Tuesday, February 15, 2011

A Scandalous Judgment

Below is a press release from Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa concerning today’s verdict in the “hate speech” trial against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.

Many thanks to JLH for the translation:

Press Release on the Scandalous Judgment Against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Gemmingen, February 15, 2011


Pax EuropaOn February 15, 2011, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was sentenced to a fine of €480 for “denigration of religious doctrines” by Judge Bettina Neubauer in the Vienna Regional Court. She was acquitted of the original charge of ethnic incitement.

The court based “denigration of religious doctrines” on the fact that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff had characterized Mohammed as “pedophiliac” because — according to Islamic legend — he had sex with nine year-old Aisha. In the court’s view, this was “denigrating” because Mohammed did not have sex exclusively with children but also with grown women, and stayed with Aisha until his death when she was eighteen years old. So he was not inclined to pedophilia.

It might be interesting to see whether this scandalous judicial interpretation could persist in regard to convicted child molesters in Austria. It is known that many of these child molesters were fathers of families at the time. This could therefore no longer legally be called “pedophilia.”

Elisabeth’s statement after the trial is clear: “Today is a sad day for my young daughter and for all other young girls.”

Elisabeth will appeal this verdict and so she needs your continuing support. Please help according to your means! She is defending not only herself, but freedom of speech for all of us.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff represents the CITIZEN MOVEMENT PAX EUROPA (BPE) at the international level, as well as heading delegations to conferences of the OSCE in Vienna and Warsaw. She also gives Islam-specific seminars for various hosts.

BPE-Federal Headquarters
for: Conny Axel Meier, Federal Whip


Further information may be found on the website: Save Free Speech

Anyone who wants to contribute to Elisabeth’s defense/appeal fund may visit Elisabeth’s Voice and make a donation using PayPal. Or, if you prefer, you may send a bank transfer using the following information for international payments:

Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich
IBAN: AT513150042908021602
BIC: RZBAATWW

Made out to: Public Notary Mag. Martin Scheichenbauer, Hemmaweg 5, A-9342 Gurk


Previous posts about the hate speech case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:

2009 Dec 5 Fighting a Hate Speech Charge in Austria
    11 Heckling the Counterjihad
    14 Whose Law?
    17 Defaming the Muslims of Pinkafeld
2010 Mar 11 A Mother and an Activist
    20 An Austrian “Hate School”
    22 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff at the Freedom Defense Initiative
    29 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and the Wiener Akademikerbund
  Sep 9 “Islam is a Political Ideology Disguised as a Religion”
    16 “Justice Must Not Be Made the Handmaiden of Sharia”
    17 The Truth Does Not Matter
  Oct 11 Interview With Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    16 Is the Truth Illegal in Austria?
    20 A Court Date for Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    21 BPE Press Release on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    22 Elisabeth’s Voice: An Appeal
    23 Elisabeth’s Voice: A Follow-Up
    24 Raising Our Voices
    25 Elisabeth’s Voice is Growing
    27 Elisabeth’s Voice: More Information
    27 A Bit More Media Attention?
    28 We Are Elisabeth’s Voice
    30 Elisabeth’s Voice in Amsterdam
    31 Mark Steyn Joins Elisabeth’s Voice
  Nov 2 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: Target of Western Shariah
    6 Anatomy of a Discussion with a Leftist Journalist
    8 ESW in the WSJ
    10 “The Left is Very Much the New Far Right”
    11 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Versus the State of Denial
    17 Elisabeth’s Voice: An Update
    15 The New English Review Interviews Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    20 Live-Blogging the Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    20 The ESW Defense File
    23 The Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Day 1
    27 The Time That is Given Us
    28 ESW at Trykkefrihedsselskabet
  Dec 5 An Oasis of Civilization in a Desert of Barbarism
    22 An Unusual Hobby
    23 In Demand Everywhere
2011 Jan 14 ESW: Thoughts Before a Trial
    14 Live-Blogging the Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Part Two
    16 ESW: A Submission to the Court in Vienna
    18 The Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Day 2
    21 Elisabeth’s Voice, Phase Two
    28 Geert Wilders Supports Elisabeth’s Voice
  Feb 5 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Luton
    10 A Dangerous Mindset
    13 An Appeal to Rectify an Oversight
    14 ESW: Submission III to the Court in Vienna
    15 ESW: The RT Interview
    15 The Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Day 3

10 comments:

imnokuffar said...

Definition of a Paedophile.

Oxford English Dictionary

"A person who is sexually attracted to children"

The definition makes no mention of such a person not being attracted to adults as well.

This Judge is splitting hairs.

As pointed out in the article, many paedphiles have families.

So basically if you marry a 9 year old and have sex with her as long as you stay with this child till she reaches the age of consent the original act is null and void.

In any case the whole idea of consent by a 9 year old is ludicrous and the social pressures put on this child would be enormous thus abnegating any notion of informed consent.

This Judge is a cretin. My God, if this is justice then we are finished as a society and a culture.

Egghead said...

This trial is a part of normalizing the abnormal.

First homosexual marriage, then polygamous marriage, then child molestation and rape - all based on individual ADULT MALE rights instead of civilization needs for raising spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually intact CHILDREN to be well-adjusted citizens.

There are already "scientific" studies appearing that claim that child molestation and rape is so prevalent that it cannot possibly actually hurt children over the long term. The insane conclusion is that, since most children grow up to lead productive adult lives after being molested and raped, it must be "not that bad" to molest and rape children.

Of course, I believe the opposite to be true. I believe that the extreme high incidence of child molestation and rape is a major issue leading to extreme societal problems that undermine Western civilization.

It's telling that Muslims engage in significant child molestation and rape, BUT the Muslims want to hush-hush it up and call forcible rape to be temporary marriage or child marriage - as if marriage is simply a lifelong version of rape and molestation.

I believe that Britain recently ruled that former child molesters MUST be given the chance to foster and adopt children because it would be unfair to child molesters to exclude them from participating in social services.

<a href="http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1058565429>Go to Ms. Hope #65 comment to see list of British LEADERS convicted of sexual offenses against children</a>

Now we see WHY leftists like Muslims - both seek to forcibly "marry" CHILDREN with impunity. And, both intend to prevent YOU from "denigrating" their sacred "religion" of child molestation and rape.

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad world!

Egghead said...

This trial is a part of normalizing the abnormal.

First homosexual marriage, then polygamous marriage, then child molestation and rape - all based on individual ADULT MALE rights instead of civilization needs for raising spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually intact CHILDREN to be well-adjusted citizens.

There are already "scientific" studies appearing that claim that child molestation and rape is so prevalent that it cannot possibly actually hurt children over the long term. The insane conclusion is that, since most children grow up to lead productive adult lives after being molested and raped, it must be "not that bad" to molest and rape children.

Of course, I believe the opposite to be true. I believe that the extreme high incidence of child molestation and rape is a major issue leading to extreme societal problems that undermine Western civilization.

It's telling that Muslims engage in significant child molestation and rape, BUT the Muslims want to hush-hush it up and call forcible rape to be temporary marriage or child marriage - as if marriage is simply a lifelong version of rape and molestation.

I believe that Britain recently ruled that former child molesters MUST be given the chance to foster and adopt children because it would be unfair to child molesters to exclude them from participating in social services.

Go to Ms. Hope #65 comment to see list of British LEADERS convicted of sexual offenses against children

Now we see WHY leftists like Muslims - both seek to forcibly "marry" CHILDREN with impunity. And, both intend to prevent YOU from "denigrating" their sacred "religion" of child molestation and rape.

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad world!

an EDL buck said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Luke said...

..therefore if I only kill the odd person instead of everyone I come across I cannot be a murderer.

Baron Bodissey said...

an EDL buck --


Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. Your comment violated the last of these rules. We keep a PG-13 blog, and exclude foul language, explicit descriptions, and epithets. This is why I deleted your comment.

Use of asterisks is an appropriate alternative.

----------------------

an EDL buck said...

well [isn't this disgusting]! europe now seems to be going under. makes me disgusted to call myself "european"

keshto said...

I think the judge was wrong when she interpreted the term >pedophile<

In the apeal scenario, it can be a reversal of the judgement based on its meaning by none other than Encyclopedia Brittanica.......

Henrik R Clausen said...

It's interesting that the judge didn't deny that Mo had extensive sexual relations with minors. That's not the sticking point here, she seems to accept that as a 'religious teaching' and be fine with it.

What aches her is calling this behaviour 'paedophilia', for that label has a negative ring to it. Why, Doh!

It is of extreme importance that this verdict implicitly recognizes the life and behaviour of Mohammad as a 'religious teaching', which is what the Austrian law covers. If the Mo-conduct was not considered a teaching, denigrating it could not constitute an offence under the Law.

As for the precise definition of 'paedophile', the judge is indeed splitting hairs, obviously in order to get a conviction at any price. But the definition applied is at fault, for ESW is not an expert in the field, and can be expected to use the commonly accepted meaning of 'paedophile', namely a person engaging in sex with minors.

I didn't check the German definition yet, but did look at the Danish, which is in line with the English. I expect the German one to be essentially similar.

The appeal case will go through the dirtiest parts of Mo's life...

Henrik R Clausen said...

Related, the relevant chapter of Prophet of Doom is probably now illegal reading in Austria.

It is extremely well documented, though, and adds the interesting twist that Mo had fantasies about Aisha - which again lands him directly in 'paedophile' land.

Oh. I will not comment on the implications of Quran revelations being inspired from having sex with minors. Instead, let me point out the relevant Islamic scriptural documentation for it:

Al-Tabari Vol. 7 page 7.

jjk999 said...

The judge seemed to say that the crime was that Ms Wolff convoluted the proper description of a perpetrator of an act with the word for the dysfunction that would lead the perpetrator to commit the act.

The judge is saying that he was mentally healthy so the behavior was normal and it is only cultural norms that prevent all men everywhere from doing the same thing. As a man I find that unspeakably insulting. It really is a denigration of men and is far more offensive than theorising about the possible dysfuncitons of someone who died over a thousand years ago.

Not only does the judge not understand male sexuality but she betrays an equal ignorance of islam. Zeus, Christ and Vishnu are dieties that bestow spiritual rewards and are thus central to their religions. Saying something about them could be denegrating to religion. Muhammad was a historical proponant of another spiritual entity and not a spiritual entity or object of worship himself. To say otherwise is one of the worst sins/crimes in islam. So only statements about islamic beliefs can be denigration of religion as he is an element of it's history and not it's worship.

So by saying a statement about the historical figure of muhammad is the same as the denigration of the religion the judge is putting muhammad next to allah in spiritual importance. She is committing shirk.

That is a summery of what I wrote on my own blog here:

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Found Guilty. Of Not Being a Lawyer.