On February 15, 2011, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of “hate speech” in a Vienna courtroom. Gates of Vienna covered her case at length; see the full list of articles linked at the bottom of this post.
Elisabeth is in the process of appealing her conviction, and will take her case all the way to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary — and perhaps she will run into Lars Hedegaard on the courthouse steps.
In order for Elisabeth to begin the appeal process, her lawyer needed a court document known as the “Protocol”. This is an official transcript of the courtroom proceedings on the final day of the trial. It includes a summary of evidence as well as the verdicts (there were two charges — she was acquitted of one of them).
The Protocol finally arrived several weeks ago, and has been translated into English through the Herculean efforts of JLH. The translated document is published in full below.
Elisabeth adds this introduction:
This is a short update concerning my trial.
You may remember that I was found guilty of “denigrating the religious teachings of a legally recognized religion” by alluding that Mohammed was a pedophile because he married six-year-old Aisha and consummated the marriage when she was nine. The judge — seemingly forced by the powers that be to find me guilty of something, anything — decided on a guilty verdict, because although Mohammed did indeed marry and deflower Aisha, he stayed with her until he died, i.e. past her 18th birthday, and thus his behavior could not be seen as pedophilia.
I am still disgusted by this verdict, as it constitutes another vile attack on girls and women, by the government of a democratic, secular country no less!
Below you will be able to read more about my last day in court. Read it and weep. The verdict was already written before my lawyer and I had even uttered our first words. We could have called Mohammed and Aisha as expert witnesses and it would not have changed the verdict.
A sad day for women and girls as well as for free speech.
Many thanks to JLH for the translation.
The text below is long, complicated, and riddled with lawyerly jargon. It’s worth going through it, however, to read the transcript of what Elisabeth said in her seminar that caused the charges to be laid. A regular Gates of Vienna will read her words, scratch his head, and say, “What’s wrong with this? This is the simple truth about Islam!”
There are also a few things worth noting in the judge’s rationale for conviction. For example:
“Witness testimony is after all perceptions of facts related to the subject and not conclusions or evaluations”
In other words: the perceptions of the judge relating to the facts of the case are considered germane, but not the perceptions of witnesses who are sympathetic to the defendant. Need there be any further indication that the verdict in the case was a foregone conclusion?
Another one:
“it is only a question of likelihood of the statement to arouse justified anger and not of whether anger was actually aroused.”
This very much resembles the logic behind last year’s conviction of an EDL member in England. It didn’t matter whether the defendant actually offended anyone — the case rested on the perceived possibility that under some circumstances, someone somewhere might be offended by the defendant’s words.
“Orwellian” doesn’t even begin to do justice to this sort of logic.
The transcript below has been reformatted to make it more readable, and a few irrelevant parts (such as the labels on the original form for which no answers were required or filled in) have been discarded.
Once again, we owe JLH a great debt of gratitude for the mammoth task of translating this document.
Filed on April 5, 2011
Completed and submitted on February 15, 2011
File number: 112E Hv 144/10g
Main Trial
| Court: | Regional Criminal Court, Vienna | |
| Day and Hour of Start: | February 15, 2011, 10:30 a.m. | |
| Criminal case: | Against Elisabeth SABADITSCH-WOLFF | |
| Present | ||
| Sole Judge: | Mag. Bettina Neubauer | |
| Secretary: | VB Bettina Moser | |
| Prosecutor: | State’s Attorney, Mag. Hans-Peter Kronawetter | |
| Defendant: | Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff | |
| Defense Attorney: | Dr. Michael Rami | |
| Mag. Andreas Strobl |
The secretary announces the case.
The trial is open to the public.
The defendant states her personal circumstances: particulars verified and augmented.
Witnesses and experts are announced, if they have not been summoned for a later time period. They are told where to wait for their interrogation and when they must be ready for it.
Those participating in the trial in a private capacity are instructed to leave the courtroom. It is left to their discretion whether they will be represented at the trial.
