Human Rights: perfect to ignore and proverbially wipe your own ass with if you’re working for the European Court of Human Rights.
Today the European Court of Human Rights has decided that the Austrian woman, named Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, can be prosecuted for insulting the ‘prophet’ Mohammed.
Freedom of speech is for everyone in Europe, except of course when you have an opinion not shared by the European Union. And miss Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff has just that.
She believes that the ‘prophet’ Mohammed was a pedophile because he had sexual intercourse with the 9-year old Aisha. Which she told during an FPÖ presentation about the dangers of Islam.
At this presentation there also happened to be an undercover journalist. Who, after hearing Elisabeth make said statement, asked the police to investigate her statements.
That’s when shit hit the fan and she was told to pay a 480 euro fine, which – of course – the European Court of Human Rights (With The Exception For Those Who Dare To Insult Islam) found more than okay.
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Following is a rather (yet predictable) bizarre citation by the ECHR from a statement given by the Austrian court:
Even though criticising child marriages was justifiable, she had accused a subject of religious worship of having a primary sexual interest in children’s bodies, which she had deduced from his marriage with a child, disregarding the notion that the marriage had continued until the Prophet’s death, when Aisha had already turned eighteen and had therefore passed the age of puberty.
I mean, that’s rather horrible, isn’t it? Miss Sabaditsch-Wolff decided to completely ignore the fact that the lovely Mohammed stayed married to Aisha after she matured.
Using this logic, according to the ECHR, it could be argued that Marc Dutroux isn’t a pedophile, because he still maintained a sex life with his wife.
One could argue that Mohammed wasn’t a pedophile, not that I personally believe that, but it’s a discussion we should be able to have in a ‘free’ society. That we now have judges in Europe that, 1000 years later, argue that bringing up the argument that “Mohammed is a pedophile” is punishable, have completely lost it. And it furthermore shows how much we’re steering towards the ideal European wet dream envisioned by George Soros and Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi.
One could ask the reasonable question: “Why would these judges even do such a thing… making said judgements?”. Well, “Presenting objects of religious worship in a provocative way capable of hurting the feelings of the followers of that religion could be conceived as a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which was one of the bases of a democratic society.”
Of course, when someone says something that could hurt the feelings of someone else, that’s not something we can tolerate in a ‘democratic society’. We can conclude that that’s something the European Court of Human Rights agrees with.
They found that the applicant had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia 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.
Remember: this is not a ‘fake news’ article. These are real judges that are real decision makers, deciding over rights of you and I. Sources, here:
Freedom of speech: GONE.