Footage of the moment muslim converts allegedly ran down drummer Lee Rigby before trying to hack off his head is shown to the jury in his murder trial. Muslim converts set upon a British soldier like butchers "attacking a joint of meat" as they tried to hack off his head, the Old Bailey heard.
The CCTV clip showed the car, allegedly driven by Michael Adebolajo swerve across a road and hit the 25-year-old from behind as he crossed the road. Mr Rigby was knocked unconscious by the collision and his motionless body was then attacked by Adebolajo, 28, and his co-defendant Michael Adebowale, 22.
Members of Mr Rigby’s family, including his mother Lyn and wife Rebecca, had just left the court moments before the scenes were shown. They left, looking visibly upset, as footage of Mr Rigby walking along a street minutes before his death was shown.
Prosecutor Richard Whittam QC told the jury: "What unfolded after that had happened was shocking to those who observed it."
Shopkeeper Ibrahim Elidemir saw the driver leave the car with a "chopper" and said the passenger got out with a "knife in his hand", the court heard. "He saw the driver attacking the throat of Lee Rigby with the chopper and the passenger stabbing him to the body," Mr Whittam said.
The men then left the car. Mr Whittam said: "The driver was carrying a cleaver in his hand. He knelt down by Lee Rigby and took hold of his hair. He then repeatedly hacked at the right side of his neck just below the jawline."
Another eyewitness, Greenwich Borough Council electrician Thomas Seymour, saw a man attack the neck of Fusilier Rigby. Mr Whittam told the jury: "Mr Seymour 'instantly believed that he was trying to cut the victim's head off'."
Another witness, Gary Perkins, described the defendant's actions as being "like a butcher attacking a joint of meat".
Adebolajo clutched a copy of the Koran in the dock as the prosecution began.
The jury was shown CCTV and mobile phone footage of three armed police officers arriving at the scene in a marked BMW. The officers - two men and one woman - are seen running from their car before one shoots Adebowale and another uses a Taser on Adebolajo. The female police officer - referred to in court as D49 - braked "harshly" when she approached the scene and thought "he's going to kill me",
One of the male police officers, a rear passenger in the police car, said he felt he was "in the most urgent situation of his life". The officer - known as E48 - fired from his seated position out of the window and hit one of the men, the court heard. As the vehicle stopped, the other male officer, referred to as E42, left the car and saw Adebowale pointing a gun and shot him. The female officer then also left the car and used her Taser on Adebolajo, the jury was told.
A number of women went to the scene to comfort the soldier, the jury heard. . . She heard the taller of the alleged killers talking about "religion", the jury was told.
Mr Whittam said he was "saying things about religion such as 'these soldiers go to our land, kill/bomb our people - so an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"'.
The court heard that Adebolajo handed a letter containing religious references to Ms Donnelly Martin.
It said: "Fighting Allah's enemies is an obligation", and went on: "Do not spend your days in endless discussion with the cowardly and foolish. It means that it will delay your meeting Allah's enemies on the battlefield. Sometimes the cowardly and foolish can be those dearest to you. So be prepared to turn away from them."
The handwritten note suggested "carnage reaching your town" was "simply retaliation for your oppression in our towns".
It said when the "heat of battle" came, "it is unlikely that any of your so-called politicians will be caught up in the the crossfire, so I suggest that you remove them." The letter continued: "Muslims will trade with you on fair terms. Understand that the days of your international armed robbery are drawing to a close."
Jurors were also shown a video clip of Adebolajo speaking with blood on his hands, suggesting that the attack was "an eye for an eye".
Mr Whittam told the court that Adebolajo made a number of comments after he was shot by police.
These included: "I am a Muslim extremist, this may be the only chance you meet one. . . Your people have gone to Afghanistan and raped and killed our women, I am seeking retribution, I wouldn't stoop so low as to rape and kill women."
"I thank the person who shot me, because it is what Allah would have wanted. . . I love Allah more than my children."
Adebolajo also wrongly claimed that Fusilier Rigby, who was wearing a Help for Heroes hooded top, was in military kit when he was attacked, the court heard. He said: "My intention was never to hurt civilians. There were women and children around. My intention was to hurt military only. He was in his kit, in his uniform, coming in and out of the barracks."
The Old Bailey jury were today told about what Adebolajo, and Adebowale did in the 48 hours before Fusilier Rigby died.
The Vauxhall Tigra allegedly used to knock down Lee Rigby was seen in Lewisham at 1.52pm on May 21, and at 2.01pm Adebolajo went to the Lewisham branch of Argos where he purchased a five-piece set of kitchen knives in a block and a knife sharpener, the jury was told.
The vehicle was seen leaving the area around his home at 8am on May 22 with Adebolajo driving, the court heard.
Adebolajo filled up with petrol but told the shop he did not have any money or identification, Mr Whittam said, and produced a Koran, but did not want to leave the book there. He offered his phone as security and told the shop assistant not to answer if it rang, the jury heard.
in this particular case, Iraq. But it could have been Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Algeria, Nigeria. Or Kenya, Tanzaniya, the southern Philippines, southern Thailand, southern Russia. Oh, the places you could go! and see such sights.
Arak Heavy Water Reactor (IR-40) Source: Reuters Bushehr Nuclear Reactor Iran: Photograph: Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA
Yesterday, an earthquake struck Iran killing 8 and injuring 59 in the vicinity of the Bushehr nuclear power plant located on the northern shore of the Persian Gulf. CNN reported:
The U.S. Geological Survey said the 5.6-magnitude quake was centered about 39 miles (63 km) northeast of the Persian Gulf city of Bushehr, where the nuclear plant is located, and 7 miles (14 km) northeast of Borazjan.
[. . .]
A 6.3-magnitude earthquake in May killed 39 people and injured 850 in Bushehr province, but the reactor was not affected
Iran is very prone to frequent devastating earthquakes given the country’s location at the conjunction of the Arabian and Eurasian plates with several major fault zones. American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin informed this writer at a Yale residential college forum in 2005, the Bushehr nuclear power facility was built on an earthquake fault.
Earthquake Damage, Borazjan, Iran, Nov. 28, 2013
Iran has suffered devastating earthquakes in the past. CNN noted:
In August 2012, two earthquakes in northwestern Iran struck 11 minutes apart -- the first a 6.4 magnitude, and the second a 6.3 magnitude, killing at least 306 people.
