Dr. Stückler has just written another brilliant letter, this time to the appeals court judge who handed down the verdict against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff last December.
Many thanks to JLH for the translation:
Dr. Leo Levnaic-Iwanski
Superior Court, Vienna
Whether one tells the truth or not, it exists.
— Kurt Tucholsky
Appeasement is like feeding a crocodile in the hope of being the last to be eaten.
— Winston Churchill
Vienna, January 28, 2012
Dear Dr Levnaic-Iwanski:
I protest most strenuously against the conviction of Mrs. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff according to § 188 for statements she made in the context of an Islam seminar in the FPÖ party-sponsored course.
This conviction represents a political abuse of § 188 StG and is an offense against the human right of freedom of expression. It is not Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff, but the actions of Mohammed himself which derogate him and his teachings. She was instead convicted because she spoke a truth that was very uncomfortable for the ruling party. It is no coincidence that FPÖ was also sitting in the defendant’s seat.
If the judgment had had anything to do with justice and the defense of civil standards, then it could not have protected Mohammed — in view of the fatal effect of his example up to now — from “denigration.” Quite the contrary! By protecting Mohammed from “denigration,” Austrian justice denigrates itself.
The Superior Court confirmed the verdict, although with a somewhat different reasoning. While the lower court regarded pedophilia as factually completely unjustified, the higher court judged the remark “liked a little something with children” to be an extreme evaluation. Only the isolated explanation that Mohammed had sex with a child was allowable.
In supporting the verdict, there was explicit reference to the Winter case and the disposition of the European Court of Justice:
Dr. Susanne Winter was convicted by the superior court in Graz under § 188 StG on the basis of her statement that Mohammed in present understanding is a child abuser.
According to the ECJ, the constitutional right of freedom of expression includes making shocking and insulting statements, but the practice of this right is tied to duties and responsibility — pre-eminently in connection with religious doctrine. Thus, there is the obligation to refrain even from true statements if they are baselessly insulting.
The example was given of mocking a handicapped person because of his handicap. The handicap is a fact, but the mockery is a baseless insult.
This example is so skewed that it says everything about the political character of the verdict. Here, indeed, criticism of and profession of contempt for a person (Mohammed) because of his action, which even according to Austrian law (!) is a crime, is placed on a level with mockery of an unfortunate (handicapped person).
The whole process of the trial — from the placing of the complaint to the justification
of the verdict — show that this was a political process. Should any further proof be needed, it is provided by the systematic non-use of § 188 StG in cases of mockery and ridicule of Christianity and its sacred figures.
Justifications of the verdict — from thread-bare to crazy
Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff and/or Susanne Winter judged Mohammed with the designation pedophilia or child abuse just as they would any other person — that is, by his actions and not his claim, which is contradicted by them.
It is the action and not the designation that derogates Mohammed and Islam.
The “denigration” which makes both defendants “guilty” in the eyes of Austrian justice consists of truth, insofar as they called the deeds of Mohammed by their name “without regard to the person” (a pillar of European law, if I am not mistaken), and in so doing gave expression to a politically very uncomfortable truth.
And as far as the expression “liked to have a little something with children” is concerned, this was not said without reason. because Mohammed’s behavior in this respect still today sets the norm. It legitimizes not only marriage with children, but sanctions pedophiliac behavior.
Islamic legal scholars from Morocco to Indonesia (among them the largest Moslem organization in Indonesia, NU, which is considered the “most moderate”), still sanction marriage to children. In many Islamic countries, there is not even a minimum age for marriage. And even where state law provides one, e.g., in Turkey, marriages to minor girls are not rare, And such cases are known in the Muslim communities in Europe and in the West in general.
So pedophilia itself in the strict sense can be pursued “legally”. Furthermore, a Muslim may at any time put aside his wife with no grounds and even take several new ones. Both Shi’ites an Sunnis are acquainted with the “timed marriage” and the time can be as short as desired. Islamic law, based on the sayings and deeds of Mohammed, does not put limits on pedophiliac abuse. Rather, it fosters it.
And the legal abuse of girls paves the way for the sexual abuse of boys.
Bottom line: Anyone who does not speak with scientific exactitude about Islam and its Prophet, uses language carelessly or goes so far as to measure his still normative acts and words by European standards and Austrian legislation (!) commits a crime in the eyes of Austrian justice (!) — cultural relativism to a tee.
Politically uncomfortable truths
Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff and Mrs. Winter were not found guilty because they denigrated the religious doctrines of Islam — the actions of Mohammed and the doctrines of Islam manage that themselves — but because they spoke politically extremely uncomfortable truths: that Islamic law (sharia) and therefore Islam contradict “our social standards and laws.”
This conviction was intended to make an example, since Mohammed was guilty of quite different and far more uncomfortable acts: assassination, mass murder, campaigns of war and pillage, enslavement and slave trading, rape, extortion, etc. Anyone can read about this in the basic texts of Islam: Koran, hadith and sira (official biography of Mohammed).
All these are actions directed against non-Muslims, which are likewise justified in sharia, Islamic law. This is a law that has all the characteristics of a law of conquest and occupation, and claims a temporal and spatial universality as an allegedly “divine” law.
That this claim has lost none of its validity is directly demonstrated for us. Not small minorities, but great majorities speak for the dominance of sharia — in the Arabic world in votes and in Muslim communities in Europe in polls. And the OIC (with its 57 member countries representing the entire Islamic world) has for years tried to impose on the whole world the most important of all the conditions of sharia — “No one may criticize Islam, and each must honor it as the ‘religion of peace and tolerance’” by Islamizing the UN human rights organization.
Islam is by no means only a religion. It is a political ideology with a totalitarian claim. Criticism of Islam is not just our right, but, from the standpoint of human rights, it is our duty.
A very uncomfortable truth for governing parties: They should accept responsibility for a completely irresponsible immigration policy and put an end to a mass immigration that has become a runaway process. It is no coincidence that in both cases the FPÖ is sitting at the defendant’s table.
In the indictment, it is not against Islam, but against Sabaditsch-Wolff, that the charge of incitement is laid, by way of regulations directed against non-Muslims. When it became clear in the course of the trial that a conviction for incitement was not possible (in accordance with legal interpretation at the time), the charge was changed to denigration of religious doctrines. ( § 188 StG)
Bottom Line: Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff had to be convicted at all costs. If any further proof is needed, here it is:
Systematic refusal to prosecute denigration of Christianity
Invoking freedom of thought and art, the justice system regularly refuses to prosecute obvious derision and mockery of Christianity and its most sacred persons — derision and mockery which are devoid of any
factual basis and far exceed any “excessive evaluation” to say nothing of criticism.
Such derision and mockery are also frequently propagated “publicly and legally” and sometimes even subsidized as “art.” To give just a recent example: In December 2011, a so-called “Blasphemous Christmas Fair” took place for the second time in Vienna. A presentation explicitly targeting § 188 StG, in the erroneous belief that it would protect Christianity. Radio ORF — legally financed by fees required of the public — reported on it precisely on Christmas Eve in its “cultural broadcast,” Austria 1.
Bottom line: In abuse of §188 StG, the Austrian “rule of law” protects Islam and its Prophet from “denigration, but does not protect Christianity from derision and mockery. The more perverse and ominous the doctrines and the more intolerant the adherents of the religion in question are, so much greater is the protection of the Austrian “constitutional state.” Truth as evidence is out of style and the door is open to extortion.
Iron Curtain Transformed Into Iron Hijab
Twenty years after the fall of the Wall. we must unfortunately confirm that the Iron Curtain did not fall, but moved west and changed to the Iron Hijab. Freedom of expression ends where Islam begins. Lies are already reasons of state and the law is a Potemkin Village. With this verdict, the Austrian “constitutional state” has become an accomplice of the OIC and the enforcer of the most important of all sharia provisions — “No one may criticize Islam and its Prophet. Everyone must worship him.”
The Austrian “constitutional state” allegedly dedicated to human rights is protecting, of all people, a “Prophet” who treacherously had his critics murdered and thus delivered all his future critics to being shot down — up to the present day — Salman Rushdie (The Satanic Verses), Van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Submission), the Pope (Regensburg speech), Robert Redeker (article in Le Figaro), Kurt Westergaard (Danish Cartoons), Wilders (Fitna) — just the best-known.
Not only the Islam critic, but also religious peace is threatened. This is a glimpse into the Islamic world, where state regulations on blasphemy have become a deadly weapon in the hands of Islamic fanatics and loosed a spiral of religious violence. A prime example is Pakistan where more than a thousand charges have been made since the introduction of state blasphemy regulations under Zia ul-Haq. Virtually all of them were made with complaints created out of whole cloth, which have become crazier and more absurd. But once in the crosshairs of the law and publicly exposed, the accused is under sentence of death even when set free.
Against this murderous background, the Austrian “constitutional state” has already made the preferring of charges an injustice.
— Dr. Maria Stückler
For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.