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

[Zapato]

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.

Are you kidding? Russia and Poland has blasphemy laws on the books they'd like to enforce more strongly. They're dancing from joy because of this verdict.

[Western-Ukraine]

Sometimes brave but controversial statements have to be made. This could have been that chance.

And it would have been entirely unlike the ECHR's usual rulings, and it would have made the half of Europe that has blasphemy laws very mad.

The ECHR's job has always been to strike a good balance. A good balance has been found. Now it's on Austria, governed by a coalition government including the FPO, to solve this issue.

I'm unsure whether that many people in countries with blasphemy would be very mad about the ECHR taking a bold stance on criticism of an Islamic prophet. After all, Islam isn't a major religion in most of those countries. So yes, it would've been an unlikely option, but nonetheless I'm quite sure it wouldn't have caused an outrage either.

[Olerand]

And it would have been entirely unlike the ECHR's usual rulings, and it would have made the half of Europe that has blasphemy laws very mad.

The ECHR's job has always been to strike a good balance. A good balance has been found. Now it's on Austria, governed by a coalition government including the FPO, to solve this issue.

I'm unsure whether that many people in countries with blasphemy would be very mad about the ECHR taking a bold stance on criticism of an Islamic prophet. After all, Islam isn't a major religion in most of those countries. So yes, it would've been an unlikely option, but nonetheless I'm quite sure it wouldn't have caused an outrage either.

The people wouldn't notice. As they haven't noticed this decision. The governments, yes.

[Zapato]

Jesus christ they are not even hiding it anymore.

The Austrian People's Party? No, they're playing with open cards.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

And it would have been entirely unlike the ECHR's usual rulings, and it would have made the half of Europe that has blasphemy laws very mad.

The ECHR's job has always been to strike a good balance. A good balance has been found. Now it's on Austria, governed by a coalition government including the FPO, to solve this issue.

I'm unsure whether that many people in countries with blasphemy would be very mad about the ECHR taking a bold stance on criticism of an Islamic prophet. After all, Islam isn't a major religion in most of those countries. So yes, it would've been an unlikely option, but nonetheless I'm quite sure it wouldn't have caused an outrage either.

Islam is at least a majority religion in Bosnia, Turkey and Azerbijan, three members of the CoE, and Islam is a large minority in many others, and a small minority in the rest. Human rights are there to balance democracy, to protect a minority again the excesses of democracy. The CoE is not as war with Islam. Europe is not at war with Islam. Islam is a part of Europe, and has been for centuries.

[Olerand]

I'm unsure whether that many people in countries with blasphemy would be very mad about the ECHR taking a bold stance on criticism of an Islamic prophet. After all, Islam isn't a major religion in most of those countries. So yes, it would've been an unlikely option, but nonetheless I'm quite sure it wouldn't have caused an outrage either.

Islam is at least a majority religion in Bosnia, Turkey and Azerbijan, three members of the CoE, and Islam is a large minority in many others, and a small minority in the rest. Human rights are there to balance democracy, to protect a minority again the excesses of democracy. The CoE is not as war with Islam. Europe is not at war with Islam. Islam is a part of Europe, and has been for centuries.

This has nothing to do with Islam, though. Blasphemy laws in Europe, well "our Europe", weren't put into place to protect Islam, non?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Islam is at least a majority religion in Bosnia, Turkey and Azerbijan, three members of the CoE, and Islam is a large minority in many others, and a small minority in the rest. Human rights are there to balance democracy, to protect a minority again the excesses of democracy. The CoE is not as war with Islam. Europe is not at war with Islam. Islam is a part of Europe, and has been for centuries.

This has nothing to do with Islam, though. Blasphemy laws in Europe, well "our Europe", weren't put into place to protect Islam, non?

Well, they might not have been out in place to do that, but human rights law demands that all religions are protected equally under law. And in CoE Europe, which includes those majority Islamic countries, those laws were put in place to protect Islam.

I myself am against blasphemy laws, but as long as they are on the books, they should protect all religions equally.

[Western-Ukraine]

I'm unsure whether that many people in countries with blasphemy would be very mad about the ECHR taking a bold stance on criticism of an Islamic prophet. After all, Islam isn't a major religion in most of those countries. So yes, it would've been an unlikely option, but nonetheless I'm quite sure it wouldn't have caused an outrage either.

Islam is at least a majority religion in Bosnia, Turkey and Azerbijan, three members of the CoE, and Islam is a large minority in many others, and a small minority in the rest. Human rights are there to balance democracy, to protect a minority again the excesses of democracy. The CoE is not as war with Islam. Europe is not at war with Islam. Islam is a part of Europe, and has been for centuries.

I didn't say anything about a war against Islam. Nothing of the sort. But surely we should criticize religions when criticism is due, no? Outrage in a few countries is meaningless when we're talking about an issue as volatile as this. This has nothing to do with rights of the minorities or excesses of democracy either.

[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

What an incredibly dumb thing to say. Different countries have different regions where the law is differently applied, even though it shouldn't be. If you go to most Californian cities and talk about KKK in a positive way at 2am, you'll be fine. If you do it in Compton, you might get shot. If you wear a party dress in most of European cities at New Year's Eve, you'll be fine. If you do it in areas that welcomed quite a few alleged economic refugees, and provided them easy alcohol access for the first time in their lives, you might get sexually assaulted. Whining about someone making misinformative posts, and then making a misinformative post is incredibly hypocritical. Try holding a seminar in the extreme majority of Russian cities, including Muslim cities like Kazan, and as long as you're being honest, odds are that nothing will happen to you.

Which part of my post did you interpret as misinformation?

[Rojava Free State]

Okay, how the hell can one court make a decision for that many countries? That isnt even in their jurisdiction. And criticizing prophet mohammed doesn't put muslims in danger okay? There's a difference between chasing a random woman in a hijab while swinging a knife at her, and criticizing a historical figure who did some bad shit according to his own legend.

Everytime i become absolutely disgusted with Trump and his army of nazi zombies, these leftwing SJW crybabies come back in and stop me from going any farther left when i see their crap. I'm so glad we dont have hate speech statutes in America, because not only would people be going to jail over bullshit if they did, but by this point I know the orangutan in chief would've passed a new hate speech statute banning criticism of him and his supporters. Cause "speech is violence."
"

[Frievolk]

Okay, how the hell can one court make a decision for that many countries? That isnt even in their jurisdiction. And criticizing prophet mohammed doesn't put muslims in danger okay? There's a difference between wanting to chase a random woman in a hijab with a knife and criticizing a historical figure who did some bad shit according to his own legend.

Everytime i become absolutely disgusted with Trump and his army of nazi zombies, these leftwing SJW crybabies come back in and stop me from going any farther left when i see their crap. I'm so glad we dont have hate speech statutes in America, because not only would people be going to jail over bullshit if they did, but by this point I know the orangutan in chief would've passed a new hate speech statute banning criticism of him and his supporters. Cause "speech is violence."
"

I see you ignore the fact that the Right-wing, Conservative, Nationalist, and Euroskeptic Kurz Government was the one that prosecuted the person in the first place, and that the ECHR only confirmed that they had the right to do that in their own land and the EU couldn't stop them to.

[Olerand]

Okay, how the hell can one court make a decision for that many countries? That isnt even in their jurisdiction. And criticizing prophet mohammed doesn't put muslims in danger okay? There's a difference between chasing a random woman in a hijab while swinging a knife at her, and criticizing a historical figure who did some bad shit according to his own legend.

Everytime i become absolutely disgusted with Trump and his army of nazi zombies, these leftwing SJW crybabies come back in and stop me from going any farther left when i see their crap. I'm so glad we dont have hate speech statutes in America, because not only would people be going to jail over bullshit if they did, but by this point I know the orangutan in chief would've passed a new hate speech statute banning criticism of him and his supporters. Cause "speech is violence."
"

Ugh.

This title is not at all what the ECHR did.

The ECHR's ruling did not address "Muhammad had sex with a girl". The Austrian woman said Muhammad was akin to a pedophile, and not with the neutral phrasing of he had sex with a girl. The ECHR's decision is more about the Austrian blasphemy law than this woman's speech.

Austria has a blasphemy law. The woman was fined accordingly, for offending religious sensibilities. The ECHR, known for giving large leeways to national jurisdictions, found that a blasphemy law is valid (as the woman's rhetoric was incendiary, and the fine not excessive), and if it had ruled otherwise, the half of Europe which has some version of a blasphemy law would have found itself in illicit territory.

If this woman was French, she would not have been subject to a blasphemy law. She would probably have been attacked with the anti-discrimination law, but I can hardly see the logic behind the national courts finding her guilty, and thus neither would the ECHR.

[Western-Ukraine]

Okay, how the hell can one court make a decision for that many countries? That isnt even in their jurisdiction. And criticizing prophet mohammed doesn't put muslims in danger okay? There's a difference between wanting to chase a random woman in a hijab with a knife and criticizing a historical figure who did some bad shit according to his own legend.

Everytime i become absolutely disgusted with Trump and his army of nazi zombies, these leftwing SJW crybabies come back in and stop me from going any farther left when i see their crap. I'm so glad we dont have hate speech statutes in America, because not only would people be going to jail over bullshit if they did, but by this point I know the orangutan in chief would've passed a new hate speech statute banning criticism of him and his supporters. Cause "speech is violence."
"

I see you ignore the fact that the Right-wing, Conservative, Nationalist, and Euroskeptic Kurz Government was the one that prosecuted the person in the first place, and that the ECHR only confirmed that they had the right to do that in their own land and the EU couldn't stop them to.

That's not true. The woman was convicted in 2011, before the Kurz government.

[Vassenor]

Okay, how the hell can one court make a decision for that many countries? That isnt even in their jurisdiction. And criticizing prophet mohammed doesn't put muslims in danger okay? There's a difference between chasing a random woman in a hijab while swinging a knife at her, and criticizing a historical figure who did some bad shit according to his own legend.

Everytime i become absolutely disgusted with Trump and his army of nazi zombies, these leftwing SJW crybabies come back in and stop me from going any farther left when i see their crap. I'm so glad we dont have hate speech statutes in America, because not only would people be going to jail over bullshit if they did, but by this point I know the orangutan in chief would've passed a new hate speech statute banning criticism of him and his supporters. Cause "speech is violence."
"

Ruling about one law in one country is "[making] a decision for that many countries"?

[Rojava Free State]

Islam is at least a majority religion in Bosnia, Turkey and Azerbijan, three members of the CoE, and Islam is a large minority in many others, and a small minority in the rest. Human rights are there to balance democracy, to protect a minority again the excesses of democracy. The CoE is not as war with Islam. Europe is not at war with Islam. Islam is a part of Europe, and has been for centuries.

I didn't say anything about a war against Islam. Nothing of the sort. But surely we should criticize religions when criticism is due, no? Outrage in a few countries is meaningless when we're talking about an issue as volatile as this. This has nothing to do with rights of the minorities or excesses of democracy either.

Can someone explain to everyone that NO ONE AND NOTHING is above criticism. We can talk about the crazy stuff said in the Quran without being evil bigots who want to harm muslims. I mean seriously, there's horrible shit written in the bible too, but i doubt most christians or jews would wanna follow that stuff or even believe it. Most muslims I've met aren't dangerous scary monsters, and two of my ex girlfriends are muslims, but that doesnt mean Islam as a belief is great or that Mohammed was a wonderful dude. It's like people who wave the confederate flag. I'm sure many of them are nice people in person and truly aren't actual racists, but that flag they're waving represents a deadly war and the enslavement of millions of Africans. Where is the nuance anymore?

[Rojava Free State]

Okay, how the hell can one court make a decision for that many countries? That isnt even in their jurisdiction. And criticizing prophet mohammed doesn't put muslims in danger okay? There's a difference between chasing a random woman in a hijab while swinging a knife at her, and criticizing a historical figure who did some bad shit according to his own legend.

Everytime i become absolutely disgusted with Trump and his army of nazi zombies, these leftwing SJW crybabies come back in and stop me from going any farther left when i see their crap. I'm so glad we dont have hate speech statutes in America, because not only would people be going to jail over bullshit if they did, but by this point I know the orangutan in chief would've passed a new hate speech statute banning criticism of him and his supporters. Cause "speech is violence."
"

Ruling about one law in one country is "[making] a decision for that many countries"?

the ECHR declared a Europe wide blasphemy law. Last time i checked, Europe isn't one country. it's a continent of sovereign states who have a right to self rule.

[Vassenor]

Ruling about one law in one country is "[making] a decision for that many countries"?

the ECHR declared a Europe wide blasphemy law. Last time i checked, Europe isn't one country. it's a continent of sovereign states who have a right to self rule.

No, it didn't. It ruled on a law in Austria, that only applies in Austria, and upheld a decision made by an Austrain court about an Austrian Law that only applies in Austria.

[Olerand]

Ruling about one law in one country is "[making] a decision for that many countries"?

the ECHR declared a Europe wide blasphemy law. Last time i checked, Europe isn't one country. it's a continent of sovereign states who have a right to self rule.

How about you bother to read the posts that actually aren't the factually false OP?

[Frievolk]

I see you ignore the fact that the Right-wing, Conservative, Nationalist, and Euroskeptic Kurz Government was the one that prosecuted the person in the first place, and that the ECHR only confirmed that they had the right to do that in their own land and the EU couldn't stop them to.

That's not true. The woman was convicted in 2011, before the Kurz government.

I mean, the first Faymann government still had the "Conservative" and "Right-wing populist" party as one of its member parties tho.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Jesus christ they are not even hiding it anymore.

Who's not hiding what?

---

But also far more lasting in the long run than a short-term political victory any future government could overturn.

Not a relevant consideration when it is not realistically possible.

Tell that to the country founded on free speech and defiance to a certain European power...

[Ifreann]

Who's not hiding what?

---

Not a relevant consideration when it is not realistically possible.

Tell that to the country founded on free speech and defiance to a certain European power...

...what?

[Olerand]

Who's not hiding what?

---

Not a relevant consideration when it is not realistically possible.

Tell that to the country founded on free speech and defiance to a certain European power...

I look forward to the Austrian war of independence.

[Zapato]

Ruling about one law in one country is "[making] a decision for that many countries"?

the ECHR declared a Europe wide blasphemy law.

That is not correct. Like, not at all.

[Genivaria]

I remember when I used to be a European Union supporter.
My how things have changed.

[Vassenor]

I remember when I used to be a European Union supporter.
My how things have changed.

You do realise this has nothing to do with the EU right?