Blasphemy and the ECHR

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.

18 thoughts on “Blasphemy and the ECHR

  1. One vital point is that Mohammed claimed to be a Prophet of God, even the last one. That means he should be judged by the highest standards. Under Jewish law, he would have been stoned to death as a false prophet.

  2. For some there are little girls, for others there are little boys, and for the rest there is a lot of money.

    Given that the trade with underage victims for pedophiles is run by Islamists, the question is how high in the positions of power can we find old perverted and therefore corrupted judges and politicians, who are, of course, easily blackmailed?

    • Given that the trade with underage victims for pedophiles is run by Islamists

      Sex trafficking is done all over the world, by any group you’d care to name. Middle East countries have historically been some of the biggest buyers, but it’s everywhere. Rent-boys are big business, for instance, in Brussels.

      • Yea its a big business in London too…

        That’s what I wonder about: What if the third world invasion and the western governments excusing and protection of Islam is a direct result of middle eastern influence via blackmail of the pedophiles?

        That’s what I meant by that post.

        • That’s very possible. The communists also used that sort of honey trap very effectively.

  3. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd…..for pushback (legal AND ‘otherwise’) against the execrable ‘Judges’ and their odious “court”……………….

    …………….we have…………………..


  4. “Cowardly Judges” – No, they are not (just) cowards, but they helping their Islamist comrades in arms in the great Marxist struggle, to wipe out western civilization.

  5. An interesting aside ……. as most on here know the place once known as the “Island of Saints and Scholars” i.e. Ireland, has now become the “Island of Queers and squalor”
    They have legitimized so called marriage between defective sexes, they have legitimized divorce and abortion.
    Only last week they repealed a part of their constitution which said blasphemy was legal. Any part of the Irish written constitution which anyone wishes to change must be done by referendum – not by the corrupt parliamentarians.
    So what this must mean that any one in Ireland must now be free to call mohhamed any thing they like and it will not be blasphemy.
    I can guarantee that those idiots did not think through the consequences of their vote, as they were targeting the Catholic Church and their desire to blasphemy the Virgin Mary and her Son without punishment.
    The old adage be ‘careful for that which you wish comes to mind’
    Btw the Irish are probably the most keen to uphold the communist European union of all its delusional members.
    Ps I am Irish but no longer a proud one.

    • I used to respect the Irish for their strong Christian spirit. I thought Ireland was something special. Unfortunately, it seems that Ireland is now as spiritually corrupt as any other European nation. The results of the two recent referendums mean that in about twenty years the country of St Patrick and St Brigit will turn into an ordinary rubbish bin, no better than Belgium or Sweden.

  6. Several hundred thousand little girls were raped by muslim men in Britain over decades while those who were supposed to protect them, Councils, Police, Social Servies, media and schools ignored it for fear of being called “Racist”. They all knew. No doubt the muslim men were simply following Mo the Paedo’s example.

  7. Now I don’t know for sure, but I’m fairly certain even back then marrying a 6-year-old child wasn’t ok. Neither was pillaging and homicide.
    The real problem though is the fact that millions of people from that area and around the world haven’t moved one step forward and said “this might’ve been ok in his time, but we shouldn’t do that anymore, because girls that young aren’t capable taking care of a marriage and family properly”.
    If you look at Medieval Europe, life expectations weren’t too high, but they still didn’t marry girls off until they were at least 13. In other words during puberty. Sure, aristocrats might’ve promised their hands right at birth, but nothing happened until a more appropriate age. For us that still looks terribly young, but in a sense it’s understandable and most importantly both in the couple were around the same age, marrying a girl significantly younger was, generally speaking, a rarity. Same with old cultures like China or Japan. Even if we look at gay relationships, which were more acceptable in Asia than in Europe, it starts around the age of 13 as well.

Comments are closed.