Thursday, December 22, 2011

“A Ludicrous Verdict”

Geert Wilders spoke out today in support of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, expressing his outrage at the Austrian court for upholding her conviction.

The following article appeared in today’s Elsevier. Many thanks to our Dutch correspondent BD for the translation:

Wilders: A fine for despising Islam is madness
Thursday 22 December 2011 20:32

PVV-leader Geert Wilders calls the conviction of an Austrian political activist for “despising religious beliefs” madness.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and Geert Wilders #3Support from Wilders

On the weblog Gates of Vienna PVV-leader Wilders called Sabaditsch-Wolff a brave woman and a beacon of light. Not only for Austria, but for the whole Western world.

Mohammed

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted today [actually on Tuesday December 20 — BB] in an appeal court to a fine of €480 for her statements about the prophet Mohammed.

In 2009, the political activist denounced the sexual relationship between the Islamic prophet Mohammed and a nine-year-old girl.

Womanizer

Sabaditsch-Wolff did this during a meeting of the youth section of the Austrian freedom party FPÖ. She stated that Mohammed was “a relatively major womanizer” who, according to the Koran, also sex had with children.

The Austrian court, which based its verdict on European jurisprudence, ruled that freedom of opinion has to take the duty not offend others into account.

Sneering

Sabaditsch-Wolff was allowed to say that Mohammed had had sex with children, said the court, but the sneering tone in which she did this is insulting and hence punishable.

Wilders totally disagrees. “A ludicrous verdict. Apparently she is allowed to say that the barbarian Mohammed is a pedophile but not in a sneering way. It is, however, the truth.”

American constitution

According to the PVV leader the European countries “urgently” need a First Amendment, similar to the Constitution of the United States.

The Article prohibits Congress from adopting laws which create a state religion or put one religion above another, or which restrict the right to freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of the press or the freedom to assemble.


For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.

10 comments:

Chiu said...

Geert Wilders is, as ever, quite astute in his strategy of highlighting that Islam demands preferential treatment and does not permit equal treatment before the law.

Anonymous said...

"According to the PVV leader the European countries “urgently” need a First Amendment, similar to the Constitution of the United States."

The Second Amendment is helpful, too!

Anonymous said...

I do not know how people are supposed to exist in a country where the rule of law is not to offend anyone. The fact that muslims/liberals are the only ones using this law against everybody is even worse.

We have marched to this point like zombies to a graveyard. First, we recognized islam as a religion. Whose brilliant idea was this? Then we had to allow them the rights that other religions had. We had to let them build their mosques that had to be taller then churches with their minarets. Then their call to stick their butts up in the air five times a day, then the slow, but steady, invasion of sharia law, it never ends.

We have to reverse this. But even many of the people on the correct side (IMHO) do not get it entirely right. Pamela Geller, whose opinion I used to value, (but now not so much) thinks that the Ground Zero Mosque is an abomination. Then she turns right around and says she is not against all mosques, just that one. Why the hell not? Michael Coren, who I think does a great job, it quick to say that not all muslims are bad and we must not forget that. Robert Spencer agrees. So does Mark Steyn and Pat Condell. Daniel Pipes, another expert, says that islam must self correct and modernize. How many years will that take? Are we supposed to tolerate them until then? Geert Wilders says that muslims can live in his country as long as they obey the law. Good luck with that, my friend.

All these people know a tremendous amount about islam. They tell us the dangers constantly. Yet they all to a man, stop at saying that all muslims are bad. Why? Muslims read the koran and believe it. We are not shy about saying that the koran is bad. Why are we reticent about saying that the people that believe it are bad also? Liberals are bad, multiculturalists are bad, socialists are bad, communists are bad, fascists are bad. All together as a group, they represent ideologies that will destroy western democracy. Yet when it comes to islam, we ‘know’ that there are few good ones out there that only believe the ‘good’ things in the koran. What insanity is this?

IMHO, the only way that this evil is going to be reversed it to be as unequivocal about it as the Islamists are about us. They have no problem saying they hate all non-believers. How come we cannot be as straightforward as they are?

