LIVE BLOGGING HAS CONCLUDED.
Today was the third and final day of the “hate speech” trial against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. Below is the brief live-blog for the occasion.
To recapitulate: the charges against Elisabeth were “incitement to hatred” and “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” for giving informational seminars on Islam.
See my previous post for yesterday’s RT interview with Elisabeth.
Final report, 5:43am EST:
On the count of “incitement to hatred”: Not guilty.
On the count of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion”: Guilty.
The judgment against the defendant is a €480 fine.
The judge second-guessed the Koran by saying Aisha was 18. She evidently noted that Aisha was 18 years old when Mohammed died, which is factual. The implication is that because he did not divorce her after she became above legal age, he was not a pedophile.
She says it’s not pedophilia, because Mohammed had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he wanted any female he could get his hands on.
By implication, the child marriages so prevalent in hardcore Islamic countries cannot be legally categorized as “pedophilia” either.
Elisabeth said: “This is a sad day for my daughter and all girls.”
Convicted for speaking out against sex with minors. How’s that?
Because she insisted that sex with minors is pedophilia, she is guilty of denigrating religious teachings. Well, that tells us all we need to know about Islam, doesn’t it?
(Many thanks to Henrik and Kitman for help with the above analysis.)
Live-blogging has officially concluded. Further updates, including any photos that come in, will be posted separately.
Now the difficult and lengthy appeals process begins. This will be expensive, so please don’t forget Elisabeth’s legal defense fund. Anyone who wants to contribute 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
First report, 5:17am EST:
| Judge: | The integration of Muslims is surely a question of particular public interest — you are allowed to be critical — but not incitement of hatred | |
| [judge states the permitted utterances] | ||
| The language used in he seminars were not inciting hatred, but the utterances regarding Muhammad and paedophilia were punishable. | ||
| "Paedophilia" is factually incorrect, since paedophilia is a sexual preference which solely or mainly is directed towards children. This does not apply to Mohammad. He was still married to Aisha when she was 18. | ||
| Did you understand the sentence? | ||
| [discontent in court] |
(Thanks to Kitman for the translation)
It’s not clear — there may have been a “guilty” verdict at this point, and the trial may be over. Stand by.
Previous posts about the hate speech case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:
46 comments:
So under Austrian law, one will not be found guilty of paedophilia if one has sex with a child - so long as one keeps doing it until they grow up!
Astonishing!
I think the judge was trying to pretend that paedophilia -as a perversion - only applies if the people are exclusive of adults.
The fact that this is rubbish - well, the whole trial is a farce.
It may be the case that the legal definition of paedophilia is 'an obsession with kiddy sex' (see link) whereas legally speaking, to have non-consensual sex with a minor is molestation (see link).
From my (admittedly brief) research, it sppears that paedophilia would be seen (legally speaking) as a form of mental illness, which presents in various ways, such as taking photos of children or flashing outside a school playground etc. Molestation on the other hand refers (legally speaking) to actually committing sexual acts, including non-consensual sexual intercourse, with a minor.
Obviously a paedophile can commit acts of molestation, but what the Austrian judge seems to be saying is that according to Austrian law, one can commit acts of molestation without being a paedophile.
This verdict is absolutely absurd!
(1) it's seems to be possible to slander the dead in Austrian law! Wtf will Mohammed (pbub) care what Viennese housewives say about him, true or not.
(2) it's seems to be impossible under Austrian jurisprudence to be both a paedophile and someone who enjoys normal sexual relations with adults.
It seems clear, then. Be known to be having sex with someone over the age of 18, and it's carte blanche for kiddy sex, too.
Absolutely disgusting. I sincerely hope the appelate courts will throw out this horse-s€€t verdict as quickly as possible.
Maybe I won't take my summer hols in Austria this year after all. Switzerland seems a much saner option. Servus in Österreich, indeed!
It's odd for such a high-profile trial to be on such a low intellectual level. This judge doesn't seem qualified for traffic court.
Should the defense now cite some Austrian cases, in which someone was convicted as a pedophile, who also had sex with adults?
