In Austria Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff has been found guilty of denigration of religion of an official state religion by saying Muhammad was a pedophile. The act is one thing and there are ways to label the act and the person who commits the act. The appellation of pedophile refers to a mental disorder. The judge said that because he maintained a relationship with the victim after she reached age 18 he must not have been a pedophile. Because of this, the judge said Ms Wolf denigrated an official state religion and fined her.
This is the quote from the judge:
"Paedophilia" is factually incorrect, since paedophilia is a sexual preference which solely or mainly is directed towards children. Nevertheless, it does not apply to Mohammad. He was still married to Aisha when she was 18. It is a "denigration of religious teachings"
Because he was still married to her at age 18?
If a pedo used that defence do you think that judge would find him innocent? NO!
Furthermore if a dirty pedo only molests on Tuesdays he is still a dirty pedo the rest of the week too. He doesn’t all of a sudden become not a pedo for 6 days.
The judge is saying the crime was that Ms. Wolf convoluted the description of a perpetrator of a specific act with the term for the disorder which would most likely have caused the perpetrator to commit the act . So if Ms. Wolfe had said he was a child molester or serial child rapist but not said he was a pedophile then she would not have been found guilty of denigration of religion. That is what this ruling by this judge means.
So according to this ruling it is legal to scream from the rooftops in Austria that Muhammad was a child molester as long as you don’t make pronouncements upon his mental health that this judge disagrees with. Fair enough.
Child Molester sounds worse then pedo anyway, so Muhammad the Serial Child Molester it shall be.
It is the judge that is making an unqualified judgement in a subject matter she is not an expert in. It shows a misunderstanding not only of male sexuality but of islamic law.
By saying the man who willfully demanded to be given a child as a sexual partner and consummated his relationship before she reached puberty was not a pedophile, the judge is saying it is physically and mentally normal for a man to be capable of being sexually exited by a child. She is saying it is only cultural norms that prevent all men from desiring and being capable of having sex with children. As a man I find such an accusation unspeakably insulting. The judge not only willfully misunderstands the phenomenon of pedophilia, she shows she has absolutely no understanding of male sexuality. It is not normal to be able to be sexually aroused by a pre pubescent.
In order for him to have had sexual congress with a 6 to 9 year old little girl he would have to have had aberrant psychology. That he had an obsession with rape and sexual slavery is proof enough of some sort of sexual pathology though one more involving power. He obviously got pleasure from the domination of women. His lust for a child, as a physically small and unworldly being that could not defend itself from him fits into that particular pathology.
But the verdict betrays ignorance about religion in general and islam in particular. Zeus, Jesus, and Vishnu are mythical beings that are the central source of their religions. To say things unpleasant about them can denigrate their religions. Muhammad was a historical figure who promoted a religion but is not a deity in that religion and not a figure of spiritual worship or bestower of material or spiritual rewards. In fact to worship him would be one of the worst sins imaginable in Islam. Believing god has other deities as "partners" (such as Jesus), is called shirk, which is one of the worst sins in Islam.
So to say anything at all about his personal life, no matter how unpleasant or debatable is not denigration of the religion he started. Only a statement about the beliefs of that religion can be denigrating.
By saying Ms Wolf denigrated Islam by saying something about Muhammad, the judge committed one of the worst crimes in Islam and every single Islamic jurist knows this. She is saying Muhammad is the religion as much as Allah or the teachings and that is the exact islamic definition of shirk. The offence she committed is worse then the one Ms Wolff committed. Though as the judgment is in the Jihads favor no islamic jurist will be honest or careless with their own lives enough to say so publicly.
If you would like to know more about this travesty of justice and common sense here is a list of stories about it at Gates of Vienna up to feb 15 2011: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff at Gates of Vienna
UPDATE: Ms. Wolff Found Guilty! Of Not Being Guilty? Huh?
It has been reported at Gates of Vienna today that the accusation and verdict against Ms Wolff was because she said the exact opposite of what the Judge said Ms. Wolff said.
Darg?
Ms. Wolf told people that you cannot call Muhammad a pedophile.
The judge used those statements to say that Ms Wolff called Muhammad a pedophile.
Let me repeat: Darg?
That is like accusing me of conspiracy to commit murder because I go around telling people it is illegal for them to murder.
Could it be that the judge misread the evidence?
No. The bitch lied. It's as simple as that.
She accused Ms Wolff of saying the opposite of what the evidence showed she said. Only after that did she split hairs over appropriate terminology. Perhaps that is why the lawyers for the prosecution kept mum so much during the trial. Perhaps they did not want to destroy their careers.
Those who actually respect the law in Austria should seek to get this judge removed from the bench, disbarred if appropriate and prosecuted for libel against Ms. Wolff.
Here is the story at Gates of Vienna. Judge for yourself if that judge used poor judgment.
Sentence First — Verdict Afterwards
This is the quote from the judge:
"Paedophilia" is factually incorrect, since paedophilia is a sexual preference which solely or mainly is directed towards children. Nevertheless, it does not apply to Mohammad. He was still married to Aisha when she was 18. It is a "denigration of religious teachings"
Because he was still married to her at age 18?
If a pedo used that defence do you think that judge would find him innocent? NO!
Furthermore if a dirty pedo only molests on Tuesdays he is still a dirty pedo the rest of the week too. He doesn’t all of a sudden become not a pedo for 6 days.
The judge is saying the crime was that Ms. Wolf convoluted the description of a perpetrator of a specific act with the term for the disorder which would most likely have caused the perpetrator to commit the act . So if Ms. Wolfe had said he was a child molester or serial child rapist but not said he was a pedophile then she would not have been found guilty of denigration of religion. That is what this ruling by this judge means.
So according to this ruling it is legal to scream from the rooftops in Austria that Muhammad was a child molester as long as you don’t make pronouncements upon his mental health that this judge disagrees with. Fair enough.
Child Molester sounds worse then pedo anyway, so Muhammad the Serial Child Molester it shall be.
It is the judge that is making an unqualified judgement in a subject matter she is not an expert in. It shows a misunderstanding not only of male sexuality but of islamic law.
By saying the man who willfully demanded to be given a child as a sexual partner and consummated his relationship before she reached puberty was not a pedophile, the judge is saying it is physically and mentally normal for a man to be capable of being sexually exited by a child. She is saying it is only cultural norms that prevent all men from desiring and being capable of having sex with children. As a man I find such an accusation unspeakably insulting. The judge not only willfully misunderstands the phenomenon of pedophilia, she shows she has absolutely no understanding of male sexuality. It is not normal to be able to be sexually aroused by a pre pubescent.
In order for him to have had sexual congress with a 6 to 9 year old little girl he would have to have had aberrant psychology. That he had an obsession with rape and sexual slavery is proof enough of some sort of sexual pathology though one more involving power. He obviously got pleasure from the domination of women. His lust for a child, as a physically small and unworldly being that could not defend itself from him fits into that particular pathology.
But the verdict betrays ignorance about religion in general and islam in particular. Zeus, Jesus, and Vishnu are mythical beings that are the central source of their religions. To say things unpleasant about them can denigrate their religions. Muhammad was a historical figure who promoted a religion but is not a deity in that religion and not a figure of spiritual worship or bestower of material or spiritual rewards. In fact to worship him would be one of the worst sins imaginable in Islam. Believing god has other deities as "partners" (such as Jesus), is called shirk, which is one of the worst sins in Islam.
So to say anything at all about his personal life, no matter how unpleasant or debatable is not denigration of the religion he started. Only a statement about the beliefs of that religion can be denigrating.
By saying Ms Wolf denigrated Islam by saying something about Muhammad, the judge committed one of the worst crimes in Islam and every single Islamic jurist knows this. She is saying Muhammad is the religion as much as Allah or the teachings and that is the exact islamic definition of shirk. The offence she committed is worse then the one Ms Wolff committed. Though as the judgment is in the Jihads favor no islamic jurist will be honest or careless with their own lives enough to say so publicly.
If you would like to know more about this travesty of justice and common sense here is a list of stories about it at Gates of Vienna up to feb 15 2011: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff at Gates of Vienna
UPDATE: Ms. Wolff Found Guilty! Of Not Being Guilty? Huh?
It has been reported at Gates of Vienna today that the accusation and verdict against Ms Wolff was because she said the exact opposite of what the Judge said Ms. Wolff said.
Darg?
Ms. Wolf told people that you cannot call Muhammad a pedophile.
The judge used those statements to say that Ms Wolff called Muhammad a pedophile.
Let me repeat: Darg?
That is like accusing me of conspiracy to commit murder because I go around telling people it is illegal for them to murder.
Could it be that the judge misread the evidence?
No. The bitch lied. It's as simple as that.
She accused Ms Wolff of saying the opposite of what the evidence showed she said. Only after that did she split hairs over appropriate terminology. Perhaps that is why the lawyers for the prosecution kept mum so much during the trial. Perhaps they did not want to destroy their careers.
Those who actually respect the law in Austria should seek to get this judge removed from the bench, disbarred if appropriate and prosecuted for libel against Ms. Wolff.
Here is the story at Gates of Vienna. Judge for yourself if that judge used poor judgment.
Sentence First — Verdict Afterwards
No comments:
Post a Comment