Monday, June 27, 2011

A Briefing on the European Counterjihad

Col. Allen West and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff originally met Col. Allen West back in February 2010 at the Freedom Defense Initiative in Washington D.C. She shared a podium with him to discuss the hate-speech case against her for the first time in front of an American audience. Col. West was one of the featured speakers at the event, and the video of his speech went viral on the internet in a number of languages.

Col. Allen West in Russian

Elisabeth and I renewed our acquaintance with Col. West last Thursday afternoon following ACT! for America’s legislative briefing on Capitol Hill. The Colonel is now a member of Congress representing Florida’s 22nd District, and is perhaps the most knowledgeable and dedicated anti-jihad politician in Congress. We caught up with him that afternoon at his office in the Longworth Building.

We had arranged to meet with Rep. West for three closely-related reasons. First of all, Elisabeth wanted to update him on the status of her case: since she last spoke to him, she had been tried and convicted of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” for her statements about Mohammed’s sexual proclivities, as evidenced by the consummation of his marriage to a nine-year-old girl. Readers who are unfamiliar with the details of Elisabeth’s case should see the archive for more information.

Our second purpose was to acquaint the congressman with some of the more prominent European political parties that oppose the Islamization of their countries. Col. West already knows Geert Wilders, of course, and there are other parties — some of them relatively new — with whom he may well want to establish a working relationship. Elisabeth and I spoke for a while about several of these parties, and discussed the possibility of his visiting Europe at some point in the future for an on-site look at what is happening.

Our third reason for meeting with him was to present him with a briefing paper on the growing Islamization of Western Europe, and the resulting emergence of social and political resistance to it. This document was designed to be used as a reference for Rep. West when he hears about one of these “Islamophobic” parties in the news, or is contacted by their representatives. It gives an outline of the parties’ current electoral status, and grades each party and organization based on its philosophy, origins, legislative positions, and political allies.

The information we provided can be readily consulted by the congressman and his staff to help them understand the current situation in Europe without relying on biased presentations by the media and EU government bodies. The briefing paper contains better information than the CIA could provide, since it is gathered through grassroots networks in Europe rather than assembled from European media digests.

The data for the paper were collected and written up by various European members of the International Civil Liberties Alliance living in the countries involved. I acted as the overall collator and editor, and also wrote the general introduction. An excerpt:
Except for the Algerians who remained in France at the end of the colonial period, there were few Muslims in Western Europe until full-scale immigration began in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In what is now known to be a deliberate policy of the European Community (today the European Union), the flow of immigrants into Europe accelerated in the 1990s, and exploded in the 2000s, especially in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK. Each country has its “preferred” sources for Muslim immigrants: Pakistanis for Britain, Algerians and Tunisians for France, Moroccans for Belgium and the Netherlands, and Turks for Germany and Austria.

Exact demographic figures are difficult to come by, since the collection of statistics based on ethnicity or religion is officially discouraged, and is even prohibited in some countries. France, for example, does not allow government agencies to include ethnicity in their data-gathering. Britain collects data on residents’ countries of origin, but lumps together everyone born in the UK as “British”, regardless of parentage.

Estimates of the Muslim current population are therefore largely educated guesses. Activist organizations in various countries have made estimates based on names recorded in hospital birth records, or by statistical evaluation of surnames in telephone directories. The impact of Muslim crime (which is disproportionately high) can be determined by tracking the names of convicted offenders in court records. However, a number of countries prohibit the publication of offenders’ names, so this methodology is not available everywhere.

The population estimates used here are based on a database of figures published in 2004. Current estimates are derived from anecdotal evidence, including the likely level of illegal immigration.

The percentage values derived from the 2004 data, and our estimates of current figures, are summarized in this table:

Country 2004 2011 (est.)
Austria 4.7% 5-6%
Belgium 3.5%     4%-5%
Denmark 3.0% 3%-3.5%
Finland 0.2% 0.5%-1.0%
France 7.5% 8%-12%
Germany 3.7% 4%-6%
Iceland 0.1% 0.1%
Ireland 0.5% 1%
Italy 1.7% 2%-4%
Luxembourg 2.0% 2%-2.5%
Netherlands 6.0% 7%-8%
Norway 1.6% 2%-2.5%
Portugal 0.4% 0.5%-0.7%
Spain  2.5% 3%-3.5%
Sweden 4.0% 5%-6%
Switzerland 4.4% 5%-6%
United Kingdom 2.7% 3%-5%

We also included this note:
It is important to bear in mind that all of the anti-Islamization parties and organizations in Europe are characterized as “extreme right-wing” groups. This is true no matter how socialist they are in their economic policies, nor how progressive they are on social issues, such as gay marriage, global warming, etc. None of that matters — opposition to Islamization is the sole criterion that earns them the descriptor “extreme right-wing”.

