Many people are aware of Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who was recently acquitted of hate speech charges in his native Holland due to his criticism of militant Islam. Most are unaware of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff of Austria, who was actually convicted of hate speech laws in her country. Frontpage Magazine has her story, which is linked below:
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/30/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff/
Of course, free speech in Europe is not what it is in the US. Each reader must decide whether they consider Sabaditsch-Wolff's statements to be hateful toward Muslims as people. Personally, I don't think she crosses that line. What I find objectionable is that Europeans who state what is in front of everybody's face from Austria to Norway should be prosecuted.
As one who favors (legal) immigration, it is clear that in Europe, it has not worked. There has been little to no assimilation, and most countries are faced with a growing immigrant population that is hostile to the traditions and values of their adopted country. And yes, most are Muslim, and that is a central impediment to their integration. (There are also problems with many East European and former Yugoslav immigrants.)
Furthermore, many have brought old hatreds against Jews to their new countries and put those hatreds into action against the Jewish population in places like Malmo, Amsterdam, France and other places. It is pure intolerance on their part. Yet, in the name of tolerance and diversity, the leaders of Europe tolerate the intolerable.
People like Wilders and Sabaditsch-Wolff are only guilty of stating what is obvious yet many fear to state because of political correctness, which, in many cases, carries the force of criminal law. Keep in mind that the 57-member-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation is actively trying to get a UN resolution passed urging nations to adopt hate-speech legislation against "defamation of religions". In reality, they only care about the issue of "Islamophobia". They say nothing about the active persecution of other religions in one Muslim country after another. What makes it even more worrisome is that our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is holding meetings with them on this very matter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Suppose Hillary Clinton offered a deal, which covered Christians in Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, not to mention Ahmadiya Muslims, in exchange for laws making it an offense to disparage religion (including Islam)?
That wouldn't pass constitutional muster in the USA. Courts routinely uphold the right of people to produce placed which, by judicial description, are "indeed blasphemous," such as Corpus Christi. If Jesus and the Apostles can be depicted as gay men having group sex, cartoons of the Prophet are next to nothing.
But how many Christians would consider that a decent exchange, if Hillary could pull it off?
Wilders, as Gary has begrudgingly admitted, was acquitted. Neither he nor Ms. Wolff are telling the simple truth. They are telling a fantastic tale, studded liberally (as all effective lies are) with empirical facts that simply don't uphold the entire rhetorical edifice.
Most importantly, they repeatedly assert that genuine atrocities and breaches of public order are INHERENT in the nature of Islam. Gary denies that he supports that position, but he vigorously defends not only the freedom of speech, but the veracity, of those who do.
Post a Comment