The Heresy Trials.
The European desire to bow down respectfully in front of Islamic sensitivity has previously been confined to iconic figures.
Cherie Blair, defending the wearing of the Niqab. Geert Wilders, refused entry to address the British Houses of Parliament; a meagre £50 fine for insulting our servicemen and burning poppies on Armistice Day for Emdadur Choudhury. As Leg-Iron has pointed out yesterday – Pastor Terry Jones burns a copy of the Koran, and Islamists respond by cutting off the heads of some of the UN delegation in Afghanistan. Islamists burn a symbol of our debt to servicemen and women, and we respond with a £50 fine.
I have every sympathy with those who would seek to outlaw racial hatred. I don’t happen to believe that the law is the best way to deal with it, but that is another matter. It is wrong to ‘hate’ someone simply because of an accident of their birth – the place where they were born, or the combination of genes that resulted in the colour of their skin.
Religious beliefs are not an accident of birth. They are a matter of choice that we are free to make and unmake throughout our life. The fact that most fundamentalist Islamists happen to have a different colour of skin to the majority in Europe, and belong to a different race, has resulted in the greatest three-card trick ever foisted upon a population.
Post-Christian Europe now routinely condemns those who object to Islamic pro-Sharia activity as being ‘anti-multi-culturalism’. To be anti-fundamental Islam is to be a racist under the new apostasy.
The ‘heretics’ in the dock on our side of the great divide have so far been prominent figures; Nick Griffin, the BNP leader is routinely denounced and vilified by those great exponents of the new European religion, multi-culturalism, the left wing media. Unfortunately, this now appears to include even our public broadcaster.
It was only a matter of time before the bandwagon of ‘anti-heretical speech’ moved onto the man or woman in the street.
That the case occurred in Austria, a country routinely lambasted for being ‘right-wing’ – and hence automatically racist, according to the new multi-cultural religion – possibly accounts for the fact that it has not been reported in England.
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a young Austrian mother, has lived and worked in the Middle East for many years. During the course of an address to a political audience, she mentioned the fact that Mohammed married Aisha when she was 6 years old. To this day, this fact is taken by fundamental Islamists to legitimise something we would consider to represent paedophilia. When Khomeini came to power in Iran, he promptly lowered the age of consent to 9 years old. To mention this was alleged to ‘incite hatred’, and Miss Sabaditsch-Wolff was prosecuted under Austria’s section 283 of their penal code. A code that was added to during the course of the trial.
In court, it was not denied that she was factual when she referred to Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha at 6 years old, and 9 at the time of consummation – it was the word paedophilia that was objected to. The judge’s reasoning is a masterpiece of legal footwork.
As Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff observes, “the judge didn’t deny that Mohammed had sex with a nine year old. It is actually now proven in court that Mohammed had sex with a nine year-old.” However, she says, “It’s just that I am not allowed to say that he was a paedophile.” Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff is not allowed to, because, in the words of the judge, as she passed sentence, “paedophilia is a sexual preference which solely or mainly is directed towards children. Nevertheless, it does not apply to Mohammad. He was still married to Aisha when she was 18.”
Remind me – was it not in Austria that Wolfgang Priklopil snatched Natasha Kampusch from the streets, aged 10 years old, and was still holding her at 18? Will he now be applying to the courts to be protected from anyone using the word ‘paedophilia’ in connection with his case?Josef Fritzl anyone?
The judge’s ruling in this case is very misguided. Had she pointed out that in Mohammed’s time, sex with a nine year old was not against the law, and therefore the legal definition of paedophilia was an unfair label, I might have had more sympathy – but to base her argument on the premise that if you continue to commit a crime for long enough, it becomes legitimate, opens up all sorts of possibilities.
Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff says she is stunned by the verdict, and determined to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.
The court did not find that she had made her comments maliciously: “I am the first Austrian ever to have been convicted of the hate speech charge,” she notes, “I was not found guilty under the hate speech charge [paragraph 2, 83, section two].” Instead, the charge of denigration of religious teaching was introduced after the court proceedings were underway, apparently to ensure a guilty verdict. Denigration has a lower burden of proof than hate speech.
Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff insists there has never been “any hate speech in [her] seminars,” and that no one, based on the evidence, could ever have thought that there had been. The judge agreed, saying, “The language used in the seminars [was] not inciting hatred, but the utterances regarding Mohammed and paedophilia were punishable.” Because, it would seem, these were colloquial rather than strictly in accordance with the medical and legal definition of the term.
Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff will appeal the verdict to Austria’s high court, and, if necessary, take her fight to the European Court of Human Rights. However, with her case having garnering so little attention, she is, she says, “desperately in need of donations.” The case has already cost 7,000 Euros, and it will take more to fight the decision.
If she does not appeal successfully, a precedent will have been set by that Austrian court which will apply throughout Europe. Even if you are not ‘inciting hatred’, you may not make factual statements if they have the effect of ‘denigrating religious teaching’.
Call the fundamentalist support for cutting off the hands of thieves, or stoning adulterous women ‘barbaric’ – and you will be denigrating ‘religious teaching’. Mind you, it will stop Yasmin Alibhai-Brown from calling the wearing of the niqab ‘a mark that women are evil temptresses or packages whose sexuality has to be controlled’ – how dare she denigrate religious teaching?
Can anything which shuts Yasmin up be all bad?
April
5, 2011 at 18:48
-
Our leaders do not care about preserving our culture and traditions, only
about extending therir control.
- April 5, 2011 at 13:11
-
I have a dog called Mohammed. When he’s good, I feed him pork sausages, but
when he’s bad, I beat him with my shoe.
-
April 4, 2011 at 17:10
-
….on realising that penetration was inadvisable he heaved a disappointed
thigh,,,
-
April 4, 2011 at 17:45
-
inducing thoft thighs from all concerned?
I’ll get my coat…
- April 4, 2011 at 14:48
-
The legal position within Sharia Law on the age of consent for a girl is
two fold.
1. She must have had her period :
2. She must be sexually mature enough
to not be damaged by being penetrated. (How exactly this is established is
undocumented)
Several girls have died already this year in Gulf states from internal
bleeding after a few days of marriage.
Imans recommend a process called “Thighing” to be used with prepubescent
girls until they are reading for penetration. Many authoritive Fatwa’s have
been issued on this subject.
-
April 4, 2011 at 14:07
-
formerly = formally. Prescient slip of the fingers though.
- April 4, 2011 at 12:11
-
“post Christian Europe”
Post? Are we accepting that this has happened. I happen to think this is
the case and I’ve got my own idea of evidence for that, but I’d be most
interested to read another post on why other people think it too.
If it has happened, the Christian age in Europe should not pass
unremarked.
-
April 4, 2011 at 14:06
-
Indeed, all the more so as constitutionally, the UK is a Christian
country. I’m not a Christian but I am happy to live in a country in which
Christian values are formerly espoused by the State. But they aren’t any
more.
FUBAR
- April 4, 2011 at 11:43
-
“Religious beliefs are … a matter of choice that we are free to make
…”
If you are a rational person, and something seems true to you, you are
bound to believe it. That is clearly not the same as being “free” to believe
what you like. The only people who are completely “free” in that sense would
have to be insane.
-
April 4, 2011 at 11:14
-
XX The judge’s ruling in this case is very misguided. Had she pointed out
that in Mohammed’s time, sex with a nine year old was not against the law, and
therefore the legal definition of paedophilia was an unfair label, XX
Then I presume everyone prosecuted under Austrias laws for Genocide, 1938
to 45 will be pardoned. Because gassing Jews was LEGAL at the time.
- April 4, 2011 at 11:56
- April 4, 2011 at 10:13
-
Bringing charges under that law can only be selective. When you look at the
wilder extremes of religions you see cults in America who build up immunity to
snake venom as some sort of ‘proof’ of righteousness, cargo cults on Pacific
islands, and cults in Tsarist Russia who practiced self-mutilation to suppress
‘sinful urges’. Looks like the lady with the sword and scales has had the
blindfold removed and told to be choosy…
- April 4, 2011 at 09:51
-
Not at all, I merely provided a link so that others could make their own
minds up, quite how you deduce from that I would like to deny anyone the right
to free speech is a bit of a mystery. For the record, Fascism is a ‘bad
thing’, as is Communism, as is any authoritarian political ideology…
-
April 4, 2011 at 09:40
-
Also, do I understand correctly that this was a “court” without a jury? It
is purely the judge who decides guilt or innocence in this case?
And, isn’t every criticism of religion a “denigration of religious
teaching”? What about harsh words by Dawkins, Hitchens et al? Illegal in
Austria?
- April 4, 2011 at 09:20
-
“Whilst I agree that any attack on the principles of free speech is to be
abhorred, it would appear that Ms Sabaditsch-Wolff is a bit more than just a
‘young Austrian mother’…”
Translates :
“I want to make it appear that I support free speech (because to say
otherwise makes me sound like a Facsist – and that is a ‘bad thing’) but deep
down inside there are some groups and people who I would really like to deny
the right to free speech…..
-
April 4, 2011 at 09:16
-
So, on this legal basis, if Gary Glitter can show that he has also had sex
with women over 18, can he then sue every newspaper, and the British
government, and so on, for labelling him a paedophile? Just asking.
-
April 4, 2011 at 09:05
-
PC is actually a form of self loathing. It’s greatest adherents are rarely
members of minority groups.
“If she does not appeal successfully, a precedent will have been set by
that Austrian court which will apply throughout Europe.”
Why should it ?
The fact is that the judge fears an Islamic backlash. This proves that
violence, as a means of taking control of a society, works.
Here PC really began to take hold with the race riots. But what begat the
race riots was black youth objecting to the police infringing their ‘rights’
to sell/take drugs, hold weekend long house ‘parties’ and beat up old ladies
on the streets.
Deadly violence coupled with minority ‘culture’ gets a lot of respect from
our elite for some reason.
- April 4, 2011 at 08:58
-
I may be going off at a tangent, but what about a European Arrest Warrant?
could an Austrian Court exercise its baleful influence over me?
- April 4, 2011 at 09:53
-
It’s a tort to criticise one of their Viennese Torts.
-
April 4, 2011 at 14:03
-
Indeed. Without evidence as well. The EU is clearly a tyranny in the
making.
- April 4, 2011 at 08:56
-
Whilst I agree that any attack on the principles of free speech is to be
abhorred, it would appear that Ms Sabaditsch-Wolff is a bit more than just a
‘young Austrian mother’…
http://english.savefreespeech.org/
- April 5, 2011 at 01:29
-
Historical Facts are not relative! Do not try and avoid accepting this
issue because you find it offensive that anyone would mention a religious
figure(Prophet Muhammed), followed and honoured by 1.5 billion Muslim
people, also was a 50 year old man who had regular sexual interaction with a
9 year old girl.
More worringly Muhammad is the “uswa hasana, al-Insān al-Kāmil” (the
perfect human, whose example is worthy of imitation)
If you are not wishing to take the word of Ms Sabaditsch-Wolff how about
a quote from Sahih al-Bukhari (Arabic: صحيح البخاري), as it is commonly
referred to, one of the six canonical hadith collections of Sunni Islam.
Sunni Muslims view this as their MOST TRUSTED collection of hadith and it is
considered the most authentic book after the Qur’an.
(Remember to replace the name Muhammed with Gary Glitter just to give it
a modern feel on second reading)
“Narrated Aisha: “The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six
(years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin
Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again)
and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some
of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she
wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door
of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Alright,
she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me
into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best
wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them
and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came
to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time
I was a girl of nine years of age.”
Ref: Sahih Bukhari 5:58:234
OR More Sinisterly
“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two
branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some
water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could
catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our
house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and
left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was
nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of
me.”
Ref: Tabari IX:131
OR Even Worse from:
‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may
peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was
taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with
her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.
Ref: Sahih Muslim 8:3311
AND THERE’s MORE
“Aisha said, “The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years
old.” (The narrator Sulaiman said: “Or six years.”). “He had intercourse
with me when I was 9 years old.”
Ref: Abu-Dawud 2:2116
Narrated Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet
departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married
‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed (sic –
consummated) that marriage when she was nine years old.
Ref: Sahih
Bukhari 5:58:236
-
April 5, 2011 at 23:12
-
First of all, I don’t find it offensive ‘that anyone would mention a
religious figure’.
Secondly, I have no problem with what Ms
Sabaditsch-Wolff said, that is what free speech is all about, is it
not?
My point was that Anna’s piece implied that Ms Sabaditsch-Wolff
was something of an innocent in all this, whereas a quick perusal of her
website suggests that she knows precisely what she is doing – making
political capital out of a given set of circumstances.
I don’t share
her views, but I do believe in her right to be able to express them –
OK?
- April 4,
2011 at 08:47
-
“Can anything which shuts Yasmin up be all bad?”
Aww, damn! Never, ever thought I’d be saying ‘Yes, actually’ to THAT
question…
- April 4, 2011 at 08:15
-
This is chilling. The freakiest news. WTF?
- April 4, 2011 at 07:58
-
Q. “What, I often ponder, is the cause of this wilful self destruct mode
amongst the so called intelligentsia?”
A. “Some conservative critics claim that political correctness is a Marxist
undermining of Western values.[34] William S. Lind and Patrick Buchanan have
characterized PC as a technique originated by the Frankfurt School, through
what Buchanan describes as “Cultural Marxism”.[35][36] In The Death of the
West, Buchanan says: “Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism, a regime to
punish dissent and to stigmatize social heresy as the Inquisition punished
religious heresy. Its trademark is intolerance.” [37]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
-
April 4, 2011 at 08:44
-
Most illuminating
- April 4, 2011 at 13:59
-
Site down at the mo, but check this later
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml
Here from the cached version, the weapons to hand that the Frankfurt
School recommend using to destroy society from within.
To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution – but
giving us no ideas about their plans for the future – the School
recommended (among other things):
1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create
confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4.
The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration
to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7.
Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against
victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10.
Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the
family
One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s
idea of ‘pansexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the
differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional
relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:
• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father
and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators
of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and
girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of
women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’
and men as ‘oppressors’
Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s
long-term operation thus: ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it
stinks.’
The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political
and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. ‘Modern
forms of subjection are marked by mildness’. They saw it as a long-term
project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education,
media, sex and popular culture.
As for Political Correctness, here’s a definition that rings true for
me…
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream
media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to
pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Time to buy that shotgun
I take a little powder
I take a little salt
I put it in my
shotgun
and I go walking out
Chuba-chuba
Wooley-booley
Looking high
Looking low
Gonna
scare you up and shoot you
Cause Mr. Charlie told me so
I won’t take you life
Won’t even take a limb
Just unload my
shotgun
and take a little skin
Chuba-chuba
Wooley-booley
Looking high
Looking low
Gonna
scare you up and shoot you
Cause Mr. Charlie told me so
Well you take a silver dollar
Take a silver dime
Mix em both
together
in some alligator wine
I can hear the drums
Voo-doo all night long
Mr. Charlie tellin
me
I can’t do nothin wrong
Chuba-chuba
Wooley-booley
Looking high
Looking low
Gonna
scare you up and shoot you
Cause Mr. Charlie told me so
Now Mr. Charlie told me
Thought you’d like to know
Give you a
little warning
before I let you go
Chuba-chuba
Wooley-booley
Lookin high
Lookin low
Gonna
scare you up and shoot you
Cause Mr. Charlie told me so
- April 4, 2011 at 14:02
-
Talking to myself, the above clarifies Labour’s assault on marriage
and the family.
Richard North, of EU Referendum, oft says
“Why do we not rise up and slaughter them?”
He’s right. Trouble heading our way. WTF did our parents’ generation
risk their lives for, that this vileness should come in through the back
door?
-
April 4, 2011 at 07:46
-
It seems we are all to be silenced by the law, which will crush the free
speech who point out the darker aspects of Islam. But soon enough, these laws
will be swept away, and replaced by Sharia. Who then will be the judges, and
what the penalty? It is so ironic I could almost laugh. But only almost. What,
I often ponder, is the cause of this wilful self destruct mode amongst the so
called intelligentsia?
{ 30 comments }