Preparing German Schoolgirls for Life Under Sharia

The following video is a chilling report on an “experiment” conducted on girls at a German high school. These young ladies are required to wear the hijab in public, and then report how it makes them feel. It’s as if they’re being coached on the way to behave once Islam becomes dominant in Germany — which will probably happen within their lifetime.

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

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Ho Ho Ho! A Culture-Enriching Christmas in Paris

Many thanks to Ava Lon for translating this article from Le Parisien:

Paris: a sixty-year-old who was attacked says he was called “infidel”.

by Céline Carez
November 15, 2018

An investigation has been opened for deliberate violence committed for religious reasons.

He had been Christmas shopping. He was leaving the subway at Alesia station (14th district) and was quietly walking towards Maine Avenue (14th district), holding in his arms a package wrapped in very Christmassy paper. The events took place on Wednesday at 6:20 pm.

A stranger approached and pushed and slapped him, causing his glasses to fall to the ground. The assailant allegedly said to him, before turning around and walking away: “Behold what we do to infidels.”

The sixty-year-old, shocked, went up Maine Avenue towards the 14th district police station in order to file a complaint. An investigation was initiated for deliberate violence committed for religious reasons.

Well, What WOULD You Call It?

As we reported a couple of weeks ago, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and upheld the Austrian court’s conviction of her for denigrating the beliefs of an officially recognized religion by uttering “hate speech” against the prophet Mohammed.

For those who came in late, the hateful words uttered by Elisabeth were in the form of a rhetorical question about Mohammed’s sexual relationship with a 9-year-old girl: “What would you call it, if not ‘pedophilia’?”

The court stipulated to the facts of the case: Mohammed married a 6-year-old girl and consummated the marriage when she was nine. The defendant was simply not permitted to call it “pedophilia”. For her impertinent rhetorical question she was convicted and fined, and the various courts of appeal have upheld her conviction, all the way up to the ECHR.

There is one further level of appeal within the ECHR itself. I can never remember the name of the body, and always have to look it up — my tendency is to think of it as the “Inner Sanctum”, but its official name is the “Grand Chamber of the Court”.

Elisabeth has decided to make that final appeal, but it’s expensive, and her defense fund was cleaned out to pay for all the earlier levels of appeal. To run this one final lap she will need your help.

To that end, the Center for Security Policy has set up a new fundraising web page for Elisabeth: Friends of Free Speech. I invite anyone who wants to contribute to go over there and make a donation.

In the following interview with Vlad Tepes, Elisabeth talks about the history of her case (nine years of it!), her plans for the future, and the parlous state of free speech in Europe:

For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.

Blasphemy and the ECHR

Morten Messerschmidt is an MEP for Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People’s Party, DF). In the following op-ed from Ekstrabladet Mr. Messerschmidt discusses the ramifications of the “hate speech” conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, which was recently upheld by the European Court of Human Rights.

Many thanks to Tania Groth for the translation:

Cowardly Judges Pander To Islam

by Morten Messerschmidt

If the Muslims’ favorite prophet Muhammad was brought to trial today for his behavior in Arabia in the 6th and 7th centuries, the charges would be armed robbery and assault, gang violence, abduction, murder, camel theft, arson, extortion, bigamy, rape and pedophilia.

He would end up killing time together with Peter Lundin and Peter Madsen [two savage and psychopathic murderers currently behind bars — translator]. In the United States he would have received so many sentences that he would not be released until the end of the 22nd century.

But the same verdicts would also be levied upon Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun and the Scandinavian Viking chieftains, who for centuries plagued Europe’s Christian civilization — until they themselves became Christians.

One must be careful to judge the past by today’s moral scale.

But can it be made punishable by law to utter a reminder of the past in order to become wiser in the present? Should courts have the power to punish citizens when they point towards and recount what has actually been done in the history of humanity?

“Yes” was the conclusion by an Austrian court in 2009, and “yes” was the conclusion by a majority of the 47 judges sitting on the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg the other day.

A woman in Austria had been sentenced for blasphemy for having “violated the religious peace”. This was the verdict she laid before the Court of Human Rights with reference to the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing her the right to freedom of expression. However, the judges agreed with the Austrian court. As a result she now has to pay a symbolic fine.

In 2009 Elisabeth Wolff held a series of courses, a kind of ‘Islam for Beginners’. I do not know the quality of the course. However, she was so thorough that she included the fact that Islam’s founder Muhammad at the age of 53 married a 6-year-old girl and had sexual relations with her when she was 9. Full stop. These facts are verifiable.

The relationship is carefully and frequently described in Islamic Hadith, which, next to the Koran, is the holiest scripture of the Muslims. The Hadith contain accounts of Muhammad’s life and deeds, often in the most intimate and brutal details. Details that I will omit here in order to spare the reader. It should noted that believing Muslims are not ashamed of the Hadith; on the contrary, they considers them a recommendation for how Muslim men should live based on the exemplary behavior of Muhammad.

Continue reading

A Victory in Horsham

Gavin Boby, a.k.a. the Mosquebuster, has one another battle.

Dear Freedom Lovers,

I stopped another mosque last night!

In Horsham, this time:

The Council have no right to interfere with people filming their proceedings, but they did so anyway.

And we still won. It was a strong decision, almost unanimous, with only 1 Councillor voting for the mosque. This application deserved its fate.

That’s a tally of 38 wins out of 53 fights. Or a 72% win-rate. Please see the list here.

I have another 6 fights on the go, so there’s all to play for.

We’ll win!

Gavin Boby

For more on Gavin Boby and the Law and Freedom Foundation, see the Law and Freedom Foundation Archives.

“How Can You Be Convicted for Telling the Truth?”

A brief, stirring speech by Geert Wilders about the ECHR ruling against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:

Provided that Western culture survives in Europe, this appeal will be among the many important statements by Mr. Wilders saved for posterity.

Meanwhile, the Islamic pushback against Wilders continues. See this concerted attack.

For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.

Egyptian President Appoints Two Christian Governors, Defying Islamic Sharia

Ashraf Ramelah discusses Egyptian President Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi’s recent appointment of two Coptic governors, his possible motives for doing so, and how the appointments fit into the larger picture of Islamic politics in Egypt.

Egypt: President appoints two Christian governors, defying Islamic Sharia

by Ashraf Ramelah

In Egypt, the president appoints the governors of the country’s provinces. This practice began with President Nasser after the end of the kings’ era. Last month President Al-Sisi appointed two Christian governors to two principally Christian provinces — the highest concentration of Christians in all of rural Egypt — located in Upper Egypt and West Egypt. This is monumental in a country where Islamic sectarianism dictates politics.

When Al-Sisi took office in 2013 for a four-year term, he immediately appointed new governors, all Muslim, for each of the 27 provinces, as did his predecessors — Mubarak, Sadat, and Nasser. Now in the beginning of his second term, Al-Sisi replaced two of his original governors at the end of their six-year terms with two Christians — the first time in modern history that some all-Christian towns would have a Christian administration. However, there was one earlier unsuccessful attempt at this by Egypt’s military interim government (SCAF) in 2012 after Mubarak was ousted.

This has inspired an outpouring of positive enthusiasm from Egypt’s Coptic community bringing hope and optimism where disappointment and anger was mounting against the Al-Sisi government by many. It remains to be seen as of yet if any opposition will come from the Muslim community and if their terror elements will respond with violence.

Egyptian Copts in the diaspora are also pleased with the president’s appointments. Social media commentary and op-eds indicate the feeling that Al-Sisi is taking Egypt in the right direction. There is talk about equal rights, equal opportunity and progress toward liberal democracy and leaving Sharia principles in the dust. Al-Sisi’s appointments are in striking contrast to the status quo of the erosion of rights and common decency toward the lives of Copts in Egypt in recent decades.

Before Nasser’s time, such appointments or elections were not extraordinary news but a regular matter. Prior to the coup of 1952, Copts were involved in Egyptian political life after Mohammed Ali detached the country from Turkey (at the fall of the Ottoman Empire). The Decree of Equality between citizens allowed Copts to be governors of provinces, and it was commonplace for Copts to serve as provincial governors. Under King Fouad I, Wissa Wasef, a Copt, became the president of the Egyptian Parliament twice (03/1928-07/1928 & 01/1930-10/1930).

With Al-Sisi’s recent appointments, it looks as if the president has a high regard for the pre-Nasser era. However, when all of the current governmental actions or inactions are taken into account an accurate and truer picture comes to light. Does this picture show improvement for human rights and liberty inclusive of the Coptic minority community, or are things getting worse?

Continue reading

Three More Victories for Mosquebusters

Gavin Boby, Mosquebuster Extraordinaire, sends this heartening report about his most recent successes in quashing mosque applications in England.

Dear Freedom Lovers!

I’ve recently busted three more mosque applications, and wanted to let you know the score.

The three wins are in:

That makes a tally of 37 wins out of 52 mosques fought.

You can see the details here.

I’m fighting six more right now, and I’m sure those last three will be back again before long.

This isn’t exciting work — more like a constant grind. But the tide has been slowed.

And it matters. It boosts our chances of winning easily and honourably. Europe’s taste for massacre probably rules that out for them, but not for us.

Mosques mark out territory; the smaller enemy territory is when the time comes, the more options we have to win; the more options we have to win, the more easily we can win without atrocity; if we win without atrocity, we can pass on the authority we have inherited from English generations before us.

Gavin Boby

For more on Gavin Boby and the Law and Freedom Foundation, see the Law and Freedom Foundation Archives.

Thilo Sarrazin, Part 3: Muslims Are Going to Become the Majority

Below is the third of four parts of the appearance by Thilo Sarrazin on the TV program “Talk in Hangar 7” (previously: Part 1, Part 2). In this segment the argument becomes really heated.

To recapitulate the cast of characters: in addition to Mr. Sarrazin, there is a Viennese schoolteacher named Susanne Wiesinger, who has also written a book, an imam named Abdul Adhim Kamouss, and the host, whose name I forget.

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

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Elisabeth’s Voice — Now More Than Ever

We reported on Friday that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had finally handed down its decision on the appeal by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff against her conviction in Austria for “hate speech”. The court ruled against her, saying that the Austrian law under which she was tried was within acceptable limits, and did not violate her human rights, because it served the higher good of protecting religious feelings and keeping the religious peace.

The ECHR’s decision has given far more prominence to Elisabeth’s case than it has ever had before. At the bottom of this post is a list of 68 English-language media reports on the decision. The outlets include The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Al Arabiya, The Atlantic, Fox News, National Review, Newsweek, The Telegraph, and numerous others.

I recommend that Elisabeth’s supporters augment this wave of publicity in any way they can. If you keep a blog, you could feature her case and the court’s decision. If you comment on news sites or post on forums, you can inject the topic into the conversation.

Ultimately, this case is not just about Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. Everyone who falls under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights — which means not only those in Western Europe, but Hungary, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, the Baltics, Romania, Bulgaria, and even Russia — has been put on notice: If you say anything that “disturbs the religious peace” — i.e., offends Muslims — your speech is no longer protected by human rights laws.

I can guarantee you that the Muslim world has taken note of the ECHR’s decision. Al Arabiya is not the only Islamic outlet that reported on the decision — check the list for other news sites in the Middle East and South Asia, especially Pakistan.

Once again, I must emphasize the exact words spoken by Elisabeth concerning Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha, for which she was prosecuted and convicted. They were: “What do you call it if not ‘pedophilia’?”

It was a question she raised in a private conversation, and then recounted during her seminar. That was what the entire case against her was built on.

She also remarked that the prophet of Islam “had a thing for little girls.” It’s no longer legal to say those things (and variants on them) in Austria, as confirmed by the ECHR. However, it IS legal to say this:

“Muhammad’s wife Aisha entered the marriage at age 6, which was consummated at the age of 9.”— Higher Court of Vienna, decision Dec 20, 2011

or in German:

„Mohammeds Frau Aischa wurde mit 6 Jahren verheiratet. Die Ehe wurde vollzogen, als sie 9 Jahre alt war.” — Laut OLG Wien, Urteil vom 20.12.2011

The ECHR decision does NOT impact on any Austrian’s right to say those things, because they were stated in the public record by the highest court in Vienna.

As I remarked back in December 2011, on the day of the higher court’s decision:

As reported in the live-blog earlier today, the high-court judge in Vienna actually allowed the quoting of an authoritative hadith in the courtroom: “Muhammad’s wife Aisha entered the marriage at age 6, which was consummated at the age of 9.” He then acknowledged that the passage was already public knowledge, and thus repeating it could not be punishable under the law.

He upheld Elisabeth’s conviction, however, based on a somewhat peculiar interpretation of Austrian law: to say “Mohammed had a thing for little girls” is an “excess of opinion” that cannot be tolerated. It constitutes ridicule, and is not justifiable.

An interesting and useful corollary can be derived from today’s ruling: it is now completely legal to quote in public the authoritative hadith about Mohammed’s sex acts with a nine-year-old girl. A precedent was established today — at least in Austria.

To that end, one of our Austrian contacts conceived the idea for the Aisha Billboard Project, which would go on prominent display somewhere in Vienna. The digitally-created billboard below shows the German-language version:

And the English translation:

However, a financial backer for the project could never be found. Which is understandable — People in Europe are really scared to stick their necks out, and with good reason. It may be officially legal to say what’s on that billboard, but that doesn’t mean it’s prudent. One’s life may be so easily ruined by the government, or the private sector, or by both working in tandem.

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

Below the jump is the list of news reports in English about the ECHR’s decision, kindly compiled by Henrik Clausen. There have also been a number of op-eds about the case (including one by Douglas Murray).

Continue reading

Eric Zemmour: Ghettoes are Islamized and Ruled by Islamic Law

The following video features more remarks by the popular French commentator Eric Zemmour about the Islamization of France and the establishment of sharia zones in French cities.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

The ECHR Decision: Sharia Officially Implemented in the EU

In the following RUPTLY video an unidentified woman discusses the decision by the European Court of Human Rights on the “hate speech” case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.

Yesterday’s decision constitutes the official implementation of sharia within the EU, since there is no longer any freedom of speech for those who offend Muslims with their words. The court determined that the “protection of religious sentiments” overrules freedom of speech.

The ECHR has thus eliminated freedom of speech in cases where the “religious peace” might be put at risk. This effectively establishes the “heckler’s veto” as a judicial precedent in the EU: those who shout the loudest and most menacingly are allowed to determine what everyone else is allowed to say.

There is only one religion that gets offended enough to threaten the religious peace in Europe, and that is Islam. Therefore the threat of violent behavior by Muslims determines which expressions about Islam are acceptable, and which are to be considered unlawful.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is SHARIA.

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

Video transcript:

Continue reading

The ECHR Rules Against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

After almost six years, the European Court of Human Rights has finally handed down a decision on the case “E.S v ECHR” — that is, the appeal by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff of the verdict by the Austrian supreme court in the “hate speech” case against her. As most of you already know, Elisabeth’s “crime” was to utter these words concerning the marriage of Mohammed to Aisha (who was nine years old when the marriage was consummated): “What do you call it if not ‘pedophilia’?”

For readers who are not already familiar with her case, here is a brief timeline of what happened prior to the appeal to the ECHR:

October 2010   Elisabeth was indicted in Vienna, Austria, for statements she made in one of her seminars on the ideology and effect of Islam.
February 2011   Elisabeth was convicted of “hate speech” in an Austrian court. In order to obtain a conviction, the trial judge was forced to introduce a new charge, “denigrating the teaching of a legally recognized religion” — during the trial itself.
December 2011   The verdict was upheld by the appellate court, which noted that her statements constituted “an excess of opinion” punishable under Austrian law.
December 2013   The verdict was upheld by the Austrian supreme court, which noted that under the European Convention of Human Rights, freedom of religion overrides freedom of expression. Elisabeth notes that criticism of Christianity comes under the rubric of art, while criticism of Islam is criminal. She said: “There is no political freedom without religious freedom, inclusive of the right to criticize religion.”

Yesterday the ECHR ruled against Elisabeth, justifying its decision by the need to safeguard religious peace. Here’s the press release she sent out this morning:

On Thursday, 25 October the ECHR ruled that my conviction by an Austrian court for discussing the marriage between Prophet Mohammed and a six year old girl, Aisha, did not infringe my rights of freedom of speech.

I was not extended the courtesy of being told of this ruling. Like many others, I had to read it in the media.

The ECHR found there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that the right to free expression needed to be balanced with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and that the verdict had served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.

In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others.

This should ring warning bells for my fellow citizens across the continent. We should all be extremely concerned that the rights of Muslims in Europe NOT to be offended are greater than my own rights, as a native European Christian woman, to speak freely.

I am proud to be the woman who has raised this alarm.

I am also optimistic. Since giving my seminars in Austria in 2009, we have come a very long way.

Continue reading

Alain Wagner on the Penetration of European Institutions by the OIC and the Muslim Brotherhood

2018 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Thursday, 20 September 2018

Working Session 17: Combating racism, xenophobia, intolerance and discrimination

Intervention read by Alain Wagner, representing International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA)

Note: The intervention is in French, with a simultaneous voice-over translation.

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.