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

[Panslavicland]

http://archbishopcranmer.com/met-police-criticism-islam-islamophobia/
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/05/uk-proposes-six-year-prison-sentence-for-criticizing-islam
https://republicstandard.com/sharia-uk-police-threaten-critics-of-islam-with-arrest/

This is normal now for most of Europe, only a few countries are not walking this path.

Anything from an actual news source?

You can deny what is happening but this whole thread shows it is happening and how liberals want to pretend it is not.

[Olerand]

Anything from an actual news source?

You can deny what is happening but this whole thread shows it is happening and how liberals want to pretend it is not.

So anything from an actual news source or not?

EDIT: Also, I resent being called a liberal.

[The Huskar Social Union]

You can deny what is happening but this whole thread shows it is happening and how liberals want to pretend it is not.

So anything from an actual news source or not?

EDIT: Also, I resent being called a liberal.

Obvs a liberal!

[Vassenor]

Anything from an actual news source?

You can deny what is happening but this whole thread shows it is happening and how liberals want to pretend it is not.

First I've heard of any of that and its supposed to be in the country I live in.

Also if that is the way the whole of Europe is going, why did Ireland just vote to bin their blasphemy law?

[Panslavicland]

You can deny what is happening but this whole thread shows it is happening and how liberals want to pretend it is not.

First I've heard of any of that and its supposed to be in the country I live in.

Also if that is the way the whole of Europe is going, why did Ireland just vote to bin their blasphemy law?

You don't need blasphemy laws to prosecute critics of Islam, and just because you have blasphemy laws doesn't mean critics of Islam will be prosecuted. Look at Russia, where the government has done a good job strengthening the blasphemy laws in the last few years to protect religious freedom, but you can still criticise Islam. Then compare that with much of Europe that doesn't have blasphemy laws and where the religious freedom of Christians is often ignored but critics of Islam are fines and imprisoned.

[Olerand]

First I've heard of any of that and its supposed to be in the country I live in.

Also if that is the way the whole of Europe is going, why did Ireland just vote to bin their blasphemy law?

You don't need blasphemy laws to prosecute critics of Islam, and just because you have blasphemy laws doesn't mean critics of Islam will be prosecuted. Look at Russia, where the government has done a good job strengthening the blasphemy laws in the last few years to protect religious freedom, but you can still criticise Islam. Then compare that with much of Europe that doesn't have blasphemy laws and where the religious freedom of Christians is often ignored but critics of Islam are fines and imprisoned.

Do you have actual sources to back up your claims?

[Astoriya]

The problem here IMHO is that there's a very thin line between legitimate criticism and plain insults - these days, you can't really tell anymore

[Vassenor]

First I've heard of any of that and its supposed to be in the country I live in.

Also if that is the way the whole of Europe is going, why did Ireland just vote to bin their blasphemy law?

You don't need blasphemy laws to prosecute critics of Islam, and just because you have blasphemy laws doesn't mean critics of Islam will be prosecuted. Look at Russia, where the government has done a good job strengthening the blasphemy laws in the last few years to protect religious freedom, but you can still criticise Islam. Then compare that with much of Europe that doesn't have blasphemy laws and where the religious freedom of Christians is often ignored but critics of Islam are fines and imprisoned.

Haven't we gone over why all the BUT RUSSIA stuff is bollocks? Repeatedly?

[Panslavicland]

You don't need blasphemy laws to prosecute critics of Islam, and just because you have blasphemy laws doesn't mean critics of Islam will be prosecuted. Look at Russia, where the government has done a good job strengthening the blasphemy laws in the last few years to protect religious freedom, but you can still criticise Islam. Then compare that with much of Europe that doesn't have blasphemy laws and where the religious freedom of Christians is often ignored but critics of Islam are fines and imprisoned.

Haven't we gone over why all the BUT RUSSIA stuff is bollocks? Repeatedly?

I don't think so, but if I'm wrong you can try to explain why.

[Vassenor]

Haven't we gone over why all the BUT RUSSIA stuff is bollocks? Repeatedly?

I don't think so, but if I'm wrong you can try to explain why.

We are talking about the same Russia where it is effectively a crime to be a vocal atheist because a 2013 law makes it illegal to insult someone's religious beliefs?

Or where using a phone in church will get you jail time?

[Risottia]

Emphasis added. The italicized portion is the standard "hate speech" exemption - i.e., if speech is incitement of violence, it is not protected. Mind you, I do consider hate speech law a troublesome area because it is very easy to go too far stretching the justification. In bold, however, we have the reasoning laid out for why the blasphemy law is a law that functions correctly to protect Article 9 rights, logically implying that other European countries should have laws serving a comparable function ...

Wrong. The sentence states that IF a country has a legitimate blasphemy law - and the criteria for it being legitimate are that it functions to protect Art.9 rights - then such law applies to the objects of veneration of any religion. It does not mandate or require any country to have a blasphemy law. It reiterates that Art.9 rights are to be protected: HOW they are protected is up to the country, but such protection cannot discriminate between different religions.

[Panslavicland]

I don't think so, but if I'm wrong you can try to explain why.

We are talking about the same Russia where it is effectively a crime to be a vocal atheist because a 2013 law makes it illegal to insult someone's religious beliefs?

Or where using a phone in church will get you jail time?

Both of those seem like reasonable application of blasphemy law to protect religious freedom. I'm sure these two won't be doing this sort of thing again.

[Vassenor]

We are talking about the same Russia where it is effectively a crime to be a vocal atheist because a 2013 law makes it illegal to insult someone's religious beliefs?

Or where using a phone in church will get you jail time?

Both of those seem like reasonable application of blasphemy law to protect religious freedom. I'm sure these two won't be doing this sort of thing again.

You literally cannot criticise any religion in Russia. That is not freedom.

[The Archregimancy]

"He wasn't a pedophile. He just married a 6-year old."

The eternal state of Europe.

From October of last year:

In reference to some of the debate that's been taking place over the last page or so...

I'm always irritated when some people insist on judging Muhammed's morals by the standards of the 21st century West. Very little in his personal or political life - other than the creation of Islam itself - was in any way unusual or particularly noteworthy in the political context of the 6th and 7th century Hejaz. In some cases, such as his attitude towards women, he was notably ahead of his time.

Let me stress that I think it's entirely legitimate to ask the extent to which early 7th-century values should be applied unquestioningly in any part of the 21st century world - noting that I'm not for a second accusing Muslims generally of doing so - including the extent to which those 7th-century values should be taken as a moral guide to acceptable behaviour now. But accusing Islam's Prophet of being a 'murderer', 'rapist', and/or 'paedophile' is an exceptionally tiresome attempt at anachronistic moral retconning, and only shows the extent to which individuals attempting that argument know virtually nothing about either Muhammed's biography, or the social context of his place and time.

Also Aisha doesn't make Muhammed a paedophile any more than Khadija makes Muhammed a gerentophile; funny how Khadija's always ignored there.

My point is more that the age of Aisha is irrelevant to the inaccurate charge of paedophilia, and is an unnecessary distraction.

Accusing Muhammed of paedophilia is essentially a charge that the Prophet was specifically attracted to sexually immature girls. The Muslims in the thread will already know this, but Muhammed had 13 wives (not all simultaneously). The first, longest-lasting, and entirely monogamous marriage - to Khadija - lasted 25 years, and produced six children. This was a marriage to a woman some 15 years older than Muhammed. It's often difficult to pin down the specific ages of his other wives - and several of them appear to have been charitable/political marriages (and re-marriages of widows) that weren't necessarily consummated - but a rough estimate of the ages of all of his wives (in Maria's case, legal concubine) other than Aisha gives us:

Khadija: c.40 at marriage to Muhammed
Sawda: c.27
Hafsa: c.20
Zaynab bint Khuzayma: c. 25
Hind (Umm Salama): c.29
Rayhana: unknown
Zaynab bint Jahsh: c.37
Juwayriyya: c.20
Safiyya: c.18
Ramla: c.26
Maymunah: c.25-30
Maria: unknown, but sexually mature [bore Muhammed a son during their brief relationship]

Whatever Aisha's age, there's absolutely nothing in Muhammed's overall known pattern of sexual activity and marriage (and sincere apologies if discussing Muhammed's sex life is making anyone uncomfortable, but it's relevant here) to indicate a preference for girls. What we do know is that the marriage to Aisha was political, that political child marriage was common in the period, and that - and this crucial piece of history is often ignored - Muhammed wasn't even Aisha's first betrothal. Abu Bakr's daughter had initially been betrothed to Jubayr ibn Mut'im before that betrothal was broken off in order to consolidate the alliance between Muhammed and one of his most loyal followers.

Regardless of how old Aisha was at the point of her marriage - 9, 10, 12, 15, and 19 all have their supporters - that single political marriage is not prima facie evidence of paedophilia, only that Muhammed might, just once, have consummated a marriage with a prepubescent girl or adolescent young women, in keeping with the political needs of his specific situation and the cultural context of his milieu.

Clearly no one at the time thought that the status of the previously betrothed Aisha was particularly worthy of criticism or comment. Importantly, we know that there was criticism of at least one of Muhammed's marriages when it went against social norms. Muhammed's marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh - both Muhammed's first cousin and the divorced ex-wife of his adopted son - was profoundly shocking. As an adopted son was considered to be a full son under cultural laws, Muhammed's marriage to Zaynab was legally incest - Sura 33 devotes an entire verse attempting to justify a marriage that ran entirely counter to established local social norms (Al Azhab 33:37).

But today we don't consider marrying your adopted son's ex-wife to be incest, so Muhammed gets a free pass on that point since it doesn't run counter to our contemporary morality, even though it was by far the most shocking of his marriages in his own day. Meanwhile the political marriage to Aisha - whose age is a matter of dispute anyway - gets held up by a particular subset of modern opponents of Islam as evidence of paedophilia even though no one apparently considered it worthy of comment at the time, and even though Muhammed's other relationships otherwise indicate a preference for sexually mature women, because it potentially (if we argue for the lower age ranges) runs counter to our modern morality.

If anything demonstrates the difficulty of applying modern moral standards to Muhammed's personal life, it's the contrasting examples of Zaynab bint Jahsh and Aisha.

[Astoriya]

Both of those seem like reasonable application of blasphemy law to protect religious freedom. I'm sure these two won't be doing this sort of thing again.

You literally cannot criticise any religion in Russia. That is not freedom.

To be honest, that first law is quite appropriate

[Blackledge]

And not actually the subject of this thread.

I believe that is one of the most common criticisms that would be blasphemous under laws in large sections of the EU including Finland, Italy, and Spain.

Pretty much this.

[Vassenor]

You literally cannot criticise any religion in Russia. That is not freedom.

To be honest, that first law is quite appropriate

That you can just claim someone insulted your religion and get them arrested for it?

[Panslavicland]

Both of those seem like reasonable application of blasphemy law to protect religious freedom. I'm sure these two won't be doing this sort of thing again.

You literally cannot criticise any religion in Russia. That is not freedom.

I don't see anyone in Russia being prosecuted for criticising Islam like what happened to this woman in Austria.

[Olerand]

You literally cannot criticise any religion in Russia. That is not freedom.

I don't see anyone in Russia being prosecuted for criticising Islam like what happened to this woman in Austria.

So presented by proof that Russia does prosecute blasphemy, you double down claiming it doesn't to Islam. Do you believe the Russian blasphemy law specifically excludes Islam, or that the Austrian blasphemy law only covers Islam?

You'd of course be wrong on both counts, but what do you believe?

[Panslavicland]

I don't see anyone in Russia being prosecuted for criticising Islam like what happened to this woman in Austria.

So presented by proof that Russia does prosecute blasphemy, you double down claiming it doesn't to Islam. Do you believe the Russian blasphemy law specifically excludes Islam, or that the Austrian blasphemy law only covers Islam?

You'd of course be wrong on both counts, but what do you believe?

Russia's blasphemy law allows for criticism but not for insulting religions. The Austrian blasphemy law does allow for prosecution for insulting Christians, which is a good thing, but it also allows prosecution for legitimate criticism of Islam.

[Olerand]

So presented by proof that Russia does prosecute blasphemy, you double down claiming it doesn't to Islam. Do you believe the Russian blasphemy law specifically excludes Islam, or that the Austrian blasphemy law only covers Islam?

You'd of course be wrong on both counts, but what do you believe?

Russia's blasphemy law allows for criticism but not for insulting religions. The Austrian blasphemy law does allow for prosecution for insulting Christians, which is a good thing, but it also allows prosecution for legitimate criticism of Islam.

On that matter, let's not conveniently forget that people are in fact being prosecuted for violating blasphemy laws in Russia - even in places that weren't "war zones less than 20 years ago" (why this should matter on wether or not blasphemy laws are in effect remains a mystery).

Case in point:
Example One, example Two.

And in both cases, far harsher potential penalties than the one in the Austrian case were on the table.

So even if we ignore the fact that Kadyrov is running a horrible Sharia theocracy on Russian soil, on the Russian government's watch, because "warzone", it's not as if the situation regarding blasphemy laws and their potential punitive consequences "elsewhere in Russia" is somehow remarkably more free than in Austria, as the OP originally claimed.

The examples you were given of people being sent to jail for using phones in church is... an acceptable use of blasphemy laws?

[Panslavicland]

Russia's blasphemy law allows for criticism but not for insulting religions. The Austrian blasphemy law does allow for prosecution for insulting Christians, which is a good thing, but it also allows prosecution for legitimate criticism of Islam.

On that matter, let's not conveniently forget that people are in fact being prosecuted for violating blasphemy laws in Russia - even in places that weren't "war zones less than 20 years ago" (why this should matter on wether or not blasphemy laws are in effect remains a mystery).

Case in point:
Example One, example Two.

And in both cases, far harsher potential penalties than the one in the Austrian case were on the table.

So even if we ignore the fact that Kadyrov is running a horrible Sharia theocracy on Russian soil, on the Russian government's watch, because "warzone", it's not as if the situation regarding blasphemy laws and their potential punitive consequences "elsewhere in Russia" is somehow remarkably more free than in Austria, as the OP originally claimed.

The examples you were given of people being sent to jail for using phones in church is... an acceptable use of blasphemy laws?

Yes. A church is a place of worship and should be respected, it is not for playing games and making insulting comments about Jesus. By prosecuting people like this Russia ensures that its people are free to practice their religion in peace.

[Frievolk]

You literally cannot criticise any religion in Russia. That is not freedom.

I don't see anyone in Russia being prosecuted for criticising Islam like what happened to this woman in Austria.

You do, however, get prosecuted for "public actions clearly defying the society and committed with the express purpose of insulting religious beliefs" (an expression that here means 'insulting the Orthodox Church') as according to art.148 of Russian Criminal Code. (Of course, if that blasphemy includes desecration of holy symbols and (or) religious texts, your punishment will be more severe)

[Olerand]

The examples you were given of people being sent to jail for using phones in church is... an acceptable use of blasphemy laws?

Yes. A church is a place of worship and should be respected, it is not for playing games and making insulting comments about Jesus. By prosecuting people like this Russia ensures that its people are free to practice their religion in peace.

Right. So I'm supposed to accept that you think that one can be found guilty of blasphemy laws for saying "There is no God" on an online forum but not for saying Muhammad is a pedophile...

Alright, well anyway.

[Panslavicland]

I don't see anyone in Russia being prosecuted for criticising Islam like what happened to this woman in Austria.

You do, however, get prosecuted for "public actions clearly defying the society and committed with the express purpose of insulting religious beliefs" (an expression that here means 'insulting the Orthodox Church') as according to art.148 of Russian Criminal Code. (Of course, if that blasphemy includes desecration of holy symbols and (or) religious texts, your punishment will be more severe)

Which ensures that religious freedom is protected in Russia by punishing those who would violate it.