The most intense public reaction the July 22 Oslo atrocities outside of Scandinavia has been in Germany. The German authorities are now reportedly considering monitoring and controlling “Islamophobic” blogs and websites to prevent another Breivik.
The Islam-critical site Politically Incorrect is the most popular blog in Germany, and perhaps in Europe, so it’s no surprise that it has been a major focus of media and governmental scrutiny. Our German translator JLH has sends his translation of an article on the topic from PI, and includes this introductory note:
This is Politically Incorrect’s comment on September 27, after an unremitting campaign by reporters of the Frankfurter Rundschau and Der Spiegel to have PI investigated by the federal “constitutional protection” i.e., intelligence/security service — all part of a longstanding effort to silence critics of multiculti and Islamization.
The comment was written in anticipation of the impending meeting of security chiefs, but I have not yet seen any coverage of the results of the meeting. Clearly PI believes that the best defense is a good offense. The fact that I have not found a story may indicate that they are correct.
And his translation from Politically Incorrect:
Excerpt from the P-I guidelines:“We will be loud when Political Correctness demands silence; we will look when looking away to “avoid pre-judgment” is called for. We offer our hand to all those who wish to live in our country according to the constitution and human rights.”
Open Letter From PI to the Intelligence Service
Dear Mr. Fromm, dear Madame President and Presidents of the state offices for intelligence/security services,
As we have learned from pertinent media reports, Islam-critical internet blogs — first and foremost PI — are to be the subject, on Thursday in Berlin, of discussions by the heads of German security services. There will be discussion of whether we will be declared a future target of surveillance by the intelligence service.
We make no secret of our astonishment and anger at this development. PI was founded seven years ago by concerned citizens for whom our constitutional system is deeply important. Under the impression of an ever constricting corridor of allowable opinions and reportage in the established media, it was our wish to use the internet as a compensation in this regard. Specifically, what has been established in recent years by the large news operations as so-called “media responsibility” and “voluntary self-control” is for us truly nothing other than a ban on thought and discussion about the central, fateful questions of Europe.
Beyond that, we would like to emphasize: We not only have a claim to provide equality of information — above all, we have a right to do so! In our publications, we lay claim to no more nor less than one of the highest legal rights of our land — the basic right of freedom of opinion and information. The Enlightenment figure Voltaire aptly described its essence:
“I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for your right to say it.”
It is astonishing that precisely those citizens who love their country, stand up for its basic rights and consistently oppose socialist and totalitarian ideas now may be declared “democratically unreliable loose cannons.” We — not people who form governments with parties hostile to the constitution, like the SPD or the Greens who openly call for blocking authorized demonstrations. And by the way, their junior politicians have gone unpunished for posting their pictures on the internet, in which they suggested peeing on our national flag. Perhaps it is not coincidence that this happens at a time when more and more politicians with SED, KBW and other extreme leftist past history have found access to the levers of power in the Federal Republic.
Those of you who are convening in Berlin this week — and not all of you started reading along here only recently — should answer the following questions before voting: Are the fears formulated as articles (or opinions) in PI really unjustified? Is something in our reportage contrary to the truth? Don’t you sometimes think to yourself in similar terms and exert yourself to protect your children from the abuses that we call by their names? Don’t you — far more than we, thanks to your professional background — know what is in store for this country, if everything is allowed to continue as policy has been continuing for years?
We at PI are actually the extended arm of state security, for we are warning against a real threat to our constitutional law, our freedom and our tolerant society. We are by no means hostile to Muslims as people, as is falsely alleged of us again and again, but we are hostile to the ideology. Anyone can look up its dangerous and timelessly relevant message in the Koran.
We want social problems to be recognized and solved without violence, for which reason we do not tolerate calls for violence on our side. Can you in good conscience blame us for reacting very sensitively to the great readiness for violence and criminality of Islam in Germany, because these can be the harbingers of civil war? To the contrary, should immigrants not rightly be expected to be exemplary in criminality statistics as well as in use of social aid?
Do you see in our private correspondence, which you have obtained by illegal means, any evidence that even one member of our author team would like to do away with the free, democratic system of Germany? Is it not true that in a democracy only the state and only with judicial sanction may encroach on a basic right, like secrecy of telecommunication and mail? Should Germany and its state organs not instead discuss this monstrous procedure? In this connection, it should also be said in defense of authors illegally bugged in Skype conferences: Every member of the media knows that “cynicism related to quotas and limits” is not an expression of contempt for mankind, but a “professional disease” of media people, just as the language of surgeons sometimes resembles that of butchers. Putting this down to the account of PI authors, with illegal material of all things, flies in the face of logic and would be most unjust.
We have accompanied this land on its path to being a “defensible democracy.” Indeed, we are trying to help create a new public in the country, one which will take the new, powerful threats like Islamism seriously. We accept that, on the basis of historical experience, rightist extremism is especially sharply watched. However, if the security service should knock on our door, a line will have been crossed. Then, to a greater extent than we suspected, our republic will be in danger of withering to a “guided democracy,” where only a narrow state doctrine would be allowed.
Please forgive us if we and our readers evaluate your vote primarily as an indicator of whether our country is actually on this path. If PI should be monitored by the security service in the future, that would be fateful evidence for the suppression of freedom of expression and a sign that Germany is no longer an unrestrictedly free country, where uncomfortable facts and truths can be expressed.
We will never stop speaking the truth! Or, in Martin Luther’s words:
“Here I stand and cannot do otherwise — so help me God!”
The PI Authors Team