The ECHR Rules Against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

After almost six years, the European Court of Human Rights has finally handed down a decision on the case “E.S v ECHR” — that is, the appeal by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff of the verdict by the Austrian supreme court in the “hate speech” case against her. As most of you already know, Elisabeth’s “crime” was to utter these words concerning the marriage of Mohammed to Aisha (who was nine years old when the marriage was consummated): “What do you call it if not ‘pedophilia’?”

For readers who are not already familiar with her case, here is a brief timeline of what happened prior to the appeal to the ECHR:

October 2010   Elisabeth was indicted in Vienna, Austria, for statements she made in one of her seminars on the ideology and effect of Islam.
February 2011   Elisabeth was convicted of “hate speech” in an Austrian court. In order to obtain a conviction, the trial judge was forced to introduce a new charge, “denigrating the teaching of a legally recognized religion” — during the trial itself.
December 2011   The verdict was upheld by the appellate court, which noted that her statements constituted “an excess of opinion” punishable under Austrian law.
December 2013   The verdict was upheld by the Austrian supreme court, which noted that under the European Convention of Human Rights, freedom of religion overrides freedom of expression. Elisabeth notes that criticism of Christianity comes under the rubric of art, while criticism of Islam is criminal. She said: “There is no political freedom without religious freedom, inclusive of the right to criticize religion.”

Yesterday the ECHR ruled against Elisabeth, justifying its decision by the need to safeguard religious peace. Here’s the press release she sent out this morning:

On Thursday, 25 October the ECHR ruled that my conviction by an Austrian court for discussing the marriage between Prophet Mohammed and a six year old girl, Aisha, did not infringe my rights of freedom of speech.

I was not extended the courtesy of being told of this ruling. Like many others, I had to read it in the media.

The ECHR found there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that the right to free expression needed to be balanced with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and that the verdict had served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.

In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others.

This should ring warning bells for my fellow citizens across the continent. We should all be extremely concerned that the rights of Muslims in Europe NOT to be offended are greater than my own rights, as a native European Christian woman, to speak freely.

I am proud to be the woman who has raised this alarm.

I am also optimistic. Since giving my seminars in Austria in 2009, we have come a very long way.

Ten years ago the press labeled me a “confused doom-monger” and I was compared to Osama Bin Laden. Now Islam is being discussed in every sphere of life and people are waking up to the reality of a culture so opposed to our own.

The cultural and political threat posed by Islam to Western societies is now widely recognized and discussed. It is fair to say European society, as well as the political realm, is undergoing an enlightenment, as it is more awake than ever to the need to defend our own Judeo-Christian culture.

I believe my seminars in 2009 and subsequent work have contributed to strong push back against an Islamic culture which is so at odds with our own. And note with interest that only one sentence out of twelve hours of seminars on Islam was a prosecutable offense. I assume the remaining content is now officially sanctioned by our Establishment masters.

It is obvious to me that public education and discourse on the subject of Islam can have a fundamental and far-reaching impact, even if our state or supra-national authorities try to stifle or silence it, in order to appease a culture so foreign to our own.

This fight continues. My voice will not and cannot be silenced.

(To support ESW please go to

The news of the decision was featured in the MSM, and not just by Breitbart: The Daily Mail covered it last night (referring only to “Mrs. S” as the defendant).

According to KGS of Tundra Tabloids, Finland’s liberal MSM flagship Helsingin Sanomat headlined the decision: “European Court of Human Rights: Invoking Prophet Muhammad as pedophile does not fall within the scope of freedom of expression.” It compared Elisabeth’s case with that of Jussi Halla-aho.

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

20 thoughts on “The ECHR Rules Against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

  1. Absolutely appalling!
    ‘They’, and their grandchildren, will come to understand their folly in the fullness of time … the horrendous way.

  2. It is good that she does not lose optimism. I have a second day of depression because of this event. My depression was aggravated by this message from China. Even in this country there is no salvation from offended Muslims. Apparently, it was not possible to re-educate all Muslims in the camps.
    Man in China detained after recording himself burning Quran

    • Why are you surprised? Spreading Islam as a political control for the New World Order is a concerted Globalist effort. China’s Communist leaders are part of that Globalist force.

      • Frau Sabadich-Wolf created an interesting phenomenon in the Russian press:

        On the one hand, the Russian Ummah was very enthusiastic. On the other hand, the combination of the words “Muhammad-pedophile” has sounded in all the central publications. And those people who did not delve into the details of Islam before, necessarily had to be interested.

  3. I looked at the faces of the imbeciles on the European Court of Human Rights: overprivileged, overfed, and under handed. No redeeming values whatsoever. I cannot think that the Europeans signed up for the unelected and irresponsible, group of persons exercising the major share of authority over their lives. “You say you want a Revolution…” about time I say. Off with their heads will serve one and all.

    • I think the decision was a natural consequence of trying to subsume separate European countries under one government. The larger the political unit, the more unaccountable the government officials are. The judiciary are the very worst: completely unaccountable by any standard whatsoever. The tenured, unlimited power of the mega-national courts are assiduously sought by leftists pursuing the usual goal of the left: unearned and unlimited power.

      • Are you confusing the European Court of Human Rights (NOT part of the EU) with the European Court of Justice (part of the EU)?

        • “Are you confusing the European Court of Human Rights (NOT part of the EU) with the European Court of Justice (part of the EU)?”


          My real focus is on the international character of the court and the extent to which the court holds real, mega-national authority. If the court has jurisdiction over more-or-less the same countries as comprise the EU, the problem is the same: a basically unaccountable court presiding over several countries and consequently using the lowest common denominator, at best, for the basis of its judgments.

          Thanks for picking up my fuzzy view on the court.

      • The European Court of Human Rights is not part of the EU, don’t confuse it with the European Court of Justice.

  4. All right! All Right! Muhammad wasn’t a pedophile. He was a child rapist. I hope everyone is satisfied now.

  5. Coming to UK very soon! Absolutely disgusting turn of events. Islam is totally alien to our ways of existence but above all thought. And as for being a recognised legal “religion”? What a travesty! These laws I believe date from the Austro-Hungarian imperium, wherein “communities” could live under their own laws. Look what that led to? Four years of the waterlogged trenches and millions of dead….. And the end of the Empire. These Leftist loonies never learn do they from history? Oh I forgot they are busy rewriting it….

  6. This ruling is shocking, but sadly not surprising. In no way can the thought processes of the bureaucrats of the ECHR—which resulted in this travesty of purported justice—be seen as clear, logical, unbiased, rational, intelligent, or informed. Instead, this judgement smacks of appeasement and pandering.

    How could such supposedly learned minds conclude that religious peace in Austria could only be achieved by banning criticism of one religion, Islam (the same consideration seems not to be afforded any other religion)? Such a peace would be shaky in the extreme, with the followers of Islam continually teetering on the brink of outrage, always sensitive to the least slight, always watchful for the least slip of the tongue by Islam-critics (if such would even be allowed in any capacity). Is this really the state of affairs that the ECHR sees as desirable?

    Where did this right to have one’s religious feelings protected come from? It doesn’t form part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the non-Sharia world, this right doesn’t exist (or, at least not until now, in Europe, although we’ve seen constant pressure to validate it). Think about that for a moment. But open any Qur’an, as taught in the mosques of Austria, and slurs against non-Muslims abound. What about their religious feelings? Obviously the ECHR takes no consideration of that.

    By opening up the Pandora’s Box of this purported right, this ruling will lead to unending complaints by offended Muslims in Europe. Who will define the extent and depth of the “religious feelings” to be protected? For that matter, who will define “religious” (do philosophical beliefs count? what if a new religion appears—how long before its adherents are afforded this right? Immediately? Or only after centuries?) What about the definition of “feelings”? (Jordan Peterson, where are you?) Feelings are subjective, hardly the basis for a judicial ruling.

    Elisabeth is to be commended for her courage and fortitude. She deserves all our support.

    • The ideal model of the disinterested judge you paint only applies where the judges are accountable for their judicial demeanor and rulings. Why would you think that a completely unaccountable judge would have the slightest interest in making a disinterested ruling, rather than relying on their fuzzy cultural-Marxist background?

      In the US, a Supreme Court Justice who abuses the office can be removed by impeachment and conviction, but the almost even and utter split of the US Congress makes any such action impossible. About the only guarantee against judicial tyranny we have left is the possibility that a President will flat-out ignore the judiciary on an issue which is absolutely clear, such as the absolute right of the President to bar any immigrant at all.

      • I guess I was thinking along the lines of personal integrity, which seems like a foolish notion in this case.

        I did a little digging and found from reading various sources that apparently these judges are elected, in a manner of speaking, by the Council of Europe from a pool of three candidates per member state contracting to the European Convention on Human Rights. There are standards of behaviour, as well apparently, but it seems that only other judges can determine when one of their own strays too far from the fold. I agree, true accountability is needed. The power of supranational organizations to limit our freedom of expression is a dismal thought.

        There’s so much we, in the general population, don’t know concerning those who rule us. Perhaps we need to reflect on the Tommy Robinson song, “How They Rule Ya” and find out exactly how they do rule us.

        • My thinking is, the larger the area of jurisdiction, and the more diverse the national character of the court operations, the less accountable the court really is. An evenly-divided polity means you can make no political judgments in common.

Comments are closed.