In 2003, a magnitude 6.6 quake struck the city of Bam in southeast Iran, killing some 31,000 people.
A 1990 quake in the northwestern provinces of Gilan and Zanjan killed as many as 50,000.
Given the focus of the world’s interest in the IAEA monitoring of Iran’s nuclear development program under the recently announced P5+1 agreement and the news that the Islamic Regime will open up the Arak heavy water reactor (IR-40) for a possible visit by IAEA inspectors on December 8, 2013, perhaps the UN nuclear watchdog agency should raise the matter of why Iran hasn’t signed the 1994 Nuclear Safety Agreement regarding both nuclear reactors. The Bushehr nuclear power facility has been criticized for faulty construction, yet control of it was transferred in September 2013 to Iran by Russian developers of the nuclear power facility. A possible quake on the fault line under the Bushehr nuclear power plant, in the opinion of critics Khosrow Semnani and Gary M. Sandquist, might lead to a devastating Chernobyl Event with massive collateral damage downwind to the Gulf Emirates, Iraq and Saudi Arabia on the Southern Littoral of the Persian Gulf. They wrote about this daunting prospect in a New York Times op-ed in January 2013, “The Next Chernobyl”.
The authors noted:
Bushehr sits on an active fault line, raising the risks of a Fukushima-type catastrophe. Unless action is taken, the likelihood of an accident is far too high for the international community to ignore.
A Chernobyl-type nuclear meltdown in Bushehr would not only inflict severe damage in southern Iran, but also in the six oil and gas-rich Gulf Cooperation Council countries of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Indeed, the capitals of those states are closer to Bushehr than Tehran. Nuclear radiation in the air and water would disrupt the Strait of Hormuz shipping, the world’s most important oil choke point. Oil prices would skyrocket. The world economy would face a hurricane.
With prevailing winds blowing from east to west in the gulf, and coastal currents that circle counterclockwise, radiation fallout would contaminate oil fields and desalination plants that provide fresh water for local inhabitants. This would be an unmitigated disaster for the Gulf States that rely on desalination plants for water, and would also threaten the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, stationed in Bahrain.
Further, Messrs. Semnani and Sandquist drew attention to the faulty construction of Bushehr:
The history of Bushehr is troubling. Begun in 1975 with German engineers, halted after the 1979 revolution, and restarted with the assistance of the Russian Atomic Energy Agency, known as Rosatom, it has been plagued with delays and technical problems from the beginning.
In August of 2010, after several years of delay, the plant became officially operational when fuel rods were transported to the reactor. After no more than six months of operation, the reactor had to be shut down due to problems with the cooling system, which were blamed on German-made components. According to Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the former head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, the problems were design anomalies. He stated that 24 percent of the parts and equipment used at the Bushehr plant are German, 36 percent Iranian and 40 percent Russian.
This is not how you make a safe nuclear power plant.
But Iran unlike other developers of nuclear weapons programs, as the authors pointed out, is not prepared for a possible Chernobyl or Fukushima disaster:
Iran is the only country operating a nuclear power plant that hasn’t signed the 1994 Convention on Nuclear Safety. The international community should push Iran to sign the treaty with the same vigor that it pushes Iran to disclose information about its suspected weapons sites. Even countries like Israel, India and Pakistan — none of which have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — have signed the Convention on Nuclear Safety.
The IAEA will be hard pressed to deal with inspections of nuclear weapons programs under the P5+1 interim agreement let alone address safety concerns raised about earthquake threats to the safe operations of reactors at Bushehr and possibly Arak. American David Kay, former UN chief weapons inspector, drew attention in an NPR interview to the daunting task facing the small contingent of 250 of the Vienna based nuclear watchdog agency inspection staff overseeing the monitoring of the P5+1 agreement of just the known sites. Accordingly, Yukio Amano, IAEA director-general Amano has indicated the agency might need more funding for verification work.
The recent earthquakes near the Bushehr nuclear plant in Iran raise additional concerns for any agreement to control Iran’s nuclear program. Concerns that the US Senate might consider taking up in pending amendments containing strengthened sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program when it meets following the Thanksgiving recess. Notwithstanding, the Obama White House might raise with the UN Security Council the matter of Iran’s failure to sign the 1994 Nuclear Safety Agreement. The Middle East and the world don’t need to face the additional risk of a Chernobyl or Fukushima-type event arising from the Iran’s reckless pursuit of nuclear hegemony.
It is difficult to believe that President Barack Obama considers that the agreement between six countries and Iran on November 21, 2013 to limit temporarily some part of Iran's nuclear weapon and to allow Iran to continue enriching uranium up to 5% is a triumph for his view of diplomacy as the key factor for American foreign policy. He might be disillusioned by the events in Ukraine at the very same moment in November. They show that power politics and threats of imposing and increasing sanctions have proved to be more successful than discussions and negotiations with foreign leaders, desirable though these may be.
On November 21, 2013 Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych unexpectedly announced that he was postponing the signing of an association agreement, essentially a trade pact, with the European Union (EU) that was to take place at the EU summit meeting in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius on November 29. After five years of negotiation he claimed he had been forced to postpone the signing by economic necessity and the need to protect those "most vulnerable."
In fact, Russian President Vladimir Putin had exerted political and economic pressure on the Ukrainian president to do so. The Obama Administration should understand not only the significance of this particular event regarding Ukraine, but also must now assess Russian eagerness to control or maintain power over former members of the Soviet Union.
Putin's suggestion that there be trilateral talks on the future of Ukraine evokes ominous echoes of the infamous pact between Hitler and Stalin in 1939 to divide up Poland. The Ukrainian Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, acknowledged that Russia had "suggested" delaying signing the treaty and that instead negotiations should be conducted between Kiev, Moscow, and the EU. Putin had two years earlier already successfully pressured Yanukovych to shelve any plans to join NATO. He had threatened to target missiles against the country if it did so and if it accepted deployment of the U.S. missile defense shield.
For four years the EU has been trying to sign a free trade agreement with Ukraine, as well as one with other Eastern European countries. A compromise agreement would include EU concessions, reducing tariffs and facilitating travel without visas, while Ukraine in return would introduce democratic reforms. Equally important, the EU hoped this agreement would lead to limiting Russian control or influence over areas of Eastern Europe.
