The shameful proceedings have commenced. If (and only if) Europe survives free and un-Islamized, Fallaci will go down in history as one of the heroes of this age -- and those involved in this trial as a collection of Quislings and Petains. "Author's trial for defaming Islam begins," from The Guardian, with thanks to JE:
The trial of Oriana Fallaci, a journalist and author accused of defaming Islam in a book, was opened and adjourned yesterday in an Italian court.The charge stems from a recent book, The Strength of Reason, one of a trilogy she has published since the September 11 attacks on the US. In the book, Fallaci, 77, is alleged to have made 18 blasphemous statements, including referring to Islam as "a pool that never purifies".
"Blasphemous" statements? Interesting choice of words -- indicating how close Italy's religious hatred laws come to enforcing Sharia provisions against dhimmis criticizing Islam.
Also, why does The Guardian not give the actual English title, The Force of Reason? Does it want to divert its readers from the book?
She has been charged with violating a law that forbids defamatory statements about a religion acknowledged by the Italian state. The offence is punishable with a fine of up to €6,000 (£4,100)....All of the charges are false, and what Fallaci said was correct. And anyway there should be no such laws on the books. They are politically motivated, selectively enforced, and ultimately detrimental to the survival of non-Sharia society in Europe.
Neither party attended the hearing in Bergamo. The judge ordered another hearing on June 26.
Does anyone know what are the 18 blasphemous statements? Also which other religions are protected by this Italian law?
I sincerely doubt that this "protection" extends beyond Islam.
Which other one needs it?
Our host lists them here in an article for Frontpage Mag and demolishes the claims with ease.
It was a frivolous lawsuit and should never have got as far as a court.
From Robert's article in FPM:
Judge Armando Grasso of the Italian city of Bergamo ruled in a preliminary hearing that Fallaci’s latest book, La Forza della Ragione (The Force of Reason), contained eighteen statements “unequivocally offensive to Islam and Muslims,” and that therefore she must be tried...
From my observation, much offends Muslims.
In my family, we have a saying: "Get over yourself."
Of course, the Koran and the Hadith don't allow for that!
If any reform of Islam is possible--and I have strong doubts about that--the first step is admitting to the historical and current realities.
I am confused by the Guardian article - first it says
She has been charged with violating a law that forbids defamatory statements about a religion acknowledged by the Italian state. The offence is punishable with a fine of up to €6,000 (£4,100).
Then it says
Adel Smith, head of the Italian Muslim Union, brought the lawsuit against her.
Is this a civil case or a criminal case or do they have this distinction in Italy? I am in the UK - here a criminal case is an offence against the state and is prosecuted by the state, whereas a civil case can be brought by any citizen against another. Or does it mean that Mr Smith presented a case to the Italian authories, asking them to prosecute? Does anyone know the name or content of this Italian law?
Another aspect of whether this is a civil / criminal case is that a civil case can be brought regardless of merit because it is brought by a private individual, and can therefore be frivolous, whereas a criminal case requires the approval of the prosecuting authorities, must be 'signed off'. So are these 18 charges coming from Mr Smith or have they actually been approved for prosecution by the Italian authorities?
Hear no evil,see no evil, and now not write about evil. Maybe Paul Revere would have been stopped in his tracks or would have never gotten on his horse had he lived in Italy and rode to announce that a threat was coming.
You would think that Italy of all countries would have learned from the experiences of having Mussolini collaborating with Hitler? Suppressing voices like Orianna Fallaci's is fool hardy at best. Does Italy also suppress the argument as well, leaving no room for critical discussion? They have left themselves wide open to the Thief of Bagdad because religion no matter what its tenants might incite, is allowed to be exempt from criticism. Did they not allow criticism of the Taliban or the undermining teachings of Waahabism. Do they let the mosques flourish there and not dare show any suspicious criticism of the going ons there? How do you confront an enemy if you are not allowed to know what it teaches? Is jihad a dirty word in Italy?
If Mohammed and his religon are above reproach as any other religion than they once again have washed their collective hands after their condemnation of another religious leader long before Mohammed.
Ju,
Robert deals with the 18 statements in this linked article (it's hyperlinked in the above article today) http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18349
One of the difficulties is that Fallaci has not provided sources for some key claims. I doubt that Adel Smith or the Italian courts care about that. Nevertheless, it is extremely important to provide references, especially for strong or controversial claims. For example, in the above-linked article, Robert writes:
"1. Fallaci asserts that when jihad warriors occupied the Abbey of Montecassino in Italy in 883, “the Muslims amused themselves by sacrificing each night the virginity of a nun. Do you know where? On the altar of the cathedral.”[9] I have been unable to find historical corroboration of this without unduly delaying the completion of this article; Fallaci, who is not a historian, does not footnote her work. It is, however, well established that the invading jihadists sacked and burned the Abbey, killing its abbot, St. Bertarius."
Robert then goes on to cite (with references) evidence from Sunnah, fiqh, and history to support that such rapes were well within the bounds of what was considered Islamically acceptable in principle. That's fine for showing the support for the general point (i.e., Islam permits Muslim men to rape non-Muslim female captives). Still, Fallaci either does not have or does not cite the source for the specific incident in question. This is not some fussy little detail. Either she has the source and can support what she's saying about the specific incident, or she doesn't have the source and can't support it. If she can't back it up, there's no reason anyone should believe what she's saying about that specific incident.
What happened to good old fatwas?
To everyone who doesn't yet know, please note:
A few weeks ago, Robert Spencer encouraged all who visit here to sign up for a copy of "the courageous and insightful" Ali Sina's first book (about Islam and the Muslim mind) because signing up will help bring in a top publisher for the book. Sina is an ex-Muslim from Iran and brilliantly devastating in his critique of Islam. To sign up for the book, click here.
If before signing up for Sina's book, you want to see how brilliant and entertaining Sina can be, check out this symposium debate in which Robert Spencer and Ali Sina teamed up together against two Muslim debaters, who never knew what hit them.
Sina's website is faithfreedom.org. According to sitemeter.com, Sina’s site has totaled close to 3 million visitors over the last 11 months.
The absence of sneer quotes around the term "blasphemous" (a trademarked feature of the leftist MSM), is more revealing than anything. The secular religious fanatics don't usually accept conceptions such as 'blasphemy' (sneer quotes mine) except in cases where persons are accused of 'crimes' which go against their own leftist orthodoxies.
Rest assured, were this a tale of a commie, a socialist, an insurrectionist or anarchist accused of defaming or blaspheming against the tenets of Western pluralism or the Constitution of the USA, such terms would be placed under sneer quotes, and the overall subject would be treated with such seething contempt that one would need a thorough cleansing afterwards for all of the bile. Here -- we see the Guardian treat the whole subject with blithe equanimity -- why? The staff at the leftist Guardian completely concur with the indictment:
Fallaci is a heretic. Fallaci must be burned.
Does this mean that a Catholic who felt the 'Da Vinci Code' was defamatory could bring a case againsts Dan Brown?
The Europeans not so long ago awarded the likes of Yasser Arafat a NOBEL PRIZE. Now, I wonder--
Did anyone there force this guy to back up HIS political claims? Did anyone investigate his background (which includes terrorism, financing terrorism, extortion, counterfeiting, religious persecution, and sponsoring mass murders in Lebanon against the Maronite Christians)?? As far as I know, no one in Europe ever bothered to investigate this guy--period. If they did, someone would certainly have opposed an award for this scurrilous excuse of a man. But I do not see much evidence that anyone in Europe ever cared. Maybe the Nobel Peace Prize should be discontinued if Europeans are going to award it to mass murderers instead of people who really do work towards world peace.
If the EU was was so concerned about public figures being squeaky clean why did these people award such a scurrilous figure as ARAFAT with as award? And then leave other public figures such as Fallacci and Hirsi Ali (who display honorable intentions and qualities) vulnerable to political persecution? Who dares answer this?
Europe now has two political standards. One for Islamic terrorists on the political scene. And another for those who defend democratic values. those who defend democracy (such as Fallacci and Hirsi Ali) are openly persecuted and criminalized. Those who attack America and democracy (such as Yasser Arafat or Harold Pinter) receive Nobel Prizes. Way to go! And Europeans have the gall to hold rallies with signs blaring that they are "wiser" than Americans! Pass me a stomach bag, please, somebody!!!
Europeans must ask themselves who sold out their civilization and then try to get it back. Becuase truly today, Europe is no longer the bastion of civilization it once was and is failing to uphold the principles that enabled the western world to ascend to the world leadership role it once held without question. Its abandonment of Christian principles hasn't helped matters either, but more on that elsewhere.
Personally, I have no problem with a country having laws reasonably prohibiting blasphemy against the de jureor de facto state religion: In Italy's case, Catholic Christianity.
So long as noone's inalienable rights are violated, states have a right to offer corporate veneration to God as they know Him.
The law which is the basis of this action against Oriana is yet another case of unintended adverse consequences.
This law was enacted during the Mussolini Years in his concordance with the Vatican, to protect the Church from criticismsm, especially of the Church's concordance with the fascist regime.
There are other speech inhibiting laws in Europe and Canada, enacted to protect a minority community (Jews) from slander or discussion, and those laws are now being used to protect and promote Jihad and Da'wa.
And laws against incitement to racial hatred, (enacted to protect Jews from fascists)(especially in GB) are constantly being tweaked to expand it to include incitement to religious hatred, or alternatively designating religions as a race.
DominvsVobiscvm -- In America we'd suggest you already alienated our inalienable human right to speak as we choose, and defame religion if we so choose. Such things are very slippery slopes indeed. The wrong people will always be punished for such transgressions. Those are: the satirists and comedians. Writers. Artists. Victims of members of the de jure State religion. Apostates. People with a bone to pick. Grandmothers. Teenagers. Truck drivers. Mothers having a bad day ...
The european left hates Oriana Fallaci
for she has committed the unpardonable sin,
she has deviated from the leftist path,
she has broken their unspoken oath,
taking up her poisoned-tipped pen
and using it to oppress
the downtrodden masses
of peaceful Islam.
The Left has no shame and no honor
and will burn in the flames of jihad,
while the light that Oriana brings
will shine through the ages like a sun.
A Scottish- Italian muslim named Smith? Well, you live long enough. I'm headed to Italy this fall to see the works of the masters one last time before they are reduced to mere memories.
Sad to say,but given a choice I'd probably choose Europe's statues over the majority of her dimmi populace. If this kind of nonsense is any indication we had better watch our P's and Q's over there, though they usually don't see me coming.