Muslim extremist who burned poppies receives £50 fine
Telegraph
08 March 2011
A Muslim extremist who burned replica poppies on the anniversary of Armistice Day was fined just £50 after being found guilty of a public order offence.
Emdadur Choudhury, 26, a member of Muslims Against Crusades (MAC), was found guilty of a "calculated and deliberate" insult to the dead and those who mourn them when he burned two large plastic poppies during a two-minute silence on November 11, last year District Judge Howard Riddle said.
Members of MAC were heard chanting "British soldiers burn in hell" before the poppy-burning incident near the Royal Albert Hall in west London, Belmarsh Magistrates heard.
-----------
Law in Austria: Guilty for Questioning Islam
Hudson NY
by A. Millar
March 8, 2011
The European "elite" has increasingly asserted that any questioning of Islam is criminal.
A few weeks ago Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was fined 480 Euros for the "denigration of religious teachings of a legally recognized religion in Austria." In a three-part seminar Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff had referred to Islam's prophet Mohammed's marriage to Aisha. According to generally-accepted Islamic textual tradition, Aisha was six at the time of the marriage, which was consummated when she was nine. Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff asked rhetorically "if this does not constitute pedophilia, what does?"
Defending the doctrines, beliefs, and figures of various "legally recognized" religions is liable to have unanticipated consequences. As Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff observes, "the judge didn't deny that Mohammed had sex with a nine year old. It is actually now proven in court that Mohammed had sex with a nine year-old." However, she says, "it's just that I am not allowed to say that he was a pedophile." Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff is not allowed to, because, in the words of the judge, as she passed sentence, "pedophilia is a sexual preference which solely or mainly is directed towards children. Nevertheless, it does not apply to Mohammad. He was still married to Aisha when she was 18."
The fine – representing a sentence of 120 days – is deceptively low. It was reduced to the minimum allowed to take into account that Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff has no income. It is usually waived for first time offenders, however, the presiding judge claimed Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff was a "repeat offender" because she had, in her judgment, referred to Mohammed being a pedophile more than once.
Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff says she is stunned by the verdict, and determined to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary. "I was actually asking a question," she says, "and for that I was convicted."
-----------
Note: Eurabia is a political neologism that refers to the premise that the Muslim population in Europe will become a majority within a few generations due to continued immigration and high birth rates. Regardless of the demographic trend, Islamism as an ideology is undoubtedly growing in strength in Europe, as these articles show.
2 comments:
The case of the part-time pedophile
Mark Steyn
19 February 2011
...
See if you can follow the judge's "thinking":
The integration of Muslims is surely a question of particular public interest – you are allowed to be critical – but not incitement of hatred...
The language used in the seminars were not inciting hatred, but the utterances regarding muhammad and paedophilia were punishable.
“Paedophilia” is factually incorrect, since paedophilia is a sexual preference which solely or mainly is directed towards children. Nevertheless, it does not apply to Mohammad. He was still married to Aisha when she was 18. It is a “denigration of religious teachings” and are found guilty and sentenced to 120 days, which approaches the minimum of € 480.
So, although Mohammed deflowered Aisha when she was nine, it is "factually incorrect" to call him a pedophile because he was still hot for her when she was in her late teens? As a point of law, it's not where you start, it's where you finish - and you're gonna finish on top! Does this judicial ruling apply to all Austrians partial to a piece of underage totty? For example, Wolfgang Priklopil:
The Austrian girl who was kidnapped at the age of ten and imprisoned for eight years in a dungeon-like basement room by a pedophile predator who committed suicide when she escaped last week...
Whoa, whoa, hold up there. How can you say Herr Priklopil was a "pedophile" when he was still having sex with her when she was 18? And so were all his friends:
A dormant investigation into one of Austria’s most notorious kidnap cases is likely to be reopened after suggestions that Natascha Kampusch, the schoolgirl who vanished for eight years, was not held in a cellar throughout her ordeal as had been widely believed and may have been the victim of a paedophile ring rather than of a lone perpetrator.
Hey, don't worry, says an Austrian judge. It's not a "pedophile ring" if she still turns you on a week after she reaches the age of consent.
Or does this dispensation only apply to the Prophet (peace and get-out-of-jail-free cards be upon him)? In 1998, Terrence McNally wrote Corpus Christi, a hit Broadway play about a gay Jesus. Could you write one about a gay Mohammed? Or would that also be ruled "factually incorrect"?
...
This report on an unrelated incident references the poppy burning incident mentioned in this thread:
"A man has been jailed for 70 days today after he burnt a copy of the Koran just over a month after a Muslim got away with a paltry £50 fine for a similar offence. Andrew Ryan, 32, stole a copy of the holy book from Carlisle Library then set it on fire by a monument in the city of Carlisle. Last month Emdadur Choudhury was fined after he burned a poppy outside the Royal Albert Hall in London on Remembrance Day while shouting 'British soldiers burn in hell'. As he was led down to the cells, Ryan shouted at the judge at Carlisle Magistrates' Court today: 'What about burning poppies?'."
Post a Comment