Final update 5:48am EST:
All reporting by Henrik Ræder Clausen
Judge Leo Levnaic-Iwanski upheld the verdict of the lower court, which convicted Elisabeth on the charge of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.”
The judge found that the length of time her trial had taken was excessive, and that her fine should be reduced. A new date will be set in the lower court for the announcement of the fine.
There will be a press conference shortly at the Wiener Akademikerbund.
Live-blogging has concluded.
4:25 am EST: VERDICT UPHELD
A journalist from the magazine News.at joined the seminars, and has laid forth the evidence.
The marriage/consummation with a girl of 6/9 years is a subject that might offend some. That is at the heart of the problem.
The Court cannot convict for more items than the Prosecutor requested.
As for the guilt, ”Having something with children” is an excess of opinion that can not be tolerated. It is a ridiculing that cannot be justified.
As for punishment, it can be diminished. 4 December 2009 – 20 December 2011 is a long time for the process.
First conviction is CONFIRMED!
Update 4:14 am EST: The Judge lectures:
The defence has made the factual details of the case very clear, it’s an interesting case.
What we’re dealing with here is only the verdict from the first court. The Judge is lecturing a bit about the legal mechanism of cases like this.
It’s not the first time that Freedom of Expression is in this court, nor at the European Court of Human Right.
The Court has the obligation to clear up if there are objective mistakes in the first court. This is not the first case of its kind, far from it.
The Judge is lecturing about the legal mechanism of cases like this.
We don’t need to go through all the details of the case in the courtroom, it’s all written down in advance, and the Judge has read it. All the details are stacked up here [two 15-centimeter stacks].
The Defence made comments in order that the audience would understand the case. Otherwise not much of the case needed to be explained verbally.
If one only heard the Defence, it would seem incredible that one cannot legally speak the truth.
Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention, which of course is undisputed. This is valid both for pleasant and unpleasant information, including disturbing, shocking and hurtful information. The exercise of this right implies a duty as well, as duties are the flip side of the right. The exercise of this right implies responsibility and duties. Uttering false, harmful statements can be punishable. Protection of public order and basic values may require restrictions on exercise of free speech.
Supreme Court of Austria has dealt with this in the case of Susanne Winter already. Muhammad married Aisha at the age of 50, and Winter called him “Child molester”. We cannot leave that Supreme Court decision out of consideration.
Update: Live-blogging Begins
3:10am EST Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Dr. Rami are present.
The court makes a summary of what the case is about:
§188 appeal case. Denigration of legally recognized religion, specifically Muhammad.
15 October 2009
The problem is that Muhammad is considered a perfect example for Muslim men, that is against our laws and public order. He had a great consumption of women, including minors, and in general behaved in ways contrary to modern law. That is all documentable from the Bukhari hadith.
Susanne Winter said similar things and was convicted.
A 54-year having sex with a 9 year old, what do we call this, if not pedophilia?
3:18 am EST Dr. Rami represents the Defence.
Demands acquittal. ESW is a harmless women conducting seminars, which was infiltrated by a journalist from News.at. 30 pages are obviously harmless, just a few out of context quotes are made controversial.
He underlines that a “Hate preacher” would be someone standing in public places inciting hatred among thousands or millions, not a teacher in a small seminar.
‘Denigration’ implies that something false and negative is said about religious persons, like Jesus. Something true and negative, like Muhammad having sex with a girl aged 9, cannot constitute ‘denigration’, and must thus not be punishable.
Quotes Wikipedia: “The wife of Muhammad, Aisha, entered the marriage at age 6, which was consummated at the age of 9.”
This is completely public knowledge already, repeating this cannot be punishable under the law.
That Muhammad, as ESW put it, “had something for little kids” is simply another way to put it, yet carefully rewording the facts be cannot punishable either.
Also, it’s important that we don’t suppress discussion of these matters, put people in prison for discussing it.
3:21 am EST The Public Prosecutor takes over for a few comments about in what detail the previous judge had gone into the precise definition of ‘pedophilia’.
The Judge asks ESW to take the floor for any comments pertaining to the written defence statement by Dr. Rami:
She says that she only spoke the truth, and “Telling the truth must never be punishable”.
Dr. Rami adds details from Islamic sources:
Muhammad had at least nine wives, more according to other sources, as well as a variety of concubines and others.
The Judge calls a break, and says that the verdict will come no earlier than 10 o’clock.
