Despite broad consensus among historians of Islam that the 'Prophet' Mohammed consummated his marriage to (i.e. raped) his third wife Aisha when she was just nine years old, it's now illegal in Austria to mention this.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has just upheld an October 2018 judgement against Austrian patriot Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (pictured) for her criticising the 'Prophet''s bizarre 'marriage' to an innocent and defenceless little girl.
Mrs Sabaditsch-Wolff had spoken to a meeting organized by the Austrian Freedom Party in Vienna, ten years ago:
During her speech aimed at an audience of about 30 people, she spoke freely about the prophet Muhammad and his relationship with Aisha, whom he saw and desired when she was six years old. He married her on the spot, and the union was consummated when she was nine.
For this, she was reported to the police by a journalist-infiltrator (who'd recorded the speech), charged with inciting hatred against Muslims, and punished with a 480-euro fine or up to 60 days in prison.
The Court agreed that there was an 'interference with her right to freedom' but justified it in the name of the protection of 'religious peace.' It added that a 'duty' exists 'to avoid as far as possible an expression that is, in regard to objects of veneration, gratuitously offensive to others and profane,' ...
... even if it happens to be true!
The ECHR decision is final, and means that any future criticism, including 'enunciation of facts regarding Islam and its history' having the potential to inflame Muslims could lead to conviction.
Gregor Puppinck of the European Center for Law and Justice said the judgement was a 'severe setback for freedom of expression', which condemned Mrs Sabaditsch-Wolff simply 'for having expressed a disturbing truth'.
We've written before about the slow strangulation of free speech by the Religion of PeaceTM.
Sabaditsch-Wolff's case exemplifies a new, three-stage process:
1. Citizen criticises Islam, Muslims or the 'Prophet' Mohammed.
2. Fearful of disruptive or violent reaction by Muslims, a submissive establishment convicts the citizen, even regardless of the truth of his/her criticism.
3. Free speech is thus diminished: (a) by legal precedent; and (b) by widespread self-censorship of citizens fearing arrest and conviction simply for speaking their minds.
We've often asked open-borders advocates: What specifically are the benefits to western society of mass immigration from Islamic countries?
All they've come up with so far is: kebabs.
Kebabs or free speech?
The choice is yours.
Share this post on social media: