“We must stand up and reclaim our ancient liberties.”
Below is the text of the speech given today in Luton by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:
Ladies and gentlemen,
I am delighted to be here in Luton, the birthplace of the English Defence League.
Native Lutonians are living at Ground Zero of the attempted Islamic takeover of England. Your resistance is an inspiration to everyone in the European Counterjihad. It is a privilege to have been invited to this historic event.
As most of you know, I have been charged with hate speech in Austria, and my trial is currently underway.
What were the charges against me?
The original charge was “incitement to hatred”. On the second day of my trial, the judge at her own discretion added a second charge, “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.”
Guess which religion that was?
The second charge is a more serious one, and makes it more likely that I will be convicted.
Those were the charges. Now, what was my crime?
My “crime”, ladies and gentlemen, was to tell the truth about Islam. To quote the Koran and the hadith. To cite the official texts of sharia. To explain that Islam tells men to beat their wives, and that sharia requires the amputation of limbs for theft.
In my seminars I explained that Islamic law sanctions the mutilation of the genitals of little girls. It demands that anyone who leaves Islam be killed.
In short, my “crime” was to educate my fellow Austrians about what Islam really means, as prescribed by Islam itself.
Telling the plain truth about Islam in its own words insults Muslims. How bizarre is that?
The EDL’s mission statement describes it as a “human rights organisation”. Its primary goal is to restore the civil rights of ordinary English citizens. In recent years these rights have been systematically eroded by the tyrannical multicultural ideology of the state. Islam would not have been able to establish its oppressive presence in England if the civil rights of Englishmen had not already been taken away.
I share your concern with human rights. If we do not reclaim our basic rights — including the most important right of all, the right to speak freely — our civilization will be destroyed. All of our great institutions, including democracy and the rule of law, are made possible by the fundamental human rights that we all used to take for granted.
These rights are now being deliberately destroyed. The legal case against me is evidence of that fact, and so are the cases against Tommy Robinson, Guramit Singh, Geert Wilders, Lars Hedegaard, and all the other brave people who have spoken out against Islam and then been prosecuted for it.
The rights which are being taken away from us are our God-given rights. They were not granted to us by our governments.
People here in England are very fortunate, because their rights were firmly established long ago. For many centuries Englishmen have claimed — and successfully fought for — the rights of free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, and all the other rights that were eventually identified as universal.
It is not the same in my country. We Viennese have a proud history, first as the seat of the Holy Roman Empire, and later as the capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But, sad to say, universal human rights came late to Austria, and their roots are shallow. Not only that, the Austrian Empire was the prototype for the modern multicultural state, with its patchwork of ethnicities and official languages.
To make matters worse, in 1912, when Bosnia was incorporated into the Austro-Hungarian empire, my country recognized Islam as an official state religion. The law establishing Islam in Austria is the very same law under which I am being prosecuted.
So the right to free speech in Austria is neither deeply rooted nor greatly respected. But this is not the case in England.
Any Englishman who asserts his right to free speech is not breaking new ground. He is reclaiming what has already been his for centuries. The rights of free speech, free assembly, and self-government are among the “ancient liberties” of Englishmen. Any government that interferes with those liberties is tyrannical and illegitimate.
It’s worth remembering that your cousins in the American colonies rebelled against King George III because he usurped those very same rights. The colonists who formed the United States of America began by demanding their ancient liberties as Englishmen.
This is what we all must do. In these degraded and perilous times, we must stand up and reclaim our ancient liberties.
This is why I support the EDL. I stand behind any group that resists Islamization by peacefully invoking its right to speak freely about the evils of Islam.
I was prosecuted for informing ordinary people about the reality of Islam. Educating our own people is our most effective strategy to use against sharia.
For that reason, I advise you not to burn the Koran, but to read it. Only by studying what Islam stands for will we learn how to face it down.
Know your enemy. We do not fight him with knives or guns, but with the pen, the microphone, the video camera, and the printing press. Understanding what Islam means is our greatest weapon in the struggle against it. We do not need any intimidation or bullying, because the truth is on our side.
Samuel Johnson once said, “Courage is the greatest of all virtues, because if you haven’t courage, you may not have an opportunity to use any of the others.”
In the deadly times that lie ahead, courage will be required of ordinary men and women who refuse to submit to the tyranny of Islamization. Hate-speech prosecutions and shotgun attacks are only a mild foretaste of what is in store for us.
Col. Allen West, one of the most stalwart soldiers of the Counterjihad, always signs his emails with the words “steadfast and loyal”. We too must remain steadfast and loyal to one another in the coming struggle.