About fifteen minutes after this post goes up, the appeals court will convene in Vienna and hand down a verdict in the “hate speech” case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.
It has been more than two years since Elisabeth first learned that a left-wing magazine had filed a legal complaint against her because of what she had said about Mohammed in one of her seminars on Islam. Her trial in November of last year, and on February 15 of this year she was convicted of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.” She was sentenced to pay a fine of €480, or spend up to two months in jail.
Elisabeth immediately appealed the verdict to Austria’s highest court, and this morning the slow-moving course of Austrian justice — or its lack — will at long last reach a conclusion.
I’m scheduled to be up at 3am EST to join the live-blog. If I’m a sleepyhead and fail to check in by that time, look in at Save Free Speech or Tundra Tabloids for live-blog reports in English.
The timeline of the case against Elisabeth:
| January 2008 | ESW began series of three-part seminars on ideology and effect of Islam, particularly in Europe. At first, attendance was about 10 people per session. Later it increased to 35. |
| October 2009 | Infiltration of leftist magazine journalist in 2 seminars. |
| November 2009 | The story broke in NEWS magazine. ESW was reported to the authorities. |
| February 2010 | Interview with Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Terrorism Prevention. |
| April 2010 | ESW submitted extensive written answers to questions from Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Terrorism Prevention. |
| October 2010 | ESW was informed via NEWS magazine of indictment and impending trial. |
| Nov. 23, 2010 | First day of the trial. 2.5 hrs of intensive questioning by the judge |
| Jan. 18, 2011 | Court reconvened. No verdict; the trial was adjourned until February 15th. |
| Feb. 15, 2011 | Verdict: |
| On the original charge of “incitement to hatred”: Not guilty | |
| On the second the new charge of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion”: Guilty | |
| Current status | The case is on appeal. The next court date is Dec. 20, 2011, when the verdict on the appeal will be handed down. |
For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.
23 comments:
I reckon there must be a lot of theatrical productions and works of art in Austria that would, in time gone by, have offended the (now repealed) blasphemy laws of Christian countries. Christians of Austria, start a legal jihad against the denigration of your own beliefs and see if they get equal treatment with Islam.
ChristianInfidel says:
This verdict is stunning, but perhaps it shouldn't be, given the fact that the first verdict actually exists.
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, I am and will be thinking of you and praying for you. You will go down in history as a hero, and this is only a battle, not the war.
Losing the legal battle at this stage may help you win the broader battle for public opinion and determination; and, from that victory, political results.
What is the name of this 'judge'?
So The Islamic Curtain is drawn across Europe. Welcome to Medieval Hell. My father lost 72% of his RAF comrades to save free speech-72% just so a load of psychopaths with a fetish for Marx and their Islamist allies can convict the truth? Damn all of you involved in this heinous miscarriage of justice to hell. I am sure Breivik will be glad to see you when he comes and may you burn together!You deserve each other!!
SAVAGES!
Shocking and sad.
But we fight on !
Sod em all !!!!!!!
Quote: "If you shut up truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way." - EMILE ZOLA
I cannot think of any reason why islam should be considered a "legally recognised religion".
Not one.
Urban11
Looks like it's time for another "Judgment at Nuremburg" for these Aryan elites.
why is she laughing? that's a tragic incident!
This is tragic...for that particular judge. But every excess of those who conspire to deceive is, in the long run, a victory for truth. To stand boldly and testify of the truth is not quite its own reward, but it does make the reward certain. To tell the truth without fear is to understand a greater truth about what truth is, and that is a very liberating feeling.
It turns danger into exhilaration, pain into ecstasy, death into triumph. And, as it happens, makes mere ease into cheer.
”Having something with children” is an excess of opinion that can not be tolerated.
I guess scores of judges, social workers, psychologists, police officers, parents and children will have to learn tolerance and keep their mouth shut! :D
The verdict, and these rulings that "confirm" and "uphold" it indicates more about the weakness brought about by the multicultural ideology endemic to the system than anything else.
The judges are confirming and upholding this verdict because of the authority they have lost, not because of the authority they have.
They're terrified of the Muslim community in their nation.
Even if they know ESW is right, they don't have the courage to formalize any recognition of the truth of what she says.
To do so would be to admit that Austrians in authority know about the destructive, anti-Western content of Islam and how Muslims will and are transforming culture.
To do so would be to recognize the crime of cultural genocide that is being committed, and that resistance, as the spreading of the truth about Islam, is an appropriate response to it.
What are they waiting for?
It's either truth-- or swords and bullets!
And that right soon.
Well, obviously, if speaking about a "recognised" religion can be punished and if Muslims speak in derogatory terms of another (Austria-) recognised religion such as Christianity and are not punished, then Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff (and anyone else who wants to speak out) needs to do a L. Ron Hubbard and found a religion of their own, then fight for recognition. And when the Pope quoted derogatory remarks about Islam - can he still visit Austria? Or by virtue of the European warrant, can he not be apprehended while stepping outside the Vatican? There is so much to explore in legal terms, we live in fascinating times and seem to have no other problems, at least as long as such judges are still getting paid.
We appear to be heading down a very slippery slope ...
Can this not be turned around, & the question legitimately asked: Why do true believers, i.e. devout Muslims, believe as a bald fact that their prophet married a little girl and consummated that marriage when she was 9 years old - and somehow NOT make a value judgement about that?
What is wrong with someone who accepts as fact a grown man marrying a child and consummating that marriage - but who cannot make a value judgement about such behaviour?
Oh and how's this for a "companions in guilt" move: If they want to prosecute people for denigrating a religion, then they're going to have to go after Richard Dawkins. And most of the people who comment on his forum at his website. Because there's plenty denigrating going on over there - and always has been.
And is is not the case that Islam denies the crucifixion, and denies the divinity of Christ? Can it not be argued then, that what's written in the Koran "denigrates" the core beliefs of Christianity? I mean if they want to get serious about this, then they need to look around and check out all the "denigrating" of religious beliefs that is actually going on. In places they might not expect ... (but there it is.)
Well, and such a strategy would work if the rule of law prevailed in Austria, but it does not, which is precisely the problem.
Of course, the contradiction of religious claims points up the impossibility of any law against "denigration of religion" ever being applied impartially. Which is implicit in the fact that the law only covers denigration of recognized religions, those which have been approved by the state. When you have to have the state approve your religion before you have the right to practice it, then you have no freedom of religion at all once the state decides to revoke its approval.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
Austria and Europe have forgotten 1683 ( a long time ago but very relevant for today) also the centuries long occupation of Greece and Balkan are not spoken about.
Multiculturalism if we must have it has be a two way dialogue not a one way street.
Europe and the West are losing democracy and heritage willingly without a struggle.
I cannot think of any reason why islam should be considered a "legally recognised religion".
I actually know the reason. The law recognizing Islam in Austria dates from the time of the Empire, specifically 1912, and was created in order that Muslim soldiers would serve in the Austria-Hungarian Imperial Army.
I'm puzzled by two things:
- That talking negatively about sex with minors (so-called "Religious teachings" here) is punishable under the law.
- And that similar or significantly worse denigration of Christianity or Judaism goes unpunished. A fundamental principle of Rule of Law is equal enforcement of the law, yet noone seems to enforce it towards for instance Imams who quote Judophobic passages from the Quran, or so-called 'artists' who denigrate Christianity.
Tough times we're living in!
Does this mean that every Austrian judge who has convicted and imprisoned paedophiles will now be themselves convicted? After all, did they not make a value judgement - that paedophilia is criminal - against the accused?
This is from Sahih MUslim Book 008,number 3310 " Aisha [ Allah be pleased with her] reported :Allah's Apostle married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was 9 years old " From Sahih Bukhari ,Volume 7, Book 62, number 65. Narrated Aisha." That the Prophet married her when she was 6 years old,Hisham said :I have been informed that Aisha remained with the Prophet for 9 years[ie till his death] ' What you know of the Quran [ by heart]There are enumores Hadiths which tell us that Mo-ham-mad married married when he was 52 years old and Aisha was 6 years old. So where is the lie in it.? SSK
The lie is that Mohammed was a perfect man to be emulated by all men.
A homicidal genocidal psychopath 'marrying' a six year old girl - perhaps a five year old girl by the lunar calendar - was against then current societal standards.
Mohammed set the new standard - and Muslim child molesters and rapists have been happy to emulate the pedophiliac Mohammed's example.
The lie is Mohammed's claim that silence is consent.
Silence is silence - especially when the older male 'marriage' proposer is a homicidal genocidal maniac.
The lie is that Mohammed 'married' a little girl.
Rape is rape - even if a child rapist calls his crime a 'marriage.'
Post a Comment