With a hat tip to Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna, we offer yet another frightening example of the withering of essential Western liberties under the steady pressure of Islamism. The latest gesture of craven appeasement comes from Austria, where a politician has been indicted for expressing an unfavorable opinion of Mohammed’s having married a six-year-old girl.
From the English-language website of the Brussels Journal, we read:
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 FPÁ–, 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 HerabwÁ¼rdigung religiÁ¶ser Symbole). If convicted she may have to serve up to two years in jail for her opinions.
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.’
Freedom of speech is a liberal democracy’s most effective defense against ideological threats. For this to be happening is, in effect, the suppression of Europe’s immune system by an invading organism. Story here.
10 Comments
So, “incitement and degradation of religious symbols” is a crime, if the symbols in question are Muslim, but not if they’re Christian. Oh well.
I wonder if whoever threatened Ms Winter committed a crime by doing so… At least she was placed under police protection.
Hi, Bob.
Why is Europe doing this to itself?
Why is Europe doing this to itself? Apparently, to prove to the world how
spinelesstolerant they are. It’s now politically incorrect, and probably criminal, to employ one’s capacity for reason.It’s really quite extraordinary. How can they be so blind? Do they really imagine that tolerance and “dialogue” are going to do anything other than advance the ambitions of their foes?
I suppose we’ve seen this sort of thing before, over there. You’d think they’d have learned. At least the Danes still seem to have their heads on straight.
Well Malcolm,
I saw today where the Brits had released the results of a “years long” study. The study’s results? “Immigration is a bad thing.” Oh it may have been prejudiced, it was commissioned by the House of Lords. I don’t think Sir John Hargrave had anything to do with it though.
Apparently Martha was in the slammer when they were taking applications for pollsters.
JK
Europe is a madhouse.
But D., why is Europe such a madhouse?
Ah, well, if I could now answer that question to the satisfaction of everyone, including myself, then I would feel I had earned the luxury of spending the rest of my life without uttering another word or thinking another thought on the subject of politics. But I’m working on it . . .
Europe is a madhouse because it bought into the fallacy that the summum bonum is “tolerance.” This means:
*equality of outcomes trumps equalilty of opportunity
*no culture is better than another — except for a select few (all Western) which are inherently evil.
*preferring your own culture or family is a grievous sin. Prima facie evidence of racism.
*And, yes, the religion of Tolerance does have sins, both mortal and venial.
*Mortal sin: postulating the existence of standards of any sort.
*Venial sin: supporting competitive anything.
*Free will does not exist, thus no one is ever held responsible for his or her actions. Racist xenophobes are an exception to this rule.
*You are a racist if someone says you are.
*If you’re not a racist, then you are at least a Nazi. Because I say so, that’s why.
*The state is the solver of problems.
*What is right is what feels good, as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.
*What is wrong is whatever makes someone else feel bad.
*Requesting reasonable rhetorical rules for civil discourse is a sign of racism, competitive urges, and seeking standards.
Thanks, Dymphna, and welcome (for those of you who don’t know, Dymphna is one of the co-authors of the vigilant and informative website Gates of Vienna). I don’t think you have commented here before, and I am delighted to have you join us.
The nature of blogging is such that once a post is a few days old, most readers stop checking in for new comments. I think this question is engaging enough that I shall reopen this thread in new post.