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

[Frievolk]

I mean, he's not wrong in saying that woman's statement is supported by facts (well, for one definition of it. Most contemporary sources hint that Aisha was 9 in Qamari Years (which is about, give or take, 8 and 9 months in normal calendars) when her marriage with the 56 years old Muhammad was consummated.).
Whether or not her statement was criticism or just "want to piss off some Muslims lel" is a different matter tho

Err, sources such as?

A fuckload of Ahaadith from Sahih al-bukhari, one of the most important and most trusty sources of Hadiith in Islam.

[Shofercia]

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?

It's rather hilarious how you complain about people not reading your posts, but then you continue the obvious lies when it comes to Russia, even though I posted a rebuttal to that already:

And yes, that is true even if Balt's post is taken into account. In both of his examples, the people being sued entered an Orthodox Church with the intent to troll. Whether or not punishing that is good or bad, is a debate for another time. The other link is just poor journalism on HuffPo's part. The Russian news, AIF, actually investigated the story: http://www.aif.ru/society/law/delo_est_ ... a_krasnova

Секундочку, скажете вы, если в конфликте участвовал Колосов, то почему под суд попал Краснов. Дело в том, что Виктор Краснов общается в соцсетях под именем «Виктора Колосова»... Судят Краснова не за то, что «Боха нет!)», а за вполне сознательные оскорбления и ненормативную лексику.
Правда, адвокат Сабинин говорит, что потерпевшие до обращения в суд старательно почистили свою часть переписки, поэтому нет полной картины происходящего. Это, однако, не отменяет того факта, что Виктор Краснов выражений не выбирал, советуя недовольным обращаться в суд. Так что в известной степени его пожелание реализовалось.

Long story short, he was sued not for writing "there is no God" as Balt's chosen article mistakenly alleges, but for trolling online using a fake identity, that might have gotten someone else into hot water, as the fake identity he chose is a popular name in Russia. And he was telling those whom he trolled, to sue him, or rather the person that he might have been impersonating. Looks like he got his wish. The trolling was not just limited to religious matters, and was certainly the type that might have led to SWATTING, which is bad.

The specific actions taken by this lady, speaking out against a prophet in an open forum in the capital, would not have gotten her fined in Russia. Whether it is a response to the OP or not, the claim that she would've been punished in Russia for her specific actions, is, quite simply, total and utter bullshit.

So if your posts call out what you deem lies, and people don't read them, you complain. If someone else's posts calls out an actual lie of a Government you don't like, you simply ignore it. What else is new? To recap: you can have an phone in an Orthodox Church. You can check maps, emails, etc. What he did, was he heard that doing XYZ was illegal, and he wanted to challenge that law, so he went into a Church with the intent to break the law. I think that law is dumb. I also think that going into a Church with the intent to troll, is also dumb.

Regarding the vocal atheist, he used a popular name, which could've been, and most likely was, someone else's name, to go online, troll people, and tell others to sue him, while using a fake identity, hoping that others would sue that poor, innocent person, whose identity he could've assumed. That could've let to SWATTING. Posting "God doesn't exist" is fine in Russia. Using someone else's identity to troll others begging them to sue the person who's identity you're using, is not ok in Russia.

[Shofercia]

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.

And you continue to lie about Russia. I guess this is what happens to Neoliberals when someone, like Putin, shows that you don't need Neoliberalism to become popular and lead a country to economic prosperity.

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?

The "proof" presented by Vassenor was a lie. Didn't you guys complain about how bad lies are, earlier in the thread? But when a lie benefits your side, it's suddenly acceptable. Wow, just wow.

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?

Both of which were rebutted. But you simply chose to ignore the truth, while continuing the lie, after whining about those who chose the truth, but continue the lie... what's the definition of that?

[Shofercia]

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.

Again, he wasn't found guilty for saying "there is no God". Good job on perpetuating that lie continuously, after it's been rebutted.

And yes, that is true even if Balt's post is taken into account. In both of his examples, the people being sued entered an Orthodox Church with the intent to troll. Whether or not punishing that is good or bad, is a debate for another time. The other link is just poor journalism on HuffPo's part. The Russian news, AIF, actually investigated the story: http://www.aif.ru/society/law/delo_est_ ... a_krasnova

Секундочку, скажете вы, если в конфликте участвовал Колосов, то почему под суд попал Краснов. Дело в том, что Виктор Краснов общается в соцсетях под именем «Виктора Колосова»... Судят Краснова не за то, что «Боха нет!)», а за вполне сознательные оскорбления и ненормативную лексику.
Правда, адвокат Сабинин говорит, что потерпевшие до обращения в суд старательно почистили свою часть переписки, поэтому нет полной картины происходящего. Это, однако, не отменяет того факта, что Виктор Краснов выражений не выбирал, советуя недовольным обращаться в суд. Так что в известной степени его пожелание реализовалось.

