Rights come from God, not government. It is, therefore, given that all individuals possess the same rights no matter where they live and no matter what type of government is established. One of those God-given individual inalienable rights is the right to freedom of expression or speech. But, if you live in Austria and under the unelected bureaucratic European Union, the right to freedom of expression or speech is severely limited and punished when an individual speaks out about Islam and Mohammed, may a ham be stuck in his mouth.
Europe’s top human rights court has ruled that comments about Mohammed having pedophilic tendencies are not covered by the right to freedom of expression, agreeing with the assessment of courts in Austria that the remarks constituted “an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace.”
A seven-judge European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) panel in Strasbourg concluded that the Austrian courts had “carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.”
Thursday’s decision came nine years after Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian political scientist and activist, held a seminar in Vienna where among things she criticized the treatment of women in Islam. The topic of Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha, the youngest of his dozen wives and concubines, came up.
According to Islamic texts, the 7th century Arabian who founded Islam was betrothed to Aisha when she was six, and the marriage was consummated when she was nine.
The court record quotes Sabaditsch-Wolff as having said that Mohammed “liked to do it with children,” (other translations of the German comment render it “had a thing for little girls”) and saying, “A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?”
Now, after the massive illegal invasion of Europe by Muslims, who have engaged in numerous crimes against the people of Europe, the right to freedom of expression or speech is weighed against an imaginary right to have one’s religious feelings protected. The imaginary right wins; but, only when it comes to Islam. And, the only reason these courts ruled against a God-given individual inalienable right is the fear of violence on the part of Muslims. Jews and Christians certainly do not have the “imaginary right” to have their religious feelings protected. Why? Jews and Christians will not engage in senseless violence when others attack God or Christ. The Austrian court and the ECHR preserved “religious peace” in Austrian society all right but only under the threat of violence.
No, Muslims don’t have to announce any type of threat. It is common knowledge that anyone speaking against their Mohammed, may pig’s blood be flung upon him and a ham stuck in his mouth, deserve death. Remember Charlie Hebdo? Muslims shot those individuals because of a cartoon of Mohammed. Remember the “Draw Mohammed Contest” in Garland, Texas? A Muslim set out to shoot up the crowd but was stopped.
Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff continues her fight against these immoral rulings since her first conviction in an Austrian court in 2011. Her crime is “denigrating the teachings of a legally recognized religion.” She was fined 480 Euros or $546 dollars plus costs. The court acquitted her on charges of incitement. Her appeal was upheld by a higher Austrian court. In 2012, the case went to the ECHR.
In June 2012 the case was lodged with the ECHR, which hears allegations of breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. Sabaditsch-Wolff complained her freedom of expression rights under the convention had been violated.
She said the Austrian courts had failed to address the substance of the statements in question, in the light of her right to freedom of expression.
If they had done so, Sabaditsch-Wolff argued, they would have qualified that as value judgments based on facts, rather than as mere value judgments.
The ECHR judges disagreed.
They said although people must tolerate the denial by others of their religious beliefs, in cases where comments are “likely to incite religious intolerance” a state might legitimately consider them to be “incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.”
The judges also said the subject matter “was of a particularly sensitive nature,” and that the authorities in Austria were “in a better position to evaluate which statements were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.”
The Austrian government is now the self- and ECHR-appointed judge of what speech is appropriate when it comes to religion, specifically Islam and particularly when it comes to their “messenger.” The issue centers around Sabaditsch-Wolff claiming Mohammed, may pig’s blood be flung upon him and a ham stuck in his mouth, engaged in pedophilic tendencies. According to the ECHR, she wrongfully accused Mohammed, may pig’s blood be flung upon him, of pedophilia “because he remained married to Aisha until he died – at which time she was 18 and ‘had therefore passed the age of puberty’.”
It matters not that Aisha attained the age of 18 at his death. From the time that Aisha was nine years old, the man engaged in sexual intercourse with an underage girl and one who had not reached puberty for several years after the “marriage.” This is pedophilia no matter how you try to gloss over it.
