Jihad the Political Third Rail, in Washington, DC, February 2010. I invited Gravers to speak.
In an incomprehensible turn of events, the confused Danish Cartoonist Kurt Westergaard has sued my friend and fellow freedom fighter Anders Gravers, Danish leader of SIOE (Stop Islamization of Europe), for the implied use of the image of his Muhammad cartoon during a street protest. He has sued and he has won.
Imagine, Muslims have repeatedly tried to kill Westergaard in cold blood, and he sues…. Gravers, a fighter for freedom and against jihad.
I had deep reservations about Kurt Westergaard when he threatened Geert Wilders for using the bomb-head Muhammad cartoon image in his historic film, FITNA. Wilders immediately removed the image because FITNA was hardly about that, and Westergaard's cartoon was easily replaced with another moe-bomb. 
Here's is what I wrote in March 2008:
I am enormously disappointed in cartoonist Westergaard. FITNA should not have to be re-edited to remove Westergaard's cartoon. Westergaard knows the Danish cartoons have become the icon of free speech in the battle to save our civilization. If his toon wasn't the best of a barely mediocre bunch, he would be like so much furniture, invisible.
I thought he was a stand-up guy. His threatened lawsuit against Wilders proves he's not.
When Geert Wilders first premiered In March 2008, Kurt Westergaard threatened Geert Wilders with a lawsuit, and Wilders would have none of that internecine warfare. Wilders pulled Westergard's now infamous cartoon and inserted one by the "Scarlet Pimpernel," whom I suspect is Wilders himself.
Then Westergaard hit a now low when he bowed and kowtowed to the political left. He went on now to sue the leader of the Stop the Islamization of Europe movement and my colleague and partner in the trans-Atlantic counter-jihad coalition (SIOA), Anders Gravers, for the implied use of the image of the cartoon during a street protest. Yes, Gravers did not even show the cartoon. Both the SIOE (Stop the Islamization of Europe) and SIAD (Stop Islamization of Denmark) are named in the suit.
Will I get sued for running Westergaard's toon? Will every blog and news site get sued for running what is now tantamount to "an act of war" — depiction of the Prophet Moe? Did Westergaard ever even claim copyright on this cartoon?
Why did Westergaard bitch and moan when Yale Press decided not to run his cartoon in a book about the Danish cartoon jihad crisis? He actually came to America and toured college campuses to speak out against this censorhip. Be consistent, man.
Putting this guy up as a hero was ………ill conceived — which was painfully apparent when he threatened to sue Wilders. Westergaard was always a reluctant "hero" — hardly an icon for the fight of our lives. And now this. We will have to start an Anders Gravers defense fund. *sigh*
Political Judgement SIOE
On 15th February 2008 SIOE held a demonstration in Aalborg to defend free speech in Denmark and the rest of Europe.
http://sioe.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/press-release/
http://sioe.wordpress.com/2008/02/23/international-sioe-demonstration-in-denmark/
This demonstration was also intended to show solidarity with the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard who was under police protection at the time due to death threats from Muslims across the world following the publication of his Mohammed turban-bomb cartoon.
This internationally famous cartoon may be seen all over the internet and has been seen in various places for various reasons, including demonstrations. It really became public property, morally speaking and is still an icon for free speech.
However, Kurt Westergaard took exception to SIOE using his cartoon, even when the demonstration concerned was in support of him and free speech in general. Therefore, SIOE was taken to court to prevent the use of the cartoon. The court case was a farce as the prosecution did not understand the difference between SIOE and SIAD, and this was made perfectly clear by SIOE representatives.
The court ruled that Kurt Westergaard’s Mohammed cartoon may not be used by SIOE and SID for any political purposes including demonstrations.
Although we considered that SIOE and SIAD and especially Anders Gravers were being unreasonably targeted by the Danish establishment and Kurt Westergaard, SIOE respected the court’s decision and revised its theme by also criticising Kurt Westergaard for, what SIOE considered, his own stopping of free speech.
Placards were made consisting of only a pair of eyes drawn on small pieces of card, with cloth pinned around them in the style of a burkha. This was to represent the “burkharisation of free speech”. A muzzle could have been used, but the demonstration was about how Islamisation is preventing free speech against Islam, so a burkha was the ideal representation.
The placards were shown to the police supervising the demonstration and permission was given to use them. At no time did SIOE intend to show contempt for the court ruling.
A photo was taken at the time and may be seen here http://sioe.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/demonstrations-in-denmark/
Ask yourself, does that placard Anders Gravers is showing to the police the Mohammed cartoon? The police didn’t think so, simply because it wasn’t the cartoon.None the less, Anders Gravers was sued by Kurt Westergaard for breach of copyright and after a lengthy, stressful period of waiting SIOE, SIAD and Anders Gravers personally were found guilty of abusing Kurt Westergaard’s miserable cartoon.
A large fine of 100,000 Danish crowns was imposed on SIOE and Anders Gravers was also fined heavily.
Sentencing was, among other things published on TV2Nord, d. 17.ds. kl.19: 30
Readers of this site have repeatedly been able to read about the case and how it developed development and thus have become aware of an unflattering side of Kurt Westergaard’s personality – not least in relation to the worldwide publication that his drawing has generated and the character’s own words “The drawing has a life of its own!“
The police decision on whether the posters showed Muhammad drawing or not was crucial for the implementation of the legally notified demonstration. Police approved the posters as “Muhammed free” since the posters showed only the Muslim headscarf. Witnesses heard the decision at the time.
The verdict is deeply dispiriting for the reason that it once again exposes the Danish judiciary as being well and truly sunk into the bilge of political correctness. It was proved that no breach of copyright ws made by the organisers of the demonstration..
The verdict confirms that Denmark is not only in a political emergency in terms of its safety, but also in a political emergency regarding its legal system. This verdict was a political decision and has no foundation in law. This what Denmark has come to, but she is not alone. Europe and indeed the West is seeing its hard fought impartial and independent jurisprudence succumb to politicisation.
It is now an uphill battle to pull our country clear of the swamp. Both the case and the fight are morally won. We will never surrender Denmark to her violent enemies.
On the question if he will accept the judgement Anders Gravers responded: ”This is a political judgement and the accuser didn’t listen to what Anders Gravers lawyer said: ‘That the copyright law can not be used to stop political statements.’ It has only one purpose according to EU law, to stop people from earning money from other people´s work. You can see that by looking at who Kurt Westergaard has gotten money from, only newspapers. There is no previous case in modern Danish history where copyright law was used to stop people´s political opinions or statements. Not even back to the 2nd world war.”
Therefore, Anders Gravers will not accept the judgement and will appeal it at once. “ Everybody used Kurt Westergaard´s drawing and he said himself that ‘it is living its own life’ and he has ‘no influence on his drawings life on the internet’ ”.
“Therefore, I can not accept the judgement” said Anders Gravers. He has been told pay 130.000 DK for ignoring the copyright of Kurt Westergaard
his internationally famous cartoon may be seen all over the internet and has been seen in various places for various reasons, including demonstrations. It really became public property, morally speaking and is still an icon for free speech.
However, Kurt Westergaard took exception to SIOE using his cartoon, even when the demonstration concerned was in support of him and free speech in general. Therefore, SIOE was taken to court to prevent the use of the cartoon. The court case was a farce as the prosecution did not understand the difference between SIOE and SIAD, and this was made perfectly clear by SIOE representatives.
The court ruled that Kurt Westergaard’s Mohammed cartoon may not be used by SIOE and SID for any political purposes including demonstrations.
Although we considered that SIOE and SIAD and especially Anders Gravers were being unreasonably targeted by the Danish establishment and Kurt Westergaard, SIOE respected the court’s decision and revised its theme by also criticising Kurt Westergaard for, what SIOE considered, his own stopping of free speech.
Placards were made consisting of only a pair of eyes drawn on small pieces of card, with cloth pinned around them in the style of a burkha. This was to represent the “burkharisation of free speech”. A muzzle could have been used, but the demonstration was about how Islamisation is preventing free speech against Islam, so a burkha was the ideal representation.
The placards were shown to the police supervising the demonstration and permission was given to use them. At no time did SIOE intend to show contempt for the court ruling.
A photo was taken at the time and may be seen here http://sioe.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/demonstrations-in-denmark/
Ask yourself, does that placard Anders Gravers is showing to the police the Mohammed cartoon? The police didn’t think so, simply because it wasn’t the cartoon.None the less, Anders Gravers was sued by Kurt Westergaard for breach of copyright and after a lengthy, stressful period of waiting SIOE, SIAD and Anders Gravers personally were found guilty of abusing Kurt Westergaard’s miserable cartoon.
A large fine of 100,000 Danish crowns was imposed on SIOE and Anders Gravers was also fined heavily.
Sentencing was, among other things published on TV2Nord, d. 17.ds. kl.19: 30
Readers of this site have repeatedly been able to read about the case and how it developed development and thus have become aware of an unflattering side of Kurt Westergaard’s personality – not least in relation to the worldwide publication that his drawing has generated and the character’s own words “The drawing has a life of its own!“
The police decision on whether the posters showed Muhammad drawing or not was crucial for the implementation of the legally notified demonstration. Police approved the posters as “Muhammed free” since the posters showed only the Muslim headscarf. Witnesses heard the decision at the time.
The verdict is deeply dispiriting for the reason that it once again exposes the Danish judiciary as being well and truly sunk into the bilge of political correctness. It was proved that no breach of copyright ws made by the organisers of the demonstration..
The verdict confirms that Denmark is not only in a political emergency in terms of its safety, but also in a political emergency regarding its legal system. This verdict was a political decision and has no foundation in law. This what Denmark has come to, but she is not alone. Europe and indeed the West is seeing its hard fought impartial and independent jurisprudence succumb to politicisation.
It is now an uphill battle to pull our country clear of the swamp. Both the case and the fight are morally won. We will never surrender Denmark to her violent enemies.
On the question if he will accept the judgement Anders Gravers responded: ”This is a political judgement and the accuser didn’t listen to what Anders Gravers lawyer said: ‘That the copyright law can not be used to stop political statements.’ It has only one purpose according to EU law, to stop people from earning money from other people´s work. You can see that by looking at who Kurt Westergaard has gotten money from, only newspapers. There is no previous case in modern Danish history where copyright law was used to stop people´s political opinions or statements. Not even back to the 2nd world war.”
Therefore, Anders Gravers will not accept the judgement and will appeal it at once. “ Everybody used Kurt Westergaard´s drawing and he said himself that ‘it is living its own life’ and he has ‘no influence on his drawings life on the internet’ ”.
“Therefore, I can not accept the judgement” said Anders Gravers. He has been told pay 130.000 DK for ignoring the copyright of Kurt Westergaard