Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Interview: Thursday, 11/22/12, 0100 GMT, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Elisabeth. Opinions on everything. Outspoken on everything. Very concerned to share her understanding of Islam – in workshops, in interviews. And then, legal charges. Convicted for “denigrating a recognized religion.”

If you haven’t done so, please register (it’s free), on her “about” page,

or at the World Truth Summit’s home page:


  1. Mr Ed says:

    Of course, in Austria, we know for whom that law was ‘intended’…..

  2. Farenheit211 says:

    Mr Ed, sometimes laws are drawn up for particular situations and for particular times. I believe the law was brought into Austrian law because of the gross behaviour of too many Austrians during the Nazi times. There was a need to de nazify the nation but unfortunately this law (like the UK’s Race Relations and subsequent Acts) has been siezed upon by Islamists in order to shut down debate on the more negative bits of Islam.

    Sometimes laws brought in for good and valid reasons end up being exploited for bad ones.

  3. Mr Ed says:

    Fahrenheit, I wonder if the law was seized upon by Islamists, might not socialists have been the ones to have complained and to have introduced these laws, as a sword, not a shield. The socialists have been in power for a long periods of time in Austria, and are pretty much the ruling class, and like all socialists, they like power.

    I cannot see that there is a valid reason for any law to prevent the ‘denigrating’ of a ‘recognised religion’. I can see that a law to prevent incitement to violence or theft against people of a particular religion would not be unduly sinister, particularly in Austria in the post-War period.

  4. Paul Marks says:

    All the European and world human rights charters and conventions and nothing really covers free speech – how odd.

    Accept it is not odd at all – these charters and conventions are very carefully worded to sound wonderful, and be (at best) worthless. Indeed the charters and conventions are often an active weapon of evil – with “rights” to material benefits (education ……), not rights as limitations on state power.

  5. Julie near Chicago says:

    This has been bugging me: A few years ago, when the Canadian Speech Police were busy trying to make criminals out of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, one or the other of them (I think Mr. Steyn but am not sure) remarked online that the hate-speech laws had been put in place 30 years ago, to stop people from defaming the Jews…and that now those same laws were being used by the Muslims to silence anyone who commented on the Muslims’ own anti-Semitic speech, as such remarks would naturally be construed as anti-Muslim hate speech.

    Now, of course various people have made the point, but does anyone happen to remember that particular editorial? It’s the only one I’ve come across that gives that specific example of how support for hate-speech laws can come back to bite the supporters.

    Thanks. :>)

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: