The realities behind this decades-long campaign have now slammed Europe. On December 3, 2010, Denmark’s public prosecutor collected his first scalp for racism, that of pastor and Member of Parliament for the Danish People’s Party Jesper Langballe  — not surprisingly, for defending Hedegaard. “Of course Lars Hedegaard should not have said that there are Muslim fathers who rape their daughters,” Langballe stated, “when the truth appears to be that they make due with killing their daughters [the so-called honor killings] and leave it to their uncles to rape them.”
Randers municipal court found MP Langballe guilty of hate speech under Denmark’s penal code, article 266b, after duly honoring Danish legal precedent to deny Langballe the right to prove his truthful allegation that Muslim families often sexually abuse and murder their daughters for family honor. In such cases, Danish law figures the truth immaterial. As if under Islamic libel law itself , Denmark may nowadays convict a defendant solely upon the personal offense taken or perceived in his or her statement. No actual crime need have occurred.
At his kangaroo court trial, MP Langballe therefore concluded, “With this article in the penal code, I must be assumed convicted in advance. I have no intention of participating in this circus. Therefore I confess.” Denmark denied MP Langballe both freedom of speech and due process — and may now fine or incarcerate him up to two years. 
This is but the most recent occasion that an elected official, journalist, or humanitarian has been charged for perceived defamations of Islam in their statements of fact and exact reiterations of Quranic and other Islamic sacred texts. In 2009, for instance, Finland convicted its best known political blogger, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, then 38. 
And in May 2008, Gregorius Nekschot, a pseudonymous Dutch cartoonist, was similarly arrested and charged with discriminatory speech. In September 2010, Dutch prosecutors finally dropped charges against Nekschot (on the eve of Holland’s next travesty of justice). Despite a court order that he dismantle his personal website, Nekschot was victorious. “I can carry on making caricatures, perhaps even more controversial ones, because I have been allowed to keep my anonymity,” he said. 
Then came five charges of hate speech against Dutch MP Geert Wilders. Prosecutors initially ruled that Wilders’ statements might hurt Muslim feelings but weren’t crimes. But in January 2009, Amsterdam’s Appeals Court reversed the finding and ordered prosecutors to proceed.  At trial, an empaneled judge snidely remarked on Wilders’ intent to remain silent. An immediate appeal to replace the biased panel was denied.  Dutch prosecutors reiterated the legality of criticizing religion (Muslim feelings determine no “facts of the case”), but trial judges ignored their request to acquit on all five charges. 
After incontestable judicial bias surfaced, however, a new appeals court on October 22 terminated the Wilders trial. At a private May 2010 dinner party, Islamic expert and defense witness Hans Jansen revealed that magistrate Tom Schalken, one of the Amsterdam judges who ordered Wilders’ prosecution, had approached him to explain why Wilders must be prosecuted. Schalken’s unlawfully expressed, extra-judicial comment to a defense witness forced the appeals justices to order a new Wilders trial. 
Next up was Austria’s Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff — Pax Europa‘s Austrian representative and a former Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe envoy. Pax Europa, focusing on sharia law incursions and the simultaneous erosion of free speech in Europe, is Germany’s “foremost human rights organization,” she says.  In September 2010, Sabaditsch-Wolff learned she was accused of “defamation of religion” during a 2009 three-part seminar on “Islamization of Europe” for the Freedom Education Institute (FEI). She is not a member of FEI or any part of the late, controversial Joerg Haider‘s “far-right” Austrian Freedom Party. But even if Sabaditsch-Wolff did belong, it would not be criminal: the state gives public monies to the Austrian Freedom Party’s Institute.
Moreover, Sabaditsch-Wolff based her academic observations on experience gained, by choice, from living most of her adult life “in Arab and Muslim-majority countries.” Exactly which statements prompted Vienna’s prosecutor to indict her for hate speech, he did not see fit to specify.  She was “tried” in Vienna, if one can call it that, in November 2010. No decision has yet been announced.