This judge should be suspected of being a pedophile. This is the most insane argument I've ever heard. Perhaps this judge has gone insane from tertiary syphilis? I would insist on immediate testing and investigate this judge has infected any nearby children. What an outrage.
Apparently it would be more accurate, legally speaking, for Elisabeth to have used the term 'child molester'.
A fine distinction, and not one that a layperson should be expected to make in the course of a conversation which (as I understand it) was not part of the seminar/talk given by Elisabeth, but (as with the recent Danish case) something said later on as part of a conversation.
Note also that the fact that M had sex with a child is not in dispute here.
Nor is the way that M is held in high regard, seen as a moral exemplar, or that the Islamic texts describe M as a good example, one for all Muslims to follow if they wish to live a good and morally correct life.
Consequently any criticism against Islam the religion based on those two points is considered legally valid (apparently).
Nick, that's a good point, but it seems arbitrary for the judge to convict based on such hair-splitting. That means everyone in Austria has to use the right word every time, or risk being convicted of something. This isn't much different from Through the Looking Glass.
My mistake, actually the silly trial was from Alice in Wonderland.
I totally agree. It's worth looking closely at exactly what the legal argument is though - and what it is not. All grist for the mill.
One must also consider the linguistic argument: there may indeed be a legal definition of a particular word. And if one is to be prosecuted for a particular crime, as it is defined legally, then the definition is important.
However when it comes to speech one must consider the context in which an utterance is made. I would argue that in everyday speech the term 'paedophile' is not used in the restricted legal term at all - it is used in a more general manner to refer to anyone who has sex with children under any circumstances whatsoever.
If one can show - linguistically, by using a concordancer to analyse the relevant corpora - that the term is used in this manner then I would argue that the judge's position is thereby undermined.
For (if the judge wishes to split hairs) it is linguistically correct to use the term as Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff used it (i.e. within the context in which she used it).
And all that the judge is saying is that the evidence regarding the behaviour of M would not be enough to find M guilty of paedophilia - whether M would be found guilty of child molestation is an open question.
So that would be my argument - the judge is confusing law with linguistics.
Or technically speaking: the judge is only recognising a term as it is used in a particular register - and is not acknowledging that the term is used differently in other registers.
O.k., so ESW needs to mind her ps and qs, making sure she finds the legally acceptable mot juste each and every time she opens her mouth, or else? As these comments have rightly stated, this judge shouldn't even be in traffic court.
So will somebody please make sure this comment gets published in Austria, and I'll await the European arrest warrant against me:
Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh of Mecca, who died on 8 June A.D. 632 in Medina, and is purported to be the last prophet of God by many Muslims, was during his lifetime, inter al., a self-seeking, delusional child molester, paedophile, murderer and adulterer. No heed ought to be given to the writings of such a cunning self-gratifying imposter.
If I ever go to Austria again, maybe I'll print up that last paragraph in German, Turkish, Arabic and English and distribute it liberally.
Donation made to ESW legal costs.
Sorry, I've just realised my posts here this morning are intemperate and may lack in decorum.
I shan't feel upset if the side admin chooses to delete them. I am very upset with what happened in Vienna this morning, though.
So would it be more accurate, legally speaking, to refer to M as a deviant, a lecher or a child molester? Or a rapist?
Emlyn --
Have no fear. You are a model of self-restraint in this environment.
If you have to mind your "p's" & "q's', you are not free.
I think we can safely say that Austria has submitted to the Oriental Despotism.
Whoops, appear to have lost a post there. Here we go again:
The judge appears to be saying that (in Austria) it is okay to 'criticise' Islam in the context of a discussion on the topic of multiculturalism/ immigration etc. It is also okay (apparently) to cite the rather interesting incidents in the life of the Islamic 'prophet' - his having sex with a young girl, having sex with the widow of a recently-murdered POW, his ordering the death of poets and said POWs, and so forth.
The point at issue seems to be whether any conclusions drawn from our observations of such behaviour are 'factually correct'.
This is an interesting development, big-picture-wise.
(Meanwhile at a certain other blog, the big headline is the owner of the blog appearing on Fox Business. Whoopy-doo, eh?)
A highly inflammatory verdict.
The crystal clear conclusion is that sexual abuse upon and the rape of children is now effectively - LEGAL.
Since Islam considers sexual assault upon infants perfectly legal as laid down in their manual of warfare & lawfare techniques, are we to also conclude that the present secular laws of the present European Court of Justice governing the present European Union, assuming the judges involved in this case have been guided by it in arriving at their verdict, has from this moment in time also aligned its jurisprudence with that of Islamic Sharia!
Too bad Elisabeth didn't show this to the court:
Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 7, book 62, number 17
Narrated jabir bin 'abdullah:
When I got married, Allah's apostle said to me, "what type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron." he said, "why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's apostle said, "why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?"
This shows that Mohammad had special liking for molestation of underage girls, and that makes him a pedophile even under the definition of law.
Quote:
The crystal clear conclusion is that sexual abuse upon and the rape of children is now effectively - LEGAL.
end quote.
I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. I'm waiting for this argument to be made in a future case.
Because it will. The judge has opened the door-- and child rape will waltz right into respectability. Thank you, Your Honor.
So ~450,000 Americans gave up their lives on European soil in the 1940s so that these !@#$%^&$ could wind up with this?!! Obviously, those lives were WASTED, with law-givers like this soul-dead (and brain-dead) judge in charge. Oooops, did I just commit a crime?!
George Orwell, call your office! And Franz Kafka, too.
I don't care what some brain dead, self abuser of a judge says, a paedophile is a paedophile is a paedophile. End of.
So in Austria you can be convicted for putting a single word slightly out of place. Not going there again. My German's appalling, and I could easily use the wrong word and accidentally denigrate someone. The silly tart of a judge was just straining to find Elisabeth guilty of something. Never did think the Napoleonic legal system was much good.
1--correction, ~300,000 GIs died in Europe in WWII;
2--I donated to the ESW legal fund, too.
I have always agreed with the judge in this case on the particular point of Mohammed's alleged pedophilia. It's a simple elementary fact that according to legal and psychological definitions of pedophilia, Mohammed was apparently not one. It would be like labelling Charles Manson a "kleptomaniac" because, in addition to all the other sordid stuff he did, he happened to have stolen a leather jacket from a clothing store once in his life.
I think it's silly and emotionally sloppy to accuse Mohammed of pedophilia, and it reflects the knee-jerk need on the part of many in the anti-Islam movement to go with buzzwords and "memes" (e.g., "Islam is not a religion") just for the electrical charge they think they carry, and accuracy be damned.
The more accurate portrayal of Mohammed is that he was a sex freak, in addition to all the other sordid stuff he did and said. However omnivorous his sexual proclivities were, they do seem to have been largely pursued with respect to women. Unless we can find evidence that he had sex with other girls approximately Aisha's age (9), we cannot conclude that he had a general sexual interest in girls that age, and we should tentatively conclude that Aisha represents for him a special case.
The more pertinent ethical issue in this respect is the sanctioning of child marriage which Mohammed's example of having married one underage girl (who coincidentally went on to become probably the most famous and most revered of Mohammed's women) codifies for all Muslims.
Also, the larger issue here is that apparently in Austria, you can be legally punished by the state for using disparaging words about Mohammed if those disparaging words are inaccurate -- for example, if we label all the killings Mohammed commanded as "murders" or "massacres", conceivably such labeling could be punished by the state. If the disparaging words are accurate and if there is no other evidence that they were intended to disparage or denigrate, then one assumes there would be no legal punishment; though of course there would be plenty of wiggle room for zealous prosecutors and their enablers to yield the desired legal result.
That is the dumbest verdict I have ever heard. The judge is arguing the difference between marriage to a 9 year old with molestation/rape and the unwed molestation of a child? Like there is a difference. That argument is vile, evil, and stupid.
Many Austrians have (no doubt) accused former US president George W Bush of being a "war criminal".
The US is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, so its president cannot be guilty of war crimes... further, it is by no means certain that Bush would be guilty, were he to face trial for war crimes....
Can these Austrians now be brought forward to face charges of defamation, and slander, of George W Bush??
Hesperado, you're wrong about whether one example is enough to convict someone of pedophilia. Normal men begin to feel sexually attracted to females once they have reached puberty. Having sex with a 13-year old who has breasts and hips (not necessarily fully mature ones, but enough to indicate obvious fertility and femininity) is something most normal 13-year-old boys fantasize about, and it is not abnormal for a male to remember how this feels, and to continue to feel attraction for post-pubertal girls as he becomes an adult (though it will be normal for him to PREFER older girls).
But a man who feels enough attraction to a normally developed 9-year-old girl to want to have sex with her is NOT normal, even if there is only one girl who ever triggered that reaction in him (again, assuming her physical development was not precocious).
I do not deny that there is a special quality possessed by pre-pubescent girls, which boys do not have, which elicits a characteristic aesthetic response even in normal men; but that response, which is related to an appreciation of the beauty the girl is likely to exhibit when she matures, is not normally accompanied by sexual DESIRE for the girl as she currently is.
"The more accurate portrayal of Mohammed is that he was a sex freak, in addition to all the other sordid stuff he did and said. However omnivorous his sexual proclivities were, they do seem to have been largely pursued with respect to women. Unless we can find evidence that he had sex with other girls approximately Aisha's age (9), we cannot conclude that he had a general sexual interest in girls that age, and we should tentatively conclude that Aisha represents for him a special case."
The fact that he had sex with a pre-pubescent female child would surely of itself, prove he was, indeed, a paedophile by today's legal and moral consensus.
One cannot tentatively conclude that the CHILD, Aisha, was the only child he abused just because there are no further accounts in the Qur'an of his having engaged in this behaviour with other children. Don't forget, he both led and appointed others to lead his gangs of armed slayers and rapists on several raids on villages over a period of 9 years so had plenty of opportunity to engage in it.
The rape and slaying of Infidels of ALL AGES was acceptable practice in Mohammedanism so it may not have been considered necessary to record such specific acts on every occasion.
Consider the following Suras/Hadiths dictated by Mohammad which can only be interpreted as encouraging pederasty.
1. Koran 52:24 Round about them will serve, to them, boys (handsome) as pearls well-guarded.
2. Koran 56:17 Round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness.
3. Koran 76:19 And round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered pearls.
Homosexuality is, of course, prohibited in Islam, but it could also be that imams and higher ranking clerics are exempted from the edict.
polymathblogger:
You wrote:
"Hesperado, you're wrong about whether one example is enough to convict someone of pedophilia."
Then your next sentence continued:
"Normal men begin to feel sexually attracted to females once they have reached puberty..."
What "normal men" may "feel" has nothing to do with laws.
As for the psychological definition of pedophilia, I see that the best source -- the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) -- indicates that I was wrong on one point at least: that in fact one case is sufficient for the label "pedophile".
In their section on "sexual disorders" they have the subcategory "pedophilia". There, under "Symptoms", they write:
This disorder is characterized by either intense sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child (typically age 13 or younger). To be considered for this diagnosis, the individual must be at least 16 years old and at least 5 years older than the child.
However, the matter of what pedophilia consists of precisely, and whether Mohammed's case fits, seems unresolved, if we follow the DSM-IV definition above. The key point there is the phrase "...intense sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity..."
As far as I know, the only data indicative of this in Mohammed's case is the hadith where Aisha states that often she would have to wash off Mohammed's semen stains from his clothing. This, however, is rather vague and elliptical and is not sufficient to establish the description in the DSM-IV's phrase quoted above. Otherwise, Mohammed could have chosen Aisha for any number of non-sexual reasons, and even his sex with her may not have risen to the standards set by that DSM-IV phrase.
Secondly, I never tried to argue that Mohammed's relations with Aisha were "normal" -- nor, more pertinently, did I ever imply they were not horrible. I.e., it doesn't have to be technically pedophilia for it to be a horrible act.
Has anyone in Austria been prosecuted for denigration of Christian religous beliefs?
Is a homosexual act involving a prepubescent boy considered an offense in Islam even if it's a cleric of whatever standing who perpetrates it?
To date, I have not been able to establish a conclusive answer one way or the other.
On the subject of whether Mohammad should be considered a paedophile or not, below is another related link.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10197
This is how 'hate speech laws' work: against us.
" the charges against Elisabeth were “incitement to hatred” and “denigration of religious beliefs"
This confirms that the EU is going ahead with the Euromed Project, which will settle 50 million Mohammedans in Europe, impoverishing everyone except the mullahs.
Then comes the hammer:
" a legally recognized religion”
for giving informational seminars on Islam.
Mohammedans have long been working to make Islam a "legally recognized religion", but elsewhere in Europe they haven't been able to achieve that status yet. In Austria they have that privilege, and that comes with blasphemy statutes etc, exactly what makes this dilemma possible.
This is indeed scandalous beyond comprehension and must be overturned. If Elisabeth becomes a political prisoner there will be riots, and heads will roll. Austrians still have a bit of fighting power in them, this will not go quietly.
Not all is lost! I still see a few juridical openings.
The first is suggesting other pedophile men may become moslem, for the reason that they can escape their rightful punishment.
The second thing is the following. The death of the holy prophet of Allah was strange. In fact he was poisoned. Who else could have done this then his lovely child bride. There was a lot of money involved, the stealing and robbing brought a huge amount of goods to the house of the prophet. And don't forget the zakat! The lovely child bride took over the biggest part of the business. She would have been a silly cow if she would have ended this profitable way of getting filthy rich by telling people that the holy prophet was nothing more than a crook. The fact that is that there never has been love is in the life and the death of the prophet, they left the dead body for what it was for several days, the corps was covered with flies and even pigs started to consume the mortal remains of the dead prophet. This is well known in the islamic world. Facts about his death are in the hadith. Talking of writing about it is still after more than 1300 years after the prophet went to hell a reason for upright and a lot of fuss.
Aisha murdered Mohammed when she was something like 18, therefor she did something against the man how raped her, therefor the rape was not of her consent. And seen from that point of view Mohammed is in fact still a child raper.
I see a good reason to go to appeal to this court decision.
vanhetgoor,
"The death of the holy prophet of Allah was strange. In fact he was poisoned. Who else could have done this then his lovely child bride."
There's no evidence that Aisha poisoned Mohammed; or indeed, that he was even poisoned at his end. Robert Spencer's book on Mohammed has all the relevant details on this.
More broadly, this comment by vanhetgoor reflects a PC MC twinge, by which a young Muslim woman like Aisha cannot possibly have become a fanatical true believer. In fact, she went on to fight for Islam, and even participated in military battles in defense of Islam. Were Aisha alive today, I would not hesitate to consider her an enemy combatant afflicted with a Stockholm Syndrome a thousand times worse, and deadlier, than that of Patty Hearst.
Hesperado
It is absolutely irrelevant wether or not Muhammad was a pedophile in the medical or legal sense. Most people don't use the word "pedophile" in that way, and no one with any kind of sense would expect people to do so.
I'm reminded of a court case in Denmark, where someone was accused of being racist. That person did not want to accept that label, so she sued. She lost. Why? Because the word "racism" has, in Denmark, been used in a very loose manner, i.e. "Actors are subjected to a kind of racism". So because of the way in which the word was used by the public, the court found that she could be called a racist.
I know Austria isn't Denmark, but the principle should still be valid. No one can be expected to know the exact scientific, medical, legal or other meaning of every word they utter. All they can be expected to do is use the words in the way the public does, and I'd wager that calling Muhammad a pedophile would fall in that category in most developed countries.
I hope she appeals, cause the verdict is ridiculous.
Regards
No doubt that whatever Mohammed preached was not divinely ordained,stemming from his obvious mental illlness of deviant lust. This judge shows an insensitivity to innocent children whose parents value principals of a just society that protects people from uncivil,disrespectful,hateful ideologies.She herself suffer from some kind of imbalance of abuse or is too naive to see beyond her nose.
laller,
Your argument in a court of law if valid would then have to prove that most people use the word "pedophile" in a manner loose enough so that Mohammed need not comport with the technical definition, and only need comport with the vulgar (= popular) definition. Also, that popular definition needs to be described, if one is going to use it in a court of law.
However, I'm not so sure the judge in this Austrian case would be satisfied with that. The primary motivation here seems to be to punish “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion”, and if even the popular definition of pedophile is deemed to be a denigration (and of course it is), then the law is broken.
The fine point implied in this article and its introductory analysis is that the judge was trying to argue that if a particular word or description of Mohammed is accurate, then there is no denigration going on (similar to slander laws). I'm not so sure that a severely PC MC (if not outright Leftist) legal system is going to tolerate such a loophole.
For example, a person could argue using Islamic sources that Mohammed's behavior can be also labelled with the following labels:
thief
pillager
murderer
torturer
warmonger
wife abuser
rapist
slave trader
I doubt, however, that this judge and similar Euro-Leftists are going to allow such epithets for Mohammed to be bruited about, merely on the basis that they can be proven to be accurate.
"ethnic incitement"
"religious denigration"
"holocaust denial"
As long as you can be fined (or jailed, the way "Holocaust denier" David Irving was in 2005 in Austria, there is NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH there.
As long as any law allows any of these things.
Hesperado makes some interesting speculative comments. Given that E S-W was found not guilty on the "Incitement to hatred" charge and found guilty on the denigration charge only because of a particularly narrow interpretation of the word 'pedophile', it would seem to me that everything else she said in her lectures has been deemed to be OK, even by this judge. The obvious question occurs - who, being knowledgeable of Austrian Law, will now write a commentary carefully defining what, based on these judgements, can be said by campaigners against Islam in Austria, without fear of prosecution. It seems to me, as a layman, that there is plenty of scope.
Guys, thanks for all the interesting comments!
Having been in Vienna twice to cover the trial, I had the opportunity to meet the defence attorney. He is a bright person acutely aware of what can be used and what can be not. I will make sure that he gets a link to the comments above, which constitue fine and creative open source research.
The appeal is on. This thing continues.
syntec: Is a homosexual act involving a prepubescent boy considered an offense in Islam even if it's a cleric of whatever standing who perpetrates it?
Yours is a very pertinent question as it frames Islam's overall view about sex with underaged individuals.
A huge amount of what, in Western circles, would be considered homosexual activity is excused in Islam if the passive participant is prepubescent.
With its usual infinitude of (curly) hairsplitting, only homosexuality between actual "men" is deemed blasphemous or haram. If the submissive partner has yet to acquire pubic hair, that person does not technically qualify as a "man" proper and, therefore, sexual acts involving such an individual do not qualify as being definitively homosexual.
This is borne out in a 2006 publication by the Afghani Taliban of some 30 Rules among which included the following:
Rule 19 says that mujahedeen may not take young boys without facial hair onto the battlefield -- or into their private quarters, an attempt to stamp out the sexual abuse of young boys. [emphasis added]
It is important to keep in mind that the Taliban rank among some of the utmost puritanical of all Islamic sects.
Furthermore, of great pertinence is the continuing tradition in Afghanistan of Bacha Bazi or "dancing boys" who are specifically groomed as catamites for the homosexual prostitution trade. Gates of Vienna covered this practice in the article, "Islam’s Nancy Boys Redux.
Simple logic dictates that if Afghanistan's hyper-repressive Taliban are at all permissive of this unvarnished homosexuality, then its overall prevalence in the Muslim world at large must be of even larger dimensions.
I'm looking forward to the judge defining exactly how Muhammad SHOULD be classified. Having Muhammad declared a 'child molester' in an Austrian court would still make a big contribution to exposing Islam.
Post a Comment