"I want to preserve Europe and its democratic and secular values": Austrian freedom fighter charged with "hate speech"

So you want to liberate Muslims from Islam?
Muslims have to liberate themselves; from this static and tenacious Islam that is hellbent on following norms from the seventh century. The result is that wherever there are Islamic societies there is no progress, but steps backwards, especially in the realm of human rights and democracy.

Mrs. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is a fighter for our secular human rights and freedoms, and a feminist fighting for women's equality. She said in her own words: "We are people defending the principles of freedom and equality in a secular society. I criticize political Islam and its political manifestations. No democratic country can take this right away from anyone."

And that is what this fight is about, not against Islam per se, which is an internal problem of the Muslim world, but of our modern societies taking "steps backwards, especially in the realm of human rights and democracy" that we must be painfully vigilant against. Islamic Jihad is just the most vistble manifestation of the Sharia attack on our human rights and democratic ideals. The violence manifest, Jihad therefore must be our first target of attack, then followed with exposing the subterfuge and atmospherics of Sharia-law politics. However, those who push for Sharia's political Islam, the "stealth jihad", must be held on account as violators of our human rights. If the battle goes that way, there will be less tinder for the Left to alight with their self-destructive rhetoric polemics and character attacks, such as witnessed above.

Decent people of Muslim ethnicity will support this battle, even if only with tacit silence. And that is how this war on Jihad will be won, in their hearts and minds, when they too are liberated. Freedom is a universal good, even for Muslims who were born into the 7th/21st century.

Yes, to the adherent of Islam, or anyone defending those adherents, speaking out for free speech, equality under the law, protection of children, women, homosexuals, dogs, pigs, artistic freedom etc, or defending anything that makes Western culture as great as it is, is involved in "hate speech" - because Muslims hate hearing about it, and hate seeing Western values in action.

Therefore, anyone defending any or all aspects of Western culture must be muzzled like a pit bull in order to avoid offending Muslims' tender sensibilities and feelings.

Oh, brave new world, with such people in it.

The interviewer certainly was not friendly. The questions seem to be leading and bating IMO.

She has to hold her meetings by invitation only because of the PC in Austria and other countries in the EU. Very sad. We here in the US need to keep our antenna up and not let this happen here. I know there have been attempts but they need to be meet with strong resistance.

I am trying to think of some appropriate words to call idiot reporters like this one.

bigoted
closed minded
lost
cultureophobe
anti-(name country)

Just to think and makeup a few.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: Currently I do not notice that I have freedom of speech or opinion.

It would appear you are correct, Elisabeth. Keep fighting, good people will keep supporting you until this idiocy is dealt with.

She sounds brave, articulate and principled. In Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff we have our first candidate for Anti-Dhimmi Internationale 2010.

Amazing that the opinions (that is, insights) of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff should be considered beyond the pale in Western Europe. What fools these infidels be!

Thank God there are still people like her and Robert and a bunch of others around us who do not deal in PC MC nonsense.

Hopefully, their truth-talking will make many individuals see the light and rise up against political islam.

The ever increasing venture into a maze of hate crimes legislation in America and EU countries continues to try and muzzle freedom loving people everywhere.

Hate crimes originated in areas dealing with threats and attacks against minorities, in particular blacks. It then ventured into the realm of sexual harrassment,and threats against homosexuals, and when the pot was stirred almost exclusively by trial lawyers and the ACLU in the US, suddenly the venue went far beyond actual attacks and threats.

Trial lawyers needed to create more business for themselves and it was government and large corporations that let law offices write the books on harassment and hate crimes even before any legislation. It got so bad that you could lose your job or end up in court if you leared at someone on the job let alone make an off color joke in the presence of someone who may have happened to over hear it and was offended.

Hate crimes,sexual harrassment,insulting a homosexual, or any minority can put you in the product line of this cottage industry that is driven and for the most part created by trial lawyers who in fact are the ones who actually force people into the perversion of political correctness for fear of being sued.

Criticizing a religion such as Islam which is in fact really a totalitarian ideology at its fundamental core with its sharia law that most experts put it at around 85 Pct. political.

Cases like Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff who responded eloquently and concisely to the reporter will continue to grow in dhimmi western world of the enablers of the stealth jihad.

We all should be sitting in court arm and arm with brave folks like Geert Wilders and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.

apparently no one is paying attention to speeches given by Muslims...or maybe they are and are just frightened to death to stand up and press hate speech charges...

We should also continue the spiritual warfare in prayer with renewed determination for Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff and all other modern freedom fighters, Wilders, Spencer, et al. Their physical, mental, and spiritual safety always needs girding.

She is spot on, unemotional and knowledgeable.

She lived in Islamic countries, she saw what she saw and her rebuttal to the multiculturally befuddled interviewer is measured, precise and accurate.

She probably reads Jihad Watch also.

She is also eloquent, she combines knowledge with speaking power.

Indeed, she is head and shoulders above Susanne Winter, who was brave to make her case, but in an emotional, enraged kind of way.

Oriana Fallaci (RIP) was also emotional and resentful, but this Elisabeth is on the ball.

We need more people like that.

Charges of defamation of a religious group have been filed...

Oh it's heartwarming to know that actual law school graduates have hosed up freedom and Western civilization in Europe as badly as we have here in America, where at least we have a strong Constitution to ignore.

*** 92:8 ***

At the siege of Vienna back there in 1683 things couldn't be plainer, as far as Islam that is. But things are so much more subtle now, so much more murky. Or are they?

Impressive, knowledgeable and tough woman. Very admirable. The prosecution of Sabaditsch-Wolff reveals once again the need of one European country after another to get a First Amendment type provision into their constitutions which would allow free-crushing laws to be declared unconstitutional. This will be deuce difficult to achieve but efforts to do so should be engaged in nonetheless. Otherwise, stupid laws could end up stripping freedom almost entirely from Europeans and facilitate the complete Islamization of Europe. Running out of time.

Even with the First Amendment here in America it hasn't prevented the rise of an extra-stupid innovation in the law. As Mackie mentioned above, hate-crime legislation is often freedom-crushing. It gets the government into the area of monitoring and gauging thought and this is itself Orwellian. Hate-crime legislation is a back-door kind of way to get around the First Amendment. It punishes motive and not the act and in a decent and intelligent legal system only the act should be punished. It makes no difference why someone was beat up or killed, whether for his money, because of his race, his sexual orientation or because someone didn't like the shoes he was wearing. Motive should be relevant only for purposes of police detective work and irrelevant where the law and punishment are concerned. So, Americans have some work to do as well in order to keep the First Amendment from being gutted like a fish.

I would also note that in virtually every instance where freedom is on the defensive in the West, including here in the United States, it is almost always facilitated by the modern Left. Modern conservatism has had nothing to do with restricting speech or punishing thought. To any liberal out there reading this, try to understand how damaging modern liberalism has been to freedom. Speech codes on college campuses, political correctness, hate-crime legislation, disallowance of letting someone speak and shouting them down (or pieing them) and a lot of other freedom-crushing nonsense along these lines are entirely the result of modern Leftthink, which has many overtones of fascism about it. Time to go back to old-fashioned liberalism before it was adulterated beginning in the 1960s and continuing down to the present day. In fact, with each passing decade modern liberalism gets more idiotic even though it conceives itself as enlightened. An extra stupid feature of the modern liberal mindset is what we see time and time again in the West and that is the excuse making for, and alliance with, radical Muslims. Two things have to go: 1) Islamic supremacist designs; 2) modern liberal fascism.

We need more people like her and with her knowledge she will be able to defend herself in court with the truth about islam. Even though with these attacks on freedom of speech, when they go to court, the truth comes out. you talk to most common people in Europe and they understand the hatred coming from islamists. Europeans are just cowed by the PC elites and just need that extra push.

Bhutan is a small country that wants to retain its cultural identity in a globalized world. Austria is also a small country with similar challenges. Why is the one country commended and the other berated?

I think I have figured out the answer to her question, a question that has plagued me for years. Only the advanced, modern, democratic West has been singled out for massive demographic transformation for a variety of pernicious reasons. The enlightened social engineers concluded long ago that whites oppress non-whites and are inherent racists. Despite the fact that whites comprise less than 10% of the global population, they have putatively kept non-white nations illiterate and destitute and have exploited their natural resources to enrich themselves. Since white nations have oppressed non-white nations and stolen their wealth to achieve modernity, prosperity, democracy, and wealth, they are now obligated to share their purloined bounties with their victims by allowing massive third-world immigration. Many European countries have permitted millions of people from their former colonies to literally invade their nations in gestures of atonement and apology.

Another social engineering theory is that multiculturalism will unite people of disparate cultures and they will co-exist in harmony and tolerance. This fallacy falls under the rubric of moral/cultural/religious relativism, which posits that all people are basically the same no matter what religion they practice or what cultural peculiarities they embrace. The idea that one group's most cherished values and beliefs are repugnant and offensive to another group is anathema with one exception---white Christians. It is acceptable for the hordes of alien immigrants to hate and disparage the indigenous population.

The elitist plan is to flood predominately white nations with third-world, non-whites until they are no longer the majority. In preparation for this extraordinary transformation, the only real minority group, whites, must be conditioned and their evil ethos must be destroyed. They must learn to hate themselves, their race, their heritage, their culture and to love and encourage "diversity". The ultimate goal is the extinction of the oppressive white race. When there are no more whites, there will be no more wars, racism, oppression, inequality, and tyranny.

Although third-world immigrants are members of various minority groups in America and Europe, they are part of a much larger majority in terms of world population. But whites have been conditioned to believe that blacks, muslims, and many other ethnic groups are oppressed "minorities" and whites are their oppressors. I have asked many people what the largest ethnic group in the world is. The most frequent reply was "white people" and only a few named the Chinese. The social engineers have targeted Western Civilization for destruction so whenever anyone loudly defends it or objects to the obvious, they must be silenced. Enforced political correctness is the only way they can achieve their goal.

The questions asked by the interviewer are rather doltish. The interviewer seems to know nothing about Islam or Islamic societies. He seems to care not one whit about the free aspects of his own society. Or else he has thought rather little about what it might take to maintain some modicum of social freedom. It seems there are always large numbers of people who do not understand that societies based more or less on free contract, constitutionalism, freedom of speech, etc., are not just givens of nature; that they must be maintained by human effort and vigilance; that they can be destroyed; that there are many parts of the world that aim to destroy them. I remember how many idiots tried to make a moral equivalence between Soviet Russia and the United States. The proof that they were idiots is that they were totally ignorant of the endless volumes of samizdat literature they easily could have gotten hold of. They easily could have discovered for themselves, through reading numerous first hand accounts, what life was like in the communist world. But they preferred not to know, because then they would have had to stop reading only things that would confirm the prejudices they already held. They might have to consider ideas that could upset their justifications for continuing their tantrums against the evils of their own Western nations. By all means, let's improve things in the West, let's criticize ourselves continuously. But that should not be an excuse to lose touch, as the interviewer seems to have done, with basic facts like the total ethical superiority of liberal democratic values to totalitarian ones (such as the values espoused by Muhammad in Qur'an and Hadith).

With the lunatic liberals and globalist in Euorpe it is only a matter of time unless the people really wake up! I see the writing on the wall and if the USA does not wake up then I see this also happening here despite our wonderful First Amendment, thanks to the OIC and the UN- a Marxist front group. Also, thanks to anti American groups such as CAIR as well.

With the lunatic liberals and globalist in Euorpe it is only a matter of time unless the people really wake up! I see the writing on the wall and if the USA does not wake up then I see this also happening here despite our wonderful First Amendment, thanks to the OIC and the UN- a Marxist front group. Also, thanks to anti American groups such as CAIR as well.

Why do think so many Muslims try to escape from Islamic countries like Iran and Afghanistan? Because life there is unbearable.

What? I haven't noticed that out-migration. What I've noticed is the in-migration of oceans of Moslems from their respective hell-hole countries, built in their tradition, to be able to live in comfort cashing all those gubmint checks every month.

*** 92:8 ***

A few years ago I was walking by the County Finance Office, a large counter disbursement center operation visible through glass walls from the walkway outside. It was Check Day, and the Moslimas were jammed in there tight as tuna, scowling from inside their hijabs, unhappy with the service they were getting. Apparently, the globo-socialist social workers had not devised a more humane way to disburse hundreds of dollars per month per head of putatively illegitimate Moslem children who by law must be cared for by the Judeo-Christian taxpayers funding Welfare cash entitled to these supposed Moslem bastards.

*** 8:49 ***

It was a sad crowd. A mad crowd. But a happy inside smiling inside crowd. And happy inside the checking account too.

Just to draw your attention to another European counter-jihadist: Hans-Peter Raddatz. A very clear thinking, knowledgeable German scholar of Islam, calling Islam the totalitarian ideology it is, therefore staunchly hated by Mohammedans and shunned by the MSM.

He was asked for his expertise by the initiators of the vote on the swiss minaret ban. His expertise/analysis was spot on and the main reason why the demand of the peoples vote for/against minarets was admitted and considered legitimate according to the Swiss Constitution (sorry, only in German, 43 pages, but I think this is a very important document in the history of counter jihad ):

http://www.pi-news.net/wp/uploads/2009/11/ra-expertise-ch.pdf

I don't know whether to consider this bad news or good news. It can be good because we can see that some people of some European countries, like the Netherlands, Switzerland, U.K and are starting to fight back. Bad news because it shows how well entrenched Islam has become in Europe. Could this be a sign of too little too late?

Prosecution, painful and unfair as it is, will help get the message out and increase the prestige of such brave spokespeople.

Gee- can anyone guess who the clueless one was in this interview????

Someday, the wisdom of the interviewer will be challenged directly. Is it not possible to make the Interviewer look like they should know and understand the material they are trying to grill someone over?

The best defense is a good offense

Two of her answers show that she is hedging, she talks about freedom and dignity but includes "Austrian Muslims" in that and then in the next question talks about Muslims suffering under Islam which is true enough but at this point the West needs to just eliminate the further spread of Islam in the West or it will end up in the same boat that other subjugated countries are in. People, even those who know the truth about Islam, or much of the truth, are still refusing to face the final and complete reality that Islam can not be allowed in any form in the West, there is only one Islam and it will destroy the West if allowed to spread. Spending the next hundred years fretting over the treatment of people under Islam while simultaneously allowing it to spread in the West will fail to accomplish anything but surrender of the West and democratic freedoms. She talks about them wanting to escape unbearable circumstances in Islamic countries but does not say outright that we can't bring that unbearable existence here or we will have the same problem and there will be no escaping it anywhere. She knows that if she did come right out and say that Islam is incompatible and that it can't be allowed the interviewer would jump up and down and scream that "he got her" and then the courts would convict her etc. etc. etc.

-------
How do you view yourself?

I am a mother and a feminist. 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.

In your seminar you do not distinguish between Muslims and Islamists.

Oh yes, I do. I do that because I know how much Muslims worldwide are suffering under the Islamic yoke. I say that in all my seminars, only NEWS did not bother to quote that. Why do think so many Muslims try to escape from Islamic countries like Iran and Afghanistan? Because life there is unbearable.

"Bhutan is a small country that wants to retain its cultural identity in a globalized world. Austria is also a small country with similar challenges. Why is the one country commended and the other berated?"

"Israel is a small country that wants to retain its religious/cultural identity in a globalized world. Why is this tiny country condemned while the Arab Republics of the Middle East and their muhammadan breathen the world over condoned?"

Good question, ne'est pas?

The thing that I found most incredulous about this article was the point at which Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff said that she differentiates between Muslims and "Islamists". What, after all, is an "Islamist" except a person who follows the teachings of the Koran and who has accepted Islam as their religion? A Muslim IS one who follows the teachings of the Koran and of Islam so any difference between these two terms is completely fictitious. And if Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff means that Muslims don't want to live under all the teachings of the Koram but "Islamists" do, how ridiculous is that? If one doesn't want to live under the teaching of the Koran, why be a Muslim in the first place?

Brava Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff! A very smart lady, as could be seen by how she adroitly stepped around what were clearly trap questions asked by a hostile interviewer. I wish her well in her struggles with EU officialdom. She deserves all our support.

I like Elizabeth.
She's a very clever woman with a very tough agenda and she handles herself like a real professional under pressure.
Robert, you and Elizabeth have to get together, perhaps with Geert Wilders, on the speaking tour in Europe.

Her one answer caught my attention, "In Islam non-Muslims are called kuffar", where she defined it as simply "non-believers".
According to "Ummat al-kuffar" For centuries the Arabic word “Kuffar” meaning "infidels" or "unbelivers" (from the point of view of followers of Muhammad) was a term of ridicule, anger and abuse directed by Muhammadan Muslims against all those whom they had not yet forced, fooled or beaten into submission to Islam.
And a much broader definition can be found in In search of the kuffar (“infidels”).
By definition, then, I am a proud "kafir".

This is amazing what I've read here in his pdf. Genocides on Assyrian Christians every other generation since Islamization began in Iraq/Turkey ... this is what Islamic immigration means to our grandchildren.

http://www.aina.org/reports/ig.pdf

It is sad, but we should just get the Christians our of there, and send the Muslims out.

I think it is probably a mistake to promote any legal restrictions on Islamic doctrine/practice as a whole. Realistically, Western nations' values and constitutions mean one can only hope to get popular support for restricting political Islam. That is what we did to Shinto after World War II. We didn't make Shinto illegal in Japan. We only made Shinto rule of the State illegal. Shinto became a matter of individual practice and belief, not something that could be imposed by law. It's no accident that the U.S. took that approach. We don't believe in restricting religious freedom, and for that very reason we do believe in outlawing theocracy. In the same way, we should seek to outlaw theocratic aspects of Islam, but should not try to outlaw any purely religious parts of Islam. If we try to outlaw purely religious elements of Islam, we will likely never win, because Western societies take freedom of religion and freedom of conscience as core principles, even if we frequently violate those principles. But Westerners can stay in line with their own constitutions and their own values if they outlaw political Islam. Outlawing political Islam is a project that might one day gain some popular traction in the West, whereas outlawing the entirety of Islam presents gargantuan legal obstacles and produces, understandably, huge popular resistance to restrictions on religious freedom.

Someone here might say it's impossible to separate political Islam from the rest of Islam. But that's only true for pious Muslims. For non-Muslims, it would be possible to define some sort of working boundaries between illegal theocratic aspects and legal religious aspects. No doubt outlawing political Islam would transform Islam into something unrecognizable, something else altogether, so that most pious Muslims would reject it. Even so, a Western project to outlaw political Islam and leave the rest of Islam alone could be the most effective and popular way to get somewhere in this struggle. If the Muslims could not accept restrictions on political Islam, that would reveal a great deal, and Western non-Muslims could still feel fine and justified in outlawing political Islam, even if Muslims complained bitterly.

The end game here is to usher in an era where critical scrutiny of Islam is illegal...where one cannot cite in public the Hadith recording Muhammad's pedophilia...or his edict to "kill" he who "discards his Islamic religion"...or his insistence that women are "deficient in religion and intelligence"...or his solicitation of political murder...or his mutilation of renegades...and on and on...(until of course that day in the not-too-dim future when a public exposition of these barbarisms will no longer be sufficient to threaten the Islamic ascendancy in the West, but WILL be necessary for the implementation of the Islamic ethos and law).

Muslim leaders do not want their theology scrutinized at this point in time, because they are quite understandably embarrassed by its content. In fact, they know exactly what we here know, that a genuine mass airing of the pronounced moral failings of the prophet Muhammad - as recorded in Islam's own scripture - would stigmatize Islam as a belief system and undermine its credibility in the eyes of millions, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Better to erect a protective cocoon, using dhimmi lap-dogs. They are proceeding quite effectively.

Thank you all for your valuable comments and support.

Just one note: I do know the difference, or rather, the non-difference, between a Muslim and an Islamist. There is only so much I can get away with at the moment. Suffice it to say that I know more, much more, than I was able to say in the interview.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is to be highly commended for her stance against Islamists and radical Islam. She was targeted no doubt because she is a woman who spoke out. We must all be vigilant and speak out where we can.

Is it too late to add her to the Anti-Dhimmi Internationale nominees and vote for her?

ThinkThrice and nightlight are correct, and Wellington and all the others are wrong.

History won't be changed by people stepping lightly lest they break precious eggshells. We need to condemn Islam and all Muslims forthrightly, without apology and "caution". The more people that do this, the more the Movement will progress. This woman, Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff, is close but no cigar. How much long must we suffer no cigar? How many more people must be slaughtered by Muslims, oppressed by Muslims, offended by Muslims, before we say enough is fucking enough?

Apparently, a hell of a lot more.

A lot of posters on other sites are baffled as to why the various Western Governments are not alerting people or taking action against the Muslim Tsunami enveloping or soon to envelope thier countries. Its quite simple really, its FEAR. Fear of upsetting the Mools thereby sparking riots, mayhem insurections and all the other nicieties that go with the Muslim "religion". Fear of being called an Islamophobe. Fear of being called racist. Fear of causing an insurection amongst thier own people if they were to tell the truth. The truth is that virtually all the western governments are spineless and seek to divert attention of their own inadequacies and lack of courage by attacking those people who do have courage, conviction and logical clear-eyed arguments. The most disturbing thing is that this seems to be catching on with the political elite. We have Geert,now this woman and also entire political parties being persecuted in the UK. I expect to see Robert, Hugh and many more outspoken critics of Islam in the same boat. It just would not suprise me - though obviously I don't want this to happen.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is cut from the same cloth as Oriana Fallaci, Bridgette Bardot, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They are all free-speech fighters. They deserve heroine recognition. A Nobel prize for free-speech fighters? More appropiate than some they have given out.

What is wrong with the Euro-elite? Nobel prizes for climate-gate mongers like Gore and the IPCC and for an untried unaccomplished president. And laws clamping on free speech. When are the people of Europe going to demand that their speech be free and unshackled? If you do not have that freedom, you do not have much freedom at all, and you are in store for loosing it all.

Letting this socialist trend continue will eventually result in "1984" with all of Orwell's bells and whistles and with an Islamic twist.

We have the same problem here, maybe more time to correct it, but there will be no corrections with our current Marxist Islam loving president and his czars.

Islam: filth for the ages
Islam: arses to heaven; faces to hell

Robert Wright in "Non-zero-sum" talks about the history of many peoples and that they were united precisely because of enemies, external pressure. Before that people were happily divided, (most) antagonistic against their nearest neighbors. The Israelites for unity-reason wanted Samuel to find them a good king, which was Saul, to lead and unite them against their cruel, dangerous, threathening enemies.

By the same token I see a lack of "democratic unity" and I see this as even a bigger problem than the totalitarian threat posed by Islam. The Western democracies have so many advantages over the Islamic countries and communities, yet the Muslims have more dedication and unity than their Democratic counterparts, by and large that is.

So I theorize a bit about letting Democrats, in response to the totalitarian threat of Islam, establishing some sort of IRFIDA; Inter-Religious & Freethinkers International Democratic Alliance, or so. As a motivated, dedicated counterpart and equivalent to the Islamic Ummah.

And both IRFIDA and Ummah are going to have to except that there just are so many people not interested in either one of them, being far too busy with their own problems and desires to be interested and informed about the organisation of societies.

Letting this socialist trend continue will eventually result in "1984" with all of Orwell's bells and whistles and with an Islamic twist.

Possibly the best description of the political madness we see today is found in The Flying Inn, where a form of "Progressive" Islam has triumphed and largely dominates the political and social life of England.

It was written by G. K. Chesterton - in 1914!

Does anyone know where English translation of this interview comes from? The link points to the Austrian site, in German. Many thanks.

dlp, it is a translation of the German original made for JW. I'm not sure who did the actual translating. It's also up at EuropeNews.

These issues will never be timely solved if we continue to let the interviewer frame the Interviewee in the wrong and kept defensive on their position.

Every one of these answers could easily include a question or statement to the interviewer. The type that puts the interviewer on the spot and questions their knowledge and position. These interviews are always agenda driven and given by someone who agrees with it.

It is just not believable to think the interviewer is unaware of the issues being covered. Make them explain, against all reason, why up is suddenly, down.

Islam is Islam the Koran says what it says and we see what it is doing to our Society. So, as an Interviewer, you tell me what positives it has given us and why we should be all warm and fuzzy feeling over it.

Very impressive. In spite of the antagonistic attitude of the interviewer, she answers every question in a way that totally justifies everything she has said or stands for. I cannot find any place in the interview where I thought "I wish she had said this". She said it all, logically,brilliantly,calmly and turned the skewer back towards the reporter.A new hero in my pantheon!

Muhammad is smiling from his grave at all this. Imagine anti-Nazi hate laws twisted to imprison people who are speaking out against the ultimate hate religion and its attempted infiltration and subversion of everything the West stands for and has built, while leaving the Muslims a free hand. The wisdom of the U.S. Founding Fathers to enshrine freedom of speech in the Constitution is easy to see now. Instead of fighting each other over Muslims, Westerners should be locking ranks to oppose the immigration and to outlaw Sharia on a worldwide basis instead of trampling freedom of speech. It's Muslims who punish freedom of speech by horrible violence, prison isn't good enough when they get angry is it?

http://go.to/islamhistory

Where the Hell is Gloria Steinem's NOW gang?
Why the !@#$%^&* can't Bill O'Reily or Shawn Hannity or
Laura Ingram or some body big shame the leftists/feminist
movement into taking interest in this?

If we try to outlaw purely religious elements of Islam, we will likely never win.

Certainly not. We need to deal with the political ones, they're the ones that matter. Some examples:

- Sharia law - it utterly rejects secular law.
- Minarets - they have no religious signficance.
- The headscarf - forcing people to mark their religion in their clothing is Bad.
- Terorism - goes without saying.
- Denigration of 'infidels' - what religion would need that?
- Racism - anti-Semtisism in particular.
- Gender discrimination - another political control tool.
- Intimidation and violence - ditto.

It's perfectly fine to leave religion alone and deal only with political problems.

it will not be possible to ban the political apsects of Islam anymore than it would be possible to ban the political aspects of Marxism or Neo-Nazism.

Banning isn't the right approach, educating is.

And this is where the government is failing us. It should take the lead in identifying the enemy, callenging its spokesmen, and making it abundantly clear that full protection will be provided to citizens who take up that task.

It used to be that free speech was a protection against misuse of power by our own governments. Now the culprits are religious zealots, and we need our governments to step up to the bat and give them the beating they so richly deserve.

Failing that, free enterprise is a viable alternative.

Afraid we won't be able to count on our government, Henrik.

Which, discreetly, is my point.

Free enterprise is the only viable alternative.

kiphamilton,

I cannot find any place in the interview where I thought "I wish she had said this".

Sabaditsch-Wolff says many good things in the interview. Unfortunately, these are interconnected with a regrettable paradigm she apparently supports about the problem of Islam.

That paradigm is based on a specious distinction -- between Islam and "political Islam". Everything a Muslim does is political. The very act of going to the bathroom for a Muslim is a political, seditious act, based upon the same brainwashing blueprint for world supremacy that everything else they do and believe is based on. The mere presence of Muslims is a political, seditious act. For the West to make this distinction, and to act on it in hostile ways as she implicitly advocates, would be perceived by Muslims to be an attack on Islam just as much as if we simply cut out the middle man and announced we were attacking Islam itself. Indeed, Muslims in their pathological paranoia perceive attacks on Islam where there is not even the semblance of it, where there is often naive PC good will to help them.

So Sabaditsch-Wolff says that she is "afraid of political Islam, which is massively gaining influence in Europe. That is what I am against."

She implies elsewhere that Islam -- or, rather "political Islam" -- is "massively gaining influence" through the activities of "powerful groups". But, on the contrary, it is not merely "groups" who are advancing Islam in Europe -- it is also the sheer presence of growing numbers of ordinary, seemingly non-"political" Muslims who are advancing Islam in Europe. You can't advance Islam in a land without actual Muslims on the ground, being present, and being Muslims. And yet Sabaditsch-Wolff favors not only retaining indefinite numbers of Muslims in her own land, Austria, but coddling them, helping them, "protecting" them from their own Islam, as though they were precious, abused children who don't really believe in the Islam that is abusing them and need Austrians to save them -- or, rather, as she says elsewhere in the interview even more preposterously, they need to save themselves from their own Islam.

Thus the second feature of her paradigm: Most Muslims don't really want Islam, and our problem of Islam -- or, rather of "political Islam" -- will be solved, or at least significantly managed, when Muslims in large numbers reject their "political Islam".

And yet elsewhere in the interview, she implies a recognition of a larger problem than merely "powerful groups" within the larger sea of the nice, ordinary, hapless victim-Muslims she apparently thinks characterizes the majority of Muslims:

"The vision of a pluralistic society does not withstand a reality check. Show me one example where this has been a success. Wherever Muslims have been given the opportunity for self-organization they have established parallel societies. See Berlin-Kreuzberg, see Lyon. See also Great Britain, where parts of shariah have been implemented."

How is it that everywhere throughout Europe Muslims have always set up hostile parallel societies, if the problem is not all Muslims but only of "powerful groups" pushing this invention "political Islam" against the will of most ordinary decent "religious" Muslims? Those hostile parallel societies require numbers of ordinary Muslims to be actualized. They are not just abstract entities on paper -- they are real communities filled with ordinary Muslims who by their presence, behaviors, attitudes and beliefs concretize the problem Sabaditsch-Wolff is talking about. These hostile parallel communities -- and the fact that, according to her, Muslims always create them wherever they settle in Europe -- demonstrate that the problem is much wider than "political Islam": The problem is Muslims.

So she says:

"I criticize political Islam and its political manifestations."

The problem is that she is evidently narrowing the definition of what constitutes "political Islam". As I said above, the mere act of going to the bathroom for a Muslim is a "political" act because everything Muslims do is an indissoluble fusion of the political and the religious. Thus, at best, Sabaditsch-Wolff is being incoherent or self-contradictory: If we were to follow her in concrete policies and limit ourselves to only restricting "political Islam" -- and if we were intelligent enough to know that everything Muslims do is "political Islam", then we would be making it a crime to be a Muslim at all. Indeed, a crime of sedition.

An indication, however, that Sabaditsch-Wolff is not intelligent enough to see that "political Islam" in fact swallows up all of Islam is her disinclination to ban the hijab in public: "SPÖ secretary general Laura Rudas, who calls for a public ban of the headscarf. I would not do something like that."

Then there are her indirect sideswipes at Susanne Winter:

"I do not want to comment on Susanne Winter's statements. But in my opinion she does not know much about Islam."

On what basis does she slight Susanne Winter? On this basis? --

Susanne Winter, a candidate for the Freedom Party in local elections in Graz in south-eastern Austria, said on Sunday that Mohammed's marriage to a 6-year-old girl would make the prophet a 'paedophile in today's system.'

Or on this basis? --

Winter later justified her attacks. "There is widespread child abuse by Muslim men... Why can't I say this? That has nothing to do with hate speech. We want neither Austrian nor foreign paedophiles."

Or on this basis? --

Speaking at a rally, Winter demanded that Islam should be "thrown back where it came from, beyond the Mediterranean Sea."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/01/austrian-politician-faces-2-years-in-prison-for-insulting-islam.html

Sabaditsch-Wolff by her own words seems to agree with the pedophile part, when she said in the interview:

It is a fact that Mohammed married a six-year-old at the age of 56. To this day men in Islamic countries view this as legitimizing marriage to a minor, thereby causing rape and life-long trauma. This is the problem we need to address, and not how circumscribe this bitter reality.

...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.

So what is it about Susanne Winter she thinks indicates that she "does not know much about Islam"? Perhaps it was her boldly no-nonsense declaration -- that Islam should be "thrown back where it came from, beyond the Mediterranean Sea."

Thid bold declaration of Winter's bespeaks not so much an ignorance of Islam, but a posture perhaps too reckless for Sabaditsch-Wolff -- or perhaps it is not merely recklessness that turns Sabaditsch-Wolff off from Susanne Winter, but the implicit condemnation of Islam itself and logically of all Muslims who follow and enable Islam -- for Sabaditsch-Wolff would wish us to restrain ourselves from condemning too much: let us delimit the problem down to a "political Islam" being promoted mainly, or only, by "powerful groups" within the Muslim community -- thus sparing all those millions of nice, decent Muslims. Yet another example:

Interviewer: Are you afraid that these customs [child marriage and thus child rape] will become part of Europe?

Sabaditsch-Wolff: There are groups who have this goal.

The problem is not "groups" who have this goal. The problem is that the millions of ordinary grassroots Muslims who populate Europe and who are growing in numbers every year at an alarming rate all support that subculture of child marriage -- both the Muslim men and the Muslim women support it. One senses that Sabaditsch-Wolff romanticizes the common Muslim.

Perhaps this stems from her encounter with a handful of nice, decent Muslims she came to know as she grew up, as a diplomat's daughter sojourning in various Muslim countries -- perhaps a nice, decent Muslim family or two who invited her and her father over for dinner made such an impression on her, she became convinced that most Muslims are innocent of the Islam they enable, even poor hapless victims of it. I.e., one smell sentimentalism lurking in her paradigm.

Thus:

Interviewer: In your seminar you do not distinguish between Muslims and Islamists.

Sabaditsch-Wolff: Oh yes, I do. I do that because I know how much Muslims worldwide are suffering under the Islamic yoke. ... Why do think so many Muslims try to escape from Islamic countries like Iran and Afghanistan? Because life there is unbearable.

No, most Muslims are immigrating into the West in order to take us over through Demographic Jihad. But in her starry eyes, they are poor innocent victims running away from the Big Bad Wolf Islam, into our Modern Maternalistic Arms to comfort them and give them a decent, Western life.

In the long run, Sabaditsch-Wolff's sentimentalism may well turn out to be far more reckless for our safety than Susanne Winter's bolder pronouncement.

Wellington,

I don't mind the gradual approach to disclosure about the full catastrophe of Islam, as long as no step along the way contains, or is built upon, false premises, such as, for example, a distinction between Islam and "political Islam", or the romantic fantasy that the vast majority of Muslims are decent moms and pops like the rest of us.

Hendrik - thanks for the tip on C.K Chesterson's "The Flying Inn". I will get it.

While on publications I would recommend these two:

1. "Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution The Alinsky Model", by David Horowitz - a pamphlet in the wake-up call tradition of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense".

2. "Shadow World,Resurgent Russia, The Global New Left, and Radical Islam" by Robert Chandler. Not a pamphlet, Over 500 pages on the countries, organizations, religions, unions, academia and people dedicated to destroying America from within and without. Mind-boggling.

I have found that I cannot read too much of Chandler at one sitting because it makes me want to upchuck. It is truly sickening that there are so many Marxists among us who really want to destroy America and substitute Socialism and Islamists wanting a Caliphate.

Chandler makes the point that 80 percent of Americans do not buy into the Marxist-Islamist mantras. IF 20 percent or even 10 percent do, that is discomforting. As Lee Harris noted in his book "Civilization and its enemies", the great totalitarian regimes of the last century started with small gangs that got the political power through propaganda and disinformation.

Additional feelings of wanting to upchuck occur when I cntemplate that the 80 percent of Americans who do not buy into Marxism and Islam according to Chandler, are by and large clueless about the forces arrayed against the nation by the gangs of Marxists and Islamists, and how dangerous these gangs are right now and into the future. The gangs have a spider web of revolutionaries enclosing all of Washington DC and outlying cities.

Obviously, this woman speaking the truth must be supported by all means necessary. Does Austrians have the right to sue for libelous remarks and false charges? She should sue those who brought her up on charges.

As concerns that lousy smear "Islamophobe," please see my article at Faith Freedom:

'Death to Islamophobes!'

In Islam ignorance is bliss.The least you know the better off you are.You don't have the added burden of thinking,just
get with the program and submit.What freedom!

Eurodhimmi,

Thanks for your reply. Could you tell me precisely why you in your opinion, Susanne Winter "does not know much about Islam"?

Hesperado- Good points, but I still remain impressed by her intellegence and ability to turn the questions around back at the interviewer. If she is not totally on track, I think her heart is in the right place, and is still, at this stage a valuable asset in the fight. She may well come around to a more complete condemnation of Islam in general in the future. But someone who speaks and write so well and convincingly should not be totally dismissed. There is a segment of the population she might be able to convince, and be able to start them on the journey to understanding the evils of Islam, where a more hardline approach may not.

"Stunning, however, to watch all the rubes in the West out there who keep making excuses for Islam (including some on the Right), though they would never do the same for Nazism"

It's not stunning; it's logical. They are protecting a people they perceive to be ethnic.