We all know that over the past few decades, European cultural elitists have felt the need to give Islam the deference it demands at the expense of the rest of society. What lies at the end of that road however, (paved with their supposed “good intentions”) is nothing but misery for future generations.
Buffoons in the Austrian judicial system have been busily trampling underfoot the fundamental rights to free speech, fastidiously laying the groundwork for the eventual dhimmitude of their offspring. The likes of people such as, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, have been carrying the heavy water for the rest of society, giving voice to truths while the rest of the media and political cultural elite demean her in the worst possible of terms.
Talk about denigration!
These elitist clowns have not only denigrated Elisabeth, but the life’s work of some of the greatest intellectual minds that this continent has ever produced. It’s their ideas that she has been expounding, their truths, which have been the very foundation upon on which our modern society was founded, and they’re pissing it all away,…. for some grandiose vision of a multicultural utopia. KGS
Denigrating religious stupidity
EuropeNews 25 Dec 2011
By Henrik R. Clausen
While I was working on a polite essay ”What is ‘denigration’, really?”, events overtook the intended polite and analytical approach. At an Austrian court, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff had her conviction for ”Denigrating the teachings of a recognized religion” upheld.
The court deemed that her uttering ”an excess of opinion” about Muhammad having sex with minors, and that doing so was subject to a fine of 480 euros, alternatively 60 days in jail.
Many of us consider freedom of expression is a fundamental right in itself. Expressions used in criminal ways, like committing fraud or inciting violence is indeed a matter for the courts, but a victimless crime where not even a single Muslim protested that his faith had been ‘denigrated’, surely cannot be subject to legal action, fines or jail time. In a free society, that is.
The difference comes when the State as such submits to Islam. In that case, the supposed ‘sanctity’ of Islamic teachings obtain protection by the Law, and due to the Islamic tradition that the life of Muhammad was a perfect example for all (male) Muslims, everything Muhammad did is to be considered holy and thus protected from criticism. That includes his having sex with minors.
The implications of this are huge, for how are we to speak out against the tradition of child brides that still exist in many Islamic countries if we’re not even permitted to express any ”excess of opinion”, as defined by the Court? Would we have to run every possible criticism or sarcastic comment past the Court for approval before it is made public? What are people whose e livelihood consists of satire and mockery – stand-up comedians, satire magazines – supposed to do if they come across the idea to mock religiously sanctioned sexual relationships with minors, or those who justify them?