Never give up. Never give in.
We will never surrender!
Previous posts about the hate speech case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:
5 comments:
I realize Sabaditsch-Wolff may be deploying rhetorical speech when she asks, "Telling the plain truth about Islam in its own words insults Muslims. How bizarre is that?"
But that situation is not bizarre; it is quite logical, a complex composed of the following:
1) all the aspects of Islam which we find pernicious are considered virtues by Muslims because Muslims have been deformed by Islam
2) alongside the real Islam there has been constructed a Second Islam, an artificial sanitized construct calculated to be acceptable to modern Westerners. The maintenance of this construct, however, is not simple and coherent: it subsists through the pursuit of two tracks:
a) outright lies about Islam in terms of denying facts (e.g., about the beating of wives prescribed in the Koran; about the violent conquest, oppression and abuse by Muslims of nearly all other peoples on earth; about the fanatically harsh laws in Sharia; etc.)
b) a subtler form of sophistry that half-admits, half-denies in the context of a complex tissue of logical fallacies and accuracies.
The dynamic nexus of (a) and (b) is facilitated by a complex dance between Muslim apologists and our sociopolitically dominant PC MCs -- a dance in which the latter partner is being more or less unwittingly duped by the clever tango moves of the former. Muslims are doing this, of course, because they know we are not yet ready to take our Islam without the sweet milk of deceit, straight no chaser -- i.e., Muslims are not yet ready to take off their masks, show their swords, and reveal the true Islam of #1 -- the Islam of which they are proud and love -- because as yet they remain too weak vis-a-vis the stupendously superior West which they are steadily and massively infiltrating.
3) The prevailing sociopolitical culture of PC MC around us unofficially but powerfully defines Muslims as an Ethnic People and Islam as an Ethnic Religion and because of this, accords Muslims and Islam extraordinary deference and protections against the presumed evil inclination of white Westerners to be "bigoted". This PC MC tendency is further augmented by the violent behaviors of Muslims: perversely, the more violently Muslims behave, the more solicitous the PC MCs are towards Muslims.
4) The #3 factor is intertwined with the #2 factor, in that the artificial construct of the Second Islam (the Tolerant Religion of Peace followed by an Ethnic People) is perceived to be the target of criticisms such as those raised by Sabaditsch-Wolff -- and along with that target she is, in their eyes, dangerously tending to condemn all Muslims. The perilous potential then becomes all too clear for the development of "another Hitler" (who, of course, can only be a white Westerner) against these "new Jews" (Muslims, being ethnic, can only be the potential victims, requiring our protection), leading to "another Holocaust" -- unless we stop people like Sabaditsch-Wolff.
The is no Islamic invasion of Britain or France or Austria. The Powers That Be determined long ago to invite and foster the replacement of the native populations of the British isles, France, and Austria. The appropriate response is to identify and target the Powers That Be who want to disempower and replace the native populations of these countries. There would be no problems with the immigrant population if the Powers That Be were not traitors to the last man and woman.
An interesting historical note in Sabatidsch-Wolff's speech:
..."in 1912, when Bosnia was incorporated into the Austro-Hungarian empire, my country recognized Islam as an official state religion."
We can't accuse the 19th century Austro-Hungarian Empire of being PC MC. This is just one example out of thousands why the "Islam is not a religion" meme is unrealistic.
On the above reason cited by Hesperado on why Islam is a recognized official religion of Austria, I noted this in his blog:
A Muslim province which was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire for just 6 years, since Austria lost it in 1918, was enough reason to make Islam an official religion of Austria. Not just a mere recognized religion, but an official one, to boot! This is the same empire that started the 30-year war b'cos some leading people in next door Bohemia wanted to become Protestant. Granted, that was ~300 years earlier.
Not only that, after Austria lost all its territories - including Hungary, it did not look at revising its constitution, w/ the result that a religion that no Austrians followed - either in 1918, nor later in 1945, which was the next opportunity Austria had to redo their constitution after the Anschluss - became one of the official religions, alongside Roman Catholicism (Is Lutheranism one of Austria's state religions? Is Serbian orthodox an official religion? Both of them have a far more legitimate claims to be a longer part of the heritage of former Austrian provinces, if not Austria proper)
And now that comes back to haunt Austria. Where was that legendary Catholic zeal that characterized the Hapsburgs when Austria most needed it?
@Nobody
Legendary Catholic zeal?
It is just a classic example of divide at impera.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.