The EU had failed to achieve partnership with some of those countries in Eastern Europe. An arrangement with Belarus was halted after the election in 1994 of President Alexander Lukashenko who has since ruled in authoritarian fashion with insufficient respect for the rule of law. An association agreement with Armenia was to be signed in September 2013 but the country withdrew and decided to join the Russian Customs Union, a rival to the European Union. The EU looked for success with Ukraine which in fact had introduced a few reforms, though they were not fully implemented, in the legal system, in free trade, and by release of some political prisoners.
Another given reason for Yanukovych's decision to postpone the associationagreement was his refusal to agree to one of the EU's conditions that he release Yulia Tymoshenko from prison. The United States also has called for her unconditional release. She was Yanukovych's political rival whom he narrowly defeated in the presidential election in 2010, when she won 45.47% of the vote. In a politically motivated trial she had been sentenced in 2011 to 7 years imprisonment for alleged abuse of authority and embezzlement in signing gas contracts with Russia in 2009 while in office as prime minister, the first female to hold the office in Ukraine.
Tymoshenko was not allowed to go abroad for medical treatment. She has threatened to start an indefinite hunger strike in solidarity with the protestors, more than 100,000, in Kiev who had demonstrated against the Ukrainian president for his decision not to sign the trade deal, and who were injured by the use of tear gas against them by the police.
More important and the real explanation of Yanukovych's decision was not diplomacy but Russian pressure and inducements. The EU was outbid by Russia which offered Ukraine more in terms of subsidies, lower gas prices, debt forgiveness, and duty free imports than the EU had in offering loans. Ukraine is dependent on Russia for 60% of its natural gas, and Russia has stopped supplies on a number of occasions. Russia has had the advantage in offering more specific, concrete benefits than the EU which called for a more democratic and constitutional Ukraine.
For months Moscow has exerted pressure on Ukraine and warned it would impose punitive measures if a trade deal were signed. It deliberately delayed examining Ukrainian trucks importing goods into Russia, and stopped some imports, such as steel and chocolates, thus decreasing the volume of Ukrainian exports. Calculations suggest that these actions cost Ukraine about $15 billion in lost trade. Russia warned that losses would be much greater and that it would increase taxes on Ukrainian exports if the country joined the EU. Ukrainian trade with the EU is greater than with Russia, though Moscow is still the largest individual trading partner. Ukraine is still the main outlet, through its pipeline transit network for export of Russian gas. It has suffered twice during the last seven years from cuts of oil supplies from Russia for political reasons.
The energetic Putin flexes muscle politically as well as physically. Ukraine was under Russian control from the 1700s until 1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Many Russians view Ukraine as culturally part of their nation and logically within its sphere of influence. Putin wants Ukraine to join theCustoms Union led by Moscow, a Union that includes Belarus and Kazakhstan.
The significance of this episode of exercise of power by Moscow over Ukraine should not be lost on the White House. The American president need not take political lessons from the Russian president. Nevertheless, Obama's pledge to stretch out a hand diplomatically to America's enemies as well as to friends, though it may be an indication of politically correct moral righteousness and a self-congratulatory gesture, is not in itself the way to resolve the nuclear threat from Iran or the war in Syria. Nor is it likely to diminish the anti-Americanism of the belligerent Iranian regime. Avoiding war is essential, but so is the recognition of power, as exerted by Russia and increasingly by Islamic terrorism.
Michael Curtis is author of Jews, Antisemitism, and the Middle East.
“For all sad words from mouth or pen, the saddest of these are, what might have been” – Whittier
Thanksgiving was always the best of Yankee holidays; indeed, unlike most things we celebrate, a unique occasion, a special American institution. In its original incarnation, the last Thursday in November was set aside to thank God and our ancestors for the blessings and bounty that make America what it is.
Somehow the institution has become the enemy of the original idea.
The cynic sees Thanksgiving as just another paid holiday; but the optimist knows better. Thanksgiving is a starting gun, advent for a Christmas shopping orgy. “Black Friday,” is the spending riot that follows turkey Thursday, eclipsing the day before – and preventing acid reflux.
How much Americans consume between the end of November and the first of January is now both an annual economic metric and a cultural marker. Spending on turkey day is the jingle that stimulates Kris Kringle. More spending every year is good; less spending than last year - not so much.
If you like your shopping; you can keep your shopping - 24/7. Commerce never takes a holiday anymore.
Forget those tedious turkey dinners with riotous kids and obnoxious in-laws. Hit the mall before last call. Give thanks to Uncle Sugar for the day off and give thanks to the big boxes for giving us a place to go besides home, some place other than a hot kitchen and a noisy dining room on a weekday.
Speaking of government, let’s not forget to give thanks for that too. Withal, like consumption, more government does not necessarily make for happier campers.
Take the new healthcare circus. Watching Obamacare (nee Hillarycare) blow up on the launch pad might be a blessing too. It’s not just the prospects of a new regime; more significant is the possibility that implementation equals implosion. But for the moment, if you like the Affordable Care Act, you can keep it – and all those “navigators” that will help sign you up for new taxes.
While you’re in the queue, take comfort in knowing that Congress and staffs have special access to the exchanges and special subsides for their healthcare plans. Those between the ages of 18 and 64 might also send a tweet to individual representatives and wish them all the best in 2014.
And while the subject is politics, give thanks for another pair of breeding lawyers in the White House. The Clintons were a hard act to follow, but the Obamas are doing them proud. Hard to believe that Barak Hussein could out fudge William Jefferson. Facts don’t lie; but lawyers can factor by God.
When the subject is mendacity, the Clintons and Obamas are mirror images. Bill lied to a grand jury and Barak sold snake oil to tomorrow’s patients. One was diddling the help and the other was screwing the Hippocratic Oath. Deficits of candor and surpluses of pander make for a thoroughly modern commander.
If you like your politicians; you can keep your politicians! Hillary and Howard Taft are waiting in the wings. Yes, Hillary - hands down favorite to give Bill another chance with the interns on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Taft and constituent
Did we say Howard Taft? No, no; Taft was another Republican where girth might have been a measure of worth. It’s Jersey not Ohio that we’re thinking of. Chris Christie is likely to be Hillary’s opposite number a few years hence.
Before the Jersey shore comes south, Christie may have to squeeze past the titular head of the Republican Party, John Boehner. You might recall that Boehner is another Ohio guy who starts to weep every time someone shouts, “mister speaker!” Never mind, give thanks anyway for a polity that is about to cough up the most entertaining political dog fight of the new millennium.
So let’s raise a glass to the loyal opposition too, Boehner’s Republicans. Party tenure is the political stream that keeps deadwood afloat. Politicians and academics are alike in that regard. If either stays around long enough, they get promoted to their level of incompetence. The Speaker of the House does have one thing going for him. He’s not a lawyer.
And while the eggnog lasts, let’s give thanks for shysters too. Indeed, the legal profession is our 21st Century oligarchy, clever authors of the invisible coup - and the seamier side of democracy. Nearly every ambulance chaser dabbles in politics now. All three branches of government are dominated by the legal profession. When it comes to public office; cowboys, plowboys, and plumbers need not apply.
Seems only lawyers are fit to rule the modern social democracy. Ironically, when it comes to public approval, politicians and lawyers rank somewhere between cat scat and the curb. Not that this is an impediment. Surely the differences between Democrats and Republicans in America are obliterated by the standards of a common profession. We all have needs, we are all plaintiffs. Without lawyers how could we cope?
The purpose of social democracy after all is to insure that every citizen gets three hots, a cot, a laptop, condoms, a significant other, a Stairmaster, an allowance, health insurance - and daycare until mom and dad hit menopause. Ask not what you can do for yourself. Ask what your country can do for you. Happy 50th anniversary Jack!
Thanksgiving is like the Academy Awards, when you give thanks you need to make sure that you don’t forget anyone.
Alas, let’s not forget then to give thanks to the new Janissary on the E-Ring. Pentagon peacocks have come a long way in the last five years too: from helmets to hijabs,” from victory to “transition,” and from no-man-left-behind to “cover-your-behind.” “What does it matter?” says Mrs. Clinton on behalf of the JCS. Indeed!
The general officer corps (or corpse as the president might put it) is now on the cutting edge of social progress and fashion. Diversity is the best defense. Ambiguity is the best offense. Unisex puts the moxie in slogans like “An Army of One.”
And if you like silly hats on your head and fruit salad on your chest; you can keep them too, thank you. The Pentagon is not unlike T-Ball today. Win or lose, everybody gets a ribbon. Why reward performance or battle field victories when appearances will do?
So there you have it; a litany of thanks for another year in the world’s foremost social democracy. Happy holidays!
G. Murphy Donovan writes about the politics of national security.
Bonne nouvelle : des juges ont décidé de riposter à l’offensive islamiste observable dans les cités. La Cour d’appel de Paris, suivant les arguments du procureur général François Falletti, a confirmé ce mercredi, sous la présidence de Jacques Degrandi, le licenciement pour faute grave de Fatima Afif, qui avait été licenciée en 2008 de la crèche privée (mais subventionnée par l’Etat pour sa mission d’intérêt général) Baby-Loup, à Chanteloup-les-Vignes (Yvelines). Elle avait décidé un beau jour de porter le voile durant son travail, contrevenant à l’exigence de neutralité du règlement intérieur. Commentant cette décision, l’avocat de l’ancienne employée a fustigé "cette espèce de populisme qu’exprime" une partie de la haute magistrature, ce "courant des pensée qui se sent atteint dans ses racines par la montée du fait religieux". Les accusations d’islamophobie et de racisme devraient suivre, par ceux qui n’acceptent aucune critique sur les comportements publics que veulent imposer les fondamentalistes. Comme le rappelle le couplet d’une chanson qui accompagne la sortie, ce jour également, du film "La Marche", qui retrace la marche des Beurs de 1983 : "D’t’façons y’a pas plus ringard que le raciste/ Ces théoristes veulent faire taire l’islam / (…)". Le texte réclame aussi "un autodafé pour ces chiens de Charlie Hebdo", coupable d’avoir critiqué l’islamisme...
La fumisterie de l’Observatoire de la laïcité est mise au jour avec cette décision. Elle contredit la déclaration de son président, Jean-Louis Bianco, qui avait assuré, le 25 juin : "La France n’a pas de problème avec sa laïcité". En réalité, comme le rappelle la pédopsychiatre et psychanalyste Caroline Eliacheff, qui a enquêté sur Baby-Loup (1), le "lobby islamique" est particulièrement actif et rencontre peu de résistance, y compris dans ses intimidations et ses menaces. L’auteur raconte comment, après le licenciement de Fatima Afif, rien n’aura été épargné à Natalia Baleato, fondatrice de la crèche en 1991, et à son équipe : appels téléphoniques avec menaces de mort, voitures dégradées, insultes accompagnées de gestes d’égorgement. Tel père qualifie les professionnelles de "menteuses", "connasses", "racistes", "Françaises de merde". Commentaire de Caroline Eliacheff : "Les coups de boutoir de ceux qui veulent imposer à tous leur ordre social et la lâcheté, l’aveuglement voire le cynisme de ceux qui sont censés défendre les valeurs de la république auront eu raison de cet îlot héroïque de résistance". Le 31 décembre, en effet, Baby-Loup déménagera à Conflans-sainte-Honorine…
Ce sursaut de la justice réveillera-t-il les vigilances assoupies ? "Ce qui s’est passé à Chanteloup-les-Vignes est révélateur de la redoutable capacité de nuisance des discours fondamentalistes", écrit encore l’auteur, qui prend soin de rappeler que "défendre la neutralité dans les lieux d’accueil de la petite enfance n’est pas faire campagne contre l’islam mais contre les dérives se traduisant par une revendication agressive d’imposer un ordre différent". Alors que la gauche lance, à partir de ce soir, une série de manifestations, de marches et de galas contre le racisme et l’extrémisme de droite qui menaceraient la république, il reste à espérer que le "sursaut républicain" souhaité par Harlem Désir, le patron du PS, ne passe pas à côté, une fois de plus, du véritable danger que représente l’idéologie salafiste, ce totalitarisme toléré par les belles âmes. Il est, à vrai dire, peu probable de voir les socialistes en première ligne sur ce sujet de la laïcité, qu’ils ont abandonné au FN. En fin de matinée, le Collectif contre l’islamophobie en France (CCIF), à qui je dois d’avoir été mis en examen pour avoir critiqué une de ses opérations de propagande, a qualifié la décision de la Cour de "scandale judiciaire". L’offensive continue.
(1) Comment le voile est tombé sur la crèche, Albin Michel
(Reuters) - Islamic police in northern Nigeria's main city of Kano used an earth haulage truck on Thursday to destroy around 240,000 bottles of beer seized from supply vehicles and minority Christian shop owners.
Alcohol is banned under sharia (Islamic law) in Kano and several other mostly Muslim northern states, although it is consumed in some areas especially the Sabon Gari district housing mostly Christian ethnic Igbo traders from the southeast.
"We thank God that our command has successfully destroyed about 244,151 bottles of beer of different sorts. We hope (this) will help restore the tarnished image of Kano," said Sheikh Aminu Daurawa, head of the Hisbah uniformed Islamic squad at the site where the truck crushed the bottles at the city's edge.
"The sharia officials have crippled my business," alcohol shop owner Johnson Ikechukwu told Reuters. "I feel seriously cheated over the seizure and destruction of my beer."
Despite growing religious piety and the adoption of ever more zealous brands of Christianity and Islam, beer turnover in Nigeria is growing faster than its economy's 7 percent rate. The north is also increasing its consumption. The country is now the now the world's second biggest consumer of Guinness. The Nigerian specification of Guinness is a big seller in Dagenham.
Being a court reporter is not always as glamorous as it looks. Here PATRICK GRAFTON-GREEN (of South London newspaper the News Shopper) describes six farcical days in the Old Bailey press box featuring countless delays, arguments… and train journeys. He is trying to cover two murder trials, that of Lee Rigby and Kevin Ssali, a schoolboy aged 14 who unwisely teased older boys about a hat and was stabbed at a bus stop.
Nov 19 noon: After spending a morning in the News Shopper newsroom I am sent to the Old Bailey by my news editor to cover the Lee Rigby Woolwich murder case. The case is hugely anticipated: the media’s demand for access to the courtroom is so great that News Shopper have been allocated its own special ticket. Without such a ticket, no access to the courtroom.
Nov 19 2pm: The media scrum outside the courtroom is told the hearing has been delayed by half an hour. We've already been informed the session, which was supposed to see the trial start, will now be a mention hearing.
Nov 19 2.30pm: We are allowed inside. Barristers, clerks, court workers and the judge fill the courtroom. The defendants, Michael Adebowale and Michael Adebolajo, are led into the dock.
Nov 19 3.30pm: Due to circumstances which cannot be discussed in this blog for legal reasons, the start of the trial has been delayed until Thursday. We all go home.
Nov 22 noon: Back at the Old Bailey after briefly touching base at News Shopper first thing. This time for Lee Rigby. Again, just a mention hearing. It seems unclear from discussions between judge and barristers when the trial will start. Meanwhile conspiracy theorists on Twitter talk of a 'media blackout'. There are unfounded claims David Cameron has ordered the media not to report on the case.
The trial of the boys (aged 15 and 18) accused of murdering Kevin Ssali should resume on Monday; it was delayed by the sudden illness of a juror. The trial of Adebolajo and Adebowale should start tomorrow.
I suspect the authorities would like Regina v Adebolajo and Adebowale to take place unnoticed. But at this stage I know from experience how ponderous the process of getting any trial, much less a murder trial underway can be. The Ssali trial shows that delays are not confined to high profile incidents. That boy's family are also suffering anticipation and uncertainty as each day passes.
We know that jihadists are violent and are at war with our society.
But I never want to take for granted that three schoolboys squabbling over a woolly hat will result in a knife being pulled, and one of them dead.
A JURY panel has been selected for the trial of two men accused of murdering soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich. Tomorrow morning 12 people are due to be selected from the panel and sworn in, ahead of the trial's opening.
Today, potential jurors were asked a series of questions by Judge Nigel Sweeney to decide whether they should be ruled out of taking part in the trial.
He asked them: "Have you or any person with whom you have regular or close personal contact been in the vicinity of a terrorist incident?" They were also asked whether they, or people they had close contact with, were employed by the Armed Forces, police force, security services or Crown Prosecution Service.
And he asked if there was any reason arising from their religious or political beliefs which might prevent them reaching a true verdict in the case.
Finally, the judge told the panel they must try the defendants solely on evidence presented during the trial and warned them not to research the case themselves.
Tuesday night, November 26, 2013, an AIPAC sponsored briefing was presented at B’nai Israel Synagogue in Pensacola, Florida featuring local Congressman, US. Rep. Jeffrey Miller (R- 1st CD FL). Miller is chairman of the US House of Representatives Veterans Affairs Committee as well as a Member of the House Armed Services Committee. His Congressional District includes a number of major US Naval and Air Force reservations and commands with a significant number of active and retired military and veterans. Miller’s topic was the US-Israel Defense Relationship. Miller’s focus was on Iran’s threat to Israel and the US, the P5+1 interim agreement supposedly directed at stopping the clock on Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. That controversial agreement had just been announced over the prior weekend as the first such agreement in more than 10 years with the Islamic Regime in Tehran. Miller joked that perhaps when Reagan said “trust but verify”, he really meant don’t trust but verify. Miller had voted for new strengthened sanctions under Amendments to the Defense Appropriations Act (HR2414). In the US Senate a bi-partisan group of Senators have sponsored a parallel measure in pending Defense Appropriation bills.
Rabbi Jordan Gerson, spiritual leader of B’nai Israel synagogue in Pensacola had been contacted by AIPAC’s Florida Rabbinic Cabinet director Sam Kalmowicz as to whether he might be able to arrange the Miller talk. Miller was introduced by Gene Rosenbaum, a local businessman and member of the synagogue who has been active as an AIPAC supporter both locally and nationally. Miller’s talk coincided with the synagogue hosting the community annual Thanksgiving ecumenical service. In the audience were spiritual leaders from a reform temple, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist churches, as well as members of the synagogue. The following evening was the onset of the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, commemorating the liberation of ancient Judea by Jewish patriots, the Maccabees.
The historical coincidence between the two holidays was not lost on the large audience who attended Cong. Miller’s presentation. He drew attention to the Administration’s attempt to reign in the Iranian nuclear threat with its acceptance of the interim P5+1 agreement in Geneva endeavoring to stop the clock on development of Iran’s nuclear weapons. An existential threat directed at destroying the Jewish state labeled as a “Zionist enterprise” by the Supreme Ruler of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei. A week ago Khamenei had lectured about Iran’s pre-eminent right to nuclear enrichment to a group of paramilitary Basiji and Senior Revolutionary Guards at a Mosque dedicated to the memory of Ayatollah Khomenei, who lead the 1979 Revolution. Skepticism abounded that the real objectives of newly elected President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, a former nuclear negotiator who fooled the West in the period of 2003-2005. During his negotiations Iran secretly expanding nuclear enrichment development. He is now was pushing for a first steps agreement to lift punishing sanctions while preserving the right to continue uranium enrichment.
