Reminder of the FDI. More information on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is a brave lady in Austria I highlighted last week. She is now a guest speaker at the Freedom Defense Initiative. If I lived on the East coast I would somehow be attending this great event. Below is the entire post from Atlas Shrugs as this is too important not to give coverage to. Along with Geert Wilders, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is being prosecuted for speaking out against Islam and shariah law. If you live near this event, please attend. These are many of the greatest minds in the battle against Islam, shariah law, stealth jihad and jihad.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


FDI SPEAKER SPOTLIGHT: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Austria, Activist

FDI CPAC EVENT: Jihad, The Political Third Rail

Our inaugural event for FDI is fast approaching, February 19th -- and if you haven't registered or made it your business to get your infidel ass to CPAC for this totally non-CPAC event, then you are still hopeless.

The infiltration is so vast and so deep, that CPAC, the Conservatives' largest gathering in America, does not address jihad. Last year I had to bring Wilders there on my dime (with the help of Spencer, Horowitz, Bostom and his mom).

This year after Obama, it's worse. There is actually a panel called "You've Been Lied To: Why Real Conservatives are Against the War On Terror," and that's it.

Here's event. I will be highlighting each speaker as we move closer to the Day.



Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is an Austrian human rights and anti-jihad activist. A diplomat’s daughter, she was a child in Iran during the Islamic Revolution of 1979, and later lived in Iraq, Kuwait and Libya. During the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, she was among the Austrian citizens who were kidnapped and held hostage. Today, Sabaditsch-Wolff is an international representative of the Citizens’ Movement Pax Europa.

Her extensive knowledge about Islam and the political implications of Islamic doctrine earned her an invitation to teach the Austrian political party FPÖ about the nature, structure and strategies the West faces from Islam.

An unprepared reporter from the Austrian magazine “News” attended the seminar, and was so frightened by what she heard that she wrote a major reportage about 'political hate speech' at the seminar, and reported Elisabeth to the Austrian authorities for the crime of 'hate speech', quoting statements from the seminar.

Late in 2009 she was charged with “hate speech” under Austrian law for statements she made during a seminar on Islam. It was another attempt to silence by brute force those who speak out accurately about the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. Sabaditsch-Wolff explained: “I want to preserve Europe and its democratic and secular values. Islamic doctrine discriminates against women and non-Muslims. Islamic law, or shariah, cannot be reconciled with democratic principles and universal human rights.”

Sabaditsch-Wolff added: “There are powerful groups who are working towards the Islamization of Europe. That is a fact. What can we gain from closing our eyes and ignoring this? Even Libyan leader Muammar Ghadafi says: ‘There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.’ A head of state confirms what our politicians deny. What else has to happen until we finally get it?”

Noting that she is being prosecuted for statements about Muhammad’s marriage to a nine-year-old when he was in his fifties, and Muhammad’s exemplary status for Muslim men even in this, Sabaditsch-Wolff emphasized: “In every Islamic system you find that human rights of young girls are in grave danger. Look at Saudi Arabia. Look at the former socialist South Yemen. When Khomeini came to power he lowered the minimum age for girls to get married to nine years.” Non-Muslims fare no better: “The Islamic world leads in discrimination against religious minorities. Christians are persecuted and discriminated against in all Islamic countries. You have to remember that the Christian culture is not one that immigrated or is foreign; it is indigenous. There is a complete ban on building churches in Turkey. And now Erdogan speaks of discrimination against Muslims in Switzerland? Where are Muslims being discriminated against in Switzerland? The European elite allows the Islamic countries to walk all over themselves while bowing down to them.”

“I am a mother and a feminist,” says Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. “I want my daughter and my niece to grow up in freedom and dignity. I want the same for all Austrian citizens, and that includes Austrian Muslims.”


While the case against the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders is higher profile, Elisabeth's case is of the same fundamental nature: it is a battle between fear and superstition on the one hand, and rationality and open debate between free citizens on the other.


Atlas Shrugs

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/02/fdi-speaker-spotlight-elisabeth-sabaditschwolff-austria-activist-fdi-cpac-event-jihad-the-political-.html

The Geert Wilders trial. Recent reports and news.

Geert Wilders on trial

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is a very long report on Geert Wilders from the Dutch Government.

The report has been tranlated into English by VH and Baron Bodissey from

Gates of Vienna. I have read through the entire report and it is a

clunky affair as mentioned. That said it is quite clear that the report

accomplished what the government set out to do; and that is to

have sufficient grounds to achieve a conviction of Geert Wilders.

There is also a link to previous reports that had been issued earlier

in the trial.

From Gates of Vienna

Baron Bodissey

We’ve posted a couple of recent articles on the pre-cooked report by the IVA Research and Consultancy on the “radical right” nature of the PVV and Geert Wilders. The Dutch government commissioned the “scientific” study, obtained exactly the result it desired, and released the report just in time for the second phase of the Wilders trial.

Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated an article from Het Vrije Volk about the now-notorious report. A caveat to our readers: this is very thick stuff. Editing it into something that approaches normal English was an immense challenge, and was impossible to achieve completely.

Most of the text below consists of excerpts from the official report. I have no idea whether the original Dutch version was written in the same sort of dense bureau-speak that VH’s translation and my editing produced, but there is no doubt that the raw material justifying a conviction of Geert Wilders may be readily found in the turgid prose of this document.

Here’s what Het Vrije Volk had to say:

Government Report says: condemn Wilders
by Joost Niemöller

Whoever reads the report will see that the advice to the court is above all: condemn Wilders.

Well, here it is, the much-discussed study on polarization and radicalization in the Netherlands, which is also simultaneously advice to the government, by four researchers: Moors, Lenke Balogh, Van Donselaar and De Graaff.

The report

Now to the contents of the report. The political question that is playing out here, which was also noted by Wilders himself, is how this report might contribute to the conviction of Wilders in the trial that is now being conducted against him. In other words, is the advisory report to the government in fact a political move to influence the judge and punish Wilders?

That is indeed seems to be the case. But in order to demonstrate it, a long road has to be taken. Fortunately shorter than the road the researchers themselves thought they should pursue, but nevertheless, fasten your seatbelts. We going on a roller coaster, it will be a rough ride.

There has been, as mentioned in the report, a substantial effort made to distinguish Wilders from the extreme right. But also… not entirely. For there is some overlap. For instance, see this blubbery quote, in which the authors of the report strongly distance themselves from any criminal aspect. But again: not quite. For there “appears” to be a discriminatory aspect:

The PVV and its leader Geert Wilders — depending on the chosen definition — are regarded as radical right, but with ifs and buts clearly connected to this classification. The most important is that with respect to ideology the PVV cannot be put on the same line with “racial revolutionaries” such as neo-Nazis. There is no sign at all of any anti-Semitism in the PVV.

It should be noted that Wilders and the PVV do not consider themselves as extreme right and distance themselves from right-wing extremism. Furthermore, neither among the founders of the PVV nor with the current Parliamentary group are found any people with a previous far-right “career”. Unlike the “traditional” radical right-wing parties or movements, the PVV does not derive from a right-wing extremist tradition.

Thus there is — as with the LPF / Leefbaar stream [named after the former party of Pim Fortuyn] — no question of a social genealogy. Ideologically, there are certain elements, however, of right-wing radicalism (in this case “national-democratic”‘) ideas to be found in the PVV, such as a positive orientation to “one’s own” [i.e. Dutch culture], a dislike of “the foreign” [i.e. Islam and immigrant Islamist radicals and criminals] and of political opponents [it is rather the other way round], and a leaning towards the authoritarian [promoting toughness against crime is viewed extremist in the Netherlands].

The rejection of “the foreign” concerns alleged “Islamization”, “non-Western immigrants”, and is reflected in a series of strong terms on this matter used in the public debate. These expressions, in which the criminalizing, the making of a social dichotomy, or the exclusion of rights are important themes, appear in a criminal sense to have a discriminatory nature. In that respect, the court has made a judgment.

Later the report talks about two important terms related to Wilders, “polarization” and “radicalization.” It is stated that in society there is talk of polarization, and that Wilders plays an important role in that. It seems to me that such is difficult to deny. Then again, the question is, is that important for a judge? Now comes the point where the report moves into quicksand. An “on the one hand other hand” hustle and bustle that will make you seasick: Continue reading

Thanks to Baron Bodissey, Dymphna, and VH

Gates of Vienna

Religious Divide Across The Atlantic.

Irrational secular hatred is brought up in
this excellent article from across the pond.
Here in the States we still have a stronger
belief in religion and God. When compared
to Europe, we are blessed beyond measure
but the same irrational secular hatred is easily
found and quite popular in our current society.
Obama and his agenda, his no Christmas for his
family, the fact that there was almost not a
Creche' displayed inside the White House this
past Christmas supports this irrational secular
hatred. I believe it is an intentional move on
Obama's part. This fits perfectly with the far
left wanting to strip any mention of any
religion(especially if it has anything to do
with being Christian or Jewish) from our
schools and government.


Obama and the demosocialistacrats want
to push America into a model of Europe.
That is reason enough for us not to let this
current administration push over the edge
into accepting irrational secular hatred as
the 'normal' for this country and our society.


Religious Divide Across The Atlantic


From the Brussel Journel

From the desk of Marc Huybrechts

Numerous past European travelers to America have commented on the apparent importance of religion to (most) Americans. Some did so in a positive way, while others appeared to be more prejudicial. Among the former, Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” from the 1820’s remains a classic work of reference, but this article will be more concerned with the opinions of a contemporary commentator, Josef Joffe, the editor/publisher of the German newspaper Die Zeit in Hamburg, Germany(*).
Among the negative critics, some deserve special mention, two from the past and one from the present. While escaping to Philadelphia from the great terror of the French Revolution, Talleyrand is reported to have half-joked “Thirty-two religions and only one dish to eat” (**). It is not clear whether the irony of the situation was apparent to Talleyrand, or not, but Joffe has called this “an archetype of the European Kulturkritik of America”. And the great German philosopher Hegel complained about too many American “sects which rise to the extreme of insanity, many of which conduct services in the grip of ecstasy and even the most sensual silliness” (***). Obviously, Hegel could not foresee the “insanity” of nazi rituals that were to follow much later in Germany, nor the Obamamania among Berlin’s youth today. Already then, rapture, physicality, and anarchy, did not jive well with the old European protestant mind, and one shudders to think what Hegel would have thought of contemporary televangelists. But, a recent incident or anecdote, as reported by Joffe, is even more interesting and telling:


Continue reading here:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4251