TOP POST TODAY
The Tundra Tabloids will be live blogging the hearing today, December 20, 2011, 9-11 am,(local Viennese time, 10-12am Finnish time). Elisabeth is appealing her sentence in February of denigration of religious teachings to an unconditional penalty of 480 €. The charge of incitement was acquitted. Both Attorney Michael Rami and the prosecutor had lodged appeals. KGS
UPDATE: Conviction is CONFIRMED!
Der Standard: “The judge said the Elisabeth mocked Mohammed by ‘dressing up’ the fact that he had sex with minors. Elisabeth was appalled by the verdict. It was “a black day for Austria,” she stressed several times. Rami her lawyer announced their intention to appeal to the ECHR and the Supreme Court. The freedom of expression was violated here, because his client was only reporting the facts.”
NOTE: So the court said, that the first verdict was ok … but the fine will be lower, they just confirmed what the first court ruled except that the fine should be smaller because the time of the trial was 2 years. It means that the cultural political elite defines which group are a protected class of people, to be free from any ‘offensive speech‘ just because they say so.
Elisabeth tells the TT that right after the verdict was read I said: “This is a dark day in Austrian history.” “I am ashamed to be Austrian, for the first time in my life.” “Austria no longer has freedom of speech.”
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: The question is: Are we allowed to say that Mohammed married a 6-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine? Are we allowed this truthful statement in a democratic society of which freedom of speech is or should be a cornerstone? Are we as laypeople required to know the clinical definition of “pedophilia”? And, most importantly, does religious law trump secular law?
Live blogging begins, local time.
All pictures and reporting by Henrik Raeder Clausen
In front of the court house.
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Dr. Rami
The court (officiated by Judge Leo Levnaic-Iwanski) makes a summary of what the case is about: §188 appeal case. Denigration of legally recognized religion, specifically Muhammad.
- oktober 2009
Problem is that Muhammad is considered a perfect example for Muslim men, that is against our laws and public order. He had a large consumption of women, including minors, and in general behaved in ways contrary to modern law. That is all documentable from the Bukhari hadith.
Susanne Winter said similar things and was convicted.
A 54-year having sex with a 9 year old, what do we call this, if not pedophilia?
09:17: Dr. Rami represents the Defence.
Demands aquittal. ESW is a harmless women conducting seminars, which was infiltrated by a journalist from News.at. 30 pages are obviously harmless, just a few out of context quotes are made controversial.
He underlines that a ”Hate preacher” would be someone standing in public places inciting hatred among thousands or millions, not a teacher in a small seminar.
‘Denigration’ implies that something false and negative is said about religious persons, like Jesus. Something true and negative, like Muhammad having sex with a girl aged 9, cannot constitute ‘Denigration’, and thus not be punishable.
09.19: Quotes Wikipedia:
”The wife of Muhammad, Aisha, entered the marriage at age 6, which was consummerated at the age of 9.”
This is completely public knowledge already, repeating this cannot be punishable under the law.
That Muhammad, as ESW put it, ”had something with children” is another way to put it, yet carefully rewording the facts cannot punishable either.
Also, it’s important that we don’t supress discussion of these matters, put people in prison for discussing it.
09:20: The Public Prosecutor takes over for a few comments about how detailed the previous judge had gone into the precise definition of ‘pedophilia’.
09: 25: The Public Prosecutor takes over for a few comments about how detailed the previous judge had gone into the precise definition of ‘pedophilia’.
The Judge asks ESW to take the floor for any comments pertaining to the written defence statement by Dr. Rami:
She says that she only spoke the truth, and ”Telling the truth must never be punishable”.
She referred to the recently deceased Vavlav Havel also stood up for freedeom of speech and that he even went to jail for this freedom.
Dr. Rami adds details from Islamic sources:
Muhammad had at least 9 wives, more according to other sources, as well as a variety of concubines and others.
The Judge calls a break, and says that the verdict will come no earlier than 10 o’clock.
09: 58 Hearing resumes.
10.00: Henrik Clausen: Very technical right now.
10:13: The Judge lectures:
Defense has made the factual details of the case very clear, it’s an interesting case.
What we’re dealing with here is only the verdict from the first court. The Judge is lecturing a bit about the legal mechanism of cases like this.
It’s not the first time that Freedom of Expression is in this court, nor at the European Court of Human Right.
The Court has the obligation to clear up if there are objective mistakes in the first court. This is not the first case of its kind, far from it.
The Judge is lecturing about the legal mechanism of cases like this.
We don’t need to go through all the details of the case in the courtroom, it’s all written down in advance, and the Judge has read it. All the details are stacked up here [two 15 centimeter stacks].
The Defence made comments in order that the audience would understand the case. Otherwise not much of the case needed to be explained verbally.
If one only heard the Defence, it would seem incredible that one cannot legally speak the truth.
Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention, which of course is undisputed. This is valid both for pleasent and unpleasent information, including disturbing, shocking and hurtful information. The exercise of this right implies a duty as well, as duties are the flip side of the right. The exercise of this right implies responsibility and duties. Uttering false, harmful statements can be punishable. Protection of public order and basic values may require restrictions on exercise of free speech.
Supreme Court of Austria has dealt with this in the case of Susanne Winter already. Muhammad married Aisha at the age of 50, and Winter called him ”Child molester”. We cannot leave that Supreme Court decision out of consideration.
10:25: A journalist from the magazine News.at joined the seminars, and has laid forth the evidence.
The marriage/consummation with a girl of 6/9 years is a subject that might offend some.
That is at the heart of the problem.
The Court cannot convict for more items than the Prosecutor requested.
As for the guilt, ”Having something with children” is an excess of opinion that can not be tolerated. It is a ridiculing that cannot be justified.
As for punishment, it can be diminished. 4. december 2009 – 20. december 2011 is a long time for the process.
First conviction is CONFIRMED!