“The full intellectual power of the left strikes again!” Brian of London

After a debate with the brother of Tariq Ramadan’s brother Hani, Oskar Freysinger gets nailed with a pie in the face by a disgruntled student who obviously disagreed with the member of the Swiss People’s Party concerning Islam. It was an act of thuggery, representative of the mentalities that love to rule by force and decree, Leftism and Islam.

The only point that the TT would be in disagreement with Freysinger, is of the act of pie throwing supposedly “belonging to democracy”, far from it. It’s an act of political violence, of intimidation, which runs counter to the ethic of political disagreements in a democracy being handled through public debate and at the voting booth.

Lets face some facts here, the Left is known for such antics, almost holding exclusive rights to them, like the throwing of pies in the faces of people with whom they disagree, tossing paint on people wearing furs, as well as Muslims throwing feces and urine at demonstrations. This is how the totalitarian mindset operates, because they can’t hope to win an argument, so they have to intimidate their opposition. It’s all pure thuggery. KGS

Via: Sheik Yer’Mami

Student throws pie in Freysinger’s face

Updated 09/06/2011

Basler Zeitung:The Valais SVP politicians debated at the University of Geneva on the fight against terrorism. At the panel meeting, he himself became the target of attack.

[…] The verbal sparring between Islam critic Freysinger and moderate Islam researcher Ramadan proceeded in an orderly fashion: Freysinger criticized sharia and talked about creeping Islamization, which in his opinion, takes the upper hand in European societies. On the other hand, Ramadan urged the variety of interpretations of Muslim religion and condemned the sweeping view of the SVP. The two rivals had been in a very polite discussion with each other, the newspaper said.

Pie throwing a political freedom?

The attack occurred after the actual debate was already closed. One of the students in attendance – apparently not an advocate of Freysinger’s line of argument – tossed a pie in the direction of the SVP politician. Freysinger was hit in the face, his jacket was spattered with whipped cream. The student was then taken by security forces and led from the room.

Freysinger commented to Swiss radio RSR that nothing like this has ever happened to him before. Freysinger was angry, “The person throwing this pie could have at least refrained from poking his finger into my eye.” If I am afraid of these things, I will leave politics right away. Later he modified his statement, saying that throwing a pie is part of democracy.

NOTE: Special thanks to ESW for helping with some of the translation.


  1. “Moderate (sic) islam researcher Ramadan.”

    How does Ramadan’s alleged moderation and his support for the stoning of adulterers go together? I’ll bet nobody will ever ask the pie thrower this question, nor will he ever be asked why not throw a pie at a supporter of sharia-prescribed stoning, not those staunchly opposing such barbaric punishments.

  2. “tossing paint on people wearing furs,” This is a statement that is true but is not a leftie tactic. Animal rights people are the one’s responsible and they do not care for leftie or rightist ideologies. They care for the animals and do not want the skin of animal taken from the animal by force and placed for money on to someone for their own petty vanity. Please stop lumping animal rights with the lefties. We have no sympathy for the Palestinians or Jews we hate their halal and kosher.

  3. Unfortunately, you can’t discuss your way out of disagreement with people who’s mindset is shaped by violence and deceit. You know the time you’re gonna have to take a stand will inevitably come.

  4. Although it is not possible to reason with the unreasonable, to debate with it publically does have the value of exposing it to a wider audience.

  5. Animal rights: now there’s a nice contradiction in terms. For animals to possess rights they must first conceptualize them. And they must then agree not to violate them (including man’s rights), which would, of course, entail an impossible modification of their means of survival, for to violate the ‘rights’ of other animals would be to forfeit them. Rights, properly understood, can apply only to man.

  6. “moderate Islam researcher Ramadan”- LOL!

    The journaillie really ain’t worth f*kc!

    What makes this deceitful, conniving headbanger from the Muslim Brotherhood ‘moderate?’

  7. Dr. Koolaid, since we’re at it, I’ll give you two specific examples of lamestream-media bias which, well, certainly have made sure I’ll never buy an issue of The Economist in my life again. The first is that one of their favorite “moderate muslims” is none other than Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The second is that, whenever its writers talk about Turkish PM Recep Erdoclown or his AK Party, the expression “mildly islamist” is as close to those words as PBUH is to any utterance of the muslims’ child-molesting pig prophet’s name when they say it. To give you an idea, Google show 843 results for the exact expression “mildly islamist” on the website of that magazine.

  8. “For animals to possess rights they must first conceptualize them.” Surely children should conceptualize them to0. Surely the mentally disabled must conceptualize them too. No there are vulnerable living entities in the world both human and non human who can not conceptualize their feelings with regards to not having their skin removed, or their bodies invaded. We need as civilized beings make sure that those that can not conceptualize and speak for themselves have intelligent arguments made on their behalf in order to protect them from abuse.

    “for to violate the ‘rights’ of other animals would be to forfeit them.”No we are not saying that as that would be a strange situation for a being who can not conceptualize to be put into. If such a being can not understand then they are our ward for protection in the same way that babies and infants and the mentally infirm are. They are not violating any ones rights if they attack another animal as that is the natural world.

  9. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh was it something he said that upset this stupident so? These sort are also known for throwing stones! Wonder if the pie thrower was a stupident of the honorary, Ramadan Phd?

  10. Animals have no rights. To understand why this is so, you need to understand the source and nature of rights (which very few people do). It is worth reading Ayn Rand’s essay ‘Man’s Rights’, which is available here:

    However, for a thorough account of the source and nature of rights, this book is worth reading: ‘Moral Rights and Political Freedom’ by Tara Smith.

  11. John Negrohands said “We have no sympathy for the Palestinians or Jews (sic) we hate their halal and kosher.”

    Having gone on a field trip to an abattoir when I was fifteen, I witnessed first hand how animals were slaughtered with a gun firing a slug to the head. This technique didn’t always work, necessitating the slaughterer to step down from his platform to the killing floor so that he could deliver a second, hopefully lethal blow.

    On the other hand, Halal, a Moslem code of animal slaughter and Kashrut require a mercifully quick kill. (Ironic, isn’t it, that Jews and Arabs agree on this one point.)

    As humans will persist in eating meat, wouldn’t it be better that animals be dispatched using the halal/kosher techniques rather than the too often slow, painful death factory slaughterhouses routinely inflict?

Leave a Reply to John Negrohands Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *