The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

Monday, December 14, 2009

Whose Law?

by Baron Bodissey

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-WolffMost readers are
familiar with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, the Austrian anti-jihad
activist who is facing a “hate speech” charge
for one of her recent presentations on Islam.

The evening after her “Islamophobic” speech was publicized in the Austrian press — on
November 26th, 2009 — Elisabeth gave the third in a series of lectures
on Islam. Considering that her previous presentation was the one that
brought down the “hate speech” charge on her head, Elisabeth’s lecture
that night drew a lot of attention.

The video below shows the first part of her lecture about sharia law, which was the final seminar
on the topic presented in Vienna. Listen to what she says and see if
there’s anything that’s untrue, or inflammatory, or that passes the
bounds of reasonable opinion. Like Geert Wilders, she is being targeted
for speaking up about matters that the political elite prefer to keep
under the rug.

During her presentation Elisabeth refers to the media gathered outside the venue who want her to make a statement:

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for the subtitles.

The full transcript of this portion of Elisabeth’s lecture is below the jump.
- - - - - - - - -
I want to thank you and also thank you for your support
I will need any kind of support and can tell you that I will not give up
I will not back down because this is a matter of principle: the truth
Because if we can’t tell the truth any more we can close down everything. Science and schools.
This is what we are talking about. Not about me — Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff — it’s about our future
And it’s about our children. It’s not about me. It just hit me — it’s not the first time and it will not be the last time
I am attracting such things. But somebody has to do this. And it will be me who is doing this.
The irony of the story is, that today we will talk about freedom of opinion
This was not planned. I mean we always planned to talk about freedom of opinion
But we didn’t plan that the whole story gets such an explosiveness.
They would like to head me off and force me to make statements.
Statements which are then misinterpreted. And this is no freedom of opinion any more.
And as we said last time that there is no freedom of opinion any more — we have the best example for this now.
It’s nice that ESW thinks she has to save the world, but there are other people who are concerned
Never mind! It’s just not comfortable if you are a matter of public interest of NEWS
I just wanted to tell you that I don’t know how long I can keep up
I just ask for your understanding. If I keep up — okay, if not, please understand it.
Okay, today we will talk about how Islam is influencing our lives
Person in the audience asks for documents
Person in the audience asks if they will be informed about the developments in the case via the homepage of ESW
ESW answers: no, you will not read anything on my homepage
ESW: we did not make any decision yet
ESW: I will not make any statements in public and I ask you not to talk in public either
Person in the audience says something which is not understandable
A statement to the article in NEWS: 95% of the article are correct
Some things are wrong, respectively wrongly quoted and misinterpreted but 95% are correct.
Even though I wanted to counter, I could not, because it’s the truth what they wrote
And it will be the truth in front of the court
We will talk about the fact that Islam is a religion and a state
You know this already. But media don’t and they don’t want to know it. But we will know it.
No relevant statements
Before we start I want to mention one fundamental point: I am a critic of Islam
You know this. If you want to hear positive things about Islam, you are wrong here.
Then you have to go to the Islamic community, where you will hear the other side.
I never said — and I will never say — that the Muslims are evil.
I always said, that I feel for the Muslims. And you will agree with that.
I feel sorry for them, because they suffer from this slavery
There were never overall denunciations. We are talking about Islam!
Not about Muslims. I want to clarify this.
I call upon my right for freedom of opinion with this lecture.
This is my right. And I call upon it.
And I ask all of you for objective statements.
No polemics, no agitation. Just objective statements and questions.
There are always people who kick over the traces
But we don’t want to make the Islam-Lobby a case for attacking us.
The Islam-Lobby, these are the do-gooders. We are not their idiots.
Another point: It’s interesting that in our male-dominated justice it’s always the women who are accused
Accused because of agitation. We should think about this.
A patriarchy in justice
I am a mother and I am a feminist. And I will not let this happen.
That women are pilloried again. Think of Oriana Fallaci. Think of Susanne Winter.
Think of Brigitte Bardot who was convicted so often. I am just the next in line.
It’s always the women.
Why is it always women. Why is it women who go out and not men.
And as a feminist I feel attacked.
I fight for women and I fight for my daughter. For that she can grow up in freedom and dignity.
This is important for me. I don’t want my words to be perverted.
So if we have a discussion, then please in an objective way.
Thank you.
Any questions?
We will discuss this quietly. And we will have the breaks in here.
We will talk about Sharia today.
It’s Sharia, which is a problem for us. We will go in more detail.
There is Sharia in finance resp. monetary system.
We will talk about the organisation of Islamic states.
We will talk about the term “Islamophobia” and how they use it, to prohibit criticism on Islam.
We will talk about human rights in Islam. A point which affects me at the moment.
