The following video shows the intervention read by John Andrews, representing Americans for America, at OSCE Warsaw on September 15, 2017, during Session 8, “Tolerance and non-discrimination II”.
Note that Mr. Andrews was given the usual OSCE rebuke by the moderator after his intervention.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:
For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.
The following video shows the intervention given by Fiyaz Mughal, representing Tell MAMA in the UK, at OSCE Warsaw on September 15, 2017, during Session 8, “Tolerance and non-discrimination II”.
Note that Mr. Mughal received no rebuke from the moderator after his intervention.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:
For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.
The following video shows the intervention read by John Andrews, representing Americans for America, at OSCE Warsaw on September 14, 2017, during Session 7, “Tolerance and non-discrimination”.
Note that Mr. Andrews was given the standard OSCE rebuke by the moderator after his intervention.
For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.
The following video shows the intervention read by David Petteys, representing the Sea Jay Foundation, at OSCE Warsaw on September 15, 2017, during Session 8, “Tolerance and non-discrimination II”.
Note that Mr. Petteys was given the standard OSCE rebuke by the moderator after his intervention.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:
For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.
The following video shows the intervention read by Henrik Clausen, representing Wiener Akademikerbund, at OSCE Warsaw on September 13, 2017, during Session 4, “Ensuring equal enjoyment of rights and equal participation in political and public life”.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:
For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.
The following video shows the intervention read by Henrik Clausen, representing Wiener Akademikerbund, at OSCE Warsaw on September 12, 2017, during Session 3, “Democratic institutions”.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:
For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.
Note: This was first posted on September 18, and was a “sticky” feature for several days. Scroll down to see more recent items.
Update: Jackson has kindly created a transcript without the embedded time stamps. The text has been added after the end of Mr. Orbán’s speech.
The video below is an excerpt from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s speech at a conference of the Christian Intellectuals’ Association.
Mr. Orbán is a man of impressive intellect. It took me a while to edit the translated transcript of this speech, and as I did so I absorbed the logic and rhythm of his arguments. Then, after Vlad completed the subtitling, when I was able to watch him speak, I realized that he just glanced at his notes occasionally while he delivered the speech — no teleprompter.
That’s an impressive performance for a 21st-century politician.
Many thanks to CrossWare for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Video transcript (no times):
This news feed is being posted about ten hours late, and is truncated. Our internet connection went out last night about 8pm, and stayed out until sometime during the night. Anything that would have come in during that period doesn’t appear in this feed.
When I bring in the huge backlog of email, I’ll collect the more recent items and put them in the next news feed. Better late than never.
To see the headlines and the articles, click “Continue reading” below.
Thanks to Charles Low, Insubria, SS, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.
Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.
Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.
The following series of articles describes several incidents and mass brawls at the festival “Essen Original” in the German city of Essen. There’s an ironic twist to this story that will only emerge in the fourth and fifth articles — so keep on reading
All five of these reports are from the major regional news portal Der Westen, and were translated by Nash Montana.
The first article:
Mass brawl during the Essen Festival “Essen Original”
Forty people brawled at the train stationEssen. “Essen Original”, the city festival that sees multiple bands and about 11,000 visitors every year, mostly went off normally, according to the police.
But one incident on the fringe of the Festival disturbed the peaceful goings-on. According to the police in Essen, about forty people brawled and were beating on each other on Saturday night at the train station.
The brawlers were dressed like hooligans
It was noted that the people were dressed like two different hooligan groups. “The federal police told us that the people were optically divided into two groups. Eyewitnesses reported that they looked like hooligan groups, according to the clothes they wore,” a spokesman for the Essen police confirmed.
Once the federal police arrived, the men disappeared.
What groups of men they were is therefore not clear yet. Nobody was injured or has been arrested yet, according to the federal police.
The second article:
Mass brawl in train after “Essen Original”: Now an eyewitness talks about the disturbing incident
- After the Festival “Essen Original”, a mass brawl broke out on the RE1 train headed for Duisburg
- We have spoken with an eyewitness about the incident
Mülheim. Scenes that witnesses won’t forget very soon: Last Saturday night multiple men were beating on each other on the RE1 bound for Duisburg.
The fight was so intense that after the train stopped in Mülheim, the driver refused to “drive one more meter”.
In an interview with DER WESTEN an eyewitness talks about the disturbing incident now.
It felt like in a gang war
“A good friend and I were on our way to a party in Mülheim, when suddenly a whole bunch of black Africans started to attack each other after the last stop in Essen,” she reports. More and more people became involved in the attacks on one another; some of them even had weapons.
“In the end there were about forty people. Some of them had butterfly knives and bats. It was horrible. Children were crying; people fled to other carriages with us.”
At the Mülheim train station she and her friend exited the train, and watched the situation from a safe distance, together with the train driver. Over and over these people exited and entered the train, screaming at each other loud and beating wildly on each other. “I felt like in a gang war,” the witness tells.
Only after about twenty minutes did about eight police officers and a few members of a security detail arrive at the station. But when the mass brawlers heard the police sirens, they all immediately fled in various directions.
Is there a connection with the fight at the Essen main train station?
When DER WESTEN asked, the police wouldn’t confirm whether there was a connection. “Between the call and the first responders in the first two vehicles, only seven minutes passed. A further vehicle arrived two minutes later at the train station in Mülheim,” a police spokesman from the Essen police confirmed.
All of the brawling participants were able flee in the meantime. Exactly like the mass brawl at the Essen train station about 45 minutes previously.
Whether they were the same people is still open for discussion, said the federal police and the Essen police.
The third article:
The following report by Egri Nökwas published earlier at Vlad Tepes in a slightly different form.
Germany: SJWs Protest the Deportation of Afghan Rapists and Child Abusers
by Egri Nök
Last Tuesday evening saw Germany cracking down hard and deporting 8 (eight) convicted Afghan criminals. The men were put on a flight from Düsseldorf to Kabul.
The men were taken directly from prison to the airport. Their convictions are:
| 1. | rape in coincidence with grievous battery, | |
| 2. | rape and attempted grievous battery, | |
| 3. | grievous battery, | |
| 4. | grievous battery and coercion, | |
| 5. | grievous sexual abuse of children, | |
| 6. | robbery, | |
| 7. | grievous sexual abuse of several children, | |
| 8. | sexual abuse of a child, two attempted rapes, several cases of sexual coercion. |
And still, a coalition of about 180 “refugees welcome” and fake “human rights”* activists gathered in the departure hall of Düsseldorf airport to protest the deportation.
(* we are for human rights, but there is something very much wrong with these activists’ definition in a case like this, hence the quotation marks.)
[Caption for second photo (not shown): “Afghanistan is not safe!” (twice) — “All humans are equal!” — “No man is illegal” — “Asylum is a human right!”]
There are 15,112 Afghans currently residing in Germany who are obliged to leave the country immediately (in theory), and 43,000 whose asylum applications have been rejected but who were given a suspension of deportation.
Last year the district president of the German federal state of North-Rhine Westphalia calculated that under current German practice, it would take 20 years to deport every rejected asylum seeker just from the state of North Rhine-Westphalia alone.
The following article reminds us of the deep derangement that is widespread among the German political class — and, of course, the deep derangement of the people who vote these folks into power, over and over again.
The lunatic in this particular case is a Green party leader named Katrin Göring-Eckardt. Nash Montana, who translated the article, has this to say about the estimable Politikerin in question:
Yes, I agree with her “let the women choose of their own volition to take off the veil,” but they’re never going to do that. “Do they want to do that?” is the question that begs to be asked. No, they don’t. Islamic women generally do not want to take off the hijab and the burkas, because that is what they were born into, and that is how they intend to die.
I also suspect there’s quite a huge amount of contempt in their minds for us Western whores — as most of us know — as well as for their own sisters, in the sense of “I had to do it and survived, and so will you; I’m not about to grant you a right or fight for a freedom I never had.” Women are just contemptible that way with each other if left to their own devices. And Islam breeds contempt of the worst kind.
And of course, many Muslim women are afraid to walk independently like Western women. Some do… and they do it even though they know the risks they are taking, including risking their own lives. But most Muslim women that immigrate to Europe didn’t go there to take off their hijabs and burkas; they came to Germany to put hijabs and burkas on MORE women. They are miserable, and they are more than happy to share that misery with the rest, if necessary by force.
That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.
The translated article from Junge Freiheit:
Göring-Eckardt: Without Islam it would be boring in Germany
Berlin. The top candidate for the Green Party, [Katrin] Göring-Eckardt, has spoken against a general ban for women wearing hijab and burka in public. She said that she grew up in the DDR where she wasn’t allowed to wear a cross in school. A burka/hijab ban would only lead to women not being allowed to go out on the streets anymore, and they would be locked inside, Göring-Eckardt warned.
Although women shouldn’t be fully veiled in court or in public traffic, “I would rather approach these women personally and tell them that they can take off these things on their own volition, that this is normal here and that they can do that legally.”
Of course Islam belongs to Germany
When asked about the AfD’s call for a ban on the foreign-financed construction of mosques, and their statement that Islam does not belong to Germany, Göring-Eckardt said that of course Muslims belong to Germany. “And I think that we should be glad about that. It would be pretty boring if we were just to be among ourselves.”
The Green Party politician has already in the past expressed her joy over the Islamic migration to Germany. At a synod organized by the evangelical church in Bremen in 2015, she said: “We are being given presents with these new people.” That these refugees would make Germany more religious, more colorful, more diverse, and younger.
At the beginning of September of this year, Göring-Eckardt spoke against limitations in the plans for family reunifications for refugees. “The suspension of family reunification has to end,” she told BILD. “There are family fathers living here with us who have to be integrated into Germany. They can’t do that as long as their children and women are still sitting around somewhere in Aleppo, Damascus, or wherever,” the Green Party politician lamented. Family reunification therefore would be the “key to integration,” she said.
An afterthought from the translator:
The following paper was presented last week at OSCE Warsaw by Wiener Akademikerbund.
Just a couple of years ago, it would seem that the Internet and the emerging social media platforms was creating a new wave of free media and free information exchange that would radically improve the education of the general public and participation in public life. However, new forms of censorship are now emerging that stifle and suffocate these potentially positive developments.
These “New Forms of Censorship” are different from traditional, State-controlled censorship such as “The Great Firewall of China” or Turkey blocking access to undesired social media platforms. The new forms of censorship do not seek to make undesired content disappear, merely to make it so improbable to find that it will have little or no impact in public debate and policy discussions. This is done mainly by private corporations, according to unclear guidelines and with no due process.
This wall of discriminatory practices include “strikes” on YouTube channels, demonetizing content, thereby cutting revenue streams to independent journalists, or direct closure of accounts. It includes adjustments of search algorithms to downplay controversial material critical of authorities, or directly closing accounts. PayPal and other financial actors are put under pressure to cut ties to independent voices based on mere accusations, and overly broad copyright laws are being exploited to attack independent media.
Many different groups are being target by these practices. Ostensibly, this should target only terrorists, criminals and “hate groups”, but unclear definitions and poor methodology have changed this substantially, and for the worse.
One problem is that social media providers to a great extent rely on reporting from users who do not like the content. Thus, if material posted is factually true yet unpopular in some circles who organise large number of complaints, it becomes target of discriminatory practices.
A mirror of this problem is the difficulty of algorithms to determine if a particular post or video endorses or criticizes inhumane, violent and/or criminal behaviour. This problem is aggravated by pro-censorship regulations, like the recent German one that require offensive material to be removed within 24 hours. Working under threats of fines up to € 50 million, the providers are sure to err to the pro-censorship side, preferring to remove too much content rather than too little.
A third problem is the definition of “hate speech” or “hate groups”, which remains much too vague to meet normal legal standards. This permits for politically biased organisations to assume power over the definitions, and attack important documentation organisations along with obscure hate groups. There is no established due process for designating some organisation as a “hate group”, nor for appealing such designations. Therefore, the political exploitation of the concept constitutes a direct threat to media freedom and genuine freedom of information.
A fourth problem is that genuine pro-terror and pro-Sharia organisations are not targeted as effectively as those who criticize political Islam, aim to uphold constitutional democracy and fundamental freedoms. This may sounds paradoxical, but apparently some organisations who seek to define “hate speech” confuse criticism of Islam, Sharia and terrorism with attacks on Muslims as such, or on the fundamental freedom of religion. Again, the lack of established, transparent mechanisms and due process opens for pro-censorship forces to attack the independent media.
The targets of these practice are manifold. Critics of Islam and Sharia have been hit quite systematically, but also Christian groups, conservatives, critics of war and of central banking have seen their material labelled as “Advertiser unfriendly”, cutting important streams of revenue for independent voices and Samizdat-style free media.
While the problems are manifold and keep changing, addressing them in a principled manner is non-trivial. The New Forms of Censorship are to a great extent driven by private corporations fearing public backlash or state penalties, and are not directly covered by existing laws protecting freedom of expression. Therefore, new mechanisms needs to be developed, based on principles of freedom and confidence in free citizens putting such freedoms to good use.
Another driver of New Forms of Censorship are the political tendencies to make compromises between freedom and security. However, any such compromise should be suspected of constituting a defeat for freedom, as it implies giving in to threats of or actual violence. We need to counter threats against freedom of expression and information exchange, not compromise with them.
Of particular concern are the “Istanbul Process” and “Rabat Plan of Action”, which exploit the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, specifically Article 20 about ‘Incitement’. By reinterpreting ‘Incitement’ to mean any information that may anger others, even if true, a compromise has been established wherein aggressive behaviour or threats thereof can be exploited to suppress and punish truthful information. This must be corrected in order to protect our freedom.
This is a new area of concern that will require more research and principled action in order to protect the freedom of expression we used to take largely for granted. And this is urgent: If censorship is permitted to strangle the emergent independent media, there may soon be very few civil society voices left to speak up for constitutional democracy and fundamental freedoms.
Thus, Wiener Akademikerbund calls on OSCE to establish a working group to map out these problems, the types and magnitude of them, to create new, principled strategies to protect independent media from unfair discriminatory practices, and to create a set of guidelines for participating States to protect and promote the emerging free media.
Specifically, the Akademikerbund recommends:
The following paper was presented last week at OSCE Warsaw by the Sea Jay Foundation.
Freedom of speech and of peaceful assembly is a fundamental right for citizens in the OSCE area. But this right is being seriously challenged in the United States. The confrontation in Charlottesville Virginia was labeled by UN officials as an example of “rising racism and xenophobia in the United States” and they urged the government to “punish the perpetrators of hate crimes”.[1]
However, facts are coming to light: the organizer of the event, a Mr. Jason Kessler, was recently involved in the “Occupy Wall Street movement”[2] funded by Mr. George Soros. It’s suspicious that an individual would change his political views from Radical Left to white supremacist in less than a year. Mr. Soros does have a record of funding these kinds of events, having funded Black Lives Matter[3], the demonstrations in Ferguson, MO[4], the coup and bloodshed in the Ukraine[5] and many other groups.[6]
In Charlottesville, witnesses saw Antifa demonstrators dressed in black, Black Lives Matter members, and individuals dressed in KKK T shirts, all getting off the same six busses[7] before the confrontation. Does this not smell like a “false flag” operation? Does this not have Mr. Soros’ fingerprints all over it?
While the President condemned the violence by all sides, the left-wing media continued to give the Left-wing groups a free pass and insisted that the President condemn only the “white nationalist racist” groups! Soon thereafter the “Freedom Rally” in San Francisco was cancelled due to “safety concerns”[8]. The pattern is clear: if you do not agree with the Left, you are a Nazi and you will be shut down with violence or the threat of violence! This is a serious abridgement of Constitutional rights!
It also means that law enforcement and city officials are violating their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. They are allowing the threat of violence to override the Constitutional rights of the demonstrators to free speech and freedom of assembly for the sake of keeping the peace. It means the threat of violence is being allowed to void the Constitution!
One Antifa poster is telling:
This poster demonizes and dehumanizes as “Nazis” the 63 million Americans that voted for President Trump! This poster is counter-factual! Many Americans who voted for the President are elderly veterans of the very war that brought down National Socialist Germany, nearly three generations ago. To label such people “Nazis” is preposterous! It is certain that the fabric of our civil society cannot long survive such outrages! It also violates the OSCE participating States’ commitment whereby “everyone will have the right of peaceful assembly and demonstration”.
The Sea Jay Foundation recommends that the OSCE participating States investigate and determine who is responsible for organizing and funding this violence that is taking place all across the West.
A reader in Portugal sends the following account of a sudden acceleration in the Islamization of his country:
My name is David. I am a Portuguese living in the capital of Portugal, Lisbon. I am writing because something is happening in this western point of Europe, and no one seems to be paying attention, including the Portuguese.
Lisbon has one mosque (near Praça de Espanha); it will build a second one this year in Mouraria. Who will pay this new mosque, which will cost about €3 million? Public money of the Lisbon municipality. Source (in Portuguese)
But why? Why is public money going to new religious sites, and not hospitals, schools, transportation? Why is the president of the city of Lisbon publicly supporting this construction with Lisbon’s money? No one is asking these questions in the Portuguese mass media, and even our right-wing Catholic politicians remain silent.
Simultaneously, something happened this month to our immigration laws. Now it is much easier to obtain a legal permit to stay in Portugal (Sweden-style, basically). In just one week since the law went into effect, we have 1300% more immigration requests per week compared with the previous law: 4,037 permits in a single week! Source (in Portuguese)
Who are we accepting? We are just ten million people; we can’t have this influx with no consequences. Are all these events somehow connected? The politicians remain silent, as also the media. I have the feeling Portugal is being transformed in a “rough state”, a “spear tip” of something much larger than ourselves.