Morten Messerschmidt is an MEP for Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People’s Party, DF). In the following op-ed from Ekstrabladet Mr. Messerschmidt discusses the ramifications of the “hate speech” conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, which was recently upheld by the European Court of Human Rights.
Many thanks to Tania Groth for the translation:
Cowardly Judges Pander To Islam
by Morten Messerschmidt
If the Muslims’ favorite prophet Muhammad was brought to trial today for his behavior in Arabia in the 6th and 7th centuries, the charges would be armed robbery and assault, gang violence, abduction, murder, camel theft, arson, extortion, bigamy, rape and pedophilia.
He would end up killing time together with Peter Lundin and Peter Madsen [two savage and psychopathic murderers currently behind bars — translator]. In the United States he would have received so many sentences that he would not be released until the end of the 22nd century.
But the same verdicts would also be levied upon Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun and the Scandinavian Viking chieftains, who for centuries plagued Europe’s Christian civilization — until they themselves became Christians.
One must be careful to judge the past by today’s moral scale.
But can it be made punishable by law to utter a reminder of the past in order to become wiser in the present? Should courts have the power to punish citizens when they point towards and recount what has actually been done in the history of humanity?
“Yes” was the conclusion by an Austrian court in 2009, and “yes” was the conclusion by a majority of the 47 judges sitting on the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg the other day.
A woman in Austria had been sentenced for blasphemy for having “violated the religious peace”. This was the verdict she laid before the Court of Human Rights with reference to the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing her the right to freedom of expression. However, the judges agreed with the Austrian court. As a result she now has to pay a symbolic fine.
In 2009 Elisabeth Wolff held a series of courses, a kind of ‘Islam for Beginners’. I do not know the quality of the course. However, she was so thorough that she included the fact that Islam’s founder Muhammad at the age of 53 married a 6-year-old girl and had sexual relations with her when she was 9. Full stop. These facts are verifiable.
The relationship is carefully and frequently described in Islamic Hadith, which, next to the Koran, is the holiest scripture of the Muslims. The Hadith contain accounts of Muhammad’s life and deeds, often in the most intimate and brutal details. Details that I will omit here in order to spare the reader. It should noted that believing Muslims are not ashamed of the Hadith; on the contrary, they considers them a recommendation for how Muslim men should live based on the exemplary behavior of Muhammad.
Therefore, it is only logical that the Islamic Republic of Iran allows nine-year-olds to be given away to be married if the father and a Muslim scholar give their consent.
The Vikings abducted and raped girls and made them into sex-slaves — if they were not sold to Muslim harems in the East. But Christianity has been a showdown against brute strength. There is an ocean of difference between trying to follow Jesus’ message of turning the other cheek vs. following in the footsteps of Muhammad’s plunderings.
But that has nothing to with the case in Strasbourg. It is first and foremost scandalous because it attempts to limit our right to express facts that we believe we have revealed or simply to express our interpretation of them. Or even to discuss them.
Everything that is valuable in the Europe we know.
The verdict in Strasbourg — and in Austria as a whole — has nothing to do with law, but has everything to do with politics. And politics includes both cowardice and courage. The judges have shown cowardice on behalf of Europeans because they fear the violence that Europe’s ever-greater Muslim presence directs against ‘the unbelievers’, ‘blasphemers’, ‘apostates’ and ‘heretics’.
This is why the judges say that quoting the Koran must be seen in a broader context, and there must be a balance between freedom of expression and the “right of others to have their religious feelings protected” as well as “the legitimate requirement to preserve the religious peace.”
But can you imagine that the court in Strasbourg would be as energetic in preserving ‘religious peace’ if Muslims in a European country had been convicted and sentenced for hurting the feelings of Christians by claiming that Jesus was not the Son of God? Hardly. Christianity’s message of freedom allows for that sort of thing.
In England the priest Hugh Montefiore raised a great furor in 1967 when he suggested in a lecture that Jesus could have been a homosexual. Nevertheless, he became a bishop in Birmingham in 1978, lived a life without bodyguards and without fear of Christian death squads. He died peacefully in his sleep in 2005.
It is worrying that European courts, out of fear of an immigrant group’s rage, relinquish precious territory to a brutal desert religion. The European Court of Justice has once again shown that it has no legitimacy. Therefore, the cowardly judge’s verdict should be ignored and only be remembered as another attempt at cowardly surrender.
For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.