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

[Trumptonium1]

The latter is the prerequisite of the former.

You are aware of basic facts, right?

Not a basic fact, as it is indeed false. No country has ever become a member of the EU without being a member of the Council of Europe. Still, if a country has plenty of legal protections, CoE membership is not a prerequisite.

....................................protections which relate to adhering to treaties passed by CoE

Are you aware of the basic fact that the UK was a member of the CoE for 24 years before joining the EU?

i'm aware and i really don't care and i could wave my hands in the air

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'm so confused. Forgive me, it's Friday afternoon so I'm currently a bear of very little brain.

So the alt-right are fake-newsing this up as being a Europe-wide blasphemy law showing EU overreach and overaffinity with Islam, and the left are saying it's an example of EU underreach and could encourage more blasphemy laws?

Is there an option for "seems like a lousy law, but the EU shouldn't interfere in states' business, it's good they didn't for once, and opponents should try to get it resolved in Austria itself?"

Like I thought there was a team against the EU telling everyone what to do. I thought I was on it. Where did it go?

[Olerand]

I'm so confused. Forgive me, it's Friday afternoon so I'm currently a bear of very little brain.

So the alt-right are fake-newsing this up as being a Europe-wide blasphemy law showing EU overreach and overaffinity with Islam, and the left are saying it's an example of EU underreach and could encourage more blasphemy laws?

Is there an option for "seems like a lousy law, but the EU shouldn't interfere in states' business, it's good they didn't for once, and opponents should try to get it resolved in Austria itself?"

This has not a single thing to do with the EU.

And the left isn't saying anything, the alt-right, often American, almost always erroneously and with little knowledge or education, is indeed claiming as you are saying.

[Frievolk]

I'm so confused. Forgive me, it's Friday afternoon so I'm currently a bear of very little brain.

So the alt-right are fake-newsing this up as being a Europe-wide blasphemy law showing EU overreach and overaffinity with Islam, and the left are saying it's an example of EU underreach and could encourage more blasphemy laws?

Is there an option for "seems like a lousy law, but the EU shouldn't interfere in states' business, it's good they didn't for once, and opponents should try to get it resolved in Austria itself?"

We're talking about the same groups of people that, regarding the recent pipe bombs, believe "The Dems sent the bombs to themselves on purpose for atention-whoring" and "It was Far Right White Nationalist Nazis and you can't prove me wrong because only they are terrorists" respectively.
This doesn't seem to be too out of ordinary for them.

(And yes. I've seen both of these points of views. One on Tumblr and another on Twitter.)

[Ifreann]

I'm so confused. Forgive me, it's Friday afternoon so I'm currently a bear of very little brain.

So the alt-right are fake-newsing this up as being a Europe-wide blasphemy law showing EU overreach and overaffinity with Islam, and the left are saying it's an example of EU underreach and could encourage more blasphemy laws?

Is there an option for "seems like a lousy law, but the EU shouldn't interfere in states' business, it's good they didn't for once, and opponents should try to get it resolved in Austria itself?"

It's not the EU at all.

[Olerand]

I'm so confused. Forgive me, it's Friday afternoon so I'm currently a bear of very little brain.

So the alt-right are fake-newsing this up as being a Europe-wide blasphemy law showing EU overreach and overaffinity with Islam, and the left are saying it's an example of EU underreach and could encourage more blasphemy laws?

Is there an option for "seems like a lousy law, but the EU shouldn't interfere in states' business, it's good they didn't for once, and opponents should try to get it resolved in Austria itself?"

We're talking about the same groups of people that, regarding the recent pipe bombs, believe "The Dems sent the bombs to themselves on purpose for atention-whoring" and "It was Far Right White Nationalist Nazis and you can't prove me wrong because only they are terrorists" respectively.
This doesn't seem to be too out of ordinary for them.

(And yes. I've seen both of these points of views. One on Tumblr and another on Twitter.)

Tumblr being the left? Tumblr, which I will admit I have no experience in, is against blasphemy laws? This seems... contradictory to their usual stances, no?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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.

Yeah, this.

When in doubt, side with freedom of speech. Shame on ECHR for doing otherwise.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'm so confused. Forgive me, it's Friday afternoon so I'm currently a bear of very little brain.

So the alt-right are fake-newsing this up as being a Europe-wide blasphemy law showing EU overreach and overaffinity with Islam, and the left are saying it's an example of EU underreach and could encourage more blasphemy laws?

Is there an option for "seems like a lousy law, but the EU shouldn't interfere in states' business, it's good they didn't for once, and opponents should try to get it resolved in Austria itself?"

This has not a single thing to do with the EU.

And the left isn't saying anything, the alt-right, often American, almost always erroneously and with little knowledge or education, is indeed claiming as you are saying.

Right, courts, not the EU itself.

I think I'm almost through enough layers of bullshit to understand this story now. Time to move on to doing brain surgery on quantum cats using space rockets.

My head hurts

[The Huskar Social Union]

This has not a single thing to do with the EU.

And the left isn't saying anything, the alt-right, often American, almost always erroneously and with little knowledge or education, is indeed claiming as you are saying.

Right, courts, not the EU itself.

I think I'm almost through enough layers of bullshit to understand this story now. Time to move on to doing brain surgery on quantum cats using space rockets.

My head hurts

Yeah that usually happens on here.

[Olerand]

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.

Yeah, this.

When in doubt, side with freedom of speech. Shame on ECHR for doing otherwise.

The ECHR consistently gives countries significant leeway, as it should. Shame on Austria for having this law.

This has not a single thing to do with the EU.

And the left isn't saying anything, the alt-right, often American, almost always erroneously and with little knowledge or education, is indeed claiming as you are saying.

Right, courts, not the EU itself.

I think I'm almost through enough layers of bullshit to understand this story now. Time to move on to doing brain surgery on quantum cats using space rockets.

My head hurts

These courts have nothing to do with the EU. Do you know of the Council of Europe?

[Ifreann]

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.

Yeah, this.

When in doubt, side with freedom of speech. Shame on ECHR for doing otherwise.

The European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) allows states to limit speech, and the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR) is in line with that.

[Souseiseki]

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

no. they ruled on the validity of the austrian law. they did not impose a law. this is not how the ECHR works.

[Ifreann]

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

no. they ruled on the validity of the austrian law. they did not impose a law. this is not how the ECHR works.

Also the court is in Strasbourg, not Luxembourg.

[Olerand]

no. they ruled on the validity of the austrian law. they did not impose a law. this is not how the ECHR works.

Also the court is in Strasbourg, not Luxembourg.

A very important point. In fact, everything pan-European should be in Strasbourg.

I don't actually believe that and I believe the EU Parliament should be moved permanently to Brussels.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Yeah, this.

When in doubt, side with freedom of speech. Shame on ECHR for doing otherwise.

The European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) allows states to limit speech, and the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR) is in line with that.

Then they need to change that ASAP.

Austria gave us Vienna, one of the most revered cities in the world. I'd hate to see that country slip into censorship, let alone of truthful statements about a religion and its prophet.

[Ifreann]

The European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) allows states to limit speech, and the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR) is in line with that.

Then they need to change that ASAP.

Austria gave us Vienna, one of the most revered cities in the world. I'd hate to see that country slip into censorship, let alone of truthful statements about a religion and its prophet.

The best way to remove Austria's blasphemy law would be for Austrians to campaign to have their government repeal it. Trying to get the Council of Europe to change the ECHR would be vastly more difficult.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Also the court is in Strasbourg, not Luxembourg.

A very important point. In fact, everything pan-European should be in Strasbourg.

I don't actually believe that and I believe the EU Parliament should be moved permanently to Brussels.

The only place to put it if we're going to be fair is on a boat out at sea. No country should have to endure the European Parliament.

[Thermodolia]

How long till the ECHR only has less than 10 members? Because this is going to give nations like Russia, Poland, and others an out.

[Olerand]

Then they need to change that ASAP.

Austria gave us Vienna, one of the most revered cities in the world. I'd hate to see that country slip into censorship, let alone of truthful statements about a religion and its prophet.

The best way to remove Austria's blasphemy law would be for Austrians to campaign to have their government repeal it. Trying to get the Council of Europe to change the ECHR would be vastly more difficult.

Vienna slip into censorship based on a law it devised many many years ago. OK...

[The Grims]

Her actual words were:
"Mohammed like to do it with children"
and
"A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?"'

The second statement should not be illegal under any blasphemy law because it is a valid question, despite being loaded.

The first statement should not be illegal provided the woman can offer evidence Mohanmed enjoyed sex with at least one other child besides Aisha.
If she cannot, the question is why saying such things about Mohammed is fineable, but saying such things about e.g. King Charles II would not be.

Probably because there's a blasphemy law in Austria.

King Charles II is a religious figure as well
But lets make it Henry VIII. Can I say that the founder of the Church of England liked to kill women or is that blasphemous ?

[Thermodolia]

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

It’s not an accusation but a fact

[Ifreann]

How long till the ECHR only has less than 10 members? Because this is going to give nations like Russia, Poland, and others an out.

You may wish to reconsider your post in light of the fact that the thread title is a complete lie.

[Olerand]

Probably because there's a blasphemy law in Austria.

King Charles II is a religious figure as well
But lets make it Henry VIII. Can I say that the founder of the Church of England liked to kill women or is that blasphemous ?

You'd have to ask London.

[Ifreann]

Probably because there's a blasphemy law in Austria.

King Charles II is a religious figure as well
But lets make it Henry VIII. Can I say that the founder of the Church of England liked to kill women or is that blasphemous ?

I don't know, ask a lawyer about your local blasphemy law.

[Thermodolia]

How long till the ECHR only has less than 10 members? Because this is going to give nations like Russia, Poland, and others an out.

You may wish to reconsider your post in light of the fact that the thread title is a complete lie.

Meh. When I’m wrong I’m wrong. I’m not going to edit my posts to make myself look right