March 27, 2019
Oy vey! Hatred!
The government of Austria is reasonably based – at least to the extent a Jew-run EU country can be – but their Jewdicial system certainly isn’t.
Funny how the Jewdicial system is practically the same in every formerly-Western country, almost like it’s that way by (((design))).
The Austrian courts were right to condemn Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff for having sharply criticized the prophet Muhammad’s marriage with a six-year-old girl, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has implicitly decided.
On Tuesday, the jurisdiction in charge of implementing the European Convention on Human Rights, ratified by the 47 member-states of the Council of Europe, refused to refer Sabaditsch-Wolff’s appeal against a Chamber judgment approving the Austrian decision last fall to the Grand Chamber of the Court. The ECHR did not trouble to motivate its refusal.
“It hurts the feels of brown people” is more than enough motivation for anything these days.
The ECHR judgment E.S. v. Austria of October 25, 2018, is now final. And as the European Court’s decisions are based on case law, the consequences for free criticism and enunciation of facts regarding Islam and its history in particular will be far-reaching, in particular because the ruling justifies the condemnation in the local Austrian context, where the statements criticizing Muhammad “were likely to disturb the religious peace.”
According to research by the Pew Center in 2016, 6.7 percent of the Austrian population are Muslims, a growing population due to immigration.
Why are there ragheads in Europe?
How does that not “disturb the religious peace?”
Sabaditsch-Wolff, a diplomat’s daughter who has lived and worked in the Middle East, was censured for having spoken at a meeting organized by the right-wing Austrian Freedom Party 10 years ago in Vienna. Her intention was to speak about the treatment of women and the practice of jihad (“Holy War”) in countries such as Iran and Libya, on the basis of her own experience.
During her speech aimed at an audience of about 30 people, she spoke freely about the prophet Muhammad and his relationship with Aisha, whom he saw and desired when she was six years old. He married her on the spot, and the union was consummated when she was nine. He “liked to do it with children,” she said, adding that she had argued with her sister about the words she would use to describe the facts.
This broad sounds like one of the few women who can actually distinguish between reality and feels.
Her life must be hell.
She insisted on being straightforward: “A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?”
You’re not supposed to call it anything.
White people having opinions on stuff is what led to six trillion kikes getting turned into furniture and detergent.
A journalist present at the meeting taped her words. His editor-in-chief went on to turn them over to the police, and Sabaditsch-Wolff was indicted for inciting hatred toward Muslims and for having disparaged their prophet as unworthy of veneration.
If any of you “journalists” are reading this – read that paragraph a couple times, so when you and your entire family are dangling from trees, you won’t have to wonder why.
She was not found guilty of the first violation. But she was condemned for the “disparagement” in 2011 to a 480-euro fine (about 550 U.S. dollars) or up to 60 days imprisonment.
More than six years later, the European Court finally judged the case in a small Chamber formation of seven judges, whose decision will not be examined after the rejection of Sabaditsch-Wolff’s appeal to the Grand Chamber.
The ECHR observed that the meeting at which Sabaditsch-Wolff had proffered the statements was public insofar that it had been announced on the internet and in party flyers, so she should have been careful not to risk offending people who might have decided to come to the meeting while not adhering to the anti-Islamic party line.
And the best/worst is yet to come…
While she alleged only to have stated facts about Islam and its history, not wanting to “disparage” Muhammad, the ECHR recalled the arguments of the Regional Court in Austria that condemned her: “The court concluded that the applicant had intended to wrongfully accuse Muhammad of having pedophilic tendencies. Even though criticizing child marriages was justifiable, she had accused a subject of religious worship of having a primary sexual interest in children’s bodies, which she had deduced from his marriage with a child, disregarding the notion that the marriage had continued until the Prophet’s death, when Aisha had already turned 18 and had therefore passed the age of puberty.”
An Austrian court of appeal later added that the ECHR recalled that “the reason for the applicant’s conviction was not that the events had purportedly taken place more than a thousand years ago, and similar conduct would no longer be tolerable under today’s criminal law and contemporary morals and values, but because the applicant had accused Muhammad of pedophilia by using the plural form “children,” “child sex,” “what do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?” without providing evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha was in her not yet having reached puberty. Moreover, there were no reliable sources for that allegation, as no documentary evidence existed to suggest that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young.”
Saying that a guy who fucked children is a pedophile is not accurate because he also fucked grown women.
That is literally what these people, who get paid a fortune out of your pocket to make decisions that affect the lives of tens of millions, are saying.
The Court agreed that there was an “interference with her right to freedom” but justified it in the name of the protection of “religious peace.” It added that a “duty” exists “to avoid as far as possible an expression that is, in regard to objects of veneration, gratuitously offensive to others and profane,” a matter in which member-states have a “large margin of appreciation.”
According to the ECHR, Austria has the right and even the obligation “to ensure the peaceful co-existence of religious and non-religious groups and individuals under its jurisdiction by ensuring an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.” It was also right to have condemned Sabaditsch-Wolff on the basis that she had made a “value judgment,” refusing to agree that her statements had “sufficient factual basis,” even though the story is told by the Hadith collection of Sahih Al-Bukhari of the ninth century, one of the most authoritative sources in Sunni Islam of the “Prophet’s” history.
Somehow, I don’t think they’d be worried about “religious peace” if it came to insulting Christians.
“Why does that matter at all to your beliefs?”
Not to mention that this wasn’t even an insult to begin with, but something that every moslem will tell you is true.
On March 15, a number of converts from Islam, thinkers, philosophers, lawyers, religious, and specialists of Islam signed an op-ed in the French magazine Valeurs Actuelles in order to voice their “deep concern” about the Sabaditsch-Wolff case, asking the ECHR to accept her appeal in order to clarify the limits of freedom of expression in religious matters, particularly when facts are at stake as well as the freedom of debate based on reason, “be it political or scientific,” as well as “the liberty to criticize religions.” “The future of our civilization is at stake,” they wrote.
They were not successful.
And they’ll continue to not be successful, because the future of civilization depends on whether White people can have their own countries, ruled by them, not on whatever abstract gibberish these idiots care about.
And that’s not gonna happen until get rid of not just the Jews, but also the entire system that they rule, and that includes the maggots who run this court.
Thankfully, that looks like it’s gonna happen pretty soon.