The Tundra Tabloids will be live blogging the hearing today, December 20, 2011, 9-11 am,(local Viennese time, 10-12am Finnish time). Elisabeth is appealing her wrongful conviction conviction on “hate speech” violations. KGS

UPDATE: First conviction is CONFIRMED!

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: The question is: Are we allowed to say that Mohammed married a 6-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine? Are we allowed this truthful statement in a democratic society of which freedom of speech is or should be a cornerstone? Are we as laypeople required to know the clinical definition of “pedophilia”? And, most importantly, does religious law trump secular law?

Live blogging begins, local time.

All pictures and reporting by Henrik Raeder Clausen

In front of the court house.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Dr. Rami

Court room

The court makes a summary of what the case is about: §188 appeal case. Denigration of legally recognized religion, specifically Muhammad.

  1. oktober 2009

Problem is that Muhammad is considered a perfect example for Muslim men, that is against our laws and public order. He had a large consumption of women, including minors, and in general behaved in ways contrary to modern law. That is all documentable from the Bukhari hadith.

Susanne Winter said similar things and was convicted.

A 54-year having sex with a 9 year old, what do we call this, if not pedophilia?

09:17: Dr. Rami represents the Defence.

Demands aquittal. ESW is a harmless women conducting seminars, which was infiltrated by a journalist from News.at. 30 pages are obviously harmless, just a few out of context quotes are made controversial.

He underlines that a ”Hate preacher” would be someone standing in public places inciting hatred among thousands or millions, not a teacher in a small seminar.

‘Denigration’ implies that something false and negative is said about religious persons, like Jesus. Something true and negative, like Muhammad having sex with a girl aged 9, cannot constitute ‘Denigration’, and thus not be punishable.

09.19: Quotes Wikipedia:

”The wife of Muhammad, Aisha, entered the marriage at age 6, which was consummerated at the age of 9.”

This is completely public knowledge already, repeating this cannot be punishable under the law.

That Muhammad, as ESW put it, ”had something with children” is another way to put it, yet carefully rewording the facts cannot punishable either.

Also, it’s important that we don’t supress discussion of these matters, put people in prison for discussing it.

09:20: The Public Prosecutor takes over for a few comments about how detailed the previous judge had gone into the precise definition of ‘pedophilia’.

09: 25: The Public Prosecutor takes over for a few comments about how detailed the previous judge had gone into the precise definition of ‘pedophilia’.

The Judge asks ESW to take the floor for any comments pertaining to the written defence statement by Dr. Rami:

She says that she only spoke the truth, and ”Telling the truth must never be punishable”.

She referred to the recently deceased Vavlav Havel also stood up for freedeom of speech and that he even went to jail for this freedom.

Dr. Rami adds details from Islamic sources:

Muhammad had at least 9 wives, more according to other sources, as well as a variety of concubines and others.

The Judge calls a break, and says that the verdict will come no earlier than 10 o’clock.

09: 58 Hearing resumes.

10.00: Henrik Clausen: Very technical right now.

 10:13: The Judge lectures:

Defense has made the factual details of the case very clear, it’s an interesting case.

What we’re dealing with here is only the verdict from the first court. The Judge is lecturing a bit about the legal mechanism of cases like this.

It’s not the first time that Freedom of Expression is in this court, nor at the European Court of Human Right.

The Court has the obligation to clear up if there are objective mistakes in the first court. This is not the first case of its kind, far from it.

The Judge is lecturing about the legal mechanism of cases like this.

We don’t need to go through all the details of the case in the courtroom, it’s all written down in advance, and the Judge has read it. All the details are stacked up here [two 15 centimeter stacks].

The Defence made comments in order that the audience would understand the case. Otherwise not much of the case needed to be explained verbally.

If one only heard the Defence, it would seem incredible that one cannot legally speak the truth.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention, which of course is undisputed. This is valid both for pleasent and unpleasent information, including disturbing, shocking and hurtful information. The exercise of this right implies a duty as well, as duties are the flip side of the right. The exercise of this right implies responsibility and duties. Uttering false, harmful statements can be punishable. Protection of public order and basic values may require restrictions on exercise of free speech.

Supreme Court of Austria has dealt with this in the case of Susanne Winter already. Muhammad married Aisha at the age of 50, and Winter called him ”Child molester”. We cannot leave that Supreme Court decision out of consideration.

