EuroNews.cz has published an interview with Klára Samková.
Samková for EuroNews: Ambassador of Turkey has behaved as an old woman. Muslims are expecting that their ideology will be tolerated.
An interview: It is quite appropriate to compare Islam with totalitarian ideologies and the Turkish ambassador has escaped the hall as a pubertal boy, attorney Klára Samková says in an interview for EuroNews.cz. She has ignited passions by its speech directed against Islam. Does she expect some further repercussions of the story? And why did she voluntarily help to Muslims years ago?
In the hall of the Parliament, you gave a rather tough speech on the seminar titled "Should we be afraid of Islam?". You've classified Islam as a criminal ideology and you compared it to the Nazism, fascism, and communism. What has led you to this tough comparison?
In my opinion, the comparison isn't a tough one but rather a true one. More precisely, it is not a comparison at all but rather a fully objective categorization of Islam in the group of analogous totalitarian – and we must add, far less cruel – ideologies.
The Czech media but even e.g. the Slovak ones have been talking about an "international scandal". Do you expect some further consequences of your speech?
Whether it will lead to a personal sequel is a shumafuck [=irrelevant, literally noise-and-blow] from my viewpoint. What's needed is to start to discuss these matters openly. The so-called governing elites and a large part of the intellectuals have lost the feedbacks from the reality. They no longer know what life means... they have probably forgotten what it means to be hungry for more than a few minutes and what it means to be really hungry. They no longer know what it means to face a lethal threat because of their opinions. The 1950s [Stalinism] are already too far for them. We need to start to talk about Islam, stop academic speculations about what Islam meant for Arabs in the 7th century, and begin to debate what it means for the whole planet in the 21st century.
The ambassador of Turkey has claimed that your statements have been stunning and that Islamophobia flourishes in Czechia. At the same moment, he has argued that by your speech, you have violated both Czech and international laws and he consequently wants the authorities to react. Would you like to respond to his words in some way?
Mr Turkish ambassador has run away from the hall as a pubertal boy who tries to defy his parents. This behavior is not appropriate for an adult man, let alone a diplomat. He behaved as an old woman or a coward. As far as the Muslims are concerned, they are expecting that according to the European law, their ideology will be tolerated. And afterwards, they will be capable of directly or indirectly imposing it on everyone. I have referred to precise legal provisions, in particular Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which imply that the activities of Islam in Europe are forbidden. The ambassador hasn't provided us with a single legal provision that I was supposed to have violated and he hasn't justified anything at all, which is rather characteristic for Islam. He is only issuing politico-ideological proclamations that a lawyer like me is indifferent to. If the authorities will become involved, so to say, we will see what happens next. If the Reichstag starts to burn, believe me that my defense will be as prepared as Georgi Dimitrov's defense was.
Lawmaker Mr Zdeněk Soukup who was organizing the event has defended you by saying that your rhetorical choices may have been unfortunate but he agrees with many points of yours. On the other hand, ex-minister of justice Ms Helena Válková has denounced your words, much like the current ministry of foreign affairs. Have you noticed some additional positive or negative reactions in your environment?
I am not sure what Mr deputy means by the "unfortunate rhetorical choices". I said what I believe and what I may justify by the available evidence. Ms ex-minister Válková who informed us at the end of the debate that she was a feminist may denounce whatever she wants. It's primarily her who has distanced herself from the reality and also from the women who are suppressed by Islam. She has betrayed and left all these women – she has failed them as a woman, as a lawyer, and as a lawmaker: shame on her!
The reactions have been numerous and diverse but frankly speaking, they are not decisive for me. What is decisive are the facts. And a fact is that Islam is a totalitarian lifestyle ruining the people's fates across the world. I subscribe to the words by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the first president of Turkey, who has said:
This is Islam, an absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, a rotting corpse which poisons our lives. Unfortunately, the second quote by the father of the Turks is no longer as real. He said: Islam is good enough at most for the Arab sissies, not for the Turks who are conquerors and men. The Turks are no longer conquerors in any sense – they are abusing the refugees, the weakest ones, to make their conqueror dreams come true while they are holding their weapons and fight against the Kurdish girl militias. And they are no longer men, either, as the ambassador has shown by his rush away from the Parliament.
The People's Party's deputy Mr Ivan Gabal has argued that your speech has undermined the position of the EU's negotiators and insulted our allies. I guess you see it differently...
Mr Gabal is an important man for me. I have known him for 25 years when he began to sociologically propose and refine solutions to integrate the Romani people in the communist Czechoslovakia, federal democratic Czechoslovakia, and later Czechia. As we can see, his proposals and prognoses have been so fantastically fulfilled that, as I have already mentioned, one could always rely on his opinion: it's enough to do the exact opposite of what he says and the positive result is guaranteed to emerge. That's how I also think about his recommendations vis-a-vis the "union's negotiators" – incidentally, whose legs I would knock down very happily, if it were possible. Unfortunately, I am not strong enough to do so.
Also, the Headquarters of the Muslim Communities have issued their statement. Their spokesman Mr Muneeb Alrawi pointed out that "your attitude is paradoxical because several years ago, you have repeatedly helped the Islamic Foundation in Prague in very important matters both as a person and through your attorney's office and that you have even given up all the compensations and did all your services for free, out of a pure sympathy for an organization that proudly associates itself with Islam by its very name". How is it possible that your attitude has changed so much since then?
Mr Alrawi is a coward because he must know that according to the Bill about Attorneys, I am constrained by the duty of confidentiality which means that I have limited tools to defend myself against his highly misleading statements. In 2001, I have indeed done some services for the Islamic Foundation and it was for free. In the same way, I have provided many other non-profit organizations with my services for free and I have helped many genuinely poor people for free. I have been acting in this way throughout those 22 years when I was an attorney. In the cases in which my work is sufficient and which I decide to be appropriate, I am not only offering my services for free but I am covering all the expenses, too. Two aspects of Mr Alrawi's statement are spicy: first, he dares to wrongly attribute motivations to me – he says that I was doing this work because of my sympathies to Islam. No, I did these things because of my sympathies for non-profit and charity organizations and the Islamic Foundation wasn't unique from this perspective. This wrong attribution and foisting is a typically Islamic misinterpretation and it is a way to abuse the favor I have done for them.
I must add that in 2001, the situation was entirely different and there were reasons to believe that Muslims and Christians could have been going to peacefully co-exist. My having been so naive is one of the reasons why I have a great understanding for those who – unfortunately totally unjustifiably – hope in the peaceful co-existence now. The second spicy aspect is the innovative elaborate strategy to discredit me. He tried to discredit me by linking me to himself. It is similar as if Radovan Krejčíř [the notorious Czech criminal in South Africa] were warning the society against me because I used to work for him and everyone knows what kind of a character he is. This is an entirely innovative strategy that Mr Alrawi has exploited and I must say that it returns some hope to my veils that the integration of Muslims in Czechia could succeed, after all. Why? Because Mr Alrawi's trick is basically equivalent to the famous statement by Professor Cabbage in the legendary tale by Mr Šimek and Grossmann, "The Excursion to a Zoo", which says: "I don't want the discount for free." This one-liner has been igniting a highly pleasant reaction in the heart of every Czech who is faithful to his tribe.
Your speech was also commented by Mr Martin Konvička who has apologized that he has kicked you out of the Bloc Against Islam. Are you in touch with him? And are you thinking about any cooperation with the Bloc Against Islam or the newly formed Alternative for Czechia?
Be more precise: Mr Konvička hasn't apologized to me. Instead, he posted something that he considers an apology on the web pages of the Bloc Against Islam. I don't want to analyze it deeper because I could very well advise him to befriend the Turkish ambassador. (By the way, when you were asking about the responses, I may confirm one of them. Instead of "go to... [the aß, i.e. away]" [which means "screw you"], I have heard people saying "go and follow the Turkish ambassador" which is longer but apparently catchy enough.) Otherwise I am not in touch with Mr Konvička, he seems to be busy vetting his remaining members. I am not planning a further cooperation with the Bloc but I will endorse everyone who will convince me that he's going to confront Islam. That's also why I decided that I will maximally support Mr Petr Hampl in his candidacy for the Senate in Beroun and Mr Jiří Kobza in his senate campaign in Mělník. Both men are worthy and I use this opportunity to recommend them to the pleno titulo readership, too.
If we stop talking about your speech, what is your opinion about the EU-Turkey deal? Will it stop the influx of the refugees?
This very question sounds so nonsensical by itself that I can't find the forces to construct an answer pretending to be diplomatic. So an undiplomatic one: silliness.
And should a similar treaty be negotiated and ratified with some African countries, as several EU leaders propose?
This is no longer a silliness, it is a psychiatric disorder.
