A brief post on the events in Orlando the past day or so. More to come shortly, but in the meantime, here is the text of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s speech and some photos from the day.
ESW Islamization of Europe
Ladies and Gentlemen, I bring you greetings from Austria.
I congratulate Brigitte Gabriel, and you, Mike, and all the various chapters of ACT! For America for their tireless efforts to expose the ongoing stealth Islamization of the United States and Canada. As a native European, I can testify personally that the Islamization of my country and my continent is hardly a matter of stealth — it is occurring quite openly. Radical Islamic preachers declare the supremacy of Islam during Friday prayers in mosques in major cities all across Western Europe. Muslim demonstrators frequently take to the streets carrying signs that read “Islam Will Dominate” and “Sharia is the Answer”.
Under the direction of the EU bureaucrats in Brussels — whom we did not elect and cannot remove — we Europeans are required to admit more and more third-world immigrants, most of them Muslims. Our public institutions must change to accommodate them. Our schools become centers of Islamic propaganda and serve halal food to all their students, Muslim or otherwise. More and more mega-mosques are being built in our cities. Multicultural “tolerance” requires that we permit fully-veiled women as employees in all occupations, public or private. And, most ominously, any criticism of Islam — or even factual accounts of Islamic history and practices — are punished by lawsuits or state prosecution.
Most of you have already heard about my own legal case, so I won’t spend a lot of time going over the gory details. The short version is that I was prosecuted by the Austrian government for what I said in one of my seminars about Islam. My description of Islamic law and its basis in the Koran and the hadith was considered “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.” I was tried, convicted, and fined. I appealed all the way to the highest court in Austria, but my conviction was upheld at all levels. I am in the process of appealing the decision to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Because of my conviction, I can no longer use a certain word in my descriptions of Islam and Mohammed, because the use of that word was judged a denigration of Islamic beliefs. If I were to use it in reference to Islam, I could be prosecuted again, and the sentence might be harsher the second time. They would probably throw the book at me.
However, I am not in Austria at the moment. I am here, in the United States of America, where my right to use that word in any context I please is protected by nothing less than the First Amendment to the Constitution.
So it gives me a special pleasure, ladies and gentlemen, to tell you what got me in such hot water with the judicial authorities in Austria: it was the word pedophilia.
In my seminar I explained that, according to the authentic hadith, Mohammed married his wife Aisha when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine. In reference to those facts, I described a conversation with a friend about an Austrian politician named Susanne Winter, who had previously been convicted and fined for referring to Mohammed as a pedophile. It was my friend’s opinion that one is simply not allowed to say such a thing. I responded by saying, “What do we call that, if it isn’t pedophilia?”
Now that I’m here in Florida, and it’s safe for me to say it, I can repeat my point: Mohammed is considered the perfect man, an example to be emulated by all Muslims. He had sex with a nine-year-old girl. What do we call that, if it isn’t pedophilia?
Does this perhaps explain the epidemic of child sex slavery by gangs of young Muslim men, which is currently underway in Britain, the Netherlands, and other Western European countries?
Britain is actually the worst offender when it comes to the repression of free speech and open debate about Islam. Almost every day, cases at least as outrageous as mine are brought before magistrates or judges. People who criticize Islam or speak negatively about Muslims are routinely charged with “racially aggravated public order offenses”. Many of them are given a stiff fine when convicted, or even sent to prison.
The most egregious example in recent memory was the arrest of my good friend Paul Weston in Winchester. Paul is a candidate for the European Parliament for the LibertyGB party, and on April 26 he was making a campaign speech over a bullhorn from the steps of the Winchester guildhall. His listeners didn’t realize it, but what he was saying was actually a quote from a book called The River War, which was written in 1899 by a man named Winston Churchill:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property — either as a child, a wife, or a concubine — must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”
A woman who heard him say these words called the police and complained that he was engaging in “hate speech” that was offensive to her. When the police arrived, they told him to stop. When he refused, he was arrested, searched, and taken away in a police van.
Paul was initially charged with “breach of the Section 27 Dispersal Notice”, that is, for refusing to obey a police order to move on. At the police station that charge was dropped, however, and he was given a more serious charge: a “racially aggravated crime under Section 4 of the Public Order Act.” If he is convicted of it, he may be sentenced to up to two years in prison. He will return to the police station next week, on May 24 — two days after the election. At that point he will learn whether the judicial authorities will proceed with a prosecution.
As far as Paul could tell, neither his audience nor the police had any idea that he was quoting Churchill, so they may well have been unaware how bad they would look when the news got out about what happened. And the news certainly did get out — within a few days the story moved out of the blogs and into the mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic, and even in Australia. Normally, such Section 4 cases never make it into the media. They are routine and humdrum. Someone complains about the Religion of Peace, and gets charged with racism. It’s no big deal; it happens all the time.
Paul’s case was different, however. Despite the reign of political correctness that smothers all public discourse in Britain, Winston Churchill is still revered by the British public as a great national hero. To arrest and charge someone for quoting Sir Winston’s writings in public is a bridge too far. The police had no idea that they were biting down on a scorpion when they arrested Paul Weston.
Sir Winston Churchill was not only a Prime Minister of Great Britain, he was also an accomplished writer who won the Nobel Prize in Literature for his historical writings. What in the world has happened to the UK when an English citizen cannot quote a respected historian and the greatest war leader in British history without fear of being arrested?
In 1899 Winston Churchill was free to observe what Islam did to its adherents. He could evaluate what he saw, draw conclusions, and publish them in a book, all the while receiving accolades for his work. Today, in the second decade of the 21st century, the same topic cannot even be publicly discussed, and the conclusions drawn by Sir Winston are absolutely forbidden. How the country has changed in just over a century! If nothing else, this incident plainly illustrates the extent to which Britain has been Islamized.
The process by which the nations of Europe became Islamized varies from country to country. My own country, Austria, left a “back door” open for Islam due to the infamous Law on Islam of 1912. This law gave Islam the status of a recognized state religion, and was considered politically necessary after Bosnia-Herzegovina was incorporated into the Austro-Hungarian Empire. More and more Bosnians were joining the Austrian army, and the law was passed to ensure “cohesion” in the ranks.
Sound familiar? In Britain, the greatest excesses of Politically Correct Multiculturalism are justified in the name of “community cohesion” — that is, to prevent Muslims from rioting in the streets.
The mass importation of Muslim immigrants into Britain began more than thirty years ago, but it has accelerated in the last fifteen years as the Labour Party deliberately increased the annual rate of entry in order to import more Labour voters and damage the Conservative Party.
Other countries have implemented similar policies. Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Ireland, and Austria have all increased the numbers of immigrants they allow to enter. Some of these policies are simply the mandate of the European Union, which insists that individual member states have no right to control their borders. But in other cases, the Social Democrats, the Greens, and other left-wing parties find it expedient to import third-world immigrants and grant them the vote as quickly as possible, because they will reliably vote as a bloc for the left-socialist parties.
Read more at Gates of Vienna