Saturday, November 06, 2010

Anatomy of a Discussion with a Leftist Journalist

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff -- Photo © SnaphanenOur Austrian correspondent AMT has been closely following the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. As you can see from the report below, the Austrian media are keeping mum about what is happening to Elisabeth. When she is eventually convicted — which is presumably the only outcome acceptable to the kangaroo court which will convene on the twenty-third of this month — the Austrian papers and state TV will no doubt be ready to feast loudly and gleefully on the fate of a “hate-preacher” and “xenophobe” who only got what she deserved.

However, for the time being there is a deafening silence in Vienna about what is being done to Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. All this journalistic reticence only serves to highlight the need for us, the rest of the world, to act as Elisabeth’s voice.


Anatomy of a Discussion with a Leftist Journalist
by AMT


Many of us in the Counterjihad are painfully aware that discussions with journalists of the left-wing dominated MSM are usually futile. It is very seldom that a journalist who is at least willing to learn appears on the scene (link in German).

The Austrian MSM has been bending over backwards to whitewash the threat of Islam and to portray those breaking the law as well as those aiding these lawbreakers as angels. The demons are always those warning of the danger of Islam and the politicians following the laws.

A classic example of this situation is the “plight” of the family of Arigona Zogaj, a young girl from Kosovo whose father illegally entered Austria and had his family “reunited” with him with the help of smugglers (one wonders where the money for this came from). Zogaj was told immediately by the authorities that the chances for asylum would be slim to none. Apparently, asylum NGOs sought him out, took over the case, and tried to bend the law in order to set an precedent. By the time the highest courts made their final decision, Arigona and her siblings were fully integrated and spoke flawless German. Nevertheless, the law had been broken and the courts issued a verdict: Arigona and her family had to leave the country, return to Kosovo, where they could apply for a visa to enter Austria legally.

The uproar among “Gutmenschen” in Austria was unbelievable. The protests and demonstrations were loud and clear, but in the end the rule of law was upheld: Arigona, her mother, and her siblings left Austria in July 2010.

A similar case took place only a few weeks ago. A Kosovar father and his twin daughters, known as the Komani twins, were deported, their mother unable to join them because of a sudden mental illness that forced her to be hospitalized. Again, NGOs were out in full force, even staging coverage of the deportation by calling the media in advance to the apartment building. A sad spectacle. Interior Minister Maria Fekter caved in and after intense public pressure — with the ever so helpful MSM — allowed the father and the twins to return to Austria on humanitarian grounds.

The reader may wonder what exactly this should have to do with leftist journalists.

Easy. While all media outlets celebrated both Arigona and the Komani twins breaking the law, only one reported on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and her upcoming trial for hate speech: NEWS magazine — which had turned Elisabeth in to the authorities in the first place. Not a peep from anyone else.

An Austrian member of the Counterjihad, Thomas, took it upon himself to write to some of the MSM dailies to ask why Elisabeth’s plight was being ignored. Only one answered. Here is an eye-opening exchange between Thomas and one journalist of the MSM.

Thomas:

Dear Madam Editor-in-Chief:

What is wrong with your [online] newspaper? It boasts headlines such as “Feyenoord Rotterdam loses 0:10”, a report on a “stolen ATM machine”, and “the opening of a high-speed railroad in China.” At the same time there are preparations for a political trial the likes of which have never been seen. A woman is forced to defend herself on a account of a more than elastic clause called “Denigration of religious teachings” just because she quoted from the Quran. This newspaper has supported Arigona and the Komani family, who have knowingly violated the law and who pleaded for a humanitarian solution to their cases.

Here is a woman who will be convicted because she said something that she apparently should not have said: the truth. Do you not know about this case, or do you not want to know about it? Or is there another reason for not reporting about this case? For further information, visit the following site: savefreespeech.org/. Despite the media silence in Austria, there is massive support from all over the world for Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. You do not even have to do research, it is all there on the website. Better late than never!

Journalist:

Dear Mr. Thomas:

Thank you for carefully following our stories. However, they are not used as cover-ups. There are serious problems behind these names which need to be uncovered. The fact that we also report football scores and petty crimes is not a contradiction, but proves that we also cover the less important events, which are a part of life.

I cannot promise that a certain article is actually published, but rest assured that freedom of speech which you mentioned is a crucial aspect of our work, proven time and again in our paper.

Thomas:

Thank you for your reply. I have nothing against reporting on football topics or petty criminals, quite the contrary. However, what baffles me is that Arigna and Komani have knowingly broken current law and were rewarded with disproportionate media attention, especially from your paper.

Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff was charged with “denigration of religious teaching” simply because she quoted from the Quran. This is unworthy of a democratic country, whatever the sentence may be. And your paper is silent, just as all the others in this country, just as ORF [Austrian Broadcasting Corporation], while even a U.S. congressional candidate supports Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff.

What I am missing here — especially in comparison with Arigona and Komani — is proportionality and continuity.

Journalist:

As far as I can remember we did report that this lady is again actively working for FPÖ despite a conviction.

Mr. Thomas:

Again bad memory: There is no conviction except for media ignorance. There is only an indictment.

Journalist:

You are right, there are charges pending. But statements like “Islam is hostile, the Quran is evil, Muslims hate us” are not covered by freedom of speech. It is a sign of hope that Austrian journalists do not defend such hooey.

Mr. Thomas:

Don’t you think you should let your readers make the decision about this topic? After all, these were quotes from the Quran, not made-up statements. It is a journalist’s duty and job to separate commentary from news, and manipulation from reporting. Or is it your intention to demonstrate your nobility? How is one supposed to understand that in many other countries there are reports about ESW, but in Austria there is nothing but silence? You actually want to refuse to report about someone who is charged according to an elastic clause, in which the definition of guilt is everything but clearly defined?

It appears to me there is a journalistic double standard if your grant lawbreakers a wide forum and at the same time ignore the case of a lady who is charged according to a very elastic clause in Austrian law. Mind you, in Soviet and Nazi times political offenses were equally non-defined.

Journalist:

Let me repeat: It is a sign of hope that Austrian journalists do not defend such hooey.

Mr. Thomas:

In your world of opinion and campaign journalism you may have a point. In a world of free reporting with separate opinion and commentary sections you are definitely wrong.

Journalist:

In a world of free reporting journalists take responsibility for what they have written and this responsibility demands that not all hooey needs to be reported.

Mr. Thomas:

I don’t think so. You refuse to report about someone whose guilt has not been proven because you consider that baloney. At the same time you benevolently report about people who have knowingly broken the law. Please explain this in more detail.

Journalist:

We definitely do not refuse a report, but as I have shown you, we have reported about this lady. Not the law itself is absurd, but rather the sermon by this lady. Your comparison with the immigration and asylum law is not only patently wrong, but also cynical.

I now have to make a full stop as a continuation of this correspondence appears useless.

Asking for your understanding,

[Name]

No further comment needed…


Photo © Snaphanen.

Previous posts about the hate speech case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:

2009 Dec 5 Fighting a Hate Speech Charge in Austria
    11 Heckling the Counterjihad
    14 Whose Law?
    17 Defaming the Muslims of Pinkafeld
2010 Mar 11 A Mother and an Activist
    20 An Austrian “Hate School”
    22 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff at the Freedom Defense Initiative
    29 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and the Wiener Akademikerbund
  Sep 9 “Islam is a Political Ideology Disguised as a Religion”
    16 “Justice Must Not Be Made the Handmaiden of Sharia”
    17 The Truth Does Not Matter
  Oct 11 Interview With Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    16 Is the Truth Illegal in Austria?
    20 A Court Date for Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    21 BPE Press Release on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    22 Elisabeth’s Voice: An Appeal
    23 Elisabeth’s Voice: A Follow-Up
    24 Raising Our Voices
    25 Elisabeth’s Voice is Growing
    27 Elisabeth’s Voice: More Information
    27 A Bit More Media Attention?
    28 We Are Elisabeth’s Voice
    30 Elisabeth’s Voice in Amsterdam
    31 Mark Steyn Joins Elisabeth’s Voice
  Nov 2 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: Target of Western Shariah

7 comments:

Michael Servetus said...