Long story short, he was sued not for writing "there is no God" as Balt's chosen article mistakenly alleges, but for trolling online using a fake identity, that might have gotten someone else into hot water, as the fake identity he chose is a popular name in Russia. And he was telling those whom he trolled, to sue him, or rather the person that he might have been impersonating. Looks like he got his wish. The trolling was not just limited to religious matters, and was certainly the type that might have led to SWATTING, which is bad.

The specific actions taken by this lady, speaking out against a prophet in an open forum in the capital, would not have gotten her fined in Russia. Whether it is a response to the OP or not, the claim that she would've been punished in Russia for her specific actions, is, quite simply, total and utter bullshit.

Now, why don't you go on and bitch about someone perpetuating a lie after it's been rebutted. That's not hypocritical at all /sarcasm

[Olerand]

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

And you continue to lie about Russia. I guess this is what happens to Neoliberals when someone, like Putin, shows that you don't need Neoliberalism to become popular and lead a country to economic prosperity.

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?

The "proof" presented by Vassenor was a lie. Didn't you guys complain about how bad lies are, earlier in the thread? But when a lie benefits your side, it's suddenly acceptable. Wow, just wow.

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

Both of which were rebutted. But you simply chose to ignore the truth, while continuing the lie, after whining about those who chose the truth, but continue the lie... what's the definition of that?

And yet Russia has blasphemy laws, and yet it has used them.

Now tell me, as you probably know much more about the Russian State's official platform and propaganda than anyone else here, does the Russian law exclude Islam?

Would saying Muhammad is a pedophile not be subject to the blasphemy law?

Again, is Grozny a warzone? And can you still make your comparison with post-war Germany, considering that the equivalent law to a post-Chechnyan war blasphemy law would be a law meant to oppress Jews?
It's not like Islamists were the disenfranchized victims of the war, no?

Again, does the Russian law specifically exclude Islam? Does the Austrian law only include it?

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.

Again, he wasn't found guilty for saying "there is no God". Good job on perpetuating that lie continuously, after it's been rebutted.

And yes, that is true even if Balt's post is taken into account. In both of his examples, the people being sued entered an Orthodox Church with the intent to troll. Whether or not punishing that is good or bad, is a debate for another time. The other link is just poor journalism on HuffPo's part. The Russian news, AIF, actually investigated the story: http://www.aif.ru/society/law/delo_est_ ... a_krasnova



Long story short, he was sued not for writing "there is no God" as Balt's chosen article mistakenly alleges, but for trolling online using a fake identity, that might have gotten someone else into hot water, as the fake identity he chose is a popular name in Russia. And he was telling those whom he trolled, to sue him, or rather the person that he might have been impersonating. Looks like he got his wish. The trolling was not just limited to religious matters, and was certainly the type that might have led to SWATTING, which is bad.

The specific actions taken by this lady, speaking out against a prophet in an open forum in the capital, would not have gotten her fined in Russia. Whether it is a response to the OP or not, the claim that she would've been punished in Russia for her specific actions, is, quite simply, total and utter bullshit.

Now, why don't you go on and bitch about someone perpetuating a lie after it's been rebutted. That's not hypocritical at all /sarcasm

I don't speak Russian. And between you and an actual news source... Who should I believe I wonder...

[Shofercia]

Actually, it hasn't. The insurgency phase of the war ended in 2009. I'm against blasphemy laws, but I have no issues with harsher punishment to prevent future warfare in areas that just had warfare. Have you lived in a war zone, not as a soldier, but as a civilian? Chechnya went through 15 years of warfare, including the insurgency phase. An entire generation grew up with quite a few gunfire deaths. Rape was legal from 1996 to 1999. So if someone's free speech rights are violated in that specific region, boo fucking hoo. Crimea River. Preventing rape and murder is more important in my book.




My point was that if someone lived through WWII, lived in fear of being murdered with men wearing certain symbols, it's ok to tell said men to stop wearing those symbols. And if they do, throw them in jail. Nazis started WWII. They don't get to whine about free speech after attempting to enslave the World, at least not in Europe. The United States is different, because the last truly massive war on US soil, was the Civil War.




Ahhh yes, clearly misleading OPs on NSG are going to cause massive violence against Muslims in Europe /sarcasm

It's 2018. The war is over.

Except in this case, the law is prosecuting Jews.

Yeah, I don't subscribe to the liberal wet dream of an imminent European pogrom of Muslims. Though this might come as a shock to you, I don't enjoy OPs and titles that are factually false.

Just because the war is over, doesn't mean that the people have recovered. I'd be fine waiting until a new generation grows up. When a ceasefire is signed, everyone doesn't magically start watching My Little Pony chanting "friendship is magic!" because some are still terrified.

In the case I cited, the law is not prosecuting Jews. It's saying that you cannot troll Jews with nazi symbolism or lewd jokes about nazi symbolism. And I don't particularly care what you enjoy.

[Olerand]

It's 2018. The war is over.

Except in this case, the law is prosecuting Jews.

Yeah, I don't subscribe to the liberal wet dream of an imminent European pogrom of Muslims. Though this might come as a shock to you, I don't enjoy OPs and titles that are factually false.

Just because the war is over, doesn't mean that the people have recovered. I'd be fine waiting until a new generation grows up. When a ceasefire is signed, everyone doesn't magically start watching My Little Pony chanting "friendship is magic!" because some are still terrified.

In the case I cited, the law is not prosecuting Jews. It's saying that you cannot troll Jews with nazi symbolism or lewd jokes about nazi symbolism. And I don't particularly care what you enjoy.

Yeah, it's still 2018. The fact that you had a war some time ago is not an excuse.

And again, this:
My point was that if someone lived through WWII, lived in fear of being murdered with men wearing certain symbols, it's ok to tell said men to stop wearing those symbols. And if they do, throw them in jail. Nazis started WWII. They don't get to whine about free speech after attempting to enslave the World, at least not in Europe. The United States is different, because the last truly massive war on US soil, was the Civil War.
Applies to a law that punishes blasphemy in much harsher terms than Austria (and unofficially, with your life even) in a region ruled by Islamists that suffered from a war brought about by Islamists.

The comparison with Jews isn't just hilarious, it's actually insulting to both sides...

[Shofercia]

And you continue to lie about Russia. I guess this is what happens to Neoliberals when someone, like Putin, shows that you don't need Neoliberalism to become popular and lead a country to economic prosperity.

The "proof" presented by Vassenor was a lie. Didn't you guys complain about how bad lies are, earlier in the thread? But when a lie benefits your side, it's suddenly acceptable. Wow, just wow.

Both of which were rebutted. But you simply chose to ignore the truth, while continuing the lie, after whining about those who chose the truth, but continue the lie... what's the definition of that?

And yet Russia has blasphemy laws, and yet it has used them.

Against those who enter a religious building, with the intent to troll, at least that's what I got from sources that Balt cited.

Now tell me, as you probably know much more about the Russian State's official platform and propaganda than anyone else here, does the Russian law exclude Islam?

No, but again, the law was limited to entering religious buildings with the intent to troll. I disagree with that law, as I think one should be punished with community service, (not jail time, at least not until he/she commits multiple offenses,) when they enter any public building with the intent to troll, and said intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Entering a library a day before the exam, while everyone is studying for it, and blasting loud music to piss them off and rile them up, is just as bad as entering a Church with the intent to piss off and rile up the folks that are there to pray or rest.

Would saying Muhammad is a pedophile not be subject to the blasphemy law?

Depends on where you said it. If you said it at a seminar, in a secular place, which is what that lady did, she would not be subject to blasphemy law.

Again, is Grozny a warzone? And can you still make your comparison with post-war Germany, considering that the equivalent law to a post-Chechnyan war blasphemy law would be a law meant to oppress Jews?
It's not like Islamists were the disenfranchized victims of the war, no?

It doesn't have to be a war zone. The people there are still recovering from warfare. I've already explained this, but you just don't care. The title of a thread seems more important to you, than people having the chance to recover from an actual war.

Again, does the Russian law specifically exclude Islam? Does the Austrian law only include it?

Once again, so that you grasp this: what this lady did, but not be punished in Russia. Posting "there is no God" online, would not be punished in Russia, (unless you did it under someone else's account, which is why I think there should be stricter laws against impersonating others online,) would not be punished in Russia.

Again, he wasn't found guilty for saying "there is no God". Good job on perpetuating that lie continuously, after it's been rebutted.

Now, why don't you go on and bitch about someone perpetuating a lie after it's been rebutted. That's not hypocritical at all /sarcasm

I don't speak Russian. And between you and an actual news source... Who should I believe I wonder...

Between an ignorant blog post about Russia, and an actual investigate journalist, I'd go with the actual journalist. Also, Google translate is a thing.

[Shofercia]

Just because the war is over, doesn't mean that the people have recovered. I'd be fine waiting until a new generation grows up. When a ceasefire is signed, everyone doesn't magically start watching My Little Pony chanting "friendship is magic!" because some are still terrified.

In the case I cited, the law is not prosecuting Jews. It's saying that you cannot troll Jews with nazi symbolism or lewd jokes about nazi symbolism. And I don't particularly care what you enjoy.

Yeah, it's still 2018. The fact that you had a war some time ago is not an excuse.

Applies to a law that punishes blasphemy in much harsher terms than Austria (and unofficially, with your life even) in a region ruled by Islamists that suffered from a war brought about by Islamists.

The comparison with Jews isn't just hilarious, it's actually insulting to both sides...

Saying "it's 2018" doesn't actually negate any points I made. And I really wouldn't be comparing IIPB, who legalized rape, to Kadyrov, who punishes rape rather harshly, as it should be punished. There are numerous branches of Islam, even among Islamists.

[Panslavicland]

Now tell me, as you probably know much more about the Russian State's official platform and propaganda than anyone else here, does the Russian law exclude Islam?

No, but again, the law was limited to entering religious buildings with the intent to troll. I disagree with that law, as I think one should be punished with community service, (not jail time, at least not until he/she commits multiple offenses,) when they enter any public building with the intent to troll, and said intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Entering a library a day before the exam, while everyone is studying for it, and blasting loud music to piss them off and rile them up, is just as bad as entering a Church with the intent to piss off and rile up the folks that are there to pray or rest.

I don't think anyone actually was aware that the guy was playing Pokemon Go in the church until later when he posted the video on YouTube, which is when the criminal prosecution started. I think this is important because the law must protect from media that insults religious belief and not just public incidents.

Posting "there is no God" online, would not be punished in Russia, (unless you did it under someone else's account, which is why I think there should be stricter laws against impersonating others online,)

I'm not sure I understand this one and unfortunately I can't read Russian so I don't really understand the article you linked. I get why he would be prosecuted for the insults he sent to other people about their religion, that makes sense to me, clearly that violates the law on insulting religious beliefs and I think they would have successfully prosecuted him for that if the witnesses hadn't refused to testify. But surely its a crime to insult someone's religious beliefs whether you do so under your own name or someone else's? I don't see how what he did would be ok if he had used his own name.

[Forsher]

My post clearly states that paedophilia is a topic to be discussed within certain parameters and certain parameters only on NSG. It also directs anyone to seek out a moderation thread to understand it. This is that thread. Basically, tread lightly when discussing paedophilia on NSG unless you're sure of the rules' position on it which, personally, I am not hence why my points say tread lightly.

Incidentally, I can now see a thread asking about the thread's appropriateness so presumably we'll find out if the mods do actually edit titles etc. or if my recollection is mistaken.

What? What does discussion of pedophilia have to do with this? My question is regarding the factually false OP and title about the ECHR.

Your moderation question is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of suppression. Perhaps you'd be less confused by the answer to "Who's suppressing what?" if you paid attention to the quote chain:

paedophilia... which, appropriately enough, is only a suppressed topic insofar as it is suppressed here partially because of players not reporting things they thought were reportable.

idk why legitimate debate topics about historical figures should be suppressed.

Who's suppressing what? The OP is a flat out lie. You can debate the issue all you want, just not under the guise of a lie.

My post clearly states that paedophilia is a topic to be discussed within certain parameters and certain parameters only on NSG.

Notice the emboldened in the second paragraph of that last post:

Incidentally, I can now see a thread asking about the thread's appropriateness so presumably we'll find out if the mods do actually edit titles etc. or if my recollection is mistaken.

i.e. "let us now talk about something else, i.e. the factual veracity of this thread"

There is no excuse for being confused here.

[Knessniet]

It seems like America is the last place with true religious freedom these days. Unless I am mistaken, now that Europe is off the list, I cannot see any other.

[Vassenor]

It seems like America is the last place with true religious freedom these days. Unless I am mistaken, now that Europe is off the list, I cannot see any other.

>writing off an entire continent because the existence of a blasphemy law in one country was upheld for the the time being

[Knessniet]

It seems like America is the last place with true religious freedom these days. Unless I am mistaken, now that Europe is off the list, I cannot see any other.

>writing off an entire continent because the existence of a blasphemy law in one country was upheld for the the time being

When the entire continent is under this court's jurisdiction, I most certainly have justification to write it off.

[Lord Dominator]

>writing off an entire continent because the existence of a blasphemy law in one country was upheld for the the time being

When the entire continent is under this court's jurisdiction, I most certainly have justification to write it off.

Because they said that Austria's blasphemy law doesn't violate the European Convention on Civil Rights?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

>writing off an entire continent because the existence of a blasphemy law in one country was upheld for the the time being

When the entire continent is under this court's jurisdiction, I most certainly have justification to write it off.

This literally didn't change anything about the legal status of the continent. Nowhere, not even in Austria.

[Vassenor]

>writing off an entire continent because the existence of a blasphemy law in one country was upheld for the the time being

When the entire continent is under this court's jurisdiction, I most certainly have justification to write it off.

So writing off an entire continent because of a blasphemy law in one country.

It's like writing off America based just on the redneck parts of Alabama.

[Knessniet]

When the entire continent is under this court's jurisdiction, I most certainly have justification to write it off.

So writing off an entire continent because of a blasphemy law in one country.

It's like writing off America based just on the redneck parts of Alabama.

The court has jurisdiction across the entire EU. Like any other court, every ruling means something universally across it's jurisdiction due to the principle of precedent.

[Vassenor]

So writing off an entire continent because of a blasphemy law in one country.

It's like writing off America based just on the redneck parts of Alabama.

The court has jurisdiction across the entire EU. Like any other court, every ruling means something universally across it's jurisdiction due to the principle of precedent.

Except this ruling does nothing to any country that is not Austria.

[The Novakian Empire]

This is troubling. Not merely because it's a fucking blasphemy law, but because it doesn't only apply to islam.
Jesus happens to be a muslim prophet too, as do a whole other fuckload of abrahamic figures.

[Knessniet]

The court has jurisdiction across the entire EU. Like any other court, every ruling means something universally across it's jurisdiction due to the principle of precedent.

Except this ruling does nothing to any country that is not Austria.

You misunderstand the usage of precedent.

If the ECHR rules like this for Austria, then they are gonna do it for every other nation that follows the lead. That's how precedent works, and that's why it's affects the entirety of Europe.

[Vassenor]

This is troubling. Not merely because it's a fucking blasphemy law, but because it doesn't only apply to islam.
Jesus happens to be a muslim prophet too, as do a whole other fuckload of abrahamic figures.

There is nothing stopping Austria from following the example Ireland set this weekend and getting rid of the law.

[Vassenor]

Except this ruling does nothing to any country that is not Austria.

You misunderstand the usage of precedent.

If the ECHR rules like this for Austria, then they are gonna do it for every other nation that follows the lead. That's how precedent works, and that's why it's affects the entirety of Europe.

Even though European nations are trending towards binning Blasphemy laws.

Stupid freaking autocorrect.

[Lord Dominator]

Except this ruling does nothing to any country that is not Austria.

You misunderstand the usage of precedent.

If the ECHR rules like this for Austria, then they are gonna do it for every other nation that follows the lead. That's how precedent works, and that's why it's affects the entirety of Europe.

The court in question operates under civil law, and civil law doesn't have much precedent at all, and certainly no binding precedent.

Try again

[Knessniet]

You misunderstand the usage of precedent.

If the ECHR rules like this for Austria, then they are gonna do it for every other nation that follows the lead. That's how precedent works, and that's why it's affects the entirety of Europe.

The court in question operates under civil law, and civil law doesn't have much precedent at all, and certainly no binding precedent.

Try again

Not quite.

If a court passes a ruling, they will reference that ruling when deciding similar cases, civil law or not. If a murder is committed the killer will be treated as previous convicted killers were.

Besides that, it sets a political precedent. If the politicians that support this see that it is upheld in one place, it is most probable it applies elsewhere.

Whether formally utilized or not, precedent effects the courts, and the law, regardless of their type.