There were less than 164 centrifuges deployed in secret by Iran in 2003, now there are rumored to be more than 19,000 centrifuges. Moreover Iran was constructing a heavy water reactor at Arak whose only purpose would be to produce enough plutonium for fissile material to make at least two bombs a year starting in 2014.
Also speaking at the AIPAC briefing by Cong. Miller was Deputy AIPAC director for Florida, Josh Karsh endeavoring to push for bi-partisan support for new sanctions in the pending US Senate Defense Appropriations Amendments. Amendments supported by key Republican and Democrat Senators including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada disappointed at the P5+1 agreement. The Administration suggested that the adoption of new sanctions was premature and to let the next six month be used to negotiate a definitive agreement with Iran endeavoring to stopping its nuclear program. Israel’s PM Netanyahu had said the interim agreement was an historic mistake and what should be negotiated is the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear development infrastructure for enrichment and plutonium production. The Senate might consider new sanctions following the Thanksgiving recess in early December. That is if there is a political will to do so.
Miller in his remarks to the audience of fellow Pensacolians made it clear that he viewed the P5+1 agreement, and reports of Administration’s secret negotiations with Iran as a fantasy. He stood firmly in support of Israel, America’s ally, who he said was in the gunsight of the Iranian nuclear threat. An Iran governed by radical Twelver Shiite Islamists denying liberty to their own people whose ideology brims with hatred towards Jews and Christians seeking their destruction in an apocalyptic event. An Iran that has currently imprisoned two American citizens, one a former FBI agent and a Jew and the other a Christian pastor arrested when he was endeavoring to build an orphanage in Iran. A pastor was only briefly mentioned in negotiations by the US delegation in Geneva. This was an Iran whose charming new President had ordered several hundred executions in the first three months of his term in office. Miller acknowledged in questions from the audience that Americans supported a strong military in Israel that if necessary could undertake unilateral action against an Iranian nuclear existential threat. While he generally doesn’t favor foreign assistance, in Israel’s case as he told an audience questioner, he made an exception. Moreover in response to another audience question he acknowledged the important contributions that Israel has made to refinement of US military capabilities and intelligence.
This writer drew attention to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards allegedly building a missile base less than 2,000 miles away in Venezuela. North Korea has just announced that it may supply boosters for Iranian missiles capable of being launched here in the Western Hemisphere. Those missiles could be equipped with low yield nuclear warheads capable of producing a devastating Electronic Magnetic Pulse effect. David Kay, a former UN weapons inspector, has questioned how 250 IAEA inspectors could cover all of the monitoring in known, let alone unknown, locations for centrifuges and dilution of existing fissile stockpiles.
The sentiments in support of Israel expressed by Congressman Miller and members of the audience at B’nai Israel synagogue reflected enduring support in Northwest Florida for Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East that shares core Judeo Christian values. The audience rose to applaud Miller’s views. They then participated in an ecumenical Thanksgiving service on the cusp of Hanukkah celebrating freedom and liberty against tyranny.
Here is an article about those Chinese whose behavior and attitudes -- an extreme case of a world-wide phenomenon -- gave rise to the word "Tuhao."
These Chinese have their obvious analogues elsewhere.
It's not the workers of the world but, rather, the Tuhao of this world, who have already united, for they promote, protect, defend, the interests of, and make deals with, other members of the International Brotherhood of Tuhao.
An appeal court in France upheld on Wednesday the decision by a Paris nursery school to sack an assistant who refused to take off her veil at work. The decision comes as France's ban on wearing the full face veil in public goes before the European Court of Human Rights.
Fatima Afif, a nursery assistant was sacked in 2008 by the ‘Baby Loup’ creche for refusing to remove her Muslim headscarf at work. . . And on Wednesday the court of appeal in Paris delivered the verdict those supporters of secularism had been calling for when it upheld the original decision by the nursery.
The appeal court described Afif's refusal to take off the veil as an offence that constituted "gross misconduct" and therefore justified her sacking.
Michel Henry, a lawyer for Afif had previously argued that the crèche’s internal rules should be trumped by “the exercise of a fundamental freedom, the freedom of religion,” he was quoted as saying by French television TFI.
Wednesday's decision is the third setback for Afif after she had had her appeal against the dismissal rejected on two previous occasions.
In 2010 a labour relations board found that her sacking was justified by “blatant and repeated insubordination.”
An appeals court in 2011 agreed, stating that young children in the crèche “should not be confronted by ostentatious displays of religious affiliation.” However Wednesday's decision may not mark the end of the five year court battle as Afif has vowed to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights.
THe Baby Loup decision comes on the same day European judges hear the case of a 23-year-old French woman who claims the country's highly contentious ban on full-face veils violates her rights. The Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) will hear arguments in the case brought by a plaintiff known only by her initials SAS, with a ruling expected in early 2014.
In written arguments presented to the court, the plaintiff says she is a "devout Muslim and she wears the burqa and niqab in accordance with her religious faith, culture and personal convictions."
It claims the ban violates her rights to freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and a prohibition against discrimination.
After the violences in Trappes Interior Minister Manuel Valls was forced to defend France's ban on the wearing of the full face veil in public. "The law banning the full-face veil is a law for women... It is not for a second a law against Islam," Manuel Valls told RTL radio. "It is a law against practices that have nothing to do with our traditions and our values, and the police did their work perfectly well."
European judges are set to deliver their verdict in spring next year.
A small item in a recent edition of the British Medical Journal unintentionally revealed the state of modern England.
When MP's asked the Chief Executive of NHS England, Sir David Nicholson, how many managers had been made redundant and then rehired as a result of the latest reorganisation of the NHS, he replied:
In terms of on NHS England, as far as we know - and we employ over 5000 people - no one has been rehired after taking a redundancy package by NHS England.
