Thursday, January 5, 2012

Free Speech Works for Western Muslims but NOT Westerners

Cleric Muzzles Lady Liberty
John R. Houk
© January 5, 2012

In America Nazis can march in a Jewish neighborhood in Chicago even if the residents in that neighborhood are survivors of the Holocaust.

In America Muslims can say all manner of vile things about Jews or the overthrow of the American government to establish a Sharia State.

… the book Don't Be Sad, a required reading text for both members and MGAs during the July-September quarter. "But if it [the soul] fights for the sake of Allah, Allah will transform fear and anxiety into happiness, strength, and vigor."

The same text, published in 2005 by the International Islamic Publishing House in Saudi Arabia, promotes hatred of the Jews, calling them the greediest of people.

ICNA's 2010 Member's Hand Book emphasized ideas of a far-fetched Islamist take-over of American society, something also found in the group's Charter and By-Laws.

Hooper has candidly stated that while he does not endorse the violent tactics of Islamic radicals, he does share their desire to impose Islam on all of America. "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," he told the Minneapolis Star Tribune in a 1993 interview. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

Ten years later, in 2003, Hooper
stated that if Muslims were ever to become a numerical majority in the U.S., they would likely seek to replace the Constitution with Islamic law (Sharia), which they view as divinely inspired and thus superior to all other legal systems.

Awad then began addressing his views toward Jewish control in the US:

"So we in the activist community, yourselves, we always call on the President, on the White House to do things. But there's nothing being done. Why? Because the second power lies with the Congress. Members of Congress compete with each other, whether Democrats or Republicans, to please the Israel lobby, to please Israel. Some of members of Congress are willing to put the interests of Israel ahead of the United States' interests.”

“Why? Because we have to understand what drives members of Congress. Is it values, principles or votes and money and pressure? The pro-Israel lobby has mastered deception, pressure tactics and exploiting the system of giving money to candidates and putting pressure and threatening some candidates with either scandals or what have you. And they managed over many years to have this huge influence on not only members of Congress but those who want to be elected officials in the United States.”

Attributing masters of deception to the “pro-Israel lobby” by Awad is a thinly disguised euphemism for Jews. Awad’s claim that pro-Israel members of Congress traitorously put Israeli interests ahead of US interests is a blatant age old anti-Semitic variation taken from the notorious anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Awad's allegations are the same only slightly cryptic posturing about Jews used by the KKK and other racist white supremacist organizations.

In his speech, Awad demonstrated his true background as an anti-Semitic, Israel-hating provocateur who uses his position in CAIR to further a radical Islamist agenda, and that is precisely the reason CAIR exists.

While many panels featured criticism of U.S. policy and law enforcement, one stood out for its hate-filled rhetoric, and ISNA officials should have seen it coming a mile away. During a "meet the authors" session, Imam Warith Deen Umar, former head of the New York state prison chaplain program managed to:

* Argue that key Obama aides are "Israeli," proving Jews "have control of the world."
* Malign the motives of Jews active in the Civil Rights movement.
* Portray the Holocaust as punishment of Jews for being "serially disobedient to Allah."
* Insinuate that Hurricane Katrina was a result of tolerance for homosexuality.


ISNA described the author's panel as "an interactive session which provides a wonderful platform to learn, share ideas, and provide literary contributions to society." Remarkably, ISNA included Umar in that platform despite a very public record of anti-Semitism, advocacy for jihad, and praise for the 9/11 hijackers.

MAS has furthermore extended invitations to speakers whose anti-Israel remarks delve into anti-Semitic prevarications.  In June 2006, MAS co-sponsored a town hall meeting in La Mirada, CA where former Ambassador Edward Peck delivered a keynote address in which he reportedly said, "There is a linkage between what is happening in Iraq and terrorism. It is linked to our support of Israel." Peck was reported as having "reminded his audience that the Nazis saw the rest of the world as untermensch - subhuman and not worthy of respect. He said that is how Israelis treat their opponents - The media, he explained, like Congress, is controlled by Jews."

MAS has sponsored anti-Israel rallies in the U.S. that featured virulently anti-Jewish rhetoric and expressions of support for terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militant movement that calls for the destruction of Israel. In December 2008, MAS organized a "National Day of Action" in more than 30 locations around the U.S. in response to Israel's military action in Gaza. Many of the demonstrations were marked by offensive Holocaust imagery likening Jews and Israelis to Nazis, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic rhetoric.