Wait , you can't call someone hateful but you can call someone Austrian hateful. So Ms. Wolf is being accused of being hateful for accusing someone else of being hateful. But doesn't the left say the same exact thing about the right that they say we can't say about Islam.
You can't label or denigrate a religion but you can label and denigrate a political movement and belief of other people . We need to learn to complain better and change our mindset which is too accustomed to accepting leftists being the ones complaining and dragging people before courts and Muslims have learned from them.
It is time for Conservatives to make these thngs more of an issue by bringing lawsuits, bringing charges, I never hear of it.I mean not in the usual conservative polite way but by becoming nuisances. It seems that is the wonly thing that works. The wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the most oil and Muslims and leftists get all the oil. That wasn't always the case, obviously and so that should give us hope, why? because if the leftists believed in what they believed in long and hard enough to overcome opposition and adversity, to the point of becoming the establshement, that means the course is totlally reversible and it all boils down to will and sacrfice. As I have said before, our side needs more troublemakers, more nuisances, more stubborn people, more closedmindedness, more brute passion, it is th eonly language of power among savages and that is what we are dealing with.
Why shouldn't it be. We should be bringing these journalists up on hate charges for hating, libelling and conspiring against citizens, for being discriminatory in a unjust way.
http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radical-Conservatives-Beating-America/dp/0345521862
Rules For Radical Conservative

EscapeVelocity said...

Michael Servetus,

Active Lawfare should most definitely be pursued. But that requires an active Conservativism. Conservatives are not muckrackers by their nature. That is why they are Conservatives.

Pick up Alinksy's Rules for Radicals, and get to work implementing those tactics and strategies.

Kairos said...

There ist nothing about the ESW case in German MSM, too.

As the European Union dictated there will be a "hate speech" paragraph in our country, too. §130 forbids to agitate against ethnic or religious groups. Now they will change it, so that agitating against singular individuals of ethnic or religious groups shall be fobidden.

So if I call a turk names he can sue me. Of course it does not go the other way around - everyone can call a native German anything. In fact the immigrants demand that we bow to their will and the gouverment supports that.

We only will defeat the western-promoted Scharia, when we can force many of the immigrants to go home - and of course close the borders and let no one else in. But if we speak of this all the MSM, politicians and "scientists" uproar in rage. As Fojordman once says, everyone has the right to preserve his cultural uniqueness, just we Europeans do not.

Our democracy is step by step transformed to a 1984-Orwell- BigBrother- dictatorship. And most of the Europeans do not even recognize - MSM won´t tell them.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Squashing someone's free speech is a sign of hope? Yeesh... I noticed the media fellow was very quick to paint his side as the victims of oppression - without using those specific words, obviously. Oppressed by the very existence of people who disagree with them, the revolutionary is always the victim.

Michael Servetus said...

This journalsit needs to be asked how he or she knows that the content of Ms.Wolff's speeches are hooey? That is when the air of authority falls and the masqueradeing as a intelligent professional falls to the ground faster than a piano dropped from a second story window.
She can't possibly have any data or facts to support that claim, the only claim they have is that we are supposed to trust them because they are reporters , therefore what they say must be true.
I am sorry and maybe I nbeed to ask my oft forgiving lord to forgive me but I think I hate that woman. To put it another way, if I saw that woman about to get hit by a car I wouldn't warn her but just look both ways and start whistling as I moved on. Is that bad?
That might be bad theology, not sure.

Secondly I left a bad link. I was trying to link to a book called
"Rules for Radical Conservatives".

goethechosemercy said...

The hypocrisy here is huge.
Leftists and all multiculturalists trumpet the saying that the oppression of one is the oppression of all, and that if one is not free, none of us are free.
The fact that multiculturalists and liberals have abandoned this tenet of their beliefs indicates a corruption of their ideology.

goethechosemercy said...

Quote:
You are right, there are charges pending. But statements like “Islam is hostile, the Quran is evil, Muslims hate us” are not covered by freedom of speech.
end quote.

Oh yes they are, Madam Righteous.
A person is entitled to an opinion, and in a democratic country, he/she is entitled to express such opinions in any venue.
If your paper is against that which is perceived as anti-Muslim, then you may as well call it "The Muslim Times" and get it all over.