He admitted, however, that no one would know exactly how many people had been made redundant and then rehired somewhere in the NHS as a result of the reorganisation,
‘CCGs [clinical commissioning groups*] do not collect that information in the same kind of way. I don't have that information.'
In fact he doesn't have it approximately, let alone exactly, because no one has an interest in knowing it; everyone, rather, has an interest in not knowing it.
Everyone who has worked in the NHS is familiar with redundancy payments to managers as a prelude to their promotion elsewhere in the service, irrespective of whether or not a reorganisation is taking place. (Reorganisations are necessary before the failure of the last reorganisation becomes incontrovertible.) Ever since Mrs Thatcher introduced general management into the NHS, it has been inexhaustible well for bureaucratic looting and self-enrichment.
Asked to comment on the remarks of Sir Bruce Keogh, Medical Director of the NHS in England, that 'some' of the highest paid bureaucrats in the NHS deserved their salaries, with the obvious implication that many or most did not, Sir David said:
We are talking about some of the biggest and most significant transformational change that the NHS has ever seen and we do need really good, top drawer people to lead that. If we constantly denigrate and criticise them, it's hardly surprising that they respond to that.
Would a man with both a clear mind and a clear conscience use such language, which is both defensive and imprecise? Would a man with nothing to hide say, 'There was a system set up by government (not by me)…' Are we not entitled to expect that the highly-paid chief executive of an organisation employing so many people at such great public expense should be able at the least to speak clearly, concisely and to the point?
Alas for England, le style est l'homme meme. One might go further: the style is the country itself.
Despite its obvious weaknesses, and undaunted by the usual hyperbole of the Obama administration and its bearers, beaters, and apologists, led by John (“unbelievably small”) Kerry, I think the Geneva agreement over the Iranian nuclear program is progress. Habitual readers will recall that I had effectively given up on this administration doing anything except, to conflate phrases of FDR and Mao Tse-tung, “stand idly by with folded arms” while the ayatollahs seeded the topography of Iran with launchers loaded with nuclear-tipped missiles. Of course, this would have led to similar arms in the hands of the Saudis, Egyptians, and Turks, which, with Iran, Pakistan, and Israel, would have made the Middle East a dense forest of nuclear missiles aimed heavenwards on their launchers, but angled at each other. At that point, a nuclear exchange would be practically inevitable, even if it were initiated by one of the Muslim countries in the region tacitly allowing a terrorist group to deliver a suitcase bomb in a container ship and then unctuously claiming not to have known anything about it (much as Mullah Omar, then the ruler of Afghanistan, did after the 9/11 attacks). The failed state is the refuge of the enemies of civilized, or even just powerful, countries, as it affords the world’s most odious people the excuse of claiming no direct responsibility for the outrages launched from such places, e.g., terrorism in Sudan or piracy in Somalia.
While the Geneva agreement relaxes sanctions, especially on petroleum and petrochemical products and precious metals, and will bring a gush of hard currency that the Iranian theocracy may be assumed likely to use mischievously (i.e., for criminal purposes), that freshet of economic stimulus will be addictive to many Iranians who are not enjoying their present threadbare economic condition, which is not entirely palliated by the knowledge that those who claim charge of their immortal Islamic souls are close to being able to trigger mutual nuclear incineration with designated impious regimes.
Public opinion doesn’t count for much in Iran, as the brazenly fraudulent re-election of the unlamented lunatic Ahmadinejad showed. But it may have some weight in this case, especially since those who will profit most from the relaxation of sanctions are always with such states the biggest crooks, as well as being those who are, by virtue of their prosperity, the closest to, or highest in, government. It is conceivable that it will prove the best of both worlds for the well-swaddled Frankenstein Monster in Tehran: It enables Iran to re-enter the world in commercial terms, while retaining the ability to keep the world at the edge of its chair with an early capacity to finish nuclear weapons. And Tehran can claim to have prevailed upon the Great Powers (such as they now are) to climb down and relax their sanctions.
The fact that China, Russia, and the three leading countries of the EU are all involved strikes down the ability of the more venal of the important countries to claim that this deal was exclusively American in origin, and somehow justifies the use of “smart sanctions” instead of the actually enacted sanctions. (“Smart sanctions” was the French euphemism, prior to the Iraq War, for France’s making rich deals with Saddam while claiming to be keeping its sanctions end up). If the ayatollahs slap all of them in the face and begin enriching uranium again, or pursuing a plutonium bomb, all six of the countries will be affronted; it won’t merely be a case of the Iranians’ thumbing their nose at Washington and rejoicing in the popular intercontinental sport of slapping Obama, Kerry, and Susan Rice around.
While the agreement is for six months, the momentum to continue it will be considerable. A new imposition of sanctions would be more solid and collegial than before, given that the Chinese and Russians had not really joined in the sanctions that are now being relaxed. And the fact that France rejected the earlier draft agreement as just Obamaist flimflam and thinly disguised surrender to Tehran augurs well that it will be quite robust if Iran backslides. France led the world into Libya and prevented unimaginable horrors in Mali. The French have their failings, but if they determine either that something is in their interest or that it really would be inexcusable for moral reasons not to do it and it can actually be done without excessive risk — as in bombing Qaddafi or subduing the Malian terrorists with a small contingent of Legionnaires, Poles and Germans as most of them are — they will not be distracted with Anglo-Saxon humbug about the legal niceties.
Lest anyone has overlooked it, this agreement has not caused any retreat by Iran, only a slowdown in the march to a nuclear military capacity, and that only briefly. Superficially, it is a little like the worthless land-for-peace deals Israel made with the Palestinians: a permanent and irretrievable cession of territory Israel had conquered in wars the Arabs started and lost, in exchange for very temporary ceasefires that were not really observed at all. Iran retains its 7,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium and its 19,000 installed first-level centrifuges, as well as the smaller number of second-level centrifuges. Low-enriched uranium is 70 percent of the way toward military levels of quality. It is estimated that Iran could make a nuclear warhead from what it now has in as little as six weeks.
Secretary Kerry has misled the world with his claims that Iran has pledged to “destroy” its stock of 90 percent military-enriched uranium. The agreement requires Iran to convert half of this stock to oxide and dilute the other half to only a quarter of its present level of enrichment. These are concessions, if their performance can be verified, but both processes are reversible and this is far from the destruction that has been crowed about by Mr. Kerry.
