Fevered and imaginary dream of Holy War in programme from Austrian public broadcaster

With the program "Holy Warriors: AfD and Radical Christians," Monitor delivers a new low in license-funded non-journalism. The "Tagespost" is among the protagonists.

Ominous music, a dark crucifix, the whispered phrase "What does the Christian right have to do with this woman?": This is how this week's episode of the ARD program "Monitor" begins, titled "Holy Warriors: AfD and Radical Christians." "This woman" refers to Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf. The report constructs a "radical Christian lobby" from the AfD and pro-life activists to Catholic bishops, which sabotaged the woman's election as a constitutional judge with hate speech and defamation. Arguments and evidence? None. Instead, a collection of buzzwords like "extreme," "radical," and "anti-democratic," coupled with images and video clips taken out of context.

Everyone stupid except Brosius-Gersdorf?

The script for this program, based on the guilt-by-association method, has existed for years. It was recently reissued: With funding from the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Open Society, the UN Population Fund, and the EU Commission, abortion lobbyist Neil Datta published an international "report" in June that brands Christian pro-life activists as religious extremists. The "Tagespost" reported in detail. She will surely make it into the next Datta report, as she is one of the protagonists of the "Monitor" program whose contributions "crossed the line between debate and defamation, between criticism and campaign" and engaged in "excessive incitement."

In the service of left-wing hostility to dialogue

Evidence of the alleged defamation and incitement is, of course, nowhere to be found in the entire program. Likewise, there is no hint of a willingness to seriously engage with the arguments of the pro-lifers. Why should they, when it's so much easier to do exactly what the program's producers accuse Brosius-Gersdorf's opponents of doing: namely, to express opinions devoid of facts. That's why no one from the circle of the fantasized right-wing religious conspiracy is given a voice in the entire program. Instead, through its choice of images and background music, Monitor all too simply suggests that religious people are incapable of anything more than hysterical, irrational outbursts and the waving of Jesus flags. Journalism worthy of the name looks different. But license-funded broadcasters aren't under competitive pressure, so there's no need to set high standards for journalistic quality.

Pro-life activists targeted by the abortion lobby

And so, the public broadcaster is shamelessly putting itself at the service of left-wing anti-dialogue sentiment, which flatly refuses to play by the rules of liberal democracy. These rules state that diversity of opinion is legitimate based on the free and democratic basic order, even if one doesn't like it. And this diversity of opinion is allowed to be expressed – including in letters from citizens to their representatives, in the media, and in parliament. Concerted actions to exert pressure on decision-makers are something left-wing organizations are particularly good at. Apparently, the left-progressive hegemony of opinion feels threatened when, for once, "the others" prevail. The pro-life movement would rightly consider itself fortunate if it were even half as organized and effective as "Monitor" suggests.

Incapable of accepting Pro-Life as a cause

One person who is allowed to expand at length on "Monitor" is Neil Datta himself: The "ultimate goal" of the Christian-right lobby is "political power. They devote great effort to this. They also deliberately try to exert influence at the grassroots and in the media." The entire program demonstrates an inability to acknowledge that the pro-life movement may actually be concerned with the cause it has taken up. It also reveals a democratic consciousness that only allows its own camp to engage in politics. It is precisely this approach, in keeping with the motto "No freedom for the enemies of freedom," that is killing democratic debate.

"What remains?" the show's narrator asks gloomily at the end, and replies: "...a radical lobby for which Brosius-Gersdorf was just the beginning." Well, if that means that the citizens of this country will continue to loudly demand respect for the Basic Law from their legislators and politicians through democratic means, then one can only say: We certainly hope so!

Source