To prevent appointed meetings or discussion of witnesses:
The judge reminds expert witnesses of the oath taken, and adds that expert witnesses remain in the courtroom during the examination of the defendant and witnesses.
The State’s Attorney presents the points of the charges with background. Thereupon, the sole judge ascertains that the defendant is made acquainted with the subject and scope of the charges.
The judge instructs the defendant that she has the right to counter the charges with a related explication of the facts and circumstances and to offer remarks after each presentation of evidence.
The decision of the court to continue the trial within the two-month period from January 18, 2011 is carried out. By mutual agreement, previous results are announced and the resumption established.
The protocols of the trial from November 23, 2010 (ON 17) and January 18, 2011 (ON 26) are read
| Judge to defendant: | Has anything changed in your personal circumstances? | |
| Defendant: | No. | |
| Criminal record ON 22 is read. | ||
| Judge: | Do you affirm your previous undertaking? | |
| Defendant: | Yes. | |
| Judge: | Would you like to say anything else, especially in regard to the implications of statements number 7) and 8) in appendix A./ on ON 17 according to the statement of facts of §188 StGB? | |
| Defendant: | Yes. | |
| Judge: | Do you know when Mohammed lived? | |
| Defendant: | Yes, 622 AD. | |
| In reference to appendix ./A in ON17: statements number 7) and 8): | ||
| Judge: | Did you consider it was possible your statements could cause justified anger? | |
| Defendant: | No I did not. I merely spoke the truth. | |
| Defense Attorney | ||
| Dr. Michael RAMI | ||
| to the defendant: | How was the seminar; was there criticism of the remarks? | |
| Defendant: | There was absolutely no criticism. There was discussion and great relief on the part of the participants, because there is so much garbage in the media — both domestic and foreign. It is no secret what I said concerning Mohammed. I explained what is in the Islamic scriptures, what I know from my study of sources, what I have experienced myself. I repeated all this. There is nothing more to say. | |
| Dr. RAMI: | What were the reactions of the participants in both seminars? | |
| Defendant: | More or less calm. “Now we have answers to our questions, our fears and our apprehensions.” I believe, when people are anxious and need explanations — that is what i delivered — no more, no less. | |
| Dr. RAMI: | Did any of the seminar participants become angry, speak in favor or against? | |
| Defendant: | Not in the least. | |
| Dr. RAMI: | Ms. DOLNA sneaked in. Did you speak with her? | |
| Defendant: | I did not speak to her, but she did to me. She came to me, acted very interested, really, so that I almost thought she might work with us. She said she thought it was wonderful, would like to have more information. She wanted the address of the website I write for and wanted to inform herself further. She questioned me during the break. | |
| Dr. RAMI: | What did you intend with your statements, especially about Mohammed, did you intend to anger anyone? Was that your intent? | |
| Defendant: | What did I want to make happen? Absolutely nothing, except to bring information, truth, after what I had learned from my source studies…to offer clarifications. It is no secret that Mohammed married Aisha when she was six and had sexual relations with her when she was nine. It can be looked up and read about anywhere in the world. You can ask Islamic legal scholars, teachers — it is no secret. | |
| Dr. RAMI: | Did you intend to cause any kind of annoyance? | |
| Defendant: | Not in the least. I simply wanted to tell the truth. There is no question of angering anyone. Others were there who wanted that, not I. | |
| Dr. RAMI: | Do you wish to derogate Islam? | |
| Defendant: | My intention was to inform about Islam, about the effects we in Europe, in Austria and in the whole world are experiencing now. It was an informational seminar. In no way did I want to hurt anyone’s feelings. | |
| Dr RAMI: | A charge by the prosecutor is the comment “Islam is crap.” What did you say at that time and what did you mean by it? | |
| Defendant: | At that time in the seminar, we were discussing the fact that the EU, among others, is also contributing to Islamization, cutting off the air from freedom of expression. To demonstrate that, I said:” Which of you today would go outside, in front of the door, and say, clearly and distinctly, ‘Islam is crap, Islam is crap.’” (The defendant indicates quotation marks in the air.) I put it in quotes. Then, as clarification, I said, “Naturally, none of us would do that, because it isn’t proper.” I merely pointed out that it is no longer possible to say that. This proves it. Otherwise I would not be sitting here. |
Dr. RAMI requests the testimony of witness, ILSE ALBRECHT and says that Mrs. Ilse ALBRECHT was at both seminars in question and can testify that no anger was caused by the defendant’s statement. The witness, Ilse ALBRECHT is present and can appear immediately.
The defense attorney presents a decision of the Supreme Court, reference number 15 Os203/98, on the elements of incitement, where it is said explicitly that this regulation serves for the protection of public peace. Further, an early decision of the European Commission on Human Rights has no application to the statement.
These documents are taken as appendices ./I and ./II for today’s trial protocol.
The defense attorney presents the last document, ON 28 and makes application as in same.
Further, the defense attorney presents submission AS 123 ff in ON 5 and makes application as in same.
The prosecutor offers no interpretation of this.
Herewith the determination of continuation of evidence-taking
Judge:
Request for testimony by Dr. Wafa SULTAN, Dr, Hans JANSEN and Dr. Robert SPENCER to confirm that the defendant simply expressed true facts and evaluations that depend on true facts, is rejected, because the defendant’s statements overwhelmingly represent value judgments and the witnesses furthermore could give only their subjective evaluations. Witness testimony is after all perceptions of facts related to the subject and not conclusions or evaluations,
Application for testimony of witness Dr. Robert Spencer as well as evidence that Mohammed married a six-year-old girl and had sexual relations with her when she was nine is rejected, because the charge of pedophilia derived from that fact is a value judgment that is not susceptible of proof.
The application for testimony of the witness Ilse ALBRECHT as evidence that no justified anger was caused by the comments in connection with Mohammed and pedophilia are rejected, because the witness can simply give information on her personal feeling, but not on the feeling of all the seminar participants.
Defense attorney amends request to produce evidence that was presented today:
Witness Ilse ALBRECHT is requested as evidence of the fact that there were no negative reactions of any kind to the comments of the defendant. Mrs. Ilse ALBRECHT attended both seminars in toto.
The prosecutor makes no clarifying remarks to that.
Judge:
In addition to the evidence that there were no negative reactions from the public to these comments:
The request is denied because in the circumstances of a case according to § 188 StGB, which is an abstract endangerment offense, it is only a question of likelihood of the statement to arouse justified anger and not of whether anger was actually aroused. The reaction of the audience is therefore not relevant for the question of guilt and subsumption.
| Dr. RAMI to the defendant: | These seminars — who sponsored them, who was invited, how did all that work? | |
| Defendant: | The Freedom Educational Institute, which is the educational institute of the Freedom Party of Austria. The party also offers other seminars — not only mine. | |
No further evidential requests are made. By common consent the records are presented in accordance with § 252 paragraph 2 a StPO, and by common consent word-for-word reading is not required.
Criminal record ON 22 is read.
Conclusion of Evidentiary Proceedings
The prosecutor demands a verdict of guilty in terms of the complaint and a punishment appropriate to the offense
The defense attorney demands a verdict of innocent.
The defendant associates herself with the remarks of her defense attorney.
Therewith the judge announces the
VERDICT
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is guilty. She denigrated or mocked a person who is the object of veneration of a church or religious community in this country — namely the prophet Mohammed — under circumstances in which her attitude was capable of causing offense. Before a total of 32 persons in the context of her lectures in the “Seminar Series Islam,” she expressed the following, to wit:
I./ October 15, 2009
| 1) | One of the great problems we have today is that Mohammed is seen as the ideal man, the perfect human being, the perfect Muslim. That means that the supreme law for a male Muslim is to emulate Mohammed, to live his life. That doesn’t go according to our standards and laws. Because he was a warlord, had relations with a comparatively large number of women, liked to get it on with children. According to our ideas, he was not a perfect human being. Today, we have a huge problem with that, because Muslims come into conflict with democracy and our values system. |
| 2) | The most important Hadith collections, recognized by all law schools: The most important of all is the Sahih Al-Bukhari. When a hadith according to Bukhari is quoted, you may be sure that all Muslims acknowledge it. And, stupidly, the affair of Aisha and child sex is written in the Al-Bukhari. |
II./ November 12, 2009
I remember my sister — I have told this a few times — when Suzanne Winter made her famous remark in Graz, my sister calls and says, “For Heavens sake, did you say that to her?”