The Geneva agreement does not deal at all with the heavy-water facility at Arak, which the Iranians can complete as soon as the six-month agreement ends. Nor is there anything like the level of inspection that the International Atomic Energy Agency says is necessary to ensure complete knowledge of the extent of the Iranian nuclear program and of that country’s possession of relevant materials. The IAEA has said that it “will not be in a position to provide credible assurance” about the extent of the Iranian program at present and forecasted levels of Iranian compliance and cooperation. It may be just as true that Iran believes there will be no will to do anything if it resumes development after six months, as that the six other signatories of the deal will enforce continuance of restraint.
This is, as has been emphasized by critics of the agreement, a pretty thin compliance with five United Nations Security Council (supposedly binding and ostensibly legitimate) resolutions requiring a verifiable end to the Iranian program of uranium enrichment. The Geneva settlement envisions a final agreement that will approve a “mutually defined enrichment program.” It is still a long way from the toothless and inconsequential sanctions of the League of Nations against Japan after its invasion of China in the Thirties, and the failure to lift a finger against the completely unprovoked and barbarous invasion of Ethiopia by Mussolini in 1935.
Critics are right to be concerned that this agreement is far from a discouragement of other countries tempted to develop nuclear weapons. But that is a complicated matter, because the international community has been almost mute as the nuclear club has expanded from the United States to embrace seven other countries (excluding the former white-supremacist regime in South Africa, whose nuclear capacity was dismantled when the apartheid regime gave way to the present multiracial system). This included indulgence of China, despite Mao Tse-tung’sbellicosities about surviving a nuclear war in which hundreds of Chinese would be killed, and the vagaries of Pakistan, where, conceivably, Islamist radicals could seize the nuclear arsenal. The problem is the propensity for the Iranians to advocate the liquidation of Israel, and to take the gloves off with Sunni Muslims.
It is, in sum, an asymmetrical agreement, but it gets us six months closer to the election of a more purposeful administration in Washington; creates a united front with the former roosters in the manger of collective security, China and Russia; and could conceivably be an unembarrassing avenue toward less dangerous and irresponsible behavior by the odious government in Tehran. On balance and in all of the circumstances, I would happily give the president and his secretary of state a barely passing grade this time, an electrifying improvement over the horrifying shambles of their responses to events in Syria and Egypt.
In the middle of the night, I had a minor epiphany. It was an exchange of IMs via Skype with a friend and fighter for truth about doctrinal Islam, Viennese human rights and NGO leader, Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff. She had just been informed by her counsel that her final appeal of decisions by municipal and state appellate courts for her 2011 conviction on hate speech charges would be heard by the AustrianSupreme Court on December 11, 2013. What raced through my mind might there be justice yet in mittel Europa? ·Perhaps I ruminated there could be a rollback of Shariah blasphemy codes in Europe?
The Virtual Caliphate of the 57 Member Organization of Islamic Cooperation encouraged adoption of these codes. The human rights rulings of the 56 member Organization for Security Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is composed of a broad swath of countries from Europe, Central Asia and North America with co-operating partners from many OIC members in the Middle East, Asia and Oceania. The OSCE Secretariat is conveniently located in Wolf's hometown in the Vienna Hofburg, the Seat of the former Austrian Hungarian Empire. However as a leader in free speech advocacy NGOs like the Burgerbewegunga Pax Europa (Citizen movement Pax Europa) and the International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA} she and other colleagues have contested the adoption of Shariah compliant Blasphemy code s ) in proceedings of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODHIR) headquartered in Warsaw, Poland.
Wolff is one of the remarkable people in Europe contesting the imposition of Blasphemy Codes restricting her right and hundreds of millions of Europeans to criticize doctrinal Islam, a right guaranteed here in America under our First Amendment. Unfortunately, a Constitutional right seemingly imperiled these days by Muslim advocacy and allied Civil liberties groups seeking to impose the false rubric of hate speech h. Wolf, as a young daughter of an Austrian diplomat and consular official in Chicago learned about those US Constitutional protections of Free Speech and the inalienable right to criticize a religion. .Something that these days most American school districts refrain from teaching in basic Core Curricula because of politically correct multiculturalism. As a mother of a young daughter in Vienna. she sought in public lectures to discuss the de facto praise of pedophilia by Mohammed. He is the exemplar in Islamic Qur'anic doctrine, who in his 50's consummated a marriage with his nine year old child bride, Aisha.
The subject of an expose by a leftist weekly in Vienna, Wolff was brought to trial in a mincipal court charged with violating hate speech and convicted under Austrian laws for criticizing a recognized religion.
We chronicled this in our interview with her in our collection, The West Speaks, published by the New English Review press. She has spoken of her experience in forums across the US.
Here is what she relayed of today's developments regarding her case in the Austrian courts:
Dear friends, I have excellent news for you.
I have been informed that the Supreme Court will be hearing my case on Dec. 11h at 10 am.
Her lawyer told her this is to seen as a very positive sign as the court could have and would have thrown out the case in written form.
So, we may assume that the case will not be thrown out. This leaves us with the following two possibilities:
I will be acquitted, or ;
The case goes back to the lower courts.
The main question to be discussed is the merit/of what I said. Does freedom of speech trump religious teachings?
Another positive sign; some of you may recall that my counsel had repeatedly endeavored to have the case tried in the media court. All motions were denied.
However, the gods are on our sides as by chance my case was allotted to the so-called media Senate.
It is very uncommon for the Supreme Court to deliberate as long as it did on my case (more than 11/2 years).
A source familiar with the case thinks the court may want to avoid a conviction by the European Court for Human Rights.
Wolff's comment in our Skype IM exchange was:
What is happening now is not the final decision, ast we appealed for an exceptional legal redress.
By scheduling the hearing, the court appears to have decided that this case needs more discussion.
If justice is borne out in this upcoming proceeding of the Austrian Supreme Court for Wolf that would be a remarkable precedent in the EU. It would add to the acquittals in the Amsterdam District Court decision in the 2011 trial of the Hon. Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party (PVV). It is also reflective of the April 2012 ambiguous decision of the Danish Supreme Court that denied truth as a defense while overturning a lower court conviction of Lars Hedegaard, executive editor of Dispatch International in Copenhagen. We wish Wolff the best result in the Austrian Supreme Court case. She and her daughter are anxiously awaiting the safe return home of her husband, a senior Austrian Army officer currently serving with the EU Training Mission in Mali.