Ground Breaking: 'Germany's Legal System Prohibits Criticism of Islam', Violators Face Jail Time (Video)

Michael Stuerzenberger is one of the most courageous men in Europe today. But unfortunately, he also may be one of the most prosecuted political dissidents in 21st-century Germany. Stuerzenberger has been taken to court for “hate speech” on multiple occasions in Germany and Austria. However, his most recent conviction for criticizing political Islam at one of his weekly rallies might land him in prison for seven months if he loses his appeal.

Despite his presentations at his rallies being entirely fact-based, the young German Judge in his case wasn’t interested in the facts. She said that his words, even if factually accurate, were “partially criticizing all Muslims and causing them negative emotional stress” and therefore punishable under the law. Her decision, in effect, introduces Sharia as part of the German legal code. If the verdict is upheld, anyone who criticizes political Islam in the future will face severe punishment, which could mean an end to any criticism of the “religion of peace.”

Michael Stürzenberger

Stürzenberger reacts to the courts latest ruling:

One can briefly summarize the events on Tuesday in the district court of Augsburg: young Judge, young public prosecutor. Facts on Political Islam – ignored. Facts in terms of the impact on reality – are meaningless. The differentiation between Muslims – is unimportant. Criticism of political Islam and its consequences – hate speech. Why? Because this will stir up “hatred” against some Muslims.

It would trigger “negative emotions” if I reported on terrorist attacks, murders, acts of violence, stabbings, and rapes and blamed the ideology of political Islam as one of the causes of these crimes. In the young judge’s and prosecutor’s judgment, these “negative emotions” towards the Muslims, who adhere to political Islam and would thus be associated with these crimes, obviously outweigh the suffering of tens of thousands of people in our country who are severely affected by these crimes.

The emotions of the women affected by 700 gang rape each year, disproportionately inflicted with massive damage by Muslims from fundamentally Islamic countries, obviously seem to carry less weight.

The desperation of a young Ukrainian who fled from the horrors of war is raped by a Tunisian and a Nigerian in the supposedly safe Düsseldorf and then flees from Germany to Poland, which is far safer in this respect, seems relatively insignificant to the court.

Incidentally, Afghans are 20 times overrepresented in gang rape statistics in relation to their share of society. No wonder, in Afghanistan, a country with 99% support for Sharia, in which political Islam took over power at lightning speed via the Taliban, the German government was entirely by surprise.

Syrians and Iraqis are also statistically disproportionately represented in this gang rape crime. But of course, from the German Judge’s perspective, none of this has anything to do with the ideology of political Islam that oppresses women and despises people of other faiths. Neither does the fact that scantily clad women are blamed for rapes by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, the head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, one of the top Islamic scholars in Europe. Also, by the highest Mufti in Australia. And in quite a few fundamentally Islamic countries, women who have been raped end up in prison as sharia law maintains that if a woman is raped, she caused the rapist to carry out the assualt due to her own behavior. They believe she is guilty of the incitement, and also adultery for having had sex out of wedlock. Even German officials and Imams of Political Islam blamed women for being raped on New Year’s Eve in 2015/16.

The Judge wants to ignore that political Islam caused forty terrorist attacks in Europe between 2015 and 2019 alone, killing 393 people and injuring 1216 – obviously less significant than the “stirring up of emotions” against adherents of political Islam.

Perhaps it would have sharpened the judgment of this Judge if the 23 major terrorist attacks by political Islam in Germany from 2000-to 2020 had not been prevented but had taken place so that one’s own tunnel vision opened up to what is really essential. Twenty thousand knife attacks per year, 17.4 percent of them committed by “refugees” and 39.6 percent by non-Germans, are probably not enough.

In Russia, you can no longer call a war a war; otherwise, you end up in prison for 15 years. In Germany, one can no longer say that the provisions of political Islam are also partly responsible for terror, violence, contempt for women up to and including rape, hatred of Jews, and contempt for homosexuals. The victims, who will continue to be left behind by denying the causes, have had bad luck. Regrettable individual cases. It has nothing to do with anything.

In Germany, however, the chairman of an Islamic association is allowed to publish a pamphlet that calls for killing every Muslim who does not observe the fast in Ramadan because he is an apostate from Islam. This is not classified as hate speech because “fundamentalist or extremist religious beliefs and confessional writings” are covered by freedom of religion in the Basic Law. This protection encompasses all of scripture, including the passages calling for killing. The death penalty for religious crimes is by no means alien to religions, “not even to Judaism and Christianity.”

Don’t you believe it? Read here – the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart from May 19th, 2011, which did not evaluate this clear call to kill clearly as hate speech.

In Germany, a Muslim can spread writings about the killing of apostates. Still, a non-Muslim German is not allowed to warn against the killing orders against people of other faiths through the political Islam ideology. This currently very confused country has obviously not been shaken up badly enough by the terror of political Islam. A lot more has to happen before the left-green mentally blocked people who unfortunately still dominate politics, the media, and the judiciary wake up.