Samková for EuroNews: Ambassador of Turkey has behaved as an old woman. Muslims are expecting that their ideology will be tolerated.
An interview: It is quite appropriate to compare Islam with totalitarian ideologies and the Turkish ambassador has escaped the hall as a pubertal boy, attorney Klára Samková says in an interview for EuroNews.cz. She has ignited passions by its speech directed against Islam. Does she expect some further repercussions of the story? And why did she voluntarily help to Muslims years ago?
In the hall of the Parliament, you gave a rather tough speech on the seminar titled "Should we be afraid of Islam?". You've classified Islam as a criminal ideology and you compared it to the Nazism, fascism, and communism. What has led you to this tough comparison?
In my opinion, the comparison isn't a tough one but rather a true one. More precisely, it is not a comparison at all but rather a fully objective categorization of Islam in the group of analogous totalitarian – and we must add, far less cruel – ideologies.
The Czech media but even e.g. the Slovak ones have been talking about an "international scandal". Do you expect some further consequences of your speech?
Whether it will lead to a personal sequel is a shumafuck [=irrelevant, literally noise-and-blow] from my viewpoint. What's needed is to start to discuss these matters openly. The so-called governing elites and a large part of the intellectuals have lost the feedbacks from the reality. They no longer know what life means... they have probably forgotten what it means to be hungry for more than a few minutes and what it means to be really hungry. They no longer know what it means to face a lethal threat because of their opinions. The 1950s [Stalinism] are already too far for them. We need to start to talk about Islam, stop academic speculations about what Islam meant for Arabs in the 7th century, and begin to debate what it means for the whole planet in the 21st century.
The ambassador of Turkey has claimed that your statements have been stunning and that Islamophobia flourishes in Czechia. At the same moment, he has argued that by your speech, you have violated both Czech and international laws and he consequently wants the authorities to react. Would you like to respond to his words in some way?
Mr Turkish ambassador has run away from the hall as a pubertal boy who tries to defy his parents. This behavior is not appropriate for an adult man, let alone a diplomat. He behaved as an old woman or a coward. As far as the Muslims are concerned, they are expecting that according to the European law, their ideology will be tolerated. And afterwards, they will be capable of directly or indirectly imposing it on everyone. I have referred to precise legal provisions, in particular Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which imply that the activities of Islam in Europe are forbidden. The ambassador hasn't provided us with a single legal provision that I was supposed to have violated and he hasn't justified anything at all, which is rather characteristic for Islam. He is only issuing politico-ideological proclamations that a lawyer like me is indifferent to. If the authorities will become involved, so to say, we will see what happens next. If the Reichstag starts to burn, believe me that my defense will be as prepared as Georgi Dimitrov's defense was.
Lawmaker Mr Zdeněk Soukup who was organizing the event has defended you by saying that your rhetorical choices may have been unfortunate but he agrees with many points of yours. On the other hand, ex-minister of justice Ms Helena Válková has denounced your words, much like the current ministry of foreign affairs. Have you noticed some additional positive or negative reactions in your environment?
I am not sure what Mr deputy means by the "unfortunate rhetorical choices". I said what I believe and what I may justify by the available evidence. Ms ex-minister Válková who informed us at the end of the debate that she was a feminist may denounce whatever she wants. It's primarily her who has distanced herself from the reality and also from the women who are suppressed by Islam. She has betrayed and left all these women – she has failed them as a woman, as a lawyer, and as a lawmaker: shame on her!
The reactions have been numerous and diverse but frankly speaking, they are not decisive for me. What is decisive are the facts. And a fact is that Islam is a totalitarian lifestyle ruining the people's fates across the world. I subscribe to the words by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the first president of Turkey, who has said:
This is Islam, an absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, a rotting corpse which poisons our lives. Unfortunately, the second quote by the father of the Turks is no longer as real. He said: Islam is good enough at most for the Arab sissies, not for the Turks who are conquerors and men. The Turks are no longer conquerors in any sense – they are abusing the refugees, the weakest ones, to make their conqueror dreams come true while they are holding their weapons and fight against the Kurdish girl militias. And they are no longer men, either, as the ambassador has shown by his rush away from the Parliament.
The People's Party's deputy Mr Ivan Gabal has argued that your speech has undermined the position of the EU's negotiators and insulted our allies. I guess you see it differently...
Mr Gabal is an important man for me. I have known him for 25 years when he began to sociologically propose and refine solutions to integrate the Romani people in the communist Czechoslovakia, federal democratic Czechoslovakia, and later Czechia. As we can see, his proposals and prognoses have been so fantastically fulfilled that, as I have already mentioned, one could always rely on his opinion: it's enough to do the exact opposite of what he says and the positive result is guaranteed to emerge. That's how I also think about his recommendations vis-a-vis the "union's negotiators" – incidentally, whose legs I would knock down very happily, if it were possible. Unfortunately, I am not strong enough to do so.
Also, the Headquarters of the Muslim Communities have issued their statement. Their spokesman Mr Muneeb Alrawi pointed out that "your attitude is paradoxical because several years ago, you have repeatedly helped the Islamic Foundation in Prague in very important matters both as a person and through your attorney's office and that you have even given up all the compensations and did all your services for free, out of a pure sympathy for an organization that proudly associates itself with Islam by its very name". How is it possible that your attitude has changed so much since then?
Mr Alrawi is a coward because he must know that according to the Bill about Attorneys, I am constrained by the duty of confidentiality which means that I have limited tools to defend myself against his highly misleading statements. In 2001, I have indeed done some services for the Islamic Foundation and it was for free. In the same way, I have provided many other non-profit organizations with my services for free and I have helped many genuinely poor people for free. I have been acting in this way throughout those 22 years when I was an attorney. In the cases in which my work is sufficient and which I decide to be appropriate, I am not only offering my services for free but I am covering all the expenses, too. Two aspects of Mr Alrawi's statement are spicy: first, he dares to wrongly attribute motivations to me – he says that I was doing this work because of my sympathies to Islam. No, I did these things because of my sympathies for non-profit and charity organizations and the Islamic Foundation wasn't unique from this perspective. This wrong attribution and foisting is a typically Islamic misinterpretation and it is a way to abuse the favor I have done for them.
I must add that in 2001, the situation was entirely different and there were reasons to believe that Muslims and Christians could have been going to peacefully co-exist. My having been so naive is one of the reasons why I have a great understanding for those who – unfortunately totally unjustifiably – hope in the peaceful co-existence now. The second spicy aspect is the innovative elaborate strategy to discredit me. He tried to discredit me by linking me to himself. It is similar as if Radovan Krejčíř [the notorious Czech criminal in South Africa] were warning the society against me because I used to work for him and everyone knows what kind of a character he is. This is an entirely innovative strategy that Mr Alrawi has exploited and I must say that it returns some hope to my veils that the integration of Muslims in Czechia could succeed, after all. Why? Because Mr Alrawi's trick is basically equivalent to the famous statement by Professor Cabbage in the legendary tale by Mr Šimek and Grossmann, "The Excursion to a Zoo", which says: "I don't want the discount for free." This one-liner has been igniting a highly pleasant reaction in the heart of every Czech who is faithful to his tribe.
Your speech was also commented by Mr Martin Konvička who has apologized that he has kicked you out of the Bloc Against Islam. Are you in touch with him? And are you thinking about any cooperation with the Bloc Against Islam or the newly formed Alternative for Czechia?
Be more precise: Mr Konvička hasn't apologized to me. Instead, he posted something that he considers an apology on the web pages of the Bloc Against Islam. I don't want to analyze it deeper because I could very well advise him to befriend the Turkish ambassador. (By the way, when you were asking about the responses, I may confirm one of them. Instead of "go to... [the aß, i.e. away]" [which means "screw you"], I have heard people saying "go and follow the Turkish ambassador" which is longer but apparently catchy enough.) Otherwise I am not in touch with Mr Konvička, he seems to be busy vetting his remaining members. I am not planning a further cooperation with the Bloc but I will endorse everyone who will convince me that he's going to confront Islam. That's also why I decided that I will maximally support Mr Petr Hampl in his candidacy for the Senate in Beroun and Mr Jiří Kobza in his senate campaign in Mělník. Both men are worthy and I use this opportunity to recommend them to the pleno titulo readership, too.
If we stop talking about your speech, what is your opinion about the EU-Turkey deal? Will it stop the influx of the refugees?
This very question sounds so nonsensical by itself that I can't find the forces to construct an answer pretending to be diplomatic. So an undiplomatic one: silliness.
And should a similar treaty be negotiated and ratified with some African countries, as several EU leaders propose?
This is no longer a silliness, it is a psychiatric disorder.
An interview with Klára Samková
![An interview with Klára Samková]()
Reviewed by MCH
on
May 23, 2016
Rating:
No comments: