In the following RUPTLY video an unidentified woman discusses the decision by the European Court of Human Rights on the “hate speech” case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.
Yesterday’s decision constitutes the official implementation of sharia within the EU, since there is no longer any freedom of speech for those who offend Muslims with their words. The court determined that the “protection of religious sentiments” overrules freedom of speech.
The ECHR has thus eliminated freedom of speech in cases where the “religious peace” might be put at risk. This effectively establishes the “heckler’s veto” as a judicial precedent in the EU: those who shout the loudest and most menacingly are allowed to determine what everyone else is allowed to say.
There is only one religion that gets offended enough to threaten the religious peace in Europe, and that is Islam. Therefore the threat of violent behavior by Muslims determines which expressions about Islam are acceptable, and which are to be considered unlawful.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is SHARIA.
Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Video transcript:
| 00:05 | Yesterday’s decision in the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has | |
| 00:09 | established that there was no violation of Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention and with | |
| 00:15 | that no violation of Freedom of Expression was present. This case is related to the criminal | |
| 00:20 | conviction of the complainant due to the denigration of religious teaching in Austria. | |
| 00:27 | The complainant made particular statements that suggested that Mohammed | |
| 00:33 | possessed pedophilic inclinations. The European Court for Human Rights found that the | |
| 00:40 | domestic courts in Austria made an appropriate accommodation between the right to freedom | |
| 00:52 | of expression and the right to the protection of religious sentiments. | |
| 01:04 | The finding of the court was that the domestic courts had comprehensively | |
| 01:10 | taken into account the context in which the statement was made. Moreover, they had | |
| 01:15 | presented sufficient and substantial reasons why, in their view, the boundaries | |
| 01:19 | of an objective debate were exceeded. |
For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.
Hi Baron/Vlad,
I am trying to identify the judges who made the decision in this particular case. So far it has not been an easy matter. Any hints?
Cheers
ECHR judges:
ECHR source document
I don’t understand why there is an Azerbaijani judge sitting on a European court.
As we were taught in the Soviet school, the border between Europe and Asia should pass through the Ural Mountains and the Caucasus Mountains.
Strange. What is Azerbaijan and Georgia doing there? Probably they were taken there to annoy Russian.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B4%D1%83_%D0%95%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B8_%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B9
According to the ECHR Press Release:
“The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 June 2012.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
Angelika Nußberger (Germany), President,
André Potocki (France),
Síofra O’Leary (Ireland),
Mārtiņš Mits (Latvia),
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria),
Lәtif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan),
Lado Chanturia (Georgia),
and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar”
Interestingly, the press release contains the following footnote:
“1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.”
So, the decision can be appealed. ESW must be exhausted by this struggle but if sufficient support is shown for her perhaps these judges will listen.
Can’t seem to link to the press release itself but you can find a workable link to it on the ECHR home page:
https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
The judges are chosen from the member states of the Council of Europe—and that includes Azerbaijjan as well as Turkey and Russia. So, now I understand how Turkey can be taken to the ECHR—never understood the connection before.
The Council of Europe is a wider-reaching organization than the EU and Turkey has been a member from almost the very beginning (1949). Does this mean that one of Erdogan’s judges may one day rule on a European human rights case? I think it does and it might have already happened. Is it just me, or does anyone else have a sense of unease about all this?
If the Austrians had not had this stupid law on their statute book in the first place the case could not have been brought. It is ridiculous that in the 21st century any Western country has any sort of blasphemy law on their statute books. You cannot have freedom of speech and blasphemy laws.
As for accusing Mohammed of pedophilia this is tricky. The psychological definition of pedophilia is having a preference or exclusive sexual attraction for pre pubescents. It is quite obvious from the Islamic scriptures that this was not the case as nowhere is it suggested that any of Mo’s other wives or cocubines were children like Aisha. Indeed Khadija was several years older than him. The two sentences on which she was convicted were considered inaccurate. In my view she was ” guilty” of sloppy language and this should be a lesson to all counter jihadis. Make sure that what you are saying cannot be nit picked as the jihadi lawfare brigade will take you to court at the drop of a hat. If you are unfortunate to live in one of those European countries that still have blasphemy laws be extra careful.
Does any German speaker know what the exact word used in the Austrian law is that has been translated as ” denigrating” religious doctrine? If the correct translation is denigrating than I am puzzled as to what religious doctrine ESW denigrated.