Interview

Popular German vlogger and activist, Oliver Flesch, who lives on the island of Majorca interviewed Stürzenberger about his recent conviction. Watch the following video translated by RAIR Foundation USA:

Video Transcript

Oliver Flesch: 

I’m very pleased to have him with us once again, the German pioneer of Islam criticism.

Good day Michael Stürzenberger. 


Michael Stürzenberger:

Hello Ollie, greetings.


Oliver Flesch:

Michael, what’s going on in the courtroom, there in Augsburg? 


Michael Stürzenberger

Yes, well, it is the first case, worldwide, on political Islam.


An absolute novelty. 


Oliver Flesch:

Could you give a short explanation, political Islam, how is that defined?


Michael Stürzenberger:

It has nothing more to do with religion. It stands apart from the purely spiritual aspect, the religious part.



It is just a political ideology. 


Oliver Flesch:

So tell me what happened. What’s going on there?



Michael Stürzenberger:

So the judge, Theresa Freutsmiedl did not see it this way.


In her view, with my criticism of political Islam, I’m partially criticizing all Muslims and causing them negative emotional stress, especially when I mention or refer to acts of violence or terror attacks, which would qualify as incitement to hatred according to paragraph 130.


Meaning I’m stirring up hate against this group and disturbing the peace. For that, brace yourself Ollie, I received a sentence of 7 months confinement on probation.


You have to imagine, in particularly the rally that I held in Augsburg, which was really exemplary.


Where I made the differentiation so often, so much so that the peaceful Muslims didn’t even care about it, those who have nothing to do with political Islam, you know, the card-carrying Muslims.


The Muslims who live in Germany, work here, don’t draw attention to themselves and don’t present any problem. I’ve certainly presented this in detail over half a dozen times.


Yes, I’ve been there myself. I know exactly. I’ve also seen your videos on YouTube. I know how you always differentiate exactly. 

That didn’t interest this judge.


The judge said the entire differentiation was completely irrelevant.

The moment I criticized political Islam, I partially criticized all Muslims.

Incitement of hatred. Period. There’s never been such a ruling and it shows how completely new standards are simply invented.

Completely arbitrary. And for that you’re sentenced.

All those I criticize are criminals. They’re the ones who carry out terrorist attacks, who commit violent attacks, from knife attacks to rapes.

Those rapes arises from the contemptuous view political Islam has of women, especially towards non-believing unveiled women. It’s all, all of it is logically explainable.


So this judge, she didn’t want to hear it any of it. With this ruling, Ollie, these criminals are now indirectly protected by the judiciary. You’re no longer permitted to criticize them because it is a hate crime. 


Oliver Flesch:

—Where is this going to lead us? Do you think that criticism of Islam will no longer be possible in the foreseeable future? 



Michael Stürzenberger:

If we continue down this path, then the next step will be that you may no longer mentioned the “I” word within a critical context.


Meaning, we would then have Sharia Law already integrated into our legal system.


The legal system prohibits the criticism of Islam, and it’s over with criticism.


You’ll only be able say critical things using irony, like Tim Kellner does.

Create a character like his “Love Priest” or some other character.

It is similar to what occurred during the DDR. They spoke in code.

Well, it’s an unfortunate development. However, it isn’t yet legally binding.

We are appealing, and I hope during the appeal hearing at the district court level - where the judge is accompanied by two assessors, judges drawn from the population — that common sense will prevail and, above all, that the facts will be acknowledged.

This judge completely ignored the facts.

Now here’s the really interesting part. We’ve now discovered that this particular judge, while studying in Augsburg, worked at the Law Clinic in Augsburg.


So this is an organization that advises, among others, rejected asylum seekers.

It provides free advice. So these are asylum seekers who have legally lost their asylum status and have been ordered to leave the country. They’re supposed to be deported.


So, Theresa Freutsmiedl gave them voluntary legal advice on what kind of legal action to pursue in order to proceed against this rejection of asylum and deportation.


Such voluntary work probably requires her to have an inner conviction that all of them must be protected and that they all should stay here. When someone like me comes along, who criticises some these asylum seekers being Muslims and who feel at home with political Islam, It’s completely clear that in her court, I have no chance. That’s exactly how she acted.


She didn’t accept anything. She rejected applications for submitting evidence.


She wouldn’t even allow me to explain how differentiate or to explain that what I do is the absolute opposite of inciting hate. I’m nice, peaceful and courteous when dealing with Muslims who are present. I even speak to younger Muslims. There were Muslims with non-believer friends. I said to them, “That’s great that you’re friends!”

That’s what we would like to see — a commingling.

Muslim girls being permitted to marry non-Muslim young men.

That’s forbidden in political Islam, just like friendships are between Muslims and non-Muslims.

I tried to explain to young Muslim women about the oppressive elements for women in political Islam.

I calmly explained these things to them, trying to awaken their understanding.

Even though I spoke to them angelically, Ollie, I’m being accused of inciting hate.

How did the prosecutor put it? “Increasing hatred against the Muslim population and thus disturbing the public peace.”


Oliver Flesch:

 —You can’t or shouldn’t discuss it now, but please give us an indication of what the allegation was about.



Michael Stürzenberger:

—That we talk about political Islam.

That it must rule. I then explained how this principle of domination is then enforced, and of course it’s only when there’s a Muslim majority in a society.

At that point, political Islam will put pressure on all the officials, with all the organisations, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists, Milli Görus and all the others.

There are dozens of these organizations, all of which have the goal of achieving domination.

World domination. That’s an obligatory goal of political Islam.

It is my assumption that a Muslim majority will occur because, of course, Muslims have more children, which is statistically proven. It’s predicted that in 2050, if immigration continues, the present number will quadruple. We’ll have four times the number of Muslims in our country.

[Thilo] Sarrazin, who is a wonderful statistician, has already calculated in his book about the Quran and Islam, beginning in 2070 there will be a Muslim majority.

From that time on, the law of political Islam will apply and Muslims will be obliged to carry out the jihad to gain ruling control. These are laws of political Islam.

I have shown evidence of that and I have shown that on the way there, of course, radical Muslims of political Islam or followers of political Islam, will carry out terrorist attacks to intimidate people. That’s happening.

All the time. We know now that 23 major terrorist attacks have been prevented in Germany since the year 2000. We have 2000 political Islamists that are considered acute threats and classified by the constitutional protection agency as potential terrorists who could carry out attacks at any time.

Well, that’s a huge number —10,000 Salafists, and then there’s the unknown number of sleepers, who could strike at anytime, anywhere. So it’s basically an army of potential terrorists.

And look what I’m accused of, Ollie. It’s the same situation with violence.

We have 20,000 knife attacks every year. 20,000 knife attacks. The proportion of foreigners responsible for these attacks is about 40%.

It’s the same with rape. Yes, these foreigners are just the ones with, you know, the passport story.

So there’s enough like that, that weren’t even included. So it could be even higher.

The proportion of immigrants is already exorbitantly high.

Immigrants are all the asylum seekers, refugees, and they are 2% of the population. However, statistically, they’re disproportionately causing 17% of the knife attacks. Concerning rape, they’re even 20-fold overrepresented when it come to gang rapes.

So there’s a wealth of facts that we have to quantify and to define the problem.

However, Theresa Freutsmiedl, the judge in Augsburg, rejected all that and didn’t want to know at all.

But I’m a criminal because I criticize this subset of Muslims.

Can you believe it? 



Oliver Flesch:

It’s absolute madness.

Again, just for clarification, when the ruling becomes legally binding, you could go to prison for 7 months for any small thing you did wrong. However, I’m convinced, dear Michael, that won’t happen.

I have good reason to believe that you will win the appeal.

No normal person could let this stand. Michael. I thank you.

Thank you for the work that you’ve been doing for years on the road.

Whoever hasn’t seen Michael’s rallies yet, should take the time to do so.

I think you speak for six hours at a time, right? He tells exciting stories.

That’s one of the things that you do so well.

It’s never boring when you explain Islam.

Not just exciting Oliver, we also have discussions with the audience.

It’s always something different and always extremely exciting to watch. 

—When is the next rally?


Michael Stürzenberger:

Yes, it will be on the 16th of April. We have registered a rally in Munich at Max-Josefs-Platz.

That’s in front of the opera house. We’ve already had some exciting rallies there.

This will be a premiere after a nearly two-year break. Of course, we’ll have to see how we get back on track with the whole organization. Following that, we go to Herford on April 29. That’s a Friday.

Now Ditib [Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs] has organised muezzin calls there in Herford that sound every Friday. There’s also a heated debate about that, along with a court hearing now, and maybe Irfan Peci [ex-Al Qaeda Serb] will be there, too.

We spoke today and exchanged ideas. Irfan Peci would like to participate from time to time, if possible, which i think is great! Because Irfan Peci is really great.

He spoke last Tuesday at Pegida in Dresden. He gave a great speech, and made reference to our court case, declaring his solidarity for which I’m really grateful to him for. If we all stick together, then it will make it even harder for the justice system to break us. 



Oliver Flesch:

That’s a good segue, because from the 19th to the 23rd of May, you both are visiting us here on Majorca.


It going to be a lecture trip. Whoever is interested, please see the email address below.

Michael, thank you very much for this conversation.

I thank you as well, and I’m looking forward to visiting you, because it’s a beautiful environment, with great people, great speakers, great guests, and it’s always nice to be together in a circle of patriots. It really feels good.


Michael Stürzenberger:

You’re right.