10:25: A journalist from the magazine News.at joined the seminars, and has laid forth the evidence.

The marriage/consummation with a girl of 6/9 years is a subject that might offend some.

That is at the heart of the problem.

The Court cannot convict for more items than the Prosecutor requested.

As for the guilt, ”Having something with children” is an excess of opinion that can not be tolerated. It is a ridiculing that cannot be justified.

As for punishment, it can be diminished. 4. december 2009 – 20. december 2011 is a long time for the process.

First conviction is CONFIRMED!


  1. Bullshisser! Perhaps the Judge is correct. One cannot ridicule a 54 year old Mohammad’s sexual relationship with a six, then nine year old child. The relationship is too sick to be ridiculed! Mohammad therefore should be condemed as a pervert and censured as a child rapist! Court adjourned!

  2. How ironic. In the picture of the court room there is a cross – a symbol of the western judicial system built on the solid three legged stool of Judeo/Christian Bible, Greek philosophy and Roman Law being smashed to smithereens by those determined to pull the Judeo/Christian philosophical basis of our laws out of our system. Lord have mercy on them, because I know I wouldn’t.

  3. A 54-year having sex with a 9 year old, what do we call this, if not pedophilia?

    Mohammed was not just any old paedophile. He was the absolute leader of a ruthless murderous gang of brigands. So even if a family did not wish to “give” him their little girl, the fear of being murdered, would have made them do so.

  4. DP111, they are relying on the technical definition of paedophilia of a primary or exclusive sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. As the historical mohamet also had adult sex beasts, technically he was not a paedophile. A more accurate description would have been sexual deviant, however, i’m sure they’d come up with a technical reason against that as well.

    They also relied on the fact that it was common in Europe for betrothal of children amongst kings/queens. However, they ignore that these were never consumated until after the girl reached sexual maturity; the girl was often sent to her betrothed’s family, however, she was under chaperoned care. Very different situation, but one they selectively relied on.

    One thing I learnt from ESW’s case, is that we have to play their word games to beat them.

  5. its amazing what these slimy wormtongue lawmakers come up with.They are not listening and dont want to.” Having something with children” is not an opinion .It is written for all to see.They just dont want to see it.

  6. chrisse

    It is true that children in days gone by, were married off at a young age. Fortunately this practice has now stopped, or is frowned upon. In Islam however, it was done by mohammed, and that is taken as the perfect example for muslims.

  7. “As for the guilt, ”Having something with children” is an excess of opinion that can not be tolerated. It is a ridiculing that cannot be justified.”

    Opinions cannot be tolerated? Ridiculing that cannot be justified? The Judge and court system has gone nuts. This was no secular court, this was a witch burning farce court.

  8. And they say that there is no such thing as Islamization of Europe… Now we know that they lied, and that they still are lying… This is sick…

    Keep on fighting and best regards from Sweden

  9. The judges in Austria must be left over children of Nazis and they like sucking islamic cock so what can one expect when they can’t even see the truth in the name itself,
    mo ham (as in pig) and mad as in completely insane mad, one who fucks children
    and says it is because of some man image in the sky called ali baba, so time to wash up the anus hair and stick up the rump to worship

  10. NOTE: on one of the photos from the court, I can se a christian cronn in front of the Judge.

    Please file a case against the court itself that it insult all muslims of the world, and Muhammed and the Quran, and the the court is hateful.

  11. I am really, really shocked by this ruling. I thought it could never happen in a civilized country.

    I thought that Sweden was hell-bent on bown-nosing islam, but this was worse.

  12. God forgive them they know not what they do. A women tells us the truth about Muhammed and an old stone age religion and she is condemed. In what centary are we living? Gallileo was also condemed for telling the truth. Islam has taken Europe and free speech back to the middle ages.

    History is repeating itself.

  13. What is happening…Many people in high positions are performing in a very mysterious way. Are they paid off from Mr. Mohammed´s relatives?
    Where has the truth gone?
    Wish Europe Good Luck!!

  14. Is it really so that in Austria you one is not allowed to point out that according to written sources Mohammed had sex with a 9-year old (and that would be considered paedophilia in most western countries today)? What is wrong in mentioning that? I get the impression that your justice system seems to sacrifice freedom of speech just to please some religious fanatics.

    Someone with more knowledge of this particular case should really put up some facts, documents and medialinks on international Wikipedia because we outside Austria really had no clue that your freedom of speech was so restricted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *