Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff acquitted, then convicted for something she never said

via Gates of Vienna posted at Big Peace, Sentence First – Verdict Afterwards: The Persecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:

On February 15, 2011, the Austrian anti-jihad activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of hate speech in a Vienna courtroom. The original charge against her was “incitement to hatred”. On the second day of her trial, the judge decided to added a second charge, “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.” The latter count is the one on which Elisabeth was convicted.

…The judge in the case, Bettina Neubauer, convicted Elisabeth for saying that Mohammed was a pedophile. There’s only one problem: Elisabeth never said any such thing.

…In other words, the judge in Elisabeth’s trial, acting on her own initiative, put words into Elisabeth’s mouth and then convicted her for saying them.

Elisabeth did, however, use the word “pedophilia” in her seminar, but only to describe what Susanne Winter had done to earn her own “hate speech” conviction. Elisabeth sent us a note yesterday explaining all of this:

In my seminar I described a conversation with my sister.

It was January 2007, I think, and my sister called me about the scandal Susanne Winter had caused by saying what she said. I told her that it was public knowledge that Mohammed had married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine. I then said that if this isn’t pedophilia, then what is?

She said, no, you can’t say it that way, you have to word it differently, more diplomatically.

I said, well tell me how. She was silent — she didn’t know.

What’s important here is that I was recounting a story that happened before Winter had been convicted, and it was the only time on record that I actually used the word.

In all other instances I circumvented the word by saying “Mohammed had a thing for little kids”, knowing that Winter had been convicted for saying what she said.

And still, judge Bettina Neubauer called me a “repeat offender” and fined me heavily.

Here are the exact words I was found guilty for [see also the German transcript above]:

7. One of the biggest problems we are facing today is that Mohammed is seen as the ideal man, the perfect human being, the perfect Muslim. It is imperative for a devout Muslim to copy Mohammed. This is not according to today’s standards or our way of life or laws. This is because he was a warlord, had had plenty of women, to put it this way, and he had a things for children. And according to our standards he was not a perfect human. As a result we are faced with huge problems, because Muslims are in conflict with democracy and our value system.

[… ] and when we speak about the Al-Bukhari collection of hadith you can be certain that this is recognized by all [Sunni] Muslims. And it is in Al-Bukhari where we can find the information about Aisha and sex with children.

8. I remember talking with my sister — and I have recounted this story a few times already — about Susanne Winter’s infamous talk. My sister called me on the phone, saying, “Oh my God, did you tell her that?” “No, it wasn’t me, but you can find it in the books, it’s not a secret.” She: “But you can’t say it that way.” Me: “A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do you call that? Give me an example. What do you call it if not pedophilia?” She: “Well, you have to use a circumlocution, be more diplomatic.” My sister is symptomatic. We have heard this so often: “Those were different times.” I say, No, [this behavior] wasn’t OK back then and it is not OK today. Period. And this (old men marrying young girls) is still happening today. This is never to be condoned.

Readers should not go by the fine of €480. What’s crucial here is the fact that I was fined 120 “day rates” of €4, because I am a housewife with no income. If I had income, the actual fine would have been much higher. It’s the “day rates” that make the fine a hefty one.

Susanne Winter was fined €24,000 euros, because she makes 10,000 euros a month.

The letter sent to Elisabeth by her lawyer is also apposite to this discussion. Many thanks to JLH for the translation:

Gheneff-Rami-Sommer
Attorneys at Law

To: Mrs. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

February 15, 2011

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Trial
112 HV 144/10g, Regional Criminal Court Vienna

Dear Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff,

As you know, the main trial in the above-named case took place on February 15, 2011.

After your supplemental interrogation, the requests for evidential interrogation of witnesses Wafa Sultan, Hans Jansen and Robert Spencer — previously not dealt with by the court — were rejected, because the court of first instance perceived their statements to be valuations (“subjective assertions”), to the content of which the requested witnesses could contribute nothing. The request to question Ilse Albrecht was refused because she would only have been able to testify subjectively whether she was upset or angry at your comments on Mohammed.

In conclusion the welcome verdict was announced: You were exonerated of the charge of incitement according to § 283 StGB. The court found your statements on Islam permissible in the sense of Art 10 MRK, since according to this regulation criticism must be made in a provocative manner. Our arguments were agreed to in their entirety.

You were found, however, to have committed the offense of § 188 StGB (denigration of a religion) because of your statements in the seminars of October 15, 2009 and November 12, 2009 about Mohammed and his sexual intercourse with nine year-old Aisha. The judge’s basis for that focused on the circumstance that the offense of § 188 StGB is an abstract criminal threat, and therefore the mere aptness to cause offense was sufficient to qualify as the crime. What was incomprehensible was the judge’s conclusion that Mohammed’s sexual contact with nine-year-old Aisha was not pedophilia, because Mohammed continued his marriage to Aisha until his death.

Punishment was set at 120 per diem payments of €4, in total €480 or an alternative sentence of 60 days imprisonment.

Further, the costs of the trial must be paid.

The verdict does not have the force of law. since we as well as the prosecutor have announced the intention to appeal by reason of invalidity and because of the remarks about culpability and sentencing.

We have four weeks after receipt of the copy of the verdict to execute the appeal.

With warm greetings, I remain

Dr. Michael Rami

Take a deep breath, everyone, and think about the implications of the above material.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted for stating the plain facts: the prophet Mohammed had sex with a nine-year-old-girl. She never used the word pedophilia; she simply described in everyday language the prophet’s… ahem… tastes.

