Tuesday, 22 February 2011

More on the Viennese Show Trial

Further to yesterday’s posting regarding the hate crime conviction against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff for the crime of denigration of the teachings of a legally recognized religion, the Brussels journal has posted an analysis of the judgment and its implications, which makes interesting and indeed entertaining reading.

It should be noted that the offence for which Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted did not initially feature amongst the charges originally brought against her. The religious denigration charge was in fact added by judge Bettina Neubauer (pictured above) late in the proceedings when it became clear the original charge of Incitement of racial hatred was not going to succeed.

Austrian law allows a judge to bring additional charges during a case, but this is rarely done, and the fact that the judge did so in this case is clear evidence that the Austrian authorities were determined to achieve a conviction against Sabaditsch-Wolff, whatever the cost.

The charge was based on one statement which the lecturer made when she described how the prophet Mohamed married his wife Aisha when she was six years of age and consummated the marriage three years later when the child was nine, adding "If this does not constitute paedophilia, what does?”

The basis of the judgment makes fascinating reading. Judge Neubauer found that it was not legally acceptable to apply the label ‘paedophile’ to Muhammad, for two distinct reasons:

1) Apart from the marriage to Aisha, which was formalized when she was 6 and consummated at the age of 9, Muhammad had many other women, in wedlock, as mistresses, or as war booty. This documents the fact that Muhammad did not have a primary sexual attraction directed towards minors.

2) The marriage, and thus the sexual relations with Aisha, did not end when she reached puberty, but continued until she was 18 and Muhammad died. This further underscores the fact that Muhammad was not attracted to her primarily due to her being a minor.

You can make of that quite incredible logic what you will. However, on the face of it this verdict Would arguably enable a rapist to deny rape on the basis that he usually has consensual sex.

The judgment also means that the claim that prophet Mohamed had sexual intercourse with a pre-pubescent girl, is no longer merely stated in holy text, such as the Hadith, it is also now a legally declared fact which has been confirmed by the courts of a major European nation.

I somehow doubt that's what was intended


The whole article can be read here, and is recommended. Further developments in this case are best followed at english.savefreespeech.org. This is also where it is possible to support Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff financially. This is urgently needed, for in contrast to the prosecution, which is funded by the state, she has to foot all her expenses personally.


Mick, Anglo-Celtic and Nationalist said...

Sorry Sarah,
I am deply offended by this posting.

I live in Australia and Kangaroos are far more intelligent than that!

Macaw said...

Judge Neubauer found that it was not legally acceptable to apply the label ‘paedophile’ to Muhammad

Well now. Could someone kindly explain to me what exactly a paedophile is then...

This is sick

beppo said...

Serious query: Does this mean that a paedophile can expect the courts to protect him from being described as such if he can produce some adults to state that he had sex with them?
Or does it,as I suspect, only apply to Muslims?