Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Islamic Thought Crime in the EU


Why should we care about the plight of Austrian Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, when we have a Deep State patsy  arrested for sending dud pipe bombs to a slew of America haters (George Soros, senior and junior), Eric “kick ‘em” Holder, Maxine Waters, Maxine Waters, the Clintons, Barack Obama) and other choice denizens of the Left (but,  who actually assembled and delivered the bombs? It appears that Cesar Sayoc was barely able tie his shoe laces) let alone manufacture real or fake explosive devices), or the “caravan” of delusional Central Americans walking, or marching, or riding their way to the U.S. – Mexican border with the intention of rushing over it en masse to claim “asylum” and all the welfare state goodies that can be found here…

What about Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff? The Daily Sabah wrote on October 10:

The Daily Sabah reported that:”

Defaming the Prophet Muhammad exceeds the permissible limits of freedom of expression, ruled the European Court of Human Rights, upholding an Austrian court’s decision.

 

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled Thursday that an Austrian woman's criminal conviction and fine for her statements accusing the Prophet Muhammad of pedophilia did not breach her right to free speech.

Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted in 2011 by an Austrian court for offending the “dignity” of Muslims by repeating the oft repeated tale what was to be found in the hadith that Mohammad had married six-year-old Aisha, and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine-years-old.

Sabaditsch-Wolff said this made him a pedophile. That was her “crime.” Spencer wrote:

The problem that the Austrian courts overlooked here was that Muhammad is held up in Islam as the perfect example of conduct for Muslims (cf. Qur’an 33:21). Accordingly, his example does lead to pedophilia, and in any case the distinction between pedophilia and child marriage can be very fine. In Afghanistan virtually all girls above third-grade age are married, and because of Muhammad, but the Austrian court would have us believe either that there is no pedophilia in these child marriages, or that they have nothing to do with Muhammad, both of which could be proven false readily.

Stating that the court had found that “the applicant’s statements had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims” and “amounted to a generalization without factual basis”, the ECtHR said that the woman’s comments could not be covered by the freedom of expression.

What about that “factual basis”? Spencer has published a great book that casts doubt on the historicity of Mohammad (Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins).
My own view of all of Islam’s “sacred” texts is that they have been works-in-progress for 1,400 years, especially the hadith, and have as much substance and credibility as Charlie Brown’s The Great Pumpkin.  Islamic “scholars” have been refining, editing and adumerating the character and content of Islamic texts for centuries, adding and removing dictats and stories about “the Prophet” when it suited them. The Koran and the Hadith read like awful, perverse fairy tales about the adventures, sayings, and habits of Islam’s “ideal” man, a person, who, today, would earn himself 99+ years in a maximum security prison for what he did, if not the death sentence, a person no rational parents would uphold for their children as someone to admire and emulate. One may as well “Idealize” one of the thugs of Antifa.

Soren Kern of Gatestone provides a wide, detailed description of Sabaditsch-Wolff’s “crime”:

Sabaditsch-Wolff's legal problems began in November 2009, when she presented a three-part seminar about Islam to the Freedom Education Institute, a political academy linked to the Austrian Freedom Party — which today forms part of the Austrian government. A left-leaning weekly magazine, News, planted a journalist in the audience to secretly record the lectures. Lawyers for the publication then handed the transcripts over to the Viennese public prosecutor's office as evidence of hate speech against Islam, according to Section 283 of the Austrian Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB).

The offending speech was an offhand comment by Sabaditsch-Wolff that Mohammed was a pedophile because he married his wife Aisha when she was just six or seven years old. Sabaditsch-Wolff's actual words were, "A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?"

Indeed, most hadiths (collections of traditions containing the words and actions of Mohammed) confirm that Aisha was prepubescent when Mohammed married her and was only nine years old when the marriage was consummated. Mohammed's actions would today be unlawful in Austria, so Sabaditsch-Wolff's comments were factually, if not politically, correct.

Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge noted:

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that the woman’s “right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.”

The ECHR engaged in what is now an all-too-familiar effort to deny its obvious denial of free speech by saying that freedom of religion did not protect religions from criticism but they upheld the punishment of someone for doing precisely that.  It simply declared that the woman’s comments “could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship.”

And that offended Muslims; it allegedly hurt their “feelings” and robbed them of “dignity.” The EU court decided that those feelings and pilfered dignity were more important than anyone’s freedom of speech. So, in the name of “religious peace,” Sabaditsch-Wolff’s mouth must be duct taped and she must pay for the tape, too. The feelings must be assuaged and the dignity restored by punishing Sabaditsch-Wolff for identifying a reality the EU judges refuse to acknowledge.

But, was it Muhammad or Allah – an imaginary man, or a ghost in the sky – who was not worthy of worship?  The EU seems to have its Sharia masters confused.

Louis Farrakhan is noted for his anti-Semitic hate speech, as is Linda Sarsour, the pro-Sharia, anti-Israel “activist.”  Neither of them has been duct-taped or fined.

As an atheist, no religious icon or deity is worthy of worship, respect, deference, or adulation.

Why should we be concerned about Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s fate? Because it could very well be our own, given the war on conservative speech being waged by the big tech companie: Google, Twitter, Facebook, and others.  

Few people, except, perhaps, Melania Trump or Greta Garbo, deserve anyone’s respect, deference, or adulation.  

1 comment:

revereridesagain said...

There is no "dignity" in believing that the patently impossible is not only true but should be designated as such and worshiped not only by oneself but everyone else in the world. There are excuses, psychological explanations, claims of emotional "need", and rationalizations as to why mythology and fantasy should be able to lay claim to a "dignity" that philosophy somehow lacks, and therefore should enjoy a special status that exempts it from questioning, criticism, denigration or being made fun of. Some percentage of the devout of most of the world's religions harbor this belief, but Muslims have refined it to a perverse art form and now they're getting the rest of the world to join their pity party. Or! Else! Not since the Inquisition aged into toothlessness have we had a gang of god-believers so hell-bent on enforcing genuflection to their mystical fantasies with such malice. Given the history of Islam that's just to be expected every few decades or so, but what's really disheartening is the spectacle of Western leftists falling all over themselves to accommodate these petty tyrants at the expense of our hard-won defense of freedom of thought and speech. Unless enough people start swatting these arrogant little savages over their noses with a rolled up copy of the First Amendment or whatever Europe can come up with as an equivalent, and telling them "NO!" we are going to find ourselves fighting to restore those rights via means that won't fit neatly in courtrooms.