The statements she made are not considered false by observant Muslims. They are written down in Islamic scripture, and are considered correct and authoritative by virtually every Islamic scholar and theologian.

These scriptural passages are not considered offensive to Muslims when they are recited in a mosque or a madrassa. Mohammed was the perfect man, so by definition his actions cannot be offensive. They are in fact exemplary. That is why Muslim men continue to marry little girls to this day.

Elisabeth’s statements are offensive because they were made by a non-Muslim in public, and brought discredit upon Islam in the eyes of other non-believers.

This offense is referred to as “Islamic slander”, and is a grave violation of Islamic law. Under sharia, the penalty is death.

But it is only illegal under sharia.

Monday’s verdict had nothing to do with Austrian law, or European law. It was based solely on the unwritten laws of politically correct Multiculturalism, which absolutely forbids the offending of Muslims.

This entire judicial farce was necessary in order to establish a sharia-based precedent in Austria. Whether Bettina Neubauer realizes it or not, her role in the case was to enforce Islamic law in the country formerly known as Austria.

Welcome to the Caliphate.

Go here to learn more about how you can help Elisabeth.

16 Responses

  1. There is no freedom of speech in the EU.

  2. It’s easy to see how fascism and Nazism took hold in such a mindset. They are easily cowed into groupthink.

  3. Judge Bettina Neubauer is clearly a dumbass BROAD!!! Now please attempt to arrest me judge dumbass!

  4. There is no freedom of yodeling in Austria, either. A man was sent to jail for yodeling in his own back yard. Don’t these sheep in the EU have anything to say about their governemnt or courts?

    US courts are leaning toward the barbarians, too. I believe it was in Oklahoma (I could be wrong about the state) where the people voted use only US law and not Sharia in the state. A judge struck it down.

    Also, some Democrats are trying to outlaw free speech. One of them even said that the Government should be allowed to OK radio content before being broadcast. And there’s “Hate speech” which isn’t quite a law but seems to be enforced law or not. If one says Mohammed was a pedophile, that is the truth. If one says that the Koran directs it;s followers to either convert a civilized person–that is a non-Muslim–or behead him, that is the truth. A man may beat his wife, with a stick the size as described by Mohammed. All of the above are true. Not PC, but true.

    I fear for the future of our country and our free speech. Obama now has the authority to just cut off the internet like Kadafy did. And he will–just before elections in 2012. Count on it.

  5. This is a VERY difficult situation for me to understand. Maybe that’s why I find understanding islam difficult as well. And the is not a california court or Berkley CA leadership expressing these views. With judges like this, no need for CAIR or similar organization there.

  6. @Phillly RN, that was my instantaneous thought as well – Austria was where in the infamous Adolf Hitler hatched his evil plan for a Third Reich “caliphate,” too….

    It’s DEFINITELY an upside-down world, that’s for damn sure!!

  7. The Imam, Mohammed, Koran, Sharia Law, and any other Muslim that wants to entrench their propaganda in the United States can all go to Hell. And can almost guarantee you that there won’t be 7 virgins there for each of you. Almost a certainty that virgins don’t go to hell!

  8. Quick, everybody hide behind SCOTUS Judge Scalia – he has the right idea on THIS one. SCOTUS Judge Breyer would go along with this trash.

    Winter Soldiers do not go down without a fight.

    It’s the courthouse and judges, stupid!!

  9. What’s the big deal? Muhammad was a pedophile under any definition of the word that I would use.

  10. denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.

    ISLAM is not a religion as we understand religion- itis seditious and covetous and advocates overthrow of your nation-

    and why in the HELL is Austria enforceing blashphemy laws??- only religions have such rules not countries, and only people under those religions who VOLUNTARILY submit to those laws need mind them- if and whenthey conflict with CIVIL law they do not have and merit and the state neednot enforce them

    here we can see the overboard reaction to Austria having been NAZIS- guilt over waht they did has csused them to go overboard -in effort to protect whatever few JEWs are even left in their country, they will now use those laws to protect Muslims-
    well good luck with that Austria- b/c Muslims ain’t JEws- no Nobel prizes, no OT to base your Christ worship ever came from Mohammedeans- no turningof cheeks or any gentitlity or morality- Mohammed was a pedophile and a liar and fraud-
    a marauder, a theif and beheader of people like AUSTRIANS

    and now you have made telling the truth ILLEGAL!!
    upside down indeed

  11. It’s a very sad day when the truth is no defense.

  12. But facts are he was a pedophile. So Where is the problem?

  13. [...] ~ ITEM: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff acquitted, then convicted for something she never said [...]

  14. [...] news so far is a jury found him not guilty. However, just a few weeks ago in a similar case, we saw Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff acquitted, then convicted for something she never said. Poster courtesy of [...]

  15. *PHEW* I’m not sure how the free world can come back to this. Is it truly going to take re-living a similar horror to WWII to realize that kowtowing to people like this is a bad idea??? It unfortunately looks like history’s about to repeat itself. How completely asinine.

  16. [...] portata in giudizio per alcune parole dette in un seminario riservato riguardante l’Islam e condannata al pagamento di 480 euro più le spese processuali, per “diffamazione di una [...]

Your comments & your IP address are your legal problem, not ours.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 37,763 other followers

%d bloggers like this: