In the article she explains where she is and how she got there:<\/p>\n
What happened? A young woman, a journalist, had infiltrated two of my seminars in October and November, illegally recording my presentation, and then reported me to the Austrian authorities, who in turn began an official investigation. The charge: Hate speech.<\/strong><\/p>\n The outpouring of criticism from official Austria was astounding. From the vice chancellor to the chief rabbi, from a high-ranking bishop to party leaders: My statements \u2013 all taken out of context \u2013 were condemned through and through. I was even compared to Bin Laden by one Muslim official. Not one of these so-called leaders bothered to ask for clarification from my side. I was to be vilified, my statements were to be condemned, for two reasons. First, I gave these seminars for the \u201cright-wing, xenophobic\u201d Freedom Party and second, the content of the seminars described Islam.<\/strong><\/p>\n She continues:<\/p>\n Simply put, I have now been made a victimless convict. On December 20, 2011, my conviction for denigration of a legally recognized religion was upheld by the higher court.<\/strong><\/p>\n What was the reason for this conviction, you may ask. Well, during the course of my seminars, I mentioned the choking EU directive \u201cFramework decision on combating racism and xenophobia,\u201d and in order to illustrate my point I told the audience about a conversation I had with my sister and how she believed that one should find a different word for Mohammed\u2019s actions with Aisha. I said, \u201cHow does one name what he did if not call it pedophilia?\u201d And this sentence got me convicted, for I am allowed by law to say that Mohammed had sex with a young girl, but I may not qualify this behavior as this is deemed \u201cexcessive\u201d and thus denigrating. The Austrian state has created a victimless crime, and a criminal without a single victim.<\/strong><\/p>\n The trial is now officially over. There is only one way to appeal, and that is taking the matter to the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg. But\u2013 this will cost a lot of money and will take a lot time (6-8 years minimum).<\/strong><\/p>\n The law that Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted under took effect in November 2010, when all members of the European Union were required to implement the \u201cFramework decision on combating racism and xenophobia\u201d, or, more fully, the \u201cCouncil Framework Decision 2008\/913\/JHA of 28 November 2008. The intent of the law was to combat racism and xenophobia.\u00a0The impact of the law was to severely limit free speech. \u00a0<\/p>\n In the article, Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff details here supposed ‘crime’:<\/p>\n What was the reason for this conviction, you may ask. Well, during the course of my seminars, I mentioned the choking EU directive \u201cFramework decision on combating racism and xenophobia,\u201d and in order to illustrate my point I told the audience about a conversation I had with my sister and how she believed that one should find a different word for Mohammed\u2019s actions with Aisha. I said, \u201cHow does one name what he did if not call it pedophilia?\u201d And this sentence got me convicted, for I am allowed by law to say that Mohammed had sex with a young girl, but I may not qualify this behavior as this is deemed \u201cexcessive\u201d and thus denigrating.<\/strong><\/p>\n Again, under Sharia Law, blasphemy has nothing to do with truth. Evidently, under the new speech rules in the EU, that is also true.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n
![\"Enhanced](\"http:\/\/img.zemanta.com\/zemified_e.png?x-id=2114f4b9-2475-464a-a23d-124b46752451\")
<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"