| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Robert Spencer wrote a great piece on Oriana Fallaci yesterday. Now it seems the tables have turned and her accuser was found guilty of the same crime he accuses her of committing. ADEL SMITH, 6 MONTHS SENTENCE FOR DEFAMING RELIGION, from AGI, with thanks to RZ.
Padua, Italy, Jun 14 - Adel Smith, President of the Union of Italian Muslims, was sentenced by the Padua court to 6 months in prison, converted to a fine (over 6,000 euro), for the crime of defaming religion. On January 4, 2003, Adel Smith, during a TV program broadcast live on the Paduan channel 'Serenissima Tv' made accusations against the Catholic church defining it as "criminal association" and against Pope John Paul II, defined as "a foreign man who heads the church" and "able double-crosser. [...] I declared undeniable modern historic facts: for this reason I do not regret my declarations. It seems to me that the sentence is political. I am very curious to know what those think who yesterday invoked the freedom of judgment and criticism today: is it so for me too?" Smith said he will appeal against the sentence and if necessary will resort to European courts "until he is acquitted." "I am confident and sure that at the end I will have justice."
Posted by Rebecca at June 15, 2005 12:43 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Laws like this will certainly not benefit Muslims because they are always showing the inability to keep their insulting mouths closed.
Aren't they the ones who cried out like babies looking for milk in favor of this type of law?
Posted by: Unbridled![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 15, 2005 1:09 PM
The irony is sweet. These religion defamation laws are crap. I'm sure there are dhimmis running around the halls of Congress as I write whispering sweet nothings in the ears of our congressman, 'trust me, stopping religious 'defamation' is good for the people, the country and you can put those swelling Muslim voters in your pocket. If you'll just submit, it will prove that our multicultural society welcomes everyone.
Posted by: reset at June 15, 2005 1:18 PM
Let's open a bottle of good Chianti and let's read Alighieri's "Divina comedia"!
Yep, they made the day!
Posted by: nippon at June 15, 2005 1:20 PM
These anti-religious laws are crap, but I was glad to see a court have the balls to make this call.
I love the comment "I declared undeniable modern historic facts".
Are they modern or historic? Were they personally declared or are they facts?
The only thing undeniable was he missed school on the day when they studied "sentence structure".
But if he wants to press on this would be a great forum to bring out religious facts in a court room. I would love to see a open debate on the subject.
at June 15, 2005 1:24 PM
This man is a garbage, one day say that christians adorate a dead person, pointing the cross. Itīs garbage.
Posted by: Franze at June 15, 2005 2:45 PM
The last thing Adel Smith ought to wish for is that he should have justice.
Posted by: Paolo at June 15, 2005 3:35 PM
I think I read this in the book of Esther....about Haman being hoist upon his own petard. Heh.
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at June 15, 2005 5:13 PM
I think the defamation of religion law is fascist, but the irony of a muslim being convicted under this law is just too delicious. Muslims want this kind of fascist law, but as the saying goes "be careful what you wish for you just might get it".
Posted by: Roxane at June 15, 2005 5:44 PM
I can't believe it. It's too good to be true. I hope that muslims start to get the message that they too, can be thrown into jail for defaming another religion.
Posted by: Voltaire at June 15, 2005 6:07 PM
now as a precedent will sermons defaming jews, christian, hindu's, buhdists, athiests etc... be prosecutable?
what he said was patently false {unless you believe islamic propoganda} and from what i read so far about her book there are'nt any outright lies in her book. so can i conclude with pot meet kettle
Posted by: jimmytheclaw at June 15, 2005 6:32 PM
It is funny that Smith doesn't pass go and loses his $200.00, but what about the rest of us, meaning in my case, me? I try everything short of outright profanity to get a date with CAIR in court, seeing that I'm too ugly to get a date with anyone else, and even those rotten devils won't sue me. It's nearly impossible to atually defame Islam or Moslems in practice other than by making personal attacks, which I'm not interested in doing, except perhaps for Douggie Hooper. So come on, guys, lose some of that famous Moslem cool and sue me. I know my rights!
What my only defence will be is that I don't tell fibs about Islam and Moslem practices; and even when I do I don't care if I do because I have as much right to be stupid as anyone else.
We fought long and hard in the West for the right to believe whatever we please and to express ourselves thusly in public. Milton didn't have it easy in Reformation England but he fought for freedom to think freely and to dissent, and to this day we live with some of the legacy of his fight. I don't care to lose it because temporarily we are having trouble with idiots like Moslem terrorist fascists, if you'll excuse my redundancies. J.S. Mill lays it out clearly that there are some lines we don't cross in our public discourses, such as incitement to violence in tense situations, e.g. accusing a man of hoarding corn in the midst of a famine while a starving crowd surrounds his house. But the line of extemes is far from anywhere I ever come close to, though I might have edged a bit closer to it on ocassion here than I'm willing to admit. Our biggest problem regarding Smith is not that he incites violence but that his dhimmi collaborators speak "Newspeak," and too many people are sucked into that intellectual vacuum and don't even know it.
We need more free speech, not less. Let them expose themselves and their ideas in the marketplace of ideas. Let us examine them clearly without fear of going to jail for expressing disagreement. That's my opinion. But enough of me for now. How do you like my shoes?
Posted by: sonofwalker at June 15, 2005 8:48 PM
Maybe the court is just trying to implode this moronic law by persecuting the would-be-persecuter with it?
Freedom of speech and thought means to be able to say "Mohammad was an epileptic psychopathic pedophile with delusions of prophethood, and his 'God' Allah is merely a pathetic plagiarism of Yaweh, the Hebrew Deity idiotically turned on its head".
Italy has got to flush its "religious defamation" statute the way we flush Korans.
They'll 'gitmo' fun out of life if they do.
Molto bene!
Posted by: BigSleep at June 15, 2005 9:10 PM
Italy has got to flush its "religious defamation" statute the way we flush Korans.
They'll 'gitmo' fun out of life if they do.
Molto bene!
Posted by: BigSleep at June 15, 2005 09:10 PM
Big Sleep, you are absolutely hilarious! I just enjoyed the best laugh I've had all week.
at June 15, 2005 10:57 PM
Susanp-
Giuoco di mano, guioco di villano.
(Cheezy jokes are the humor of low folks.)
Guilty.
Now, how to work Abu Ghraib into a sentence?
Posted by: BigSleep at June 15, 2005 11:25 PM
Smith will have an unexpected consequence in prison. His first name is Adel. All those potential jailhouse hubbies like guys with names like that...Remember johnnie Cash and the name Sue? This is some of Allah's work...and he knows best...
Posted by: duh_swami at June 16, 2005 12:15 AM
And how does this affect Oriana Fallaci's case? Will her trail, scheduled for next year, proceed? One hopes not.
Posted by: dead_shot at June 17, 2005 3:39 AM
dead_shot: alas, it is sure to go ahead anyway. These things depend on individual prosecutors, and unfortunately the profession has attracted its share of egomaniacs, publicity seekers and PC morons. It would not be the first prosecution in Italy motivated largely or wholly by the arrogance of the prosecutor.
Posted by: Paolo at June 18, 2005 6:00 AM
Paolo, thanks for the reply. I've read articles in which Fallaci has stated that she has no intention of attending any such 'trial' which would only give legitimacy to what amounts to an Italian courtroom farce. Who can blame her? Afterall, the woman is battling cancer. So if she doesn't attend, that means she will be tried in absentia, basically. And, God forbid, if she is convicted, then we in America will face a trial of our own: will we give asylum to Fallaci based on hallowed constitutional protections (Freedom of Speech), or will we play the Ogre and extradite a courageous, dying woman back to Italy to face prison time?
Seems like a no-brainer, but then again, political machinations tend to fog up the issues.
Posted by: dead_shot at June 18, 2005 10:44 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)