We will talk about women’s rights and — if we have time — about female circumcision.
We could miss this out and you read about it.
Honour killings, which of course have a relation to human and women rights in Islam.
We will talk about western politics of respectfulness
How the west practices appeasement towards Islam
And how this is done
If we have time, we will talk about mosques
That mosques are not only a place of prayers but have many functions
Only at the end we will talk about prayers
We will talk about tabooization and how it is done
Some of these taboos we have seen already
Let’s see how far we come
Which consequences does Sharia have for Europe?
What happens if Sharia is implemented? In fact, it is implemented already.
This is a subtle implementation, but it’s creeping quickly
Subtle and quick — this seems to be an antagonism
The Sharia — the Islamic law — is responsible for serious violation of human rights
These violations of human rights in Islamic countries concern Muslims and Non-Muslims.
The discrimination and sexual degradation of women
A woman is only half the worth of a man. Her words, her evidence, her position in society.
Sharia means censorship and prohibition of criticism.
We have seen this already. What happened today is — Sharia.
They wanted to muzzle us
Compared to our standards, sharia means inhuman punitive measures
I talk about the so-called “hudd”-punishments. Cropping off hands, stoning.
All the cruelties, which — as they say — have nothing to do with Islam.
Refusal of individual rights of freedom
You know by now that one loses any right of freedom when one converts to Islam.
Dictating what to do and prohibition
Your might remember the book of Qaradawi
which was used in high schools in Islamic religious education
Where you are in detail told what you are allowed to do and what you must not do
You are patronized — in a way in which I don’t even patronize my child-daughter
And they are patronizing adults — concerning clothing and food
Remember: “May men pick brows? May men wear gold jewellery?”
All this is regularized in Sharia.
There is no Islam without Sharia.
You cannot separate one from the other
There is no separation!
An Islamic society with the sharia is an ideal.
This should be the target state in Islam, designed by Mohammed
Which means, Saudi-Arabia is the ideal society, the ideal Islamic society
Don’t forget — it’s a governmental construction
Remember the first page. Islam is a religion and a state.
As soon as we acknowledge Islam, we have a state within the state
The Islamic law is beyond any discussion
As according to the Islamic point of view, divine law stands above state law.
And because there is no discussion, we are facing all the problems
That’s it
There are very small ranges of interpretation
But you may remember the closure of the Ijtihad in the 11th century.
This terminated any possibility of interpretation
As long as this door is closed (gate of ijthihad)
There will be now change, no maceration, no advancement of Islam
Okay, no discussion and — of course — no denial.
An Islamic state cannot say: we leave sharia
Polygamy. It is allowed for men in sharia
You know that men can marry 4 women at the same time
The Koran says this is possible if all are treated in the same way
This is also pedals the man. It makes life difficult for men.
First of all polygamy stokes resentments among the women
Very often it causes jealousy, hate and disaffirmation between them
And it is also a stress-situation for the men, not only physically
It is an emotional stress. They have to consider, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
“do I really treat my wives in an equal way?”
Monogamy is only regulated by law in Turkey and Indonesia.
Whereas in Indonesia it is softened already because of sharia
Modest corporal punishment is allowed
And again it might be a problem for the man, that his religion
Allows him to beat his wife whom he loves — or not. This is emotional stress.
In sharia it’s not the courts which decide on compensation-money
The families have the right to claim it
Or they can claim the death of the delinquent or certain vendetta. There is no jurisdiction in this case
Burglary is punished with a “hudd”-punishment — amputation
Scholars say that this is a determent. But I doubt this.
Man in the audience: “What about the Sharia-courts in Great Britain?”
They deal with family, marriage and inheritance law
I have not heard about any other judgements. Not yet.
Here we have some examples how sharia is realized. We will not discuss this now.
I give you the points and you connect them
If you say, yes, this is sharia and it’s awkward, then it’s time to stand up and say: not with us!
If you say, no this is nonsense, it’s just far-fetched cases, then it’s also okay for me.
But these cases did really happen
Sharia constitutes the different clothing-directives
There is a head-scarf surah, although it’s controversial
They dispute, if this surah really has to be interpreted in this way
But as it is practised today, I assume that it is valid
There are more and more head-scarves, which means it is understood in this way
I look at the facts and do a reality-check. And they are becoming more and more.
What theologians say is in this case not relevant
Sharia contains different rights for men and women
Women are not treated equally by this religious law. This is a fact.
One can refer to their books, although they’d like to explain differently. It is a fact.
According to the Koran resp. Mohammed’s intention, women are subordinate in all domains
She doesn’t even have the right to her children
According to our law — yes. According to Koran respectively sharia — no.
And from which legal position will the judges act?
Above all, when we will have the first muslim public prosecutors and judges. Which law are they to execute?
Evidence of women, you know that, only counts half the evidence of men.
Women only have restrained right to give evidence.

Previous posts about the hate speech case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:

2009   Dec   5   Fighting a Hate Speech Charge in Austria
        11   Heckling the Counterjihad

Baron Bodissey | 12/14/2009 07:56:00 PM


To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="">My Title</a>
Blogger PatriotUSA said...

This is another sham job and
where can one donate to her
defense? Please let us know.

2/10/2010 2:16 AM blog-admin pid-1501222840""> 
Blogger Elisabeth said...

I am moved by the level of support I am receiving. Currently, there is no need for donations. However, things may change fast. If they do, you will find out here at GoV.

Thank you so much!

2/10/2010 12:19 PM blog-admin pid-156424972""> 
Blogger Zenster said...

I want to thank PatriotUSA for reviving this particular article, because a zombie thread it most certainly isn't. I was in Asia during the time that all of this first
broke at GoV and, consequently, unaware of what was going on. I only
managed to learn about it in a subsequent email exchange with Elisabeth

From what I understand, Elisabeth is still facing legal charges by the Austrian authorities and this is no laughing
matter. In the next few weeks, I'm going to try and find out if there
isn't some way to pull together more information about this whole matter
and see if there are any technical differences from the Geert Wilders
case that can be exploited in favor of the defense.

I have long maintained that Europe is in the process of criminalizing Free Speech. A
major goal of Political Correctness is to so thoroughly interdict free
expression that it eventually inhibits even the origination of
independent thought. It is Orwell's Thought Control marching under the
false colors of supposed "harmony" and that code word for Communism's
long-standing agenda, "social justice".

Once the basic process of ideation has been inhibited the individual's ability to discern actual
truth is typically so eroded that there remains little hope of it being
reached through independent means. This enables those in control to
dispense whatever pap and drivel they wish to be perceived
as "truth".

It is this systematic erosion of Free Speech and Free Thought that has led down the slippery slope into the judicial
morass we see today. Simply put:


This turn of events signals a death knell for individual liberty and personal freedom within the EU.
As a quote that Elisabeth is so fond of closing her emails with

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.".

— George Orwell —

2/10/2010 1:20 PM blog-admin pid-2133800629""> 
Blogger Henrik Ræder said...

PatriotUSA offered:
Where can one donate to her defense? Please let us know.

We have thought of that, and decided that for the moment, no defense fund is needed. We do
not know if this will be taken to court or dropped (it should be
dropped, of course), and it would be somewhat premature to ask for
monetary support before we know if this becomes a real problem.

Of course some lawyer fees apply already, but that's relatively minor.

2/11/2010 9:44 AM blog-admin pid-1337442233""> 

Post a Comment



 [ ]

Tags: Critic, Elisabeth, Islam, Sabaditsch-Wolff, Teacher, of

Seitenaufrufe: 124

Antworten auf diese Diskussion

[ Hat-Tip VladTepes ]

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff at the Freedom Defense Initiative
Gates of Vienna 22 February 2010

From the launch of the Freedom Defense Initiative, which was organized by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. Elisabeth spoke at length about the hate-speech case mounted against her by the Austrian authorities, and also recounted some of her experiences living and working in Iran, Kuwait, and Libya. Thanks to UAC, Elisabeth’s appearance at the FDI event is now available on video:

[Lenght 14']

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff responds to EU court’s ruling that speech insulting Muhammad is prohibited

Yesterday, Jihad Watch covered the troubling ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that “an Austrian woman’s criminal conviction and fine for her statements accusing the Prophet Muhammad of pedophilia did not breach her right to free speech.”

