Elisabeth’s Voice — Now More Than Ever

We reported on Friday that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had finally handed down its decision on the appeal by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff against her conviction in Austria for “hate speech”. The court ruled against her, saying that the Austrian law under which she was tried was within acceptable limits, and did not violate her human rights, because it served the higher good of protecting religious feelings and keeping the religious peace.

The ECHR’s decision has given far more prominence to Elisabeth’s case than it has ever had before. At the bottom of this post is a list of 68 English-language media reports on the decision. The outlets include The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Al Arabiya, The Atlantic, Fox News, National Review, Newsweek, The Telegraph, and numerous others.

I recommend that Elisabeth’s supporters augment this wave of publicity in any way they can. If you keep a blog, you could feature her case and the court’s decision. If you comment on news sites or post on forums, you can inject the topic into the conversation.

Ultimately, this case is not just about Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. Everyone who falls under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights — which means not only those in Western Europe, but Hungary, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, the Baltics, Romania, Bulgaria, and even Russia — has been put on notice: If you say anything that “disturbs the religious peace” — i.e., offends Muslims — your speech is no longer protected by human rights laws.

I can guarantee you that the Muslim world has taken note of the ECHR’s decision. Al Arabiya is not the only Islamic outlet that reported on the decision — check the list for other news sites in the Middle East and South Asia, especially Pakistan.

Once again, I must emphasize the exact words spoken by Elisabeth concerning Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha, for which she was prosecuted and convicted. They were: “What do you call it if not ‘pedophilia’?”

It was a question she raised in a private conversation, and then recounted during her seminar. That was what the entire case against her was built on.

She also remarked that the prophet of Islam “had a thing for little girls.” It’s no longer legal to say those things (and variants on them) in Austria, as confirmed by the ECHR. However, it IS legal to say this:

“Muhammad’s wife Aisha entered the marriage at age 6, which was consummated at the age of 9.”— Higher Court of Vienna, decision Dec 20, 2011

or in German:

„Mohammeds Frau Aischa wurde mit 6 Jahren verheiratet. Die Ehe wurde vollzogen, als sie 9 Jahre alt war.” — Laut OLG Wien, Urteil vom 20.12.2011

The ECHR decision does NOT impact on any Austrian’s right to say those things, because they were stated in the public record by the highest court in Vienna.

As I remarked back in December 2011, on the day of the higher court’s decision:

As reported in the live-blog earlier today, the high-court judge in Vienna actually allowed the quoting of an authoritative hadith in the courtroom: “Muhammad’s wife Aisha entered the marriage at age 6, which was consummated at the age of 9.” He then acknowledged that the passage was already public knowledge, and thus repeating it could not be punishable under the law.

He upheld Elisabeth’s conviction, however, based on a somewhat peculiar interpretation of Austrian law: to say “Mohammed had a thing for little girls” is an “excess of opinion” that cannot be tolerated. It constitutes ridicule, and is not justifiable.

An interesting and useful corollary can be derived from today’s ruling: it is now completely legal to quote in public the authoritative hadith about Mohammed’s sex acts with a nine-year-old girl. A precedent was established today — at least in Austria.

To that end, one of our Austrian contacts conceived the idea for the Aisha Billboard Project, which would go on prominent display somewhere in Vienna. The digitally-created billboard below shows the German-language version:

And the English translation:

However, a financial backer for the project could never be found. Which is understandable — People in Europe are really scared to stick their necks out, and with good reason. It may be officially legal to say what’s on that billboard, but that doesn’t mean it’s prudent. One’s life may be so easily ruined by the government, or the private sector, or by both working in tandem.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Below the jump is the list of news reports in English about the ECHR’s decision, kindly compiled by Henrik Clausen. There have also been a number of op-eds about the case (including one by Douglas Murray).

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

27 thoughts on “Elisabeth’s Voice — Now More Than Ever

  1. Every time I see stupidity like this, I am reminded of the U.S. First Amendment:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    That really says all that there is to say. If it weren’t for the U.S. being so absolutist in the matter, the *rest* of us would be much worse off. Because as things stand, they can ban whatever they want in Europe and here in Canada, but the truth can still be said at least somewhere.

    So to Americans out there, be aware that you’re not holding back this stupidity from the U.S. just for your own benefit, but for the benefit of all of us.

    • Oh, I can say what I want in USA? If I mention calmly that I do not believe a man can marry another man in any real sense, I WILL BE FIRED TOMORROW as well tens of millions of others like me.

      • See what commenter, manatthepub, says about that:

        manatthepub on October 29, 2018 at 12:10 pm —

        I’m a normal conservative, and after a lengthy period pushing a pen in a very un-conservative sphere I became self-employed and now work with my eldest son in the building trades. And out of all the tradesmen and businessmen that I come in contact with, I am hard pushed to think of any that are happy with the multicultural mess that’s been foisted on us. These are practical people who know how to work hard and who know how to create – effete liberals would stand no chance if push came to shove – as it undoubtedly will.

        We need more people with a strong work ethic who aren’t afraid to step out on their own. That’s a deeply practical courage.

  2. In Russia, headlines rattled in the central press in conjunction “Mohammed is a pedophile”:

    The European court of human rights (ECHR) on Thursday ruled that the principle of freedom of speech can not justify insults to the prophet Muhammad, and therefore issued a fine to an Austrian citizen for accusing the Central figure of Islam of pedophilia, does not violate her right to freedom of expression.

    Imagine how many people paid attention and thought about it, but until recently them were told everywhere that Muhammad is almost the same as Jesus and Buddha, only in turban.

    • The ruling itself, ideally, should be insignificant, with the individual countries determining what is acceptable and what is not. I’m not saying I would agree with a country suppressing freedom of expression, but I would rather have the decision based in nations rather than a mega-national court.

      I see it as analogous to the Roe vs Wade abortion decision. I support the right to choose, but I think it is a state, rather than a federal matter. The Supreme Court had no business getting involved at all. If you’re in a state that forbids abortions, you should be free to move to a state that allows abortions. But, the worst abuse, as in the ECHR, is to make a one-idea-fits-all situation.

      • My philosophy exactly. The 10th Amendment needs more attention from the Supreme Court – i.e., it should turn down cases which violate the 10th.

        • Very interesting. I’m currently reading the anti-Federalist papers, which argued that the Articles of Confederation, a true federation of sovereign states, should be amended as needed, rather than adopt the US Constitution, which regardless of the 10th amendment window-dressing, created a nation with the subordinate states.

          One of the arguments in the anti-Federalist papers is that with the commerce clause, giving the federal government the power to regulate commerce between states, virtually any intrusion into state sovereignty could be justified.

        • I didn’t know that one. If only the EU had something similar. There was something about “subsidiarity” in the Maastrich Treaty, but it seems more honoured in the breach than the observance.

    • Are you sure about the Russian headlines? Can’t imagine Ramzan in Grozny, or Putin’s other Islamist friends would have been too pleased.

  3. I’d try looking for backers in Russia, despite many negative things from them, at least they don’t [care] what the rest of the world thinks and they might be willing to pay for the campaign. Or somewhere in Asia (East Asia, of course), it’s just that Russia is a European country, so it would be closer to home. Or Israel maybe? I’m sure they’d love to support something like that.

  4. This whole thing is ridiculous you can not “graduate” free speech. The “funny” EU “court” should be ashamed of itself.

    • I don’t know if that can be done in Austria. Maybe our European readers can weigh in on the topic.

      • I don’t know about Austria in detail, but I imagine it’s similar across Europe: as long as it’s no hate speech, you can pay to have a billboard printed whichever way you like. Similarily as long as it’s nothing to fuel hatred towards any groups, you can crowdfund almost anything. So the obvious question is: would certain groups attack the billboards as hate speech and is there any risk in going to court for it? I do not know the answer to that, but I imagine the risk would be higher in the US or Canada than in the UK or France, higher in the UK or France than in Germany or Austria, higher in Germany or Austria than in Poland or Hungary, you get the idea… Another way of lowering the risk would probably be to host the crowdfunding abroad or perhaps even establish a little firm abroad (again I’m thinking Russia here) and have that company have said billboards placed in Austria or elsewhere.

        • The idea is to use that billboard to quote the High Court of Vienna, verbatim. It would be hard for the SJWs to make the case that the Court’s words were “hate speech”. But I assume they would try.

  5. This decision of “human rights” court could very well be an interesting precedent in future European court dealings between Muslims and “those who are there a little bit longer”. Let’s say wouldn’t next logical stop after verdict like this be to forbid any criticism of let’s say taharrush (group rape), criticism of attacks on kaffir, murder of kaffir and could this be used by lawyers defending Muslims in court of law for spending some “quality time” with children like those awful, awful “Asian group” in England? After all, isn’t criticism of those occurrences just blatant attack on religious feelings of members of Religion of Peace(RIP)?

    I guess what I’m trying to say is all those things and much more are allowed by Quran and by Prophet whose idyllic relationship with a 9-year-old child cannot be called pedophilia any longer in brave new Europe of 21st century. Interestingly enough no protests against this verdict are being conducted at the time in Europe, so it’s safe to say that it’s populace is at the last stages of acceptance or apathy or degeneracy, depending on a state of mind of today’s European.

    • Let’s keep in mind that Elizabeth was prosecuted under an Austrian law..or at least, an Austrian law that was stretched long enough to cover criticism of Islam.

      The only thing the ECHR did was to assert that there is no universal European legal principle to counteract a national law criminalizing criticism of Islam. In other words, “European values” has nothing to do with real human rights, but with bureaucratic prerogative.

      To me, the weaker the ECHR is, the better. You have countries such as Sweden and England circling the drain, and the ECHR is not going to save them. If you concede the authority of the likes of the ECHR over the many countries of Europe, it indeed won’t be too long before criticism of Islam is criminalized, even in countries like Hungary that expressly allow it. I hope the nations that wish to keep their identity as nations will pull out of all authorities and legal bodies such as this, and have confidence in their own institutions.

      • I don’t think anybody will be asked to accept decisions of supranational courts in future. By anybody I mean individuals and countries. Unelected officials between themselves decide what’s good for plebs in modern EUSSR. Seen many times before. And yes I do believe we are neck deep in totalitarianism. And yes I do believe courts of many European countries will jump at possibility to use this verdict as a precedent in future. One thing they showed time and time again- they absolutely don’t care what people think.

      • Islam is an established religion in Austria. This dates from the history of the Austro Hungarian Empire. There was no need for any stretching. You could probably say whatever insulting things you like against Moonies. The problem is countries having blasphemy laws on their books in this day and age. Austria is not the only European country that has blasphemy laws. The original prosecution could not succeed here in France . None of the cases that Charlie Hebdo has been subjected to for what amounts to blasphemy ( whether brought by Muslims or the Catholic Church ) have succeeded. It is the specific law of denigrating religious figures or objects ( presumably relics or statues) in Austria that was used when incitement to religious hatred was rejected . I would have more sympathy for ESW if she wanted to get rid of Austria’s silly blasphemy laws altogether. If you read the entire judgement para 41 makes it plain she doesn’t.

        • I think you completely misunderstand what I have stood for all my life. I will make it very clear once and for all: I am utterly against any kind of blasphemy law, always have been, always will be.

          I do not need your sympathy; I need you to demand freedom of speech, which includes freedom of religion and any other freedom associated with it, i.e. the freedom to blaspheme. God needs no protection.

  6. The ECHR is just one of the many moral inquisition arms of this freemasonic belief system in the humanitarian religion and the multiculturalist ideology.
    We are damned to see all these absurd lies until the Truth of Christ will be reverted.

  7. Given the change of the situation since 2011, perhaps now might be a good time to resurrect the idea of the Aisha billboards? They could also contain the text – “one is not allowed to call this paedophilia – confirmed by the Austrian court, and by the ECHR” .

    And if backers for the project can’t be found in the dhimmified parts of Europe, then surely they could be gained further afield, including
    in Italy, and in North (and, as of today, South) America?

  8. We are being politically correct. We are accepting as fact that Aisha was 9 when Mohammad entered her. That is what Islam says but our suspicion would be 6.

    We may concede that she was 6 when Mohammad married Aisha. We also know from the sources that Aisha watched the beheading of hundreds of infidels when she was a minor.

    We do not have to mitigate the crimes in any way.

Comments are closed.