Update From London

Our same EDL correspondent just sent this email:

Just found a cyber cafe where I’m waiting for a train.

The rabbi gave a rousing speech just round the corner from the Israeli embassy. However, before he spoke a left-wing activist threw some water on the sound equipment, which stopped it working for a while. When he spoke there was a crackle from the speakers due to the damage done to the equipment.

The EDL people then dispersed, and around fifty accompanied the group across the London parks to Speakers’ Corner where Muslims seem to always have a predominant presence. When we arrived near the corner the police stopped the rabbi and the EDL from entering Speakers’ Corner, thereby preventing him from speaking there. It seems that Speakers’ Corner now belongs to the Ummah.

In the event, the police were in a difficult position, but the instinct to side with the Muslims, due to years of politically correct indoctrination, seems clear. In the end they let him speak across from Speakers’ Corner and there was a massive crowd of spectators.

Breaking News: Rabbi Unable to Speak at Speakers’ Corner

The American rabbi Nachum Shifren is visiting England to meet with members of the English Defence League and express his solidarity with the European resistance to Islamization. See this post at ICLA for a video of a BBC news report featuring Rabbi Shifren. The report describes (in that well-known snarky BBC tone) the growing transatlantic cooperation among groups opposing Islamization.

This afternoon Rabbi Shifren was scheduled to address the crowd at Speakers’ Corner in London. I’ve just received a phone call from an EDL member at the scene, who reports that the rabbi was prevented from speaking by a group of Muslims who effectively occupied Speakers’ Corner.

The rabbi moved to a location a short distance away to give his speech, but was unable to address supporters at Speakers’ Corner itself.

Speakers’ Corner is the epicenter of the tradition of free speech in England. Up until now it has stood as a sanctuary, a sacred place in the heart of English civil liberties.

If you can’t speak out at Speakers’ Corner, then free speech in England is dead.

A Disturbing Ignorance of Reality

German President Christian Wulff recently stated that “Islam belongs in Germany.”

Ralph Giordano is one of the most outspoken critics of Islamic doctrine in Germany. Below is his open letter to President Wulff, as posted at Politically Incorrect and translated by JLH:

Open letter from Ralph Giordano to Christian Wulff

Dear Mr. President:

“There is no doubt that Christianity belongs in Germany; there is no doubt that Judaism belongs in Germany. That is our Judaeo-Christian heritage. But in the meantime, Islam also belongs in Germany.” This sentence in your address of October 3, made on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the re-unification, reveals in its sweeping generality such a disturbing ignorance of reality and premature blending of basically different systems, that it bids fair to render a person speechless.

I will not presume to offer you remedial instruction in history, but such a naïve equivalence of actual Islam with a wish-fulfillment, EU-conforming Islam is obvious here, that someone must object strenuously. Political and militant Islam is not capable of integration. Beyond that, Islam “in general” is problematic enough. As yet it has given no convincing answer to the question of whether it is compatible with freedom of expression, gender equality, pluralism, separation of church and state — in short, with democracy. A dark cloud hovering in the sky of the 21st century, which, by way of a completely failed immigration policy, directly touches the Federal Republic of Germany. In fact two entirely cultures, in two very different stages of development are in collision.

One is the Judaeo-Christian, where — after dark periods, followed by Renaissance, Enlightenment, bourgeois revolutions and their aftermath — the liberal pattern prevailed: a mighty leap forward. The other is the Islamic culture, which still today — after periods of cultural brilliance that could put the West to shame — with all its inner differentiations, displays a general patriarchal-archaic stagnation: obedience-oriented, inimical to secularism, fixated on inequality of the sexes, parental control and unquestioning deference to religious authorities. It is the collision of a culture which severely limits personal freedom and is guided by tradition and religion and another, which — after lengthy aberrations — has been formed as individualistic, primarily Christian and yet secular. Enormous obstacles rise up in this confrontation, and it is Muslims themselves who point them out.

The great Turkish writer Zafer Senocak, laying the scalpel on the sorest spot, says: “Hardly any Islamic ecclesiastic, let alone a devout lay person, is voluntarily in a position to see the central problem in the thinking process of the faith. They are not ready for a critical analysis of their own tradition, a merciless comparison of their faith with the realities of modern society.” Or the unflappable Abbas Baydoun, for many years the feature editor of the Lebanese daily newspaper “As-Safi,” who enters the similarly dangerous territory of unrestricted self-criticism: “Many among us seek excuses not to look in the mirror, in order to spare ourselves the sight of a fearful countenance, the countenance of another Islam, an Islam of isolation and indiscriminate violence, which bit by bit gains the upper hand and soon becomes our true face, as we steer for the high point of delusion.”

Mr. President, what are Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” to these solemn declarations? Here are Muslims putting an end to the practice of delegating responsibility for their own self-inflicted miseries and grievances to “Europe” or “the great Satan USA” or “the small Satan Israel.” Here, Muslims are pillorying the incapacity of the Islamic world for self reflection; here their own elite are named as the true originators of the crisis. And in the process, they express what no non-Muslim would dare to say: It is not immigration, but Islam that is the problem!

Gates of Vienna News Feed 10/23/2010

At the request of Republican Senator Jim DeMint, the Congressional Research Service investigated the funding of NPR and PBS, and determined that about 14% of public broadcasting money comes from American taxpayers. The issue arose in the wake of the firing of Juan Williams by NPR for his less-than-positive statements about Islam.

In other news, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s sister-in-law says she converted to Islam during a trip to Iran. She also says that she now prays five times a day and wears hijab outside the home.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to DF, Fjordman, Gaia, JD, JP, KGS, McR, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Unstitching the Republic

Below is an essay from the Le Figaro blog, as translated by Bear via Vlad Tepes. Readers who understand a bit of French may want to take a look at some of the comments on the original post — more than three hundred of them.

What the intifada revealed to the French

by Ivan Rioufol Oct 20th 2010

Not all high-schoolers are troublemakers. But the troublemakers in the last few days, and even now this Wednesday morning in the center of Lyon, are indeed high-schoolers. The majority of them come from city ghettos. They are hooded, and do not march to defend retirement at 60, nor even the system for social protection that could have attracted their parents or grandparents.

They are there to unstitch the republic, its culture and symbols. The most visible being the police and schools. This is why a college was set on fire. The scenes of urban guerrillas that are being reproduced much resemble the images of intifadas of young Palestinians fighting Israeli forces.

In comparison there is no reason, but in these ethnic insurrections from a youth culture, often Muslim, the state is being rejected and is viewed as an oppressor and a colonizer. The savages, each time more daring and organized, remind us of the failure of their integration.

Elisabeth’s Voice: A Follow-Up

** UPDATED (4) **

Yesterday I joined a consortium of four European and one Canadian blogs to form Elisabeth’s Voice, a group of sites working together to help publicize the “hate speech” prosecution against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria.

We aim to raise public awareness of what is being done to Elisabeth for the “crime” of speaking out about Islam. Our efforts will help her raise money for her legal defense fund while spreading awareness of the erosion of civil liberties that is underway throughout the West.

Since Friday, five six eight nine ten more sites have signed on. Elisabeth’s Voice now has the following participants:

• Tundra Tabloids
  
• Europe News
  
• Politically Incorrect
  
• The International Civil Liberties Alliance
  
• Vlad Tepes
  
• Gates of Vienna
  
• 1389
  
• Mark Steyn
  
• Lawrence Auster
  
• Infidel Bloggers Alliance
  
• 180grader
  
• Diana West
  
• Hodjas Blog
  
• Patriot's Corner
  
• Right Side News
  
• Eticha

Also, ACT! For America — for which Elisabeth is Austrian chapter head — has let her know that they will put their formidable organization squarely behind her.

I may have left out some blogs off the list, so if you know anyone who should be on it and isn’t, drop us an email or leave a comment with a link.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
When the Europeans asked for my help spreading the word to American sites, I suggested a dozen blogs that are prominent enough to draw significant attention to Elisabeth’s case on this side of the Atlantic. We invited the following sites to help with Elisabeth’s Voice:

• Jihad Watch
  
• Atlas Shrugs
  
• The Corner
  
• Gateway Pundit
  
• Hot Air
  
• Ace of Spades HQ
  
• Hugh Hewitt
  
• Daily Pundit
  
• Instapundit
  
• Michelle Malkin
  
• Power Line
  
• TigerHawk

As of this afternoon, unfortunately, none of the above had taken up the challenge.

