Militant Islam Suborns European Judges Prosecutors and Legislators

This corruption and overthrow of the EU Judicial System, and EU Legislative Bodies in the EU has occured within 5, FIVE short years. We have an article entitled "Lawfare" as well as others speaking to Muslims using laws, and regulations in the EU against the EU and member nations as a means of overthrowing the EU judicial system.

We remind our readers that this same thing is afoot in the US

Selective suppression of free speech that condemns militant “Islam” allows few other explanations
January 16 2010
by Bill Levinson

Let me tell you, Cassius, you yourself
Are much condemn’d to have an itching palm
To sell and mart your offices for gold
To undeservers
–Julius Caesar

Free Speech Has Died in Europe reports that Denmark recently prosecuted two men for criticism of certain aspects of militant “Islam” including so-called honor killings of women. We cite this as one of many examples of selective suppression of free speech as opposed to evidence of misconduct or other misdeeds of which we will accuse no specific individual without proof. It is however reasonable to believe that a small handful of European prosecutors who bring such cases, judges who admit these cases into court, and legislators who create the laws that allow these 21st century witch trials, have sold their offices to militant “Islam” for Arab oil money or other forms of enrichment.

MP Jesper Langballe: I Confess provides additional details:

On December 3, 2010 the municipal court in Randers, Denmark found the Danish Member of Parliament Jesper Langballe (Danish People’s Party) guilty of hate speech under Article 266b of the Danish penal code. In accordance with Danish legal precedent he was denied the opportunity to prove his allegation that honour killings and sexual abuse take place in Muslim families.

Under Danish jurisprudence it is immaterial whether a statement is true or untrue. All that is needed for a conviction is that somebody feels offended.

We have by the way forwarded this link to Freedom House with the suggestion that it reconsider Denmark’s “1″ rating for civil liberties. There was a time when one could be punished for speaking (in the wrong place) the truth about Nazism (which is what happened to the White Rose Society), Communism or, in the Middle Ages, the behavior of the Catholic Church. Perhaps Denmark, whose people once put on yellow stars to help conceal their Jewish neighbors from Nazis, should simply replace its flag with a swastika.

In any event, why would Danish legislators introduce and enact a law that makes it illegal to speak the truth, and why would members of the Danish judiciary enforce such a law? Furthermore, why are these laws not enforced against militant “Muslims” who engage not only in hate speech but violent threats? Note at 2:20 that a jihadist expresses a wish that Denmark be bombed so he can invade it and take Danish women as war booty, and at 4:15 they yell, “Bomb, bomb Denmark.” This violent hate speech is apparently acceptable to Denmark’s legislature and judiciary, but speaking the truth about this behavior is not. Only three possible explanations come to mind:

(1) Judicial and prosecutorial substitution of extremist ideology for rule of law and common sense
(2) Judicial and prosecutorial incompetence
(3) Subornation of judges, prosecutors, or legislators by the militant “Muslims” who claim to be offended; how else could it be made illegal to speak the truth? There is no doubt that the German-American Bund would have been delighted to bribe Members of Congress to make criticism of Nazism similarly illegal, and furthermore that Nazi Germany actually did so. That was why Hans and Sophie Scholl were executed, along with several other members of the White Rose Society.

Denmark is far from the only country that has enforced so-called hate speech laws against those who speak out against the excesses of militant “Islam;” the Netherlands prosecuted Geert Wilders, and the same country denied Hirsi Ali protection against violent threats from Islamic supremacists.

On April 27 a Dutch judge ruled that Hirsi Ali had to abandon her highly secure house at a secret address in the Netherlands: her neighbors had complained that living next to her was an unacceptable security risk to them, although the police had testified in court that it was one of the safest places in the country due to the large number of personnel they had assigned there.

This is what is now going on in France:

Jean Marie Le Pen, runner-up in the 2002 presidential election, was convicted of inciting racial hatred for comments made to Le Monde in 2003 about the consequences of Muslim immigration in France. And in 2008, actress Brigitte Bardot was haled into court and convicted on charges of inciting racial hatred for her criticism concerning the ritual slaughter of sheep during a Muslim feast. Bardot was ordered to pay €15,000, the fifth time she was fined for inciting racial hatred against Muslims since 1997.

The consequences of Muslim immigration in France include the murder by torture of a Jewish man, with an apartment building full of Muslim immigrants either giving their passive approval by not reporting the crime or even participating actively. The consequences of Muslim immigration in France also include overturned and burning cars, riots in the streets, and French infidels living in fear for their lives for the first time since Charles Martel turned back the hordes at the Battle of Tours. The same reference adds that a pair of British hotel operators were charged with a crime for calling Mohammad a warlord, which is again a factual statement.

Whenever a judge, prosecutor, or legislator begins to do things that defy rational explanation, we need to take a close and hard look at the potential reasons. As an example, the Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader reported a few years ago that Judge Mark Ciavarella was convicting juvenile defendants and sending them to juvenile detention facilities for minor offenses, and also that he had discouraged them from bringing lawyers. We thought this was unusual, local legislators thought it was unusual, and the public as a whole thought it was unusual. The problem was that nobody did anything; everybody assumed that if the juveniles had been wronged, they or their parents would have said something to the state’s judicial conduct board. It was also assumed that local defense attorneys who were aware of the same information would have at least reported this irregular conduct. In retrospect, the public made a serious mistake by assuming that somebody was supervising this judge and his colleague Michael Conahan.

WILKES-BARRE, Pa. — For years, the juvenile court system in Wilkes-Barre operated like a conveyor belt: Youngsters were brought before judges without a lawyer, given hearings that lasted only a minute or two, and then sent off to juvenile prison for months for minor offenses. …In one of the most shocking cases of courtroom graft on record, two Pennsylvania judges have been charged with taking millions of dollars in kickbacks to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers.

There we have the alleged (Ciavarella has yet to be convicted) explanation for this judge’s highly irregular actions–behavior every bit as unusual as that of European prosecutors who bring criminal charges against those who criticize militant “Islam” and European judges who even let these cases into court, much less rule favorably on them.