SarahSue

Dymphna said...

@ Sarah Sue--

Because this is such an explosive situation (literally), and because many otherwise intelligent people cannot discern the difference between normative and prescriptive writing, we walk a very thin line. You have stayed on that path, not wanddering over into the mine field about "what should be done" re Islamic jurisprudence and the behavior it approves of for its followers.

I now understand a line in Psalm 23 that has always puzzled me: "He guides me along the path of righteousness..."

Walking that path means NEVER advocating violence in return, even as we push back against a juidicial theology of annihilation.

A wise person doesn't say it all because those who want to shut us up are hoping for immoderate speech. But they won't get it here, or if they do it is because they are willing to twist what we say to suit their own uses.

Life under Islam is unspeakably hard, even for the followers. Those who inhabit the despotic lands where it thrives are beginning to notice that not much else thrives there.

Egghead said...

"Walking that path means NEVER advocating violence in return, even as we push back against a judicial theology of annihilation."

I disagree.

Pacifism - and disarmament - is what got us into this situation and what is going to get a lot of us harassed, tortured or murdered.

It seems to me that you might be meaning to argue against citizen vigilantism rather than violence - as might be conducted via nations at war with each other.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are what ended World War II.

Mecca and Medina might ultimately end the coming World War III.

Anonymous said...

Dymphna,

I take great care in writing within the guide lines set by the Gates of Vienna. It is no accident that this thin line is not crossed in my writing.

That said, I do not advocate violence because I simply to not think it would work. It is so easy to sit in your living room, in a comfortable chair and advocate that other people should put themselves in danger.

In my salad days, I was a pacifist. That was before I realized that I wanted all my freedoms, handed down to me by much sacrifice, without me sacrificing anything. What utter nonsense. Needless to say, I grew up.

Now, I am an unabashed warmonger. But I fight this war with words. Words that fight lies. Facts, not fiction. I am a strong supporter of Israel, and I get plenty of chances to sharpen my sword…make that pen, as I am sure you can imagine. I do not mind people disagreeing with me as long as they use facts to support what they say. This rarely happens. Most of what I get is emotion, revisionist history, ignorance and hysteria.

I rarely give my opinion on a solution to the threat of Islam. Part of the reason is that my solutions have changed over the years as I read the words of great thinkers featured on this and other conservative blogs. Another reason is that there is no one solution that fits all situations. The final reason is that I would really like to be Empress for a year and take care of all the world’s problems in one fell swoop. Unrealistic, I know (sigh).

Egghead said, ‘Pacifism - and disarmament - is what got us into this situation and what is going to get a lot of us harassed, tortured or murdered.’ ‘Hiroshima and Nagasaki are what ended World War II.’

There is a big difference between violence and war. If we try and justify violence, then we condone what the muslims do. We cannot have pockets of violence erupting all over the world, as we try and fight jihad. War, on the other hand, can be fought with the pen, with the keyboard using words. Wars can be fought by simply resisting and not giving up. Wars can be fought and won using information to fight the effects of deleterious ideologies. Violence is destructive and rarely achieves it’s goals.

I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith…this is what I want to be able to say when it is all said and done.

SarahSue

Egghead said...

SarahSue,

War is violence that is legally sanctioned by a body of citizens called the state - presumably in defense of those citizens and their interests.

The idea that mere words can stop Muslim violence against infidels - and unending war against the West - is laughable on its face.

First of all, who are you going to talk to? The Muslims see you as a non-human inferior because you are an infidel woman. The majority of the West sees you as a 'racist' or troublemaker - whose speech should be eliminated by 'hate speech' laws in the near future - with the purpose to contain Muslim violence that you are to be blamed for inciting via your words.

How well did words work to stop Germany or Japan in World War II?

Indeed, the United States only entered World War II because FDR specifically enabled the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor in order that the Japanese act of war would spur our population to action.

Because the allies omitted to subdue Muslims who participated with the Germans in World War II and the foolish British actually acted to increase the power of hostile Muslims in the Middle East, we are now faced with the results of their inaction - which will require further action on the part of the West - should we in the West choose to save ourselves.

Violence is EXTREMELY effective at accomplishing goals which is WHY people use violence. Muslims have been and continue to be immensely successful using violence and the threat of violence to implement de facto Sharia Law in non-Muslim countries.

You: "We CANNOT have pockets of violence erupting all over the world, as we try and fight jihad."

Muslims: "We MUST have pockets of violence erupting all over the world, as we try and fight jihad."

Are Western citizens to be made helpless in their own countries as the Copts in Egypt?

Or, are Western citizens to be made prepared in their own countries as in Israel?

Either way, both the Copts and the Israelis are fighting losing wars because their wars are defensive rather then offensive. It's hard to win a defensive war fought on YOUR turf because then it's your people tortured and murdered and your homes and food destroyed.

The Muslims have intentionally moved the battlefield to the Dar el Harb. Muslims have somewhere to go if deported - but WHERE will you go when the entire West is Dar el Islam?!

As always in the history of man, violent action - rather than words - will be required to subdue those who would subdue us.

Like it or not. It is the truth.

Chiu said...

There are a number of points here that I feel to address. So I'll mostly just address them in the order they've appeared on this thread.

First, I don't have any problem with saying that "All Muslims are bad"...but I would refine and explain that by first saying that I do not believe any humans are good. Even Christ declined to be called good, reserving that honor for God alone. That is, all Muslims are humans, all humans are bad, therefore all Muslims are bad. But to express the precise kind of badness of which most Muslims are guilty, which makes them bad, I would say that they are bad because they are unwilling to stake their life on their moral intuition that Islam is wrong.

And while there are many humans willing to stand up in the middle of a crowd of Muslims, in a country where those Muslims will face no legal or economic penalty for killing an infidel, and shout "I am an infidel!", these are in the tiny minority compared to those who would not do it (I don't feel the need to do it because I told the cops where I live that I believe that cops must themselves obey the law, and am still dealing with the predictable consequences--except that they didn't quite succeed in killing me).

Thus, in addition to all Muslims being bad on the same standards that all humans are bad, most Muslims are really only bad in the way that most humans are bad. So I don't see any particular merit in saying that "All Muslims are bad" rather than "All humans are bad". Saying that all Muslims are bad somewhat implies that this is not a characteristic of all humans.

Now as to violence, I do not believe that the path of righteousness can be walked without ever resorting to violence. Christ Himself not only vocally commanded respect for those who take violence as a profession, and directly commanded His disciples to take up the sword, but Himself resorted to direct violence with a weapon in His own hand when sufficiently (and completely unintentionally, I might add) provoked.

We are not to take revenge against those that wrong us, but we are commanded by the law and the commandments of God to avenge those who have been wronged. Of course, I'm much more fond of revenge myself, but that's just because I'm evil. The law is that wrongs are to be avenged, not revenged. This being the case, it is the duty of those who are wronged to "advocate violence", and it is also the duty of those who can do nothing more than "sit in your living room, in a comfortable chair".

It is your duty to those who have the power and duty to avenge wrongs. Of course, I personally don't care much for the duty, I'd rather use the power to revenge myself rather than avenge others, but I suppose that despite this it is still your duty to me to advocate violence on behalf of those who must be avenged. This is somewhat theoretical, but we are discussing moral theory, after all.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

OMG what if she told the whole truth and dropped the penny about his "thing" for goats (female of course).

BTW can't you people keep it short 'n sweet ?

ISLAM sucks - end of story. Muslims are not the problem, islam is the problem.

devout athiest

Anonymous said...

In the same way it is well-nigh impossible for a Muslim to becoame tolerant it is well nigh impossible for a tolerant Westerner to express all-encompassing intolerance. The Abrahamic story teaches that even in the worst communities, Sdom and Amorrah, there may be someone worth saving. Thus Pipes and Wilders believe that the ranks of Qur'an readers are not uniform. Its not a far cry to go from all Muslims are bad to all Jews are bad, with the obvious consequences. Thus Geert and Spencer place criteria of good and bad, rather than criminalize anyone and everyone who is of the "bad" persuasion.
Y Brandstetter MD