That is, an American fiscal conservative might find it hard to make sense of all these “right-wing extremists” in a European context. Many — probably most — of the anti-jihad parties are at least as Socialist as the Democratic Party here in the USA, yet they are staunch opponents of mass immigration, and their leaders are taking enormous risks to buck the EU establishment and resist the Islamization of their countries.

Elisabeth and I are hoping that our efforts will help bridge the murky transatlantic waters between anti-jihad political leaders in America and Europe. The lack of understanding runs in both directions, and with luck we will someday get the opportunity to present the American perspective to receptive audiences in Europe.

For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.


Zenster said...

Excellent job, Baron. I can only hope you included the statistics on what forms of Muslim agitation manifest as their percentage of population grows.

If you did not do so, you may wish to consider forwarding him these numbers so that Senator West can gain some perspective as to how corrosive even small percentages of Muslims become in European populations.

The Five Stages of Islam (per Dr. Peter Hammond)

Stage 1. Establish a Beachhead

Population density à 2% (US, Australia, Canada).

Muslims are conciliatory, deferential but request harmless special treatment (foot bath facilities, removal/elimination of that which is offensive to delicate Muslim sensibilities - like walking dogs near Mosques).

Stage 2. Establish Outposts

Population density 2% - 5% (UK, Germany, Denmark).

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.

Stage 3. Establish Sectional Control of Major Cities.

Population density 5% - 10% (France, Sweden, Netherlands).

First comes the demand for halal food in supermarkets, and the blocking of streets for prayers; then comes the demand for self rule (within their ghettos) under Sharia. When Muslims approach 10% of the population the demands turn to lawlessness. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any criticism of Islam results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam. In France which may be over the 10% range, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrassas. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.

Stage 4. Establish Regional Control.

Population density 20% - 50% (Europe 2020?).

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues.

Stage 5. Total Control, Brutal Suppression, and Dhimmitude.

Population density > 50%.

Unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels. As Muslim population levels increase and all infidels cower in submission there will peace at last. Dar al-Islam is achieved and everyone lives under Sharia and the Koran is the only word.

Hesperado said...

That is, an American fiscal conservative might find it hard to make sense of all these “right-wing extremists” in a European context.

Palpating a couple of incipient problems in this regard:

1) A Lawrence Auster makes sense of an Ayaan Hirsi Ali by essentially rejecting her because she's too "liberal" for his rigid agenda based upon an eccentric definition of the "true conservative".

2) Meanwhile, a Robert Spencer keeps his white gloves at ten-foot-pole's length from a Filip Dewinter (and Vlaams Belang) for fear of being tainted with the smear of "fascism" and "bigotry" that often attaches to Dewinter (a fear doubly ironic, (if not either hypocritical or incoherent) since otherwise, Spencer routinely trumpets his disdain of being smeared by association).

Nick said...

From a linguistic perspective, in the press one does inevitably see 'right wing' inserted before any individual or group who criticize Islam is actually named. Yet when newspapers refer to Muslims they do not appear to follow the same format.

We are led to believe that there are 'moderate' Muslims and 'radical' Muslims. Yet we often see someone portrayed in the press as 'a spokesman for the Muslim community'. Which community? Why not a 'moderate Muslim community'?

When stories such as the Muslima who took those hotel owners to court for criticizing her 'prophet' run in the press, is the Muslim in question described as a 'moderate Muslim'? No. She's just a Muslim.

A lot of double standards and doublethink going on nowadays.

Nick said...

I read a story over at deanroberts dot net about Trevor Phillips, the religious equality guy. He (Mr. Phillips) had recently made comments about Christians in the UK being 'militant' and being far more likely to feel 'slighted' if anyone speaks to them about their religion than Muslims. Balderdash!

These kind of words are regularly used to 'frame' people - to borrow a term from NLP - in a certain way. In linguistic terms this is sometimes known as 'positioning'.

Mr. Phillips tried to compare Christians and Mohammadens in the UK in his statement, and on that basis was quite happy to employ those linguistic tactics against Christians.

However Mr. Phillips neglected to examine or explain the behaviour of Muslims in the UK and throughout Europe. And he certainly could have brought up - for example - the Danish cartoons affair, if he wished to deal with people feeling 'slighted' or acting in a 'militant' way if their religion is criticized. Mr. Phillips certainly did not 'position' Muslims in a way which reflected the actual behaviour of Muslims, which we've seen over and over again, whenever anyone dares to criticize their religion or their prophet.

Nick said...

One might say that people such as Mr. Phillips, or the many journalists who label certain people in particular, editorially-approved ways, are trying to twist reality to suit a higher agenda. But reality itself can't be twisted by words.

What's happening is that certain expressions are used by the media, and by people such as Trevor Phillips, to invent a world which does not actually correspond to reality. The state will then enforce belief in this fabulous creation. Even more sinister than that is the way in which human beings living in free countries will practice self-censorship.

Many people will simply accept the way the world is labelled by others. I think sites like GoV are extremely important because they allow people to see that what they read in the press and hear from experts in religious equality and tolerance, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The problem remains - and it's a huge problem - of how to get people to get off their lazy backsides and start to do some scrutinizin' ...

Hesperado said...


"Yet when newspapers refer to Muslims they do not appear to follow the same format."

Actually, Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch has noted a quite frequent epithet that seems to have become, in the MSM, roughly equivalent to "radical" to describe the "bad Muslims" -- "conservative" (as in a journalist's description of a "conservative cleric" who called for the enforcement of stoning; etc.).

Juniper in the Desert said...

Thank you Zenster, shared!

Sean O'Brian said...

1) A Lawrence Auster makes sense of an Ayaan Hirsi Ali by essentially rejecting her because she's too "liberal" for his rigid agenda based upon an eccentric definition of the "true conservative".

And what does Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "liberalism" consist of?

She told a Belgian newspaper that the Belgian authorities should ban Vlaams Belang, saying that they are no different than a jihadist group. To a British newspaper interviewer she equated Catholicism with Nazism. (Go to Lawrence Auster's site and search for "ayaan hirsi ali vlaams belang" and "ayaan hirsi ali catholicism".)

Dymphna said...

@ Sean O'B--

While I admire Hirsi Ali's courage, she is woefully undereducated. Some of her proposed solutions while in the Dutch Parliament were embarassingly simplistic -- e.g., solve the problems of madrassahs by closing ALL private schools. Yeah, that'd work...

Then, on some Canadian show when she was doing a book tour, she opined as to how some mild form of Christianity would be good for "the people" (not for intelligent atheists like herself, of course).

I used to get a lot of blowback about her on LGF's comment sections. She was Saint Ayaan to them, with no room for anything but perfection. Same thing with the comments at Atlas Shrugs, waay back when. It's simply hero-worhip with no room for ambiguity.

Now that she's having a child with one of her elitist boyfriends, her morality isn't open to question either. I guess his family can go hang...

...She had such promise but they pushed her into the limelight too soon, and she hasn't grown into anything substantial...

...her autobiography is fascinating for its look at her devout intensity as a child. Reminded me of Elizabeth Barrett Browning's nostalgia for her "childhood's lost saints"...

The frequent jump from intense Islam -> intense atheism isn't surprising. Just as many dogmas, but no one's gonna kill you.

I just wish she were more reflective...

Kufar Dawg said...

I once saw Hirsi appear on CNN's own Muslo-nazi news hour to discuss religion and Islam. Unfortunately for her, Zakaria? Or Zayeed? Farid Zakaria? she was setup, as whenever she made any valid points she was talked down by the two Islamofascists defending Muslo-nazism. She came off looking cowed and defeated, although much better mannered than her Islamo-nazi opposition.

Hesperado said...

Dymphna and Sean O'Brian may be more or less right about Ayaan Hirsi Ali (whom I would expect to be asymptotic anyway, which often entails needless complications to the anti-Islam agenda). But she could be of use in specific contexts: imagine her, for example, as the one-hour guest on Oprah, and/or the half-hour guest of TavisSmalley.

Dymphna said...


We don't have a TV so I've never seen this CNN program. Thanks for reminding me how lucky I am.

She'd be a pushover in a serious debate since her education was so shallow. I keep hoping that someone at AEI, or wherever she's a Fellow, will give her a loooong reading list and some kind of tutor. She's not stupid, just ignorant. In fact, when you think how very far she's come...the must be existential rending of her mind must've been tremendously unsettling. The only thing that saved her was her ambition and the kindness of some Dutch folks who took her under their wing and pushed her thru to a degree in Sociology...

@ Hesperado--

I've seen photos of Oprah but haven't heard her speak. A small blessing, I know, but i count 'em all. A doubleplusgoodie is my total lack of knowledge re this Smalley fellow. It is my intention to stay ignorant.

"asymptotic'? Really?? The only way Ms. Hirsi Ali could run into that is if someone gave her an Asymp Tote Bag...

...just sayin'

I know, I know. For my penance...

Anonymous said...

Of the limited Ayaan Hirsi Ali appearances/articles that I have seen/read, I have found Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be articulate and compelling which, of course, is WHY the Muslims in The Netherlands had to threaten her life and force her into hiding in America....

From The Daily Beast:

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Mogadishu, Somalia, and escaped an arranged marriage by immigrating to the Netherlands in 1992. She served as a member of the Dutch parliament from 2003 to 2006 and is currently a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Her autobiography, Infidel, was a 2007 New York Times bestseller."

The Fire-Bombed Book (essay by Ayaan Hirsi Ali)

Life On The Run (essay by Ayaan Hirsi Ali)

Why Are American Doctors Mutilating Girls? (essay by Ayaan Hirsi Ali)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Controversial Call to Arms (glowing review of latest book by Ayaan Hirsi Ali)

Anonymous said...

From Ayaan Hirsi Ali's AHA Foundation:

"The AHA Foundation aims to influence the general public; opinion leaders; political journalists; non-profit organizations; and political leaders."

"As part of its mission, the AHA Foundation aims to persuade politicians and policy-makers to make it a priority to enforce existing laws that protect women's rights and, where necessary, to create special legislation to protect the rights and freedoms of women in the West against militant Islam."

"Some organizations would like to introduce parts of Sharia family law into the U.S. and the American legal system. The AHA Foundation is strongly opposed to the introduction of Shari'a law as an alternative legal system."

About AHA

What Do We Know? Facts and figures on the circumstances affecting Muslim girls and women in the United States (12-18-09)

Anonymous said...

From wikipedia on Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

"After earning a master's degree in political science from Leiden University, Hirsi Ali became a fellow at the Wiardi Beckman Foundation, a scientific institute linked to the center-left Labour Party (PvdA), of which Leiden University Professor Ruud Koole was steward."

"In 2003, aged 33, she became prominent in the parliamentary election campaign. Her message: the Dutch welfare state had overlooked abuse of Muslim women and girls, contributing to their isolation and oppression."

"During her tenure in Parliament, Hirsi Ali made a number of controversial statements about Islam. In an interview in the Dutch newspaper Trouw she said that by Western standards, Muhammad would be considered a pedophile. A discrimination complaint was filed against her on April 24, 2003. The Prosecutor's office decided not to initiate a case, because her critique did "not put forth any conclusions in respect to Muslims and their worth as a group is not denied"."

"Hirsi Ali wrote the script and provided the voice-over for Submission, a film produced by Theo van Gogh, which criticised the treatment of women in Islamic society. Juxtaposed with passages from the Qur'an were scenes of actresses portraying Muslim women suffering abuse."

"In an interview to journalist David Cohen, Hirsi Ali has said that although she deeply regrets the murder of van Gogh, she is proud of the film and does not regret having made it. "To feel otherwise would be to deny everything I stand for." At his televised funeral, Van Gogh's mother not only echoed this sentiment, she urged Hirsi Ali to continue the work that she and Van Gogh had done together."

Hesperado said...

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is among those Leftist Atheists who haven't been able to shake off fully their aversion to Judaeo-Christianity. While one is thankful she seems to spend most of her time criticizing Islam rather than Judaeo-Christianity, she does have a track record of including the latter, which is not merely distracting, but positively tends to reinforce PC MC's Ego Quoque fallacy.

In addition, AHI is asymptotic, which is my handy one-word term for "she subscribes more or less to the Tiny Minority of Extremists meme". While "tiny" is relative, and she may seem to be indicting large numbers of Muslims, it is fairly clear that she seems to believe that most Muslims are decent hapless "victims" of Islam who need to be saved by Western Liberal Democracy).