Early tomorrow morning Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff will appear in a Vienna courtroom and learn the verdict in the appeal against her conviction last winter on hate speech charges. I’ve posted Elisabeth’s “Thoughts Before Trial” at FrontPage Mag today. Some excerpts are below:
Thoughts Before Trial
Tomorrow morning, Tuesday December 20th, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff will learn the results of her appeal to Austria’s highest court.
As described in this space a few weeks ago (See Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3), Elisabeth was charged last year with “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” for asserting that “Mohammed had a thing for little girls.” In February of this year she was convicted, and will have to pay a fine of up to €480. If she refuses to pay the fine, she may spend a maximum of two months in jail.
The court did not contest the truth of Mohammed’s marriage to a six-year-old, nor the fact that the Prophet of Islam had consummated the marriage when his bride was nine. The judge could hardly disagree with these facts, since they are confirmed by authoritative scholars in all branches of Islam.
No, Elisabeth was convicted despite the truth of what she said. She was found guilty because her words were deemed offensive to Muslims. As we all know by now, the truth is no defense when Muslims are offended. Anyone who offends a Muslim in Modern Multicultural Austria now risks criminal prosecution.
On Tuesday she will learn whether the judge in the higher court is a man of integrity. Common sense would tell him that the case against Elisabeth was a farrago of justice, and should be thrown out on the merits. But common sense is sorely lacking these days in Europe.
Elisabeth has been pondering the legal nightmare she has been trapped in for the last two years, and sends the following meditation on the day before she learns the verdict in her appeal:
Thoughts Before Trial
Tis the season to be… What?
For some people it may well be the season to be jolly. For me, it is the season to be hopeful.
Once again I am in the midst of preparing for what may well be a watershed concerning freedom of speech and opinion within the European Union. The trial’s outcome could shape the limits on permissible speech under secular law. My conviction earlier this year implicitly used religious law — in this case, Sharia law — in its arguments.
[…]
Read the rest at FrontPage Mag.
The usual suspects will be live-blogging Elisabeth’s trial tomorrow, as will I. Her case will be heard very early in the morning — about 3am to 5am EST. In the event I’m a slugabed and fail to mirror the posts in real time, check Save Free Speech or Tundra Tabloids for live-blog reports in English.
For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.
7 comments:
Our prayers are with you Elisabeth. This case will truly set the limits for free speech and I fear the same thing could happen in the USA with Obama in office. I hope the charges are reversed for the sake of free speech.
Elisabeth,
Ever thought about taking this all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights?
When faced with the inability to protect one's self through legitimate court action, one will begin a thought process often leading to some form of self-enforcement.
This is what Islamists do in attacking those who they feel denigrate their faith.
But sooner or later, those they attack are going to start seeking some form of their own self-enforcement against the Islamist attackers.
This case will have significant impact on the decisions of those seeking the court to protect them against Islamic aggression.
Yeah, maybe we non-Islamists throw words of dis-belief at Islamist ideology, but Islamists are throwing rocks, knives, and bullets as well as their own words of hate.
Where is the justice in non-prosecution of rock throwers versus the prosecution of word throwers?
At least prosecute the Islamist's hate words along with the anti-Islamist words...
... and prosecute their rock throwing before the populace feels the need to take that defense into their own hands.
Or better yet, stop prosecuting words and just prosecute rock throwers.
>>>
I don't care how cultured a nation, we all have our own hill-billies and red-necks that when pushed to the limite aren't afraid to stand up and fight back.
Yeah, I'm a U.S.A.-born western red-neck. I respect the Law up to the point where Law enforcement stops respecting the Law. At that point I look to other alternatives.
One of the reasons that Islamists have little influence in my neck of the woods.
A very cogent point, one that is, alas, ever lost on the totalitarians. Since their scheme absolutely requires that they be exempted from the 'laws' they presume to impose on others, they can never contemplate the idea of the law being equally applied to all.
I wonder if the Judge has taken an oath, and if he is in breech of it, and possibly subject to a commercial lien, I'm not sure how it works in Austria
Why do we enter in to contract with the admirality courts and consent to their offers to adjudicate conflict?
Where do they claim to get their authority from?
Regarding Justice . . .
— All are equal under the Law.
— A matter must be expressed to be resolved.
— Claims made without accountability are void.
— Might does not make right.
— Force, perjury or subornation of perjury, voids all.
— Fraud vitiates the most solemn promise.
— While the battle continues, he who first leaves the field or refuses to contend loses by default.
— You are free to make any decision you wish, but you are never free to escape the consequences of your decisions.
— A laborer is worthy of his hire.
— Thou shalt not steal.
— Notice to the agent is notice to the principal and notice to the principal is notice to the agent.
— Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Regarding Truth . . .
— Truth stands supreme.
— Truth affects but cannot be affected.
— Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit.
— Truth will out.
— An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth.
— An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.
— Thou shall not bear false witness.
— Ignorance is no respecter, it affects all without regard to position or title.
Regarding Sovereignty . . .
— It is self-evident that all men are endowed by their creator (God) with equal and unalienable rights.
— The created cannot be greater than its creator.
— A man can give to another no more than he himself has.
— A man may not with impunity infringe upon another man’s rights.
— The People are Sovereign.
— The government is the servant of the "sovereign" People.
Regarding Power and Authority . . .
— We cannot give to anyone or anything any power or authority we do not have.
http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/comliens.shtml
Not sure how useful, but a good read.
Their Emperor has no clothes on, I'm glad you are there to point it out!
FMOTL Arthur: Stellios
Isn't it strange that when you are represented by a lawyer, his first duty is to the court, second to the public and only third to you.
By agreeing to be represented you become a ward of court with the same status as an mentally deficient child
http://satori.hubpages.com/hub/Five-things-your-attorney-wont-tell-you
A:S
my heart goes out to ESW. She is fighting for WESTERN CIVILIZATION!
I anxiously await the verdict as this is indeed a watershed moment.
Best of luck!
Post a Comment