Michael Stürzenberger: Sharia Law is Being Integrated Into Our Legal System

Michael Stürzenberger may well be the most prosecuted political dissident in 21st-century Germany. He was active in Die Freiheit while it was still extant, and he was targeted for that by the political establishment, both at the federal level and locally in Bavaria and Munich. His weekly rallies against sharia in downtown Munich caused him to be attacked by Muslims, and later by Antifa. He has been prosecuted for “hate speech” on multiple occasions, in both Germany and Austria.

Mr. Stürzenberger’s most recent conviction may land him in jail if he loses the appeal. His presentations at his rallies are entirely fact-based, but the judge in the case wasn’t interested in the facts. She said that his words, even if factually accurate, were “partially criticizing all Muslims and causing them negative emotional stress,” and therefore punishable under the law. Her decision, in effect, introduces sharia as part of the German legal code.

Oliver Flesch is a popular German vlogger and activist who lives on the island of Majorca. In the following video, Mr. Flesch interviews Michael Stürzenberger about his recent conviction.

Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

00:00   I’m very pleased to have him with us once again, the German pioneer of Islam criticism.
00:05   Good day Michael Stürzenberger. —Hello Ollie, greetings.
00:09   Michael, what’s going on in the courtroom,
00:12   there in Augsburg? —Yes, well, it is the first case, worldwide, on political Islam.
00:18   An absolute novelty. —Could you give a short explanation, political Islam, how is that defined?
00:22   It has nothing more to do with religion. It stands apart from
00:26   the purely spiritual aspect, the religious part.
00:30   It is just a political ideology. —So tell me what happened. What’s going on there?
00:34   So the judge, Theresa Freutsmiedl did not see it this way.
00:39   In her view, with my criticism of political Islam,
00:45   I’m partially criticizing all Muslims and causing them negative emotional stress,
00:52   especially when I mention or refer to acts of violence or terror attacks,
00:57   which would qualify as incitement to hatred according to paragraph 130.
01:01   Meaning I’m stirring up hate against this group and
01:06   disturbing the peace. For that, brace yourself Ollie,
01:11   I received a sentence of 7 months confinement on probation.
01:15   You have to imagine, in particular the rally that I held in Augsburg, which was really exemplary.
01:19   Where I made the differentiation so often,
01:22   so much so that the peaceful Muslims didn’t even care about it,
01:25   those who have nothing to do with political Islam, you know, the card-carrying Muslims.
01:29   The Muslims who live in Germany, work here, don’t draw attention to themselves
01:32   and don’t present any problem. I’ve certainly presented this in detail over half a dozen times.
01:39   Yes, I’ve been there myself. I know exactly. I’ve also seen your videos on YouTube. I know how you
01:43   always differentiate exactly. —That didn’t interest this judge.
01:47   The judge said the entire differentiation
01:51   was completely irrelevant.
01:54   The moment I criticized political Islam, I partially criticized all Muslims.
02:00   Incitement of hatred. Period. There’s never been such a ruling and it shows
02:07   how completely new standards are simply invented.
02:11   Completely arbitrary. And for that you’re sentenced.
02:14   All those I criticize are criminals. They’re the ones who carry out terrorist attacks,
02:21   who commit violent attacks, from knife attacks to rapes.
02:25   Those rapes arises from the contemptuous view political Islam has of women,
02:29   especially towards non-believing unveiled women. It’s all, all of it is logically explainable.
02:35   So this judge, she didn’t want to hear it any of it. With this ruling, Ollie, these criminals
02:42   are now indirectly protected by the judiciary. You’re no longer permitted to criticize them
02:49   because it is a hate crime. —Where is this going to lead us? Do you think that criticism of Islam
02:54   will no longer be possible in the foreseeable future? —If we continue down this path,
03:00   then the next step will be that you may no longer mentioned the “I” word within a critical context.
03:07   Meaning, we would then have Sharia Law already integrated into our legal system.
03:12   The legal system prohibits the criticism of Islam, and it’s over with criticism.
03:17   You’ll only be able say critical things using irony, like Tim Kellner does.
03:22   Create a character like his “Love Priest” or some other character.
03:26   It is similar to what occurred during the DDR. They spoke in code.
03:30   Well, it’s an unfortunate development. However, it isn’t yet legally binding.
03:35   We are appealing, and I hope during the appeal hearing at the district court level —
03:40   where the judge is accompanied by two assessors, judges drawn from the population —
03:44   that common sense will prevail and, above all, that the facts will be acknowledged.
03:51   This judge completely ignored the facts.
03:55   Now here’s the really interesting part. We’ve now discovered that this particular judge,
04:01   while studying in Augsburg, worked at the Law Clinic in Augsburg.
04:07   So this is an organization that advises, among others, rejected asylum seekers.
04:13   It provides free advice. So these are asylum seekers who have legally lost their asylum status
04:21   and have been ordered to leave the country. They’re supposed to be deported.
04:25   So, Theresa Freutsmiedl gave them voluntary legal advice on what kind of legal action
04:31   to pursue in order to proceed against this rejection of asylum and deportation.
04:35   Such voluntary work probably requires her to have an inner conviction
04:40   that all of them must be protected and that they all should stay here. When someone like me
04:45   comes along, who criticises some these asylum seekers being Muslims
04:49   and who feel at home with political Islam,
04:53   It’s completely clear that in her court, I have no chance. That’s exactly how she acted.
04:58   She didn’t accept anything. She rejected applications for submitting evidence.
05:02   She wouldn’t even allow me to explain how differentiate or to explain
05:06   that what I do is the absolute opposite of inciting hate. I’m nice, peaceful and courteous when
05:12   dealing with Muslims who are present. I even speak to younger Muslims. There were Muslims
05:16   with non-believer friends. I said to them, “That’s great that you’re friends!”
05:21   That’s what we would like to see — a commingling.
05:25   Muslim girls being permitted to marry non-Muslim young men.
05:30   That’s forbidden in political Islam, just like friendships are between Muslims and non-Muslims.
05:36   I tried to explain to young Muslim women
05:39   about the oppressive elements for women in political Islam.
05:43   I calmly explained these things to them, trying to awaken their understanding.
05:47   Even though I spoke to them angelically, Ollie, I’m being accused of inciting hate.
05:52   How did the prosecutor put it? “Increasing hatred against the Muslim population
05:56   and thus disturbing the public peace.” —You can’t or shouldn’t discuss it now, but please
06:03   give us an indication of what the allegation was about. —That we talk about political Islam.
06:09   That it must rule. I then explained how this principle of domination is then enforced,
06:14   and of course it’s only when there’s a Muslim majority in a society.
06:19   At that point, political Islam will put pressure on all the officials, with all the organisations,
06:23   the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists, Milli Görus and all the others.
06:28   There are dozens of these organizations, all of which have the goal of achieving domination.
06:33   World domination. That’s an obligatory goal of political Islam.
06:38   It is my assumption that a Muslim majority will occur because,
06:42   of course, Muslims have more children,
06:46   which is statistically proven. It’s predicted that in 2050, if immigration continues,
06:51   the present number will quadruple. We’ll have four times the number of Muslims in our country.
06:57   [Thilo] Sarrazin, who is a wonderful statistician,
07:00   has already calculated in his book about the Quran and Islam,
07:04   beginning in 2070 there will be a Muslim majority.
07:09   From that time on, the law of political Islam will apply
07:13   and Muslims will be obliged to carry out the jihad
07:16   to gain ruling control. These are laws of political Islam.
07:21   I have shown evidence of that and I have shown that on the way there, of course, radical Muslims
07:26   of political Islam or followers of political Islam,
07:29   will carry out terrorist attacks to intimidate people. That’s happening.
07:32   All the time. We know now that 23 major terrorist attacks
07:35   have been prevented in Germany
07:38   since the year 2000. We have 2000 political Islamists that are considered acute threats
07:43   and classified by the constitutional protection agency
07:46   as potential terrorists who could carry out attacks at any time.
07:50   Well, that’s a huge number —10,000 Salafists, and then there’s the unknown number of sleepers,
07:56   who could strike at anytime, anywhere. So it’s basically an army of potential terrorists.
08:03   And look what I’m accused of, Ollie. It’s the same situation with violence.
08:08   We have 20,000 knife attacks every year.
08:12   20,000 knife attacks. The proportion of foreigners responsible for these attacks is about 40%.
08:19   It’s the same with rape. Yes, these foreigners
08:24   are just the ones with, you know, the passport story.
08:29   So there’s enough like that, that weren’t even included. So it could be even higher.
08:33   The proportion of immigrants is already exorbitantly high.
08:37   Immigrants are all the asylum seekers, refugees,
08:40   and they are 2% of the population. However, statistically, they’re disproportionately
08:46   causing 17% of the knife attacks. Concerning rape,
08:50   they’re even 20-fold overrepresented when it come to gang rapes.
08:54   So there’s a wealth of facts that we have to quantify and to define the problem.
09:02   However, Theresa Freutsmiedl, the judge in Augsburg,
09:05   rejected all that and didn’t want to know at all.
09:08   But I’m a criminal because I criticize this subset of Muslims.
09:12   Can you believe it? —It’s absolute madness.
09:15   Again, just for clarification, when the ruling becomes
09:18   legally binding, you could go to prison for 7 months
09:21   for any small thing you did wrong. However, I’m convinced, dear Michael, that won’t happen.
09:28   I have good reason to believe that you will win the appeal.
09:34   No normal person could let this stand. Michael. I thank you.
09:39   Thank you for the work that you’ve been doing for years on the road.
09:42   Whoever hasn’t seen Michael’s rallies yet, should take the time to do so.
09:46   I think you speak for six hours at a time, right? He tells exciting stories.
09:50   That’s one of the things that you do so well.
09:55   It’s never boring when you explain Islam.
10:00   Not just exciting Oliver, we also have discussions with the audience.
10:04   It’s always something different and always extremely exciting to watch. —When is the next rally?
10:10   Yes, it will be on the 16th of April. We have registered a rally in Munich at Max-Josefs-Platz.
10:15   That’s in front of the opera house. We’ve already had some exciting rallies there.
10:19   This will be a premiere after a nearly two-year break. Of course, we’ll have to see how we get back
10:22   on track with the whole organization. Following that,
10:26   we go to Herford on April 29. That’s a Friday.
10:29   Now Ditib [Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs] has organised muezzin calls there
10:33   in Herford that sound every Friday. There’s also a heated debate about that,
10:36   along with a court hearing now, and maybe Irfan Peci [ex-Al Qaeda Serb] will be there, too.
10:40   We spoke today and exchanged ideas. Irfan Peci would like to participate from time to time,
10:44   if possible, which i think is great! Because Irfan Peci is really great.
10:50   He spoke last Tuesday at Pegida in Dresden. He gave a great speech,
10:53   and made reference to our court case,
10:56   declaring his solidarity for which I’m really grateful to him for. If we all stick together,
11:01   then it will make it even harder for the justice system to break us. —That’s a good segue,
11:09   because from the 19th to the 23rd of May, you both are visiting us here on Majorca.
11:16   It going to be a lecture trip. Whoever is interested, please see the email address below.
11:21   Michael, thank you very much for this conversation.
11:24   I thank you as well, and I’m looking forward to visiting you,
11:27   because it’s a beautiful environment, with great people, great speakers, great guests,
11:32   and it’s always nice to be together in a circle of patriots. It really feels good. —You’re right.

For links to previous posts about Michael Stürzenberger, see the Michael Stürzenberger Archives.

4 thoughts on “Michael Stürzenberger: Sharia Law is Being Integrated Into Our Legal System

  1. Cultural enrichers play along with the diversity is our strength delusion while sharpening the blades and daggers.
    It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of clueless dupes.

  2. I remember in the UK some years ago, the concept of hate speech was devised as a result of sermons during prayers in mosques becoming little more than incitement to hatred and murder. Now I see the concept has been turned on its head – particularly in mainland Europe – to protect islam and muslims and allow them to do and say as they like. I believe that the politicians in Europe have been bought off with petro-dollars to sell out those they purport to represent.

    I believe that the judge in question here is either a leftist puppet or an islamic stooge.

  3. “The Truth is no defense.”
    You have to love that about modern jurisprudence.

  4. It is just absolutely incomprehensible ‘ the judge in the case wasn’t interested in the facts. She said that his words, even if factually accurate, were “partially criticizing all Muslims and causing them negative emotional stress,” and therefore punishable under the law. ‘
    What on earth is there intention? To engraciate themselves to Islam? If so then they can say goodbye to their country.

Comments are closed.