It can be very difficult for a small blog like ours to get the attention of a major site. Prominent bloggers get a lot of email and a lot of appeals to help out, so that any single request tends to get lost in the shuffle. Our efforts are worthwhile, however, because even a single blog of those twelve could increase the profile of Elisabeth’s case by an order of magnitude.

Next Time: A Better Pretense

Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan offers his thoughts about today’s (actually, yesterday’s) remarkable events in the Geert Wilders trial:

When I wrote to you earlier, because my time is different I only knew about the challenge request. Not that it was granted. This is really unique. It rarely happens a challenge request is granted.

I don’t think more challenge requests have been granted during the last century than people serving life in prison have been pardoned by the queen. It is that rare. In the Netherlands, a life sentence really means ‘until death do us part’ or the queen grants a pardon. This happened about ten times during the last hundred years.

I’m not so sure if this is a victory. Yes, it is a mark of incompetence on the record of those judges. But look at the trial: a bunch of buffoons and clowns trying desperately to make a vigilante trial look prestigious.

The prosecution had already asked for a dismissal of all charges. The lawyers of the accusing parties look like zombies and behave that way.

Now Unions Can Dictate Arbitrary Dress Codes

I don’t remember how this video popped up. If a reader sent it, please step forward and claim credit.

This is further evidence about the ignorant, doctrinaire thinking that leads to decisions like the one seen here (thanks to Vlad Tepes for YouTubing it):


You could ask “what were they thinking” but zealots don’t think. They simply react (pardon the expression) in predictable black-and-white decisions that manifest their narrow, fundamentalist world view.

The man reports feeling “humiliated” because he was being sent home like a miscreant child for wearing a shirt displaying the ship on which his son is serving. Evidently, the name “Bush”, even if it doesn’t refer to our 43rd president, is verboten. Or so say these mindless union supervisors. They evidently have enough power now to dictate an arbitrary dress code to their adult workers.

It is easy to understand why this father wears these emblems. The hat and the sweatshirt are material connections to a son he worries about (as does any parent whose child is serving in the military). That may be the reason we see him begin to tear up as he talks about his sense of helplessness. A grown man should never be treated like this.

Perhaps he’ll file a grievance and will be permitted to choose his own clothing. Or maybe the ACLU will drop in for some lawfare? Let’s not hold our breath.

Our country is being ruled by these nanny unions. I am grateful to live in a state which is relatively free of their influence and their demonization tactics.

Unions are a cancer on the body politic. The sooner their overweening influence is reduced the healthier it will become.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 10/22/2010

Two Syrian Catholic bishops living in Lebanon told the Synod of Middle Eastern Bishops that the “dialogue” with Islam that has been promoted so vigorously by the Vatican is not having any significant effect. In fact, the bishops question whether there is really any point to it.

In other news, the Swedish city of Malmö is on edge after a series of shootings of immigrants by a person or persons unknown. The victims were targeted from a distance with high-powered rifles.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to DF, Fjordman, Gaia, JP, Srdja Trifkovic, Steen, TB, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Tom Schalken’s Feud

Here is some lengthier background material on what happened today in the Geert Wilders trial. The day’s momentous event — which led eventually to the removal of the judges in the case — was the revelation of an apparent attempt by the counselor Tom Schalken, the judge who ordered the prosecution of Wilders, to influence the expert witness Hans Jansen.

Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated the following articles about today’s events from Dutch-language sources. First is this account by the expert witness himself, Hans Jansen, from HoeiBoei:

Schalken, Counselor

By Hans Jansen

For Monday evening May 3, 2010, the activist Bertus Hendriks invited me to dinner. Bertus is the soul of the Palestina-comité [Palestine Committee]. I have known him since 1963. Nobody can speak as wonderfully about the suffering of the Palestinians as Bertus does. Over a handful of glasses of beer, Bertus always explained me that he actually does not really care all that much about the Palestinian problem. The point is, he explained to me — because I am a bourgeois element of a past generation — to expose the global structures of exploitation via the fate of the Palestinians. In short, a good friend whose dinner invitation you do not wave away.

There would also be “some friends” of his joining in. With dinner parties in civilized circles, that is not something unusual. It seemed fun to Bertus if we would talk a bit about Islam, and yes, about the Wilders trial. I would be heard in this trial on Thursday, May 6, as an expert witness; if I understood it correctly, about “the contents of the Quran and the Sharia”, to the extent that in this trial this would be of relevance or of importance.

That hearing was necessary, as it turned out, because the court — to my impression — could not imagine that the things that Geert Wilders said were actually in the Quran. It is hard to say “no” to an old friend you know for almost forty years. So I said “yes”. For indoors, there may still be free thinking, and much said.

I’m always a little too early, or exactly on time. That’s somewhat of a peasant habit, born out of insecurity. The second guest who arrived was none other than one Mr. Tom Schalken. He greeted me affably and started a conversation about Islam.

Where did I know the name of that guest from? Suddenly I recalled it. He was one of the members of the Chamber of the Amsterdam Appeals Court which had ordered that Geert Wilders be brought to the court in Amsterdam for hate speech, discrimination, and group-insult.

I asked him whether I in his presence could actually speak freely. He, for that matter, had previously dragged someone into court who had spoken about Islam. This led to outrage with the skilled judiciary. I told my host that I would leave now, because it is pointless to have a conversation when someone is present who has the power to get you locked up if the conversation does not suit him. The atmosphere changed somewhat.

After some urging on my part, Mr. Tom Schalken guaranteed that he would not sue me nor have me arrested, for what I would say that evening. I was happy with that guarantee. The conversation about his commitment took about twenty minutes. Meanwhile, the other guests also arrived.

Mr. Schalken then asked the same guarantee of me. That I did not give him, with the formal argument that I do not have the power to lock someone up. I only hoped that I had hidden my anger well enough. It was a few days before I had to go to court for my testimony. The appetizer was served. This dinner party no longer seemed fun to me.

Mrs. Hendriks had cooked wonderfully, but I did not taste it. Besides myself, the other diners were all notables of the PvdA [Labour Party, Socialists] and GreenLeft. A number of them were also working with the Judiciary. Mr. Schalken therefore was not the only magistrate who dined along.

Still, the evening did have some merry sides. Occasionally Mr. Tom Schalken made an attempt to be friendly to me, and started a jovial and good conversation. Over and over he steered this towards the Wilders trial. An unemployed actor would have played a better role in his attempts at kindness and geniality. He tried to convince me of the correctness of his decision to drag Wilders before the court in Amsterdam. Schalken, who is also professor emeritus at the Vrije Universiteit [Amsterdam] — the University of Balkenende, Rouvoet and Bos [respectively PM, vice PM, and vice PM of the former center-left cabinet] — let me know that, scientifically seen, it was a “mighty interesting case” that should be “damn well” thought through, and offered “all variety of perspectives”.

Aha, I understood it. It is thus not a trial, there at the Parnassusweg [address of the court], but rather an academic working group. More of a student-style plea-exercise than a serious criminal trial for big people. With, as a joke, a heavily-threatened politician as guinea pig. “Exposing Global structures”. Indeed, a nice hobby.

And from De Pers:

Bram Moszkowicz Challenges the Court Again

We already know the dénouement of today’s courtroom drama in Amsterdam, which saw the judges removed from Geert Wilders’ case, and the postponement of the trial until a new panel of judges can be appointed.

Here’s the report De Telegraaf earlier today, as translated by our Dutch correspondent H. Numan:

Moszkowicz challenges the court again

AMSTERDAM - Bram Moszkowicz again challenged the court in the Wilders case .

He thinks that the court appears to be biased by deliberating a request to accept the witness Prof. Jansen and not immediately accepting him as a qualified witness. (Prof. Jansen is a well-known authority on the Arabic language and Islam.) The court wanted to decide whether or not to accept him later on.

Because the court still can reject the request, it is not possible for Moszkowicz to underpin a crucial part of his plea.

At the beginning of the proceedings Mr. Moszkowicz also challenged the court. He felt that the court appeared to be biased against his client after a remark from the presiding judge. He said Wilders avoided the debate by invoking his right to remain silent.

CAIR: A Foreign Influence on NPR?

Adam Savit of the Center for Security Policy has written a post for Big Peace that follows the money trail from the Sheikhs of Araby through CAIR to the pockets of National Public Radio.

And what did the sheikhs get for their hard-earned petrodollars? Well, for one thing, they managed to get Juan Williams canned for admitting his nervousness about sharing an airplane with members of the Religion of Peace.

Here are some excerpts from what CSP found:

By now most of the world knows about NPR’s shameful firing of Juan Williams for candidly stating his thoughts about Muslims. But what about CAIR’s role in the matter? As the most high-profile Muslim Brotherhood front organization in the United States, CAIR was quick to suggest “professional consequences” for Juan Williams’ exercise of free speech. Late last night the Center for Security Policy distributed the following press release to place the Juan Williams episode in the context of CAIR’s greater goal: to enforce “deterrent punishments” against anyone who dares discuss Islam, Jihad and Shariah Law publicly.

WASHINGTON, DC: On October 21, 2010, the Center for Security Policy sent urgent alert notices to Juan Williams, news analyst for Fox News and recently fired news analyst for National Public Radio (NPR); Vivian Schiller, President and CEO, NPR; Roger Ailes, President, Fox News Channel; Bill O’Reilly, Fox News Channel; and the Inspector General of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), regarding a possible violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), warning that they may have been the target of an influence operation by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which resulted in the firing of Williams.

[…]

Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney Jr. said, “CAIR’s position that journalists like Williams should normally ‘suffer the professional consequences’ apparently created a hostile climate which may have led to Williams’ firing. Since CAIR’s beginnings in 1994, they have conducted targeted influence operations in the U.S. attempting to censor any criticism of Islam, jihad, and Islamic Shariah law. Their targets have included dozens of reporters, elected officials and ordinary citizens, but they have never registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.”

The Center’s CAIR Observatory project tracks CAIR’s apparent violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The FARA states that organizations paid by a foreign principal to engage in activities to “influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States” must register as a foreign agent and report such activity to the Department of Justice. CAIR has never registered.

“A Fair Chance”

Geert Wilders feels like he’s getting a second chance at a fair trial.

The latest from De Telegraaf, as translated by our Flemish correspondent VH:

“I will get a new, fair chance”

Geert Wilders sees himself receiving a “a new, fair chance” now that his case will have to be tried all over again. “Hopefully this time with unbiased judges,” the PVV leader said Friday, after it became known that the challenge court of the Amsterdam Court had granted his request for other judges.

The politician said he is happy that he does not have to continue with the current judges, chaired by Jan Moors. He also thanked Bram Moszkowicz, his lawyer.

The Counsel Mr. Moszkowicz in turn, praises the courage to challenge court to award the request. “It’s unfortunate that had to go this way,” he says. Despite the fact that it still can take months before the case against Wilders will again go to court, Mr. Moszkowicz finds that something has been won. “What we won is that we can continue with judges who do not have the appearance of bias hanging around them.”

Influencing the Witness?

We have a lot on the latest sensational news in the Geert Wilders case, but I’ll be posting the later material before the earlier, because it is shorter and more urgent.

First, this brief account from Elsevier with the stunning news that one of the judges in the Wilders case may have attempted to influence the expert witness Hans Jansen before the trial. Many thanks to VH for the translation:

Request to challenge the court assigned: new judges for Wilders

[October 22, 2010] The disqualification court has approved the challenge request of the Geert Wilders. Thereby the trial of the PVV leader will be delayed many months.

Geert Wilders’ lawyer Bram Moszkowicz submitted a disqualification request against the judges.

One judge of the Court, Tom Schalken, dined with expert witness Hans Jansen a few days before the trial and spoke on that occasion about the trial against the PVV leader. According to Moszkowicz, Tom Schalken thereby exceed his powers; he should not have been talking about the case may have tried to influence the witness.

Bram Moszkowicz discredits by the judges, as they did not immediately approve to the request to hear the expert witness Mr. Hans Jansen again. The disqualification court supports the conclusion that delay can be seen as a rejection.

According to Moszkowicz the impartiality of the judges is in question, since they in fact are subsidiary to the judges of the Appeal Court, and the Appeal Court had gone too far anyway, because they in fact already convicted Wilders before the judges ruled.