ECHR decrees Europe wide blasphemy law ...for Islam only

[The Realist Polities]

Defaming Prophet Muhammed not free expression: ECHR
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/defamin ... D2eVvxfdrk


Defaming the Prophet Muhammed “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate" and "could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace” and thus exceeds the permissible limits of freedom of expression, ruled the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Thursday, upholding a lower court decision.
The decision by a seven-judge panel came after an Austrian national identified as Mrs. S. held two seminars in 2009, entitled “Basic Information on Islam,” in which she defamed the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage.
According to a statement released by the court on Thursday, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had pedophilic tendencies, and in February 2011 convicted Mrs. S. for disparaging religious doctrines.
She was fined €480 (aprox. $547) and the costs of the proceedings.
“Mrs. S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming, in essence, the lower court’s findings. A request for the renewal of the proceedings was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 December 2013,” it said.
“Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs. S. complained that the domestic courts failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression.”
On today’s ruling, the ECHR said it “found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.”
The court held “that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.”

So, I woke up this morning and realised judges in Strasbourg, had imposed a unilateral blasphemy law on me.

1984 is now, I am not free, Russia is now officially freer than western Europe.

[Chan Island]

Well that's depressing.

[Kyrinasaj]

As far as I read you can't insult a prophet. There are still plenty of ways to argue about Islam. The 1984 argument is once again quite reaching.

Also ''According to art.148 of Russian Criminal Code 1 it is declared a federal crime to conduct "public actions clearly defying the society and committed with the express purpose of insulting religious beliefs" ''

[Vassenor]

Defaming Prophet Muhammed not free expression: ECHR
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/defamin ... D2eVvxfdrk


Defaming the Prophet Muhammed “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate" and "could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace” and thus exceeds the permissible limits of freedom of expression, ruled the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Thursday, upholding a lower court decision.

The decision by a seven-judge panel came after an Austrian national identified as Mrs. S. held two seminars in 2009, entitled “Basic Information on Islam,” in which she defamed the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage.

According to a statement released by the court on Thursday, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had pedophilic tendencies, and in February 2011 convicted Mrs. S. for disparaging religious doctrines.

She was fined €480 (aprox. $547) and the costs of the proceedings.

“Mrs. S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming, in essence, the lower court’s findings. A request for the renewal of the proceedings was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 December 2013,” it said.

“Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs. S. complained that the domestic courts failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression.”

On today’s ruling, the ECHR said it “found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.”

The court held “that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.”

So, I woke up this morning and realised judges in Luxembourg, had imposed a unilateral blasphemy law on me.

1984 is now, I am not free, Russia is now officially freer than western Europe.

So how is not being able to insult one person stopping you from criticising a religion?

[Washington Resistance Army]

How dare that vile heathen smear the Prophet and his marriage to a 6 year old.

[Aellex]

So how is not being able to insult one person stopping you from criticising a religion?

Because when that person is its prophet and supposed to be the model of virtue to strive for but also was a pedophile, rapist, slave-owner, warlord who committed slaughters after slaughters and developed his entire religion atop caravan raids; pointing out how his behavior wasn't """much virtuous""" is quite important unsurprisingly.

[Frievolk]

So how is not being able to insult one person stopping you from criticising a religion?

Because he's literally the paragon of virtue as far as Muslims are concerned?
So like? Criticizing Muhammad pretty much is criticizing Islam?
Then again, calling a person who screws 9 year old girls a pedophile is more of a "Stating obvious facts" rather than criticism.

[Neoliberal Vampires]

Except that it's not for Islam only, is it? Because way back in 1994 the ECHR ruled in Otto-Premiger-Institut v. Austria that the Austrian authorities were allowed to ban the showing of a film Das Liebeskonzil that was considered by some to be insulting to Catholics.

And it's not really Europe wide either, because this permits governments to have blasphemy laws (within limits), it doesn't require it.

But I guess "ECHR rules that Austria's blasphemy laws cover all religions, not just the ones I'd like them to" isn't quite as snappy as the lie that is the thread title.

[Ethel mermania]

Defaming Prophet Muhammed not free expression: ECHR
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/defamin ... D2eVvxfdrk


Defaming the Prophet Muhammed “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate" and "could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace” and thus exceeds the permissible limits of freedom of expression, ruled the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Thursday, upholding a lower court decision.

The decision by a seven-judge panel came after an Austrian national identified as Mrs. S. held two seminars in 2009, entitled “Basic Information on Islam,” in which she defamed the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage.

According to a statement released by the court on Thursday, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had pedophilic tendencies, and in February 2011 convicted Mrs. S. for disparaging religious doctrines.

She was fined €480 (aprox. $547) and the costs of the proceedings.

“Mrs. S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming, in essence, the lower court’s findings. A request for the renewal of the proceedings was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 December 2013,” it said.

“Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs. S. complained that the domestic courts failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression.”

On today’s ruling, the ECHR said it “found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.”

The court held “that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.”

So, I woke up this morning and realised judges in Luxembourg, had imposed a unilateral blasphemy law on me.

1984 is now, I am not free, Russia is now officially freer than western Europe.

So how is not being able to insult one person stopping you from criticising a religion?

As long as you jail folks for saying jesus never existed, that would be fair. Still an absolute desecration of the concept of free speech. But fair.

[Vassenor]

Except that it's not for Islam only, is it? Because way back in 1994 the ECHR ruled in Otto-Premiger-Institut v. Austria that the Austrian authorities were allowed to ban the showing of a film Das Liebeskonzil that was considered by some to be insulting to Catholics.

And it's not really Europe wide either, because this permits governments to have blasphemy laws (within limits), it doesn't require it.

But I guess "ECHR rules that Austria's blasphemy laws cover all religions, not just the ones I'd like them to" isn't quite as snappy as the lie that is the thread title.

So Conservative Clickbait?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The ECHR really needs to get a grip, it's come out with a lot of rubbish of late.

[Neoliberal Vampires]

Except that it's not for Islam only, is it? Because way back in 1994 the ECHR ruled in Otto-Premiger-Institut v. Austria that the Austrian authorities were allowed to ban the showing of a film Das Liebeskonzil that was considered by some to be insulting to Catholics.

And it's not really Europe wide either, because this permits governments to have blasphemy laws (within limits), it doesn't require it.

But I guess "ECHR rules that Austria's blasphemy laws cover all religions, not just the ones I'd like them to" isn't quite as snappy as the lie that is the thread title.

So Conservative Clickbait?

Yep. There is a real debate to be had about whether Austria's blasphemy laws should be changed, along with the other countries in Europe that still have them, which last I heard was still a surprisingly large number. But it doesn't offer afford much of an opportunity to complain about Muslims or human rights judges so it might not generate quite so much interest.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

So Conservative Clickbait?

Yep. There is a real debate to be had about whether Austria's blasphemy laws should be changed, along with the other countries in Europe that still have them, which last I heard was still a surprisingly large number. But it doesn't offer afford much of an opportunity to complain about Muslims or human rights judges so it might not generate quite so much interest.

Well of course it generates a chance to complain about human rights judges. Human rights judges are supposed to be protecting human rights, not violating them.

[The Grims]

Defaming Prophet Muhammed not free expression: ECHR
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/defamin ... D2eVvxfdrk


Defaming the Prophet Muhammed “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate" and "could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace” and thus exceeds the permissible limits of freedom of expression, ruled the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Thursday, upholding a lower court decision.

The decision by a seven-judge panel came after an Austrian national identified as Mrs. S. held two seminars in 2009, entitled “Basic Information on Islam,” in which she defamed the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage.

According to a statement released by the court on Thursday, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had pedophilic tendencies, and in February 2011 convicted Mrs. S. for disparaging religious doctrines.

She was fined €480 (aprox. $547) and the costs of the proceedings.

“Mrs. S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming, in essence, the lower court’s findings. A request for the renewal of the proceedings was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 December 2013,” it said.

“Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs. S. complained that the domestic courts failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression.”

On today’s ruling, the ECHR said it “found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.”

The court held “that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.”

So, I woke up this morning and realised judges in Luxembourg, had imposed a unilateral blasphemy law on me.

1984 is now, I am not free, Russia is now officially freer than western Europe.

So how is not being able to insult one person stopping you from criticising a religion?

It is more worrisome that one is not allowed to state facts if those facts offend someone methinks.

[Neoliberal Vampires]

Yep. There is a real debate to be had about whether Austria's blasphemy laws should be changed, along with the other countries in Europe that still have them, which last I heard was still a surprisingly large number. But it doesn't offer afford much of an opportunity to complain about Muslims or human rights judges so it might not generate quite so much interest.

Well of course it generates a chance to complain about human rights judges. Human rights judges are supposed to be protecting human rights, not violating them.

They can only interpret the law as it exists, and the European Convention on Human Rights doesn't protect free speech to such a broad extent as, say, the US Constitution's First Amendment, to make Austria's laws on blasphemy invalid.

[Page]

This is terrible news. Blasphemy laws are incompatible with free societies, and it's especially troubling when one religion is privileged over others.

( I erased my summary of the question of Muhammad's wife, I understand pedophilia is a taboo topic here for good reason, as such people should not have a platform. I would like to enquire of the mods if there are acceptable paramaters for discussing Muhammad's child wife or not)

[Neoliberal Vampires]

The idea that the actions that saw this woman prosecuted would be better received in Russia is quite amusing though. Try holding a seminar in Grozny accusing Muhammad of being a pedophile and see what happens to you

[Saint Abbra]

It seems this is fuelled by a misunderstanding of what a law is, what a court is, and what it means to affirm a lower courts ruling.
Austria has a law against blasphemy in general. You may disagree with that, but it's not a law about Islam.
A woman was fined in Austria for violating the law against blasphemy, this time against a religion that a certain group has an irrational hatred for.
She appealed, and courts successively affirmed the ruling of the lower court. She then appealed to the ECHR, which ruled that it's not against the European Human Rights Charter for a nation to have a blasphemy law and thus affirmed the ruling of the lower court.
The linked source is shit, the title is all lies, and the whole story is inane.

[The Grims]

This is terrible news. Blasphemy laws are incompatible with free societies, and it's especially troubling when one religion is privileged over others.

Also, I think it's a legitimate question to raise, to enquire about the age of Muhammad's wife and the acceptability of that. It usually starts with someone saying "Muhammad married a six year old" and then an apologist saying "Actually they got married when she was 9, and they didn't consummate until she was 12, and that's okay because she started menstruating." I guess such a discussion is now forbidden?

It is on these forums, yes.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Well of course it generates a chance to complain about human rights judges. Human rights judges are supposed to be protecting human rights, not violating them.

They can only interpret the law as it exists, and the European Convention on Human Rights doesn't protect free speech to such a broad extent as, say, the US Constitution's First Amendment, to make Austria's laws on blasphemy invalid.

I am aware their are exceptions to it:

• 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society : I don't think blasphemy laws are necessary in a democratic society, many societies continue to be democratic without them.
• in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety If you cause a threat to either of the above things due to something I've said about your holy man, it's you who has the problem.
• for the prevention of disorder or crime : This is where the convention fails, but again we shouldn't be working on the assumption that speech directly results in crime. Criminals result in crime, poor childhoods do as can mental health difficulties. Unless you are predisposed to crime anyway, me insulting your holy man isn't going to make you want to go on a rampage.
  
• for the protection of health or morals : Oh, ECHR, I did like you so much. Then you put this bullshit in and hurt me. Why must you do this to me? Morals are not real. Morals are constructed by people with too much time on their hands and far too much of an interest in what others do with their day. I am proud to have few.
  
• for the protection of the reputation or rights of others : Yeah, that sounds like privacy and defamation, which dead people with no estates from a thousand years ago can't use.
• for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Obviously these last two are fine.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The case law around art. 10 is awful though. You've got rubbish like Bowman and Delfi becoming law.

[Page]

Except that it's not for Islam only, is it? Because way back in 1994 the ECHR ruled in Otto-Premiger-Institut v. Austria that the Austrian authorities were allowed to ban the showing of a film Das Liebeskonzil that was considered by some to be insulting to Catholics.

And it's not really Europe wide either, because this permits governments to have blasphemy laws (within limits), it doesn't require it.

But I guess "ECHR rules that Austria's blasphemy laws cover all religions, not just the ones I'd like them to" isn't quite as snappy as the lie that is the thread title.

I can't help but think that such laws will still apply more to some religions rather than others in practice, I don't imagine a Wicca trying to get a fundamentalist Christian who called her a Satan worshipper fined or thrown in jail, and I honestly do not believe that if such a case went to court that the court would take it as seriously as it would if a Muslim were the complainant.

[-Ocelot-]

The idea that the actions that saw this woman prosecuted would be better received in Russia is quite amusing though. Try holding a seminar in Grozny accusing Muhammad of being a pedophile and see what happens to you

You are 100% correct but this isn't the narrative Russian bots want to push on the west. Their narrative suggests that Russia is a bastion of Christianity and the "evil west" is being overrun by muslims. And therefore you must support Russia or get killed by the "evil immigrants".

In reality, islam in Russia is huge, just like Orthodoxy. And some of it's states have a muslim majority. But that's something all these concerned "europeans" and 'americans" conveniently forget to mention when making comparisons.

[Ifreann]

So, I woke up this morning and realised judges in Luxembourg

Strasbourg is in France.

[The Realist Polities]

The idea that the actions that saw this woman prosecuted would be better received in Russia is quite amusing though. Try holding a seminar in Grozny accusing Muhammad of being a pedophile and see what happens to you

You are 100% correct but this isn't the narrative Russian bots want to push on the west. Their narrative suggests that Russia is a bastion of Christianity and the "evil west" is being overrun by muslims. And therefore you must support Russia or get killed by the "evil immigrants".

In reality, islam in Russia is huge, just like Orthodoxy. And some of it's states have a muslim majority. But that's something all these concerned "europeans" and 'americans" conveniently forget to mention when making comparisons.

No one forgets it but whereas Putin can be politically correct, this sort of law would be unthinkable in Russia and eastern europe.