The Muslim American Society (MAS) has historically disseminated and promoted extremist literature. At its 8th annual convention held in December 2009 in Chicago, MAS' Youth organization sold educational materials including books and CDs by radical anti-Semitic sheikhs such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a leading Muslim Brotherhood ideologue based in Qatar who is known for his support of terrorist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah; and Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. born Muslim cleric based in Yemen who has encouraged American Muslims to attack non-Muslims and Western targets.

MAS also made available on its Web site until March 2006 issues of American Muslims, a magazine edited by Editor-in-Chief Souheil Ghannouchi, who was also an Executive Director of MAS. The publication featured anti-Semitic articles and religious edicts justifying suicide operations.

The cover story in the January 2004 issue of American Muslims featured an article arguing that "the bible is a distorted document" and that "Zionism began with the Old Testament. Unknown authors willingly distorted the word of God to suit their own self-interest." The article stated that, "The Middle East conflict today still harkens back to Jews' erroneous claim that God gave the 'Promised Land' exclusively to Jews."

While speaking to a young Jewish journalist from our local Jewish paper, he mentioned that his office staff will soon be meeting with the leadership of MPAC, (Muslim Public Affairs Council) a Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Islamic front group. He wondered what questions should be asked of them.   That evening I could barely sleep.   My adrenalin was racing as I thought of the numerous questions that should be posed by not only Jewish American leadership, but by our leaders in the halls of government.  In today’s atmosphere of inter-faith kumbayas, would we not be better served if today’s leaders had the courage to ask the tough questions?

Question 1: Why do Muslims follow an Anti-Semitic doctrine that refers to Jews as the “sons of pigs and apes” and why should we Jews respect a doctrine that calls for our demise?  In the Hadith Muhammad said: ‘The time [of judgment] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh, Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!” (Bukhari 4.52.176 & 177, and 4.56.791.)

… Although the MSA presents itself to others as a benign social organization with no other purpose than promoting the legitimate interests of students from the Mid East and elsewhere in Dar Al-Islam, in actual fact the group seeks to further militant anti-Semitic Islam, especially its Wahhabi form.

This means, among other things, emphasis on particular verses in the Qur'an, most notably Surah 5:64-65. To be certain, there are many other verses which have special significance for the MSA, but this is central to the discussion and problems elsewhere are epitomized by this passage. By the way, 5:64-65 may or may not be in the exact same place in a translation which you may make use of. Unlike the Bible, where all verses in all versions are in the identical same place in the text, Qur'an verses may occur in one place in one translation and somewhere else in other versions. This understood, here is what Surah 5:64-65 says, in words addressed to the Jews: "do not disavow us... They whom God has cursed [the Jews], and with whom he has been angry, some of them he changed into apes and pigs."

We have been lucky, so far, at the University of Oregon. To the best of my knowledge the school has not hosted MSA sponsored speakers like those just cited, all of them virulent anti-Semites--and supporters of terrorist groups as part of the bargain. But it is clear beyond all reasonable doubt what the MSA is a hate group of the worst odor.

There are more prominent Islamic-American organizations but I think you get the picture. These organizations in America are Anti-Semitic, Jew-Hating and American Constitution-Hating. And yet if a non-Muslim secularist, Jew or Christian places their principles ahead of Islam while criticizing the darker nature of Islam these same Muslim-American organizations love to play the victim and cry racist Islamophobia is persecuting the Muslims of America.

Playing on this stance as victim these prominent Muslim American organizations have been advocating special treatment that provide rights beyond the U.S. Constitution much as the Muslims have been largely successful in Europe.

Europe is loaded with Muslim only enclaves. Not that it is illegal to enter a Muslim enclave, but expect no protection from the rule of law. Sharia Law rules in a Muslim enclave even if Shariah contradicts rule of law that everyone else must follow.

In Europe Muslim anti-Semitism and hatred for critics of Islam is so virulent that Jews and critics often fear for the lives for the use of Religious Freedom or Free Speech. It is not uncommon for a non-Muslim in Europe to be raped merely because her clothing to Muslim males is a sign post saying, “come violate in any way you wish.”

And yet if a non-Muslim European that probably has a family tree that reaches back further than the existence of Roman Empire let alone the residue of Islamic conquest that forcibly altered the European culture of peoples living in the Balkans of Eastern Europe speaks against Islam, then hate speech is accused. The European policy of prosecuting non-Muslims for exposing Islam and not prosecuting Muslims for more viral hate speech is dhimmified lunacy.

