First published at Gates of Vienna
Note: This feature post is “sticky”. Scroll down for tonight’s news feed.
In 2011 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of “hate speech” in an Austrian court for telling the plain truth in her seminars on Islam. As we have noted in previous posts, her case is now pending at the European Court of Human Rights. Her legal costs for the petition are considerable, and she has issued an appeal for contributions to her defense fund.
For readers who are not already familiar with her case, here is a brief timeline of what has happened up until now:
|October 2010||Elisabeth was indicted in Vienna, Austria, for statements she made in one of her seminars on the ideology and effect of Islam.|
|February 2011||Elisabeth was convicted of “hate speech” in an Austrian court. In order to obtain a conviction, the trial judge was forced to introduce a new charge, “denigrating the teaching of a legally recognized religion” — during the trial itself.|
|December 2011||the verdict was upheld by the appellate court, which noted that her statements constituted “an excess of opinion” punishable under Austrian law.|
|December 2013||the verdict was upheld by the Austrian supreme court, which noted that under the European Convention of Human Rights, freedom of religion overrides freedom of expression. Elisabeth notes that criticism of Christianity comes under the rubric of art, while criticism of Islam is criminal. She says: “There is no political freedom without religious freedom, inclusive of the right to criticize religion.”|
The following video shows excerpts from one of Elisabeth’s seminars. Statements such as these have now been criminalized by the Austrian judicial system.
We owe a great debt of gratitude to Rembrandt Clancy for translating and subtitling the audio, and for translating the German text of the slides and superimposing the English version in the video.
Many thanks also to Henrik Ræder Clausen for selecting the clips to be excerpted from the original seminar video, and to Vlad Tepes for uploading the final result:
If you would like to help Elisabeth defray the costs of her legal defense, please visitenglish.savefreespeech.org and follow the instructions for donating.
Al-Ghazali, a very well known, leading cleric of the 11th century says the following:
Imams and their Holy Lies
“Understand that lying is not wrong in itself. If a lie is the only way to achieve a good result [for Islam], it is permitted. Therefore we must lie, if the truth will lead to an unpleasant result.”
Al Ghazali (1059-1111) One of Islam’s most important theologians.
It is not I, who is saying that, . . . that is what Al-Ghazali says.
Let’s hear more of what people have to say. And Muhammed Mermer said as long ago as 1998:
“We shall Erect a Theocracy in the Heart of Europe”
It is our historical task to establish in the heart of Europe a theocratic state for Allah and our great Prophet, Mohammed. We shall sweep away these corrupt and degenerate Nazi-Germans.
Mohammad Mermer: 20:2:1998
Once again, it is not I who says that.
That is Sheikh Al Qaradawi again. I have already shown him.
Within the framework of annual conference of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in Warsaw, our group veritably destroyed the term islamophobia. We opposed the OSCE by tearing apart a manual for teachers which deals with islamophobia, and we asked why there is this brochure on islamophobia when there is not even a legal definition of it. The authors of this brochure then had to admit to us that they in fact had no legal definition.
This video in no way infringes on the religious freedom of Muslims. They are allowed to continue practising their religion in Austria.
The prohibition, however, the prohibition against showing the video publically violates the freedom of expression of non-Muslims.
Now look at the pictures. It is permitted to do that: [to submerge a crucifix in urine].
It is permitted to crucify a frog, because it comes under the category of art. But making a film about Mohammed is blasphemy. That is just how warped the world has become!
The small difference is that criticism of Christianity comes under the rubric of art; and criticism which bears on Islam is criminal. An analysis or criticism, — it matters not at all whether it is this or something else — is no longer possible under such legislation. This criticism, this analysis, will be seen as a human rights violation. To think that such a thing is at all possible today!
And that is what I always say and what I say over and over again, “There is no political freedom without religious freedom, inclusive of the right to criticise religion.”
Good. We are concentrating here on Universal Human Rights and the conflicting Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, — and about which no one actually knows anything, including our politicians, — or they pretend to know nothing, or do not wish to know anything. It is also important for you to know that it is an instrument, an Islamic human rights instrument which has been applied more frequently.
You have heard me mention the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. The OIC countries recognise only the human rights of Islam, and not Universal Human Rights.
Supporters of Sharia must be deported for undermining free and democratic society.
The Sharia, according to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), is incompatible with individual rights. We must say that in no uncertain terms.
And if you (the immigrants), accept the values of our society, and are law abiding, then you are warmly welcome; if not, then you are not welcome.
And here you see a few courageous women, who are doing something to ensure that our life remains the way it is. They encourage all who are present here, men and women, to rise to the limits of your possibilities, to do something; to the limits of your possibilities, to defend our culture, our values, our democracy and our freedom . . . within the limits of your possibilities!
Seminar Participant 1
Right, I was very much happy with all of it, in as much as it is an unbelievably important contribution: . . . for this country is not the country into which I once came into the world and in which I grew up; . . . and it is not the country in which those values are lived which are important to me as a committed European, . . . values which are also important to me as a Westerner and as one who values human rights.
This land is being transformed in increasing measure into a mediaevally religious dictatorship; this land, whose values we developed after harsh, centuries-long battles, and for which our forefathers worked hard; values, complete with the philosophical superstructure and foundations — and its religious background.
That is a society the likes of which has otherwise never been seen, and it is something unique and certainly something worth protecting. Therefore Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff’s contribution is particularly significant, because she exposes and demonstrates here — by the seminars she conducts — the very large extent to which we are not free —
… to what extreme degree we are not free.
Seminar Participant 2
Yes, I think it is very important to attend this seminar, certainly. I am forever learning something new, because one finds it nowhere in the media nor in any newspaper; but one learns it only here.
And I have to be grateful to Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff that she does this in spite of being denounced. One should be grateful to her and I wish her luck in her perseverance through this weather.
Seminar Participant 3
The seminar is very rich in content; it is comprehensive and highly interesting. The reasons why I myself wanted to attend this seminar are that I myself was occupationally employed for four years in the Arab region, and acquired my own impressions. And I think that our culture . . . our ideology, must be defended.
For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, seeElisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.