In the following RUPTLY video an unidentified woman discusses the decision by the European Court of Human Rights on the “hate speech” case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.

Yesterday’s decision constitutes the official implementation of sharia within the EU, since there is no longer any freedom of speech for those who offend Muslims with their words. The court determined that the “protection of religious sentiments” overrules freedom of speech.

The ECHR has thus eliminated freedom of speech in cases where the “religious peace” might be put at risk. This effectively establishes the “heckler’s veto” as a judicial precedent in the EU: those who shout the loudest and most menacingly are allowed to determine what everyone else is allowed to say.

There is only one religion that gets offended enough to threaten the religious peace in Europe, and that is Islam. Therefore the threat of violent behavior by Muslims determines which expressions about Islam are acceptable, and which are to be considered unlawful.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is SHARIA.

Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

00:05 Yesterday’s decision in the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has 00:09 established that there was no violation of Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention and with 00:15 that no violation of Freedom of Expression was present. This case is related to the criminal 00:20 conviction of the complainant due to the denigration of religious teaching in Austria. 00:27 The complainant made particular statements that suggested that Mohammed 00:33 possessed pedophilic inclinations. The European Court for Human Rights found that the 00:40 domestic courts in Austria made an appropriate accommodation between the right to freedom 00:52 of expression and the right to the protection of religious sentiments. 01:04 The finding of the court was that the domestic courts had comprehensively 01:10 taken into account the context in which the statement was made. Moreover, they had 01:15 presented sufficient and substantial reasons why, in their view, the boundaries 01:19 of an objective debate were exceeded.

For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.