Friday, February 18, 2011

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Found Guilty. Of Not Being a Lawyer.

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.


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

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

The Muslim Brotherhood Renounced Violence Decades Ago? In What Universe?

Mohamed ElBaradei, the now recognized leader of the democratic uprising in Egypt has just said the Muslim Brotherhood has renounced violence for forty years. On what planet has ElBaradei been living for the past forty years? Because it certainly hasn't been this one.

They have engadged in violence, their extensive propoganda is military in purpose and they take advantage of violence commited by groups they claim to not be connected to.

1. They have assassinated not one, but two Egyptian rulers.  Prime Minister Mahmoud an-Nukrashi Pasha in 1948 and Anwar Sadat in 1981. I don't know where ElBaradei has been living, but on the planet where I live that's kind of a big deal.

And unless you've learned basic math in Egypt, 3 decades does not equal 4 decades. But that's just MB's "official" violence, because:

2. Groups split off from them before becoming violent precisely in order to allow them deniability. Does anyone remember the horrific Luxor massacre? al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya split with the Muslim Brother hood after the MB "renounced" violence. Members of Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya jumped the police at Luxor then hunted down and killed 58 tourists who hid among the ruins for hours before more soldiers arrived. And that's just one group that has "split off" from the MB before committing violence.

3. Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza. Have they been lobbing cupcakes and sunshine into Israel, instead of all those Qassam rockets as the media reports? And yesterday is not the same as forty years ago unless you do some pretty fancy quantum physics. It seems like a rocket science joke would be apt here but for the life of me I can't think of one.

4. Their current action plans for various countries call for the future use of violence after the subversion campaigns bare fruit. If an axe wielding lunatic is surrounded by dead bodies and saying he will kill people very soon but won't chop your head off right now if you let him in your house- is it safe to believe him?

5. In the last few days MB members have said publicly that they will go to war with Israel once they get power. Since when is warmongering the renunciation of violence?

6 Subversion is, though non violent, still an aggresive military tactic that goes back to Sun Tzu and the Romans. The purpose is to use propaganda techniques to attack the ideals and resolve of an enemy countries population and leaders untill they let your country have its way. The MB specializes in it and is engaged in a campaign of subversion in the United States for decades (yes that is exactly what your little darling is up to at those MSA meetings at school). Muslim Brotherhood documents released in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial prove this beyond doubt.

7. The MB makes use of the violence and extreme rhetoric of terrorist groups to deceptively present its oeratives and goals as moderate alternative even though they are just as radical. In these instances it's not an exact group committing specific violence but the MB is intentionally using it to further their goals.

8. They make use of the news grabbing violence and rhetoric of violent groups by making their advances quietly and under the radar. While we are distracted by one maniac battering down the front door, another is using lockpicks to sneak in the back.

9. These "moderates", claiming to be unrelated to the violent groups, nevertheless ask for concessions immediately after attacks, in a way that is just as coordinated as the attacks themselves in what security professionals refer to as "slipstreaming".

10. They have exactly the same goals of making the whole world submit to Shariah Law, the creation a single empire so as to be able wage offensive jihad (as if that "defensive" jihad nonsense wasn't obvious bullshit) thus turning the whole world into a place where muslim men are first class and everyone else has to eat shit.

When taking those things into account you cannot but conclude that The Muslim Brotherhood and Al Quida et all are in fact one and the same.

It's exactly like a stoning. If you have witnessed the horror of one of those religiously sanctified murder orgies, no matter where the victim turns there is some blood crazed bastard throwing a rock at their head.

Islamic aggression on all levels is like that, whether it be a stoning, a gang rape or the UN Human Rights Council, It's always multiple sources cooperating like a predatory pack. And the Muslim Brotherhood is the pack leader.

Obama is sucking up to them right now because he thinks their triumph in Egypt is inevitable but since when is "just relax and try to enjoy it" been a better response to a rapist then kicking him in the nuts?

I hope that the white house and ElBaradei might really be thinking that once the Egyptian people have real democratic reforms and a better economic life their support for the MB will fade. Unfortunately that will take time and the MB are so adept at conspiracies that even allowing one of them to be elected dog catcher would be a huge mistake. (He'd probably just circumcise all the dogs and then train them to kill Copts)

Seriously, any Muslim Brotherhood member of government will conspire to give his group advantage and work towards non democratic Islamist control of the country in any legal and illegal way he can. If you give one of those guys an inch they will grab the whole ruler and try to cut your head off with it.

If Murburak had done his job and dealt with those assholes as thuroughly as he should have we would be viewing the past weeks events in Egypt with more enthusiasm and less trepidation.