Geert Wilders of Netherlands made news for his hate-speech incitement trial via some short films he made showing the dark side of Islam. Europeans, American Leftists and even some American Conservatives berated Wilders. In America Wilders’ short films would not even have made the law enforcement blink because of the First Amendment. Wilders was acquitted just before the Norwegian psycho Breivik embarked on a massacre of Norwegians in the hope of driving Europe to form a New European Order that would expel Muslim immigrants.

Anti-Jihad essayist Fjordman was detained and questioned harshly because Breivik used his essays to formulate the grand revolutionary scheme to eject Muslim immigrants (Too bad there is no death penalty on the table for Breivik).

Then there is the Austrian Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff accused and convicted of denigrating religious beliefs. Sabaditsch-Wolff wrote about an Austrian Appellate Court upholding her conviction and you should read the entire English version post. Below is the specific reaction she felt about the last verdict:

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff 2

I will now comment very briefly on the verdict.I must admit that I entered the courtroom with some cautious optimism. However, when I sat down to face the presiding judge, with another nameless judge on his left and right, I knew in my heart that the verdict once again had already been written, as it was from the day of my indictment.

Let’s be honest: from the very beginning we freedom-loving men and women, we who seek to defend democracy and universal human rights, never had a chance. The destruction of everything we stand up for is too far advanced.

For those of you wondering what the verdict was and its implications, here a short summary.

The initial verdict found me NOT GUILTY on the count of hate speech.

It did, however, find me guilty of “denigrating the religious teachings of a legally recognized religion” because I had said that “Mohammed had a thing for little girls”, and that his behavior can be described as “pedophilia” for want of a better word. I was sentenced to a fine of €480 (i.e. 1/3 of the maximum sentence) and two months jail if I refused to pay.

The appeals court verdict is interesting, but even more shocking. The judge explained that while it is certainly within the law to say that “Mohammed had sex with a 9-year-old”, calling this spade a spade is considered “excessive” and thus “denigrating”. Imagine that you were no longer allowed to call a murderer “heinous” because you might be convicted of having an “excessive” opinion as a result.

Here in Austria we are no longer permitted to name the crime committed by the founder of a religion, in whose name (according to Koran 33:21, Mohammed is the perfect example to be emulated by all Muslims) millions of young girls are married off and raped by their “husbands”. This is an unbearable thought for me, as the mother of a young girl. And it is an unacceptable situation, one I shall fight till the very end.

However, at this point I cannot tell you how I will continue this fight, as I have not heard from my lawyer. We have to wait for the written verdict first, after which we can decide on a strategy, for both the battle inside the courtroom as well as outside. I thus ask you to bear with me until my legal team, my family, and my confidants present the details of what I should do next. I can assure you that I will not stop, for stopping would mean surrendering to the application of sharia law here in Austria, which is something I will never, ever do.

Paraphrasing Congressman Allen West’s words: “I will remain steadfast in my opinions and loyal to my family and my beloved Austria.” (Emphasis SlantRight)

Sabaditsch-Wolff did not say “death to Muslims” or “we should go out and teach those ungrateful Muslim immigrants a lesson”. She was convicted for saying “Mohammed had a thing for little girls, and that his behavior can be described as ‘Pedophilia’ for want of a better word.” I mean she read that right of the Quran and came to the obvious conclusion AND was convicted for it!

ACT for America sent an email that asking for donations to go for Sabaditsch-Wolff’s legal fee. In America an Appellate decision can be overturned by the Supreme Court. I don’t know how that work’s in Austria, I assume the word “Appellate” means there is a Higher Court in Austria.

JRH 1/5/12
A Black Day for Free Speech

Sent by ACT for America
Sent: Jan 3, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Two weeks ago, an Austrian appellate court upheld the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff on charges of “denigrating religious beliefs” (see story below).

Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff is one of ACT! for America’s international chapter leaders.

ACT! for America has contributed to Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff’s legal defense fund and encourages concerned citizens to do the same.
Log on here if you would like to make a contribution to her legal defense fund. We know Elisabeth’s situation—she needs a lot of help if she is to continue fighting this on appeal. She is, indeed, fighting for the rights of all of us.

This back-door imposition of sharia law will not end in Austria. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), representing all 56 Muslim countries, has won the support of top officials in our State Department in its efforts to criminalize “defamation” of religion. (It is a violation of sharia law to “defame” Islam, Allah or Mohammed.)

In a move clearly designed to intimidate those who oppose the OIC’s effort, Hillary Clinton’s security personnel detained Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), at the closing event of a recent conference aimed at promoting this draconian effort. Lafferty was told she had been identified as a “security threat” to the Secretary of State. (See the TVC story here.)

For four years we have been warning America that our freedom of speech is under assault from radical Islam and its politically correct enablers and apologists. As you can see, we don’t cry wolf.

"A Black Day for Austria"

Soeren Kern
December 26, 2011 at 5:00 am

An Austrian appellate court has upheld the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for "denigrating religious beliefs" after giving a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam.

December 20 ruling shows that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.

Although the case has major implications for freedom of speech in Austria, as well as in Europe as a whole, it has received virtually no press coverage in the American mainstream media.

Sabaditsch-Wolff's Kafkaesque legal problems began in November 2009, when she presented a three-part seminar about Islam to the
Freedom Education Institute, a political academy linked to the Austrian Freedom Party.

A glossy socialist weekly magazine,
NEWS -- all in capital letters -- planted a journalist in the audience to secretly record the first two lectures. Lawyers for the leftwing publication then handed the transcripts over to the Viennese public prosecutor's office as evidence of hate speech against Islam, according to Section 283 of the Austrian Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB). Formal charges against Sabaditsch-Wolff were filed in September 2010; and her bench trial, presided on by one multicultural judge and no jury, began November 23, 2010.

On the first day of the trial, however, it quickly became clear that the case against Sabaditsch-Wolff was not as air-tight as prosecutors had made it out to be. The judge in the case, Bettina Neubauer, pointed out, for example, that only 30 minutes of the first seminar had actually been recorded.

Neubauer also noted that some of the statements attributed to Sabaditsch-Wolff were offhand comments made during breaks and not a formal part of the seminar. Moreover, only a few people heard these comments, not 30 or more -- the criterion under Austrian law for a statement being "public." In any event, Sabaditsch-Wolff says her comments were not made in a public forum because the seminars were held for a select group of people who had registered beforehand.

More importantly, many of the statements attributed to Sabaditsch-Wolff were actually quotes she made directly from the Koran and other Islamic religious texts. Fearing that the show trial would end in a mistrial, the judge abruptly suspended hearings until January 18, 2011, ostensibly to give him time to review the tape recordings, but also to give the prosecution more time to shore up its case.

On January 18, after realizing that the original charge would not hold up, the judge -- not the prosecutor -- informed Sabaditsch-Wolff that in addition to the initial charge of hate speech, she was now being charged with "denigrating religious symbols of a recognized religious group." Sabaditsch-Wolff's lawyer immediately demanded that the trial be postponed so that the defense could prepare a new strategy.

When the trial resumed on February 15, 2011, Sabaditsch-Wolff was exonerated of the first charge of "incitement" because the court found that here statements were not made in a "provocative" manner.

But Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of the second charge against her, namely "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion," according to
Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code.

The judge ruled that Sabaditsch-Wolff committed a crime by stating in her seminars about Islam that the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a pedophile (Sabaditsch-Wolff's actual words were "Mohammed had a thing for little girls.")

The judge rationalized that Mohammed's sexual contact with nine-year-old Aisha could not be considered pedophilia because Mohammed continued his marriage to Aisha until his death. According to this line of thinking, Mohammed had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to older females because Aisha was 18 years old when Mohammed died.

The judge ordered Sabaditsch-Wolff to pay a fine of €480 ($625) or an alternative sentence of 60 days in prison. Moreover, she was required to pay the costs of the trial. Although at first glance the fine may appear trivial -- the fine was reduced to 120 "day rates" of €4 each because Sabaditsch-Wolff is a housewife with no income -- the actual fine would have been far higher if she had had income.

Sabaditsch-Wolff appealed the conviction to the Provincial Appellate Court (Oberlandesgericht Wien) in Vienna, but that appeal was rejected on December 20. The court says she will go to prison if the fine is not paid within the next six months. She says she will take the case to the Strasbourg-based
European Court for Human Rights.

After the trial, Sabaditsch-Wolff said her conviction represented "a black day for Austria." The Vienna Federation of Academics (
Wiener Akademikerbund) said the ruling represented "politically and sentimentally motivated justice" and marked "the end of freedom of expression in Austria."

Sabaditsch-Wolff is not the only Austrian to run afoul of the country's anti-free speech laws. In January 2009,
Susanne Winter
, an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted for the "crime" of saying that "in today's system" the Mohammed would be considered a "child molester," referring to his marriage to Aisha. Winter was also convicted of "incitement" for saying that Austria faces an "Islamic immigration tsunami." Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.
Free Speech Works for Western Muslims but NOT Westerners
John R. Houk
© January 5, 2012
A Black Day for Free Speech

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and
financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

No comments:

Post a Comment