Never in modern times has freedom of speech been threatened more severely than nowadays; especially after Europe’s most senior court now will base its decisions on Islamic Sharia law.
In 2011, an Austrian woman, a member of the Austrian freedom party, FPÖ, was sentenced for having hurt the feelings of Muslims because she rightfully labelled the prophet Mohammad a paedophile.
Naturally, the woman appealed the sentence to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which is the highest legal authority for the inhabitants in the countries under the jurisdiction of the ECtHR. On several occasions, it has sentenced against the results obtained in national courts like the Norwegian Supreme Court.
One would think this case to be a routine matter in which the ECtHR would protect the rights of the inhabitants, as well as their freedom of speech. All the greater is the disappointment and shock following the final sentence of the ECtHR on 25 October this year.
The ECtHR concluded in subsection 15 in the sentence that, «the limitation of the prosecutor’s freedom of speech by a criminal sentence was justified, as it is based on law and was needed in a democratic society, namely to protect the religious peace in Austria».
The ECtHR simply has made Islamic blasphemy laws to European jurisprudence.
In view of the Court’s argumentation on paedophilia, and that the so-called «prophet of Islam» had sexual intercourse with a small nine-year-old girl who had not yet reached puberty, it is no less than totally frightening regarding the implications for protection of European children from being abused by paedophiles.
In subsection 17 of the sentence, the ECtHR states that the Austrian court had made a «rightful distinction between child marriage and paedophilia».
Mohammad had other wives older than Aisha; consequently, the ECtHR states that Mohammad cannot have been a paedophile. In subsection 18 in the sentence, the ECtHR writes that the prosecutor was unable to prove that Mohammad’s «primary interest for Aisha was due to the fact that she had not reached puberty».
The ECtHR gets lost in an argument over whether or not Islam recommends child sex; however, the Court obviously does not know the original sources of Islam, the Quran and Sunna.
The Christian apologetic, David Wood, quite often enters into arguments with Islamic learned, and over and over again he exposes them by using their very original sources.
You might well spend 12 minutes listening to his treatment of Islam’s attitude towards marriage and having sexual intercourse with children who have not reached puberty.
A central hadith, part of Sunna, is Sahih al-Bukhari. Sunni Muslims regard this hadith collection as one of the two mot truthful summaries of the life of Mohammad, his actions and quiet acceptance. Here, it is stated that weddings to girls who have not reached puberty, is accepted.
The fact that there are good forces in Austria did not prevent the national court from making a horrible sentence against a woman who was merely stating the truth.
There are several good politicians in Austria who stand up against this barbarism and in 2012, I had the pleasure of speaking to the FPÖ in Vienna, sharing the scene with Heinz Christian Strache, the leader of FPÖ and presently Vice Chancellor of Austria.
I drew historical parallels to 1683, when the Ottoman invasion was halted at the walls of Vienna, and said that Strache would be the commander to halt further invasion of Islam into Europe.
Unfortunately, Strache and his allies are overrun by dissolute politicians like Jonas Gahr Støre, who is more interested in stabbing Vebjørn Selbekk in the back with a dull knife.
We, the fighters for freedom of speech and the free dispute, must bear the burden of telling the unpleasant truths, even if it will cost.
And not only the Courts and politicians make shocking decisions. We simply live in wolves’ times. The police controlling thoughts on Google, Facebook, Twitter and others tighten the screws and make the space for utterances ever narrower, and the technology monopolies in Silicon Valley will merely taste blood in the wake of this last sentence at the ECtHR.
On 10 October Maria Zähler wrote well on Google’s internal document, which saps freedom of speech. At present, however, just a little more than 200 persons have shared this extremely important article.
Many are justifiably afraid of stepping forward stating their full name in the struggle for freedom of speech. However, I want to encourage everybody to fight on behalf of our precious freedom of speech in any way available and on every available arena, with full name or anonymously. Fight for everything that you consider to be dear.
English translation by Lars Hoem