Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Now The Muslims Are Offended By This.....
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HVYCHVY" data-source="post: 1401056" data-attributes="member: 827"><p>Appearntly Austria and Europe has a history of stupid laws protecting Sharia laws.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/11/trial-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-day.html" target="_blank">The trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff for “denigrating religious teachings” begins today in Vienna</a>. </p><p></p><p>Below is Henrik’s final report for the day:</p><p></p><p></p><p>The NEWS journalist Dolna was called as witness. Technicalities of her recording equipment were discussed by the judge, including the fact that of the first seminar, only half an hour was recorded.</p><p></p><p>The judge inquired about some of the statements quoted being from breaks, not from the seminar proper. Only three to four persons heard those, not 32 or more, the criterion for a statement being “public”. This is important for legal reasons, as only statements made to a large group can be punishable.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>The lawyer probed further into the issue of the quotes being part of the prepared seminar, or offhand comments in the breaks. </p><p></p><p>Update 12:40 (5:40am EST): The lawyer continues to ask Elisabeth to explain various statements:</p><p></p><p>Lawyer: What is meant by “We are decadent”? </p><p>Elisabeth: That is the point of view of Islamic fundamentalists. </p><p>Lawyer: What is meant by “We do not want Sharia here, full stop”? </p><p>Elisabeth: Free, secular societies is what we want. </p><p>Lawyer: What is meant by “Islamic law is not compatible with free societies, we need to understand this.”? </p><p>Elisabeth: Islam is a whole, and this whole is not compatible with free societies like the Austrian. </p><p>Lawyer: Did you see any veiled Muslim men? </p><p>Elisabeth (laughing): No, this is an obligation only for women. </p><p>Lawyer: You were referring to Paris, Brussels, Rotterdam. What is the meaning of that? </p><p>Elisabeth: This is a reference to the no-go zones, where Sharia is effectively the law. There immigrant youths torch cars, throw stones at the police, etc. </p><p>Prosecutor: Are each and every one of these persons Muslims? </p><p>Elisabeth: The majority are. </p><p>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? </p><p>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. </p><p>Lawyer: What is meant by “We do not want gender apartheid, polygamy”? </p><p></p><p>Elisabeth explains polygamy in Islam, and the fact that this is a reality in Europe, today.</p><p></p><p><strong>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.</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff now faces up to a three-year prison sentence if convicted of "inciting hatred against a religious group" and "defamation of religion" in a lecture in 2009 on the "Islamization of Europe."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HVYCHVY, post: 1401056, member: 827"] Appearntly Austria and Europe has a history of stupid laws protecting Sharia laws. [URL="http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/11/trial-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-day.html"]The trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff for “denigrating religious teachings” begins today in Vienna[/URL]. Below is Henrik’s final report for the day: The NEWS journalist Dolna was called as witness. Technicalities of her recording equipment were 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. Only three to four persons heard those, not 32 or more, the criterion 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. Update 12:40 (5:40am EST): The lawyer continues 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 societies 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. Lawyer: Did you see any veiled Muslim men? Elisabeth (laughing): No, this is an obligation only 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 the law. There immigrant youths torch cars, throw stones at the police, etc. 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. [B]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.[/B] Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff now faces up to a three-year prison sentence if convicted of "inciting hatred against a religious group" and "defamation of religion" in a lecture in 2009 on the "Islamization of Europe." [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Now The Muslims Are Offended By This.....
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
