24   It was end of February last year for the regional election campaign.
00:28   I think it was the 27th or 28th of February, and now
00:32   I’m here again and am pleased that it went so well then.
00:36   And on my way here, while I was
00:40   indulging my thoughts,,
00:44   we took a little break
00:49   about a quarter of an hour from here at a rest stop,
00:53   and witnessed the following: Suddenly prayer rugs
00:57   were rolled out, and then
01:01   a group of Muslims prayed towards Mecca.
01:05   this was the first time I have seen this at a rest stop in Germany.
01:09   Well, I had seen a few photos about
01:13   this, but I could not believe it,
01:17   and, to be frank, what is happening here in Germany
01:21   defies any description, it is an impertinence against any
01:25   agnostic and everyone who does not want religious practices in public.
01:29   It is indecent; that is my opinion.
01:42   I really do not want to see this. It is something
01:46   that can be practiced in churches or in mosques, but
01:50   not everywhere in public places. I do not want that here, because it does not belong here.
01:54   We are a secular society, and we have
01:58   separation of state and religion, and I do not want
02:02   to see our public spaces paved over with praying Muslims.
02:06   I do not want this in my country.

41 thoughts on “Alice Weidel: “I do not want to see our public spaces paved over with praying Muslims”

  1. The kind lady (i wish her well) is sounding like Marine Le Pen here, endorsing a militant ‘laicite’…a prohibition of any displays of religiosity in public life!

    So, she objects to christmas carols being sung in public venues during the winter holiday season? Christmas trees–Weihnachtsbaume–on the platz? What about Jews displaying lit menorahs in their windows during Hanukkah?

    In promoting her policy proposal of prohibiting hijabs, Le Pen talked too of prohibiting yarmulkes (Jewish skull caps)–could crucifixes on necklaces be far off?–because she wanted to be consistent and not target moslems exclusively.

    Let Weidel of AfD speak plainly: it is the public intrusion of Islam that disgusts her!!!

    • Why not ban all public forms of religion. It is the churches who support mass moslem migration into western countries, they are no moral guardian any longer. It is better to have no religion than allow islam to take over public spaces which is what will happen.
      Christmas trees are not religious, they’re seasonal icons. They’re not Christian and the average person who hoists one is neither Christian nor pagan.
      I haven’t heard Christmas carols in years as it is. Maybe it’s different in Europe but we have Christmas songs which are not religious – they’re about snow, trees, relationships, nothing religious.
      Most people I know who wear a cross or crucifix wear it under their clothing out of sight.
      Quite what people choose to do on their own property is up to them. If Jews want candles in their windows so what, it’s not public space. If a Hindu wants a giant red swastika on their door, again it’s their business.
      If a moslem wants to mow the lawn in a burka let them. I do believe that burkas should be banned in public places and especially on public transport. Plenty of places already ban hats and scarfs covering the face for security reasons.

      • Banning all (other) religions is a religion in itself. So it’s a contradiction. Communists perhaps do it, and failed. Ali Sina once said ‘battle against all religions is a losing battle’. I opt for allowing cross, and Judeo Christianity as the basis, while allowing Hinduist and Buddhist to practice their faiths, and forbidding Quran and mslm.

        • “Banning all (other) religions is a religion in itself” – Thats like referring to celibacy as a sexual position. To my mind, DanielK is on the money, ban the lot. Its time we moved passed this childish nonsense.

    • @Neighborhood Bully,

      I daresay that you are sitting in a far safer place than the members of the AdF, who are attacked, harrassed (several of their addresses having been publicised, their private homes are attacked under the generously wide shut eyes of ALL the main parties) defamed and even prosecuted in what counts for “legal” in Merkel’s Germany. Yes, Dr. Alice Weidel is being prosecuted (not sure exactly for what kind of perceived insult), so, any smallest slip-up will probably disqualify her from standing.

      So, before you “demand” for the members of this fledgelling party to unhook the moon for you, here is another one of the AfD leaders, Dr. Storch, defending the Jews, while Merkel …. well not so much:

      Oh, just in case my teutonic tone in my response did not make it clear: I am an unashamed admirer of this BRAVE politician and I hope for the sake of those you so bravely defend in your post, that her party WILL get into the Bundestag on 24. September. If not, it will be the importer of millions of islamic Jew Haters, who will continue to rule and destroy, unhindered by any real opposition.

        • Rita: I empathize…and I make no such “demands” of Weidel or the AfD–a party I would surely support if I were a voter in Germany!

          I recognize the madness of the censorship of speech in Deutschland and the long prosecutorial arm of anyone arbitrarily deemed to be at odds with the Bundesverfassungsgericht.

          “Let Weidel of AfD speak plainly…” implied that she is not free to do so. (Persecution and the Art of Writing [and Oration]…and all that.

          But, militant agnosticism is ultimately not akin to “separation of church and state”; nor is it a winning hand for defeating Islam.

          • (Steven): ““Let Weidel of AfD speak plainly…” implied that she is not free to do so.”

            My apologies, I had misunderstood it to mean “why doesn’t she..”. Germany is not a “Rechtsstaat” any longer, recently they have produced new liberticide “laws” at a speed they used to produce new saussices under the Goebbels’ look-alike Justice (sic) Minister, Heiko Mass and Stasi Anette Kahne.

          • Rita: It was equivocal…not so easy to discern. 😉

            We know why she doesn’t. But, we can’t even say why for fear of ourselves being persecuted.

            Like my great German models Friedrich Nietzsche and Robert Musil, I aspire to engage in profound cultural observation AND create great art! 🙂 Well, at least I can mimic their punctuation styles.

            I like your blog!!

    • @ Steven: “..It was equivocal…not so easy to discern. 😉…”

      They can take the woman out of Germany but never the opposite….I dont do subtle 😉

      Nietzsche ? YES YES YES ! and damn his sister !

      “…I like your blog!!…”

      I will vote for you any time !!! 🙂

  2. Jesus warned us about those who flaunt their religion in public. The pagan muslims hadn’t yet been invented but His words could only have been meant for them.

    • and anyone else whose outward apparel camouflages a heart that is filled with spiritual darkness.

  3. This woman is totally correct!

    Afd sre the only sane choice to try and save Germany from the ashes that await it.

    The stasi operative angela merkel, this cockroach woman merkel, damn this merkel woman and her accomplices to hell!

    The german people must rise up and use force to rid merkel and her nazi gang from this earth.

  4. Weidel does not give details of the praying Muslims who prayed at a freeway services area (Autobahnraststätte).

    It is likely they were men only, as usual.

    I would have preferred her to point out that as regards larger flash-mob praying in towns and cities, which may or may not be addressed by imams:

    1. a crowd of Muslim males, many under 45 and thus soldierly, is more of a danger than a random male e.g. soccer crowd because, depending on any speaker addressing them, they will quickly act as one, united both by their common religion and often ethnicity and language. I admit I have not yet seen footage of prayers plus preacher.

    2. if the language used is not German, the nearby kuffar in the shopping mall, or zoo or swimming pool lawn of dar al-harb will not understand what is being said and whether the prayerful are being incited against them. So the Men of the Hijra have the tactical advantage of surprise. One thinks of Friday prayers on Temple Mount in Jerusalem…

    3. The congregation of men-only in one public space for one purpose is perceived in the West as a political and not a religious or merely sociable act: a strike, a political demonstration, a party rally etc. And old-fashioned events to boot, with no women in attendance.

    But at present, I would not bet on German police breaking up such unauthorised demonstrations of the fight to achieve dar al-islam.

    • This video only shows 2 minutes of a 30 minutes long speech which you can find here (not sub-titled).

      I dont know which “Ludwigshafen” was the place of her talk:
      Ludwigshaven on Lake Constance (Bodensee) would be a much smaller place (4000 inhabitants approx I believe) while Ludwigshafen am Rhein with 160,000 + inhabitants is much bigger.

      So, in the first case she would have been surprised to see muslims marking their spot as they did at all, while in the second case her surprise would have come from the speed at which these spots increase everywhere.

  5. This might sound a silly, throwaway question, but I pose it in all seriousness and I should really appreciate some serious suggestions:

    Bearing in mind the vast numbers of immigrants being sent to Britain as well as Western Europe, where can we, the indigenous British and Europeans, immigrate to to avoid the annihilation of our race, our religion, our culture and our persons?


    • For sure you can’t “fight them on the beaches,” etc. That would be racist. Ol’ Churchill would be charged with criminal speech today.

      BTW, those vast numbers of immigrants aren’t “being sent” to Britain. They were long ago invited in. Now the results of that invitation are becoming evident. Is there even one British politician with the courage to state that he or she is anti-immigration? Is there a Marine Le Pen in Parliament?

      Even here in America the so-called Republicans – the GOP(e) like Paul Ryan – won’t speak up. That’s why Trump was elected: to put an end to our death-by-immigration.

    • I think it is not a silly question at all, but a very serious question. Even sensible people who view themselves (slightly) only the left, like Sargon of Akkad, have lately begun asking where Westerners are supposed to go.

    • @ Sonya:

      “…where can we, the indigenous British and Europeans, immigrate to to avoid the annihilation of our race, our religion, our culture and our persons?…”

      In view of real leaders like Viktor Orban, I think that quaint old sayings like the following one dont seem as silly as they might sound at all:

      “GO EAST YOUNG MAN” !!!

  6. Weidel unknowingly is a major factor in the influx of the pagan muslims. An Agnostic { believe nothing } is no defense to militant ” believers “. A strong Judaeo / Christian Nation is the only bulwark against the followers of a sixth century Psychopath.

    • While I agree with your post I have just a little squibble with your definition of “Agnostic” whom I see as “someone leaving both doors open” and following pretty much “Pascal’s Wager”.

      And yes, I think you are absolutely right that the religiously fanatic invaders do not find much resistance. The brilliant Douglas Murray, in his book “The Strange Death of Europe” puts it like this:

      “…The world is coming into Europe at precisely the moment that Europe has lost sight of what it is. And while the movement of millions of people from other cultures into a strong and assertive culture might have worked, the movement of millions of people into a guilty, jaded and dying culture cannot…”

      and he compares our retreat from our Judaeo/Christian base with “Kant’s Dove”. He writes:

      “Like Kant’s dove we wondered whether we wouldn’t be able to fly faster if we lived ‘in free air’ without the bother of the wind keeping us aloft”.

  7. I view the German experience with the lens of US rights. I can do no other.

    The US predominant culture is Christian. As an atheist, I used to oppose public displays of religion, but I now think it’s an assertion of our culture. As long as I have the right to opt out and not participate, it’s fine with me. I think the First Amendment is a great guide.

    First of all, part of the controversy about Islam is whether it gets the religious rights and exemptions that Christianity gets? I think religions should get NO exemptions. That is, they should be subject to the same laws as anyone else. I think this is mandated by the First Amendment, which seems to forbid religious exemptions on the face of it. This translates to, churches should adhere to the same zoning, building inspection, and neighborhood noise restrictions as anyone else. It’s not a huge disadvantage.

    Education, especially, should not be exempted. I don’t mean that people shouldn’t have the right to educate their children as they wish, but if the state sees its interest in assuring a certain standard of knowledge and literacy, the requirements should apply to all. Fundamentalist sects should not have the right to restrict the education of their children to grammar-school levels unless everyone else does as well.

    Of course, the state has the right to limit public meetings on public areas to permit holders, which should also apply to large religious gatherings. A Christian prayer meeting that anyone can walk around clearly doesn’t require a permit. Neither do a few Muslims praying, although once they crowd everyone out of a public place, they require a permit.

    It’s tempting to advocate that the government allow Christian or Jewish public prayer, but forbid Muslim prayer. That way is a slippery slope around our First Amendment protections, including the debate on whether Islam is a real religion. It is. It’s simply one we don’t like, and we have to find a way to deal with it inside the framework of our traditional liberties. Religious exemptions with respect to public-interest ordinances are a prime way for Islam to abuse its position, and such exemptions are unconstitutional and should be eliminated.

    • I think religions should get NO exemptions.

      I agree and would include taxation in that list. Churches, temples, and mosques ought to pay their share of the tax load.

      It’s tempting to advocate that the government allow Christian or Jewish public prayer, but forbid Muslim prayer.

      Public prayer should be based on public safety, i.e., the size of the crowd praying and how long the prayer goes on. If the gathering impedes others from moving around them, then it’s a hazard and should be forbidden without a permit obtained ahead of time. Which, of course, would lead to those praying being assigned to a place that allows the public not to be inconvenienced by the devout.

      • I agree, and BTW CC Chino Hills has made provision for that eventuality. However, a religion, faith, or system of beliefs should promote the welfare of others and the edification of the society in which it serves. Islam does none of that as prevarication, deceit, and falsity is allowed and even encouraged when dealing with the unbeliever or apostate, (which begs the question as to who makes that determination). Also, Islam calls for continuous warfare and the slaughter of the infidel, unbeliever, apostate, etc. Inasmuch as religion and creed is a protected class by American law, Islam’s call for jihad until the ‘crescent moon is closed’ disqualifies it from the protections accorded to religions as it encourages practices that are sanctioned by law as being criminal, in this case both fraud an murder.
        There may be religions whose doctrine is out on the fringe as it were, but those doctrines do not call for the slaughter of those who choose not to believe as they do. Therefore, the line that demarks religion from criminal activity and fomenting sedition to the overthrow of the constituted order should those actions required of the adherent that are contrary to the United States Code and be openly enforced.

        • The point is, you don’t want the government to be the arbitrator of who is a real religion and who is not. And the Constitution specifically, in so many words, forbids the government from favoring or persecuting, religion.

          So, I don’t see how religions began getting special privileges anyway. What the Muslims do is to piggyback on the general legal privileges given to religions. But, of course, it is a pretty common scam for to start his own religion and get all kinds of privileges, from ordinance exemptions to tax deductible status. The IRS is onto the scams, so you constantly have the government trying to determine what is a genuine religion (more or less) and what is not…which is exactly what you don’t want.

          I would prefer a situation where religions have no special privileges and no special impediments. They have to abide by the laws of the community they’re in. That might affect things like the kosher slaughter of animals, which is more humane than halal slaughter, but nevertheless not up to modern day standards of humane slaughter.

          • Yes, and it will affect education too. As in England, where an orthodox girls school is being closed down because they are unwilling to teach about homosexuality and “transgender issues” to children from 5 to 8 years of age.

            Not good enough. What you’re promulgating sounds like “state sanctioned religion”. I don’t think I’d be able to sit through a Shabbat/Sabbath service with the State-approved prayer book.

            There is wisdom in Judaism and Christianity which escape the scrutiny of bureaucrats and legislators (and the media, too).

      • Why should an muslim get a permit. Their ideology does not bow down to infidels or their government.

    • …the debate on whether Islam is a real religion.

      I know of no other political religion. Spiritual religions work to build God’s Heavenly Kingdom. Islam presumes to hold the divine deed to it and concentrates upon hegemony in this world, to the ultimate biological exclusion of everyone and everything non-Muslim. We are all to be dead and any record of us erased.

      Clearly, the perfect immigrants.

      • Some would argue the bill of rights does not apply to non-citizens. In other words, the government would be well within the Constitution to deny entrance or naturalization to Muslims. I’m sure you wouldn’t have the chance of a snowball on the equator of getting that past a liberal Supreme Court, but one or two more constitutional literalists in the court might allow the US to protect itself.

  8. I know this makes me sound like a xenophobe, but to Europe I ask: why did you let them in? You surely knew they are not adept at western civilization, they don’t adapt, they don’t learn anything, and they will just continue in their own ways and destroy your culture in the process. I am sorry for you, truly I am.

    I realize this does not apply to all muslims, but there are too many who will not adapt, who will try to conquer instead.

    I suspect Europeans have not read their own history. This has happened before, but then they fought off the invasion. Now they are just passively accepting it, much to their current and future sorrow.

    • I remember speaking with a few academics a couple of years ago in Bristol, England. They appeared to be quite sure that Muslims could be taught and could learn and be integrated. As far as they were concerned, the way forward was to educate these people.

      So, unfortunately, many in Europe do not realize that these people can’t be integrated.

      The ignorance is almost beyond belief, until you realize that these are academics who don’t live in the no-go zones and who probably swallow Islamic dawa. Also, they don’t want to be considered xenophobic bigots. They risk a lot by not toeing the party line.

      • Academics are not necessarily respectful of truth. They tend to form self-confirming cliques, particularly in the soft fields, such as gender studies, and through being on their own selection committees, assure an ideologically uniform and non-dissenting coven of professors. How many proponents of traditional gender roles in marriage do you think are on any faculty of feminist studies?

        So, academics are almost uniformly ignoring the elephant in the room: genetic intelligence differences between races and national groups. It’s death in academia to even acknowledge that fact. It’s not that academics need to go rub shoulders with more ghetto blacks…or blacks in general. It’s that if they want to stay employed, they will not talk about the most obvious facts they see.

    • There is a difference between xenophobia and Islamorealism. The former is focused on a people, the latter is focused on an alien ideology that will destroy the planet

      • Good point.

        But they don’t know this and they deny this. After all, isn’t Islam a “religion of peace” which has been perverted by the terrorists? And are not most Muslims peaceful, just wanting to lead good lives for themselves and their families?

        The Muslim academics whom they meet appear reasonable and reinforce these views.

        So these liberals don’t understand, and want to deny, that we are dealing with an ideology as bad as Nazism (to which it has similarities).

        Underlying some of the denial (as an unconscious defense mechanism) is fear–the truth is too horrible for these people to face.

  9. When you throw away your judeo-Christian heritage for secular atheism you create a natural religious vacuum. The tolerable crosses, a symbol of the Christian nature of Western Europe, will be replaced by muslims taking over entire streets with their intolerable prayer rugs – and even more obvious public intrusions into the life of the citizenry. For example, the knife and acid attacks, increasing rape statistics, and the expanding no-go zones are obvious intrusions. Add in the islamic terrorism, and you no longer have anything resembling Europe of old.

    • From the department of “doing my little bit to stem the effluent”:

      Brought up catholic, I very much despise the present Pope and feel closer than ever to Pascal’s Wager. But, in view of the nasty islamist cancer that is invading us I actually am using my heritage as a political weapon (feeble though it is), eg: I’m now always wearing a Cross around my neck, mostly those ostentateously fashionable ones….even the odd rosary some of which are quite attractive. Also, in any census, instead of “agnostic” I will put “Catholic” or “Christian” etc etc (safety in numbers) …. these are only tiny acts. And, if I were a man, I would actually wear a Kippa – (not in Paris though, where that will get you potentially killed – “survivor” being my middle name).

Comments are closed.