Well, What WOULD You Call It?

As we reported a couple of weeks ago, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and upheld the Austrian court’s conviction of her for denigrating the beliefs of an officially recognized religion by uttering “hate speech” against the prophet Mohammed.

For those who came in late, the hateful words uttered by Elisabeth were in the form of a rhetorical question about Mohammed’s sexual relationship with a 9-year-old girl: “What would you call it, if not ‘pedophilia’?”

The court stipulated to the facts of the case: Mohammed married a 6-year-old girl and consummated the marriage when she was nine. The defendant was simply not permitted to call it “pedophilia”. For her impertinent rhetorical question she was convicted and fined, and the various courts of appeal have upheld her conviction, all the way up to the ECHR.

There is one further level of appeal within the ECHR itself. I can never remember the name of the body, and always have to look it up — my tendency is to think of it as the “Inner Sanctum”, but its official name is the “Grand Chamber of the Court”.

Elisabeth has decided to make that final appeal, but it’s expensive, and her defense fund was cleaned out to pay for all the earlier levels of appeal. To run this one final lap she will need your help.

To that end, the Center for Security Policy has set up a new fundraising web page for Elisabeth: Friends of Free Speech. I invite anyone who wants to contribute to go over there and make a donation.

In the following interview with Vlad Tepes, Elisabeth talks about the history of her case (nine years of it!), her plans for the future, and the parlous state of free speech in Europe:

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

14 thoughts on “Well, What WOULD You Call It?

  1. This serves to prove again that the US is the only country in the world that truly has freedom of speech. Go ahead, name one other…crickets.

    And we are in danger of losing it.

    • You could probably get in far less trouble by saying something unpopular in Central Europe, Australia or several Asian countries than in today’s US. Of course, for the US part, it all depends on how far the SJWs are, lol.

  2. And what do the Shia Muslims say about all this? The writings about Muhammad marrying Aisha when she was 9 are all fake. According to them, the Sunnis made up that she was really young to cover up the fact that she was not faithful to Muhammad and slept with many men . . . But I’m sure the European Court would find a European guilty who called Aisha a whore because it would offend the Sunni Muslims–but not a Shia Muslim. The Sunnis would kill him instead maybe?

    • Going by actual evidence, all the writings on Muhammad are made up. There is no historical evidence of the existence of Muhammad, the Hadith were collected a century to a century and a half after his death. So, by all means: Muhammad married/didn’t marry Ayesha when she was 6 (he had sex with her when she was 9), had/didn’t have sex with her at 9, Ayesha did/didn’t have many lovers.

      Given Muhammad’s penchant for slowly dismembering his enemies, anyone who slept with Ayesha during Muhammad’s lifetime must have been very brave or very stupid.

      • At present, whether Mohammed existed or not is immaterial. What is relevant is that more than a billion Muslims in the world believe that he existed and that he alone was the prophet of Islam, the conduit by which Allah spoke with the believers here on earth. It is also relevant that he is considered by devout Muslims the world over as the perfect man and embodiment of Islam. A man whose every trait and behavior is to be emulated.

        Debating whether Mohammed actually existed, as western civilization is being conquered at this very moment by the soldiers of Allah, is akin to rearranging deck chairs on the S.S. Titanic as she sank.

        Devout Muslims are what the great philosopher Eric Hoffer would have called “true believers” in that their faith in their creed isn’t open for rational debate. Was Mohammed real? Who knows? But that latest bomb attack or shooting spree by his followers certainly was.

  3. I think we have to support people such as Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf, Tommy Robinson, Geert Wilders and others, with money because it’s the only non-violent weapon we have. The collectivists, marxists, fascists, communists, whatever we must call them, are trying to beat down their opponents; ie. our champions for our rights and freedom; by depriving them of justice by impoverishing them.

    We cannot fight these evil people ourselves, we need leader such as these people and others to do the hard work on our behalf. Therefore, it is wrong for us to be freeloading on their achievements. They need money we have money; more money than the evil ones; do we should contribute to the champions so that they can ultimately win, on our behalf.

  4. “The court stipulated to the facts of the case: Mohammed married a 6-year-old girl and consummated the marriage when she was nine. ”

    There’s the problem with the court right there; this is an unprovable.

  5. Its becoming clear that the real purpose for the creation of the EU was to create a well oiled mechanism that enables the invasion of Islam into all member states and to provide for laws that protect Islam and make it superior over all existing laws and democratic principles. THE EU IS JIHAD. THE EU WAS CREATED TO FACILITATE JIHAD. THE EU PROMISES WERE A RUSE, A LIE, A FALSE FLAG ATTACK.

    • Your analysis is right on the mark. It is open to debate whether the European Union as a project was Islamic from the very start, i.e. with Count Richard Coudenhove Kalergi and his fellow “United Europe” supporters in the early-to-mid 1900s – but there is no denying that it is very much an Islamic project now. The “Red-Green” alliance is very real. “Red” being the Cultural Marxists of the western oligarchs at the EU, and “Green” being the color of Islam.

      My hunch, for what it is worth, goes something like this…

      One of the defining characteristics of the western oligarchs, the Nietzschian “Ubermensch” (Overmen) who run the EU and so much else as well, is that they see themselves as demi-gods not bound by the limits of ordinary humans. Like the Nazis, they are eugenicists – only of a somewhat different stripe. They see themselves as superior beings, rulers, conquerors. Above and apart from the law.

      These views comport very well with the view Muslims have long had of themselves. The believers see Islam as a superior way of life; they are quite open in their desire to rule and not to be ruled, to conquer and not be conquered.

      The global over-class, the super-rich who comprise so much of the western ruling elite and elites of other nations as well, are more-loyal to one another – to their fellow elites – than they are to their own nations and peoples. Many of these people are Muslims, such as the sheiks from the wealthiest oil kingdoms of the Middle East. The sheiks could quite easily have introduced Islam to the European elite, given how often they interacted in the first place.

      It would not have been hard to sway the proponents of the European Union to accept Islam or a Muslim conquest of Europe. Coudenhove-Kalergi was of mixed race himself, and believed that the European of the future would be a racial-genetic hybrid of native European whites and the brown and black-skinned peoples of Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

      The Muslims and other diaspora of the Third World now flooding into Europe offer an attractive two-fer for the EU ad the globalists: They will be loyal to the EU, and they will have few qualms about using the violence of jihad to enforce sharia upon Europeans.

      As the case of Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff shows, European courts are already enforcing sharia law, de facto, with their rulings. How long before these courts stop making reference to legacy European law, and simply use sharia all of the time?

  6. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has rejected a complaint by one of Joseph Stalin’s grandsons about an article that appeared in a Russian newspaper in which the dictator was accused of being a ‘bloodthirsty cannibal’. Jill Bainbridge, partner and expert in defamation and reputation management at Blake Morgan, explains why the dead cannot be defamed.
    For the full judgement see: Yevgeniy Yakovlevich Dzhugashvili v Russia (App No 41123/10).

    Can the dead be defamed? In short, no. […] The reason for this principle is quite simple: defamation is an act or statement that damages a person’s reputation and once you are dead, you are taken to not have a reputation in legal terms which is capable of being damaged.

    https://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/wipit/can-you-defame-the-dead/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.