Live blogging from Elisabeth’s court proceedings

The first hearing in Elisabeth’s case will take place in the court of Vienna on November 23rd, starting at 9:00 CET. In collaboration with EuropeNews and Tundra Tabloids, we will be live blogging the event from the morning, aiming to decipher exactly what is the offense Elisabeth is charged with.

It is expected that the entire audio recording from the FPÖ seminars will be played in court, permitting the prosecutor to explain in detail what cannot be permitted to be said, and why the religiousness of Islamic teachings makes it so.

The defence, on its part, can be expected to document the accuracy and truthfulness of what was said, thus focusing on the core problem: Is it illegal to speak the truth about Islam?

The live blogging will report core issues as they unfold during the day, which can become detailed and extensive. At the end of the day, an edited report of the highlights will be published.

The live-blogging will take place on this URL. Be sure to bookmark it, and reload it on a regular basis Tuesday.

NOTE: Special thanks to Niels Thomsen from Sappho for doing the cartoon.

HEARING BEGINS AT 10:00 AUSTRIAN TIME: Cross posted from the Finnish blog, the Tundra Tabloids.

9:20 Henrik Clausen states that “we’re outside the court room, waiting for Elisabeth to appear at 9:00.”

Picture credited to http://sosheimat.wordpress.com/

UPDATE: More pictures from today’s proceedings found here.

9:41: H.C. Austrian TV is here with camera crew.

10:34: Opening remarks

The room has seats for 15, 25 spectators there. ATV and other press asks for comments, but on advice of the lawyer ESW says ”No comments now, after the hearings”.

The judge informs ESW about her rights, that all she says can be used against her.

The public prosecutor makes a short summary of various conclusions from ESW, taken out of the context from 8 hours of teachings. Without the context, they sound omnious, like speaking of a ”Burqa ghost”, comparing her statements to those of Susanne Winter, mentioning that Muhammad married a child of 6, as well as the risk that we will eventually have a civil war.

Defence lawyer talks of the principles of gender equality, freedom of religion and the lack of reciprocity that exists in Islam, for example that other religions cannot be freely excercised in several Islamic countries. That ESW grew up in Islamic countries and has experienced the situation of women there directly.

He continues to explain that the statements mentioned were taken seriously out of context, and that some were not public, thus not relevant to the case. And that we should play the 8 hours of recordings to understand the context.

He proceeds to invoke three expert witmesses who will testify that ESW speaks the truth:
Wafa Sultan,
Hans Jansen
Robert Spencer

10:53: The judge inquires if we are talking Islamic extremism or of Islam as such?

Elisabeth explains that we are talking Islam as such, as defined by its scripture, and quotes Erdogan that there is no moderate Islam anyway.

The judge accepts that we can play the tapes.

Then proceeds to ask about us being lied to 24 hours a day. Elisabeth explains the concept of Taqiyya. The judge says: ”That is your interpretation”, to which Elisabeth responds: ”No, this is the canonical interpretation”.

Next question is:Is Islam in a never-ending war with the West?”

Elisabeth refers to history and newspapers to document that, and that Jihad has at times been considered a pillar of Islam.

11:15: The ”burqa ghost” story is related.

Elisabeth took a photo of a woman in burqa in Meitlinger Hauptstrasse, Vienna, and told about this in her seminars. It is difficult to figure out why the public prosecutor finds this offensive, not to mention illegal. The defence asks about this. Elisabeth explains a few things about freedom for women – all women – to decide for themselves.

A reference is then made to debates at OSCE, where she discussed child molestation, and says: Christian cardinals molest children in conflict with their religion, Muslims in line with theirs. As background the marriage between Muhammad and Aisha is related, as documented by several Hadith authors.

Paedophilia is discussed, in light of Muhammad being the perfect example for Muslims, as stated in Quran 33:21. That means everything Muhammad ever did or said, which is in the hadith.

Elisabeth explains what the hadith collections are, how they constitute an indispensable part of Islam, due to 33:21 and similar suras. And emphasises that she is not making up statements, merely quoting canonical Islamic scripture.

Henrik Clausen: [Now apostacy - more later]

11:34: The Judge opens a discussion if we’re talking of ”All Muslims” here.

Elisabeth says no, for most Muslims do not know what is in the Quran, which is in a language (Arabic) they do not understand, and thus place their confidence in the imams for interpretations.

Judge: ”Is every Muslim a Jihadist?”

Elisabeth: ”No, not at all. But Jihad is an obligation for Muslims.”

Elisabeth: ”Converts, not cultural Muslims, are problematic.”

Elisabeth: ”This is about the teachings of Islam, not about Muslims.”

Judge: ”You said Mulisms in the seminars?”

Elisabeth: ”Yes, in context that is needed to understand the relevance of this.”

Judge: ”What percentage of Muslims are Jihadis?”

Elisabeth: ”I do not know. Not the majority. One promille is enough to be a problem, though”.

Then the quote about ”Islam is shit” is debated. Elisabeth points out that she was debating, using visual quotes, if it is legal or punishable to say ”Islam is shit”. Thus, what we are discussing here is the meta-question:

Is it illegal, or punishable, to debate the legality of saying: ”Islam is shit”?

UPDATE:

12:06: The defense lawyer goes through some point of the charges, asking Elisabeth:

Lawyer: You said: ”Muslims kill due to Islamic teachings. Christians also kill, but not due to their religious teachings.” Are there not verses in the Bible that encourage killing?

Elisabeth: Not in the New Testament, and not actively used today.

Defence lawyer explains the death threats against Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the security she needs to live under.

Elisabeth tells about the killing of Theo van Gogh and the Quran quotes used to justify that.

Lawyer asks: ”Are there child marriages in Islamic countries?”

Elisabeth: ”yes, for example Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan. Also the late ayatollah Khomeini recommended paedophilia, and the current Iranian President Ahmadjinedad recommends his teachings.

Elisabeth: According to Islamic law, these marriages are legal and justifiable.

Lawyer: Are corporal punishments, like chopping off of limbs, part of Islamic law?

Elisabeth: Yes, this is described for instance in Reliance of the Traveler.

Henrik Clausen: [Defence lawyer and Elisabeth have explained about the classical Sunni Islamic book "Reliance of the Traveller", unwrapping a fresh copy in court.]

UPDATE:

12:40 :The lawyer contines to ask Elisabeth to explain various statements:

Lawyer: What is meant by ”We are decadent”?

Elisabeth: That is the point of view of Islamic fundamentalists.

Lawyer: What is meant by ”We do not want Sharia here, full stop”?

Elisabeth: Free, secular socities is what we want.

Lawyer: What is meant by ”Islamic law is not compatible with free societies, we need to understand this.”?

Elisabeth: Islam is a whole, and this whole is not compatible with free societies like the Austrian.

Laywer: Did you see any veiled Muslim men?

Elisabeth (laughing): No, this is an obligation just for women.

Lawyer: You were referring to Paris, Brussels, Rotterdam. What is the meaning of that?

Elisabeth: This is a reference to the no-go zones, where Sharia is effectively in effect. There immigrant youth torches cars, throw stones at the police etcetera.

Prosecutor: Are each and every one of these persons Muslims?

Elisabeth: The majority are.

Lawyer: What is meant when you say: ”How many times have we been told that Islam is a Religion of Peace?” Is this an incitement to hate or violence?

Elisabeth: I do not mean to incite hatred or violence. We need to be informed, make people aware, inform our politicians and write letters to the newspapers.

Lawyer: What is meant by ”We do not want gender apartheid, polygamy”?
Elisabeth explains polygamy in Islam, and the fact that this is a reality in Europe, today.

Elisabeth finally tells about the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the absolute right to express ones’ opinions, as a fundamental prerequisite for a sound democracy.

[At this point, more people have arrived. There are 18 seats for the audience, 30-35 listeners total.

UPDATE: Amsterdam News following the live blogging here at the TT, also the Gates of Vienna is following as well.

UPDATE:

13:08 Breaking for lunch.

UPDATE:

14:00: The NEWS journalist Dolna was called as witness. Technicalities of her recording equipment are discussed by the judge, including the fact that of the first seminar only half an hour was recorded.

The judge inquired about some of the statements quoted being from breaks, not from the seminar proper. 3-4 persons heard those, not 32 or more, the criterium for a statement being ‘public’. This is important for legal reasons, as only statements made to a large group can be punishable.

The judge dug further into the methods of the journalist. Why did the journalist quote statements made in the breaks, not part of the lecture? The journalists says ”For journalistic reasons”. Also for dramaturgic reasons, that it makes for a more dramatic and catching article.

Further, the judge asked if it was made clear in advance that the journalist would be recording the seminars. She responded that she had not told anyone, as her work constituted ”Investigative journalism”, a journalistic tool.

The lawyer probed further into the issue of the quotes being part of the prepared seminar, or offhand comments in the breaks.

Next, the events concerning the opera ”Idomeneo” were discussed. The background is that the performance of this classical Mozart piece by Deutsche Oper Berlin, which was cancelled due to Islamic pressure. The director had added decapitation of Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad to the original play. Fear of unrest caused the play to be cancelled. The well-known German magazine Focus had, in that context, written that we should under no circumstances cave in to pressure like this.

This rounded off the day after roughly 3 hours of hearings. Since there is a need to play the complete recordings (8 hours) from the seminars, the next hearing was scheduled for January 18th.

The proceedings had a serious breach of procedure: The journalist from NEWS.at had not been summoned as a witness, yet was permitted to take the stand. Witnesses are not permitted to be present at the hearings before they are summoned. The defence lawyer will look into possible consequences of this.

This is the end of reporting for today. Please join us on January 18th 2011 for more news from the frontiers of defending the free societies of the West.

This entry was posted in Support. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Live blogging from Elisabeth’s court proceedings

  1. Pingback: LIVE BLOGGING THE TRIAL OF ELISABETH SABADITSCH-WOLF ON 23RD OF NOVEMBER……. |

  2. Herr Meyer says:

    Does this mean the “co-exist” bumper stickers aren’t working. Hummm. That means the “Namaste” bumber stickers aren’t working on the Muslims either.
    Another cheer to try is to pair off in a football stadium and shout “We like Jesus yes we do. We like Jesus how ’bout you!” If that doesn’t work I don’t know what will.

  3. Pingback: Het proces van Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff kan via Live-Blogging worden gevolgd - AmsterdamPost

  4. Zuzana Dratovnikova says:

    http://www.answeringmuslims.com/
    shattering islam in its core, proving that it is a lie and a vicious ideology that destroys all good in its paths. Evacuate this vice out of your territory or eliminate it. It is garbage. Gain back your sovereignity and get out of EU. MORE POWER to Elisabeth, to Wilders and to the guy on this video. Let’s keep pushing forward, this is not a lost battle. Islam allows lies. Christianity does not. Is there unequality or superiority? Damn right, it is!

  5. i love austria says:

    ich drücke ihnen für morgen ganz ganz fest die daumen und werde an sie denken….
    eine riesige community steht geschlossen hinter ihnen (siehe sos-österreich)

    sie sind nicht alleine……….

    herzlichen gruß

    i love austria

  6. Shirai DDL says:

    Dear Elisabeth,

    the best of luck to you. That you too may have the wisdom and the support Geert Wilders had/has in the Netherlands, facing his trial. You are truely part of Europe’ frontline of defence. Make us proud. Love from the Netherlands.

  7. Gandalf says:

    Here in France we support you 100%!
    You are the sword of Truth and Freedom, cut the lies that shackle us to the ground at the feet of islam!

    Truth will win, the true nature of islam will be unveiled, you’ll win!

  8. Dear Elisabeth…
    Good Luck in court. Looking forward to saturday!

    Hans

  9. Markus Becker says:

    Dear Elizabeth,

    i want to congratulate you for your civil courage, for your courage and your fortitude, in the name of civiliced democratic societies. The left political propaganda, which is attacking you, is always talking of civil courage, humans like you proof it, and live it.
    I thank you very much for this, and wish you all the best today !

  10. theAnti2006 says:

    Good LUCK !!!

    regards

    theAnti2006

  11. It it a perfect demonstration how Elisabeth defends a substantive right that has degenerated to a pure formalist constitutional device. Good luck…

  12. Shirl In Oz says:

    G-d go with you Elizabeth

  13. Jett Rucker says:

    Even though the name of this site is “savefreespeech,” I see nothing concerning the advancement of protection of speech from persecution among these comments.

    The comments that take any position at all just take a partisan anti-Muslim position, which is fine, but . . . does nobody care about free speech apart from the specific issue?

    My father happens to have been Austrian, but I grew up in America, and am there now. Maybe that’s why I’m all by myself about this.

  14. Marianne says:

    Einfach ein billiger Schauprozess. Es könnte komisch sein, wäre es nicht so lächerlich.

  15. Pingback: Der Prozess-Redefreiheit in Gefahr-Der Fall Elisabeth Sabaditsch-WolffRedefreiheit in Gefahr – Der Fall Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

  16. mica says:

    Dear Elisabeth,

    Good luck in court.
    Thruth and freedom of speech ‘ll win.
    All the best from Belgium.

    Mica

  17. Elisabeth, we could not be prouder of you at this moment. Your resolve to spread the truth, no matter the personal cost to you, is a stunning display of your complete unselfishness to do what is right for Austria, your basic human rights and those you love. May the entire globe wake up to the threats we all face from islamists and may your bold stance for truth become the light necessary to scatter this evil from its current ubiquitous positions of power.

  18. Pingback: Der Prozess – eine Nachbetrachtung « SOS – ÖSTERREICH

  19. netrider says:

    @ Jett Rucker

    Hope I didnt missunderstand u.
    This whole persecution of Mrs Elisabeth-Sabaditsch Wolff was based on her criticism of Islam. She took herself the right to speak about the truth of Islam and quoted the Qur’an at an official event of her party. For this she was reported to the police and cauz of polticial issues now she is in front of court.
    Hope this is enough explanation to you in order to understand why the free speech is endangered.

  20. Mary Hynes says:

    We are with you Elisabeth, and pray that common sense will prevail. May the judge see that you have committed no crime in stating the truth. The ironic thing is that if you had been speaking of any other “religion” not a peep would be made. These people don’t want the truth to be spread and will do anything to stop it and our politicians our too cowardly to stand up to them.

  21. Pingback: JERRY GORDON: THE TRIAL OF ELISABETH SABADITSCH-WOLFF BEGINS | RUTHFULLY YOURS

  22. bernie says:

    What an irony is Austria: it is illegal to lie about what the Nazis did to the Jews, but it is illegal to tell the truth about what Muslims did to Christians and Jews.

    Just FYI, I linked to this article from mine: It is Illegal for Infidels to Quote the Quran

  23. Pingback: Beware the Islamization of the West: Advancing the Criminalization of Free Speech | NewsReal Blog

  24. Pingback: Editor’s Pick: Beware the Islamization of the West: Advancing the Criminalization of Free Speech | Blog on Fitness-Jewelry

  25. Pingback: Beware the Islamization of the West:

  26. Pingback: Truth is Illegal; Ignorance is Truth | Chicago, IL Chapter

  27. Ваша информация на тему – Live blogging from Elisabeth’s court proceedings | вашего сайта english.savefreespeech.org просто классная. Правда жаль что видео нет.

  28. Pingback: When Truth Is Irrelevant: freedom of speech in Austria (update 2) « Sago

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>