Curiously, the ECHR judges endorsed the Austrian courts’ findings that the comments “had not been made in an objective manner aiming at contributing to a debate of public interest, but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Mohammed was not a worthy subject of worship.”
(In fact, while Muslims revere Mohammed they do not view him as divine – nor did he claim to be – and they strongly dispute that they “worship” him at all. The Islamic declaration of faith, the shahada, states, “There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger.”)
Furthermore, the judges agreed with the Austrian courts that the applicant “must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others.”
“The national courts found that [Sabaditsch-Wolff’s] had subjectively labelled Mohammed with pedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue.”
Sabaditsch-Wolff has three months to appeal the decision, which would place the case before the 5-member Grand Chamber of the ECHR, who then decides whether it deserves further scrutiny. If the members decide it does, the case will be heard and a determination rendered. It is highly unlikely the 5-member Grand Chamber will rule any differently should the case make it to their docket. The ECHR has already indicated it stands with Islam and supports Sharia law.
The courts claim Sabaditsch-Wolff’s statements about Mohammed being a pedophile was based on “untrue facts.” Basically, the court called the Hadith’s detailing the life and teachings of Mohammed as false. Would that not make the entire cult of Islam false? One would imagine that Muslims would ignore the judges’ statement that Sabaditsch-Wolff’s statements were “partly based on untrue facts.” Muslims follow the Hadiths as much as the Qu’ran.
Assertions about the age of Aisha at the consummation of her marriage to Mohammed are based on what scholars view as authoritative Hadiths (sayings or traditions ascribed to Mohammed), including several by the 9th century scholar Bukhari.
One of them (Vol. 5, Book 58, No. 234) reads in part: “Narrated by Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years) … Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.”
Although there is some dispute about the ages of some of Mohammed’s other wives and concubines, some reports say the youngest after Aisha were Mulaykah, 13, and Safiyah, about 16. At the time of their marriages Mohammed was reportedly 57-58 years-old. Other wives and concubines are reported to have ranged in age from about 19 to 55.
The stupidity of the Austrian courts and the ECHR is not surprising. Yes, it is stupidity because ignorance can be corrected with the attainment of knowledge; you can’t fix stupid.
This is what comes to sovereign nations when invaded by a violent force of Islamists. Citizens are “forced” to follow a foreign law, Sharia, in hopes of appeasing people intent on crime and violence. Unfortunately, these individuals will engaged in crime and violence anyway because they are following in the footsteps of their pedophilic, criminal minded, thieving, mentally ill Mohammed, may pig’s blood be flung upon him. Islam is a theocracy, with some religious tenets, steeped in idolatry. Mohammed invented Islam to justify barbaric, violent behavior and criminal tendencies – nothing more. What better way to disguise and justify crime than invent a religion that condones it.
Allah is not God; God is not Allah. God, who sent His only Son to die for the sins of man in order to save His children, would not condone and encourage murder, rape, theft, lies, pedophilia, torture, bestiality, and idolatry. Allah, on the other hand, commands Muslims to engage in the aforementioned atrocities, sin, in order to be forgiven. God gives man free will and individual inalienable rights. Allah denied free will to men (all must follow Islam or suffer the consequences, which could mean death) and denies rights to all, except Muslim men. The list could go on but the point is made.
What better way for the globalists to gain control than flood western civilization with sixth century backward thinking individuals who engage in violence against those who do not share their theocracy. Governments will legislate the rights of the people away and courts will uphold denying rights to citizens to appease a devil that will never be appeased. Look no further than to the European nations as the example of what will happen in the united States should Islamists gain a considerable foothold. Actually, it is already happening in some areas of the US.
After 9/11, American citizens were told their rights had to be curbed, illegal search and seizure implemented before boarding an airplane, in order to “safeguard” against terrorism. Beginning with that one act, citizens have seen more and more of their rights trampled and infringed. It’s past time to wake up friends. No telling what is coming into this republic via migrant caravans and stealth illegal invasion through our porous borders. Learn from the destruction of European nations by Islamist invaders. Support combating illegal alien invasion and the destruction of jihadi camps here in the US. Freedom is not free and is required to be fought for from time to time.
Article posted with permission from Freedom Outpost
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.