Insulting Muhammad is now forbidden, according to the ECHR, which has conceded to Sharia imperatives. This ruling is important not only for the “Austrian woman” who was not even named in the Daily Sabah article, but for all who support free speech. According to the ruling, Austrian courts had “carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.”

Consider the impact of this ruling when weighed with what Pakistan’s President Imran Khan said: that he was “taking the matter [of blasphemy] to the United Nations, saying that few in the West understand the pain caused to Muslims by such activities.” Pakistan is well known for its cruel blasphemy laws.

The next step for the expansion of Sharia provisions in Europe will be the prohibition of all speech that is considered to be broadly offensive to Muhammad’s established religion — Islam — and offensive to the feelings of Muslims.

Robert Spencer wrote:

This is clearly the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who was fined and given a jail sentence for calling Muhammad a pedophile. He married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, but “the Austrian courts had held that ES was making value judgments partly based on untrue facts and without regard to the historical context.

I had the privilege to meet Elisabeth in Warsaw last month at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) Human Dimension Implementation Meetings. The Center for Security Policy states:

For the last decade, a civil society delegation led by Austrian patriot and freedom fighter Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff has attended ODIHR [OSCE Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights] meetings to express concerns that especially European countries were potentially unwittingly facilitating these Sharia-compliant practices, to their great and increasingly obvious detriment.

Elisabeth is a powerful advocate for freedom. The ECHR ruling on her case bears grave implications for everyone worldwide who supports freedom and genuine human rights. Elisabeth sent me her statement on the ECHR ruling this morning. We owe her much gratitude and support for her fight for the freedom of speech, the hallmark of democracy:

On Thursday, 25 October the ECHR ruled that my conviction by an Austrian court for discussing the marriage between Prophet Mohammed and a six year old girl, Aisha, did not infringe my rights of freedom of speech.

I was not extended the courtesy of being told of this ruling. Like many others, I had to read it in the media.

The ECHR found there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that right to expression needed to be balanced with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.

In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others.

This should ring warning bells for my fellow citizens across the continent. We should all be extremely concerned that the rights of Muslims in Europe NOT to be offended are greater than my own rights, as a native European Christian woman, to speak freely.

I am proud to be the woman who has raised this alarm.

I am also optimistic. Since giving my seminars in Austria in 2009, we have come a very long way.

Ten years ago the press labeled me a “confused doom-monger” and I was compared to Osama Bin Laden. Now, Islam is being discussed in every sphere of life and people are waking up to the reality of a culture so opposed to our own.

The cultural and political threat posed by Islam to Western societies is now widely recognized and discussed. It is fair to say European society, as well as the political realm, is undergoing an enlightenment, as it is more awake than ever to the need to defend our own Judeo-Christian culture.

I believe my seminars in 2009, and subsequent work have contributed to strong push back against an Islamic culture which is so at odds with our own. And note with interest that only one sentence out of 12 hours of seminars on Islam was a prosecutable offense. I assume the remaining content is now officially sanctioned by our Establishment masters.

It is obvious to me that public education and discourse on the subject of Islam can have a fundamental and far-reaching impact, even if our state or supra-national authorities try to stifle or silence it, in order to appease a culture so foreign to our own.

This fight continues. My voice will not and cannot be silenced.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff


The European Court of Human Rights goes full dhimmi.
October 29, 2018

Bruce Bawer

Founded in 1949 and headquartered in Strasbourg, the Council of Europe – which today counts every European state except Belarus and Vatican City as a member – is supposed to be a guardian of democracy and human rights. That's its official raison d'être. It is separate from the European Union, and its court, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), whose judges are elected by the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly (a legislative body whose 324 members are drawn from Europe's national parliaments), should not be confused with the EU's European Court of Justice (ECJ). It began hearing cases and handing down verdicts in 1959.

How many Europeans are even aware of the Council of Europe's existence – or, if they are, could explain what it does? How many know the difference between the ECHR and the ECJ? Relatively few, I suspect. But this is par for the course in Europe, where the elected governments, in the decades since World War II, have built up a network of international bodies that wield considerable power while operating in the shadows with little or no accountability to the people. Guardian of democracy, indeed.

All of this dry information is by way of prefacing news of a sensational and sobering verdict that was handed down by the ECHR last week. Although the full name of the petitioner is not mentioned – she is identified only as an Austrian woman with the initials “E.S.” – the case, as Robert Spencer has noted, is obviously that of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who in 2011 was convicted in her native country of “disparaging religious doctrines” for having stated, in seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam” that she held in October and November 2009, that Muhammed, the prophet of Islam, was a pedophile. Of course, any minimally knowledgeable student of that religion knows that, according to the canonical records of Muhammed's life that are known as hadith, he wed his wife Aisha when she was a child of six and (perfect male role model that he was) waited until she was nine to consummate the marriage.

Not only is it acceptable under Islam for a true believer to acknowledge these details, which theological scholars consider incontrovertibly factual; it would be sheer heresy to deny them. Also thoroughly factual, of course, is that the word “pedophile” means someone who is sexually attracted to children and who, in some cases, acts upon that attraction. But when Sabaditsch-Wolff put two and two together and called Muhammed a pedophile, an Austrian court found her guilty of insulting a legally recognized religion and fined her 480 euros ($548). Sabaditsch-Wolff appealed the court's judgment, but the Vienna Court of Appeals upheld it and the Austrian Supreme Court dismissed it, whereupon she took her case to the ECHR. As she told Front Page editor Jamie Glazov in 2011, the appeal would “cost a lot of money and...take a lot [of] time (6-8 years minimum).”

Well, she was right about how much time it would take. After seven years, a seven-judge panel of the ECHR has issued a ruling in her case. And what a ruling it is – nothing less than historic. The ECHR admitted that, yes, it is permissible in Europe (for now!) for one citizen to refuse to share another's religious beliefs. But to go very far beyond that is another matter, especially in “particularly sensitive” cases and especially when one is making “value judgments” rather than stating the plain facts. Sabaditch-Wolff's statements, the ECHR ruled, had gone “beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” by making “an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace” and which was “capable of arousing justified indignation.” By finding Sabaditch-Wolff guilty, maintained the ECHR, the courts in Austria had “carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.” Hence, the ECHR concluded, Sabaditsch-Wolff's comments about Islam were not protected by her freedom of expression.

Let's unpack all that a bit. What made this case “particularly sensitive”? At one point does a statement of fact become a value judgment or indignation become justified? Why doesn't your or my or Sabaditch-Wolff's indignation over the tenets of Islam matter as much as the indignation of Muslims? What are the “permissible limits of an objective debate”? How can a court in the Western world speak, with a straight face, of someone in the twenty-first century mounting an “abusive attack” on someone who lived and died 1400 years ago?

As for the ECHR's concern that stating an uncomfortable truth about Islam risks “religious peace” – well, on that score the judges certainly had a point. But is it Sabaditsch-Wolff's fault that Austrian authorities have filled their country with people who are so touchy about insults to their religion that a statement made at some obscure seminar is viewed as being capable of sparking major social discord? As for “balanc[ing]” free speech with “the right of others to have their religious feelings protected” – when, in the post-Enlightenment West, has there ever existed such a thing as a right to have one's “religious feelings protected”? What does that even mean? Protected from what? From facts? And of course, as some Americans still seem to recognize (even if many Europeans don't), once you start “balanc[ing]” free speech with other considerations, you've already started to raze the edifice of liberty.

The bottom line here is grimly clear. The ECHR has totally capitulated to Islam. It has dealt a major blow to freedom of speech in Europe. At this point, indeed, the ECHR might as well be a sharia court. When it comes to voicing unpleasant truths about Islam, it can no longer be claimed with any legitimacy that Europeans under the jurisdiction of the ECHR – which is to say, every European except for the thousand-odd residents of the Vatican and the nine million inhabitants of Belarus – still enjoy freedom of expression. In one fell swoop, the ECHR has put an end to that. And some Americans wonder why Donald Trump is so determined to keep the United States out of the jurisdiction of international courts.

As for “balanc[ing]” free speech with “the right of others to have their religious feelings protected” – when, in the post-Enlightenment West, has there ever existed such a thing as a right to have one's “religious feelings protected”? What does that even mean? Protected from what? From facts?



Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2023   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service