To which I said: “No, it wasn’t me, but it can be looked up. It’s not really a secret.” And she: “But you can’t just say that.” And I: “A fifty six year-old man and a six year-old girl? What do you call that? Give me an example? What do we call that, if it isn’t pedophilia?” She: “Yes, well, you have to use circumlocutions, speak more diplomatically.” My sister is symptomatic. We have heard that often: “Those were other times, after all.” It wasn’t OK then and it isn’t OK now. Period. And it is still happening today. You can’t approve of something like this. They put reality aside (right: fabricate it), because the truth is so awful…”
With this, she committed the offense of denigration of religious doctrine according to § 188 StGB.
Punishment in application of § 28 paragraph 1 StGB in accordance with § 188 StGB
Fine of 120 per diem at €4, total €480. In case of non-payment, 60 days.
In accordance with § 389 paragraph 1 StPO, she is ordered to pay court costs.
On the other hand, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff — in accordance with § 259 Z 3 StPO — is acquitted
I) of charges she incited against a lawful church and religious community in Austria on October 15, 2009 and November 12, 2009, by make the following comments to 32 persons in the context of her lectures in the “Seminar Series Islam, to wit:
October 15, 2009:
A Christian can leave Christianity at any time. There are no threats, if one would like to leave. In Islam, on the other hand, there is a clear threat that — according to Mohammed — death awaits those who leave Islam. There is a sura and a saying of Mohammed that those who leave Islam are killed… Let us turn to Christian doctrine: Of course, Christians kill too, but they do not invoke the New Testament, or the Gospels or anyone at all. The problem is that jihadists do do that. Muslims kill because of Muslim doctrine…
Christian morality says, thou shalt not lie; Islamic morality says, thou shalt lie. With Muslims of your own group, be honest, but so soon as it is outside the group, you must lie if it is necessary to advance Islam. Another difference is this. Jesus advocates forgiveness for sins. Mohammed advocates stoning and beheading — ergo sharia…
But we must be clear: Islam remains hostile, the doctrines of Islam, the content of the Koran is hostile. We can’t get around that. I don’t know how many of you have read the Koran — the book is evil. There are good things there, but most of it is evil…
OK, now I am coming to abrogation… This means that suras are replaced and the earlier ones become invalid. That has been introduced. They won’t admit that — the Muslims, but it is true… And with that, the scales should fall from your eyes [so you can see] how the whole thing works. The lulling, the convincing, telling us we can all sleep peacefully at night. Not true. Abrogation makes it possible.
November 12, 2009:
So, in brief, you remember how it is with Islam, that there are five pillars. And that some people maintain, and I am among them, that there are six pillars, namely: prayer, pilgrimage, fasting, profession of faith, religious giving and, yes, jihad…
I must make you acquainted briefly with the sword verses. These are the really bad verses: “The infidels from the People of the Book are the worst of creatures.” That is all of us, we who are sitting here. The aspect of violence in the Koran is large, because proselytizing is commanded. “Do not offer them peace when they have the upper hand.” That is quite clear. It is not a question of interpretation. We are just told that; do not believe that it is true. The verse that cuts me deepest: “Kill the idol-worshippers wherever you find them. Seize them and besiege them and wait in ambush for them everywhere.” That really gets to me, really frightens me…
The next one is also very bad: “Strive with wealth and blood on Allah’s path.” How should we still be talking about this being a peaceful religion, when the words blood and sword are mentioned again and again?…
So, taqiyya, the rule of deceiving the opponent — if you understand that. The religious lie is not just allowed, but required.
We are being lied to every day, 24 hours a day!…
So, back to the taqiyya theme and the hadith. It is not in the Koran, but is in the hadith, that it is allowed to deceive in war, and the Muslims are clearly in a permanent war with us. Therefore deception…
Islam makes an absolutistic claim: “You are the best community. I command what is best and forbid what is reprehensible.”
…The universal claim — Islam’s sole rule over the world. That affects all of us. We no longer have personal freedom. Bassam Tibi said: “Islamization of the world is a solid element of Islamic philosophy.” If you won’t believe me, then believe Bassam Tibi. Jihad is a political commandment and a religious duty…
Love-jihad. This is being practiced right now in Egypt and India, where Muslims court non-Muslim girls, promise them the skies, make sure that the girls fall in love with them, convert, have children and then — away with her. That also happens in Europe, but the greatest waves are washing over Coptic girls in Egypt and in Kerala…
Education jihad, example — books. Books are re-written and Islam is white-washed…
Our dear Muslim fellow citizens insist on equal rights every day, every week and if we do not do that, we are instantly xenophobic! In the end, the arguments don’t add up. Many Muslims are also Austrians. How can I be xenophobic? That does not work. Islamic norms are set above constitutional law under the pretext of good old religious freedom, which is on our heads. Religious freedom is basically a good thing but unfortunately has been turned upside down by the Muslims. Islamic so-called values, the denial of freedom of expression are accepted on the pretext of perceived offense. There they are and say, “Oh, we poor, poor Muslims”…
My friend brought a dog back from Libya. It hated all the Muslims there. Now it is here and feels just fine!…
You remember Idomeneo, the opera, was canceled because of the fear that there would be riots. As if a Muslim would ever go to the opera!…
Well, really, once in the theater I saw a veiled woman and I thought, what is she doing here, she must be lost…
No St. Nicholases is the perpetual theme. Cleaning women get work clothes and head scarves from the state, that is, we are supporting the people-despising clothes, and all that!…
Allow me to join in. I will play devil’s advocate. We cannot remove citizenship. That would be the task of the FPÖ if they ever were in power…
They go into the army and have a different purpose in mind. That is infiltration.
I was never threatened, but I was accused of hate speech in the OSCE. That is a threat, but I can live with it. It does not matter to me. My husband is a soldier in the army. We have weapons in the house. And I will certainly learn to shoot sometime. Fear paralyzes, fear is false. What I would like to create here is anger, because that leads to changing something. Fear brings nothing at all, and that is negative. Something positive can come from anger: that people do something…
The Muslims’ tactic — how to silence us: accuse us of hate speech. Simply anything I say, speak of, do, I am called racist, Islamophobic. That is idiocy, because we know that phobia is a baseless fear. So I don’t take it seriously and neither should you. Muslims make themselves out to be victims of colonialist thinking. They are the new Jews, like in the 1930s! Those are killer argument, and now you have the counter arguments. I don’t get into things like that. And naturally, it is really intense because they have money, they have the ability to conduct organized campaigns: diplomatic initiatives, lies, death threats…They run the gamut, and it works…
What I wanted to say before — the Muslims despise us for that. The Muslims want war. War against a weaker opponent is blah. It does not matter what kind of war it is. It need not be with weapons but with words, and there too it is boring against a weaker opponent. They hate us. It does not matter whether it is in the Koran. They do that. And we have our values and we must defend them. We have a civilization, as opposed to the so-called Muslim civilizations. So we have to stand up and defend ourselves…
Who among you would dare to go outside in front of the door and say “Islam is crap!”… That was just an example that we no longer have freedom of expression. We are tied to laws — the anti-discriminatory principle — which is a huge problem. And that’s the end of “Islam is crap!” That is how it is…I know this is a long story, but it is true and so important, and the EU is cutting off our air… Because Islam is not basically compatible with our liberal society. That must simply be recognized…
What is left, if one pays attention? If you remove the gruesomeness from Islam and say, the structure that remains functions with our democracy, there is nothing left. Effectively nothing remains. And that too is moribund, because it is necessary to accommodate culturally. But can you imagine Muslims accommodating culturally?… but let us talk about facts; let us have a reality check. Can they adapt? How many of them have already adapted? Perhaps the man who just made me a sandwich with pork? And he was from Egypt…
We have had dialogues since the 7th century and what, concretely, has come of it? And she was speechless. And then she said: “But you can’t forget that evil cardinals raped children — you can’t forget that.” And I said: “Yes, that is reprehensible. but show me a place in the Bible where that is commanded and allowed and desired. Cardinals do that despite their religion; Muslims do it because of their religion…”
We are a dhimmi civilization. We voluntarily subordinate ourselves to Arab countries. What will happen when the Muslim population reaches 2-3%? Then the mass conversions will really start — in the prisons as well, and street gangs. As in Denmark. There, thank God, are the Hell’s Angels. They fight back… So at 20%, the first riots, murders, burning down of churches and synagogues — all that awaits us…I am going to H&M on Meidlinger Hauptstrasse with my daughter, unsuspecting, and there comes a Burka apparition toward me. What do I do? I pull out my cell phone and look as if I had made a call, but naturally I took a picture… But she lost nothing by my doing that…
I can only appeal again to everyone: Stand up and do something! We all have to contribute to it!…The conclusion is unfortunately the following: There will be a civil war, and we already have it. Civil war is here! Just think of Paris, Brussels, Rotterdam. The only thing I do not yet understand is, why it is relatively calm here. I don’t know…
Now we come to the finale: We must recognize that Islam is a threat. We must make it clear to the people. A hundred people should be sitting here… Sensitization, that is what we have to do. What I am doing for you, you have to do: explain the rock-hard reality. We are spending ourselves blind so that they can settle in here and start bashing heads in. People have to understand that. Now, this evening, Europe has to stop, investing money. We need it for ourselves. And now the political requirement: speak up and write, again and again and again!
Just think how long it has lasted! How often have we been persuaded that Islam is peace? Now we are starting the counter-initiative. Write letters to the editor. to state officials, to the browns. That is how you will reach the politicians…We must boycott the politicians who are leading us to the slaughter. We must support the parties that stand openly against Islamic immigration, and do not shy away and call things by their name…
We need a public consciousness of the Muslim danger! A right to education and it must stay state of the art! Biology as an example! History! Teaching must be according latest scientific knowledge — no discussion! There was a Turkish siege and they took one on the nose. That has to stay in. No tolerance for glorification of violence, and so excluding the Koran completely. And we must finally see that the Muslim Brotherhood is a Trojan horse. Turkey is a part of that too…
Sharia is an absolute No. We want no gender apartheid, no ghettoes, no social and cultural discrimination, no polygamy, no theocracy, no hate…
is acquitted in accordance with § 283 Z 3 StPO
II) of the charge that on November 12, 2009 in Vienna she publicly incited against a church and religious community legally recognized in Austria — Islam, by stating in front of 32 persons in the context of her lectures in the “seminar series Islam”:
It’s all about economic growth and so that we are not cut off from the source of energy. And for that we have sold everything, Because, if you think about it, Europe could have long ago been energy independent of these idiotic desert peoples. And now I must now cite Adolf Hitler in whose time there were already cars running on hydrogen, and now it’s been 20 years to develop the stuff! I regret that!…
and that she thereby committed the offense of incitement according to § 283 paragraph 2 StGB
is acquitted in accordance with § 259 Z 2StPO.
The judge lets it further be known that the essential grounds for decision and the explanation on rights of appeal
The defendant after consultation with her attorney:
announces appeal on grounds of invalidity, sentence of guilt and punishment.
Prosecutor:
announces appeal
End: 11:10 am
Regional Criminal Court, division 112
Vienna, February 15, 2011
Mag. Bettina NEUBAUER, Judge
For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar