2008 April 02 Wednesday
Austria To Prosecute Susanne Winter For Criticizing Islam
In Austria the patriots are treated as criminals.
The Austrian authorities have indicted politician Susanne Winter on charges of incitement and degradation of religious symbols and religious agitation. This offence carries a maximum sentence of two years. Last January, Ms Winter said that the prophet Muhammad was “a child molester” because he had married a six-year-old girl. She also said he was “a warlord” who had written the Koran during “epileptic fits.”
The politician, a member of the Austrian Freedom Party FPÖ, an anti-immigration party which is in opposition, added that Islam is “a totalitarian system of domination that should be cast back to its birthplace on the other side of the Mediterranean.” She also warned for “a Muslim immigration tsunami,” saying that “in 20 or 30 years, half the population of Austria will be Muslim” if the present immigration policies continue.
Following her remarks, Muslim extremists threatened to kill Susanne Winter and she was placed under police protection. Today, the Justice Department in Vienna announced that Ms Winter will be charged with “incitement and degradation of religious symbols” (Verhetzung und Herabwürdigung religiöser Symbole). If convicted she may have to serve up to two years in jail for her opinions.
Well, what did she say that was inaccurate? 20-30 years before the Muslims take over Austria seems premature. But other than that what incorrect statement did she make?
I'm not Islamophobic but this is just wrong. Then again I doubt they have a Bill of Rights or something called "free speech" spelled out clearly in their constitution (if they have one, some countries do not have a formal one. This is not shocking though, other nations in Europe have similar hate speech laws (so does Canada).
From the European Convention on Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Then there's this, from Brussels Journal:
However, Alfred Hrdlicka, the Austrian “artist” who depicted Jesus and his apostles engaging in homosexual acts of sodomy during the Last Supper, has not been indicted. Nor will he be. Depicting Jesus sodomizing his apostles is not considered to be a “degradation of religious symbols” in Austria, but referring to the historic fact that Muhammad married a six-year old girl is “incitement to racial hatred.”
Neither has Mr Hrdlicka been threatened by Christian assassins for his “opinions.” The difference between Christian and Muslim extremists is that the former do not aim to kill those who offend them, but the latter do – which is perhaps also why the European authorities fear the radical Muslims and persecute their opponents while they subsidize those who insult Christians.
And it gets even better:
Meanwhile, it has become clear that only 144 of the 785 members of the European Parliament have supported the proposal of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch politician who lives in hiding following death threats from Islamists, to establish a European fund to protect people who are stalked by assassins for their opinions. Ms Hirsi Ali is under de facto house arrest because the Dutch authorities are only willing to protect her while she remains in the Netherlands, but not when she travels abroad. Due to the lack of protection she is confined to hide-outs in the Netherlands.
Last month, Henk Hofland, a leading Dutch journalist, proposed that the Dutch authorities lift the police protection of Geert Wilders, another politician whom radical Muslims want to assassinate for his opinions. Several Dutch individuals and organizations have lodged complaints against Mr Wilders for incitement to racial hatred because he made a 15-minute film, called Fitna, to express his views about Islam.
Some holier-than-thou Europeans like to hector Americans about human rights "violations" in the US, such as executing mass murderers or not being nice enough to imprisoned terrorists. Now it looks like the EU may have a few human rights problems of its own, such as locking people up for telling the truth about a death cult religion. I hope these folks will enjoy the human rights they'll experience when they're living under Sharia.
While the Dhimmis are supposed to pay the Jizya tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya ), the Muslims are supposed to pay the Zakat tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat ).
The Jizya tax is described as follows in Wikipedia:
"From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' subjection, "just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes." In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and taxes levied upon Muslim citizens. The tax liable on Muslims was the zakat."
The Zakat tax is described by Wikipedia as follows:
"It is an obligation on Muslims to pay 2.5% of their wealth to specified categories in society when their annual wealth exceeds a minimum level (nisab). Zakat is one of the Five Pillars of Islam"
Thus it seems that the Zakat tax is a flat rate tax on the net worth, not the annual income. If the economy grows by 2.5 % per year, given that most of the growth benefits the upper class, it follows that this would theoretically re-distribute the growth component of the wealth to the poorer classes, effectively preventing the separation between the upper and lower classes. But then the upper class in Saudi Arabia is so rich that there is a paradox here. It must be the case that despite the Zakat tax, the ruling class have monopolized the oil revenue in such a way that the 2.5 % Zakat tax does not bother them, since the upper class of Saudi Arabia would then benefit much faster because of the oil revenue accumulating.
Unsurprisingly, Dutch Jews turn out to be more opposed to Fitna than Dutch Muslims.
THE HAGUE - Ironically, Dutch Jews are more outspoken than local Muslims in their criticism of the newly released anti-Islam film by rightist legislator Geert Wilders, says Dr. Ronny Naftaniel, head of the pro-Zionist Center for Information and Documentation (CIDI).
Last Friday, hours after the film's online release, CJO, the Jewish community central board of which CIDI is a member, condemned the footage as generalizing and counterproductive to the fight against extremism. The board described parts of the film as unacceptable, adding it had crossed the line of legitimate criticism.
By contrast, Yusuf Altuntas of CMO, a body that facilitates contact between Muslims and the government, said that by releasing the film - which is entitled "Fitna" (Arabic for "strife") - "Wilders is testing the limits of acceptability, but hasn't gone beyond them."
The Muslim community's response - which the Dutch media described as "calm" - was to say the film is not religiously insulting to Islam, and that they had anticipated more offensive content. The government's fears of rioting never materialized.
They [the Muslim community] are afraid. They have been told by the Dutch government to keep quiet and be wise about this issue, and that's what they want to do," Naftaniel told Haaretz on Monday in CIDI's four-story headquarters near the American embassy.
"I was surprised by the silence of the local Muslim leaders," Naftaniel added. "If I were a Muslim, I would speak out and I would blame Wilders for this film. I wouldn't stop shouting about it. I don't understand their silence, I really don't. I think they are scared."
This is completely predictable to anyone familiar with European Jewry. They are staunch supporters of government-enforced multiculturalism even if it ultimately means importing a culture more antisemitic than the one they have now.
If Dutch Jews wind up being the victims of Muslim terrorist attacks at some point in the future, it goes without saying these Jews will focus the greater share of their blame upon government ineptitude in not stopping the terrorists and not upon the pathological Muslim community they defended for so long. They will heap more blame on "haters" like Geert Wilders who attempt to "exploit the situation" (by pointing out inconvenient realities) and will continue to insist that their attackers represent only a Tiny Minority of Extremists™ who misinterpret Islam. The terrorists will in no way be a logical outcome of playing host to a greater Muslim population or represent any fundamental problem with Islam itself. Further blame will be laid at the feet of the Dutch for "not doing enough to help Muslims assimilate."
While there are many individual exceptions, Jews, as a whole, seem to be natural-born dhimmis in any nation that isn't entirely their own politically and socially. If, in the future, demographic trends continue to worsen and the going gets too tough, many of those same Jews will jump ship for the safety of their own ethno-state, Israel, even as the Dutch people are dispossessed of their own nation.
You can always rely upon European Jews to be unreliable defenders of freedom of speech or defenders of the existence of a greater common culture, even a tolerant one like the Dutch culture, when that culture conflicts with the idea that minority groups should be above criticism, even criticism as mild as Fitna. The preservation of that minority privilege takes precedence over everything else for these Jews.
There are at least 12 authoritative aHadith (stories relating the life of Mohammed, his words, conduct and character which confirm that Mohammed wed Aisha when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old (he was in his mid-50s at the time). The most authoritative of the aHadith are those of Bukhari:
"The Prophet married Aisha when she was six years old and he consumed (i.e., consummated) his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. until his death)." Bukhari 7:62:64 and 7:62:65
There is also this Hadith of al-Tabari:
"Narrated Aisha, "My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marraige with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me... Tabari, 9.131
There are other aHadith by Bukhari, Muslim Abu Dawud and Tabari which state these facts. (See: http://europenews.dk/de/node/5505 the comment by "hd" gives both German and English translations of the supporting aHadith)
In recognition of this fact, the age at which a female child may be married off in Moslem countries can be nine years old, or younger "if with parental consent", as in the case of Iran.
I would surmise the real reasons for an indictment against Miss Winter are that she also stated that there is a large degree of sexual abuse of children among Moslems and that any details about the truth of Muhammad's character and life would make it impossible for governments, academia, media and religious authorities to present Islam to the wider, Western public, as an ideology worthy of respect. As with other Western governments, failure to acknowledge the source of an abuse of women or children in Islam leads to greater cruelties being inflicted upon the victims. Whereas, in the Middle East, Jordanian Queen Rania has stated that "the last taboo in Islam is child abuse."
Austria has an uncanny knack for picking the side of evil--especially when the side of evil hates Jews.
It isn't just Austria, it is the entire Liberal world. Up here in Minnesota social services, police and prosecutors know that female genital mutilation (picture girls screaming, held down by their mothers and close female relatives as they are slashed) and polygamy are rampant among the third world immigrant population, yet they make no real efforts to stop it.
Their big fear is Americans (read: "white people")finding out about it and engaging in an orgy of genocide. They hate the white people with whom they were raised and went to school, and sincerely see them as one step away from mass slaughter.
White = Christian = Nazi = Genocide.
On the other hand, homegrown polygamists, such as the Waco fruitcakes and now the Texas "compound" folks are invaded by the Feds and other gun-toting agencies.
White polygamy and child abuse is real abuse". Brown and black immigrant polygamy and child abuse is something to be tolerated and understood.
This weird double standard is a universal Liberal phenomenon. The Liberals in Austria are no different than the Liberals in Minneapolis.
I'd rather see a mosque or 12 burning, but this is a start.